The Transatlantic Relationship Is Strategic Partners or Drifting Away - Essay Example

The Transatlantic Relationship: Strategic Partners or Drifting away? Name Institution Course Date The Transatlantic Relationship: Strategic Partners or Drifting away? The European Union member states have formed a partnership that has bought about numerous benefits (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The transatlantic relationship between the United States and the European Union was first developed in 1995. Over the years, the relationship has undergone changes. Towards the 2000s, Leon Brittan advocated for a new transatlantic agreement (Alcaro, 2016). In 2007, the Commissioner of trade signed the new transatlantic agreement approved by the member states. Currently, transatlantic relationship is undergoing fundamental transition. The transatlantic discord that arose since the 2000s marked a historical breakpoint (Steffenson, 2005). The foundational principles of the agreement that emerged in 1995 have been compromised. The United States and the European Union’s interests have diverged which means that long-standing cooperation is no longer guaranteed. Recently, the United States announced its gradual shift from Europe to Asia. Since then, there have been apprehensions as to the future of the existing transactional relationship between the United States and European Union (Steffenson, 2005). The growth of Asia, specifically China, as an influential economic and financial world actor is unsettling. The world is expected to be multi polar and less subjugated by the Western powers. The role of the European Unions and the future of the transatlantic relationship are unknown (Van Heuven, 2011). Questions have been asked about the future of the transatlantic relationship between the European Union and the United States and other EU members. This paper will offer an argument to determine whether the EU and the United States are strategic partners or are drifting away. The United States and the European Union have enjoyed a number of economic benefits from their transatlantic partnership (Kotzias and Liakouras, 2006). The both economies generate more than 15.6 trillion in GDP which makes up about half of the world’s output. The relationship is more of an investment rather than a trade partnership which has been beneficial for both powers. In addition to this, the European Union and its member states enjoy free trade agreements. For instance, the European Union enjoy about 35 bilateral agreements with countries such as Chile, Mexico, and Korea (Kotzias and Liakouras, 2006). Also, the transatlantic relationship between the European Union and its members have allowed for low average tariff duties. In 2007, the tariff duties in the United States were about 2.8% in the manufacturing industry (Kotzias and Liakouras, 2006). This testifies to the benefits yielded by Atlantic countries. The existence of transatlantic relationship has also been beneficial in allowing military cooperation in the event of war. For instance, the transatlantic relationship between Europe and the United States assisted the two democracies prevail during the World War II. Although the transatlantic relationship has represented the strategic partnership between European democracies, the intensity of the relation has been eroded immensely (Monteleone, 2012). Transatlantic relationship can be termed as the historical, economic and political cooperation between countries found on the both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (Kotzias and Liakouras, 2006). In most instances, transatlantic relationship may be referred to the association between the United States and other European Union member states. Even with the transatlantic relationship, the United States and the European Union disagree on many issues. These issues range from cultural differences like those involving death penalty, international issues involving peace movement process in the Middle East and trade related issues (Sperling, 2012). In addition, the current polices of the United Sates are considered unilateral and those of the EU are described as being multilateral in nature since they rely on international institutions in solving issues. These differences have led to the drift of the two states and weakening of the transatlantic trade (Kotzias and Liakouras, 2006). According to Senti (2002), the transatlantic relationship between the European Union and its member states is at the dawn of a new era. And as such, instead of trying to recreate the past, it is important to move forward and accept that the tight relationship of the 1900s is gone and the principles of the Atlantic order are undergoing fundamental transformation. Since the inception of the United States, there have existed different periods of the transatlantic relationship (Senti, 2002). The period between 1776 and 1905 was characterized by balance of power; 1905-1941 was characterized by a balance of threat; and 1941-2001 was known as the era of cooperative security. The first phase of the transatlantic relationship between the United States and the European Union was guided by a balance of power (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The Atlantic Ocean region with member countries such as the United States, France and Britain, was characterized by militarized rivalry. These countries were often competing for territory, power and trade. Each country capitalized opportunities for individual gain. The United States fought different wars with the Britain to defend its interests which was followed by other wars among the Atlantic powers (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). There was no relationship that existed between these countries and the European powers and the United States had different interests and views about their security environment (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The American perceived Europe as the “old world” and the Europeans saw Americans as unsophisticated. In the beginning of the 1900s, the Atlantic relation shifted from balance of power to balance of threat. Regime started to matter as players aimed to balance against those deemed threatening. The United States and Europe started forming a pacified relationship although their interests were different. As a result, the regimes gave space for peaceful coexistence as interest stated becoming continently convergent (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The two parties settled their disputes and established a mutual sense of reconciliation. The experience of the World War II deepened cooperation among Atlantic powers which bonded them against common threats. Although the Atlantic democracies coexisted peacefully, they were not ready for deeper form of corporation (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). For instance, the Britain was unwilling to fight alongside France during the World War II. These democracies were willing to commit to each other in principle, but their unwillingness to uphold them through actions was apparent during the 1930s. Cooperative security was the guiding principle of the transatlantic relationship during this period (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The Atlantic powers came together by pooling their defence resources together and agreed to integrate their military commands and multilateral institutions. During the World War II, the Atlantic powers shared common interests which made their security amalgamated. The compatible identities and shared interests of the Atlantic democracies gave way to a shared Western Identity in the midst of the World War II (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The era of cooperative security was brought to an end by geopolitical changes. The Atlantic community suffered a serious reversal which began before the election of George Bush (Penksa and Mason, 2003). At this stage, the interests between the European Union and the United States started diverging which was intensified by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As a result of peaceful existence and lack of common external threat, the European Union and the United State no longer depended on each other to pursue security interests (Penksa and Mason, 2003). NATO has been in existence as a military alliance only in name since its collective defence became moot. In addition, in the Middle East, a country that occupies both sides of the Atlantic, both the United States and the EU had pursued differing policies (Bettiza, 2003). This divergent started during the Cold War but was subdued by the solidarity unleashed from the Soviet threat. Although the NATO has a larger operation in Afghanistan, the United States initially turned down the alliance offer to assist in knocking down the Taliban; this was seen as a blow to the transatlantic solidarity (Bettiza, 2003). Also, according to most European member states, an alliance to inflict terror on Baghdad was illegitimate but the United States had different views on how to combat it. The establishment of the European Union has been seen as an addition to the transatlantic dissonance. According to Penksa and Mason (2003), the European Union has lessened European dependence on the Americans. The European countries are more ready to assert their power and take their own course which in most cases has been in disagreement with the United States policy issues. This has been seen in their decisions regarding the war in Iraq and the Kyoto Protocol (Penksa and Mason, 2003). In addition, the deterioration of the transatlantic relationship has also been brought about the secular chain in the United States politics- this was apparent during the end of the bipartisan agreement on foreign policy (Penksa and Mason, 2003). The uncontroversial coalition that served as the political underpinning for the United States’ multilateral engagement in the global undertakings has fallen victim to schism and partnership which has resulted to a unilateral brand of the country’s internationalism unsolicited in Europe (Penksa and Mason, 2003). According to Kanet (2008), the conceptual penchants of the Bush administration have contributed to the disentanglement of the United States’ international partnership. It will therefore require a more stringent strategy on top of change in personnel in the administration to renovate bi-partnership and equability to the country which is highly divided on the basis of ideological and geographic lines (Kanet, 2008). The obliteration of the centrist internationalism has also attributed to transatlantic rancour since what was seen as a mere disagreement has evolved into a serious rift. Granting that many people believe that the recent turmoil regarding transatlantic relationship is “politics as usual”, the fact is that Atlantic order is undergoing systematic change. According to Kurowska (2010), the emerging structure of the transatlantic relationship bears a resemblance to that of the decades before the Cold War- balance of threat. Europe is no longer balancing against the United States’ power but rather its behaviour. The Europe’s resistance to American’s policy has taken the form of “soft balancing”. It has endeavoured to segregate the American diplomatically which has been witnessed over the Kyoto Protocol as well as the International Criminal Court (Sverdrup-Thygeson, 2017). Nevertheless, the attempts by Russia and Germany to prevent the invasion of Iraq presented a more solemn form of resistance. These states opted out of the war and developed an effective campaign to deny the support of the United Nation’s security councils to the United States (Penksa and Mason, 2003). If the council had authorized the Iraq war, the United States would have accumulated a larger military coalition and secure transit rights in most Atlantic regions. In addition, international organisations would have taken a larger role in the post-war ascendency and reconstruction which would lead to a more orderly occupation (Rock, 2000). Generally, by repudiating the involvement of United Nation in the Iraq war, countries such as Germany and Russia were able to enforce substantial costs on the United States. Instead of being aversive, the United States responded well which was seen as embracing balance-of-threat rationality (Marsh, 2012). The Bush governance adopted negative view regarding the European integration since it was concerned that a foreign policy would deny the government the ability to secure the support from European members. The same way Europe has endeavoured to preserve its global influence by leaving the World War II to the Americans and weaken the country, the Bush administration tried to disaggregate Europe to reduce the threat it has on United States’ hegemony (Penksa and Mason, 2003). And as such, it is evident that Balance-of-threat thinking prevailed between Atlantic countries and which led to them drifting away affecting the transatlantic relationship. It is also evident that the United States and Europe no longer share common interests that were the reality during the World War II (Freund and Oliver, 2013). Rather, their interests have grown in different directions even if contingently convergent, which has put stress on the transatlantic security institutions. The United States prefer coalitions based on willingness since it perceives divided geopolitical environments rather than Atlantic alliance when participating in military operations and solving international feuds (Freund and Oliver, 2013). In addition, Europe has also done its fair share of picking and choosing. In the face of America’s fiasco in Iraq, NATO, the core system of the Atlantic order, limited its involvement in the training of Iraqi security militaries. NATO’s decision to keep its distance irrespective of the magnitude of the crisis faced by the Americans shows the degree of erosion involving the Atlantic solidarity (Freund and Oliver, 2013). Fahey (2013) reports that the concept of “we-ness” that was evident during the World War II has dimmed considerably with regard to transatlantic relationship. Many EU member states such as French are holding unfavourable views about the United States. They perceive the country as a greater threat to international peace especially due to its involvement in the Iraq war (Fahey, 2013). The Atlantic democracies have different interests that have given way to separateness. This issue is not a temporary aberration but deeper changes in the country’s politics. Nevertheless, according to Busser, (2009), in spite of the issue being witnessed, the new transatlantic relationship is not essentially a cause for alarm. There is however an opportunity for peaceful coexistence between European Union member states which will offer the basis for a stable order (Busser, 2009). Collaboration between democracies has potential to develop on many fronts with countries enjoying deeper networks than that which existed during the inter-war period. The Atlantic order has remained interdependent on the basis of commercial integration, cooperation on law enforcement and policies with regard to military enforcement. Such interdependence has assisted the transatlantic relations make a distinctive retaliation during president Bush’s second term. After his election as the president of the United States, Bush assured support from European unity and transatlantic relationship (Desbordes, 2003). The Iraq war left the United States with debts as it drained its resources. And as such, the country learned the importance of international partnership. In 2008, when Barrack Obama was elected the president of the United States, the European states hoped for a new era of the relationship between the two continents. With Bush out of power, Europeans predicted a new era of transatlantic relations (Alcaro, 2016). There were expectations that Europeans would be willing to cooperate especially as the European Union finalized the endorsement process of the Lisbon Treaty. The Obama government expected that it could count on the European partner in case of a need (Freund and Oliver, 2013). Despite the unsurpassed intents on both sides of the Atlantic, European Union and the United States are drifting apart as there is disillusionment with the nature of the transatlantic cooperation (Freund and Oliver, 2013). According to the European Union, the United States has ignored them while Washington believes that Europeans are not as cooperative as they could have been. With the animosity of the Bush year being over and the cooling effect of the Obama’s government, a sober glimpse can be predicted over the nature of the transatlantic relationship. Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen (2008) disagrees with Alcaro (2016) that the relationship between the EU and the US and other member states is ruin and argue that there are no irreconcilable differences between the parties. Undeniably, the issues and factors that bind the two sides of the Atlantic together during the World War II still stand today. Even with the absence of the Soviet Union, Europe and the United States are still arguably united on the basis of shared liberal and democratic principles (Freund and Oliver, 2013). They continue to trade with each other, they have a shared understanding on the issue of current strategic threats and their arrangement continues to thicken in the international system (Freund and Oliver, 2013). However, even with the bond between the Atlantic democracies, the fact is that they are not into each other anymore (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The United States and the European Union have gradually drifted apart in the last years after the Cold War. The two sides perceive each other as different which has contributed to the emergence of new international priorities to consume the two side’s attention. Both the American and Europe have been consumed by their domestic agendas which have led to their overstretch and little room for cooperation (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). When president Obama took over power, he was consumed with domestic front. The intention to cooperate with the world has been superseded by other serious domestic issues. For instance, the president was expected to rescue the financial system, solve the issue of joblessness and reform the healthcare. Overwhelmed by these domestic issues, it has been difficult for the president to focus more on the international policy (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). In the 1990s, Europe was the core concern of the United States. Working on the termination of the Soviet Union, broadening the representation of the NATO, and advocating for peace among Balkans were prioritized agenda of the US (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). In the occurrence of 9/11 terror attack, Europe played a fundamental role in legitimizing the United States role on ending terror. In contrast, in the Obama era, working with the European Union is not a priority anymore as the country has concentrated in domestic issues rather than foreign policy (Kurowska, 2010). As a result, there has been a shift of attention from Europe to Asia. The main interest of the Americans is to scale down the Iraq war and advocate for peace between Israeli and Palestinians. The country is also heavily engaged in scaling down the conflict between central and southern Asia (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). In addition, the United States has shown interest in integrating East Asian states within multilateral forums for economic gain. It has planned to reform the World Bank voting system to portray clearly the interests of China and India (Kanet, 2008). The country is committed to deepening the strategic relations with Asia by instituting anew US-China strategic dialogue. In the process, the United States has left Czechs bewildered after cancelling the European missile shield (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). In addition, German felt side-lined after the president failed to attend the 20th anniversary celebration of the Berlin’s wall’s fall. In addition, the cooperation and relationship between US and the United Kingdom appears lukewarm after perceived rebuffs from the Obama administration. People have argued that president Obama had poor personal relationship with the European Union and the member states (Kanet, 2008). The hopes of reinvigorating the transatlantic relationship was crushed after the president failed to attend the Transatlantic EU-US summit that was held in 2010. This summit was regarded important and has been diligently attended by predecessor for a long time. Hitherto, although the European Union feels justified in their disillusionment, just as the United States, it has also contributed to the drift between the two Atlantic sides (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). While the United States focussed more on the domestic obligations, the European Union has been mired in a long-drawn. The European Union and its member states have made some strides to increase their efforts to amend fences. This has been seen in solving conflicts existing between Palestine and Israel (Desbordes, 2003). Therefore, the European Union and the member states may be on their way to normalcy. Today, Atlantic democracies enjoy economic integration, and military collaboration. To maximize the likelihood of emergence of strategic partnership between European Union member states, the United Sates as well as other countries will have to adjust the transatlantic relationship the new reality (Freund and Oliver, 2013). The main vehicle for security cooperation should be based on coalitions of the willing rather than coalition for convenience such as that being seen in NATO (Freund and Oliver, 2013). NATO will need to reform by loosening its unanimity rule. More flexibility is required for coordination, or else future efforts to reunite European Union members will be futile (Fahey, 2013). The transatlantic relationship can also be sustained by upgrading the European Union and the United States linkages. According to Fahey (2013), many are the transatlantic priorities that are not on the agenda of NATO and the EU which has deepened different interests on matters of foreign policy. Therefore, the two bodies should take steps to create a more unified voice especially on security matters in order to enhance unified military capabilities (Alcaro, 2016). This would assist Europe to capitalize on opportunities for military cooperation with the United States. The American government would be opened to European concerns if the EU has significant assets to offer the country in return for compromise (Alcaro, 2016). With this in place, the European member states would have the influence they want preventing their inclination to balance against the American’s policy. According to Bettiza (2003), even with such adjustments, there would still be a drift in the Atlantic relationship. In reality, the European Union and the United States would still differ in terms of international justice, the involvement of the United Nations and other institutions and the policy involve in the Middle East. This has been evident in the recent occurrence of war between Hezbollah and Israel (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The only way the transatlantic relationship can survive is when the Atlantic democracies acquire the act of disagreeing more agreeably. The erosion of the transatlantic relationship has been contributed by open disagreements between member states. These countries should avoid open political and social confrontations that were witnessed over Iraq and any differing interests should be addressed through diplomatic channels (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). The Atlantic relationship is still in the transitional phase and although faced with numerous challenges, it is too soon to conclude that the European Union and the United States are drifting apart. However, it is important to acknowledge that transatlantic cooperation has gone through a historical breakpoint and the cooperation that was witnessed during the World War II is no more (Anderson, Ikenberry and Kappen, 2008). Today, the transatlantic relationship has been compromised by differing interests of Atlantic democracies. Accepting this reality, the European Union and its member states can adjust accordingly for a more promise of a modest transatlantic relationship. In conclusion, in the past, the transatlantic relationship between the European Union and the United States was considered “irreplaceable” and the cooperation between the two parties yielded a substantial amount of benefits. The relationship provided the framework for strategic partnership between the two sides of the Atlantic was essential when dealing with challenges such as crisis management and warfare. The transatlantic relationship is expected to be a balanced and strategic association between parties in order to build up their political, economic and social capabilities. The nature of this relationship has undergone a transition from the era of balance of power, balance of threat to cooperative security. However, with the diverging interests of the European Union and the US, the transatlantic relationship is in trouble. Before the World War II, the EU and the US enjoyed the benefits of transatlantic relation such as trade agreements, low tariffs and military advantages. The compatible identified between Atlantic democracies gave way to shared identity during the war. Though these countries maintained their domestic identified, thy worked together to build a sense of unity and solidarity. Currently, the United States and the European Union are pursuing divergent policies and interests that have disillusioned the transatlantic relationship. Troublesome issues have some to dominate the relationship leading to countries drifting away. The two parties have disagreed on policy issues including the Iraq war and the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, both the European Union and the United States have been busy addressing domestic imperatives and working together is not a priority anymore. With the European Union and the United States needing to prioritize their individual domestic issues and with differing interests between the two parties, the sustenance of the transatlantic relationship has taken a back seat. It is therefore right to conclude that these democracies have drifted away from each other with transatlantic relation being an addendum on their agenda. References Alcaro, R 2016, The West and the global power shift : transatlantic relations and global governance, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Anderson, J., Ikenberry, G. & Kappen, T 2008, The end of the West? : crisis and change in the Atlantic order, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Bettiza, G 2003, Drifting or Rifting? America and Europe in the Age of Obama. Retrieved 10th April 2017, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/Analysis-Archive/ideasToday/03_Obama.pdf Busser 2009, Data protection in EU and US criminal cooperation : a substantive law approach to the EU internal and transatlantic cooperation in criminal matters between judicial and law enforcement authorities, Antwerpen Portland, OR: Maklu Publishers International Specialized Book Services. Desbordes, E 2003, The impact of the Iraqi Crisis on the transatlantic link. A summary of views on the US–EU and US–NATO relationship. European Security, 12(2), pp. 103-110. Fahey, E 2013, On the Use of Law in Transatlantic Relations: Legal Dialogues between the EU and US. European Law Journal, 20(3), pp. 368-384. Freund, C & Oliver, S 2013, Gains from Convergence in US and EU Auto Regulations Under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. SSRN Electronic Journal. 25(2), pp. 221-232 Kanet, R 2008, A New US Approach to Europe? The Transatlantic Relationship after Bush. International Politics, 45(3), pp. 348-363. Kotzias, N. & Liakouras, P 2006, EU-US relations : repairing the transatlantic rift. New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan. Kurowska, X 2010, What makes the EU viable? European integration in the light of the antebellum US experience. Journal Of Transatlantic Studies, 8(2), pp. 185-186. Marsh, S 2012, ‘Global Security: US–UK relations’: lessons for the special relationship?. Journal Of Transatlantic Studies, 10(2), pp. 182-199. Monteleone, C 2012, The US-EU security relationship: the tensions between a European and a global agenda. Journal Of Transatlantic Studies, 10(1), pp. 112-116. Penksa, S & Mason, W 2003, EU Security Cooperation and the Transatlantic Relationship. Cooperation And Conflict, 38(3), 255-280. Rock, S 2000, Appeasement in International Politics, Lexington, University of Kentucky Press. Senti, R 2002, A new transatlantic trade war?. Journal of Intereconomics, 37(3), pp. 124-127. Sperling, J 2012, The US–EU security relationship: the tensions between a European and a global agenda. European Security, 21(4), pp. 599-601. Steffenson, R 2005, Managing EU-US relations : actors, institutions and the new transatlantic agenda, Manchester New York, Manchester University Press. Sverdrup-Thygeson, B 2017, The bear and the EU-China-US triangle: transatlantic and Russian influences on EU’s “pivot to Asia”. Asia Europe Journal. 50(3), pp.89-101. van Heuven, M 2011, The Transatlantic Relationship: The Interplay between Values and Interests. New Global Studies, 5(1), pp.222-243. Read More