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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US