A secret of the Transatlantic Relationship between the United States and Europe that is overlooked all too often is that the alliance is not really about geography. The key to its importance is not primarily that—as advanced industrial countries—they benefit mutually from highly efficient communication and transportation infrastructures, educated populations, technological prowess, and political and social stability. No, the Transatlantic Relationship is far more important because of the values Europe and America share.
These values are under threat to a hitherto unseen degree. A populist with little regard for economic and political openness has been elected as President in the United States and populist parties are making large inroads in much of Europe. With their increased support and electoral success, they are deliberately eschewing and seeking to undermine the foundations of the post-war order: liberalism, individual rights, multilateralism, and the assumption of global leadership to tackle problems.
At a time when populations on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean appear to be wary of further integration, it may seem counter-intuitive to insist that it is not merely possible to strengthen the Transatlantic Alliance. At this time, it is absolutely necessary to work for its continued entrenchment and to argue for the liberal world Europe and America have created. Given the political constraints and popular sentiments currently present, these efforts may not pay off immediately. But they can in the long run.
A reason for optimism that the liberal world did not come to an end in 2016 is that politics is not about policy. Elections are as much a popularity contest and the way one votes on a ballot may be a sign of (dis-)approbation more than anything else. This need not be discontentment with actual policy like the values inherent to the Transatlantic Relationship, but can express support or disapproval of a range of other factors. No citizen was asked to vote on whether they supported NATO or wished to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement. In fact, majorities are in favor of multilateralism and the institutions created as a part of the bond between America and Europe. It would be a mistake to infer the wrong lessons.
With populists ascendant in Europe and Donald Trump determining the governmental policy in the United States, there is indeed little immediate prospect of increased collaboration internationally. However, those seeking to dismantle the post-war order must display that the politics they choose are both feasible and successful. When they fail to do so—as they shall—it is incumbent on supporters to demonstrate the opposite: An open world is better than a closed one; an integrated world is preferable to one of isolated nations; interdependence between Europe and America has long-lasting, durable, and pacifying effects.
And after decades of increased integration, we will be able to compare the dismantling both within Europe through Brexit and the loosening of ties between Europe and America. Arguing for a strong alliance will not merely be political conjecture— counterfactual scenarios will provide empirical data which point to the superiority of open societies and the norms inherent to the Transatlantic Relationship.
Electoral politics across Europe and in the United States will ensure that these topics remain in media focus in the coming months and years. Every election campaign coincides with a level of politicization which makes it possible for supporters of the Transatlantic Relationship to argue on its behalf and insist on its importance.
Supporters of the Transatlantic Alliance are not bound to inaction. In the meantime, parliamentary groups can deepen their relationships and address and discuss problems in a transnational manner. Civil society groups can knowledge-share and further integrate across national borders. Citizens can demand from their leaders that they support the values enshrined in the traditional bond between America and Europe at the ballot box.
Political winds are a fickle business. The institutional constraints for further integration currently present will subside. It is up to us to demonstrate that a more integrated world is more peaceful, stable and economically well-off. And the Transatlantic Relationship is its best guarantor.
Hey Mark,
I liked your article’s focus on the aspect of populism in both the United States and Europe. You mentioned that “With populists ascendant in Europe and Donald Trump determining the governmental policy in the United States, there is indeed little immediate prospect of increased collaboration internationally.” In fact, many legislators opposing Donald Trump have rightly pointed out that he has achieved very little policy wise. Just because a populist is elected by no means makes him the sole source of government policy. I’m curious what you think can be done to involve other key lawmakers in government to increase international collaboration despite the dim prospects you mentioned.
Hi Henry,
Thanks for your message. You’re right that we haven’t seen vast amounts of legislation to date, and I don’t really think that is going to change much over the next few months or until the mid-term elections. The one thing I would point out is all that can be done outside of the legislative process. Executive orders restricting immigration, for example, or withdrawing from the Paris deal constitute *real* action, even without corresponding legislative processes.
There are lots of serious people, especially in elected office , who are not sufficiently opposed to Trump because they base their decisions too much on polling and concern for re-election. To involve people more in terms of making the transatlantic relationship more important, I think these people need to be shown that policy differences with their President will not necessarily hurt them in their strategic choices. There are too many people who are fearful in regards to this at the moment. (That being said, most of the bureaucracy and most members of Congress are quite sympathetic to the Transatlantic Relationship and European-American relations, so I don’t think the status quo there is as dire as one might expect with DT in the White House.)
Cheers, Mark
Hi Mark, I really enjoyed this piece here. Your article gets at the challenges of the Trump administration, and the importance of the United States’s citizens advocating for a closer transatlantic relationship (in the face of an administration that may disagree with such a notion). One question I have is what role the German government could have in assisting the U.S. citizenry in advocating the relationship’s significance. Chancellor Merkel is one of the transatlantic relationship’s greatest supporters, and her challenger in the upcoming election Martin Schulz has penned his support for the relationship in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/martin-schulz-trump-germany.html). With such seemingly consistent policy out of Germany, it seems the country is primed to be the leader in protecting the transatlantic relationship. Do you agree? And what role do you see the German government playing in assisting the American citizenry (if any at all)?
Thanks for your comment, Thomas. Honestly, I don’t think we need a new governmental program or anything similar to that to emphasize the German-American relationship. If the German government really wants to bolster the relationship, it should make it easier for Americans coming to Germany to study, to work or to travel extensively (beyond the nominal 90 days). Berlin is swarming with Americans, and every summer scores of American college students descend on Munich and Heidelberg. Several would like to stay longer (or do a post-graduate degree) and the German government could encourage that. Just cut the red tape and you’ll have more Americans with both a more favorable view of Germany and you’ll have more “success stories” of intercultural accommodations. This *organic* path forward is far superior in reaching individuals in what is important to them.
Dear Mark,
I very much like your article reminding us of our shared values. You rightly say that we are not bound to inaction when it comes to (temporary) political leaders who do not care about the transatlantic relations. I agree with your remark that “Citizens can demand from their leaders that they support the values enshrined in the traditional bond between America and Europe at the ballot box”, but don’t you think citizens should and could be even more active than voting every 4 years? I would hope that citizens, especially in the US right now, voice their concerns on a daily basis and defend the importance of transatlantic relations whenever given the chance. But as usual it will be very hard to mobilize the masses to demonstrate for a good cause, so what are your thoughts on this?
Hi Marla,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, people can speak out more than every four years! I think what is important to remember is that elected representatives are responsive to their constituents. When civil society becomes active, their representatives will listen out of sheer self-interest. Go to town halls, join pro-transatlantic groups and demonstrations, talk to your neighbors and friends, etc. “A mobilization of the masses” itself is not necessary; enough interested and involved people can make a difference.
Cheers, Mark
Hi Mark,
Following up on that, even if we can’t mobilize the masses, don’t you think it’s still necessary to address the concerns that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic/voters of populist parties have about globalization and further integration? I agree that politics is not always about policies, but boiling it down to a popularity contest makes it too easy. I don’t think we can revitalize transatlantic relations if we keep focusing on the same group of supporters or just reach out to our peers. How exactly would you demonstrate that we’re better off in a more integrated world and did you have any specific examples in mind where civil society groups could exchange knowledge? Thanks and all the best, Carolin
Hi Carolin,
Thanks for your insightful comments and questions. Just to be clear from the outset, perhaps I should have written that “politics is not *only* about policies.” It is also not *only* about popularity contests or *only* about identity construction. Determining political behavior (and especially voter behavior) is no doubt polycausal.
Now, regarding your question: I think it’s possible to demonstrate the superiority of more integration in many respects–it kind of depends on the audience one is targeting. To some, academic arguments about the welfare gains of increased economic cooperation will be persuasive; to others anecdotes of being able to buy American jeans cheaper in Europe or buying German cars cheaper in America will be persuasive. Most (save climate change deniers) will be open to the fact that *some* kind of collective action–irrespective of whether the Paris Accord is *the* solution–is needed on climate change. There is a large bulk of evidence that integrated economies are more pacifying and leads to less armed conflict. This will be persuasive to others. Even anecdotes like this one (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38495264?SThisFB), while not having any significance in terms of actual policy, will make some with populist leanings be more open to humanitarianism and liberalized movement of peoples. To sum up: lots of different ways to argue for the values inherent to Transatlantic Relationship. 😉
Cheers, Mark
Hi Mark, Thanks for your response and the clarification. We’re on the same page then. 😉 I agree that targeted messaging or framing is the way to go and I like the suggestions you’re making. In my opinion, many transatlantic stakeholders/government agencies fail to strategically use these “frames” in order to address diverse audiences. That’s definitely something to emphasize in our “Action Plan.” Best, Carolin
Hi Mark,
After your very constructive comments to other contributions I read your article with great interest. You propose that « parliamentary groups can deepen their relationships and address and discuss problems in a transnational manner ». What kind of format do you think of for such dialogues ? In my opinion, the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue is already a good connector though they could certainly improve their public perception.
Best,
Leon
Hi Leon,
Thanks for your comment. To be honest I don’t really know anything about the Transatlantic Legislators’ Diaglogue. What is it? What do they do? The fact that I am not aware of them (and presumably many others, too) is probably an indication of the lack of their public perception.
I do know that parliamentarians, especially when parliament is not in session, often travel the globe, learn about new things and collaborate with like-minded public figures in other countries. This itself is a great venue for cooperation. There are so many issues and unique challenges in the lives of those in public service that exchange and learning-from-others can be incredibly valuable.
Cheers,
Mark