The differences that arise more or less regularly between the nations bordering the two sides of the North Atlantic are customarily laid to "misunderstandings." But the fact that these differences multiplied all through 1980 indicates that there exists between the United States and two of its principal European partners something of a crisis of confidence.
André Fontaine is editor-in-chief of the Paris newspaper Le Monde and author of History of the Cold War.
The differences that arise more or less regularly between the nations bordering the two sides of the North Atlantic are customarily laid to "misunderstandings." But the fact that these differences multiplied all through 1980 indicates that there exists between the United States and two of its principal European partners something of a crisis of confidence.
It was, to be sure, not the first time this has happened: remember the Suez episode, or the U-2 incident, or, especially, the Vietnam War, when President Lyndon Johnson fumed at not receiving the slightest support from his North Atlantic allies. Then there was the Arab-Israeli conflict of October 1973, which witnessed an explosion of ill humor among the allies when they discovered the extent of their dependence on Middle Eastern oil and, at the same time, the indifference of a protector who had completely forgotten to consult them. What is new is that Europeans generally doubt the reliability of the United States, just when that country is deploring its partners' failure to maintain the solidarity of the free world.
This doubt has almost always existed in France. When President Charles de Gaulle came to power in 1958 and decided to develop France's own nuclear deterrent force, it was not just because there can be no political independence without freedom of military decision. It was also because President Charles de Gaulle was convinced that the more weapons were "modernized"-in other words, the more terrifying they became-the more a normally constituted nation would hesitate to employ them to protect regions that were not indispensable to its survival.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
The two world wars are the mountain ranges that dominate the historical landscape of the twentieth century. We still live in their shadows, in America as well as in Europe. Only with these wars did European and American history begin to coincide. The revolutions of 1820, 1830, 1848 and the wars leading to the unification of Italy and Germany marked the nineteenth century in European history, while the major events in American history were the westward movement, the Civil War and mass immigration. These events had certain transatlantic connections, yet not decisive ones. But in the twentieth century the two world wars have been the main events in the history of Europe and America as well.
Why is America alone in defending the West's far-flung interests? NATO allies can project power too, instead of waiting for a helping hand from across the ocean.
In many areas, transatlantic cooperation is stronger than ever before. Yet the common perception is of an increasingly fraught relationship, as evidenced by the well-known disputes over beef, bananas, and burden sharing. Assumptions are diverging over security risks and cultural values. Each side criticizes the other's unwieldy policymaking process without admitting its own shortcomings, while leaders pander to domestic interests and prejudices without educating voters on international issues. Europe nonetheless remains indispensable to a multilateral U.S. foreign policy. The Bush administration must acknowledge the European Union as a true partner, in political and military matters as well as in economics. America cannot expect its allies to share the burdens of global leadership without allowing them their say in the issues at stake.

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