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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS