Obama’s European challenge

Obama is no natural-born Europeanist, but certainly understands Europe’s value as a strategic asset. It is important not to underestimate the transatlantic bond. It goes beyond traditional strategic interests and historic and cultural ties. The often-lauded common values, such as freedom and democracy, are not just feel-good abstractions. Nor are they rationally quantifiable targets. They represent fundamentally deep strategic interests – an axis for good in world affairs
 
Convergence on policy does not always amount to agreement on the means to policy implementation. On issues such as Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and Israel-Palestine differences will inevitably emerge. However, the Obama administration often emits conflicting signals on such crucial issues which leaves allies guessing and undermines U.S. credibility.
 
Over the past decade, both sides of the Atlantic have struggled to strike a balance in relations. The global economic crisis has inevitably impacted military budgets. Greater burden-sharing is crucial. Only the U.K., France, Poland and Estonia come close to the NATO-agreed 2 percent of GDP for defense spending. Greater interoperability between European armed forces prevents overlapping, increases efficiency and maximizes limited budgets.
 
In the U.K., a reaction to the excessively deep Bush-Blair partnership was understandable for internal political consumption and international credibility. It was summarized by Prime Minister Cameron’s reference to the need for a less “slavish” relationship. On the other, hand the U.K.’s inability to match adequate finances with its ambitions for continued global reach justifiably concerns U.S. officials. After deep defense cuts in late 2010, the U.K. must now seriously reassess its ability to address its international commitments, particularly after increased instability in the Middle East and North Africa.
 
In Central and Eastern Europe, Obama’s policies including extensive outreach to Russia have generated a sense of neglect. Many increasingly pursue more independent initiatives as America’s reliability is questioned.  President Obama’s decision to deploy U.S. military aircraft to Poland partially attempts to allay concerns.
 
Economic disagreements with Germany’s Chancellor Merkel regularly surface. German diplomacy also requires a serious injection of professionalism.  Sporadically enigmatic decisions confound U.S. officials. Germany’s recent veto at the U.N. Security Council over the Libya resolution authorizing use of force was an enormous embarrassment.

Desperately seeking to increase his poll numbers at home, France’s President Sarkozy relentlessly battles for a central role on the global stage. Whenever possible, and regardless of implications, he eagerly attempts to upstage Obama. Despite its increasingly bold stance on Libya, Italy struggles for Obama’s ear beyond standard relations. The travails of its prime minister do not exactly help.
 
As the world’s geo-economic and political center of gravity shifts east, so has the focus of American foreign policy. New emerging powers are increasingly shaping world affairs, particularly China which does not share transatlantic values at home or abroad. The prevailing European view on China is that of an economic opportunity. However, its global economic clout also presents a serious threat to open societies around the world. Furthermore, transformation in the Middle East is still up for grabs. The fundamental need for greater transatlantic unity and collective efforts in promoting freedom and democracy internationally remains greater than ever. 

Marco Vicenzino is the founder and director of the Global Strategy Project.