Thursday, November 25, 2004
- US - EUROPEAN RELATIONS
Lecturer: Prof. dr. Ruud Janssens
Final Session: Discussion of future of transatlantic policies.
Prof. Janssens proposed a number of debate issues about the future of US-EU relations. What is the common ground between Europe and the United States? Why are so many European citizens upset about George W. Bush's "unilateralism"? Was Bush's choice of policy iniciatives logical?
A lively debate followed. I thought that Prof. Janssens' emphasis on "unilateralism" betrayed a Eurocentric view of the world. If the free world was the sum of Europe and the US (as it used to be), then breaking up the relationship would be tremendously costly indeed. But what if --and, admitedly, it's a big "if"-- the free world includes (before long) China, India, Russia and others?
In other words, in my view, Europe --while still hugely important-- is less relevant now than it was in the past. Then Prof. Janssens made some comments about the limits to military power, citing an article by Condoleeza Rice in Foreign Affairs in which she stated that military strength was the key indicator in terms of power.
But Prof. Janssens mentioned reports about a worsening food situation in Afghanistan as a proof that military solutions cannot do the trick by themselves (that situation, reportedly, has Bush talking about the need to get the Europeans more involved.) Then Janssens asked another interesting question: is Bush's "unilateralism" acting against the very idea of globalization that he is supposed to uphold?
About the course
Prof. Janssens then asked our opinions about the course itself. There were many interesting suggestions about the length of the presentations and about the choice of the topics to be discussed.
My comment: such concerns usually miss the big picture. And the big picture is a very positive one. It was only three months, and we covered a lot of ground. I'm pretty sure that we will remember these months as an incredibly rewarding experience, especially when we get back to the real life. Also, I told him that his course was a bit more disciplined than the others (especially Prof. Kroes.)
Acamedics and Politicians
Finally, Prof. Janssens closed the session with some comments about the interplay between academics and politicians. Policy makers, he said, usually do not take advice from academic types. They don't like to hear about historical backgrounds, analogies, etc.
Also, keep in mind that their goal is to be reelected and that means --among other things-- the attention of the press. Take, for example, the issue of the environment. Knowing how much the electorate cares about it, politicians are prepared to make costly decisions if they "smell" political dividends.
The recent upheaval in the CIA is another case in point. George W. Bush did not take its advice on the issue of WMD. Rather, to be seen by the world as the "toxic Texan" was thought to be a more attractive strategy in terms of the American electorate.
Lecturer: Prof. dr. Ruud Janssens
Final Session: Discussion of future of transatlantic policies.
Prof. Janssens proposed a number of debate issues about the future of US-EU relations. What is the common ground between Europe and the United States? Why are so many European citizens upset about George W. Bush's "unilateralism"? Was Bush's choice of policy iniciatives logical?
A lively debate followed. I thought that Prof. Janssens' emphasis on "unilateralism" betrayed a Eurocentric view of the world. If the free world was the sum of Europe and the US (as it used to be), then breaking up the relationship would be tremendously costly indeed. But what if --and, admitedly, it's a big "if"-- the free world includes (before long) China, India, Russia and others?
In other words, in my view, Europe --while still hugely important-- is less relevant now than it was in the past. Then Prof. Janssens made some comments about the limits to military power, citing an article by Condoleeza Rice in Foreign Affairs in which she stated that military strength was the key indicator in terms of power.
But Prof. Janssens mentioned reports about a worsening food situation in Afghanistan as a proof that military solutions cannot do the trick by themselves (that situation, reportedly, has Bush talking about the need to get the Europeans more involved.) Then Janssens asked another interesting question: is Bush's "unilateralism" acting against the very idea of globalization that he is supposed to uphold?
About the course
Prof. Janssens then asked our opinions about the course itself. There were many interesting suggestions about the length of the presentations and about the choice of the topics to be discussed.
My comment: such concerns usually miss the big picture. And the big picture is a very positive one. It was only three months, and we covered a lot of ground. I'm pretty sure that we will remember these months as an incredibly rewarding experience, especially when we get back to the real life. Also, I told him that his course was a bit more disciplined than the others (especially Prof. Kroes.)
Acamedics and Politicians
Finally, Prof. Janssens closed the session with some comments about the interplay between academics and politicians. Policy makers, he said, usually do not take advice from academic types. They don't like to hear about historical backgrounds, analogies, etc.
Also, keep in mind that their goal is to be reelected and that means --among other things-- the attention of the press. Take, for example, the issue of the environment. Knowing how much the electorate cares about it, politicians are prepared to make costly decisions if they "smell" political dividends.
The recent upheaval in the CIA is another case in point. George W. Bush did not take its advice on the issue of WMD. Rather, to be seen by the world as the "toxic Texan" was thought to be a more attractive strategy in terms of the American electorate.
# posted by Agustin @ 3:52 PM 
