Barack Obama heads to Britain and Europe in two weeks’ time as the leader of the first U.S. Administration to wholeheartedly back the creation of a federal Europe. In contrast to earlier U.S. administrations, including those of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the Obama administration is avowedly Euro-federalist in outlook, and is keen to help build a European Union defense identity as well as support the foundations of a European superstate in Brussels.
This dangerous shift in U.S. policy is a betrayal of both U.S. and British interests that will threaten the long-term future of the Anglo-American Special Relationship, weaken the NATO alliance, and undermine the defence of British sovereignty in Europe. It will also undercut opposition across the EU to the Treaty of Lisbon, including in countries such as Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic, and may set the scene for a major confrontation between the Obama White House and a future Conservative administration in London.
A Eurosceptic Conservative government led by David Cameron, committed to halting further European integration, will find itself increasingly at odds with a left-of-centre U.S. administration that is actively working against the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. In light of this, the current enthusiasm of many British conservatives for the changing of the guard at the White House is hugely misplaced.
The Bush Administration was sharply divided over Europe, with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backing the European Constitution, but her pro-Brussels instincts were strongly opposed by key figures in the White House and the Pentagon. Bush himself was no supporter of a Franco-German dominated Europe, and worked hard to build up a counterweight of pro-American nations among the new EU members from eastern and central Europe.
In contrast, President Obama’s government will strongly back the European Security and Defence Policy, the Lisbon Treaty and the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and will seek to strengthen French and German leadership at the heart of a united European Union. It has appointed several prominent supporters of European federalism to key positions in the Pentagon and State Department, including the new Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Michèle Flournoy, and Philip H. Gordon, the next Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
Flournoy, who holds one of the most powerful positions in the Pentagon, is a leading supporter of U.S. backing for an EU defence policy, and co-authored a major 2005 study strongly advocating American support for a unified European defence structure. Gordon, who will be the most senior administration official on Europe, has written that America must “support the European project”, and that “the challenge for U.S. policy is to encourage Europe to develop the cohesion and capability to become a true transatlantic partner.” He is also a prominent backer of the defeated EU Constitution, and has pushed in the past for British membership of the Euro, warning the UK that “fully in Europe, Britain has every chance to remain America’s preferred and privileged partner. Marginalized from the EU, Britain could find itself less influential in Washington as well.”
The Obama Administration has already made major concessions to Paris over President Sarkozy’s decision for France to rejoin the NATO integrated command structure. The French have been given two major positions at the helm of the Alliance, a move that will significantly enhance the drive towards a European defence component within NATO. Vice President Joe Biden has clearly indicated that the United States will support “the further strengthening of European defense” and an “increased role for the European Union in preserving peace and security.” When he travels to Europe, President Obama is expected to deliver the same message.
Significantly, while wooing both continental Europe and Russia, the new U.S. administration has been largely indifferent to the Anglo-American alliance, with an appallingly handled reception for the British Prime Minister when he visited the White House earlier this month, and the recalibration of the special relationship as a “special partnership”. Even a bust of Sir Winston Churchill has been unceremoniously thrown out of the Oval Office. A distinctly undiplomatic State Department official involved in the planning of the Obama-Brown meeting was quoted by The Sunday Telegraph as saying that “there’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.”
There is a chance the Obama Administration will eventually wake up to the reality that American support for a federal Europe will backfire. Such a naive approach will not result in European countries spending more on defence, or in a more effective Europe. It would also undermine Washington’s ability to mobilize international coalitions. Under a unified EU foreign policy, U.S. allies would lose the freedom to decide where and when they can fight alongside America.
As they approach the transatlantic alliance, President Obama and his aides should heed the advice of a former prime minister and great friend of the United States who fought to defend the Special Relationship and maintain British sovereignty in Europe. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.”
Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.
Neither Obama nor Brown have any vision they are merely One World Government puppets and their Master's agenda unfolds more clearly each day. Can anyone deny it any longer?erent
BTW I am travelling so my IP address is different, that is no reason to block my comments.
Great. Obama can have an opinion but we, the British voters, cannot. We have yet to be asked if we would like a federal europe - Obama, wait your turn!
Obama should most definitely think again! When European troops take their places to fight and, yes unfortunately, die, alongside British and US servicemen and women in Afghanistan, this drivel might just be appropriate. In the meantime, I think he's lost the plot - if he ever found it.
And the Americans get upset when they think we are meddling in their affairs?
Still there can only be one saviour of the free world and Brown has already decided it's him. He's never wrong, just ask him. So Obama will find an opponent. One which should slow him down just long enough for him to walk over Brown.
If this is the case then it is definately time for a referendum, not only on the acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution, BUT ON BRITAIN'S ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU!
Cameron would be wise to consider this, alternatively he may find there is a huge swing away from the Tories to UKIP or even the BNP!
Being 'eurosceptic' has resulted in G.B being 'behind the curve' all along. It should be obvious that some sort of Union of European countries would come about in time. G.B could and should have lead Europe after the 2nd World War. But,of course, we had our Empire!
Surely Obamha has enough to deal with on his own doorstep without trying to interfere in our country. He should remember which European countries have supplied troops to actually fight in Afghanistan.
Nile, you gotta get over this "special relationship" idea: it existed for the WW I and II generations who are for the most part either dead or within a decade of death, for continuing supporters of Dubya Bush who have been so beaten down for their rank stupidity that they barely have a voice, and by those people who have lived in the UK and who stayed within the confines of the expat community and made few close non-American friends during their "London days" but still claim to bridge the Atlantic because it serves social purposes. Nile, that's not a very strong support group.
Germany and France to a lesser extent have been more important for the past 20+ years given their relative political and economic clout and their indigenous populations who are respected in the first case for intelligence and persistence and in the second case for wine, art and love making, three important pillars of a high-minded civilisation that bewilder Americans.
Americans know very little about the UK as a general matter and even less about the other two, except that Germany twice tried to conquer the world and could have succeeded on its second attempt were it not for some tragic mistakes. American students for the most part could point out "England" on a map because it is an island but not point out Wales, for which they would probably point at Ireland and then be confused. People know who Blair was because he looked like a Disney character come alive and was Dubya's photo ops partner. Few know Brown except that he is a "friend of Dubya's friend and therefore not a friend" regardless of any real relationship between Blair and Brown, which they could care less about. Sarkozy at least has a gorgeous wife who could pass for an underwear model, where the other first ladies are unknown. And Germany is run by some short tough lady who may be a "friend" of Billy Jean King or Ellen DeGenres... but so what.
You mention the Treaty, the EU and NATO: either they are unknown or considered some insider joke. NATO is far "past its sell date"... something on the cover of 30+ year old copies of "Life" magazine and as seen in "Dr. Strangelove" or other movies of that era. NATO is not being funded for good reasons: dead bodies don't respond to transfusions.
I would have thought you would have started to understand what is going on simply by watching network television and noticed the absence of anythng about the UK, the EU, Blair or Brown: it's the television media along with "People" magazine and Rush Limbaugh that form American's awareness and opinions.
Remember too: the US is in deep trouble right now, and the UK brings absolutely nothing good or valuable to the party that can help. The smartest thing the two countries can do is clean up their own sides of the street, and then there may be something to talk about.
Its time for the UK to keep its distance from the USA whilst Obama is in charge,hes' fast becoming an abject failure.
Why would British interests need to be taken into account by the U.S. when deciding their foreign policy?
"A Eurosceptic Conservative government led by David Cameron..."
Where did that come from....? Camoron said he would withdraw tory MEPs from the EPP but has gone back on this pledge.
If the tories had won in 1997 Ken Clark as chancellor would have taken us into the euro..without asking the british people!
Tories eurosceptic I think NOT
This is great news. More power to Obama's elbow.
"Philip H. Gordon, the next Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. A prominent backer of the defeated EU Constitution, and has pushed in the past for British membership of the Euro, warning the UK that �fully in Europe, Britain has every chance to remain America�s preferred and privileged partner. Marginalized from the EU, Britain could find itself less influential in Washington as well."
This might just possibly be the ideal opportunity for the UK to slip into the back seat and enjoy the following:
- Become a trading partner of the EU Super State.
- Retain our "Sovereignty"
- Reclaim our country
- Stand apart thereafter from any nonsense the EU and the USA can cook up for the rest of the world.
Is Mr. Gordaon trying to tell us that Britain has EVER been influential in Washington? the man must take us for complete and utter mugs.
Good! Maybe we can be more like Switzerland and adopt Lord Salisbury's policy of splendid isolation.
How many insults do we have to take before we withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Has no one read Obama's book where he makes clear his hatred of Europe and Britain in particular?!?