Yesterday’s Brooking’s event on the US and Europe (see this post) included three panels – one on the Presidential election; one on the French EU presidency; and one on Russia.
The Presidential panel combined general rejoicing at the imminent (243 days and counting) departure of George Bush (“somewhat less popular in Europe than Satan”) with caution that expectations may be too high at what will follow.
Gary Schmitt, from the American Enterprise Institute, who advises McCain, thought that Republicans had become much more realistic about the need for transatlantic ties. McCain’s speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy got a plug (and not just from Gary, but from other speakers too):
The debate in the transatlantic relationship – over who is to lead and who to follow, whether to act in concert or unilaterally, or if the bonds that unite us are stronger than interests that divide us – that debate is over. Our interests, though not always perfectly congruent, are rarely diverging.
The Obama narrative, meanwhile, is ‘deeply attractive’ to Europeans, according to Laurence Freedman, currently promoting his new book, on American and the Middle East – A Choice of Enemies. The Bush administration was forever tarnished in European eyes by Guantanamo Bay, Iraq Abu Ghraib, he said. At a time when Europe is populated by a cast of ‘weak leaders’, a new President will have the opportunity to make a clean break from the past (close Guantanamo) and generate real leadership for the US.
Brookings’ Jeremy Shapiro, however, wondered if the US was about to move into an ‘introverted’ phase (a term he described as a ‘less sharp version of the word isolationism’). Bush had taken the country through a disastrous extroverted phase, leading to the worst transatlantic crisis in fifty years. Now ‘a certain fatigue with the outside world’ had set in, with growing trade protectionism a worrying sign of this.
Shapiro’s best point, I thought, was that the future transatlantic relationship will be at its strongest if both sides can focus on issues outside their borders. Unfortunately, the EU panel did the opposite, losing itself in the same old theological squabbles (although the FT’s Gideon Rachman was entertaining as ever). “Why does Europe have to be boring?” asked Pierre Lévy, head of France’s policy planners. Indeed.
What stood out, then, was introversion from both the US and European side. It was striking how few global issues got much of a look in. Take the some of the drivers of change that Alex and I have been pushing (in our Progressive Governance paper, for example, or in Alex’s work on food, or in my recent talks on resilience at RUSI or on technology at the London Diplomatic Academy):
- Scarcity of strategic commodities such as energy, land, water, food and ‘atmospheric space’ for emissions. I think I heard the word ‘food’ mentioned once (again by Jeremy Shapiro).
- Inherent instability in complex international systems – which though efficient lack redundancy and are prone to unpredictable and unsettling shifts. Surprisingly, the financial crisis – which last time I looked was still unfolding – seemed to have slipped off the radar.
- Rapid technological change that is fundamentally changing the way people live and, more to the point, associate. Obama mugged Hillary, I think, because he understands these changes – the man has nearly 3 million donors, 93% of whom have given less than $100. On the flipside, I refer you again to John Robb’s profile of network disruption in Nigeria.
These are the game-changers that will reshape the transatlantic relationship in the next twenty years or so. But the impact will be more immediate than that. Again, I was surprised by how little climate change was discussed. Yet, as the new President takes power, he will face immense pressure to deliver a global deal on climate. Perhaps the first international decision he will have to make is whether to go to the Poznan climate conference in December (as the UN fervently hopes he will) – before he even officially takes office.
His incoming team, meanwhile, will be plunged into an intricate and gruelling negotiation, without any opportunity to get up to speed on an issue that makes EU politics look simple. I don’t think the Americans have yet worked out how tough this is going to be. McCain certainly hasn’t, as I argue here.
The Europeans, meanwhile, face a real struggle to maintain their climate leadership. As I argued in this post, unilateral commitments to cut emissions are no longer enough. European credibility will dry up unless its partners can be persuaded that a major decarbonisation in Europe is now underway.
So…are we ready to stop fretting about whether Europeans and Americans like each other (such an adolescent concern)? And focus instead on whether they can navigate the disruptive changes to come and begin to solve problems together?
The US ‘comeback’ story will be an immensely powerful one and will create a window of huge opportunity. Are plans in place to exploit it? They may be but, increasingly, I fear that they are not…
(More on the discussion on Russia in another post… if I get a chance later today.)
