Post by FightingFalcon on Feb 26, 2006 22:38:24 GMT -8
This is a paper that I wrote for my International Affairs class. Basically it talks about why America should support Europe's role in the world and why we should support a strong, unified Europe.
It's rather long but basically it boils down to the fact that America should encourage Europe to reject an autonomous military force but at the same time embrace the important role that Europe has to play in the world. The first seven paragraphs are a literature review of these articles that we had to read, while the last paragraph is my opinion on the matter.
Enjoy. I got an A btw.
=========================
European Integration:
Why America Needs a Strong Europe
In both “Rethinking the EU: Why Washington Needs to Support European Integration” by Ronald F. Asmus and “Why a Common Security and Defense Policy is Bad for Europe” by Mette Eilstrup Sangiovanni, convincing arguments are laid out as to why Americans should support an integrated Europe. Dr. Asmus addresses the current rift in Atlantic relations while Dr. Sangiovanni concentrates more on the futility of an autonomous European military force. Both authors, however, argue for a European Union that is an ally of the United States in the international War on Terrorism, as opposed to a counter-weight that seeks to diminish the hegemony of the United States.
The majority of the former article, written by Dr. Asmus, argues for a return to normalcy in Atlantic relations as they were before, as he sees it, the intervention of Jacques Chirac. Dr. Asmus points out that, when the idea of an integrated Europe was first being proposed, America was “unabashedly in favour of European integration because US leaders believed the process could produce a unified and Atlanticist Europe.” Today this is even more true than before as Americans would not want to “imagine what the world would be like if Washington today – in addition to the problems of the broader Middle East and Asia – was also confronted with the prospect of strategic turmoil on the continent.”
It absolutely goes without saying that a peaceful and unified Europe is something that is America’s best interest. America and Europe share very similar foreign policy goals, e.g. promotion of democracy abroad, reducing the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and defeating international terrorism. In combating international terrorism and defeating the root causes of it, America is going to need the active support of the EU – anything less puts the entire operation in jeopardy. Unfortunately, vocal minorities on both sides have sought to exploit recent rifts in the Atlantic alliance for their own personal gain. As Dr. Asmus points out, “the prospect of a German chancellor mobilizing anti-American sentiments to get elected, or his American counterpart using anti-French themes to do the same, would have been considered irresponsible and unthinkable” back in the 1950s and 1960s. What Americans have to understand is that Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who believe “the EU should become a counterweight to American influence and power…are a minority – and increasingly so in an enlarged EU that is being reshaped by a new set of actors and dynamics.” Combined with the fall of Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac’s term of office coming to an end, the addition of pro-American Eastern European nations to the EU means that the EU will adopt a more pro-American viewpoint. Americans should not neglect this opportunity to form a strong ally in the War on Terrorism simply because of petty political differences between George W. Bush and the leaders of a few of the EU nations.
Americans have become their own worst enemy by making the fears of leaders like President Chirac become a fait accompli, according to Dr. Asmus. As much as Americans do not appreciate European leaders advocating an EU that acts as a counter-weight to American power, Europeans do not appreciate an American foreign policy of divide-and-conquer between European nations. By playing European nations off each other, leaders like President Chirac have been given ammunition with which to attack America and advocate a strong European balance to American hegemony. Once again, Americans should not destroy this historic opportunity to support an integrated Europe simply because of personal differences between certain leaders. As Dr. Asmus points out, “there are few steps that will go further in restoring that goodwill than a clear American commitment to the successful creation of a strong Europe.” In addition, America has been presented with an opportunity to help create a strong ally that shares many of its foreign policy objectives. Notwithstanding the recent defeat of the EU constitution, an integrated Europe is something that is almost guaranteed to happen and Europeans would not soon forget any American help in achieving that goal – nor would they forget an America that stood by or, even worse, objected to European integration.
As opposed to Dr. Asmus, who focuses mainly on an argument based on principle, Dr. Sangiovanni concentrates on practical arguments for a restoration of the Atlantic alliance. Although it goes against all practical sense to do so, “certain European governments – notably Paris, and to some extent Berlin – are seeking to use the Iraq dispute to build momentum for integrating European defence.” What these leaders fail to realize, however, is that the Iraq crisis proves that Europe can have fundamental disagreements about where and when to deploy troops and that “increased European defence spending in the face of [such] disagreement…is a waste of resources and threatens to undermine European credibility.” In addition, because most European nations would most likely refuse to act without UN and EU approval, increased defense spending on a joint European force truly seems like a waste.
One of the major reasons for supporting the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is due to “voices in Washington [who] began to wonder why…American taxpayers should continue to underwrite European security.” What Europeans need to realize is that this is the minority opinion in America. No responsible American military leader would ever advocate withdrawing from Europe in the near future because of its importance in several on-going military operations. Although American political leaders might curry electoral support by attacking the “free ride” that Europeans are getting at American expense, American military leaders know that we need those bases more than Europe does. Even though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a vocal critic of “old Europe”, has suggested moving American bases in Germany to Poland and Romania, even he would never go so far as to advocate leaving Europe completely. Therefore, any European fears about the need to defend themselves due to an American withdrawal are completely unfounded. As stated above, European peace and stability is paramount in American foreign policy concerns. America would unquestionably respond to any threat to that stability – even if it is not a threat to America directly, e.g. the crisis in the Balkans.
The strongest argument against ESDP is the overwhelming financial burden that it presents, which would cause a radical shift in European domestic policy. As Dr. Sangiovanni points out, “Europe simply does not have the capacity to keep up” with American military spending. In order to be a counter-weight to American hegemony, Europe would have to increase military spending to at least 3% of its GDP, which is where America is currently. One of the major reasons why Europe is able to have the social welfare system that it has is because they can spend considerably less on military affairs than the United States. Consequently, Europe has a comparative advantage over the United States when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. If Europe were to try to become a military power equal to the United States, they would have to drastically increase spending on the military, reduce spending on social programs and neglect its humanitarian obligations around the world. As Dr. Sangiovanni states, “Europe is already sharing the burden of managing the international order” and neither Americans nor Europeans should wish to live in a world where Europe abandoned those obligations simply to fuel a rivalry with the United States.
After reading both articles and taking into consideration the arguments of the authors, it is the opinion of this author that it is absolutely in America’s best interest to support European integration and oppose the ESDP. Dr. Asmus points out in the beginning of his article that “some American conservatives may have enjoyed a moment of schadenfreude over the EU’s current difficulties” and I admit to being one of those Americans. However, all Americans should not pass up the opportunity presented by European integration to restore trans-Atlantic relations. In addition, such a unified Europe would be America’s best ally in the fight to spread democracy and combat international terrorism. Europeans have to realize that Americans have both a comparative and absolute advantage in military affairs and therefore it is only natural for us to exploit it. Americans, meanwhile, have to realize that Europeans have a comparative advantage in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts and have to appreciate the role that Europe continues to play in upholding the international order. Petty political attacks by leaders on both sides do nothing to help the situation and only serve to fuel each other’s fears. As Kosovo should have proved to Europe, America has a strategic interest in the stability of Europe and will not hesitate to act if that stability is threatened. As Afghanistan and Iraq should have proved to America, Europeans make excellent peacekeepers and fighting the War on Terrorism is going to be nearly impossible without their help. Supporting a unified Europe, which will help to restore trans-Atlantic relations, aid the War on Terrorism and work with comparative advantages rather than against them, is in the best interests of America and Europe. Americans need to appreciate this historic opportunity and use it to our advantage – Europe will not forget (or forgive) an America that refused to help it achieve one of the most significant goals in its history.
It's rather long but basically it boils down to the fact that America should encourage Europe to reject an autonomous military force but at the same time embrace the important role that Europe has to play in the world. The first seven paragraphs are a literature review of these articles that we had to read, while the last paragraph is my opinion on the matter.
Enjoy. I got an A btw.
=========================
European Integration:
Why America Needs a Strong Europe
In both “Rethinking the EU: Why Washington Needs to Support European Integration” by Ronald F. Asmus and “Why a Common Security and Defense Policy is Bad for Europe” by Mette Eilstrup Sangiovanni, convincing arguments are laid out as to why Americans should support an integrated Europe. Dr. Asmus addresses the current rift in Atlantic relations while Dr. Sangiovanni concentrates more on the futility of an autonomous European military force. Both authors, however, argue for a European Union that is an ally of the United States in the international War on Terrorism, as opposed to a counter-weight that seeks to diminish the hegemony of the United States.
The majority of the former article, written by Dr. Asmus, argues for a return to normalcy in Atlantic relations as they were before, as he sees it, the intervention of Jacques Chirac. Dr. Asmus points out that, when the idea of an integrated Europe was first being proposed, America was “unabashedly in favour of European integration because US leaders believed the process could produce a unified and Atlanticist Europe.” Today this is even more true than before as Americans would not want to “imagine what the world would be like if Washington today – in addition to the problems of the broader Middle East and Asia – was also confronted with the prospect of strategic turmoil on the continent.”
It absolutely goes without saying that a peaceful and unified Europe is something that is America’s best interest. America and Europe share very similar foreign policy goals, e.g. promotion of democracy abroad, reducing the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and defeating international terrorism. In combating international terrorism and defeating the root causes of it, America is going to need the active support of the EU – anything less puts the entire operation in jeopardy. Unfortunately, vocal minorities on both sides have sought to exploit recent rifts in the Atlantic alliance for their own personal gain. As Dr. Asmus points out, “the prospect of a German chancellor mobilizing anti-American sentiments to get elected, or his American counterpart using anti-French themes to do the same, would have been considered irresponsible and unthinkable” back in the 1950s and 1960s. What Americans have to understand is that Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who believe “the EU should become a counterweight to American influence and power…are a minority – and increasingly so in an enlarged EU that is being reshaped by a new set of actors and dynamics.” Combined with the fall of Chancellor Schroeder and President Chirac’s term of office coming to an end, the addition of pro-American Eastern European nations to the EU means that the EU will adopt a more pro-American viewpoint. Americans should not neglect this opportunity to form a strong ally in the War on Terrorism simply because of petty political differences between George W. Bush and the leaders of a few of the EU nations.
Americans have become their own worst enemy by making the fears of leaders like President Chirac become a fait accompli, according to Dr. Asmus. As much as Americans do not appreciate European leaders advocating an EU that acts as a counter-weight to American power, Europeans do not appreciate an American foreign policy of divide-and-conquer between European nations. By playing European nations off each other, leaders like President Chirac have been given ammunition with which to attack America and advocate a strong European balance to American hegemony. Once again, Americans should not destroy this historic opportunity to support an integrated Europe simply because of personal differences between certain leaders. As Dr. Asmus points out, “there are few steps that will go further in restoring that goodwill than a clear American commitment to the successful creation of a strong Europe.” In addition, America has been presented with an opportunity to help create a strong ally that shares many of its foreign policy objectives. Notwithstanding the recent defeat of the EU constitution, an integrated Europe is something that is almost guaranteed to happen and Europeans would not soon forget any American help in achieving that goal – nor would they forget an America that stood by or, even worse, objected to European integration.
As opposed to Dr. Asmus, who focuses mainly on an argument based on principle, Dr. Sangiovanni concentrates on practical arguments for a restoration of the Atlantic alliance. Although it goes against all practical sense to do so, “certain European governments – notably Paris, and to some extent Berlin – are seeking to use the Iraq dispute to build momentum for integrating European defence.” What these leaders fail to realize, however, is that the Iraq crisis proves that Europe can have fundamental disagreements about where and when to deploy troops and that “increased European defence spending in the face of [such] disagreement…is a waste of resources and threatens to undermine European credibility.” In addition, because most European nations would most likely refuse to act without UN and EU approval, increased defense spending on a joint European force truly seems like a waste.
One of the major reasons for supporting the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) is due to “voices in Washington [who] began to wonder why…American taxpayers should continue to underwrite European security.” What Europeans need to realize is that this is the minority opinion in America. No responsible American military leader would ever advocate withdrawing from Europe in the near future because of its importance in several on-going military operations. Although American political leaders might curry electoral support by attacking the “free ride” that Europeans are getting at American expense, American military leaders know that we need those bases more than Europe does. Even though Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a vocal critic of “old Europe”, has suggested moving American bases in Germany to Poland and Romania, even he would never go so far as to advocate leaving Europe completely. Therefore, any European fears about the need to defend themselves due to an American withdrawal are completely unfounded. As stated above, European peace and stability is paramount in American foreign policy concerns. America would unquestionably respond to any threat to that stability – even if it is not a threat to America directly, e.g. the crisis in the Balkans.
The strongest argument against ESDP is the overwhelming financial burden that it presents, which would cause a radical shift in European domestic policy. As Dr. Sangiovanni points out, “Europe simply does not have the capacity to keep up” with American military spending. In order to be a counter-weight to American hegemony, Europe would have to increase military spending to at least 3% of its GDP, which is where America is currently. One of the major reasons why Europe is able to have the social welfare system that it has is because they can spend considerably less on military affairs than the United States. Consequently, Europe has a comparative advantage over the United States when it comes to peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. If Europe were to try to become a military power equal to the United States, they would have to drastically increase spending on the military, reduce spending on social programs and neglect its humanitarian obligations around the world. As Dr. Sangiovanni states, “Europe is already sharing the burden of managing the international order” and neither Americans nor Europeans should wish to live in a world where Europe abandoned those obligations simply to fuel a rivalry with the United States.
After reading both articles and taking into consideration the arguments of the authors, it is the opinion of this author that it is absolutely in America’s best interest to support European integration and oppose the ESDP. Dr. Asmus points out in the beginning of his article that “some American conservatives may have enjoyed a moment of schadenfreude over the EU’s current difficulties” and I admit to being one of those Americans. However, all Americans should not pass up the opportunity presented by European integration to restore trans-Atlantic relations. In addition, such a unified Europe would be America’s best ally in the fight to spread democracy and combat international terrorism. Europeans have to realize that Americans have both a comparative and absolute advantage in military affairs and therefore it is only natural for us to exploit it. Americans, meanwhile, have to realize that Europeans have a comparative advantage in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts and have to appreciate the role that Europe continues to play in upholding the international order. Petty political attacks by leaders on both sides do nothing to help the situation and only serve to fuel each other’s fears. As Kosovo should have proved to Europe, America has a strategic interest in the stability of Europe and will not hesitate to act if that stability is threatened. As Afghanistan and Iraq should have proved to America, Europeans make excellent peacekeepers and fighting the War on Terrorism is going to be nearly impossible without their help. Supporting a unified Europe, which will help to restore trans-Atlantic relations, aid the War on Terrorism and work with comparative advantages rather than against them, is in the best interests of America and Europe. Americans need to appreciate this historic opportunity and use it to our advantage – Europe will not forget (or forgive) an America that refused to help it achieve one of the most significant goals in its history.
