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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS