Opinion

Mark Leonard

The Europeanization of America

By Mark Leonard
February 25, 2013

For her first overseas trip as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton went to Asia. For his first trip, John Kerry chose Europe. His choice is partly a result of his strong connections across the Atlantic and partly a move against the frustrations U.S. diplomats have faced in places like Beijing. Kerry’s choice also speaks to a remarkable narrowing of the Atlantic, which culminated in Obama’s championing of a transatlantic free-trade agreement in his State of the Union address this month.

Only 10 years ago, Europe and the U.S. were meant to be so different that not only did they have different views, but they viewed each other as if from different planets. Politically and militarily, the author Robert Kagan claimed, Americans were from Mars and Europeans from Venus. American commentators used to routinely denounce European economies for being closed, backward-looking and missing the wave of the future. Germany was still seen as the sick man of Europe, and it was the subject of ridicule for the way it was wedded to an industrial economy in a post-industrial age. What a difference a decade can make.

As a European in Washington, I have spent much of the past few weeks listening to pillars of the American foreign policy and economic establishments. I am struck by how many of today’s U.S. debates mirror those in Europe. These two giant economies are no longer as different as they once were.

In the foreign policy and security fields, no one seems to be coming from Mars anymore.  The U.S. is debating how to avoid war and how to save money. Everyone agrees that ‑ whether or not there is a sequester ‑ there will be deep cuts in the Pentagon’s budget, with tens of thousands of soldiers and marines facing decommission. On Friday, a seminar at the Brookings Institution, which gathered soldiers, senators and academics, seemed to agree that future administrations should not call on the armed forces to intervene directly in other countries’ civil wars, to build democracy or engage in lengthy peacekeeping operations. As Michelle Flornoy, a former Pentagon official who many people want in the sidelines behind Defense Secretary-nominee Chuck Hagel, said, “We don’t want to be the world’s policemen.” In the place of major ground wars, participants said they want to rely on drones, alliances and rapidly conducted offshore interventions.

Where the Clinton and Bush administrations were apostles of a flat world of financial and technological globalization, the Obama administration has a more nuanced position. While Obama does not advocate protectionism, he worries that trade with China has de-industrialized the American economy, hollowed out middle-class jobs and depressed wages. (This paper on the “China Syndrome” seems to be required reading in Obama’s economic circles.) As a result, administration officials are talking about energy independence, re-industrialization, re-shoring and fair trade. Where once the U.S. saw Germany as being trapped in auto parts and metal bashing at a time when high-tech services were the future, people in D.C. now talk about the German economy with reverence.

J. Robinson West, who advises most of the big energy companies as head of PFC Energy, predicts that the U.S. will be producing more energy than Saudi Arabia and Russia within two decades. But the Obama administration seems less excited about energy exports than the promise that cheap gas could lead to a manufacturing revival. The administration seems receptive to arguments put forth by Dow Chemical’s president, Andrew Liveris, that being cautious about granting export licenses could help create jobs in the U.S. Obama thinks a manufacturing revival is a key element of enhancing America’s ability to innovate – whether it is the chance to develop patents, innovations in production or create higher-wage technical jobs. Above all, Obama, influenced by the German example, thinks advanced manufacturing can create export-led growth.

The transatlantic trade deal knits the economic and geopolitical strands of the new Obama vision together. The idea of signing a free-trade deal with America’s most reliable allies should provide a more solid economic platform for the West’s attempts to support a liberal geopolitical order. Signing a deal with rich European Union countries that have high wages and even higher environmental standards accords with America’s new philosophy of globalization. Such a transatlantic deal – particularly if linked with hopes for trade deals in Asia (such as the TransPacificPartnership) ‑ will help the rich world to impose regulatory standards on rising powers by making access to this new mega-market dependent on meeting these standards.

People used to ask: What would bring the two sides of the Atlantic together – reminding them of their common interests or reinforcing the thick web of values that they share in common? The truth is that while values (guns, god and GMOs) and interests (Iraq, Israel-Palestine) have divided Europeans and Americans, it is austerity and the prospect of decline that have brought them back together.

This was obvious in one of Hillary Clinton’s last speeches as secretary of state, in which she explained that the U.S. is not planning to pivot away from Europe to Asia, rather with Europe to Asia. Her speech also illustrated the continuing differences between the European and American strategies for dealing with (relative) decline.

When it comes to global order, many Europeans distinguish between establishing a rules-based order and maintaining perpetual American primacy. They worry that Washington’s multi-partner strategy might prolong the latter at the expense of the former. One example is Washington’s nuclear deal with India, which allowed a great power that is friendly with Washington to break the rules. In spite of Washington’s new debate about austerity, there continue to be differences over how to deal with global economic imbalances.

Oscar Wilde once famously joked that England and America are divided by a common language. But today, though Americans sound more German by the day, it is Washington and Berlin that seem divided by their common concepts (which may explain why Kerry began his journey in London rather than Berlin).

In spite of these differences, there does seem to be a remarkable convergence of views across the Atlantic, and a real chance to move beyond tactical cooperation on issues such as Libya and Syria toward a joint strategy. It is certainly better to be divided by a common language than living on separate planets.

PHOTO: John Kerry is pictured after being sworn-in as U.S. Secretary of State by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during a ceremony at the State Department in Washington, February 6, 2013. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Comments
7 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

The US is busily de-euopeanizing its culture, outlook and population. How is it possible to miss this titanic change? While the American State will no doubt continue, its nature is far, far from certain. The elites who have governed for well over a century are fading, and if they do not know this then they are the only ones here who do not. Whatever the outcome, you can be certain it will look far different from what it is today.

Posted by usagadfly | Report as abusive
 

@usagadfly,

I’m unable to understand your apparent embrace of such obviously lose-lose change. A nation of parasites will have no middle class.

Without a middle class, tax revenues will plummet. It won’t be pretty, and the misery will start at the bottom and work it’s way up.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive
 

Huge theoretical construction for a Secretary of state who “has been given a a sharp slap in the face” by the Free Syrian Army
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2013/feb/25/syria-john-kerry-problem

Posted by meleze | Report as abusive
 

Good timing Reuters! First a comparison to Japan, now German. Great articles both.
I think the Germans are in a much better place to compete against Asia than most other western nations. In Deutschland there is a form of national loyalty that differs from others. sometimes good, sometimes bad as history has shown, but there non the less. I forgot who pointed it out recently in the media, but when the Germans go to negotiate with another country for trade, both the government and the corporations go together. It is far more important to most German executives that Germany succeed above all else. Not so in the United States. Our labor hates capital and blames them or government for everything and anything it can. Capitol is obtusely chasing quarterly growth and hates labor as it is their biggest expense, and the government, the real one, the union employees that are the federal, state, and even local governments, care only for their retirement date, predominantly displayed on their cubicle wall.

We’re getting our butts kicked in the global economy at almost every turn. Our own ideologies are being used against us very effectively. We ran the game for so long we forgot how to actually play. Corporate America is so predictable in what it will do in just about any given situation that it cannot hope to win against anyone that is not playing the exact same game we are. And “they” are not. There is more to the issues of America than just economic ones. I don’t think the Germans are embracing “protectionism” ( I hate using that word for it), I think they are just much better at playing the game with the Asians than we are.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

If europeanization is what is happening then your picture of a democratic party Secretary Of State is appropriate … and John Kerry no less!

Posted by keebo | Report as abusive
 

I agree with tmc that we have multi level problems. We will not be a Germany in negotiations if our best and brightest are all lawyers (we can cut words but not cost), or government (there’s more money where that came from), instead of a people that can do or build. STEM is not glamorous, but not everyone can wear wingtips and pontificate – someone has to do it and not be living in fantasyland (because I can form the words, it must be doable). We are on a serious decline and I am not seeing our youth as the recovery.

Posted by AppletreeD | Report as abusive
 

@tmc;
You are absolutely correct in saying ‘…they are just much better at playing the game with the Asians than we are.’
As a European-born American I’ve been doing business in Beijing-Tianjin-Qindao for the last ten years and I see this all the time. Europeans in general are much better at dealing with the Chinese.
Nevertheless, if the present Chinese astronomical real estate bubble bursts, we are all doomed.

Posted by EthicsIntl | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •