Europe and America: The Politics of Resentment (Cont'd)
Transatlantic disaffections, sturdy perennials since the turn of the decade, continued to sprout luxuriantly throughout 1982. They were nourished by two as yet inchoate forces which, if unchecked, will logically lead to the end of alliance: the trends toward neutralism in Europe and toward unilateralism in America.
Josef Joffe, a senior editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, is currently on leave at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.
Transatlantic disaffections, sturdy perennials since the turn of the decade, continued to sprout luxuriantly throughout 1982. They were nourished by two as yet inchoate forces which, if unchecked, will logically lead to the end of alliance: the trends toward neutralism in Europe and toward unilateralism in America.
Both sentiments spring, paradoxically, from the same source. If the message of neutralism is "Leave us alone," the motto of global unilateralism is "We will go it alone." It does not matter that the neutralist impulse seeks safety in the escape from power while unilateralism glories in its reassertion. Nor does it matter that the one may be driven by fear whereas the other is fueled by a heady sense of newfound determination. For in both cases, the leitmotiv is retraction and insulation-from the grating demands of dependence, from the troubles of a strained partnership, from commitment to uncertain allies who exact loyalty with a vengeance but yield little of their jealously guarded freedom of action.
The Alliance has of course suffered from bouts of European neutralism before. Indeed, the "Yankee go home" and ohne mich revulsions of the 1950s make today's anti-American sentiments appear as rather pale copies of the real thing. Similarly, the Kampf dem Atomtod ("fight nuclear death") campaign in Germany of circa 1958 was a real movement rather than a mood restricted to a strident minority. (A quarter-century ago, not only were there hundreds of thousands taking to the streets and squares of West Germany; there was a clear anti-nuclear majority in public opinion and, more important, there was also a leadership and a structure provided by the Social Democratic Party and the Trade Union Federation.)
On the American side, the fitful rush toward global unilateralism is almost as old as the Alliance itself: intervention in Korea in 1950 (with the help of some token allied contingents but where the United States fought essentially alone), the abandonment of Britain and France during the Suez War of 1956, the shift from the multilateral NATO deterrent force (MLF) to limited Big-Twoism in 1965 (as symbolized by the Nonproliferation Treaty), escalation in Vietnam under President Johnson, the "Nixon Shock" of 1971. Still, Europe and the United States have never turned from one another at the same time. As in a stable marriage, one was always there to tend house when the other went off in pursuit of extra-curricular temptations.
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
Seymour Martin Lipset explains why the United States is exceptional. Michael J. Sandel blames its individualistic tradition for the country's ills and says America should return to the New England town square. But it isn't exceptional, and it shouldn't return.
Not for the first time, agricultural trade has become a live and contentious issue in Atlantic relations. Questions of access and protection have been subjects of constant concern to American farmers and traders since the establishment of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy 25 years ago. Now, though, under the pressures of surplus stocks of grain and falling farm incomes, there is a new area of contention--competitive subsidies designed to win or ensure shares in an erratic world market. Months of negotiation have failed to resolve the issue and neither the European Community nor the United States has shown any sign of being ready to sacrifice what both define as legitimate economic interests.
To see ourselves as others see us is a rare and valuable gift, without a doubt. But in international relations what is still rarer and far more useful is to see others as they see themselves. The two talents, the double giftie, would, if generalized, abort many preconceptions that delay or obstruct agreement, and would also reduce that sterile indignation on which the newspaper-nurtured peoples feed. It is indeed extraordinary how little the power to spread news and opinion around the globe in a few seconds affects the judgments that one nation passes on another which is accessible and "well-known." Travel itself, which is now so frequent as to seem a childish indulgence without excuse, leaves the casual and the trained observers equally at fault. Everybody responds as if involved in a social encounter. Thus de Gaulle remains puzzling or is deemed perverse because his foreign critics do not see the French as they happen to see themselves today-rehashing the causes of defeat and loss of empire and needing to stiffen their morale with an exacting ideal of greatness in a period of relaxing prosperity. Again, the American experts visiting Britain in hopes of aiding the increase of her industrial output do not see that the resistance to modernizing springs from the intuition that the new methods must destroy the quiet restraint and wordless adjustment between persons and classes which the English know to be their strength as a people.
