Will 2009 and the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency mark the beginning of a new era in trans-Atlantic relations, or will the old divisions linger, nurtured by the depth and gravity of the economic crisis? Will the crisis lead to nationalistic and selfish attitudes on both sides of the Atlantic, stymieing the long-awaited rapprochement, if not a full reconciliation?
It is, of course, too early to tell. Even if the left wing of the European left — like the most liberal of the US Democrats — voices concerns that Obama has selected a far too centrist Cabinet, a classical form of anti-Americanism is bound to recede in Europe. It is very unlikely that Europeans will take to the streets to denounce the “essence” of the US — what America is as much as what America does — as they have done during George W. Bush’s presidency and even during the Clinton years.
The image of the US in Europe has changed profoundly since Nov. 4, and the style of Obama’s diplomacy once he becomes president will probably confirm that change.
Yet in trans-Atlantic relations, as globally, it is unwise to expect too much from a single man, whatever his exceptional qualities. Fundamental problems remain and new ones are likely to emerge.
First, whatever the brutal style of the new Russia under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev, the Soviet Union no longer exists and no longer constitutes the common threat that was the “glue” of the Alliance until 1989. Unless something goes terribly wrong, a new Cold War is not about to start.
Second, there is a continuing structural imbalance between the way Europe looks at the US, that is, with passion and concern, and the way the US looks at Europe, that is, with mild interest giving way to growing indifference. During the Cold War, Europe was the US’ first line of defense. Now, Asia, the Middle East and possibly Africa will constitute greater priorities for Washington.
Third, even if the US under Obama praises and even practices multilateralism, Americans are far from ready to accept the reality of a multipolar world. They may write about it conceptually, but its meaning — a world in which their country is only primus inter pares — has not really penetrated the national psyche.
The internationalism of the US remains grounded in the idea of US “exceptionalism” — a unique role and sense of mission. It is an approach with which Europeans have great difficulty coming to terms. Even with Obama as president, they may be quick to denounce the combination of arrogance and hypocrisy that they see as linked to the US’ view of her “special and unique mission.”
Fourth, if US diplomacy changes in style and content, will Europe face the challenge when America calls for help? One early test is likely to be Afghanistan, when a smiling but firm Obama turns to Europe and says: “You have backed me in immense numbers. I thank you for it. But now I do not need your symbolic votes; I need your concrete support. I need the further engagement of your troops in Afghanistan.”
I suspect that European leaders will not respond eagerly. Most are convinced that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and they know that public opinion, especially in time of great economic hardship, has no appetite for such operations. Europeans have a traditional tendency to denounce US military adventurism while relying on the US as their protector.
Fifth, to these “old” problems one must add the likely impact on trans-Atlantic relations of the worst financial crisis in decades. Protectionism in the classical sense is unlikely. We have learned the lessons of 1929. But public subsidies to “national champions” may prove to be as destabilizing for the climate of international cooperation as tariff barriers were in the past. The temptation to “appease” suffering populations with populist, selfish measures may grow as the crisis deepens.
Paradoxically, too, the “greening” of America may lead to a trans-Atlantic race for first prize in ecological good behavior.
And one could multiply the subjects of possible tensions, from nuclear disarmament to the best ways to deal with Iran, Russia and China.
The essential issue lies elsewhere. For Europe, Obama is a crucial test. Will Europe rise to the occasion and seize the opportunity created by this daring and exhilarating choice to prove to itself and to the world that the old continent can exist as a power and a united actor?
Dominique Moisi is a visiting professor at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an