The US presidential election campaign is being followed in Europe with passionate interest. It is seen as a long saga full of surprises. The human and intellectual qualities of the three remaining candidates are even viewed with some envy on this side of the Atlantic, where you can hear statements such as: "Could we borrow just one of your candidates?" Many Europeans feel all three candidates are superb, and that, in contrast to previous elections, the US is suffering from an embarrassment of riches.
But Europeans' interest in this presidential election cannot mask the fact that what they expect from it is far from clear. Europeans may want a more "normal" US, closer to their own values, but they simultaneously worry that a more modest US would demand more of them in the realm of "hard" military power.
The US as a model or the US as a protector -- this "European dilemma" is in itself new. For, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, most Europeans viewed the US as both its defender against the Soviet Union's expansionist aims and the key external actor for their deeply wounded continent's moral and economic reconstruction.
This is no longer the case. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the US' self-inflicted wounds -- particularly in Iraq -- and the spectacular rise of Asia have changed European perceptions of the US. The US is no longer the protector or model that it used to be, nor is it alone in terms of influence and power.
One can even say that the EU has slowly become a "normative" force in the world in reaction to the evolution of US power. Europe has long known that it could never balance the US in the realm of "hard power," but with the decline of the US' "soft power," it became more important than ever to manifesting the "humane" and law-abiding face of the West.
In this sense, Europe has come to see itself, at least in part, as an alternative dream for everyone who has stopped dreaming about the US. But, seen from within, the EU model often appears less convincing.
Thus, many Europeans continue to be nostalgic for the US as a model. For these Europeans, Senator Barack Obama, campaigning under the banner of "change," is the ideal choice to restore, as if by magic, the US' soft power. After all, he himself incarnates the American Dream.
But some Europeans prefer Senator Hillary Clinton or even Senator John McCain because they are apprehensive about the consequences for the US' European partners of a more restrained and less experienced president. They worry about not only competence, but also the old trans-Atlantic issue of "burden sharing." The implicit question behind some European reservations about Obama may be formulated in one question: "Will we have to do more in Afghanistan and beyond?"
Could the restoration of the US' international reputation turn out to be bad for Europe, by eroding its new monopoly on representing Western values and calling it back to its hard power duties? Could it be that a candidate of fear -- McCain or, increasingly, Clinton -- really serves Europe's interests better than a candidate of hope?
With Obama in power, it would become -- at least initially -- more difficult for Europeans to denounce the US, even if the "New France" of Nicolas Sarkozy has already moved away from this easy temptation. But it would also be less easy to reject a call for greater burden sharing in the world.
This "defensive" view of trans-Atlantic relations is problematic. The best US for Europe and the world is a confident US -- a US that sheds its culture of fear and rediscovers the roots of its culture of hope. This is Obama's US. Of course, the greater your expectations are, the greater the risk of disappointment. But, after eight years of the US' self-imposed isolation under Bush, it is a risk worth taking.
Even if the US is no longer the world's only superpower, it still remains the "indispensable nation." So Europeans are right to be fascinated by the US presidential election. Regardless of who wins, the consequences of the outcome will reverberate throughout the world.
Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior advisor at Ifri (French Institute for International Relations), is currently a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw, Poland.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS