Tuesday, November 02, 2004
- US-EUROPEAN RELATIONS
Lecturer: Prof. dr. Ruud Janssens
National Interests: US, EU, European nations. Presentation by Harry, Marc, Jurjen & Gejo.
(These are my notes from this very good presentation.)
. United States (Harry). There are two scenarios for the United States: a conservative one, and a more liberal one. Under the conservative scenario, the US would benefit from a fragmented Europe. In the short run, a strong Europe would not be a welcome phenomenon.
Thus, America could follow a three-dimensional strategy. Politically, it could seek to promote bilateral relations with European countries. Militarily, it could accelerate its planned pullback from Europe. And from a economic viewpoint, it could try to establish free-trade agreements with different European partners.
Risks associated with the "conservative" scenario: (a) the long-term stability of the European Union would perhaps come under threat; (b) or, surprisingly, "core" Europe could become even more united; (c) an important global ally would be lost.
Harry went on to outline the more "liberal" scenario. It is based on ackowledging what unites Europe and the US, rather than what separates them. Europe is an ally with the same core values (democracy, the rule of law, etc.) Together, they could counter upcoming superpowers such as China.
Under this scenario, US unilateralism is to be avoided. America cannot do everything on its own. The challenge: it takes a dose of political courage to identify common long-term interests. The risk: this position can cost some influence in the short run.
Harry decidedly embraces the more "liberal" strategic option; he argues that it's the most realistic one.
. France (Jurjen). Key issues: the legacy of De Gaulle's grandeur policy; the heavy burden of the state, the biggest employer in France; the lack of trust in market-based economic solutions.
A realist French perspective seeks to curb German power within the EU and to counterbalance the United States in the global scene. France wants to "civilize" globalisation -- knowing well that it cannot control it. The French impulse for a balance of power is triggered by: (a) US unilateralism; (b) the influence of the French-Arab minority.
This scenario depends on the acceptance of the European constitution and on more defense cooperation within Europe. Within five years, one should expect more trade disputes with the US (which would make the headlines, but with only peripheral damage), and less influence within the WTO.
Risks: a multipolar world could be a more dangerous world; less trade could lead to economic stagnation; more European integration could diminish sovereignty.
Jurjen also presented a scenario where France decides to go it alone, as the EU disintegrates. The European constitution -seen as too "anti-social"- is rejected. From an economic perspective, France focuses on Asia, and less on Eastern Europe (now dominated by Germany.) Conceivably, the country could promote more relations with the rest of the French-speaking world.
. Germany (Gejo.) Very briefly, Gejo sketched the German problem mostly in economic terms. The country is heavily indebted and suffers from chronic unemployment. With the help of the US, Germany could play a key role in the EU. It could turn to the new Eastern European countries from an economic point of view. Risks: Germany needs more immigrants.
. United Kingdom (Marc.) The UK finds itself in a very awkward position: will it leave the EU and join NAFTA? Will it embrace Europe and its new currency? After reviewing "how it got there in the first place" (De Gaulle, Suez, Vietnam, etc.), Marc singled out the four strategic issues faced by the UK: sovereignty, the euro, the free markets philosophy, defense policy.
- Sovereignty. It is very, very important to the British. The last time they were invaded, it was back in ... 1066! In other words, the Brits are very reluctant to transfer power to European institutions they perceive as unaccountable.
- The Euro. Public opinion is against giving up the British pound. The pound was forced out from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 -- a bitter experience.
Marc favors a solution where the United Kingdom stays in the European Union, but with enough influence to promote an economic agenda based on free trade. Eventually, a transatlantic free market could emerge.
Comments from Prof. Janssens. Very interesting presentation, which will prove useful as we move forward and deal with more specific issues. Perhaps greater emphasis should have been put on the role played by domestic politics. Leaders may disregard long term goals in their pursuit of immediate electoral gains.
Thus, Gerhard Schröder took a very strong anti-US position in 2003, mostly because he was in real danger of losing the general election. Also, one should take into account the fact that the EU may start to "create" its own interests -- as all bureaucraties do.
Lecturer: Prof. dr. Ruud Janssens
National Interests: US, EU, European nations. Presentation by Harry, Marc, Jurjen & Gejo.
(These are my notes from this very good presentation.)
. United States (Harry). There are two scenarios for the United States: a conservative one, and a more liberal one. Under the conservative scenario, the US would benefit from a fragmented Europe. In the short run, a strong Europe would not be a welcome phenomenon.
Thus, America could follow a three-dimensional strategy. Politically, it could seek to promote bilateral relations with European countries. Militarily, it could accelerate its planned pullback from Europe. And from a economic viewpoint, it could try to establish free-trade agreements with different European partners.
Risks associated with the "conservative" scenario: (a) the long-term stability of the European Union would perhaps come under threat; (b) or, surprisingly, "core" Europe could become even more united; (c) an important global ally would be lost.
Harry went on to outline the more "liberal" scenario. It is based on ackowledging what unites Europe and the US, rather than what separates them. Europe is an ally with the same core values (democracy, the rule of law, etc.) Together, they could counter upcoming superpowers such as China.
Under this scenario, US unilateralism is to be avoided. America cannot do everything on its own. The challenge: it takes a dose of political courage to identify common long-term interests. The risk: this position can cost some influence in the short run.
Harry decidedly embraces the more "liberal" strategic option; he argues that it's the most realistic one.
. France (Jurjen). Key issues: the legacy of De Gaulle's grandeur policy; the heavy burden of the state, the biggest employer in France; the lack of trust in market-based economic solutions.
A realist French perspective seeks to curb German power within the EU and to counterbalance the United States in the global scene. France wants to "civilize" globalisation -- knowing well that it cannot control it. The French impulse for a balance of power is triggered by: (a) US unilateralism; (b) the influence of the French-Arab minority.
This scenario depends on the acceptance of the European constitution and on more defense cooperation within Europe. Within five years, one should expect more trade disputes with the US (which would make the headlines, but with only peripheral damage), and less influence within the WTO.
Risks: a multipolar world could be a more dangerous world; less trade could lead to economic stagnation; more European integration could diminish sovereignty.
Jurjen also presented a scenario where France decides to go it alone, as the EU disintegrates. The European constitution -seen as too "anti-social"- is rejected. From an economic perspective, France focuses on Asia, and less on Eastern Europe (now dominated by Germany.) Conceivably, the country could promote more relations with the rest of the French-speaking world.
. Germany (Gejo.) Very briefly, Gejo sketched the German problem mostly in economic terms. The country is heavily indebted and suffers from chronic unemployment. With the help of the US, Germany could play a key role in the EU. It could turn to the new Eastern European countries from an economic point of view. Risks: Germany needs more immigrants.
. United Kingdom (Marc.) The UK finds itself in a very awkward position: will it leave the EU and join NAFTA? Will it embrace Europe and its new currency? After reviewing "how it got there in the first place" (De Gaulle, Suez, Vietnam, etc.), Marc singled out the four strategic issues faced by the UK: sovereignty, the euro, the free markets philosophy, defense policy.
- Sovereignty. It is very, very important to the British. The last time they were invaded, it was back in ... 1066! In other words, the Brits are very reluctant to transfer power to European institutions they perceive as unaccountable.
- The Euro. Public opinion is against giving up the British pound. The pound was forced out from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 -- a bitter experience.
Marc favors a solution where the United Kingdom stays in the European Union, but with enough influence to promote an economic agenda based on free trade. Eventually, a transatlantic free market could emerge.
Comments from Prof. Janssens. Very interesting presentation, which will prove useful as we move forward and deal with more specific issues. Perhaps greater emphasis should have been put on the role played by domestic politics. Leaders may disregard long term goals in their pursuit of immediate electoral gains.
Thus, Gerhard Schröder took a very strong anti-US position in 2003, mostly because he was in real danger of losing the general election. Also, one should take into account the fact that the EU may start to "create" its own interests -- as all bureaucraties do.
# posted by Agustin @ 11:01 PM 
