Die Zeit, Germany
Will It All Be Good Again?
By Joschka
Fischer, Vice Chancellor of Germany,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany
until 2005
January
14, 2008
What
can be expected of the future president of the United
States - and what cannot be? And what
should Europe do now?
Germany
- Die Zeit - Original Article (German)
Who will be the
44th President of the United States?. The preselection
process of the American presidential election has not contributed much to the clarificiation of this not entirely unimportant
question.
To predict today
the name of the next American president would require true fortune telling
capabilities given the unclear situation regarding the candidates
.. But the relationship of the United States to Europe and to the principles of international policy
can already be foreseen.
If many people
(and governments) in Europe have hope despite deep frustration over the
policies of the current US government, it will be on election day in the United
States that a political miracle is needed to realize these hopes for a
fundamental change in American foreign policy. But you can already see that
such a miracle - whomever is chosen - will not come.
Certainly, the
Bush administration has made many foreign mistakes with far-reaching
consequences – waging a war on Iraq and consequently destabilizing the Middle East. And - holy dialectic! – this President,
starting with a policy of American global supremacy, has through his foreign
policy achieved the exact opposite of his stated objectives, as America's
position is considerably weaker today than at the beginning of his term.
Also, the gap
between America and Europe has continued to deepen during this time.
But George W. Bush neither invented the unilateralism of the United States nor the transatlantic drift between the United States and Europe. Certainly, he has considerably increased
debilitating trends in the West (mainly the Americas and Europe), but their real causes lie not in his
policy.. They have much more objective historical
reasons that arise from the end of the Cold War, America’s being the sole resulting world power
and the self-determined weakness of Europe.
As long as this
fact about the United States holds, that it remains the sole world
power, regardless of whoever the next American president will be, the
elementary constellation of American foreign policy is not really something
that can be changed.
Beyond this basic
orientation of American foreign policy, however, is the core question of
whether in the coming American presidential elections the candidate whom is
elected will continue the foreign policy of George W. Bush to or even escalate
it (Rudi Guliani example), or whether there will be a
reorientation .
PART 2
If the first
should be the case, then transatlantic continental drift will dramatically
strengthen. For another four to eight years of American policy, the model
followed the recent past, the transatlantic alliance would be done existential
harm.
A genuine change
of American policy would see more multilateralism, more working with
international institutions and alliances and returning the relationship between
the military and diplomacy more toward the traditional approach of American
foreign policy. That would be good news.
The bad news
would be however, that the world power America says good-bye under such pleasant
conditions to its "policy of the free hand" and they just forget their
claim to superiority over all other powers and partners. And this more
multilateral American policy-oriented pressure, especially on the Europeans,
will significantly strengthen our responsibility for international crisis
management and conflict resolution: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, Caucasus, Russia, but also the future of Turkey, are only some of the problems identified.
Europe should insert the topics of Africa, climatic protection, UN reform and world
trade system into the common agenda.
Europe underestimated for a long time its weight
and its significance in the development of forces outside of Europe and the international system in the 21st
Century. Thus, for example, Europe continues to send fatal signals of apparent weakness both to Russia and USA, which result in the implementation of
policies that lead visibly in the wrong direction.
Both the shape of
the European unification process, the integration of the interests of sovereign
states through community institutions, its new model of power projection,
namely a permanent continental peace through the development and integration of
entire economies, states and societies (the EU enlargement process) and the
geopolitical situation in Europe, along with its political, economic and social
weight could actually make a decisive contribution to the shaping of a
cooperative world order in the 21st Century. Because of this objective creative
potential of the new Europe, all other current international approaches to political order
look to it in respect of modernity, progress and peace.
It could happen
just as stated! It will not, on the other hand, because European disagreement
makes the EU weak and its action limited. Objectively strong but subjectively
just a step from the sanitorium, the constitution of
the EU can be summed up as a controversial political exaggeration. So, Europe and the politics of George W. Bush
created a vacuum that has not been filled, and thus the crisis of the West has
significantly worsened in the past seven years.
American weakness
increases now in a much changed global political environment, determined
especially at the edges of American world power, where Europe is weak and new global giants, such as China and India, are rising.
PART 3
In the face of
this global development, does the concept of the West still make sense? I
believe so - more than ever. Because a separation would make both sides of the Atlantic much weaker than it would be were the community of the West to be maintained into the
future. However, both sides must seriously invest in this future. Protecting
traditional transatlantism will not be enough to
secure it.
The unilateral
overextending of American power provides for a new beginning in US-European
relations and is an opportunity. America will be more dependent than before on
strong partners, and will be seeking such partnerships. The Europeans should
not wait until a new US president or a new
president demands these partnerships, but should now lead with ideas and
offers.
Why not begin
with overcoming the traditional opposition between NATO and the EU - especially
since under Sarkozy, French policy toward the Alliance has changed for the better? The
maintaining of a mutual regular operational readiness of the leaders in the
political bodies of both organizations does not require a major effort.
Why not life
EU-US consultations (with the participation of the NATO Secretary General on
security issues) to a higher political level, involving the American foreign
minister and other cabinet members, such as financial or environmental
ministers, several times a year at meetings of the respective EU Councils? Why
not a regular annual meeting between the European Council and the US president?
Likewise, regular
meetings between the technical committees of the American House of
Representatives and Senate and the European Parliament would be of great
significance, because the parliaments must ratify (most) international
treaties. The fate of the Kyoto Protocol should be a lesson to all parties.
New
and more shared responsibilities auger the establishment of a new process of
cooperation and coordination across the Atlantic. And such a process can be activated at
any time in the context of the existing treaties and institutions. It just
requires the creativity and political will of all parties.
One certainty can
be found in Europe, but is already coming out of the US election campaign: in the wake of the
Europeans the American foreign policy will very quickly orientate toward
greater multilateralism.
And that's a good
thing. More joint decision-making with more joint responsibility - so should
the new transatlantic formula read.
CLICK HERE FOR
GERMAN VERSION