PRESSESSIONAL 2008 COURSE PERIOD 3

PROJECT TUTOR: Dr. Vassilena Parashkevova

ARTICLE REVIEW
BUILDING A NEW ATLANTIC ALLIANCE

Author: James P. Rubin is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s School

of International and Public Affairs. He served as Assistance Secretary of State for
Public Affairs from 1997 to 2000.

This is a Review of James P. Rubin’s article “Building a New Atlantic Alliance”:

Foreign Affairs Journal: Volume 87 No.4: pp. 99-110.

STUDENT: JORGE LUIS HERRERA ALOR.

 This article, “BUILDING A NEW ATLANTIC ALLIANCE” was written by
James P. Rubin; the author aims to provide us an overview of the Americans’ political
situation in the international field and to explain it, he uses two facts that are
important for the future of the relationship between the United States of America and
Europe. One is, concerned to the recent NATO summit, which was the event that
closed the George Bush’s influence in this International treaty, and the next U.S.
presidential election due in November 2008. Starting from these two important facts,
James P. Rubin analyzes and divides his work in five parts: “Restoring America’s
Partnership with Europe”, “The Great Atlantic Rift, Continental Drift”, “The Other
Surge” and “All United on the Western Front”. Through his work, he offers some
important points or issues which should be considered to achieve this new
Transatlantic Relationship.

RESTORING AMERICA’S PARTNERSHIP WITH EUROPE

Firstly, the author emphasizes that “the erosion of respect for the United States
is a threat to U.S. national security” (p. 100). This phrase has a deep meaning because
the U.S. is an important member of NATO. Dr. Robin argues that since George Bush
took part in it, all the things turned negative about international cooperation.
“Fortunately, he adds, both the Democratic and the Republican presidential candidates
recognize how much harm has been done and have vowed to restore the United
States’ standing in the world” (p. 100). According to the author, it is the time to
change the way in which U. S. has been doing International Politics, instead of
unilateralism, cooperation is the next step which would help to gain new European
allies. The author summarizes some of the problems which have affected the
relationship between Europe and the U.S: policies toward Afghanistan and Iran,
climate change, the war on terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and North
Korea. In this panorama there are some glimmerings that came up from the darkness,
“Washington’s emphasis in diplomacy over military force and its shift from
belligerency to persuasion” (page 100).
Likewise, not only George Bush had a selfish role but also U.S. Supreme Court
and Congress; they reined some of the most outrageous issues launched by Bush: the
U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Moreover, there are two important members of NATO who have some affinity with
Bush and have cooperated with his administration, Merkel in Germany and Nicolas
Sarkozy, both of whom make transatlantic relations far less strained than they were a
few years ago.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC RIFT
In addition to this, a big segregation in the relationship between the members of
NATO and U.S still prevails, as a result of this, hundred of U. S. soldiers continue
dying. American allies’ modest contributions and the decrease in United Kingdom’s
military contingents make it worst. Moreover, there are two different stages where the
same actors play, the first one is Iraq’s war, where European countries give
considerably less military support, and the second one, Afghanistan, where NATO
plays an important role of support, but “whether European governments admit it or
not, much of the problem stems from the lingering European resentment of the first
Bush administration’s unilateralism and its arrogant dismissal of the need for NATO
assistance in Afghanistan” (p. 101).
Two factors must been considered in this new landscape: the erosion of
international respect for the United States and its national security. Not long ago,
Washington was easily respected, admired and supported by European countries and
Japan who could have shaped together a majority in the UN Security Council. On the
other hand, Russia could be made amenable with the influence of Europe as well as
China abstained by Russian acquiescence. Nowadays, China is an independent player
while Russia more confrontational and both are considered a threat for Washington’s
new era as well as nuclear proliferation, climate changes and terrorism.
All in all, the author shows us how bad political decisions can be measured
against numerous studies and polling data, to show that U.S popularity has gone down
dramatically.
Another point that is mentioned in the article is the great Atlantic rift of values.
Europeans analyze international problems from a different perspective than the U. S.
do in terms of values. There are many examples: the Declaration of Independence
from the constraints of multilateral diplomacy, Kyoto Protocolo, the International
Criminal Court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, etc. In this moment and in
regard to mankind, there is especially one topic to which all the countries must pay
attention environmental policy. “It is not just the Green Party in Germany that regards
climate change as a planetary peril. From the Conservative Party in the United
Kingdom to the Christian Democratic parties on the continent thinking green has
taken hold regardless of political ideology”, (p. 103).
As a result of all the negative facts, U.S. policymakers suffer in terms of foreign
policy due to the anti-American feeling so it is considerably hard to find allies for
their policies. Now it is time U.S. renovation, new administration must pay attention
to it.
CONTINENTAL DRIFT

J. Rubin analyzes the strategy that the White House should take, for example: an
executive order stating that all terrorist suspects should be treated in accordance with
the U.S. Army Field Manual; the prohibition of some interrogation techniques; the
closing of Guantánamo and an affirmation of support for the Geneva Conventions.
Almost all the arguments expressed by the author are focused on Human Rights:
“That is a risk that must be understood and accepted in the service of a greater goal:
the United States’ good name”. (p.104)
As the author points out the importance of working together (U.S. and its allies)
against terrorism and Islamist extremism, they should be organized to discuss policies
in terms of detention of enemy combatants, judicial procedures and so on. On the
other hand, there are two aspects that are emphasized throughout the article;
compromising on climate change and the consideration of multilateral diplomacy and
treaties as a common currency. Doing his analysis, Rubin reminds us and explains
that each state, before approving international treaties, must negotiate inside its own
governments. Those negotiations are called domestic agreements between political
parties. For that reason, Europe must accept that “U.S. laws are different and that
small constituencies can scuttle treaties” (p. 105). Not only the United States and its
new administration must therefore demonstrate availability by passing internal
legislation in order to get international arrangements, but also, should European
governments, China, India and Russia as the key players in this important game.
 THE OTHER SURGE
The next election in the U. S. will help to rebuild many international political
structures around the world and will determinate the next steps to follow. In terms of
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are two positions. The first one senator John
McCain’s (to continue the course in Iraq), the second one is a substantial withdrawal
of U.S. troops, thought, as the author mentions, they would not expect European troop
contributions.
In this field a new member is appearing who could dramatically change the
situation: President Sarkozy. He has declared his interest to give unconditional
support to NATO. In this event there is something that should stress the fact that in
the past the French government played passively because its former president did not
agree with Bush’s politics. Now France could become a bridge between the U.S. and
Europe. Sarkozy declared in March that “we cannot afford to lose Afghanistan”.
(p.107)
Despite, the U.S efforts to enrol Europe in the field of battle, governments must
deal with their own political circumstances, so Germany could be as important as
France for Washington, but at the same if Germany wants to give a stronger support
to NATO, they have to overcome internal public opposition. The main point
mentioned by the author in order to involve Europe in the NATO is by giving them an
important role in this battle and to acknowledge the importance of the European
Union.
ALL UNITED ON THE WESTERN FRONT

In addition to the problems mentioned, Russia is also becoming an issue for the
USA. The author illustrates clearly why U.S. and Medvedev’s government are dealing
international troubles; The Russian government is obsessed about going in the
opposite direction to the U.S., for example, the increase in capability of its strategic
nuclear arsenal and the opposition to implement a serious control of arming. “A
strengthened partnership with Europe would help Washington deal with a defiant
Russia” (p.108); Likewise, we should remember all the explanations given by the
author about Iran and its nuclear purposes; the peace needed between Palestinians
Israelis. There is a necessity of rebuilding partnership with the E.U., the benefits of it
should be substantial; NATO is the place to start.
 To sum up, the author constantly pointes out how harmful the Bush’s
administration and stressed the necessity of building a new agenda that could restore
the respect for the United States. The new administration should forget about
“honeymoon” and start to work immediately, he argues.