Will Obama weaken Europe?

[Mangalore]

This is a bit a cynical question, but from a European perspective it is a worrisome one. What Bush accomplished esspecially in the last 4 years (when the 9/11 bonus had worn off) was that through annoying, angering or outright offending various European countries on all kinds of issues it seemed that while the EU council was and still is a chaotic bunch of European leaders trying to make the best deals for their countries it seemingly added the unifying factor to pass some decision through solely to appear deceisive. Wether this always worked or were good decisions is debatable, but overall there seemed to be a greater consens to do it the "European Way" rather than wait for the US to work something out and European nations falling in line with that.

So the question is: Will Obama's approach lead to European countries eagerly falling back in line or will Europe continue to establish some of the independance and flexing its muscles like commanding combined peacekeeping missions etc.?


Obama declared a few days back that the "US is willing to take the leadership in climate control" which sounds (for a pessimist) like he wants to reassert the US capability to dominate the morale issues once again.

A carrot is often more convincing than a stick.

What do you think?

[Dracula]

I think that US is already far away from domination. It lacks money to assert a certain policy. The armies won't do much as long as they need money too. At the same time EU following a more conservative policy of dealing with its own affairs attracts sympathy, trade agreements etc. This only increases its power no matter how much loose it is.

At the same time one mustn't be blind that EU - US does not exhaust the question. There is Russia, more powerfull than EU and always having a claim to controll world affairs even though lacking the funds to. And there are a bunch of countries clinging to it,China, India etc.

At the same time countries relying on specialist modern expensive armies that cost a fortune maybe in pathos situation - long operations with little use can be a disaster. At the same time doing war the old ways maybe an unexpected advantage since they can fight long without spending much. It's an advantage in the present situation and may have surprising consquences.

Out of this unexpected situations may arrise, that may surprise both EU and US. It has never been simple.

[Mangalore]

... There is Russia, more powerfull than EU ...

Except in nukes they simply aren't.



Well, the question is however furthered by the simple Euro scepticism existing in Europe. Given that the US simply was no alternative to make deals with it couldn't be much used for a constructive counter balance, a far more cooperative and friendly US could disassemble the decision process of the EU quite severly because EU countries once again would find an alternative to the quabbles and infighting on the EU council.

[Dracula]

Except in nukes they simply aren't.

Nukes ? The total military strata of Russia is much better than Eu's.

Well, the question is however furthered by the simple Euro scepticism existing in Europe. Given that the US simply was no alternative to make deals with it couldn't be much used for a constructive counter balance, a far more cooperative and friendly US could disassemble the decision process of the EU quite severly because EU countries once again would find an alternative to the quabbles and infighting on the EU council.

Constructive counter ballance to whom ? I did not understand you well. I think each one is on its own and to expect somebody back you just because of some supposed goals is urealistic. At least what the americans have shown is that they don't care about anything. There can't be "constructive" in this case.

[Holger Danske]

Nukes ? The total military strata of Russia is much better than Eu's.

That was back in the Cold War...

Europe, if properly united, is well capable of standing up to Russia; They have the equipment, the men, and the proper training. With the United States on EU's side it's not even a contest anymore.

[Dracula]

That was back in the Cold War...

Europe, if properly united, is well capable of standing up to Russia; They have the equipment, the men, and the proper training. With the United States on EU's side it's not even a contest anymore.

Too many "if"-s. And many things "can" happen in future. Contrary to this the russian force exists now. And besides the contest is more like everybody against US than anything else.

[The Super Pope]

Nukes ? The total military strata of Russia is much better than Eu's.

Uhm, no. Europe outnumbers Russia, outproduces Russia and in terms of military expenditure, outspends Russia.
If Russia were to attack an EU member state it is nigh on impossible to imagine it wouldn't draw in everyone else, and depending on whether that state is in NATO, it would draw in the US as well

Too many "if"-s. And many things "can" happen in future. Contrary to this the russian force exists now. And besides the contest is more like everybody against US than anything else.

What? the comibned EU armies would defeat Russia, easily. Why would it be "everybody against US"? The Americans don't cut off Europe's gas supplies, don't invade Europe's neighbours and they're bound by treaty to Europe.

My own tuppence-worth. Anglo-American relations are likely to deteriate, as Obama's writings indicate a dislike of the British, he dismissed the probable future PM, David Cameron, as "A lightweight", and in one of his books said that Europe felt alien. Compare this to Reagan's "I feel I have come home".

[Dracula]

The Americans don't cut off Europe's gas supplies

They don't give them too. While Russia does.

[Ahlerich]

Obama declared a few days back that the "US is willing to take the leadership in climate control" which sounds (for a pessimist) like he wants to reassert the US capability to dominate the morale issues once again.

well if this means leading by example when it comes to saving energy, reducing emission and put money in developing new technology its all good. somehow i doubt it though but i d like to be proven wrong

[Dr. Croccer]

I doubt it.

[Carach]

many of the forum will not like u grouping europe into one band mangalore but i see your line of thought. i think however it will strengthen ties between US and EU, a more united front between the 2 on certain issues. but hey thats just what i predict from obama's claims and speeches etc. who knows how its really gonna turn out (i dnt tend to believe much in politician's promises and vote grabbing speeches)

[Sphere]

Well, certainly the the political direction of EU and US has reversed compared to when Bush first took office in 2001.

The 2000 US election was contentious, with small minded political squabbles dominating, it was America at its most divided. Across the Atlantic the EU was expanding and uniting under broad ideals, the EU Constitution was under development and the Euro was taking hold.

By the end of Bush's 2nd term, things had reversed. The US granted a landslide victory to a unifying figure in Obama, and had broad public support for economic, energy and healthcare and defense initiatives. While across the pond the EU was left floundering from two sucsessive defeats to the constitutional and Lisbon treaties. A disjointed patchwork response to the economic crisis, and continued squabbles over the future of the Lisbon treaty only magnified the lack of unity in the EU.

So yes, right now the US is in a position to expand its influence, and set the tone for international relations. At this point the EU has no collective voice to speak with, and really nothing to back up its words even if others were listening.

[Bovril]

In response to the OPs main question, I don't think the Obama presidency will decrease European unity, because I think the increase in European unity seen during the Bush presidency was entirely ephemeral, just like the increase in world unity. Thinking Bush is a tit does not a constructive consensus make.

[Dr. Croccer]

Americans don't cut off Europe's gas supplies

Because they're guzzling up whatever fossil fuels they get there hands on like a pig on a throth of hamburgers.

don't invade Europe's neighbours

They just invade little countries who don't agree with them. I was unaware Georgia even border Europe, considering that many refuse to see Russia and Turkey as European, despite being closer and more ''cilivised''.

and they're bound by treaty to Europe.

It's the other way around. Count the times the US supported a European war without having some sort of interest to start with and visa versa.

[rusina]

They just invade little countries who don't agree with them.

And that's a good thing?

[Dr. Croccer]

And that's a good thing?

I was refering to the US, look at the context of the post and quote.

[rusina]

Oh sorry, I misunderstood your post.

[wilting]

Obama's role is dependent upon the fundamental weakness of a Europe divided into bickering nation-states.

In other words, the question isn't whether Obama will 'weaken' Europe, but whether Europe will be strong enough to escape being divided by outside actors. Which it won't be as long as it is crippled by nationalism.

Obama is short-term. Europe's fundamentals are long-term.

Obama won't 'weaken' Europe significantly any more or less than any other US President representing US interests in the context of no clear unitary representation of European interests. Individuals actors matter a lot less than people think in politics. A given US President is subject to the same basic set of rules as another, albeit different cirumstances of the day and one of two different electoral blocs do alter the behaviour. Obama is in the position to give dispraportionate influence given our times, but he still won't change fundamentals. America is still America. Europe is still Europe.

[Barack Hussein Obama]

I will seduce Europe with hope and change.

[Dracula]

I will seduce Europe with hope and change.

It won't work. They don't like negroes.