Comments on: Haass is wrong on transatlantic relations

By: Kyle Atwell

Kyle Atwell — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:11:04 +0000

I tend to agree that the US and Europe do not have divergent interests or values. As I am sure you are aware (since they presented at GMF), 5 prestigious military leaders from Europe and the US put out a report with a blueprint for hammering out a new and more efficacious transatlantic bargain.

The authors, including General Shinseki, contend that NATO provides the best opportunity for western countries to address new threats because it “links together a group of countries that share the most important values and convictions and that took a decision to defend those values and convictions collectively.”

I finally got finished reading the report last night, and wrote about it here: http://atlanticreview.org/archives/978-Military-Leaders-Outline-Plan-f or-New-Transatlantic-Bargain.html — although you and I seem to agree that the US and Europe continue to share values and interests and therefore benefit from a continued strong Alliance, some of the reader comments sharply disagree on this point.

In fact, it has been my experience writing for the Atlantic Review that the majority of readers (at least on our blog) are pessimistic about future military cooperation between Europe and the US.

By: Oliver Mains

Oliver Mains — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:32:09 +0000

Kyle, thanks for your post. Your right: Even when transatlantic public opinion is aligned, there can still be barriers to effective engagement around the world. In other words, public opinion does not always translate into policy. But the problem here is not divergent interests or values, and Haass and others might suggest. Transatlantic solidarity doesn’t guarantee success, but it is in many important cases a necessary precondition.

By: Kyle Atwell

Kyle Atwell — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:10:05 +0000

Oops… meant to include the link for fist full of euros blog:

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/europe-and-the-world/a-big-hand-for-slo venia

By: Kyle Atwell

Kyle Atwell — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:08:53 +0000

“European nations played key combat roles in the Gulf War and the Balkans conflict, and their publics continue to show robust support for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in places as diverse as Darfur and southern Lebanon.”

It is easy to say that people support “peacekeeping” in countries like Darfur and southern Lebanon, but I think we find these visceral desires don’t often materialize into robust peacekeeping missions.

I think that if you ask most people anywhere, “do you support peacekeeping in Darfur to stop the genocide” they will say “of course”. But how many NATO, US, or European peacekeepers are actually stationed in Darfur? Are we really doing all that we can do… are we putting our money where our mouth is? I suppose you could argue we are doing our part by supporting the African Union forces… that is a tenous argument though.

As was recently written in the blog “A Fist Full of Euros”:

“the EU is still struggling to put together the promised peacekeeping mission to Chad. The problems are essentially that the member states are not forking out to provide enough support helicopters and tactical transport aircraft to support the force in part of the world with essentially no infrastructure. There is not really a shortage of choppers; even Slovenia has four, right? However, they are one of those assets which is always in short supply; national armies are very unwilling to part with them.”