US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's petulant remark of last year about "old and new Europe" was right for the wrong reasons.
He meant it to refer to Europe's divisions, but in May, 10 additional states joined the EU. The expanded Europe truly forms a new Europe. Should the US be nervous?
Fifty-four years after the announcement of the Schuman Plan that began to knit together the economies of France and Germany, the EU now has 25 members and a population larger than that of the US.
Eight of the new members are former Communist countries that were locked behind the Iron Curtain for nearly half a century. Their attraction to the EU is a sign of the appeal -- the "soft power" -- of the idea of European unification.
Of course, this new Europe faces many problems. The per capita income of the new countries is less than half of the figure in the 15 members they are joining. Concerns have been raised about the influx of cheap labor. But average GDP growth rates in the new members are twice as high as in the original members, and this can provide a welcome stimulus to stagnant labor markets and sluggish economies.
Political arrangements are somewhat more problematic. Negotiations are under way to revise a draft EU constitution. Some Europeans worry that the constitution will enable courts to carry the integration process further and faster than public opinion in member states will tolerate. Lack of grassroots support might lead to rejection of the constitution in countries like the UK, where referenda have been promised before the new arrangements come into force.
Across the Atlantic, most Americans (to the extent they pay attention) regard these changes with general approval. But some express concern that the new Europe will be defined in opposition to the US. Not only do the remarks of French leaders about recreating a multi-polar world arouse alarm, but recent public opinion polls show a decline in the popularity of the US among Europeans and a desire for more independent policies.
The Iraq War proved costly to US soft power, with the US losing about 30 percentage points of attractiveness on average in Europe, including in countries like the UK, Spain and Italy, whose governments supported the war.
The recent photographs of detainees being abused and sexually degraded in Bagh-dad's Abu Ghraib prison added fuel to the fire. Now some US neo-conservatives argue that the US should drop its longstanding support for European integration.
Such a policy change would be a serious mistake. Not only would it add to anti-American attitudes and fail to accomplish its objectives, but it over-estimates the extent to which the new Europe is being formed in opposition to the US. Whatever the rhetoric in France, for example, the policies and attitudes in countries such as the UK or Poland demonstrate that good trans-Atlantic relations can be maintained. If anything, the risks of a US-Europe split will be reduced rather than increased by the EU's recent enlargement.
Moreover, there are several objective reasons why the current friction between Europe and the US is unlikely to lead to divorce.
For one thing, the divisive war in Iraq may turn out to be the last act of the 20th century rather than a harbinger of the 21st. US unilateralism is much less in evidence in the world's other hot spots, such as North Korea and Iran, both because of the costs of the war in Iraq and the realities of the situation in those other regions.
Moreover, while the common security threat from the Soviet Union has disappeared, both the US and Europe face a new common threat from radical jihadist terrorism. Neither side of the Atlantic is immune to the threat, despite the efforts of Osama bin Laden to drive a wedge between Europe and the US. Transnational terrorism can only be confronted by close civilian cooperation such as intelligence sharing, police work across borders and tracing financial flows. These forms of cooperation survived the divisions over Iraq.
Europe and the US also share a common structure of economic interests and values. While trade produces frictions in democracies, it also enhances wealth. If one looks at foreign direct investment, it is clear that the two sides of the Atlantic are closely integrated.
In terms of values, while some differences exist between Europe and the US, at the fundamental level of democracy and human rights, no other two parts of the globe share more. As the writer Robert Kagan concluded in the revision of his book in which he declared Europeans to be from Venus and Americans from Mars, it turns out that Americans seeking democratic legitimization of their policies and self-images cannot escape Europe.
In short, it is good for Americans -- and for the world -- that old and new Europe are becoming one. We can all benefit from the soft power of an enlarged Europe.
Joseph Nye is dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers