American Foreign Policy: A View from Europe
Dr. George Voskopoulos
June 29, 2005
There is one name that makes most Europeans frown in despair that is George W. Bush. Upon Mr. Bush’s reelection for a second term, faces in Europe got gloomier. Had Europeans been able to vote, the Democrats would have won a landslide victory. The ontological question that Americans should ask themselves is why President Bush is so unpopular in the old continent.
I am going to look into the issue from a political perspective, without bias and the usual polemical mood expressed by those who look at anything American through an aphoristic spectrum. At the end of the day, this view makes no sense and expresses only a small minority.
We could divide the issue in a policy-oriented approach, meaning political choices made by the only superpower and a second approach based on the President’s personal qualities and the way these had been manifested during his visits in Europe.
First of all, Europeans question seriously President Bush`s motives in waging a war against Iraq. If I were an American, I would probably wonder if Europeans have turned into fundamentalists who show no respect for American lives lost during the September 11 terrorist attacks. The answer is definitely no. Terrorism is an act of madness, an act of despair and above all an act that overlays our values. Terrorists indirectly claim that this is a means of sending political messages. I would say it is a cruel and unacceptable way to send wrong messages.
However, the inability to produce tangible evidence to link the September 11 events to the S. Hussein’s autocratic regime has made Europeans even more suspicious toward American foreign policy choices and the moral imperative to spread democracy.
Second, Mr. Bush’s policy on a number of issues (i. e. restructuring the UN, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming) have dramatically reminded Europeans that the two strategic allies operate on different, if not contending, bases and motives.
Third, American policy is considered by most Europeans unilateral and arrogant, reminding everyone of the perils of Europe being a civilian power. In a way, the ability of the US to project power on a global scale allows it to adopt go-it-alone policies when they serve American interests. Moreover, this policy provides incentives to Europeanists to differentiate their policy and demand political union and increased autonomy.
Fourth, there is a common belief amongst Europeanists that the US does not wish Europe to be politically united, since it could challenge American grand strategy. However, the issue is that Europe does not wish to become an opponent to the US, but rather provide an alternative model of doing politics.
Fifth, many Europeans think that the US has deliberately undermined the normative and regulatory role of the UN, in order to act on strictly narrow national interests on a non-consensual basis.
Sixth, there is widespread belief in Europe that neo-conservatism is becoming a dominant feature of American politics and affects the way Washington looks at the world. This concept makes Europeans suggest that Washington’s choices are formulated within a religious monolithic spectrum.
Finally, President Bush has chosen to work with a team of people very little appreciated in Europe for their views on American primacy. Europe does acknowledge a leading role for the US, but not a hegemonic role that above all does not serve American interests.
Moving to the personal approach, I would say that Europeans have made a negative evaluating judgment vis-à-vis Mr. Bush. Last week’s issue of The Economist pointed out the President’s inherent inability to make his interlocutors like him. This has affected his relation with European leaders with the exception of British Premier, Tony Blair. Many Europeans still think of the charisma, in terms of communication strategy, of Bill Clinton.
But then, why should Americans vote for a star and not the person who think he/she could solve their problems in a most effective way? Undoubtedly, that is their prerogative, but every single American vote directly or indirectly affects many people’s lives across the world. Choices may be made on a number of domestic issues; however, internationally they have an impact on the US and its image.
Republican policy has created a psychological gap between Europe and the US, harming a long-term strategic alliance. At the same time, it dramatically enhanced anti-Americanism in the West. It is time for the American administration to start a healing process and approach European allies and above all European public opinion. That is one partnership Washington cannot afford to spoil.
I am going to look into the issue from a political perspective, without bias and the usual polemical mood expressed by those who look at anything American through an aphoristic spectrum. At the end of the day, this view makes no sense and expresses only a small minority.
We could divide the issue in a policy-oriented approach, meaning political choices made by the only superpower and a second approach based on the President’s personal qualities and the way these had been manifested during his visits in Europe.
First of all, Europeans question seriously President Bush`s motives in waging a war against Iraq. If I were an American, I would probably wonder if Europeans have turned into fundamentalists who show no respect for American lives lost during the September 11 terrorist attacks. The answer is definitely no. Terrorism is an act of madness, an act of despair and above all an act that overlays our values. Terrorists indirectly claim that this is a means of sending political messages. I would say it is a cruel and unacceptable way to send wrong messages.
However, the inability to produce tangible evidence to link the September 11 events to the S. Hussein’s autocratic regime has made Europeans even more suspicious toward American foreign policy choices and the moral imperative to spread democracy.
Second, Mr. Bush’s policy on a number of issues (i. e. restructuring the UN, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming) have dramatically reminded Europeans that the two strategic allies operate on different, if not contending, bases and motives.
Third, American policy is considered by most Europeans unilateral and arrogant, reminding everyone of the perils of Europe being a civilian power. In a way, the ability of the US to project power on a global scale allows it to adopt go-it-alone policies when they serve American interests. Moreover, this policy provides incentives to Europeanists to differentiate their policy and demand political union and increased autonomy.
Fourth, there is a common belief amongst Europeanists that the US does not wish Europe to be politically united, since it could challenge American grand strategy. However, the issue is that Europe does not wish to become an opponent to the US, but rather provide an alternative model of doing politics.
Fifth, many Europeans think that the US has deliberately undermined the normative and regulatory role of the UN, in order to act on strictly narrow national interests on a non-consensual basis.
Sixth, there is widespread belief in Europe that neo-conservatism is becoming a dominant feature of American politics and affects the way Washington looks at the world. This concept makes Europeans suggest that Washington’s choices are formulated within a religious monolithic spectrum.
Finally, President Bush has chosen to work with a team of people very little appreciated in Europe for their views on American primacy. Europe does acknowledge a leading role for the US, but not a hegemonic role that above all does not serve American interests.
Moving to the personal approach, I would say that Europeans have made a negative evaluating judgment vis-à-vis Mr. Bush. Last week’s issue of The Economist pointed out the President’s inherent inability to make his interlocutors like him. This has affected his relation with European leaders with the exception of British Premier, Tony Blair. Many Europeans still think of the charisma, in terms of communication strategy, of Bill Clinton.
But then, why should Americans vote for a star and not the person who think he/she could solve their problems in a most effective way? Undoubtedly, that is their prerogative, but every single American vote directly or indirectly affects many people’s lives across the world. Choices may be made on a number of domestic issues; however, internationally they have an impact on the US and its image.
Republican policy has created a psychological gap between Europe and the US, harming a long-term strategic alliance. At the same time, it dramatically enhanced anti-Americanism in the West. It is time for the American administration to start a healing process and approach European allies and above all European public opinion. That is one partnership Washington cannot afford to spoil.
Print
Email
