RSS

President Barack Obama took office in late January 2009, and there can be little doubt that he remains highly popular in Europe a year on. But it is also hard to escape the conclusion that despite the best of intentions on both sides of the Atlantic, there is dissatisfaction with the state of transatlantic relations. One hears criticism from Europeans about a US lack of attention, about engaging with Russia more than with America's own allies, especially in Central Europe, about under-valuing the European Union and about waiting for the Obama Administration to make up its mind on Afghanistan.

Equally, one hears American frustrations that despite President Obama's investment of time and energy, including several trips to Europe, there has yet to be any substantial increased European investment in joining with the United States to meet global challenges, starting with NATO's top priority, the war in Afghanistan. For many Americans, working with Europe is seen as process-oriented and time-consuming, without delivering real results.

These criticisms are all a bit unfair, but on both sides the unrealistic euphoria of a year ago has given way to a perhaps exaggerated sense of disappointment and bruised feelings.

The more realistic view is that both European and American complaints reflect long-term underlying challenges, and that these have come into sharper focus because it is no longer possible to blame them on the Bush Administration. For one of the major effects of the Obama presidency is that by taking the Bush Administration out of the equation, some uncomfortable truths have been exposed.

First, despite all the rhetoric of European unity and the new Lisbon treaty, there are major policy differences among European nations on some of the most important foreign and security policy issues: Russia, energy and Afghanistan spring to mind, although there are others too.

Second, because of these policy divisions, the advent of the Lisbon treaty, which mostly promises structural and process changes, appears unlikely to make a real difference to Europe's inability to act as a coherent player that is able to make full use of its substantial political, economic and security resources. Where its member states already agree, the new EU "foreign minister" appointed under the treaty will have solid ground on which to act. But on the most important and difficult challenges, EU governments will still hold strongly to their national prerogatives and positions.

The signals from the selection of the EU's new President of the European Council and its High Representative for Foreign and Security policy show that the major European states recognise this. Rather than select well-known, charismatic and strong leaders, EU heads of government instead chose lower key consensus-builders whose role is likely to be that of coordinating member states. And rather than putting their best people forward for the Foreign Minister portfolio, many member states put a higher priority on securing key economic portfolios in the incoming European Commission.

Third, despite the efforts of committed Atlanticists in both the Bush and Obama Administrations, working together with Europe does not in itself seem to be a priority for a United States that must turn its attention to the economy, healthcare, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and engaging such troublesome actors as North Korea and Burma.

Continue reading the full article at Europe's World, atlantic-community.org's new partner.

Kurt Volker is the former US Ambassador to NATO, and Managing Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He is also a member of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Advisors Group (SAG).

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:

• Tobias P. Fella: Obama's Foreign Policy: The Right Grand Strategy
• Marie Grunert: Global Development Still on Top of Transatlantic Agenda
• Djörn Eversteijn: The US Wants its Allies to Support Themselves