John Kornblum

first published in German

Die Welt November 17, 2022

 

 

Let’s be honest. Even after 80 years of successful multilateral cooperation, many Europeans and Americans seem still to be most happy when they can live within their existing national spaces.  If they had been given the choice, most would probably not have put together the complex web of institutions which makes up our current Western world. 

It took a total collapse of the world order in the 1930’s to force Europeans and North Americans to accept the authority of multilateral structures over their national interests. 

Now the post-World War II order seems to be crumbling.  Rapid, destructive change has undermined methods and goals so successful in the past. The United States is having a hard time with the necessary restructuring, but change is taking hold.    Sadly, the same cannot be said for Europe. 

Europe Burdened by History

As someone who has lived and worked in Europe for over 50 years can attest, political and social change in Europe does not follow the steady evolution as is often the case in the US. Hindered by the continued virulence of traumas inherited from the upheavals of the 20th century, European societies tend to resist change until all other options have been exhausted.   

The late Polish publicist Ryzard Kapuscinski astutely described the European condition with the term “historical society” – a society which identifies itself through its history. “If they lose their history,” he wrote, “they lose their identity.” Thus, the resistance to change. 

 

Caught Between the Old and the New 

 

Unfortunately, the new digital era is arriving just as old ways of life are beginning to crumble.    As suggested by Kapuscinski, these radical changes are undermining the very confidence needed to meet an uncertain future.    

Climate change, pandemics, refugee flows, natural disasters, energy mixes and the pollution they create. The list is almost endless. 

Suddenly humankind is confronted with a seamless web of influences on our daily lives which no institutions, no multi-national corporations, and above all no governments, national or international, have been able bring under control.    

The rise of populism and nationalism on both sides of the Atlantic reveals how unsettling these old and new challenges have already been. The aggressive behavior of China and Russia and India’s growing isolationism are also based upon the fear of change.  No matter how hard we try, nothing will remain the same. 

 

Time to Deliver

 President Biden made this task the centerpiece of his first speech to European allies in February, 2021.   Boldly announcing that “America is back” as the leader of the Western world, Biden was reminding us that Trump was not the only cause of transatlantic friction in recent years.

Biden’s encouraging message was accompanied by a pointed challenge. “We must demonstrate that our democracies can still deliver for our people in this changed world.  That, in my view, is our galvanizing mission.”

Rather than trying to “make America great again” or praising the European “Peace project,” Biden seemed to turn again to the power of facts.  In other words, our governments need to produce results aimed finding a normative basis for dealing with the new reality.  

But “facts” are a notoriously difficult thing to pin down. What is the truth for voters whose lives are changing faster than ever before?  How do we describe phenomena such as artificial intelligence or cyber warfare when the vocabulary and the words to help us understand these new global maps do not even exist? 

It is probably not surprising that competing visions are also arising amongst Western partners, both across the Atlantic and within Europe or the United States. 

Pictures of Red and Blue America are matched by the steady divisions in the European Union – between East and West, north and south and almost always, against Germany.

 

The America of Europe 

Angela Merkel was in the habit of calling 21st century Germany the America of Europe. If anything, this picture has come into sharper focus as the problems have mounted. Germany is especially stubborn in defending its own way of life. 

 Whether the subject is military defense, fiscal stability or energy policy, the German version is often contrary to that of other Europeans, but ironically, more in harmony with modern liberal American thinking. 

Those who continue to call “German leadership” of Europe and even the West, are missing the mark.  Germany has in fact been leading Europe in its own way for several decades. Problem is that its solutions too often usually boil down to telling others to behave as Germany does. This answer is seldom satisfactory to other Europeans whose societies are not as prosperous as disciplined as is that of Germany.

 

 

Enter the United States

 

Germany entered NATO 63 years ago as part of a trans-Atlantic bargain. The US would strengthen NATO with Germany as a member, if the Europeans would continue progress towards unification and a common defense. 

The interests were clear. Europeans wanted protection against both Russia and Germany and the US wanted a reason to reduce its presence in Europe. Six decades later, Europe still wants protection from the overwhelming influence of Germany and the US is still blocking Russia influence in Europe.  

In fact, as prophesized by Richard Holbrooke in a definitive Foreign Affairs article in 1995, if Germany has become the America of Europe, it is logical to suggest that America has become a permanent European power.  

Success of the European project requires a steady balance which Europeans cannot produce by themselves. This is the role of the United States. . One might even say that if Germany is the America of Europe, then America is Europe’s central power, i.e., its Germany.   

At a time when America has once again jumped in to protect the security of democratic Europe, it is hardly necessary to stress the importance of the Atlantic community. But as European identity weakens in the manner predicted by  Ryzard Kapuscinski, the overwhelming power of the United States sometimes seems in itself to be a threat. Thus, calls for “digital Sovereignty,” or visions of Europe being caught between two aggressive powers – China and the US.

 

 

Seeking a New Narrative 

 Such destructive visions of the Western world cannot be overcome without a fundamental change in the definition of Western, including European goals. Most essential will be to abandon the idealism of a non-military peace project or the vision of an independent geo-political role without the United States. 

Instead, the new Western narrative should be based on responsible management of the permanent democratic community, numbering nearly one billion persons, which the West has been able to construct since 1990. 

Second would come agreement on the tools and goals Western nations could use to implement their needs. Examples would include agreement on a new vocabulary which could help to define the problems we are facing. 

Or definition of the principles which will guide operation of global supply chains and networks or artificial intelligence. Understandings on these issues would approximate the role of agreements reached after 1945. 

 The term “new narrative” may be overused these days, but an updated “story” of Western goals and ideas is exactly what we need.

The task might be clarified by comparison with                     the Helsinki Final Act. The negotiations of Helsinki goals and values which have been ongoing for nearly 50 years have produced the best definition of modern civil society agreed so far. A similar process to define the value of digital society would be exactly what is called for.