I've tried behind the scenes.
Together with him, I was in Cannes for a week. I used the time to watch the premiere of some foreign films. Do not think it is an easy matter. I had to "fight" to get a ticket, I had to use tactics to get tickets. I lined up two hours, well, and so I got in front of the booth, they said, "Sorry, already full."
I just smiled.
Well, there's a storm in Paris at the time, on a windy night. I was standing waiting for you, with many memories of the brain folds neatly folded in my old, as old as you.
***
Old vs New Europe, Multilateralism/Unilateralism, UN's Role Post-Iraq, NATO's Enlargement, these have often appeared in various mass media news lately and made a lot of people were wondering about the future of EU's relations with U.S.. Many considered that the rift between EU and U.S. began to emerge since President George W. Bush incoming White House in January 2001 .
However, the rift history between EU and the U.S. have started to appear since early 1990s. Almost during the decade, Bill Clinton faced a hostile Congress, a " not interested " in foreign affairs. Meanwhile the EU member governments were not satisfied with a " hands- off " of the U.S. in Balkans, both in Bush Senior and Clinton in the future. Although Bush Senior got a lot of sympathy in Europe for being considered to be very statesmanlike in dealing with the collapse of communism, but he did not want to involve the U.S. in Balkans. Secretary of State James Baker said, " We do not have a dog in that fight". Clinton continued this non-intervention strategy and as a result, the period 1992-1994 was a time of crisis in which the U.S. and the EU run a different policy in Balkans.
Although it must be recognized that standardization of relations between the two sides have shown tangible results in the resolution of some issues -- especially in the fields of trade-- but on the other hand, there's a lack of substantive discussions at the highest political level on global governance for example. On the one hand, it was caused by the EU inability to speak with one voice on issues of political, security and sensitive economic. Presidency of EU -- which replaced every six months -- was also not conducive to the creation of a substantive dialogue. Therefore many EU member states -- not just England -- chose to take the bilateral channels. On the other hand , both of the U.S. government in the 1990s also did not see the EU as a key partner in dialogue on political issues and international security. In addition to these things, the 1990s also saw some friction between the U.S. - EU about global warming, ICC (International Criminal Court), the failure of CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) ratification and tracts in terms of banning landmines and others.
When George W. Bush Jr.. still became the presidential candidate, there were a lot of negative tone in Europe. Europe media showed Bush Jr.. as an unsophisticated cowboy. The negative perception was reinforced after George W. Bush became president with the withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol, ICC sabotage, refusal to sign an agreement on arms control, and continued the missile defense program.
European concerns becoming clear after the U.S. downgraded the importance of Middle East peace process and North Korea -- which had previously been a priority in the Clinton era -- and the notion that the U.S. harassed the global institutions.
An effort which was considered as the best to work through international bodies came from Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, who spoke about "Multilateralism à la Carte"
Unlike the Clinton era -- which has many senior officials with direct experience with EU -- Europe considered there was very few senior officials under Bush who had direct experience with the EU. Direct experience of Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney with Europe was during the Cold War, when NATO and bilateral relations with EU member states played a dominant role. Bush administration seemed reluctant to touch with the EU which was considered to be a body that just bringing the problems (eg : blocking the merger of GE/Honeywell, beating the U.S. in WTO, blocking imports of GMO food, etc.).
The EU Commissioner for External Relations Affairs, Chris Patten, has asked the U.S. to back to support the "international rule book" -- which the U.S. itself was a country that helped shape it since 1945 -- and considered to have succeeded in creating a rule of law, democracy and the opening of international markets, and has been well received by people on both sides of the Atlantic. He said the main challenge for EU and U.S. at this time is to try to understand the interests and concerns of each and try so that the "international rule book" can be more successful.
According to EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Javier Solana, the widening differences between the EU and the U.S., among others, due to the vision of religious confrontation in White House and secular vision of the EU. Solana said, "It is this sort of binary models, it is all or nothing. For us, Europeans, it is difficult to deal with Because we are secular. We do not see the world in such black and white terms."
Indeed, since 9/11, Bush had "divided" the world into good vs. evil and called on countries in the world to choose whether "you're with us or against us". For example, in the State of Union speech in February 2003, Bush said that "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity". On another occasion after the terrorist attacks, Bush also said that "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while". Many of these kinds of statements linking the Crusades between Islam and Christianity, and therefore difficult to imagine any European heads of state or government who dared to assert the same thing.
Iraq war led to changes in the attitude of European Community to U.S.. In 2002, the number of European Community pro-US were England (75%), France (63%), and Germany (61%). But just a year later in 2003, there was a drastic change of attitude before Iraq War. Many demonstrations against the war even actually happened in the UK, Spain and Italy, three countries that strongly supported the U.S.. The poll conducted by Forsa Institute in Germany showed 90% of Germany and France opposed the U.S.. Pew Research Center found that in UK the number of people who were pro U.S. declined from 75% to 48%, in Poland fell from 80% to 50%. Across Europe, only the UK that its U.S. pro number reached above 40%. In the Middle East, no country has reached 10%.
There's divisibility attitude of the EU members in dealing with the U.S..Britain has traditionally tried to maintain relations with the U.S. in particular, as well as trying to be a bridge between the U.S. and the EU. Germany Chancellor, on the other hand, had won the election with anti-Iraq war stance. France also made Washington angry with its stance in the UN Security Council. The lack of consensus between UK, Germany and France made the EU-15 unable to reach an agreement other than general support to United Nations.
Poll conducted in 2002 by Council for Foreign Relations and German Marshall Fund showed that U.S. and Europe had a lot in common perceptions regarding various international issues. Many U.S. communities prefered if the U.S. obtained the United Nations support in Iraq War. But, along with the protracted negotiations on UNSC and criticism of U.S. government against France and Germany, the U.S. public attitudes were also changing.
In general, U.S. was skeptical whether the EU was able to develop as a cohesive international actors. And even more dubious whether the union of EU in the field of international policy would be beneficial to U.S.. They took the example of problems facing the United States when the EU was able to unify their voice in international arena (Kyoto, ICC, WTO), and wanted the U.S. to keep taking the "divisive attitude" in dealing with EU issues.
Although many different views in political arena, but the EU and the U.S. enjoyed their healthy and solid economic and trade relations. Their trade value per day to reach € 1.25 billion. 60 % of foreign investment came from the EU and 45 % of U.S. investment implanted in the EU.
Seven million Americans hung their rice pot to European investors and the EU's six million people draped their rice pot on the U.S. investors. Although the trade disputes often made headlines in media, but the impact on total trade was only 1-2 % .
Constructive and cooperative relations between EU and U.S. is necessary for global stability. However, the relationship is now facing a crisis that is mainly due to Iraq War, the UN role and Iraq reconstruction after war. The EU concerns about global governance in the U.S. is considered as an anti - US stance. In addition, in the U.S. are also many who do not like the EU position , especially the attitude of Germany and France attitude in response to U.S. foreign policy .
EU looks to have no coherent policy to deal with a world superpower. Transatlantic disputes also have a great impact for the CFSP of the EU. Often what appears is the preference of its member countries to take bilateral measures when dealing with the U.S., instead of using the EU path. Many who doubt whether the U.S. will support an EU which is able to speak with one voice. Many are predicting that the U.S. will continue to take a divisive policy in dealing with the EU. Even Javier Solana, in a speech expressing his concerns that the U.S. was trying to break Europe.
The collapse of communism and the U.S. response to the events of 9/11 had a huge impact on transatlantic relations. In line with the ongoing integration of the EU (single currency , enlargement), the EU has the greater responsibility for security in the "environment". The U.S. generally supports the increasingly prominent role of the EU in region, while still emphasizing the importance of NATO. However, at the same time, there's a rift between the U.S. and the EU on the U.S. perception of its moral leadership, and perceptions of the EU on the U.S.-- which was considered as "a military minded" -- and obsessed with the "rogue states" and weapons of mass destruction .
Development of international and transatlantic relations in the future requires the EU and the U.S. to be able to find a common ground to resolve the increasingly complex global agenda. The EU and the U.S. dominate the world trade and economic aid, the world's largest construction and engineering. In addition, the EU and the U.S. defense budget reach 70 % of the world military spending.
Especially for the EU, as long as it is not able to find the political will to continue the CFSP, it will be difficult for the EU to be able to deal with the U.S. as an equal partner. Moreover, the EU along with the U.S., should be able to find a formula that fits between NATO and the EU. It mainly deals with the perception of the EU member states that see the U.S. is a major player in the overthrow of communism and the main guarantor of their security after the fall of communism.
So, the EU and the U.S. should be able to put aside their differences and work together as they have proved in Balkans. The EU and the U.S. can be a great contribution to peace in the Middle East where the EU and the U.S. are the two members of the Quartet (EU, U.S., Russia and the UN). As the two richest entities in the world, both the EU and the U.S. have a special responsibility on the international stage. Although it is natural that each country pursues their national interests, but the EU and the U.S. should not carry it through their protectionist ways, primarily with issues relating to the products of developing countries. The EU and the U.S. should work together to create a more equitable global economic order where the economies of developing countries integrated in it .
To that end, the EU and the U.S. should help the developing countries, especially LDCs by providing the opportunity to build export-based economy and provide the access to markets, to help evaluate the products sell well in international market and how to meet the international standards. And another important thing is helping to build the capacity of their negotiations.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, developing countries also need to be active and not just ask for help and relief from developed countries. They also have the responsibility to create an environment that supports the growth, stability, poverty reduction, rule of law, democratization and good governance.
Actually both Bush Senior and Clinton saw the role of the EU as the U.S. main partner, and they were willing to standardize the relationship between the U.S. and the EU. In 1990, through the Transatlantic Declaration, the EU and the U.S. agreed to conduct bilateral meetings at all levels (summits, ministerial meetings, senior officials and working groups). The second half of the 1990s, the EU and the U.S. went further with the signing of the New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) in 1995 and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) in 1998.
***
(CZ-lacalifusa112013)
A scarf wrapped around his neck is a small symbol of a very sweet, a high politeness between cultures. Well, he's very captivating.
In my old eyes' stare today.
No comments:
Post a Comment