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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS