ONCE UPON a        TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002

The USA and EU: As the Gap Widens ...                                by  Geert Schuermans Since September 11th On September 12, 2001, there was not a country in the world that had more allies than the USA. One year later it seems like the USA has lost almost all of its support. With every speech of George W. Bush come the annoyed reactions of leaders from all over the world. Even America’s main partner, the European Union, is frustrated. Traditionally, both parties stood side by side in every conflict that occurred. NATO still is the result of this cooperation. This treaty between almost all western European countries and the US confirms that an attack against any members will be considered as an attack against the NATO. After the tragedy in New York, indeed all members agreed that they would give full support to the War against Terrorism. Now the atmosphere has changed. Many European politicians were highly critical of George W. Bush's unilateral approach to the war on Iraq. Comments from Javier Solana, the EU Foreign Policy Chief, on the US's behaviour were “undiplomatic” to say the least. And it’s not only with the politicians that this growing frustration lives. German Chancellor Schröder thanked his re-election mainly to the fact that during the campaign he had taken a tough stand toward American foreign policies. Many people see the Bush-administration as the one to blame for this division. Still one could ask himself whether it doesn’t have deeper grounds. Structural differences In recent years, differences of opinion have cooled the relationship between the US and the EU. The Americans' refusal to sign the KyotoTreaty, their active resistance against the International Crime Court, the abolition of the ABM Treaty and of course the UN resolution on Iraq have increased tension between both partners. In Europe, the Bush administration is certainly seen as the lonesome cowboy who is only concerned about his own interests. However many commentators state that the friction between Europe and the US dates back to the Clinton era. In 1997 irritations similar to the ones we see today intensified when Bill Clinton refused to sign the treaty for banning landmines. It is no accident that during that year, the Nobel Peace Prize went to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Furthermore Clinton too was reluctant towards the International Crime Court and the Kyoto Treaty. It is widely believed that the current tensions between Europe and the United States are old issues. Some goes even further and see a structural cause in the difference in approach of international relations between the two continents. In April of this year, Walter Russel Mead of the Council of Foreign Relations in Washington, DC explicated the gap between Europe and the US in the Atlantic Monthly. On one hand he acknowledged the vast difference in the history of both parties, whereas Europe has experienced to what catastrophes nationalism and conflict can lead; the US valued these same aspects as they brought about security and prosperity. Furthermore, the Europeans' approach towards state and unions helped them to restrain class wars. America thrives on a traditional market economy. On the other hand Mead sees a crucial difference in the communities itself. The US and specially the Red States, who have a big influence on current national politics, are a much more traditional type of society than Europe. In American politics, the traditional family, the flag, god and the death penalty are crucial elements if one wants to be elected. In Europe however nobody who stands for those values is taken seriously. These differences also form contrasting points of view on political and social problems between the continents. Jacksonians in power If we take the description of the traditional American society to contemporary level of politics, we see that it fits frighteningly well. Especially the neo conservative sector of the Bush administration that controls the foreign relations corresponds to the picture Mead draws. In another work Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and how it changed the World, he divides the approaches on foreign policy of the administrations of the last hundred years in four schools that all have their roots in American history: the Hamiltonians, the Wilsonians, the Jeffersonians and the Jacksonians. The Bush administration is a perfect example of the Jacksonian school. This tendency, which in fact is representing a minority group, is characterised by a complete lack of believe in the multilateral approach of international relations. Dutch historian and US policy commentator Maarten Van Rossem describes this group as a small but very powerful crew which after September 11 has gained complete control over the US’ foreign policy. Most of them already served under Reagan and Bush senior. In the Clinton years they got together in several think-tanks to keep their ideas warm and to delineate them for future use. The faces of this group, that has its roots in the Committee on the Present Danger of the late 1950’s, in the Bush administration are vice-president Dick Cheney and of course secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld. The real ideologists however act behind the scene. The two most influential are Paul Wolfovitz and Richard Perle. Wolfovitz, nicknamed the Velociraptor is the number two decision maker in the Pentagon while Perle’s function in the Pentagon is president of Defence Policy Board. Under Reagan, Perle was vice secretary of defence. In that position he was called the Prince of Darkness due to his tough stands against the Soviets and against measures of arms control. In 1992 Wolfovitz was the co-author of Defence Policy Guidance, a work that is considered as the bible of the hawks in the current administration. The general idea of the book is that the US can and has the (almost divine) task to defend its current hegemony and carry out its American values over the entire world. Any country or individual resisting this should be dealt with so possible competitors are prevented from founding a regional or worldwide counterpower. Europe in this view is seen as nothing more than a socialist but weak stand-in-the-way. Future evolution? Although Samuel Huntington in his controversial work The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order predicted a further and stronger cooperation between Europe and the US it seems to go in another direction. Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall the Communist threat has fallen away. Europe doesn’t need military protection as much as it used to. This gives them the freedom to disagree openly with their Big Brother. More and more people talk about redefining the role of NATO and within the EU at the summit in Helsinki in 1999 the first small steps were taken towards an own defence unit for Europe. Meanwhile the European Union has become a tremendously powerful economical entity in the world. In the World Trade Organisations the EU is the equal of the United States and recent conflicts as the one in the steel sector prove that the European Union is a force America has to reckon with. The forceful European position makes it likely that in the future, both parties will disagree more and more. While it is clear that both European and American cultural and political values lay in the Jewish-Christian tradition, it is indisputable that they are not the same. Several structural elements show that there is a considerable gap between them in the interpretation of international relation. Furthermore, do bear in mind that the White House is dominated by neo conservative Jacksonians. So whereas at first sight there seems to be no difference between both continents, reality is more shaded. ©2003 Geert Schuermans ________________ Geert Schuermans is an academic researcher and faculty member at the University of Antwerp where he obtained an advanced degree in Political and Social Science with specialisation in International Relations. His publications include "Asian Values: The Relation between Religion and Democracy" and "Globalisation and Fragmentation: Policies of Civilisations." Geert, who enjoys cold Belgian beer, steamy steak frites and Paul Auster's "New York Trilogy," is a resident of Antwerp.

                                                   ONCE UPON      a TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002