Factors That Govern the Relationships of the US and Europe - Essay Example

Factors that Govern the Relationships of the USA And Europe? Introduction European Union and the US, political economic realities are in reality very different, but for the rest of the world, these two blocs are simply the “West”. In many cases they are lumped up in the same context, this is because the citizens of the US and much of the EU more so England Ireland, France and Germany share a common ancestry as most white Americans originated from these areas. However despite the assumption of common ancestry, the relationship between the US and EU is a complex and often difficult one. In as much as they have numerous joint interests, addressing their divergent ones sometimes call for a highly delicate balance influenced by a variety of foreign relations and economic factor as explored herein. One of the factors that influence the relationship between the two is their political difference, these are inevitable considering that the US is a country with and single government which makes decision making more expedient and less politicized outside of congress and the court of public opinion. The situation in Europe on the other hand is much more intricate, the block is more of an economic rather than a political block. In as much as they often take similar political positions, decision-making in the EU takes considerably longer because it has to factor in the divergent interest of all the members. In addition, despite the strength it draws from numbers, they have on several occasions, threatened its stability. In the recent global economic meltdown for example, it was difficult for countries to come up with individual solutions since actions of independent nations impacted on the entire block. For example, the overvaluing of the budgets in Greece, Italy and Spain considerably weakened other nations such as France in their attempts to stabilize their economies. Bearing this in mind, it is one can surmise that the US manages to appear more powerful, because not only it actually is but it operates in a more decisive and comprehensive way giving it the upper hand. Comparatively speaking, the EU is like a collection of the states that comprise the US but where each has a completely autonomous government, which makes it for decisions or impositions from the “head”. Michael Smith (2011) proposes that the US is fundamentally a warrior state while the EU is a trading one; this is exemplified by the fact that the US has in the past been more willing to use their extensive military hardware and power to enforce its policies especially internationally (Smith, 2011). Therefore, any diplomacy that the US is involved with will have elements of the aggressiveness of the US since any state with whom they are dealing is aware that they could always pursue a forceful course. The EU on the other hand is more comfortable using soft power in foreign relations as well as its various Veto’s in the UN since their military capacity is limited by the lack of a common army. For many scholars, the US does not opt for negotiation with any of its partners or rivals because it needs to but because it is one of the choices it has. The fact that it can enforce its will remains unspoken but perpetually present; this has significantly affected the interpretation of the EU-US diplomatic system. Retrospectively, European countries were seen as active in international matters especially during the late 19th and early 20th century while the US often looked on or only took part as a trade partner. However, this trend appears to have pragmatically shifted after the US won the cold war, today the US is more engaging and influential in numerous diplomatic and military forays around the world. The EU on the other hand has proven either unwilling or unable to exert as much include outside the financial sphere (Mix, 2013). Furthermore, as it moves away from Europe to areas such as Asia, the advantage of the EU dramatically decreases which has led to some analyst suggesting that the EU was has become diplomatically marginalized in the post-cold war era. However, as aforementioned, it is likely that its inability or reluctance to take a forceful part in diplomatic matters is based on the differentiated opinions of member states. The relationships between the US and EU however appear to flourish alongside and growing transatlantic governance where state and none state actors interact on complex interdependence conditions contexturized by a world order diplomacy. In this, the EU is considerably active but it has tended to be marginalized on occasion by the US or even marginalize itself through defections of some member states from some decisions. Such defections are engenderment of the special relations that undelay some of the interactions that construct the EU-US diplomatic system. Largely, the system is a hybrid and quite dynamic one whose constant fluctuations are indicative of the contrasts between EU and US diplomacy and political propensities. Despite these divergent approaches on issues, the two entities have a myriad of common challenges that often force them to pool their resource together often under US leadership. They for example have had and will no doubt continue to co-operate and collaborate in matters of foreign policy and international security (Harvey, 2013). Majority of the issues can be traced to the Middle East such as the current crisis emanating from Iran’s nuclear ambitions despite the fact that it is considered an instable and unreliable state. They have had to cooperate widely in managing the fall out of the “Arab Spring” in which they played a significant role in bringing about. Some of the objective in the Middle East area have to be managed collectively such as the efforts to pull out the soldier both from the US and Europe especially due to domestic pressure. The US tend to take the lead since in as much as NATO is theoretically the EU army, the reality is far from this since it is both weak and lacking in leadership as well as an substantial fiscal investment as enjoyed by the US army (Harvey, 2013). Additionally, Europe has become common target for terrorist who negative intentions towards the US and this has boosted the cooperation between the two blocks in the fight against global terror especially post 9/11 (Julian and Nick, 2013). Nevertheless, there have been numerous challenges in the sharing of intelligence data as well as information privacy since the different countries have variant laws on the subjects. The US and EU have also worked closely together to fight the common threat of cyber security since there have been breaches in both sides and information has been leaked into the wrong hands (Ryner & Cafruny, 2007). Again, there is a major challenge in as far as the regulation of the internet since the policies are different. However, in the course of the last 3 years, they have been pursuing joint initiatives to boost cyber security and fight and cybercrime. However, there have been as series of challenges that have emerged despite the seemingly smooth co-oration between the blocks. Both of them are facing a rapidly changing geopolitical environment, which has been predicted by some as a possible cause of decline in the partnerships. In 2012, congress passed a bill preventing US planes from taking part in the ETS since they did not find it necessary for the US to purchase carbon allowance (Mix, 2013). In addition, there has been mutual concern from each side about the other’s gravitation towards traditionally common rivals. The US is worried about EU’s increasing dependence on Russian energy while the EU is concerned with Americas foray into Asia. However, most analyst are in agreement that despite the apparent differences, the EU and US have very may common interests not to mention culture and are likely to remain each other’s closest partners for the foreseeable future. The individual tendencies of leaders are also a key factor in mediating the relations between the EU and US. One of the challenges the current US president Barack Obama is having to face is the fact that in his pursuing of international policy some EU leaders feel they are being side-lines (Mardell, 2014). However, analyst argue that this is not justified since the two blocks are almost allies by default and their relationship does not require to be underpinned by “false” sentimentality according to Mike Mardell. This situation is compounded in the eyes of European governments by the fact that Obama does not share in the European mostly Anglo Saxon or Irish heritage that most of his predecessors have (Harvey, 2013). By virtue of background, he is the first “Non Atlantic” president who was born to and African and Swedish couple and spend his childhood in Indonesia and Hawaii. This has been viewed as his reason for reduced sentimentality towards the west a position his supporters have nevertheless been quick to dismiss because EU states do not seem to him as focus for policy but rather partners. In fact, despite the apparent albeit subtle changes in direction of foreign relations, a rough statistical estimate shows that the trade ties between the two powers are much stronger than the highly publicized Asian American ones. For example, the total investments in the EU from the US are three times greater than those it has invested in Asia, in addition, EU American investment in the US is approximately 8 times higher than what they have invested in Indian and China (Katinka, 2014). EU and U.S investments are the key drivers of economic growth in both sides of the Atlantic since it is approximated that over a third of trans-Atlantic trade consists of intercompany transfers. Largely, the trade relations between them define the shape of the global economy since the effects are felt across vast territories where the two have interests (Daniel and Joseph, 2013). For example in the recent economic meltdown that primarily affected the west, the rest of the world suffered the consequences since each has significant economic global interests. This gives credence to the adage that when Europe sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold, and evidently, this could be applied with America. Conclusion Ultimately, both the US and EU have over the years distinguished themselves as partners with very effective PR demonstrated in many summits and the friendships between the leaders. Nonetheless, as demonstrated above despite their mutual interests they have different ways of seeing things and their approaches to problem are varied based on the power politics of the participants. The US, in most cases comes off as the more powerful and decisive entity primarily because of its military prowess and ease of decisions making. References Daniel S. and Joseph P. Q., 2013. The Transatlantic Economy 2013, SAIS. Johns Hopkins University: Center for Transatlantic Relations, Harvey, M. 2013. “Britain and France Push for Arming Syrian Opposition,” The New York Times, [Online] 13 March. Available at: [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Julian, B and Nick, H., 2013. “West training Syrian rebels in Jordan,” The Guardian, [Online] 8 March. Available at: [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Katinka, B., 2014. A multi-tier Europe? The political consequences of the euro crisis. [pdf]. London: Centre for European Reform. Available at: [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Mardell, M., 2014. Unpicking the Logic of Obamas relationship with Europe. BBC, [Online] 23 May. Available at: [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Mix D. E., 2013. The United States and Europe: Current Issues. Analyst in European Affairs. Congressional Research Service. [pdf]. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at: [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Ryner, M & Cafruny, A., 2007, Europe at Bay: In the Shadow of US Hegemony. Boulder, Colo. [u.a.]: Lynne Rienner. Smith, M., 2011. European Responses to US Diplomacy: ‘Special Relationships’, Transatlantic Governance and World Order. [pdf]. Loughborough: Loughborough University. [Accessed on 09 November 2009]. Read More