I thought I would take this my final opportunity to use this blog by constructing three short stories concerning the historic, political and cultural relationship (Western) Europe had and has with the United States.
Part 1 - The US Needs Europe
Part 2 - Europe Needs the US
This is Part 3
Europe and the US - Do We Still Need Each Other?
In parts 1 and 2 we highlighted the historic direction of travel that the relationship between the US and Europe has taken.Like most personal affairs who leads and who holds sway over one another often switches depending on time, place and space. Some would argue this condition is evidence of a healthy and therefore, successful relationship. However, this notion of developmental dependency and the adjusting priorities that emanate from this can be a contentious and sensitive issue since it pushes into the areas of independence, individualism, rights and responsibilities let alone petty jealousies and national egos. Moreover, it opens up that other tricky concept that as relationships age does their understanding also mature? In other words, does someone who has done a job for 30 years have 30 years of experience or one years experience 30 times? Is Europe and US any closer in understanding their differences as well as their similarities? Or is it time for a true reassessment of where and whether this friendship has run its historic course?
1989 Berlin - the Wall came down - and with it the Soviet Union but the West also lost something - the sureties and certainties that paradoxically the Cold War had created, and then protected. Washington's translation of this conflict had made it - superficially at least - not only easy to understand but simplistic enough for many to align themselves with this 'understanding'. In a binary if not dualistic manner that suited and still suits many of US primary characteristics - The US represents the Free World, while the Soviet Union and other communist communities represents a repressed World. The West believes in peace whilst the Soviets see revolution as its ideal condition. The West has God on their side whilst Moscow and its satellites personify Anti-Christ. A straight forward and unambiguous message from a West that represents a Free, peaceful Christian World. As one of its political disciples George Bush junior would subsequently declare, 'your either for us or against us' as this crusade is about to begin! However, the black and white World of American political protestant rhetoric might make complex issues sound relatively straight forward but do they actually reflect the more complicated reality of the World in which we live in?
After the implosion of the Soviet Union - like many empires Moscow just ran out of money - the US declared victory and hubristically, the 'End of History'. In other words, - back to our dualistic and simplistic responses - Capitalism won, Communism lost, and therefore, as all other systems are equally inefficient and ineffective history - the political, cultural and social developmental narrative - has come to the conclusion that (neo) liberalism is the one and only successful game in town. However, there was one HUGE discrepancy in this analysis since it was based on the premise that rationally most right thinking communities would now philosophically, practically and peacefully buy into this American articulation of society. Moreover, they would be more than willing to dilute their own sense of their self - their own identity and influence - as a price worth paying to enjoy the 'richness' obtained from this Americanised World. After all just as Thomas Paine suggested in 1776, as it was just plain 'Common Sense' to rid society of authoritarian monarchies and absolutist churches then it is now also 'common sense' that most would want to now enjoy the 'American experience' without any further dissent.
Our nearly thirty years of post Cold War experiences - the War on Terror - suggests otherwise. Moreover, although the financial convenience of unfettered consumerism that Washington and Wall Street has led, has indeed flattered and attracted many the belief that this form of socio-political and economic harmonisation would be acceptable and desirable to all seems errant nonsense. What many in the US forgot or did not even cross their minds is that just because the American system provides them with their sense of identity, wouldn't you expect other communities with different priorities and purposes to pursue theirs?
Western Europe is an interesting case in point since the differences between Old World and New World values let alone identity are substantive but nuanced. On the surface the link between European understanding and Washington's are almost symbiotic. And largely that is how the political elite like to portray this condition because they do not would wish too many challenges to this simple and obvious assertion. Why? Because underpinning those unchallenging thoughts sits the automatic acceptance of Uncle Sam's footprint continuing to impress on European statehood via the 'essential' nature of NATO and the consequential attachment - the 'need' of the EU to follow and support US foreign policy. However, even if you were to accept that European values are synonymous with the United States, which of course they are not, what does seem clear is that the opportunity for a real European impression on the key regional security matters remains wishful thinking. In other words, the EU's almost invisible and somewhat slavish devotion to the American led European security organisation hides not only the nuanced differences over our values but how those different perspectives could or would be played out when enacting a European approach to international relations. The Middle East provides some evidence.
At present two of the most influential nations within the Middle East are Iran and Turkey. Both in their own very different styles have recently become once again major regional influencers. Due to recent European involvement in the US - Iran talks over sanctions and nuclear power during Obama's watch - an accommodation was found to stabilise a relationship that had been dangerously fractious since 1979. However, as the new Secretary of State Tillerson now suggests this agreement is back on the table because of 'changed national interests'. Was Europe consulted over this potentially dangerous change! I think not. As Turkey voted recently to turn their nation back into a 'managed democracy' with an increased Islamic hew pushing their parliamentary practises into history Trump phoned Erdogan to congratulate him while almost simultaneously Brussels placed firmly in the waste bin any thought of Turkish entry into the EU. Trump phones because of American realities towards NATO's role while Western Europe groans as the values that they have actually stood and fought for have now been largely dismissed by this new 'Turkish Sultan'. Once again, American strategy 'trumps' European understanding!
Moreover, these differences over values and priorities are further underlined by the geopolitical disconnect that now exists between Washington and Brussels. In spite of their growing differences Brussels continues to talk to Ankara because of its geographical position in relation to the on going and growing refugee crisis within the Middle East and Northern Africa. This crisis been caused in varying degrees by the implementation and/or failure of US foreign policy within this region passively supported by Brussels. Confused! Let me try and unpick this - the EU and its security is undertaken in large part by NATO that is headed, led and largely financed by the US (Turkey is outside of the EU but is a member of NATO). Washington for all its faux protestations about the unfairness and burden of NATO enjoy huge benefits from this arrangement since it successfully fulfils their understanding that the best way of defending your own nation is on someone else's real estate - Western Europe is effectively the US's eastern border, (while Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and a multiplicity of (US) Pacific Islands are their western border). Moreover, it also allows Washington to apply huge influence on European foreign policy. So much so that the European understanding is often talked out and therefore, largely ignored. However, many continue to argue that for Western Europe this type of on going political reciprocity provides a relatively cheap, effective and efficient way of providing regional (European) security. However, what strikes me most are the subsequent questions surrounding the real cost of this on going alliance.
Is Western Europe more secure or more insecure because of US involvement? Is it actually cheaper and more effective to have a American led organisation than a European one? Would the EU benefit from having a greater and more effective say in European security? When 'push comes to shove' doesn't the US put 'America First' even if that approach has unexpected consequences for Western Europe? Why doesn't the EU look after its own security if the overall cost involves losing our understanding and reasoning to the US? Aren't the attacks in Paris, Brussels etc etc a high price for something that 'we' do not actually have a real say in?
All relationships from time to time need to be reassessed - it is a healthy exercise - the Western Europe/US relationship should not be limply and automatically excluded from this understanding however you reply to the questions posed above. For the EU has not only framed and collated a post modern Western European view it has shown in glimpses how valuable that alternative view can be. Until now only in glimpses because of the continuing presence and power of American pre-eminence. How would life change in Europe if the Old World acknowledging its historic links with New World stepped away from this form of dependency and began once again to draw its own 'lines of desire'? Since most of the ideas that seem to have bound both World's together in the first place emanated from the 'Enlightened' times of Europe not from the subsequent power plays that Washington continues to write. Moreover, isn't that where the true differences between the developmental condition of the US and Europe are now to be found - in the articulation as well as the application of power?
Thank you all for reading this blog - clearly the pleasure has been all mine...
Kindest KK
Part 1 - The US Needs Europe
Part 2 - Europe Needs the US
This is Part 3
Europe and the US - Do We Still Need Each Other?
In parts 1 and 2 we highlighted the historic direction of travel that the relationship between the US and Europe has taken.Like most personal affairs who leads and who holds sway over one another often switches depending on time, place and space. Some would argue this condition is evidence of a healthy and therefore, successful relationship. However, this notion of developmental dependency and the adjusting priorities that emanate from this can be a contentious and sensitive issue since it pushes into the areas of independence, individualism, rights and responsibilities let alone petty jealousies and national egos. Moreover, it opens up that other tricky concept that as relationships age does their understanding also mature? In other words, does someone who has done a job for 30 years have 30 years of experience or one years experience 30 times? Is Europe and US any closer in understanding their differences as well as their similarities? Or is it time for a true reassessment of where and whether this friendship has run its historic course?
1989 Berlin - the Wall came down - and with it the Soviet Union but the West also lost something - the sureties and certainties that paradoxically the Cold War had created, and then protected. Washington's translation of this conflict had made it - superficially at least - not only easy to understand but simplistic enough for many to align themselves with this 'understanding'. In a binary if not dualistic manner that suited and still suits many of US primary characteristics - The US represents the Free World, while the Soviet Union and other communist communities represents a repressed World. The West believes in peace whilst the Soviets see revolution as its ideal condition. The West has God on their side whilst Moscow and its satellites personify Anti-Christ. A straight forward and unambiguous message from a West that represents a Free, peaceful Christian World. As one of its political disciples George Bush junior would subsequently declare, 'your either for us or against us' as this crusade is about to begin! However, the black and white World of American political protestant rhetoric might make complex issues sound relatively straight forward but do they actually reflect the more complicated reality of the World in which we live in?
After the implosion of the Soviet Union - like many empires Moscow just ran out of money - the US declared victory and hubristically, the 'End of History'. In other words, - back to our dualistic and simplistic responses - Capitalism won, Communism lost, and therefore, as all other systems are equally inefficient and ineffective history - the political, cultural and social developmental narrative - has come to the conclusion that (neo) liberalism is the one and only successful game in town. However, there was one HUGE discrepancy in this analysis since it was based on the premise that rationally most right thinking communities would now philosophically, practically and peacefully buy into this American articulation of society. Moreover, they would be more than willing to dilute their own sense of their self - their own identity and influence - as a price worth paying to enjoy the 'richness' obtained from this Americanised World. After all just as Thomas Paine suggested in 1776, as it was just plain 'Common Sense' to rid society of authoritarian monarchies and absolutist churches then it is now also 'common sense' that most would want to now enjoy the 'American experience' without any further dissent.
Our nearly thirty years of post Cold War experiences - the War on Terror - suggests otherwise. Moreover, although the financial convenience of unfettered consumerism that Washington and Wall Street has led, has indeed flattered and attracted many the belief that this form of socio-political and economic harmonisation would be acceptable and desirable to all seems errant nonsense. What many in the US forgot or did not even cross their minds is that just because the American system provides them with their sense of identity, wouldn't you expect other communities with different priorities and purposes to pursue theirs?
Western Europe is an interesting case in point since the differences between Old World and New World values let alone identity are substantive but nuanced. On the surface the link between European understanding and Washington's are almost symbiotic. And largely that is how the political elite like to portray this condition because they do not would wish too many challenges to this simple and obvious assertion. Why? Because underpinning those unchallenging thoughts sits the automatic acceptance of Uncle Sam's footprint continuing to impress on European statehood via the 'essential' nature of NATO and the consequential attachment - the 'need' of the EU to follow and support US foreign policy. However, even if you were to accept that European values are synonymous with the United States, which of course they are not, what does seem clear is that the opportunity for a real European impression on the key regional security matters remains wishful thinking. In other words, the EU's almost invisible and somewhat slavish devotion to the American led European security organisation hides not only the nuanced differences over our values but how those different perspectives could or would be played out when enacting a European approach to international relations. The Middle East provides some evidence.
At present two of the most influential nations within the Middle East are Iran and Turkey. Both in their own very different styles have recently become once again major regional influencers. Due to recent European involvement in the US - Iran talks over sanctions and nuclear power during Obama's watch - an accommodation was found to stabilise a relationship that had been dangerously fractious since 1979. However, as the new Secretary of State Tillerson now suggests this agreement is back on the table because of 'changed national interests'. Was Europe consulted over this potentially dangerous change! I think not. As Turkey voted recently to turn their nation back into a 'managed democracy' with an increased Islamic hew pushing their parliamentary practises into history Trump phoned Erdogan to congratulate him while almost simultaneously Brussels placed firmly in the waste bin any thought of Turkish entry into the EU. Trump phones because of American realities towards NATO's role while Western Europe groans as the values that they have actually stood and fought for have now been largely dismissed by this new 'Turkish Sultan'. Once again, American strategy 'trumps' European understanding!
Moreover, these differences over values and priorities are further underlined by the geopolitical disconnect that now exists between Washington and Brussels. In spite of their growing differences Brussels continues to talk to Ankara because of its geographical position in relation to the on going and growing refugee crisis within the Middle East and Northern Africa. This crisis been caused in varying degrees by the implementation and/or failure of US foreign policy within this region passively supported by Brussels. Confused! Let me try and unpick this - the EU and its security is undertaken in large part by NATO that is headed, led and largely financed by the US (Turkey is outside of the EU but is a member of NATO). Washington for all its faux protestations about the unfairness and burden of NATO enjoy huge benefits from this arrangement since it successfully fulfils their understanding that the best way of defending your own nation is on someone else's real estate - Western Europe is effectively the US's eastern border, (while Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and a multiplicity of (US) Pacific Islands are their western border). Moreover, it also allows Washington to apply huge influence on European foreign policy. So much so that the European understanding is often talked out and therefore, largely ignored. However, many continue to argue that for Western Europe this type of on going political reciprocity provides a relatively cheap, effective and efficient way of providing regional (European) security. However, what strikes me most are the subsequent questions surrounding the real cost of this on going alliance.
Is Western Europe more secure or more insecure because of US involvement? Is it actually cheaper and more effective to have a American led organisation than a European one? Would the EU benefit from having a greater and more effective say in European security? When 'push comes to shove' doesn't the US put 'America First' even if that approach has unexpected consequences for Western Europe? Why doesn't the EU look after its own security if the overall cost involves losing our understanding and reasoning to the US? Aren't the attacks in Paris, Brussels etc etc a high price for something that 'we' do not actually have a real say in?
All relationships from time to time need to be reassessed - it is a healthy exercise - the Western Europe/US relationship should not be limply and automatically excluded from this understanding however you reply to the questions posed above. For the EU has not only framed and collated a post modern Western European view it has shown in glimpses how valuable that alternative view can be. Until now only in glimpses because of the continuing presence and power of American pre-eminence. How would life change in Europe if the Old World acknowledging its historic links with New World stepped away from this form of dependency and began once again to draw its own 'lines of desire'? Since most of the ideas that seem to have bound both World's together in the first place emanated from the 'Enlightened' times of Europe not from the subsequent power plays that Washington continues to write. Moreover, isn't that where the true differences between the developmental condition of the US and Europe are now to be found - in the articulation as well as the application of power?
Thank you all for reading this blog - clearly the pleasure has been all mine...
Kindest KK
RSS Feed
