Why the transatlantic relations are more important than ever
Today, the west as a political vision of liberalism is in the grip of an identity crisis, which means an identity crisis within the civil society in general. For almost half a century the Europeans could assume that the U.S. would demonstrate the Western concept wherever there are errors and discrepancies, despite Vietnam, Iraq and Guantánamo. The clear commitment to a strong transatlantic partnership which withstands stresses and strains belongs to the core of liberal foreign policy. But it seems that Europe and the US standing at the beginning of an epoch of illiberalism. This shows the rise of right-nationalistic and populist parties across Europe or the increasing division of society in the US. Many citizens lost the belief in common and shared values, feel abandoned from the “establishment”, closing themselves off from each other or just want to be left alone from global politics. After the presidential election the US were in a state of shock. But what is the situation in the rest of the European Union? The EU is the only supranational institution which has operated in ‘crisis mode’ for more than seven years now. The concern over a rising wave of nationalism alternates with the unchanged risk of a longer lasting recession and weak demand.
For a strategic community of responsibility
Until today the European population especially in Germany underestimates the importance of the transatlantic relationship in security matters. Everybody knows: Without the U.S. there can be no NATO, without NATO there will be no security. The Europeans need to get away from the misbelief of unconditional security in Europe. Close political cooperation is not a permanent gift; it’s a process of give and take at both informational and military. To consolidate “the bond of friendship” a strategic community of responsibility with the US („Partners in Leadership“) must be the answer. Transatlantic security cooperation must be seen as a win-win-situation, not a zero-sum-game. Defensibility comes from the objective capabilities not intensions, because these could change overnight. At first, Germany needs to take more responsibility in EU and NATO according to its economic strength. Furthermore, the US government must not forget that a strong and stable Europe is in the utmost interest of USA. Both sides should identify further areas in which each can pool their operative efforts, capabilities and concepts of action on the working level of the armed forces, the police, the intelligence services and civil defense. But a holistic security approach cannot function without the instruments of “soft power”: diplomacy, development aid and precaution in the event of a crisis.
Key proposals:
- regulatory parliamentary debates and government consultations between Germany, the E.U. and the U. S. at ministerial level (according to government consultations of the German federal government with France, Spain, India, Brasilia and China)
- development of a coordinated political and military Russia-Strategy within NATO
- establishment of a NATO-Russia crisis center in NATO headquarter
- drawing up a common U.N. network-charter against disinformation
- development of a coordinated political and military strategy with the U.S. for stabilization and peace-building in the Middle East
- further increase in the participation of German police and soldiers in peacekeeping missions
- common exchange programs for the police, the military, fire service, public disaster response and public administration
Economic growth in an increasingly digitized world
The EU and the US must work together to promote and support free markets and fair trade. Political and economic freedom is indivisible. Who really wants freedom in society but no freedom in economy or who praises a free economy but is against a liberal society will end up losing both. Protectionism is not in the interest of any trade partner because at the end it will always lead to massively higher prices, lower quality or worse service, galopping inflation and declining living standards for more vulnerable sectors of the population. The clear message on both sides of the Atlantic must be that open markets benefit everyone; the US-market as well as the EU-market. For the first time the US has replaced France as Germany’s most important trade partner outside the EU. So it’s therefore still essential to negotiate a Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement between the EU and the US. The signing of the free trade Agreement with the EU and Canada was an important step in the right direction. Now both sides should ratify the agreement immediately. At the same time EU and US should stand up for a restart of the Doha Round because as a multilateral institution WTO is in the long-term the best way to a fully operational world trade system. To put this idea into practice, Germany should use the current Presidency of the G20.
Key proposals:
- progressive alignment of high environmental and social standards
- further implementation of the Charter for Sustainable Economic Activity
- cooperative efforts towards a new international economic- and financial order (regulatory regime for financial markets) and a coordination of economic policies
- learning from the US in development and promotion of a European start-up culture
- further exchanges of experience, pilot projects, networks supporting to develop a common understanding about entrepreneurial spirit in the US and the EU
Fostering of social and cultural exchanges for a better understanding
Important levels for exchange are the very close cultural and social links between Germany and the US. At the academic level US and Germany should support the exchange between universities and also strengthen and increase pupil exchanges which have been declining for a number of years. Voluntary pooling of the different actors and possible new initiatives could be a solution. Moreover professional exchange programs between and within organizations and companies need further simplification and debureaucratization for example through visa facilitation. These measures create trust and mean practical use for the people in both countries. The German Federal Government should establish a Consul General in the heart of the Midwest of the US to intensify the dialogue, common meetings and the gathering of information in this region. The presidential elections have shown that the US are more than the east and west coast regions.
Tim, these are really good, actionable points. I was surprised to hear (and also about my ignorance) that there are no regular government consultations between the U.S. and the EU/Germany. I assume the argument would be that the existing collaboration is already exceeding what is typically done within the realm of U.S. strategic dialogues. I also like your focus on NATO as the focal point for security cooperation. People once called NATO “obsolete” or “looking for a new reason to exist” but your points make clear that the organization can continue as a centerpiece of policy coordination if it chooses to.
Hello Tim,
I really enjoyed your article. I think too that security is an important matter to be addressed.
To your statement “Without the U.S. there can be no NATO, without NATO there will be no security”,
I do not totally agree. The US plays a big role for our security now, but wouldn’t it be possible to
focus more on cooperation within the European countries? Improving our military strength and cooperation as a continent,
could lead too more independence of the US and could also benefit the US. They would gain a more relaible partner.
Mathias
Hi Mathias, thanks for the feedback. You made a good point on the NATO issue and the European dependent on U.S. abilities. I agree that my statement were much to the point, but in my opinion nothing will change if the European countries not share their military abilities, knowledge and resources to create a common security architecture. When I look in the past I remain rather sceptical if the Europeans ever will manage a security budget within EU. Security policy as well as Migration policy are traditional areas where decisions based on considerations of usefulness and functionality. Greetings, Tim
There is no doubt that until recently the US has played a major role concerning security issues all over the world. But I feel that the role of the US as the global police force is changing for various reasons. And that is happening whether we like it or not. I agree that Germany needs to step up and take on more responsibility. But like Mathias, I think that EU member states (and other European countries) should intensify their efforts. Unfortunately, Brexit is not helping.
Thanks, Tim, for your artical and thanks, Claudia, for your comment!
I support your statement that the NATO is crucial for our security and not obsolete, although it should have put more efforts into building up an integrated security architecture after the Cold War ended and the internal policy of Russia was much more open to these ideas. Those initiatives, as you rightly say, should be supported by a more active role by EU countries.
However, I think a lot is already happening since Trump took office and European leaders understood that they should be more self-reliant and take more responsibilities in NATO activities. Germany took also a leading role in the mission in the Baltic countries. Don’t you two think it is already going into the direction you are demanding? What should be differently approached?
Tim, one more separate comment since it touches another point of your article.
I support your demand for free-trade and respective agreements. However, I am not sure if it is the right time… I agree that it is a topic we should not abandon but I doubt that we will have any successes in the next four years (at least, if we dont want to sign any agreement). What Trump is interested in is the vocational education (I think Ivanka Trump is taking care of that topic). Maybe we should take that as a starting point for an economic cooperation with Trump’s team and see where it leads us?
Tim,
I think the emphasis on free markets and understanding their benefits comprise an appropriate strategy, but I share Marie-Louse’s doubt that we will have any progress toward on the FTA front over the short term. I also share her and Mathias’ sentiments about NATO’s long-term role in European security if Washington’s rhetoric does not change. Earlier this month, the EU announced the creation of a European Defense Fund and proposed three different routes to forming a collective security capacity that is interoperable with NATO but functionally independent (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1508_en.htm). The EU has insisted that this is not intended to “replace” NATO, but some analysts argue that the EU is increasingly eager to establish a military apparatus that is independent from the United States. What do you think about this, and would it change anything for your narrative if it begins to materialize? -Mike
Hi Tim,
I enjoyed reading your article. Your analysis seems to me very accurate, thus I get directly to some of your key proposals.
There are according to the ESPO at least seven Ministerial Meeting established (as of June 2013) on foreign affairs, energy policy, justice and home affairs and economic cooperation. What other topics should be covered in your opinion? I understand your sixth proposal as that Germany must deploy more personnel in peacekeeping missions. Do you suggest to increase Germany’s presence in all peacekeeping missions (it is currently involved in), or should the Federal Republic deploy more personnel on specific missions?
Best,
Leon
Dear Tim,
thanks for sharing you inspiring thoughts on this! I agree that the main problem is that there is little in between the political apathy and populist action. You might want to read the article “Formulating a populist narrative”: It’s also very good!
Also, I would be curious how you understand the “crisis mode” you refer to: Do you see “the crisis” as a fact or a fiction? Thanks for your reply, Nora.