The Most Important Foreign Policy Challenges - Essay Example

The question then becomes how to fight for the values we believe in. America during this period and up until the present day has been trying to find foreign policy options that allow it to fight for what it believes in. The choice in a real sense has been between soft power and hard power. America has chosen the latter, while Europe has chosen the former.

         The Balkan Wars were one of the first stumbling blocks to the concept of peaceful new world order. It turned out that having the US as the lone power in the world was not a solution to problems around the world. There was simply too much to be responsible for. As was demonstrated in the Balkans in the 1990s, Europeans weren’t able to project a credible military force even within Europe. This was a painful time for Europe. Instead of solving global conflicts, they looked inward. The Europeans resorted to the only real talent they had at the time: endless diplomatic measures through international institutions such as the UN. The success of European integration and solving the "German problem" had led a lot of Europeans at the time to believe that they live in a Kantian paradise where international institutions could banish war forever. This illusion came crashing down with the Balkans, where the Europeans were powerless in the early 1990s, and Chechnya, where they chose to turn a blind eye, intimidated by an unstable and resurgent Russia, and unable to find compelling political reasons to engage.

The truth is that America and Europe are very different and have different foreign policy goals and different methods of achieving those goals. Indeed, they have different values. There is reason to believe that the Americans and Europeans act differently. Americans are big and strong (both economically and militarily) whereas Europeans are relatively weak (especially militarily). This influences the way they see the world in a very profound sense. This means that America has to fight alone to preserve stability and peace around the world. America is much more technologically advanced and can attack safely other countries because it has the means to do so with technological warfare. However, as has been seen over the last few years in Iraq, American military power can get very tied up and may not always be very effective; it can sometimes be limited in its ability to reshape society or the political system. That said, I eve that the Europeans need to take a more proactive, robust role in the world today in resolving all the problems. They have given up too much power to others and have trouble accomplishing their foreign policy goals.         

 Yes, Europeans don’t have a right to tell us that the use of military force in some situations is morally wrong and no you can’t do that, because they do depend on us, but they are also somewhat correct in being apprehensive about our decisions because they are so significantly affected by them. They should have an iron in the fire to sit outside of the campfire and complain about the lack of heat reaching them. They should take more responsibility.

        There is one defect about this argument about power. The world and in particular, Europe, is left with two options: that either they follow the US or be a silent partner. The main reason this conclusion is reached is that many people think of power only in a military sense. But power is also economic power, the power to influence markets, innovate, trade, and shape world culture. Europe is economically strong enough to trouble the US as and when it wants to, especially when it comes to important trade issues that can seriously affect American technologies and industries. Also, nowadays with the American Economy in so much trouble, it is important to look at the ways military power and economic power are interwoven. With America’s massive debt and deficit, it is hard to imagine how it can also continue to police the globe without some serious economic restructuring. If you can’t pay for your military equipment you can’t fight with it. Europe, of course, is in a similar situation.

In the end, it doesn't matter what your politics are: this is an interesting thesis about the relationship between Europe and America. America and Europe view worldwide threats differently (a bear roaming in the woods is viewed differently by a man with a rifle as opposed to a man with a knife). And given these acknowledged differences, is it any wonder that America and Europe increasingly find conflict over the way we resolve these problems? America wants to quickly solve the problems with arms (we have lots of over-powering weapons and a strong distaste for any American deaths and boots on the ground); Europe would rather discuss the problems and use international institutions to come to a non-conflict resolution (they don't have the weapons and have come to appreciate the power of discussion). However, with President Obama now leading the United States it is much more likely for a consensus between these two positions to be reached in our lifetime.