sign in sign up
<<
Home , Tony Judt

'WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

A CONVERSATION ABOUT AMERICA, EUROPE & THE WEST TODAY'

The American-European transatlantic relationship is experiencing its worst crisis since the end of World War II. In light of the outcome of the presidential elections, what is the likely future shape of US relations with Europe and the world? How do Europeans see these questions? Is the US facing an unprecedented challenge from an emerging ? Is there an emerging 'European model' for addressing contemporary international dilemmas and crises, or is the still the world's 'indispensable nation'? These and other topics will form the subject of an open conversation in which audience participation is welcomed and will be encouraged.

Monday, November 29, 2004 at 6:00 pm

NYU Jurow Auditorium, 100 Washington Square East (entrance on Waverly Place)

Participants: PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANDELBAUM, Christian A. Herter Professor of American Foreign Policy, Director of the American Foreign Policy Program, The Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies PROFESSOR ANDREW MORAVCSIK, Professor of Politics, Director, European Union Program, Princeton University AMBASSADOR PETER VAN WALSUM, Former Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations

Moderator: PROFESSOR TONY JUDT, Director, Remarque Institute,

Co-sponsors: The Remarque Institute and the Office of the Provost, New York University International School for Humanities and Social Sciences, Universiteit van Amsterdam Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands Friends of the Universiteit van Amsterdam, New York Michiel Vos (initiator), International School for Humanities and Social Sciences, Universiteit van Amsterdam "What is to be done? A conversation about America, Europe & the West today"

Monday, November 29, 2004 Jurow Auditorium New York University2

Professor Tony Judt, director of the South Asia, China or the environment. Remarque Institute of New York On all of these questions the West - University put forth three ways of North America and Europe - seem to thinking about the state of the American have far more in common when seen - European relations today: from the outside than seen from a 1. The state of the relations is desperate, "parochial internal perspective". One of but the problem is not serious. the biggest dividers between the US and There are significant immediate political Europe is simple geography: America questions - over the future of NATO, sees its problems in faraway places while the situation in Iraq, and what to do in Europe must deal with them up close. the Middle East, but they don't represent a serious long-term, strategic crisis in the Or, as Judt put it in the New York history of European American relations. Review of Books: "To the Bush 2. The state of the relations is serious administration "Islam" is an abstraction, but not desperate. the politically serviceable object of what All the political questions mentioned are Washington insiders now call the GWOT: not desperate but what is serious is that the Global . For the US, the US and Europe are drifting apart in the Middle East is a faraway land, a structurally profound ways. They are convenient place to export America's becoming different societies, polities, and troubles so that they won't have to be cultures - in respect to their public policy, addressed in the "homeland." But the people's private preferences, people's Middle East is Europe's "near abroad," voting patterns and their religious as well as a major trading partner. From allegiances. This is what matters in Tangier to Tabriz, Europe is surrounded understanding the future of relations by the "Middle East." A growing number across the Atlantic. of Europeans come from this Middle 3. The state of the relations between the East. When the EU begins accession two is both serious and desperate, or talks with Turkey, it will be anticipating neither serious nor desperate. its own insertion into the Middle East. US - European relations do not really America's strategy of global confrontation figure in an important way into the with Islam is not an option for Europe. coming history of the 21" century, It is a catastrophe."3 relative to other questions concerning

: The Chatham House Rule did not apply to this debate.

g l Tony Judt, "Europe vs. America" New York Review of Books, Volume 52, Number 2 - February 10, 2005 Professor Michael Mandelbaum, is gone now and Americans and Europeans are focused on constructing Europe and the US and Europe have very different Christian A. Herter Professor of are now freer to disagree and to drift there is no role for the US to play in this political cultures. The absence of American Foreign Policy, Director of the apart - and that is exactly what they do. process. Europe is not actively involved in the American political American Foreign Policy Program, the in matters beyond Europe, including culture has affected American values: Johns Hopkins University, School of It is not surprising that the drift has been those matters that are the focus of Americans tend to think about politics in Advanced International Studies: While particularly pronounced over the last American foreign policy. In that respect a less egalitarian and more libertarian transatlantic relations are in a crisis they four years. This is due to the notion of the United States is a global actor and way, whereas Europeans envision a more are at the lowest point of crisis in years. American exceptionahsm: the ways that Europe is a regional actor. Europeans do active role for their governments. There have been a great number of crises the US differs - and has always differed - not lack opinions but they lack the in the US - European relationship in the from Europe. Differences between the means to do something outside Europe. Political cultures on both continents past. The threat by President Truman in two are significantly less now than when have always been very different but they 1950 to use nuclear weapons in Korea they were first written about in the 19* The specter for the future is not a have never played a big role in was one of them, with the British Prime century. But some differences remain, powerful Europe in opposition to the international issues. The lack of multi- Minister Clement Attlee rushing to like the role of religion in society, the US, but a weak Europe incapable of lateralism on the part of the US for Washington to avert the use of nuclear role of the state and the use of force. supporting the US. They will be neither example is to a great extent attnbtable to weapons. The and the Vietnam great partners or friends, nor great its political system, in which a 2/3 War are other examples of low points in American views that differ significantly enemies. The verdict on the relationship Congressional majority is required to transatlantic relations. Even the Reagan from European views are concentrated is therefore the same as was routinely pass international treaties. Therefore the administration with its plans for missiles on the right side of the political spectrum, noted on the Habsburg Empire at the United States will move forward either to be placed in Europe and its Star Wars that is: in the Republican Party. This end of the 19* century: The situation is unilaterally or informally but not project can be described as a state of crisis. majority party in the US has no major hopeless but not serious. properly multilaterally. But this is not counterpart in Europe. When Republicans the source of the Atlantic rift. An alliance can be described as an exercise are in power their views are naturally Professor Andrew Moravcsik, Professor in mutual recrimination, in that best ascendant in the US, estranging Europeans. of Politics, Director, European Union The strongest argument for why the friends can tell each other the truth. The See in this respect: The Right Nation by Program, Princeton University: Americans and Europeans cannot Atlantic alliance has fit that description John Micklethwait and Adrian Nowadays people think that the decline cooperate any longer is strategic. With over the past decades. Note that in Wooldridge. and eventual collapse of the US - the end of the there is no precisely this period - the late 1940s to European relationship is inevitable. The longer a common threat. The real Golden the 1980s, there was an ideological union After the end of the Cold War, there has situation is perceived as worse than Age of US- European politics was not of the 'West', which makes it the golden been a lack of common projects for during certain periods during the Cold during the Cold War, it was afterwards, age of transatlantic relations. A common Europeans and Americans to get War when relations were actually in the nineties, because even without a threat bound both sides together: the involved in. Add to this the ideological strained. People are pessimistic for threat both agreed time and again on the Soviet threat imposed discipline and nature of the US of the past four years cultural reasons. With the decline of international use of force - the most placed limits on differences. That threat and the four years to come. The Europeans anti- it became clear that difficult issue (see: Lebanon, Somalia,

10 11 Balkans, Haiti). America and Europe did which is the deployment of any other During the Cold War they were under a A powerful country can be so mesmerized that out of commonality of interests. power except high intensity military security umbrella provided by the US. by its superior military strength that it force. That means: The post-Cold War wake up call for the forgets to plan for the postwar phase. That commonality is gone. On that note 1. Enlargement of the European Union: European Union - the realization that The question is not one of morality, but Moravcsik takes it "as a given that the there is no single policy by any there was a price to be paid for military of efficiency - what are the results of our US policy in Iraq is a failed policy and government since 1989 that has weakness - was the break-up of actions? Robert Kagan says that I take it as given that the policy of the contributed more to global peace (that in 1991. Europe failed in the former "Americans are from Mars and Europeans US in Iraq is primarily responsible for is: no wars) than the enlargement of Yugoslavia because of its incapacity to are from Venus. They agree on little and the decline of this Golden Age of the European Union. Therefore, project military power. The US was understand one another less and less." transatlantic relations in the 1990's. From Turkey should be included. needed to solve the situation. Europeans and Americans don't share the First to the Second Gulf 2. Trade: EU is a larger trading partner quite the same view of the utility and War there was substantial cooperation. than the US with any country in the In the future, Europe will remain the legitimacy of military force." "It's time", Only with Iraq did it change not because Middle-East as well as with China. weaker power. Let us return to Kagan"s he says "to stop kidding ourselves that Iraq was pursued without multilateral Europeans can use trade as a lever for observation that due to their difference Europe and the US share a common support - that didn't happen with regard internal reform. in strength Europe and America view the view of the world or even that they to Kosovo either - but because it was 3. Foreign aid: the EU provides 70% of world differently. In the former Yugoslavia occupy the same world." Morality is bad policy." the foreign aid in the world today. Europe detected the perils of weakness neither the preserve of Mars nor of Venus. 4. Peacekeepers: the EU provides 10 and Europe now wonders whether the Europeans need to realize: You don't get times as many peacekeepers as the US US has discovered the perils of superior The notion of being from Mars may something for nothing in international throughout the world. strength in Iraq. The (American) fear of generate toughness that prevents a relations. Europeans need to convince 5. Monitoring and inspections. yielding to the temptation of appeasement country from carefully considering its the US that it needs them. The consensus These contributions by Europe are may be just as dangerous as the (European) options and therefore drag a nation into is that the Europeans should do this important because it is harder to win the fear of war. Strong powers such as the an unnecessary war. In an interview through building up their force, or like peace than it is to win the war and US may be unable to appreciate the three months before the war in Iraq, Robert Kagan says: Europe needs to get winning the peace is where the concrete benefits of legitimacy. Military Andrew Moravcsik said that looking tough or back off." Europeans come in. action without legitimacy will provoke back in 25 years from now it will be greater resistance and therefore require clear that quiet European instruments Moravcsik thinks this approach of the Ambassador Peter van Walsum, Former more force. Strong powers will also like trade and peacekeeping will have use of military force is neither useful nor Permanent Representative of the (mis)underestimate the benefits of been more effective than American effective for the Europeans. Europeans Netherlands to the United Nations: multilateral engagement. To act bombs. That means that transatlantic should try to stop Americans from Robert Kagans rightly asserts that strong multilaterally when you can and relations should be based on the division acting unilaterally, not oppose them. powers view the world differently than unilaterally when you must seems to be of labor: hard power supplied by the US They will gain geopolitical influence by weak powers. After the Second World the more sensible strategy than the and soft power by Europe. working on their comparative advantage, War, Europeans have rejected war.

4 Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power, America and Europe m the New World Order (Alfred A. Knopf, 2003) 12 13 5 Idem But the multilateral approach was no decision was carried out. For the politically. The current intensity of under force - British at first and Sunnite longer attainable with respect to Iraq. decision itself Bush will still get some American anti-European - specifically later. It is possible that when you take Iraq is undoubtedly the main cause of support in Europe but not for the bungled anti-French - sentiments go way beyond that force away the country will fall apart. the current friction between the two occupation phase. Bush will have to the past political dissent and reveal a continents. The obstructionist French admit that launching the war without market and a willingness to be more Moravcsik: On public opinion and attitude from 1997 onwards in the run adequate troop levels was in the words antagonistic towards Europe than in the whether or not the current rift is worse up of the tough UN resolution 1441 was of John Kerry "a colossal error of past. That change of attitude cannot only than past squabbles: politicians are not a reason for the failure of a common US- judgment". Now that he has been result from the dissolution of the Soviet just looking at the possible solutions to a European Iraq policy. This resolution, reelected such an admission should not Union. Something else must be going on. policy problem (for example how to which was adopted by the Security be too difficult. solve the current transatlantic problems). Council of the UN on Nov. 8, 2002, Mandelbaum points out that the war in Europeans need to realize that public gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply Q and A: Iraq was in spirit a preventive war - to opinion of the issues playing a role in the with its disarmament obligations avoid Iraq from getting nuclear weapons. transatlantic relations - at least in the US - (notably to reveal its programs to In the Q and A, Tony Judt put forth Nobody wanted to live with the prospect is managed. Politicians are not only develop weapons of mass destruction). these thoughts: When we talk about of a nuclear armed Saddam. If it wasn't looking out to the optimal policy that Non compliance would result in "serious common (transatlantic) values such as for 9/11 the US could not have been can be reached - they are also looking in - consequences". It was interpreted peace, democracy and free markets; can persuaded to go to war against Iraq. towards public opinion. Americans do differently by France on the one hand peace really be seen as an American Contrary to popular belief it is rather not wake up one day and decide that and the US and the on value? With regard to Iraq: there was difficult to take Americans to war. Every they do not like the French. Instead, the other hand. The choice of unilateral never any question that it would be won, war seems to be a political trial of the politicians wake up one day and decide action by the latter two was justified in but the likelihood that it would screwed president. In that respect America could that they do not like the French and then Van Walsum's opinion. up afterwards was quite high. A lot of be regarded as a peaceful nation. they talk about it and encourage the The final decision to go to war drew American and European critics of the Regarding the spread of democracy, the public to think the same. some support amongst European war pointed out that because of the way difference between America and Europe countries (including the Netherlands) it was justified it was highly unlikely becomes clearer. Europeans are more The most resonant criticism of the Bush and amongst 29 Democratic Senators that it would be well managed during the skeptical towards the possibility of administration during the 2004 elections (including John Kerry) but none of them aftermath. spreading democracy throughout the was that somehow Bush left the could have imagined that the Bush world than the Americans. Americans without any help from the administration would start the war Aren't all three of the speakers eliding rest of the world to solve problems. without adequate preparation for the crucial differences between present The worry about the situation in Iraq is When asked Americans are usually postwar phase. If Bush wants Europe to transatlantic ill feeling and past that it may not be a real country but pretty nervous about unilateral action. help in Iraq all he needs to do is to make transatlantic squabbles? Past differences rather a territory where three groups, a clear distinction between the decision seem to have been political and were Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds have been Van Walsum: On the justification of the to go to war in Iraq and the way this kept behind closed doors and dealt with living together involuntarily for 80 years war in Iraq: By the end of 2000 we knew

14 15 that the sanction regime was crumbling agreed norms of behavior are becoming politicians should have acknowledged Conclusion and we all knew that the follow up more important the United States will the desires of the American public as would be war. There was no other next become a more isolated actor. well, instead of only those of the French "The survival of liberty in our land phase possible but war. "You cannot say: public. If you want to influence the US increasingly depends on the success of the sanctions did not work we will just Moravcsik points out that internationally you have to do it in a way so you can be liberty in other lands. The best hope for forget about it." Bush and Blair made the the US may be viewed as the sole heard in the US. peace in our world is the expansion of mistake to justify the war in Iraq by superpower. When you look at its freedom in all the world," said president making the assertion that there was an domestic political structure however, Mandelbaum makes the point that Bush during his second inaugural address immediate threat of chemical weapons America is the least suited country to American sovereignty - embodied in the on January 20, 2005. It is this Wilsonian (of which they were not sure) instead of engage in international politics. The only Constitution - is another reason for drive for universal freedom with a sharp pointing towards the potential danger of reason it is somehow manageable at all is American's resistance to enter neocon edge that divides America and a nuclear build up in Iraq. the fact that it is a presidential system international treaties. Europe. This quest for freedom was not where one guy can ultimately take the purported reason for the Americans Moravcsik: the model that explains that decisions. The moment anything has to He finishes with a clear example of a to go to Iraq, but the simmering of the real institutional fabric of global go through Congress it becomes European unsuccessful if not counter- democratic change in the Middle East governance is made of horizontal problematic. This is the reason why the productive attempt to intervene in may eventually be the happy outcome. relations between national officials and US is ineffective at deploying civilian American politics: the attempt by the their contacts (as seen in institutions like power in contrast to its ability to deploy British left wing newspaper Iraq is the current focus of division the UN or the EU), rather than a military power. Kagan points out that to influence the outcome of the 2004 between the two continents, but the future hierarchical, vertical model is correct. for domestic reasons America is designed Presidential Elections. Its readers were of the relationship will be determined by The horizontal model in his eyes is a to deal with military force more called on to write letters to the people of broader issues of balancing responsibility correct description of the way most effectively than civilian power - the the important Clark County in swing and roles. Success depends on divisions international organizations function. moment it comes to spending money, state Ohio in order to persuade them to of soft and hard power to regulate A symptom of the current transatlantic signing treaties, foreign aid it becomes vote for Kerry (Operation Clark County). international conflicts. America must difficulties is the fact that those networks difficult to take decisions. On Election Day John Kerry carried revive its willingness to listen and take have diminished: nowadays fewer every county in Ohio that Al Gore advice from Old Friends. And Europe horizontal transatlantic contacts take place. With regard to Iraq politicians in Europe carried in 2000 except Clark County. must expand its focus from inward missed a chance. They played to domestic expansion to visible international Judt says that given the structure of public opinion not American public responsibility. Despite the current decision making in the Senate it is highly opinion. The effect of French diplomacy friction over approach, Europe and the unlikely that the US is going to sign up - which was entirely directed at French US still share profoundly common for the International Criminal Court, the public opinion - was to leave France interests. The debate whether the unilateral Kyoto Treaty or other international with less than no influence in the American approach - with its historical treaties. And since these internationally American political system. French roots - is outdated on the international

16 17 stage and will be replaced by the In order to achieve this it is important multilateral European approach will have for all cooperating partners to continue to wait for a future debate. contributing to debates and exchanges in the context of the US-European Public In the next four years every bit of Forum. made in the Middle East will be sold by the American administration as a Michiel Vos confirmation of their Iraq policy. Although resolution of the Cold War leaves the United States as the sole superpower, her dependence on Europe may be even greater in facing its new enemy. It is crucial that Europe, Professor Andrew Moravcsik stated, convince the US of this fact. Europe's geopolitical influence will be powered by their use of soft power: through trade, foreign aid, and peacekeeping. The so-called hard power of military force will be left to the US. Many panelists agree that this division of labor rather than division of policy is the formula for trans-Atlantic success.

The media's current focus on differences between America and Europe must be balanced by a university based, publicly backed forum to explore transatlantic relations on a more profound level that reveal enduring common interests. We must look beyond Iraq into economic, cultural and historical reasons for the "current intensity" of American anti- European and European anti-American "sentiments."

18