Accepting differences. Closer scrutiny of the Notre Europe document on the new approach to the Euro-American partnership (see this column yesterday) reveals that the essential element goes further than simply strengthening relations and involves the reappropriation of European autonomy. The strengthening of relations is obviously advocated but emphasis is on the demand for the EU to relaunch itself down the path towards political unity and independence. In the economic and financial field, it is even being called on to promote its initiative at an international level because otherwise this aspect of the Euro- American partnership would be likely to appear pointless and ineffective. In the arena of foreign policy, the call for autonomy is expressed explicitly and I would like to point out that loyalty to NATO is compatible with the search for other partnerships and the subsequent vitality arising from them; different points of view are possible, indeed legitimate, and Europe's strategic dependence (in practice, military) is for the moment a reality but does not imply permanent political dependence.
The freedom of action is obviously valid for the Americans as well (who, it must be said, do not deny themselves this freedom): “For the two parties, the possibility of creating other partnerships with other international actors remains an open option”. There was no shortage of acerbic remarks targeting the European habit of leaning on US military power. Some of the quotes included the following: the allegiance is more comfortable than taking responsibility; NATO is still used as an alibi by Europeans to avoid taking strategic responsibility. This produces a twofold observation: the US is no longer immediately identified as the only necessary partner; different points of view are possible, indeed legitimate.
Are Washington's priorities evolving? By looking at the quotes together, the aspect of autonomy assumes a dimension that is different from the one provided in the general summary of the document. However, two observations come to the fore:
- No British figure was among those responsible for drafting the text, who will be among the builders of the EU. In addition to Jacques Delors, new supporters of the cause include figures such as Guy Verhofstadt.
- We are not yet aware of reactions from American sources. How will the orientation of the new partnership as envisaged in this document be greeted by the US?
The question is one of working out to what extent the partnership with the EU still represents a priority for the US. No US political leader will ever say that their country is falling into second place but some kind of evolution is not, in fact, being ruled out. According to certain commentators, it is already occurring and we are gradually moving from a special relationship to a normal one, together with the resultant divergences and conflicts.
Objective factors will play a part in all this, particularly those of an economic nature which respond to developments in US society. The orientation in US trade is also evolving, with increasing growth in Asian countries. These countries also control a volume of dollars that is incomparably higher than the dollar reserves held in Europe. The definition of new EU regulation governing the financial world has already produced differences at a political level, as demonstrated by the official approach adopted by the US Secretary of State to the Treasury, Tim Geithner, towards the draft regulation on hedge funds and other investment funds. The vast majority of member states support the draft proposed by the European Commission, and the European Parliament will undoubtedly support the same arguments; but the United Kingdom is aligned with the US position, and the suspension of a decision on the matter by the Presidency of the Council (EUROPE10099) does not solve the matter. Several European governments have sharply protested against the US attitude displayed in the affair involving the call for tenders for new refuelling planes, which constitutes an absolutely enormous market. These are some of the symptoms.
Preparing the changes? We may be wondering about the effects that the development of the American population could have on US external positions and priorities. The most recent studies have indicated that white US citizens will soon be in a minority. We know that Americans are not afraid of these kind of statistics; they suggests that in around ten years time the majority of those aged under 18 will not be white. According to certain observers, the priorities of President Obama are already partly influenced by this evolution currently occurring, in a way that is more or less conscious of the phenomenon. Urging Europe to reconquer its full autonomy could represent a way in which to prepare for change.
I still have the task of focusing on two different aspects: the relationship between loyalty to principles and pragmatism; the effects of the Lisbon Treaty. These will feature in a final commentary. (F.R./transl.fl)