
A Magazine of the European School of Business	Home	Impressum	English



	Home

	Was ist via Europa ?

	Wer ist via Europa ?

	Team 2005

	Die Autoren

	Die Leser

	Nächste Ausgabe

	Impressum

	Member of the International Partnership of Business Schools Bloomington, Boston, Dublin, Lancaster, Madrid, Piacenza, Puebla, Reims, Reutlingen

Politics & Economics

TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP – A NEW DEFINITION?

An interview with Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute Berlin, a German-American think tank dedicated to questions on trans-atlantic foreign policy, defense and trade issues.

Dr. Gedmin is a regular columnist for the American Spectator and Die Welt. Previously, Dr. Gedmin was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, where he coordinated and directed the New Atlantic Initiative. Since November 2001, Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin is the director of the Aspen Institute Berlin.

One week before George W. Bush’s visit to Europe in February of this year, VIA Europa met with Mr. Gedmin at Berlin Friedrichstraße, not far away from Checkpoint Charlie where once American soldiers protected Western Germany’s interests. Fifteen years later, as the Cold War no longer exists, the transatlantic partnership undergoes a shift. After the war against Iraq, America and Europe seem to be more ambivalent about one common transatlantic foreign policy. Johannes Berliner asked Mr. Gedmin about how he sees the transformation of the transatlantic relationship. On the occasion of the international security conference Gerhard Schröder’s suggestion that the transatlantic dialogue should move away from NATO and concentrate more on direct coordination between the European Union and the United States has been criticized.

vE Do you agree with the critics or has Mr. Schröder been misinterpreted?

I was there, I heard Peter Struck, the defense minister read the speech, and I read the speech and I don’t know how to interpret it. I thought originally that what the chancellor was saying was a description and not a prescription – and the description was, that NATO was no longer the primary place where Americans and Europeans discuss big strategic issues. To a certain extend, he is right – descriptively. Take the issue of Iran: we are not discussing Iran at NATO. There are reasons for that – there are reasons for why we should do it and why we should not, but we don’t. I’m a little bit hesitant. I would like to hear more from the chancellor about what he meant. If it means an intentional weakening of NATO, I think that it is hazardous for Europe and the United States – understanding that NATO has changed, understanding that NATO does not play the role that it once did in the Cold War. But still – if it means a deliberate weakening of NATO, then I am allergic to the idea. But I must say to this day, I read commentary, I was there at the speech, and I am just not sure exactly of what the chancellor meant.

vE The German government also requested that the US update its relationship with the EU due to the Union’s growing importance and the new demands on transatlantic cooperation. Do we really need to undergo a reform and what do you imagine it to look like in the post-Cold War era?

When President Bush comes to Europe and to Germany next week, he is going to make a rhetorical vow to what some European leaders want, which is showing that the EU is taken seriously by the United States – not only on trade issues but also as a political actor. The president is going to go to Brussels, he is going to “make the right noises” and “send the right signals”. The truth is, Europe is very ambivalent about its political union and so is the United States. Europe is a not a cohesive political actor of a modelist sort on the global stage. It still has independent nation states that assert their interest and that still feel rather sovereign on key issues. And the United States is happy to treat the EU as a political actor and at the same time not exclude the idea that we want to have close and friendly bilateral relations with member states in Europe. Because by the way, these member states in Europe want to have close and friendly bilateral relations with us, too.

vE After George W. Bush’s re-election it seems as if his administration wants to revive the cooperation between America and its allies. What, in your opinion, needs to be done on the part of Europe and the United States in order to overcome their differences?

I think that one thing that both sides need to do is fully acknowledge the relationship has changed in fundamental ways. It started changing at the end of the Cold War where Europe decided and realized that it needed the United States less in relative terms to the past, it still needs the United States, and that also meant the same to the United States for the Cold War. Europe was the heart of the strategic universe -for us Americans, but it’s not anymore. It’s very important, but the American Secretary of State gets up in the morning today and thinks about China, Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. We still think about Europe – I emphasize that Europe is important – but it’s no longer the heart of the strategic universe. Now, if you take that background and factor in the events of September 11, where Americans woke up the next day and said: “Wow, the world is still changing radically and rapidly”, we still have common interests but not identical interests, we still have common values but not core values. So I think if you ask what can be done to improve the relationship: a clear and sober understanding on both sides that while we share much in common, we are going to have differences. We have to manage them in a mature, strategic and effective way, and contain the arguments we have. But this is no longer the Cold War relationship. It did change, it is changing, and the United States and Europe are going to sometimes be partners but sometimes we are going to be pretty tough competitors, too – even on strategic issues.



		Ausgabe Nr XV/ Issue 2005 Download (PDF)

		Ausgabe Nr XIII/ Issue 2003 Download (PDF)

		Ausgabe Nr XII/ Issue 2002 Download (PDF)