GMF - The German Marshall Fund of the United States - Strengthening Transatlantic Cooperation

By his own definition, Barak Obama is the US’ first "Pacific“ President. Indeed, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia there are few “Atlantic” ties to be found in his biography. Obama’s remarks, delivered during a visit to Asia, may be only intended as a polite gesture; nevertheless they indicate a shift of attention away from Europe towards the east.

Americans of course have always looked at the world from the view of a great power and the relationship to Europe has never been exclusive. But during the Cold War the European allies were at the center of America’s political and military strategy to contain Soviet Communism. These days are over and there hasn’t been a President in the Oval Office as eager as Barack Obama to transform the security structures he inherited from the Cold War. Defense projects have been reevaluated, the State Department for the first time is undergoing a profound policy review process and the G20 has already substituted the G8 as the relevant format for decision-making among the big players.

For more than sixty years the common enemy in the east bound the US and its European allies together. And leaders from both sides of the Atlantic took this relationship pretty much for granted. Today there is criticism that President Obama shows no enthusiasm for the transatlantic relationship and lacks emotional ties with European leaders. Despite the fact that Obama has been to Europe eight times since he took the oath of office, which is hardley a sign of disinterest, it needs to be realized, that on both sides of the Atlantic a new generation of politicians is now in charge.

It is a generation that did not experience the Second World War, like Helmut Schmidt or George H.W. Bush, or was politically formed by the Cold War like Helmut Kohl and Ronald Reagan. Thus the decades of close personal and emotional relations between the Atlantic partners are over. But what sounds disappointing in the first place is nothing more than the consequence of NATO’s successes. Europe’s security is no longer threatened by an external enemy. So instead of being nostalgic about the Cold War solidarity the new situation should be seen as a chance. It provides the opportunity for the necessary evaluation of structures and readjustment of political priorities. The transatlantic relationship will not lose its importance, but it certainly needs a new foundation.

From global warming, international terrorism to the rising economies of the south, the new global agenda is demanding a common approach. Above all, the western model of democracy is under pressure in many parts of the world. But unlike in the Cold War days it will not be sufficient to point out human rights violations and the lack of individual freedom while relying on the attractiveness of one’s own way of live. In the last decade countries such as China succeeded in fighting poverty and lifting millions of people up to modest wealth, and as a result created political legitimacy for the authoritarian rulers. Instead of lecturing the world about democracy the west needs a new emphasis on poverty reduction and wealth creation. And it should seek closer cooperation with countries like Brazil who have chosen a democratic way to achieve those goals.

The Bush-years demonstrated bluntly that military might without legitimacy is not sufficient to defend the US position in the world and that the US needs allies and friends. Europe on the other hand, will in the years to come dedicate the biggest share of its energy to the EU-integration process and therefore should have a natural interest in maintaining a US security commitment. Given the experiences from American history this commitment is far from assured. After World War I the isolationist camp dominated US foreign policy until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor reestablished the American presence on the continent.

In today’s polarized American politics isolationist themes are resurrected for instance when congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota stated that she doesn’t want the US to be “part of the world economy” because “this is a very bad direction because when you join the economic policy of different nations, it is one short step to joining political unity and then you would have literally, a one world government.” Of course, this is not the view of a majority, but after the mid-term-elections in November Mrs. Bachmann and her supporters within the Republican Party might become even more influential.

The original text of this article is available here.