Obama's European Gambit

Matt Yglesias wrote a column last week in which he disputed what he termed the "counterintuitive" view that President Obama's relations with Europe will not necessarily improve as much or as swiftly as is commonly imagine. On the contray, he suggested, simpley a) not being George W Bush and b) not going out of his way to insult or alienate Europeans would indeed go a long way towards reviving a spirit of transatlantic comity. Robert Kaplan made some similar points in the Atlantic: Obama enters the market at a time when US foreign policy stock is so depressed, the only way is up.

Now clearly there's something to this. European public opinion is likely to be vastly more receptive to President Obama than it has been to President Bush and it's true that this may create some room for European governments to hop on board and enjoy the ride alongside the new American president. But at the risk of seeming a terrible spoilsport, might I suggest that  friendly and polite attitude may not be enough?

This week, for instance, NATO meets in Brussels and, for some reason, the idea of Georgia and the Ukraine joining the alliance is back on the agenda. Perhaps the new President will be able to persuade us that this is a fine and sensible idea, but it's not clear what arguments he can deploy that are not already in the field. And if he wants a favour on this then it's reasonable to suppose that there'll be a price to be paid elsewhere.

Then there's Iran. It's no secret that Obama's proposals for engagement with Tehran have worried some in Vienna, Berlin, Paris and London. Now it may well be that Obama's ideas are good ones, but he hasn't yet (obviously) persuaded Europe that they are. Indeed, the Bush administration has pursued a kind of quasi-realist, multilateral approach in its second term that could itself be taken as a refutation of its more ill-tempered approach in its first four years. And yet despite this mollification and prudence, significant differences remain between the Atlantic allies.

No surprise there, perhaps. And the US cannot have it both ways: it cannot reasonably ask Europe to do more and then complain if Europe declines to fall into line behind US proposals. Doing more requires a greater degree of independence from Washington.

And so to Afghanistan. Obama, like Bush and SecDef Gates before him, is likely to ask Europe to pour more troops into Afghanistan and to loosen rules of engagement once the boys are in theatre. As Matt puts it, there's no guarantee that Obama can achieve this:

But what improved U.S. standing in Europe will do is transform the politics of the situation. At the moment, even those European political leaders who agree on the merits of the American perspective are terrified to say so. The combination of Bush's toxic unpopularity and the sense that help given to the U.S. in Afghanistan would, in effect, be assistance for what's widely viewed as a criminal enterprise in Iraq makes it a nonstarter. A new administration and a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq would clear the air. And steps to show that Europe's high hopes for Obama in terms of basic human rights, diplomatic courtesy, and engagement with issues like climate change would allow Obama to make his case to Europe's people and turn public opinion around. At a time when the United States is militarily and financially exhausted, but also desperate for a renewed approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan, that's change we need.

Perhaps Obama really can persuade European public opinion. But since, as matters stand, no-one thinks there's a military solution to the Afghan problem I'm not quite sure what Obama can offer to make the mission any more appealling. Put yourself in Danish or Portuguese or Italian shoes: what's in it for you? Why would you join a mission no-one thinks is winnable? (Maybe a new strategy can change that, but that too is something that remains to be seen.) It isn't simply Iraq; it's the growing perception that many people feel they have little to know idea why, nearly seven years later, we're still in Afghanistan. What are we actually doing there? What can we actually realistically hope to achieve?

And I'm afraid that closing Guantanamo and (officially at least) putting an end to torture are necessary first steps, not an end in themselves. That's the bare minimum required and no-one should think Washington will get credit for this. It's like asking to be applauded for ceasing to beat your wife. Sure it's better than continuining to beat her but just stopping doesn't change the fact that she's a bloody mess. 

It would be lovely to think that Obama can bring a new period of transatlantic harmony. But it just isn't the case that American interests are necessarily the same as European interests. The Security Card trumped everything during the Cold War but these are changed times. And there were, in any case, always more differences than seemed the case then too, these days they're much clearer to see. A new President may find it difficult to change that. Or, to put it another way, he may need to give something up himself to advance American interests in other areas.

Comments

[NJB]

None of the disagreements Obama has with European governments - and some reflect deeply divergent opinions like NATO entry - will tarnish the goodwill Obama enjoys with European public opinion. The matters mentioned above concern differences of interests which are debated in chancelleries & between governing elites. And I think for those issues like deployment to Afghanistan which could rub European public the wrong way, well I say that Obama will benefit from a "benefit of the doubt" whereby his missteps or even mistakes will be excused away as not really being his "fault".
I wouldn't be so adamant in positing an ultimatum with torture & Guantanamo either. Should Obama quickly project an image of being Kyoto accords-friendly, of being keen on regulating capitalisme along "European" lines, and in favor of jump-starting a sort-of/kind of welfare safety net along "European" lines...well, with all those domestic policy ventures, Obama will earn even greater goodwill.
As we speak, he disposes of a bottomless well of sympathy. He's the de facto Most Popular Guy and President of Planet Earth. That'll all change come January when reality hits and the realization that he's, um, America's president, starts to trickle in. For the governing elites, first and then, more slowly for the rest of the public. But, at least in Europe & sub-sahara Africa, he could ride on this initial general good will for another four years. He won't, of course, 'cuz he's got class & seems pretty smart about the whole global popularity thing, but he could and most people wouldn't hold against him.

As for transatlantic harmony, as the saying goes, "it takes two to tango". I'm not convinced that the European foreign policy establishments are entirely keen on Obama.
An Obama presidency will be more difficult for those European governing elites who sought to accentuate the divide between the EU/NATO and the USA. Especially those in France.

Of course, again, it all goes down to interests and not personality or friendship or the warm fuzzies one gets at the sight of the word "harmony". But the problem that remains is that of defining what those very interests are. In days of yore, interests were the extension & furthering of those goods which allowed for an open, rule of law, free-trading, wheeling & dealing kind of modern society to flourish. Today, the kind of ideal model government one sees being thrown about in Europe & the US is a throw back to the Keynesian-control freak political economy which Keith Joseph rightly lambasted. Not very interesting, to say the least...

[ndm]

If the latest drivel from Melanie Phillips is anything to go by, Obama is going to have a really hard time from the European ultra-right.:

If the left wasn't so blinded by its hatred of Bush, it would have spotted that appeasement 'soft power' arrived some time ago within his own administration. That's exactly what Condi, Gates and the rest of the gang have been up to. That's why the bad guys are winning. (my emphasis)

And there I thought we were finally getting places. A SOFA in Iraq, with a deadline for US troops to leave Iraq and perhaps be deployed somewhere more useful. Who knows perhaps we can re-invade Afghanistan and finally win that war. I can't remember too much about Carry on up the Khyber, but Melanie Phillips would do better watching Sid James get some tiffin than opining about how Obama's policies will ensure "the bad guys are winning."

[Anthony]

Arrrgh. Melanie Phillips, the gift that keeps on giving. Rather like syphillis. She hails the surge and idolises Petraeus, while slagging off Gates without whom Petraeus and his COIN Gang would not have got their way. If you think what's happening now in Iraq is good you cannot isolate that from Gates. He deserves basically as much credit as Petraeus.

Silly cow.

Anyway. Alex, I think you make good points and, while you may prove to be wrong, it is prudent to work on the assumption that you're probably correct. The plain fact of the matter is that there are structural issues at play that will ensure tensions remain. One of the great pieces of historical revisionism spurred by the Bush 43 tenure is the conviction that has emerged that under Clinton Euro-American relations were going well. They weren't. Most of the time it was poison. Even between Clinton and Blair things turned fairly sour. One of the major "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" aspect of the last few years (there have been many, admittedly) is seeing all these people in the UK babbling on about some sort of Clinton Golden Age, when in reality when he was in office they all thought he was a twat.

We should hope for the best with the emergence of the Obama administration. And at the very least it'll give me an excuse to start having a go at the Continentals again. But managing expectations, so to speak, is undoubtedly the right way to go. There are plenty of issues that have the potential to cause ructions.

That's not to say, incidentally, that the problems are ALL structural. This is an argument genrally employed by Bush 43 apologists to support the notion that it doesn't matter how undiplomatically the US government acts because the results will be the same and it should be resisted. But let's not get carried away.

[Pandora Bracelets]

Pandora may perhaps be within antithetical clues, flowers plus animal imprints, representations, zodiac indicators, colors as well as substances that give you unlimited selections together with combination.Relating to Pandora Jewellery , the beads shift freely additionally rotate slightly with your wrists motion, creating the undeniable observation catching in combination with stunning influence.Pandora Bracelets has granted women globally the to be able to wear their personal report to lifes wonderful moments, thereby become component of their amazing story about romantic besides fun moments forever. Because Pandora style may very well be so private and distinctive, it can be a trend among women all over the world. Pandora bracelet fans emerge from worldwide and variety Pandora Necklace holics clubs or associations for exhibit their want to the irresistible gifts when using the gods.

[viagra 50mg]

Can you message me with any tips on how you made this website look like this , I’d appreciate it!