By Michael Garson
European relations have been at the forefront of American foreign policy since before the United States declared its own independence. With recent shifts of power in France and England, Western Europe is back on the front-page. The cultural and political similarities that extend from across the pond keep this region significant. However, it appears that Europe now has to deal with an identity crisis. Demographic, political, and economic pressures have forced the action on the area’s policymakers. Each country now has to choose how it deals with an increasingly complex world and moves forward into the 21st century.
This topic brief will provide a description of the problems currently facing Western Europe and how it can address them. Any countries of particular significance will also be explored and their individual circumstances will be analyzed. As Europe attempts to consolidate power and rival the Untied States, it may be falling apart from the inside out.
Dealing with Immigration
Here in the United States, the issue over immigration centers on jobs and dollars. Are immigrants taking jobs or making companies more efficient? Are the services offered to illegal immigrants offset by the benefits of cheap labor? While these questions are prevalent in Western Europe as well, they are less significant than questions of culture. A steady influx of immigrants from the Arab world is causing increased tension. Riots engulfed Paris 18 months ago after Parisian police officers were charged with racial profiling and excessive uses of force against Arab youth suspected of criminal activity. Cartoons depicting Allah, which is forbidden by the Koran, forced free speech issues to be reviewed across the continent. The high Muslim populations in Western Europe are growing restless.
In the fallout of World War II, young laborers were needed to help rebuild the European economy. Immigration standards were relaxed and many in the Middle East sought a better life abroad. Compounding the issue is the high birth rates of Muslim families and low birth rates of Caucasian families. The demographics of Europe are gradually shifting. However, many Muslims are not assimilating into European culture. They largely live in poor neighborhoods of major cities. Poverty and a lack of education are rampant. This poor, disadvantaged minority feels alienated. Worsening the situation is the highly secular nature of European governments. Another flare up in the Muslim relations was caused when the French government banned the Muslim burqa, or head scarf, inside government buildings.
The alleged mistreatment of Muslim populations has been used as a justification for terrorism throughout the world. The July 7th subway bombings are especially significant in that they were carried out by British citizens. The generation of young Muslims is becoming increasingly religious and is more likely to buy into the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and Islamic fundamentalists calling for a global Muslim caliphate. While no one will advocate negotiating with terrorists, the European governments and people will need to at least satiate the desires of their Muslim populations. A cultural, political, and economic middle ground must be found in order to create a lasting peace. How ironic and unfortunate that many European nations signed up for the War on Terror on the pretense of keeping the battlefield off of European soil. Instead, this perceived anti-Islamic bias has engendered terrorism from within.
How can Europe endear itself to its own Muslim population? The answer may prove to be, at least at first, counterintuitive. Less government intervention may end up going a long way. Respecting the cultural norms of immigrants would be seen as a sign of respect. Also, these immigrants should be encouraged to take part in the political process. Representatives of every community are essential for government to serve all citizens. The strong governmental network of social services should continue to be made available to those in need. While some disconnect in inevitable, Western Europe must temper its secular, one-size-fits-all mentality in order to turn its biggest enemy to its greatest ally. After all, what could be a bigger blow to terrorism than European Muslims standing beside their respective governments and declaring that unity, peace, and prosperity are all possible for those who seek them?
Dealing with Others
While I will save an analysis of the European Union for a later date, it is impossible to mention Western Europe without it. Using the same currency and operating under similar economic regulations, the playing field has been leveled, or so we are led to believe. As some look to the EU as a rival to American hegemony, others are nothing there are fractures in the alliance. The fact of the matter is that Western Europe is not a single body; it is a composition of multiple countries. Go down Main Street, USA and people identify themselves as American first and a New Yorker or Californian second. Ask the average Parisian, and he/she will claim a French identity first, and a European identity second. Though very basic, this simple analogy shows an obstacle to European power consolidation. Each country is only in the EU to enhance national power. Therefore, when it comes time to negotiate a new economic policy, France will demand agricultural protections, whereas Germany wants to build up its strong industrial sectors. Foreign policy unity is nearly impossible, as evidenced by England’s decision to join the United States in the War in Iraq. With power changing hands in France and England in the past months, it is important to monitor any changes (an analysis of all three countries is below) in their policies. The conflict between national interest and continental interest is one that every political leader must reconcile.
As the European Union continues to expand, Eastern Europe (which will also be revisited in the months to come) is increasingly important to Western Europe. The days of staying on the west side of the Berlin Wall are gone. Loosened economic and immigration policies have tied develop eastern states to the industrialized, modern western ones. Similar to the immigration debate in America, western European countries are expressing concern that eastern Europeans are coming over and stealing French, British, and German jobs. More covertly, Western Europe is quick to assert its total dominance over Eastern Europe. EU decision-making power must remain in the west to maintain the status quo. Economic policies that would assist developing countries and a foreign policy that closely aligns with Russia, or completely damns Russia, would be a nightmare scenario for the Big Three of Germany, France, and England.
Overall, it would be impossible for any European country to rival the United States in power due to economic and political limitations. There are neither the people nor the money within any country’s borders. Also, ties to the European Union will hold down any power that decides to go rogue. Yet, the power of the collective could become the most powerful force in the world. The EU’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) is actually larger than that of the United States. If the members worked together to form a unified foreign policy, the world’s other powers would have to respect the institution, instead of trying to ally with some countries and not others. Considering that extemp question writers love to ask about the EU’s potential, it is important to look at the possibility and viability of a unified Europe. After all, if Europe unified there is quite literally no telling what kind of power would be unleashed.
Dealing with their People
Europe has long used its governments to allow for increased economic equality. Nearly all governments have adopted the “welfare state” model. This theory of governance offers government services and dollars to everyone. The unemployment benefits in Western Europe are among the highest in the world. Governments mandate vacation time and create maximum hour workweeks for the public and private sectors. The benefits of this philosophy are “fairer” wealth distribution and reduced stress. Unlike their American counterparts, Europeans work less and have more free time. Also, the threat of being laid off is far less scary, since the government will provide a steady income. However, this system does have a price: economic efficiency. Western European economics, by and large, do not experience high growth rates. It is not uncommon to see unemployment rates in Western Europe in the high single digits, roughly double those of the United States. Fiscal conservatives will contend that the governments’ generosity is encouraging workers to not seek out employment. Also, the high tax rates in Europe to fund these programs discouraging investment and job creation. If starting a business means paying workers high wages and paying the government high taxes, there is little room for profit.
The distinction between European and American economics and sociology is absolutely imperative in order to understand Western Europe. While capitalism still reigns supreme, it is tempered by a sense of equality and morality. While it is certainly significant that Western Europe has a higher unemployment rate than the United States, this does not mean that the country is poorer. Not having a job is far less of a concern in Europe. When giving a speech on European economics, extempers will be remiss if they do not give at least a rudimentary analysis of generic economics. When European politicians call for less vacation time, decreased government benefits, tax cuts, and longer workweeks, be advised that this decision is not solely economic. European attempts to “Americanize” strike at the very heart of European culture. Governments have institutionalized social equality and wove it into the fabric of Europe. Those Europeans who use the government to make a living may be opposed to such changes. Those who enjoy the 35-hour work week and three weeks of paid vacation may not want to give up those luxuries. Therefore, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give up on the status quo, regardless of economic weakness.
Country Profiles
England
There are myriad reasons to study, analyze, and file England. Economic size, nuclear capabilities, UN Security Council veto power, power in the EU, and cultural ties to the United States are all very important. However, extempers often miss the biggest reason. The Economist and the Financial Times are both British publications. Extempers should be aware that only two countries receive their own sections in every edition of the Economist: the United States and England. Certainly not the second most powerful or interesting country in the world, Great Britain gets disproportionate media attention. So when actual news occurs, such as the stepping down of Prime Minister Tony Blair, extempers, judges, and question writers are bound to hang on every word of that great publication with the funny pictures and the pink newspaper.
As any loyal viewer of the Daily Show or Saturday Night Live can attest, Tony Blair has been ridiculed as the personal lapdog of President Bush. To be sure, Blair’s support of the War in Iraq despite its lack of success and domestic opposition is a bit troubling. Committed to the rhetoric and ideology of the War on Terror, Blair may be a victim of circumstance. He made the poor decision of choosing America over France and Germany. His distance from the Schroder-Chirac alliance certainly hurt him, as well. However, Blair did help grow the European Union’s membership and continued to be a supporter of capitalism both at home and abroad. While foreign policy mistakes caught the headlines, British voters and politicians were also growing restless. He was economically to the right of the rest of his Labor (Labour, if you prefer) Party, which was seen as a betrayal of Labor’s ideals. Also, Blair assumed more powers in his post than Parliament would have preferred. Declaring war, negotiating treaties, and taking control of British politics may have been overstepping his bounds. Blair stepped down this past June, presumably because of pressure from the party. Blair now takes his show on the road as he works as an envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. His role and relationship with the British government are both unclear. Rest assured, Tony Blair will be gracing the pages of the Economist for at least a few more months.
Blair’s replacement, Gordon Brown, offers a fresh face and a new voice to British politics. Also a member of the Labor Party, Gordon Brown is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, or head of finance. Brown was able to fuse fiscal prudence while staying true to Labor’s goals. He continued to fund Britain’s costly health and pension system, which were drains on the budget. However, taxes were kept in check and spending was increased where necessary. Critics charge that Brown famously doctored numbers to add secret taxes and would overstate Britain’s economic successes. These claims aside, Britain was able to outperform its European counterparts in nearly every category. With a strong economic background, Brown felt ready for the Prime Minister position and threw his name into the ring.
Facing almost no opposition, Brown was easily given the post. Only in power for two months, no track record has been set. Brown promises to continue a strong relationship with the United States and will support the War in Iraq. However, his rhetoric suggests that he is aware of Blair and Bush’s friendship and does not intend to maintain a blind allegiance. Recent terrorist threats also have put Brown in the unenviable position of assuring Britain’s safety, strength, and resolution to stamp out terrorism. Most important to the parliament, Brown wishes to limit the powers of the Prime Minister. He caught the attention of news writers when he suggested a quasi-constitution or bill of rights to formally delegate powers. Willing to self-deny rights and defer to parliament, Brown appears to be a popular choice. Similar to other newly elected leaders, only time will tell if he becomes the Financial Times‘ darling or a punchline for the Economist.
Germany
Most people know that the world’s largest economy is the United States. Most extempers should know that the world’s second largest economy is Japan. Few can locate the third largest. An industrial powerhouse, Germany is home to Europe’s largest economy. Without a permanent seat on the UN Security Council or nuclear weapons, Germany is forced into an awkward spot in the international pecking order. A loser of both world wars, Germany often is treated like the little brother of England and France. However, the European Union’s rise in prominence has offered an opportunity for Germany to break out of its power paradox. Primarily an economic institution, the EU plays right into the German strength. When it comes down to euros and pounds, Germany can go toe-to-toe with England and France.
Unfortunately, predictions and pipedreams do not always come to fruition. The fickle hand of economics reared its ugly head as Germany was mired in a economic slump prior to the elections of 2005. Unable to convince the European Central Bank (also to be explained in a future EU topic brief) to decrease interest rates, Germany could not break its slump. Government supports for labor and the unemployed prevented the market from undergoing the necessary changes to rebuild the economy. Politically, Germany lined up with France to oppose the United States and United Kingdom in the War in Iraq. Along with Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder attempted to strengthen the European Union and turn it into a more unified body.
Shroder and his Social Democrats Party (SPD) inability to change the economy, the War in Iraq, or the EU’s status left it vulnerable in the 2005 election. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) turned to Angela Merkel to win the Chancellorship. In a hard fought and hotly contested race, the voters caused a near-tie. Neither party could build a coalition large enough to win the majority of parliament. In a rare move, a super coalition was created to include the SPD and the CDU (referred to as a “grand coalition”). With slightly more votes, Merkel’s CDU was able to control the Chancellorship.
As Chancellor, Merkel has done nearly everything right. Reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher, Merkel has picked up the moniker of “The Iron Frau”. A pro-American, free-market politician, Merkel seemed to be Chirac’s worst enemy. However, Merkel has stressed that she wants Germany to be on good relations with all of its allies. In light of Sarkozy’s recent victory, Merkel may end up redefining the context and depth of the Franco-German alliance that Schroder and Chirac had at the beginning of the decade. She has been able to institute some reforms to loosen Germany’s economic restraints. Lowering taxes, limiting government spending, and removing policies that fail to protect labor and only discourage investment, Merkel seems to have Germany on the right path. Though not entirely out of the woods, the German economy certainly has rebounded nicely after its lull. Frankly, I’m hard pressed to build a case against Merkel. Since good politicians invariably make bad choices, special attention should be paid to Germany. So far the grand coalition is working, but politics may get testy when it comes time to delegate credit for Germany’s turnaround. The CDU and SPD both have control of the government, so at least the campaigning in future elections will be fascinating.
Italy
A year past the recent elections, Italy’s international importance certainly has dropped. Given that Italy has a sizable population and economy, it still is worth a look. Italy’s politics have been decidedly unstable since World War II. The multiple-party political system forces impromptu coalitions that do not always work out. Prime Ministers often run into great difficulties trying to institute their campaign promises since they are beholden to their voting bloc. When Premiers (yes, Premier and Prime Minister are the same thing) drift too far away from the coalition, a vote of confidence can be brought to parliament. This act is a simple up or down vote on the Prime Minister. If more than half of voters disapprove, then the Premiership is stripped and a replacement must be found. The constant threat of power removal is enough to moderate and dominate any Prime Minister. While American Presidents answer to the people every four years and never to Congress, European Prime Ministers are constantly under review and susceptible to a de facto election. When analyzing Italian politics, along with all European politics, a certain amount of slack must be given to the head of state, who is forced into a delicate balancing act.
However, no slack needs to be given to former Prime Minister, Silvio Burlesconi. A media magnate, Burlesconi repeatedly made comments that made Bushisms appear scholarly. He famously compared himself to Jesus Christ after political opponents criticized some of his policies. A frequent skinny dipper, Burlesconi had many less than revealing photos of himself circulated. (a quick reminder to extempers: there is a fine line between hilariously outlandish and being inappropriate and lewd. If you are not confident that you know the difference, just giggle at the thought of a naked world leader and never, ever speak of it again) However, uncontrolled tongues and trousers were not the primary causes of Burlesconi’s undoing. He was embroiled in many corruption scandals involving his media company. In terms of actual policies, the Italian economy nearly collapsed under his watch. Burlesconi’s tax cuts did little to remedy the situation and only increased the national debt. In short, Italians needed a change.
Enter Romano Prodi. A former officer in the European Union and Italian Premier, Prodi returned to Italian politics for the 2006 elections. Heading a center-left coalition called The Union, Prodi narrowly defeated Burlesconi. Within the span of a decade, Romano Prodi’s coalition defeated Burlesconi’s coalition and removed it from power on two separate occasions. Far more liberal and less of an American lapdog, Prodi immediately promised a withdrawal of Italian troops from Iraq, which he believes is too much of a quagmire and that the invasion was a mistake from the beginning. This past Febuary Prodi wanted to pass a measure that continued Italian involvement in Afghanistan. In response, some Italian ministers boycotted the vote and nearly ripped Italian politics apart. Prodi feared that he lost control and tendered his resignation. However, a vote of confidence was brought to the Italian Senate and was passed with a large majority, keeping Prodi in power.
France
Leave it to the French to have a cast of characters that simultaneously feed into and contradict America’s stereotypes. Former President Jacques Chirac has been portrayed as George Bush’s foil. He refused to sign off on the War on Iraq, sparking a etymological revolution that renamed everything from French fries to French kissing. However, Chirac serves as an anomaly in that he was willing to put Europe ahead of France. He focused on empowering the European Union and creating a counterweight to uncontrolled American strength. Chirac’s support of the European Union’s constitution ultimately doomed him in the eyes of the French. Again, residents of France are far more French than they are European. Asking them to renounce some national sovereignty to serve a greater good was simply too high of a price. Fearing that Chirac was trying to sell them out, Chirac’s approval rating plummeted in 2005. His attempts to save face and popularity also fell short. He promised a nuclear response to any terrorist attack against French interests. Chirac also attempted to leave a legacy at the 2006 G8 Summit by urging a solution to global warming. By not seeking reelection in 2007, Chirac attempted to leave politics gracefully and hand over the reins to Dominique de Villepin.
Attempting to go out as LBJ, Chirac wound up as a Richard Nixon. The Clearstream Affair was a revelation that Chirac was working with de Villepin to spy on another Presidential hopeful, Nicholas Sarkozy. Caught in the act, both Chirac and de Villepin had to pay the price. De Villepin did not win the nomination of the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), or the French conservative party. Entering the general election, Chirac threw his support to Sarkozy, the UMP’s nominee. The 2007 election was won by Mr. Sarkozy over socialist Segolene Royal.
Sarkozy is currently an international lightening rod. A former Interior Minister and Finance Minister, Sarkozy made his name as a strongman who acts in the national interest. Specifically, his relations with the Muslim community have been rocky. He has openly advocated a review of some separation of church and state laws to allow government support of mosques and Muslim charities. Whatever political capital he had may have been burned, no pun intended, following the riots. Sarkozy used the accidental deaths of two Muslim youths as a chance to ratchet up a police presence, criticize the Muslim community, and make some off-color remarks. Rebounding nicely for his presidential campaign, he ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and prudence. Using rhetoric of modernization, Sarkozy claimed that he was the man to improve France and return it to glory after years of sluggishness. Only in power since May, Sarkozy’s main accomplishment has been instituting tax cuts. He has yet to slash government programs, but it truly is too early to tell. Sarkozy’s visit and positive relations to the United States has rightfully been played up.
An ally of the United States, Sarkozy does not follow Chirac’s model of international relations. America can provide political and economic support to France. While the United States is not the most popular country in France, Sarkozy believes that showing support for a country in desperate need of allies will pay off. As the largest consumer in the world, the United States would be a convenient place for French exports to go. For now, Sarkozy is in the stages of defining his presidency. His history and impressive rhetoric suggest that he is both a man of his word and one who speaks too much. Ensuring that he can back up all of his talk now that he actually has the power to do so remains to be seen.
In Totality
Western Europe is currently at a crossroads. With leadership changes in the past two years for its four most prominent members, there are many question marks. With the possible exception of Prodi, Brown, Sarkozy, and Merkel all appear to be on the same page. A pro-market, pro-American agenda may become the new face of Western Europe. How these leaders interact with each other also should be very interesting. If egos and power grabs get in the way of common goals and shared interests is an issue that will arise in the months to come. Given the strong economic ties of Western Europe, one country’s missteps may hurt others. In the same vein, a continued German revival may provide a boost to Sarkozy and Brown’s economic goals. Without any ardent continentalists, Europe will continue to be a loosely related group of medium and large powers. As for how the three large countries will lead the rest of the region, to borrow a phrase from Ms. Bedingfield, “the rest is still unwritten”.
Cards
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
||
|