Evolution accelerates. And what if the new Euro-US partnership were already being born under our very eyes? The document by Notre Europe published last month (EUROPE 10099), urged Europeans to prepare for change and the subsequent developments have come sooner than expected.
This column pointed out (EUROPE 10101) that the message contained in this document represented, above all, an appeal to Europeans to recover their real autonomy, not just from an economic and monetary point of view but also from a political and (gradually) a military one, through the relaunch and deepening of European construction. The era of an almost exclusive Euro-US privileged partnership is over. Evolution is occurring and the EU must be ready to face this fact. The document discusses the possibility that the two parties create different alliances and priorities that are not always the same, on the basis of genuine autonomy, for which Europe must provide itself with sufficient resources. This appeal brought together the "veterans" who played a spearhead role in the history of European construction (Jacques Delors, Etienne Davignon, etc) and politicians who are very much active now and who took over from them (Jerzy Buzek, Guy Verhofstadt, etc).
Evolution at a US level is speeding up. Whilst keeping its links with Europe, the US is not hiding its new priorities. Some EU countries were not prepared for this and were caught off guard, particularly in Eastern Europe (see below). On the other hand, the institutions and the European Parliament gave an example of autonomy by rejecting or criticising certain American positions. The Commission takes an even firmer line in defending European positions and interests. The US authorities have sometimes responded but have also striven to better explain themselves and justify their positions. Both sides of the partnership attempt to smooth out divergences and consolidate this indispensable cooperation, which is seen as such by both the political community and public, as well as the economic community and cultural world. Nonetheless, attempting to obtain a balance between close cooperation and a difference in respective interests is not always easy and is in fact the crux of the stakes at play in the new partnership.
A few examples. In an effort to avoid any sermonising in this column on good Euro-US relations, let's highlight a few concrete examples. In Central and Eastern Europe, a significant section of the political class and public was perplexed, indeed disappointed by the robust relaunch of co-operation between Washington and Moscow. It was felt as if the end had come to the époque in which the US had provided the protective shield against the Russian threat. Already in July 2009, Lech Walesa and other figures had sent a letter to Barack Obama expressing the "increasing nervousness” and feeling that their region was being abandoned. At the time, the US project to deploy fixtures in the anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was still viable. A few months later this project was revised and following the new Obama-Medvedev agreements, Russia became a US partner and was no longer seen as a threat. Due to historical and geographical reasons, some European countries continue to fear the "Russian threat" and this new development has come as a shock to them. They must understand that their safety and future increasingly depend on the EU. The Polish tragedy that occurred last Saturday could, according to some observers, encourage a certain rapprochement between Poland and Russia.
Not necessarily negative. At a bilateral level, divergences and conflicts of interest have always existed but the climate and tone are changing. The European Parliament's rejection of the Swift agreement (on the transfer of banking data as part of the fight against terrorism) would have previously been thought unthinkable but it proved effective. Washington subsequently discovered that the European Parliament and Commission had announced a new project involving better personal data protection for European citizens. The WTO report on the respective complaints from the EU and US with regard to Airbus and Boeing is still provoking controversy and Karel De Gucht is suggesting that a negotiated settlement should be found. This is the European Commissioner who, with his tough talking, accused the US of protectionism in the US Air Force refuelling plane affair and called on the Americans to give some ground in the agricultural chapter in the Doha Round because he believed that the EU had already put forward as much as it possibly could. On the other hand, the US has accused some European positions as being discriminatory with regard to hedge funds.
The list of disagreements could go on. But evolution has not necessarily been negative. The determination to cooperate still continues, with new methods and more mutual autonomy. This is the spirit of the new partnership. US priorities are evolving and Europe must adapt to this.
(F.R./transl.fl)