Peculiarities of the US-EU relations: evolution and prospects

EU members, as it happened in the history of US-European relations, are faced with a major American paradox: the US does not support the efforts of the EU to act completely independently in areas they consider their prerogative, it demonstrates doubts about the ability of a united Europe to develop and uphold a single strategy of international interactions. This situation is particularly in Afghanistan, which has become a priority for the administration of Barack Obama, but also the source of frustration for European public opinion. The growth of «Americanization» command and criticism from the United States as for the quality of European contribution prompted representatives of the European component of NATO Swedish Foreign Minister C. Bildt and NATO Secretary General A. Rasmussen to recall the USA the importance of recognition of actions of its partners in Europe [36].

According to the researcher M. Stьrmer, «the EU has no patrons in heaven, and the US is in a state of over-voltage and does not want to or cannot rescue Europe from the consequences of their weakness». Describing the key difference in the actions of allies in the international arena, the researcher points out: «Europe is competing in the lighter weight category easier than it could. And the Europeans have no one to blame but themselves that `increasingly close alliance» based on the Roman arrangements turned into an impossible fantasy and even Germans have forgotten how to dream. EU enlargement was carried out by the deepening integration. By 1990 the US protected the Europeans from the effects of reckless decisions and actions, now when the problems and their solutions have moved to the global dimension, the EU met general information legislation, providing others to deal with the global agenda» [37; 38].

However, despite the serious differences in US-European relations, there is little doubt about the appropriateness of the strategic partnership the United States and the EU. First of all we are talking about an economic dimension, as in the context of globalization it is difficult to overestimate the weight of economic factors (EU members and the United States together produce 60% of global GDP, 40% of world trade and 62% of foreign direct investment, trade flows between the EU and the US were about 1.7 billion euro a day). The European Union is not only the main goal of US foreign direct investment, but is also a major investor to America.

It is clear that economic relations between Europe and the United States marked intensity, especially in three areas: firstly, significant disagreements remain on both sides of the Atlantic to conduct economic policy, because Americans criticize the financial and political scope of the EU in the management of international financial flows, impact of which is determined by the volume of international financial transactions that at times exceeds the volume of transactions related to trade in goods and services; secondly, negotiations on trade are traditionally difficult dimension of cooperation and competition in the US and the EU; thirdly, the US current account deficit and its potential consequences for the «euro» are a factor that creates additional tension in US-European relations [39]. Since the economic relations remains the potential for conflict, the transatlantic disagreements will be considered at the trial as through mutual doubts about the compliance of national legislation with WTO rules and the scope of anti-dumping measures and anti-subsidy in relation to industrial goods and agricultural products that can be used as the reasoning and tools to achieve goals in other areas of foreign policy.

Structural differences in the geographical distribution of international responsibility and attitude to military power emphasize controversial US-European security relationship. The United States is the only truly global actor, to some extent practical part in the international process in each of the key strategic regions of the world, presenting itself as a leader of the international system. Europeans also tend to participate in maintaining international order, but rather as builders, not as a guarantee that assume key responsibility for the power component of international actions.

The shift in responsibility criteria and the degree of interference in global international space leads to asymmetry of interests and, of course, to differences in priorities of international politics. Analysts stress when you have to choose between the law and order, the Europeans tend to choose the right while the Americans do justice to order. These «arbitrage differences» can be seen in the transatlantic contradictions on multilateral agreements which the United States considers an obstacle to providing a guarantor of world order [40]. Structural differences help to explain why partners should always look for ways to balance and coordination, and facilitate understanding of how the methods of reconciliation and coordination could contribute to a certain ideological and political convergence. However, the EU joins the White House effort to create a more effective multilateral system, offering a set of rules and principles that should guide international security and initiate institutional reforms necessary to ensure the participation of all relevant actors in the maintenance of international peace and stability.

Experts often emphasize the fact that the sense of security interdependence underlies the vision of Obama's foreign policy. The same proves in his book «The Post-American» by F. Zakaria, who notes that «the US must move from hegemonic strategies to leadership strategies. The choice of the administration of Democrats in favor of grand strategy of internationalism is a pragmatic one, in view that America should work closely with allies and partners to tackle common threats to international and transnational problems» [41].

Supporters of Barack Obama national security strategy argued that US foreign policy has changed in his presidency, and, above all, allies evident radical departure from the confrontational style of its driving, at least in theory this factor creates opportunities for EU ambitions in terms of effective multilateralism. Critics of the policy of Barack Obama in the US and Europe argue that the harsh reality of power, unilateral American interests and continuity of traditions will inevitably prevail. The differences in emphasis, priorities, development of applied politics as well as the differences in strategic thinking lead to different views on US targets which are more or less clear for the Europeans. But the Europeans are seeking further clarification of US security strategy, and the strategy on climate change and trade negotiations that are marked with differences.

Strategic Priorities of the USA and Europe are not defined in exactly the same order: for Europe it is the Middle East, Russia, the Balkans, for the US it is Afghanistan, China and the Middle East. The EU cannot afford over selectivity in external actions, however, acting in correlation with the main priorities of the agenda of Barack Obama, it is trying to act and for its own benefit. Thus, D. Hamilton and

N. Foster record that the EU efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan make «much to determine the credibility of Europe in the eyes of Washington as a global safety player and its ability to deploy «soft power» [42].

The current state of bilateral relations shows that the atmosphere of dialogue between the US and the EU over the last period clearly improved, but America and Europe continue to differ in some fundamental positions, namely, the US still pay less attention to environmental protection, but is more biased to participate in armed conflicts than the Europeans. Also problematic is considered uneven perceptions of Barack Obama and the US in various European countries. Mostly European Union remains the same bureaucratic institution to which intra-European relations deepening is equally important as the expansion. Thus, enlargement has demonstrated sufficiently rapid progress, although most European countries have different views on deepening integration processes.

Since the report «Towards Post-American Europe» Research Centre «European Council on Foreign Relations» the importance of transatlantic relations is characterized as a process overlaps and differences between the American «pragmatism» in search of a stronger Europe and agreed in the context of international transformations (economic crisis, Afghanistan, terrorism) and enlarged Europe as US geopolitical logic prevails common European goals. Undoubtedly, the Lisbon Treaty does not change the structural asymmetry of transatlantic cooperation: the administration of Barack Obama defines US foreign policy and the EU should coordinate common positions in international relations of 28 states of supranational organization [40].

In the global world of «multiple partners» EU retains its status of «traditional ally» of the United States, although American politicians are less interested in Europe for themselves and more interested in military and non-military contributions that Europe can offer to solve global problems. Washington believes that the transatlantic relationship cannot be limited, so traditional allies must work together to build relationships and partnerships with other actors in international relations. Can be considered unchanged US position on EU security and defense, which is internally inconsistent and related to the assessment of the use of military capabilities in Europe, affecting the ability to confront the problems of post-conflict reconstruction and military operations in different parts of the world. Barack Obama administration's approach to the European Security and Defense Policy administration is close to that of George W. Bush's in 2005, when pragmatism and coordination of efforts demanded to focus on specific coalitions and solving bilateral or trilateral issues. Wherein NATO is seen as a principal security tool for the US and Europe, particularly in situations when Washington does not wish to interfere in solving some of the problems of international development, the Europeans are trying to demonstrate the ability to take the initiative, referring to the United States for advisory or technical assistance [43].

Therefore, in progress in US-European relations at beginning of the XXI century you can state the victory of mutual pragmatism. Experts believe that change in the

EU's status from «traditional allies» to that of «essential partners» is caused by the need to clearly define European interests in transatlantic cooperation, where relations between the EU and the US are based on protecting the interests and priorities of each party, in addition to the policy of compromise. Currently, the format of transatlantic cooperation remains multilevel, negotiation basis for US foreign practices combined with cooperation with the EU, which confirm the practical transition of Washington to renovation of collective actions. Enrichment of US - European relations with «global context» changes transatlantic partnership practice both in content and in form, as the US and the EU remain significant leaders of world politics, which, in addition to protect their competitive advantage obtain through strategic partnership further opportunities for the development and implementation common consensus positions on many issues of global problems. Transatlantic unity remains some ballast to the manifestations of complex processes of modern international political evolution, but for any scenario of strategic cooperation it is clear that no country or alliance of nations can ensure its safety in narrow geographic scope, that's why discussions on the development of the transatlantic partnership facing the global level in its historical and conceptual perspective.

References

1. Herrera G. The Politics of Bandwidth: International Political Implications of a Global Digital Information Network / G. Herrera // Review of International Studies. - 2002. - Vol. 28. - P. 93122.

2. Farrell H. Constructing the International Foundations of E-Commerce - The EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Arrangement / H. Farrell // International Organization. - 2003. - Vol. 57. - P. 277-306.

3. Reilly K. The West and the World: A History of Civilization from 1400 to the Present / K. Reilly.

- Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2002. - 408 p.

4. Gordon P.H., Shapiro J. Allies at War. America, Europe, and the Crisis over Iraq / P.H. Gordon, J. Shapiro. - McGraw-Hill: A Brookings Institution Book, 2004. - 266 p.

5. Krasner S.D., Goldsmith J. The Limits of Idealism / S.D. Krasner, J. Goldsmith // Daedalus. - 2003. - Vol. 132. - P. 47-63.

6. Young O. International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation / O. Young // World Politics. - 1980. - Vol. 32. - P. 331-356.

7. Martin L. Interests, Power, and Multilateralism / L. Martin // International Organization. - 1992.

- Vol. 46. - P. 765-792.

8. Wolf K.D. The New Raison D'йtat as a Problem for Democracy in World Society / K.D. Wolf // European Journal of International Relations. - 1999. - Vol. 5. - P. 333-363.

9. Elliott K.A., Debayani K., Richardson J.D. Assessing Globalization's Critics: Talkers are No Good Doers? / K.A. Elliott, K. Debayani, J.D. Richardson // Institute for International Economics.

- Working Paper. - 2002. - May. - [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу: http://www. ciaonet. org/wps/ elk02/elk02.pdf.

10. Монбриаль Т. де. Действие и система мира / Т. де Монбриаль / Пер. с франц. - М.: РОССПЭН, 2005. - 486 c.

11. Chomsky N. World Order Old and New / N. Chomsky. - New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. - 343 p.

12. Tincq H. The Clash of Two Fundamentalisms / H. Tincq // Le Monde. - 2003. - March 31.

13. Armstrong K. Our Role in Terror / K. Armstrong // Guardian. - 2003. - September 18.

14. Schawcross W. Allies. The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq / W. Schawcross. - New York: Public Affairs, 2004. - 261 p.

15. Rosenau J.N. Governance in the Twenty-first Century / J.N. Rosenau // Global Governance. - 1995. - Vol. 6. - P. 13-43.

16. Keohane R.O., Nye J.S. Power and Interdependence / R.O. Keohane, J.S. Nye. - [2nd ed.]. - Glenview etc.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1989. - 315 p.

17. Roche J.G., Pickett G.E. Organizing the Government to Provide the Tools for Intervention / J.G. Roche, G.E. Pickett // U.S. Intervention Policy for the Post-Cold World. New Challenges and New Responses / Ed. by A. Kanter, L.E. Brooks. - New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1994. - P. 195-224.

18. Burly A-M., Mattli W. Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration / AM. Burly, W. Mattli // International Organization. - 1993. - Vol. 47. - P. 41-76.

19. Knowledge, Power and International Policy // International Organization. Special Issue. - 1992. - Vol. 46. - P. 187-224.

20. Viott P., Kauppi M.V. International Relations Theory. Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond / P. Viotti, M.V. Kauppi. - [3rd ed.]. - Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. - 509 p.

21. Viotti P., Kauppi M.V. The Global Philosophers: World Politics in Western Thought / P. Viotti, M.V. Kauppi. - New York-San Francisco: Lexington Books/Macmillan, 1992. - 346 p.

22. Martin L., Beth S. Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions / L. Martin, S. Beth // International Organization. - 1998. - Vol. 52. - P. 729-757.

23. Singer J.D. The Responsibilities of Competence in the Global Village / J.D. Singer // International Studies Quarterly. - 1985. - Vol. 29. - P. 245-259.

24. Lake A. Address at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C., September 25, 1993 / A. Lake // Department of State Dispatch. - 1993. - Vol. 4. - №39. - P. 1-3.

25. George W. Bush's Project / W. George // High Risk and Big Ambition / Ed. by S.E. Schier. - Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 2004. - 292 p.

26. Zakaria F. The Arrogant Empire / F. Zakaria // Newsweek. - 2003. - March 3.

27. Power in Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy after September 11 / Ed. by J. Feffer. - New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003. - 123 p.

28. Podhoretz J. Bush Country / J. Podhoretz. - New York: Saint Martin's Press, 2004. - 275 p.

29. The Post 9/11 Partnership: Transatlantic Cooperation Against Terrorism. - Washington, DC: The Atlantic Council Policy Paper, 2004. - 43 p.

30. Mueller A. What's Wrong with Economic Growth? / A. Mueller - [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу: http://www.blog.mises.org/blog/archives/

31. U.S. Statement on the Situation in Yugoslavia May 24, 1991 // Self Determination in the New World Order / Ed. by M.H. Halperin, D.J. Scheffer, P.L. Small. - Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1992. - 177 p.

32. Curtis M. Some see in Clinton policy a casualty of Balkan War / M. Curtis // Boston Globe. - 1993. - March 25.

33. Лакішик Д.М. Американо-німецькі відносини: випробування Боснією / Д.М. Лакішик // Дослідження світової політики: Збірник наукових праць / ІСЕМВ НАН України. - 2000. - Вип. 11. - С. 15-20.

34. Лакішик Д.М. Позиція США щодо німецької політики в рамках НАТО / Д.М. Лакішик // Вісник Київського нац. ун-ту. Історія. - 2000. - Вип. 50. - С. 40-43.

35. Tellis A.J. Assessing America's War on Terror: Confronting Insurgency, Cementing Primacy / A.J. Tellis // Washington: NBR Analysis. - 2004. - Vol. 15. - №4. - 104 p.

36. Bildt C. Don't discount Europe's commitment to Afghanistan / C. Bildt, A.F. Rasmussen // The Washington Post. - 8 January 2010.

37. Erlanger S. Europeans Woo U.S., Promising Relevance. - [Електронний ресурс] - Режим

доступу: http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9E03EEDC153EF93AA15750C0A9669DB6

38. Штюрмер М. Старый Свет без опеки. - [Електронний ресурс] / М. Штюрмер - Режим доступу: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/number/Staryi-Svet-bez-opeki-14957

39. Hamilton D.S., Quinlan J.P. The Transatlantic Economy 2009: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade and Investment between the United States and Europe / D.S. Hamilton, J.P. Quinlan - Washington, D.C.: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2009. - P. V-XI.

40. Witney N., Shapiro J. Towards a Post-American Europe: A Power Audit of EU-US Relations / N. Witney, J. Shapiro // ECFR. - November. - 2009. - 239

41. Zakaria F. The Post-American World / F. Zakaria - New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2008. - 336 p.

42. Hamilton D., Foster N. The Obama administration and Europe / D. Hamilton, N. Foster // ECFR. - November. - 2009. - P. 37-55.

43. Ho worth J. NATO and ESDP: Institutional Complexities and Political Realities / J. Howorth // Politique etrangere. - 2009. - №4. - P. 95-106.

Размещено на Allbest.ru