France, the European Crisis and the Alliance
The year 1973 may still go down as the "Year of Europe," though not for the reasons Henry Kissinger had in mind when he christened it that, in his April 23 speech last year. It will be rather that the crises of the past year have made the choices for Europe clearer than ever; they have further shown that if European lack of will and vision led to nothing more serious than division and weakness before, they now are perfectly capable of leading the European Economic Community to disintegration.
The year 1973 may still go down as the "Year of Europe," though not for the reasons Henry Kissinger had in mind when he christened it that, in his April 23 speech last year. It will be rather that the crises of the past year have made the choices for Europe clearer than ever; they have further shown that if European lack of will and vision led to nothing more serious than division and weakness before, they now are perfectly capable of leading the European Economic Community to disintegration.
In 1973, Europe was indeed, in the words of French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert, "treated like a non-person" and "humiliated," not only by the United States, Mr. Jobert's favorite target, but by practically everybody. The Soviet Union showed no great solicitude either for France or for the EEC during the year, less than did the United States-unusual considering that in these topsy-turvy days one generally expects better treatment from his adversaries than from his friends. Any relationship Europe may have dreamed of with China was upstaged by Henry Kissinger's ties to Chou En-lai. The Europeans' self-abasement in front of the Arab nations on November 6, and their approval of a document accepting the Arab interpretations of U.N. Resolution 242, did little either for the European reputation or Middle East peace. And it remains to be seen if it earns Europe any special energy privileges in the future. Despite that humiliating gesture, Europe still suffered oil shortages and was obliged to show the world how dependent the once mighty Continent was on the tiny sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Advocates of "Europe" -- a united, federal European state -- tout their project as at once a noble political ideal and a pragmatic economic strategy. Both arguments are wrong. The European Union's bureaucrats will stifle the continent's economy, and its politicos will breed corruption and nationalist resentment. Letting the EU handle security matters would be equally disastrous, as the fiasco in Bosnia demonstrates. Despite all this, the partisans of "Europe" warn the skeptical that the train is pulling out of the station. Those who care about Europe will let it go.
Antony Blinken has missed a fundamental transformation at work. America and Europe may still share values and interests, but Europe and the world have changed profoundly since the Cold War. The transatlantic relationship must change, too.
Larry Siedentop's Democracy in Europe contrasts the tyrannical bureaucracy in Brussels with the federal republic that inspired Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. But the author's political nostalgia overlooks the European reality.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.