Now that the U.S. elections are over, there is good opportunity
to restore the Transatlantic relationship on the basis of the
fundamental principles that have governed links between Europe
and the United States since the end of World War II. An unprecedented
conjunction of leadership changes on both sides of the Atlantic
should help us to make a new start.
The United States has a re-elected President and a new Congress.
Europe has a new European Parliament, elected in June, and
a new European Commission, both of which for the first time include
representatives of the ten new member states that joined the
European Union in May 2004.
After four highly divisive and controversial years there should now be a reasonable
chance of returning to a somewhat more balanced Transatlantic relationship, one in
which the two sides listen to each other, do not try to impose their views and use all
the means available to them to achieve their objectives once agreement is reached.
Such confidence is based on the
hope that the United States will prefer to
assume the mantle of global leadership,
rather than try to dominate the world,
after coming to understand the limits of
military, financial and moral overstretch.
It was the well-known U.S. foreign policy
expert Zbigniew Brzezinski who recently
defined the choice facing the United
States as being between global domination
and global leadership.
Richard Haass, President of the U.
Council on Foreign Relations, has predicted
that the next phase of the Transatlantic
relationship will be more realistic
and less emotional than in the postwar
period. Even if that is so, we should be
able to manage our disagreements respectfully,
if genuine and thorough consultations
fail to lead to an agreement.
In any case, the rifts in the Transatlantic
alliance over the past two to three
years should now be consigned to the
past. In the uncertain world of the 21st
century, both sides now understand that
it might be desirable to have permanent allies. Europe would like to be the special
partner of a United States guided by a
respected global leader.
We should return to the basic fundamentals
that have governed Transatlantic
relations since the inception of European
unification after World War II. The most
important of these fundamentals has
been active U.S. support for European
integration. Although there were sometimes
questions and anxieties in Washington
whenever Europe took an
important step forward, there was no
doubt about the traditional multilateralist
approach of the United States.
Now we have a huge list of challenges
in front of us that none of us can
successfully tackle alone. As President
George Bush enters his second term, we
should commit ourselves to a new common
agenda, based on four main building
blocks - strategic, foreign policy,
economic and institutional cooperation.
In the field of global strategy, the
most important task will be to bridge the
gap between the two different assessments
on either side of the Atlantic,
starting with an analysis of the threats
facing us and how to respond to them.
There is a huge difference between the
U.S. National Security Strategy of September
2002, which reflects an ideology
based on prevention, preemption and
preeminence, and the European Union's
first strategic document of September
2003, which is based on effective multilateralism
and partnership. The problem
is how to reach an agreement under
which there is less talk of preeminence
and unilateralism by the United States,
while the European Union shows greater
willingness to step up to the table.
If we could bridge this gap, the
strategic element of the Transatlantic relationship
could greatly stimulate the
drive to closer European unity. The challenge
would come from U.S. expectations
that Europe pull its weight in a
Transatlantic partnership. This would
provide a formidable incentive for Europe
to develop its own capabilities, not
only in its own interest, but also in order
to be a good partner. The strategic element
is the overriding element that must
set the right tone for the whole relationship.
As for foreign policy, we already have
full agenda comprising all the subjects
discussed at the G-8, NATO and EU-U.S.
summit meetings in June 2004.Major issues
include the fight against terrorism
at home and abroad, weapons proliferation
and the whole problem area that
stretches from the Balkans to
Afghanistan, including the Mediterranean,
Iraq, Iran, the broader Middle
East and the Arab-Israeli peace process.
There is an immense range of important
issues on which we need to work together.
"In the uncertain world of the 21st century, both sides
now understand that it might be desirable to have permanent allies
As for Iraq, there is no point spending
our time resurrecting the disagreements
of the past. It is in everybody's
interest today to bring the situation in
Iraq under control, using methods that
do not fuel the insurgency they are intended
to combat. In most cases we will
probably find ourselves discussing which problems are best resolved by military
action and which by non-military
means, and how to deal with the roots of
the conflict before it is too late.
On the economic side, fewer European
business executives are visiting the
United States because of the new difficulties
in getting into the country. But
the total scale of our economic relationship
is overwhelming. Recent figures
show that 80 percent of all global financial
transactions originate in the United
States and the European Union. Together
we account for 40 percent of world trade
and an even bigger share of world GDP.
"We should review whether we are holding enough summit meetings,
and whether they are properly prepared
Most importantly, each of us has become
the major economic stakeholder in
the other's economy, so there is a very
solid basis on which to build. We have
agreed on an ambitious objective for further
developing our economic relations,
with the longer term aim of establishing
a barrier-free Transatlantic market. The
economic declaration issued by the last
EU-U.S. summit meeting did not go
quite as far as that, but the direction in
which it pointed was very clear.
We should identify, as fully as we
can, the impediments to all Transatlantic
economic activities, not just trade. Let us
find out the reasons for those obstacles
and how to do away with them. Then we
shall see whether we can achieve a major
further step, the creation of a regulatory
framework that is as compatible as possible
between the two sides of the Atlantic,
to govern the most integrated area
of the globalized economy.
This is an extremely important objective.
It will require a systematic and
resolute effort on both sides, and we
should not forget that there are some
important differences in our decisionmaking
processes that will not make the
exercise any easier. But we should give it
a chance, because it is the area of activity
that will do most to promote the European
Union's agenda for economic reform.
Finally, let us examine whether there
might be an opportunity to establish a
genuine Transatlantic partnership, based
on mutual respect, in which Europe
would be a counterpart, not a counterweight
to the United States. If the European
constitutional treaty were to enter
into force in the course of 2006, we
would have time between now and then
to assess the achievements and shortcomings
of the Transatlantic Declaration
of 1990 and the New Transatlantic
agenda of 1995. We could then use the
constitutional treaty, which will give the
European Union greater authority in international
relations, to reformulate the
basic mechanism and the substance of
the Transatlantic partnership.
For now, we are not making enough
effort collectively, as a European Union,
to engage in the serious, honest consultations
necessary to determine where we
agree and where we disagree, and we do
not have sufficient occasions for doing
so. We should review whether we sufficiently
interact at the highest level as a
Union, whether summit meetings are
being properly prepared and whether
there is enough regular contact with the
White House.We must understand that
almost every important venture in the
European Union has a Transatlantic mension that will have to be taken into
account as we build a closer partnership.
That applies to policy areas ranging
from aviation and financial services to
justice and home affairs, in addition to
all the traditional portfolios, such as
trade and agriculture, that affect
Transatlantic relations. If we can coordinate
our activities more systematically,
on a day-to-day basis, and reduce bureaucratic infighting and administrative
inertia, we can come up with a much
more demanding agenda. At the moment,
there are more cases in which Europe
finds itself reacting to initiatives by
the United States than the other way
around. I would like to see the United
States reacting to more European initiatives,
so as to achieve a more balanced
relationship.
GŸnter Burghardt is returning to Brussels at the end of 2004 after five years as the Head of the
European Commission Delegation to the United States, a post to which he was appointed in January
2000. He has served in various capacities at the European Commission in Brussels since 1970.
His most recent position in Brussels before his Washington posting was Director-General for External
Relations.
go to top
