The advent of the Obama administration was
expected to heal the bitter split between America
and Europe since the Iraq War. Europeans were
dismayed with the Bush administration’s cow boy diplomacy, and Barack Obama was
their long awaited savior. The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee made a
decision to award the prize to Obama long before he was elected. But has he
improved the relationship between America
and Europe, and strengthened the trans-Atlantic
alliance? Ironically, Obama is not so enthusiastic to deepen the Atlantic
partnership. He is more focused on emerging powers rather than traditional
allies. For Obama, the US-European alliance is of not so much importance, although
it id the anchor of world peace and liberal democracy.
How much are Europeans disillusioned with Obama
presidency? Let me mention a commentary by Mark Leonard who was a policy
advisor to the Blair administration, as he explains the paradox of Obama’s
trans-Atlantic diplomacy (“The End of Affair”; Foreign Policy; July 24, 2012). When
he visited Berlin during his election campaign,
overwhelming majority of Europeans were pleased with the appearance of multilateralist,
peace minded, welfare oriented, and eloquent leader in America. George
W. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy and American exceptionalism annoyed European leaders
and citizens. At a mere glance, America
and Europe coordinate well on Iran
and Syria.
It appears that the split over the Iraq War has been healed. However, contrary
to superficial impression, trans-Atlantic alliance is fading under the Obama administration
due to his perceived power shift and personality.
Seen from the American side, the Obama
administration is more interested in exploring partnership with emerging powers
like China, India, and Brazil rather than solidifying the
Western alliance. Obama sees European nations are overrepresented in
international organizations, and he believes this will jeopardize US interests
in multilateral diplomacy. This is well illustrated in Leonard’s quote of Walter
Russell Mead, “Increasingly it will be in the American interest to help Asian
powers rebalance the world power structure in ways that redistribute power from
the former great powers of Europe to the rising great powers of Asia today." For the Obama administration, shared
value does not count so much for America,
and Europe does not enjoy overwhelming advantage over China, Russia,
and emerging economies in Asia.
It is not just political aspects that matters.
Leonard mentions Obama’s personal history is more oriented toward Asia and
Africa than Europe. Certainly, he is a son of
Kenyan father, who spent his boyhood in Indonesia. However, I believe that
it is a sheer blunder for a state leader to give an impression that his or her
policies are biased with racial, ethnic, class, and other personal backgrounds.
Also, his business like attitude is a hurdle to make personal friendship with European
leaders that his predecessors did. Leonard is not the only one who points it
out. Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, comments that Barack
Obama lacks personal charm that George W. Bush has, which deters him from
making humane relationship with foreign leaders.
There are some problems on the European
side as well. Europe has been reluctant to share global responsibility with the
United States.
This is noticeable in defense. European military spending accounts for 21% of
the world, far more than those of China,
Russia,
and other emerging powers. However, Europe
does not use their political, economic, and military power resources for active
roles on the global stage. Europeans leave security responsibility to the
American sheriff. Quite importantly, a British Labour Mark Leonard argues almost
the same point as an American neoconservative Robert Kagan. Current Europe is becoming increasingly inward-looking as most
leaders are preoccupied with the Euro crisis. NATO Chicago Summit this summer has
impressed such a downbeat of the trans-Atlantic alliance.
This is not just a problem in the
Euro-Atlantic sphere. For example, Japanese leaders are so naïve as to welcome
Obama’s pivot to Asia for fear of China. They hardly think of the
real meaning beyond geographical power shift from West to East. The pivot also implies
that Obama’s partnership priority is shifting from traditional democratic
allies to emerging powers regardless of the regime. Therefore, cooling
US-European relations can ruin Japan’s
national interest.
The underlying problem is that Obama’s foreign
policy assumption is based on inevitable American decline, and that leads to
strategic errors like embracing China in a “G2” partnership, talking to
Medvedev over Putin in the reset with Russia, abstaining from helping the Green
Movement in Iran, and so forth (“The 'Obamians' and the truth about American
decline”; Shadow Government; July 24, 2012). The pivot to Asia
is also a serious problem. Under Obama’s plan, America
is shifting to Asia with smaller forces,
particularly, cutting the size of the Navy and the Air Force (“Obama’s defense ‘pivot’
masks shrinkage”; Politico; July 22, 2012).
From the above perspective, Mitt Romney’s
visit to Britain, Israel, and Poland deserves attention because
the Obama administration has cooled strategic ties with these key allies. Prior
to the trip, conservative media argued that it was a good chance to demonstrate
Romney’s involvement in foreign policy to discuss global and Middle East
security with Prime Minister David Cameron and Tony Blair and to overturn Obama’s
stances to Israel-Palestine and missile defense in Poland (“Romney uses trip to stress
foreign policy”; Washington Times; July 25, 2012). Successful visit to three
countries could have revitalized the anchor of Western democracies that Obama
has weakened. Just before visiting Britain,
Romney criticized Obama’s appeasement to America’s
enemies and rivals, and his left-wing coolness to the Anglo-American special
relationship (“Mitt Romney would restore 'Anglo-Saxon' relations between Britain and America”; Daily Telegraph; 24 July,
2012).
However, Romney’s lack of foreign policy
experience and knowledge was revealed shortly afterwards. On his visit to Britain, he annoyed the home audience as he
casted doubt on Britain’s
readiness to the London Olympics. Furthermore, Romney failed to recall the name
of Labour leader Ed Miliband (“Romney in Britain: Diplomatic Offensive”;
Economist blog --- Blighty; July 27, 2012). Also, Romney’s questionable remark,
“We are not Japan“, raised concerns among the Japanese public and Japan watchers who advocate a strong alliance (“Romney's
Japan
remark raises eyebrows”; Cable; August 10, 2012).
Despite such awkward behavior, Mitt Romney
chose Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate instead of heavy weights
like Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and General David Petraeus. As a
budget expert, Ryan may not be another Sarah Palin, but like Romney, he does
not have sufficient foreign policy experience. Historically, presidential
candidates without strong backgrounds in foreign policy chose running mates to
make up for their weakness. Romney’s pick for Ryan can be interpreted that he does
not regard foreign policy as a key issue in this election (“With Ryan pick, Romney
would send a message: This is not a foreign-policy election”; Passport; August
11, 2012).
Obama is shifting policy focus to forging partnership
with emerging powers regardless of regime, rather than deepening ties with liberal
democracies. The fading of the trans-Atlantic alliance is counterproductive to global
security. Romney showed willingness to reinvigorate the anchor of world peace and
liberal democracy, but just revealed his insufficient foreign policy background
with awkward remarks. The alliance of America
and Europe has played the foremost role in making
the world more liberal, prosperous, and civilized. This is the role that no other
actors can do. At present, neither incumbent Democrat nor opposition Republican
is well positioned. Who can revitalize the trans-Atlantic alliance?