Obama Needs Us

by Riccardo Perissich

Riccardo Perissich
Vice Chair of the Council for Relations between Italy and the United States of America

The latest report just published by Transatlantic Trends gives us some interesting directions on the state of our relations. The appreciation for Obama is higher in Europe (78%) than in the USA (52%) but Europeans’ wish for America to exercise a world leadership is much lower (55%). While the majority both in Europe and in America is convinced that relations are good, more than a third of Americans (36%) - compared with only 17% of Europeans – thinks that EU-USA relations have worsened over the last year. Far from representing a sign crisis – figures were worse in the past – this data shows a persistent uneasiness. Setting aside opinion polls, it is a fact that people crossing the Atlantic Sea come back with the feeling that Europe has disappeared from American priorities. The Greek crisis and threats to the stability of the Euro have certainly drawn attention, but not favourably: we are perceived as a problem rather than as a positive factor. Hostility and disapproval have been even stronger in the past, but they were mainly an expression of the ideological position of neoconservatives who considered Europe and its integration process as a dangerous socialist project, echoing the views of British Euro-sceptics.
Now we read instead the dejected analysis of those (such as Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan) who complain about possible Euro-failure. The euro was first seen as a threat, now there are fears for its ending.
The disappointment of Americans is fomented by the confusion of Europeans. According to Transatlantic Trends, it is the first time that the majority of Europeans seems convinced that the Euro has had a negative impact and 47% believes that the measures to ride out the crisis should be undertaken at a national level. About that, 57% of interviewees think that the crisis should lead to greater unity and an even higher percentage (63%) thinks that integration has been positive for their country. More than pessimism or opposition, the data seems to indicate disappointment about the unfulfilled promises.
Given the ups and downs of the last half-century - such as the American pressure to speed up decolonization, the solidarity during the crises of Berlin and Cuba, the opposition to the war in Vietnam, the concern for the supremacy of the dollar, the renewed solidarity after the attack on the Twin Towers, the war in Iraq - the current climate can be considered quite good. However, the data must be analyzed in the light of two phenomena. The first is that globalization put the West before the discovery that its power is no longer absolute. Secondly, both America and Europe are facing an identity crisis, which causes uncertainty about the direction to be taken in the economic and social issues and also about their role in the world. On these issues, both continents are domestically divided before they are between them.
The crisis has made everyone more humble. The difficulties to ride out the crisis seem to make us more rancorous and impatient. Never before was it more necessary to build a fully functional multilateral order, never before was the task so difficult. Emerging countries have earned a seat at the table and ask for the recognition of equal dignity and their rightful interests. However, these countries are all in a phase of acute nationalism and they are reluctant to accept multilateral constraints. Until recently, all the countries accepted the fact that the rules about economy, trade, monetary management, financial and industrial policy were established in the West.
It was logical: we had the monopoly of technology, the dominant currency, the richest markets, the main financial centres. Traditionally, Europe and America competed instead of working together, each one trying to impose its vision to the rest of the world. Western supremacy in law is still a fact, but it is not going to last long. The next standard on telecommunications could come from China and some Asian financial markets can compete with London and New York. The renminbi is now one of the main international currencies, waiting to be made convertible. The window from which everyone still expects from us to be the “first movers” will not remain open forever. Divided we will miss the boat. Americans are mistaken when, impatient for the delays in Europe, they think they can face alone a world in turmoil. Europeans are mistaken in believing they could gain ground on the decline of American hegemony.
The fact that the nationalism of the emerging countries is still fuelled by the legacy of colonialism slips from our mind and the memories of old humiliations can easily turn into contempt. Africa is an outstanding example. Abandoned by both Europe and America, it has long been considered a “lost continent”. Today, it is making a political comeback not just as a problem but also as an opportunity under the pressure of a strong Chinese economic penetration. Yet, the U.S.A. and some European countries seem to continue to compete as in the days of the Fashoda incident. It is rather trite to note that nothing can happen without greater European unity.
Everyone in Washington should have learned the lesson of Iraq: a divided Europe does not come in handy. We also know how the process toward unity is difficult and sometimes fragile. However, international pressure reminds us that we must speed it up. Besides, unity begins avoiding divisions at the international level. Too often, single European states have tried to transform international organizations in an appeal courts where asking for what they could not get from Brussels. Recent events showed the fallacy of an argument that was rather common at the beginning of the crisis – it was illustrated for example by Gordon Brown – according to which globalization makes the search for common European policies pointless.
Today we are aware that the multilateral process will be long and complex and that it is unrealistic to aim at harmonized global rules, instead, we should seek for common principles and rules as far as possible consistent. The first step is to seek for a major compatibility between our rules and those of the United States of America. Globalization increases the demand for more Europe.
A new Euro-American partnership must also be based on realistic premises. First, it is an asymmetrical relationship for at least one reason: the United States, despite having decided to redefine the means and the limits of their power, do not abandon the will to preserve a clear military supremacy. The Europeans, driven by their economic situation and the pressure of public opinion, tend to reduce their military commitment, in Germany as well as in Great Britain and France. Maybe the impetus arising from the Treaty of Lisbon will improve the effectiveness or rather the level of the European effort at the end. However, this gap will last long.
Finally, it would be good that both sides of the Atlantic stop theorizing, threaten and hope for the G2. Obviously China and the United States, the two major powers which also share a strong responsibility in the current crisis, should communicate.
However, the idea that from this dialogue a new world order would be established is just fantasy. In no way does their relationship resemble what has been the Franco-German dialogue in the European context. The G2 is nothing but a journalistic cliché: it is tempting but it will only lead to delusion or potential damages.