Under-Secretary of State Laajava: Iraq, the European Union and transatlantic relations

Natolin College of Europe Warsaw, Poland September 18, 2003

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this renowned forum. I am delighted to have this opportunity to explain Finnish views on the important topic of transatlantic relations.

I will divide my lecture into five parts:

Popular sentiments and perceptions about Europe and America
Importance of transatlantic relations
Origins of the rift between Europe and the U.S.
Repairing the rift
Making the relationship work again

Sentiments and perceptions

The dramatic disagreement between a number of European powers and the United States over the Iraq war has resulted in a widespread belief that there is a fundamental rift in transatlantic relations. And in fact, all studies and opinion polls indicate that the split has undermined America's standing with Europeans. Likewise, Americans have a lot of critical questions concerning the policies of, in particular, France and Germany. One opinion poll after another tells about unfavourable public perceptions of America in Europe and of at least some European countries in the USA.

The so-called Thermometer Readings used by pollsters – i.e. the warmth of various nations' feelings towards the United States and the European Union - show that of all Europeans, only Great Britain, Italy and Poland regard America as their close friend. On a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 meaning very warm, 50 neutral and 0 very cold, each of these three nations recorded 61 degrees while the largest drop in warmth was among French respondents, from 60 degrees in 2002 to 50 degrees one year later. The corresponding drop in American feelings toward France was from 55 degrees in 2002 to 45 degrees in 2003.

But these studies also tell about something else. In spite of the deep differences across the Atlantic over Iraq, Americans and Europeans have remarkably similar assessments of the international threats they face. When asked about such threats both Americans and Europeans identified the top five as the threat of international terrorism, North Korean and Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Islamic fundamentalism and Arab-Israeli conflict. The Europeans and Americans also held a fairly similar view as to how important these threats were but had different impulses on how to respond.

These studies also indicate that Europeans and Americans consider their mutual cooperation very important. However, both Americans and Europeans see U.S. unilateralism as a problem. Both view the United Nations favorably and want to strengthen it, but Americans are willing to bypass the U.N. if required by national interest.

All polls equally show that Europeans want to see the European Union become a much more powerful entity in order for the EU to be able to complete better, rather than compete, with the United States. However, Europeans resist increased military spending.

A key message for the decision-makers seems to be that Europeans and Americans can simultaneously feel estranged and share foreign policy interests that lead them to work together. In Europe, there is a willingness, particularly in Germany, to support a stronger European Union and less willingness to rely on U.S. global leadership. Americans clearly favor a good partnership with Europe.

These findings, most of which come from a recent study conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia de San Paolo, are useful tools when trying to understand where the transatlantic relationship is going. They also help leaders in their efforts to try to find out what needs be done to reinvigorate this relationship.

President Bush talked about this very eloquently in his address to your nation last May in Krakow. He said that “in all the tests and hardships Poland has known, the soul of the Polish people has always been strong”, and emphasized the role of Poland in transatlantic relations as a good citizen of Europe and a close ally of the United States. At the same time, he reaffirmed the commitment of the United States “to a united Europe, bound to America by close ties of history, of commerce and of friendship”. He futher said that America needs the help, the advice and the wisdom of its European friends and allies and that theories of rivalry should not be permitted to undermine the great principles and obligations that America and Europe share.

Importance of transatlantic relations

It is first of all a historical fact that Europe and the United States have to a very large extent jointly created, right after the Second World War, the entire international cooperation system of nations and helped to establish its institutions as well as to develop its norms and rules. The international system supported by the West has always been based on core values such as democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law as well as market economy. Many mistakes have no doubt been made in the implementation of these Western ideals. Certainly not everything can be called a success. Nevertheless, if you think about it, significant progress has actually been made. Democracy and human rights have generally been strengthened. And this is a result, to a considerable degree, of joint endeavours by Europe and America.

Europeans and Americans have also provided important content and resources for these institutions, beginning with the United Nations. Without their combined effort, much of the multilateral cooperation, so vital for solving international problems of various kinds, could not succeed.

Therefore, if indeed the Europeans and Americans would stop working together, the world would probably become a much more fragile and insecure place. If the transatlantic rift would take these two continents to turn into outright rivals and perhaps even mutual enemies, the very foundations of the international order as we know it might be at risk.

Therefore, when talking now about efforts needed to bridge the present gap between Europe and America quite much is indeed at stake.

Bridging the gap will not be easy. Deep disagreements persist on both sides.

Origins of the rift

Today, the sad state of transatlantic relations is on everyone’s lips. Already at the end of the Cold War, there were several analysts who predicted that the removal of the Soviet threat will result in a sudden demise of NATO. Demographic changes in Europe and America were seen as equally detrimental to Atlantic unity. The dwindling European immigration into the U.S. with the corresponding increase of new immigrants from Asia and Latin America was seen as the main trend in America while in Western Europe the most significant new feature was the immigration from Moslem states, particularly from the Mediterranean basin. Both these demographic trends were seen as important factors producing changes within the foreign policy priorities in both America and Europe.

Recently the discussion of the transatlantic rift emphasizes other factors. As Robert Kagan put it in his famous article last year, "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus". This meant, in Mr. Kagan's view, that Americans are fearless doers and decision-makers, Europeans wavering illusionists who just dream about things and avoid action.

Another recent theory explains the difference between Europe and America through the diverging views regarding the use of force. Due to a number of historical factors, Europeans are seen to totally dismiss the use of force as an option in politics, except in extraordinary circumstances. Americans, in contrast, are thought to see the possibility to resort to the threat or use of force as something which is de facto present in virtually all disputes among nations, albeit of course as a last resort.

The latter theory is of course further boosted by the huge difference in European and American military spending and capabilities. The gulf is widening every day.

As far as the differences in general orientation are concerned, during the Cold War the Europeans concentrated on their own survival in the divided continent. And later on, Europeans have focused on the internal development of the European Union, both on the deepening of the integration as well as the enlargement of the EU. Thus, Europe has perhaps been somewhat inward-looking, not so much interested in the rest of the world.

The United States, in contrast, has traditionally assumed a much more assertive role in the world. As the main opponent of the old Soviet Union the United States pursued for many years the strategy of containment. Military power became a very natural part of America's capability to influence - and at times, coerce - other actors.

In their self-portrait, Americans see themselves as a benevolent superpower, a nice hegemon serving the best of mankind. In the American view, this benevolent power must never be constrained by outside actors, including by intrusive and inefficient international organisations, as they see it. An idea that America would be tied like Gulliver terrifies them.

Europeans, in turn, see the process toward European integration as a major peace project aimed at securing stability and prosperity for them and their neighbors. The European way to solve problems though negotiation and compromise would, in the European opinion, provide a good example for other regions as well. And the Europeans always prefer to use carrots rather than sticks.

From these divergent points of departure it becomes quite clear that, although Europeans and Americans share the same basic values, they have a fairly different world outlook and pursue a different methodology.

Much of the present dilemma has in fact to do with the differing perspectives and world view. Europe wants to become a more important international actor. This is to be welcomed. However, no one questions when America leads through its example and its qualities but everyone is concerned when America acts as an arrogant boss. And the latter perception about the American role is today widely shared, not only in Europe but beyond.

Repairing the damage

9/11 changed the picture to a considerable degree. The process of globalization had produced much good, lowering various barriers to human contacts, trade and the flow of capital and ideas. The information revolution has made the latest knowledge available everywhere without delay. The distances matter now far less than they once did.

However, the tragic events in New York and Washington, D.C. in September two years ago made it clear to us all that globalization also had a darker side. International terrorism and crime, drugs and communicable diseases as well as the spread of sensitive military technologies became commonplace, creating a common risk and threat to us all. And there is really no way to close the gates.

Thus, the threat posed by Soviet expansionism during the Cold War was now replaced by the risk of increased vulnerability of our open and complex societies.

Various new and extreme phenomena such as catastrophic terrorism, the risk of the actual use of weapons of mass destruction and the calls by radical Islam for a total destruction of the West added to a new sense of vulnerability.

The only sensible way to deal with these new threats was and remains through international cooperation and through various methods, not only military but increasingly civilian: through economic, political and judicial cooperation, intelligence sharing and so on.

It is evident that we must work together on both sides of the Atlantic to avert these new risks and challenges.

But such cooperation will not emerge without effort. It must be secured through determined action and appropriate structures.

Are we ready for it?

Are there enough common interests between Europe and the United States for us to work together?

We certainly have different priorities. But they should not overshadow what remains the core objective of both Europe and America: to contribute to the creation of a more democratic and secure, stable and prosperous world with improved human rights, freedoms and equality for all.

The West must again become the "force for good". This means that we must be prepared to do more and be more innovative in order to improve the relationship between the North and the South and generally promote peace and development globally. We must "re-invent the West".

What about our shared sense of security?

I already mentioned the new unifying factor which is the common vulnerability of our societies. We must join forces to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We cannot accept the prospect of the use of these weapons with catastrophic consequences. We may have to deal with a situation where these weapons are in the hands of non-state actors or irresponsible states. We must have the means to solve this dilemma, starting with diplomatic efforts to develop common legal norms to follow in such extreme circumstances.

And we must ensure that we have the practical tools to work together. We must secure the maximum legitimacy of our endeavours through working consistently, as our first priority, within the United Nations.

At the same time we must ensure that the transatlantic community works better.

Making the transatlantic relations work again

There are at least two major avenues to achieve this.

The traditional method is to use the North Atlantic Alliance for such ends. Lately, there have been critical questions as to whether NATO continues to serve as the preferred choice on both sides of the Atlantic. The Alliance has responded by launching a process of transformation which is still underway.

The other avenue is to improve the working relationship between the European Union and the United States.

We already have a number of arrangements in place between the EU and the U.S. to ensure cooperation in all central dimensions of our activities, in the economic area, in the political area as well as in the field of security.

But I would like suggest that the time has come to have a critical review of our methodology, to see whether arrangements that we have at present indeed meet with today's needs.

In the economic area, the practical work at the governmental level is carried out directly by the EU Trade Commissioner, Mr. Pascal Lamy and the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Robert Zoellick. They are close colleagues and work together in an excellent way. The practical management of the EU-U.S. trade is thus in good hands.

But one can ask whether this system of consultation really takes into account the fact that European and American economies in fact integrate, grow together. The economic paradigm today is much more than just trade. It consists of investments, mergers, acquisitions and so on. Will the present network be able to cope in a longer term with the rapidly changing environment characterized by constant technological innovation, new needs to regulate them and so forth? Or would it be time to think about something else, a more formal and ambitious arrangement between Europe and United States than what we have today?

Equally, in the political domain, we can ask ourselves whether our present working methods are sufficient to enable us really to cooperate. We do talk constantly between Europeans and Americans but do we really work together? Do we arrive swiftly at common policies if we would like to? Do we have the methods to formulate our joint responses to world events if we decide that such responses are called for? In other words, should our present voluntary consultation mechanisms be developed into something more ambitious than just a simple exchange of information? And should we involve other actors than just governments in this dialogue? I am thinking particularly about the role of the parliaments.

In the area of security important new developments take place in the European Union. It is to be welcomed that the EU is now engaged in formulating its own long-term vision for security, i.e. Mr. Solana's paper for an EU Security Strategy. While it certainly has many differences when compared to the U.S. National Security Strategy there are also important points in common that should not be overlooked.

Furthermore, the development of the European security and defense policy is a necessary and important process, leading, it is to be hoped, to a more united European Union, a union more capable of shouldering its wider responsibilities for stability and security in Europe and beyond. There are still many things to be resolved before we achieve this goal but the direction of our efforts is certainly correct.

But at the same time we should not unnecessarily duplicate military assets and organisations nor waste our scarce resources. The so-called Berlin + arrangement between the EU and NATO was originally designed to establish a good cooperation between the two institutions, respecting their independence but securing the maximum cooperation and a rational use of resources as needed. The same attitude of working together wherever possible should prevail now when both institutions go through a process of development and transformation. The transatlantic security link must not be jeopardized.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These very days, the transatlantic cooperation is again in high demand regarding the management of the situation in Iraq. It remains to be seen whether the two sides of the Atlantic can come together after their considerable differences over this issue. The next meeting on this will take place this coming weekend. And next week many leaders arrive in New York to confer on this issue. For my part, I certainly hope that these negotiations would produce positive results. Whatever our past disagreements, we now should focus on the future of the Iraqi people.

* * *

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Poland and Finland, as two neighbors across the Baltic Sea have been close before, and soon we will be close partners when Poland joins the European Union next spring. We Finns warmly welcome you and seek to develop cooperation with you in all areas. We congratulate you for what you have accomplished so far. We admire your rich history and wish you every success in the future.

Although our two nations may not be able to solve all issues I have outlined I am sure that a sense of purpose combined with pragmatism and an honest call for cooperation coming from our two nations would be respected and listened to.

I wish you the very best in your endeavours.

Thank you