Entering 2003, the United States and Europe seem to be drifting apart. The relationship is not only said to be lacking coherence, but in many ways losing its necessity.
The global image of the United States has suffered considerable bruising in the past two years, and surprisingly so among many traditional European allies, a major new opinion survey has found. U.S. threats of war against Iraq appear to have heightened concerns about an American foreign policy seen as overassertive and not concerned enough with the interests of friends and allies.
Many say U.S. ratings in Europe began to fall with the series of multilateral agreements that the administration of President Bush either objected to or refused to join. These include the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the International Criminal Court and the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Treaty. The death penalty issue and the treatment of al Qaida prisoners in Guantanamo Bay also drew sharp European criticism.
Francis Fukuyama, Dean of faculty at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, says poor diplomacy and mistakes in explaining the new U.S. strategic doctrine by the Bush administration have added to European concerns. "The famous 'axis of evil' speech was another unnecessary rhetorical self-wound because you suggest that there are these three members of the axis of evil, and you have this new strategic doctrine that involves pre-emption. If you put two and two together, you would naturally think it would be used against all three members of the axis. In fact, the whole structure of this new doctrine is all driven by the need to justify this one unique case, Iraq. This was not something that they really needed to elaborate in that fashion without putting some sense of limitation on where and when you would use this new doctrine."
While many agree anti-Americanism is nothing new in European countries, there is a new anti-European echo in the United States. Most of the criticism stems from the fact there is a growing gap in the military capabilities on the two sides of the Atlantic. As a result, say some experts, Europe is an emerging economic giant, but remains a strategic and political dwarf compared to the U-S. Unequal military prowess can foster resentment and mistrust, says Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin. "Europe simply doesn't have the capabilities necessary to work with, to compete with or to partner with the United States. Europe is a weakling and the United States is a super-power. And that creates inevitable tensions, and on the part of the Europeans, considerable amounts of distrust, envy, resentment -- a mixture and combination of lots of different things. The Europeans also have to ask themselves, when it comes to strategic military questions: do we want to be an entity, do we want as this entity, Europe, to think regionally or globally? And if we are going to think globally, are we going to spend money, invest time and technology and develop the necessary capabilities? That's an unanswered question."
Mr. Gedmin doubts Europe will take that step. The United States is, then, going to work with Europe where it can, but seek other partners where necessary.
Michael Mayer, British ambassador to the United States, says critics seem to forget Europe is faced with the greatest transformation challenge since World War II. The impending enlargements of NATO and the European Union require enormous organizational and financial support. He sardonically notes two doctrines that govern transatlantic relations. One is mutual assured schizophrenia, the other mutual assured paranoia. "On the American side -- you look at the Europeans and you say, get your act together, integrate. One phone number please, and then when we show some modest sign of getting our act together immediately, the message comes, don't you dare caucus or consult without talking to us first. On the European side, there is an equal and opposite affliction, which is this: when the United States is perceived not to be leading, we Europeans complain: why isn't the United States leading? You're the world's only superpower- Lead. And then when you do lead, immediately there are accusations of unilateralism, hegemony or as they say hegemonie. And this is a prominent tension in the relationship, which simply has to be managed. I actually think it is a creative tension and not a destructive tension."