by Eyck Freymann
Der Spiegel, a leading German daily, has an interesting piece on the relationship between Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Sarkozy is facing political difficulties at home after losing a number of seats last week in regional elections. France is fascinated by Obama, and Sarkozy has long sought a personal friendship with him. The Spiegel article goes on:
By comparison to that, his dinner in the Obama's residential quarters looks to be a pretty modest affair. It's also symbolic of the disillusionment right now in trans-Atlantic relations. The Americans are disappointed that, even after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty -- which was meant to give the European Union's common foreign policy more clout -- the individual European countries are continuing to pursue their own interests abroad. The question, former senior US diplomat and current Harvard professor Nicholas Burns argued in an interview with the New York Times, is whether Europe can "develop a collective European idea of global power? They talk about it a lot, but they don't do it."
At the same time, the Europeans have been irritated by the cold shoulder Obama has shown them. The US president hardly seems to even pay attention to France's reintegration last year into NATO's structures. The Washington Post has even criticized Obama for this, noting that in contrast to his predecessors, he hasn't established close ties to a single European leader.''
![]() |
European Union |
Furthermore, most members of the EU are members of NATO, and therefore protected by the American nuclear umbrella.
We can only speculate on the economic and political future of developing nations like China, India, and Brazil. Maybe their meteoric rises will continue indefinitely, and maybe high growth rates will cause their economies to overheat and collapse in speculation bubbles. The US should reach out to these countries--it's never good to keep all your eggs in one basket--but for the forseeable future this is our bloc. That's why we need the EU to get its act together. The NATO alliance brought Western countries together and won us the Cold War. The single best thing that could happen for America in Europe is the formation of a strong, centralized, unified, friendly European government.
When Obama refuses to dine with Sarkozy, he doesn't mean it personally. Just like any astute strategic thinker, he knows what side his diplomatic bread is buttered on. And it's not the side of individual relationships with Sarko and Brown and Merkel and Berlusconi and Zapatero. It's one relationship with this guy.
1 comment:
The funny thing is...Most European know that a real Union is surely the best way to our future.
The point is, from an American point of view, the sentence might be:
"European Union must be more united! How difficult could that be"?
With the experience of centuries of "United States".
From a casual frenc point of vue (wich always reflect on politicians...They're not stupid, they want to be elected), might be:
"Yeah! Of course we want EU to be more United. But not is it's a german or an english who is in charge..."
Wich leads to nomination of Barroso, Vam Rompuy and brilliant Catherine Ashton. Three almost insignificant characters.
Could be the same with czech to poland, with denmark to germany, with sweden with norway...Etc...
Contrarily to US, Europe live with it's history, longer, and much more violent that US's one.
It's difficult to come from a Global War to a perfect Union in less than a century.
A quite accurate sketch by Chapatte:
http://cartoons.courrierinternational.com/files/imagecache/dessin_254x/illustrations/dessin/2005/05/i51204chapatte.gif
Post a Comment