Transatlantic misalliance: for more than a century, the Transatlantic Alliance has been a cornerstone of foreign policy in North America and Europe.

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 4 April 1949. That treaty created NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which includes 19 countries from North America and Europe. The main purpose of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. During the last 15 years, the organization has also played an increasingly important role in crisis management and peacekeeping.

With the end of the Cold War in 1989, and the threat of the Soviet Union gone, the door was opened for the United States and Europe to direct their energies toward developing their relationship on a global scale.

As U.S. Ambassador Richard Haass explained at the Centre for European Reform in London in June 2002, "From the late 1940s until the demise of the Soviet Union, the Cold War defined the main contours of the international landscape. It was, at its core, an ideologically charged confrontation between the United States and its allies on one side, and the Soviet Union and its satellites on the other." The prime geographical and ideological battleground, he says, was Europe, with the security and stability of Western Europe "at the core of both American policy and the transatlantic relationship.... The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established to cement the linkage."

For a decade after the breakup of the Soviet Union the focus of the alliance shifted. The emphasis moved from collective defence to collective security, and to political and economic integration as well. The European Union (EU) became stronger, and NATO grew to include several newly freed Central and Eastern European countries.

Then came the events of 11 September 2001. The attacks on the United States brought the new threats of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and the need for a new transatlantic contract. Tragedy often brings people closer together, and so it was here.

Immediately after the attacks, the U.S.'s NATO allies declared the events attacks on them all. Over the last three decades, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom all have suffered political violence. America's European allies were among the first nations to express sympathy and pledge their aid. The Economist reported that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder proclaimed "unlimited solidarity" with America. The editor of France's left-leaning Le Monde wrote a front-page editorial headlined "We are all Americans now." And, British Prime Minister Tony Blair got a standing ovation in the U.S. Congress when he declared Britain's unyielding support for the United States. For the first time, NATO used the defence clause enshrined in Article V of its Charter, and U.S. allies offered to join the right in Afghanistan. Foreign policy experts saw it as an opportunity for Washington to strengthen its link with Europe.

Then, U.S. President George W. Bush and his advisers made Iraq America's next target, and the mood soon changed. Many of America's closest allies, including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia, did not agree with Mr. Bush in his assessment that Iraq needed to be invaded. There followed the largest wave of anti-Americanism in decades.

The transatlantic alliance has been put under more stress than ever before in living memory by the dispute over whether or not to go to war in Iraq. Very strong negative feelings about President Bush are expressed in most of Europe and American tourists are often made to feel unwelcome. As diplomat Ronald Asmus put it in Foreign Affairs (September/October 2003), "Rarely in American diplomacy has the right goal (toppling Saddam Hussein) been pursued so poorly."

But, Mr. Asmus says this isn't the first time the transatlantic relationship has been at a "make-or-break point." It happened a decade earlier when some felt the alliance was doomed by the end of the Cold War. Others argued that it "had to resolve its crisis by recasting itself to meet the challenges of a new era--stopping war in the Balkans, stabilizing Central and Eastern Europe, and reaching out to Russia--as part of a broader strategy to secure peace in post-Cold War Europe. It had to go out of area of go out of business." In the end, the decade of the 1990s was deemed a success, and now "overcoming the current transatlantic rift will require an equally bold rethink ... a new grand strategy, one fit to meet a different set of challenges beyond Europe." While some observers focus on the many differences between Europe and the United States, others maintain that they also have much in common. As Mr. Asmus explains: "History has shown that if the United States and Europe share common goals, European allies welcome American strength and the differences between them can be managed."

As U.S. Ambassador Richard Haass sees it, there are three broad sets of challenges that highlight the critical need for future transatlantic cooperation. They include:

* Fighting and winning the war against terrorism and other international challenges, including disease, illegal drugs, transnational crime, human trafficking, and environmental degradation;

* Integrating key states into the international order, countries with shared interests and values--such as democracy, open trade, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts--to "promote peace, prosperity, and justice as widely as possible," and;

* Dealing with regional crises, to secure democracy, the rule of law, and peace, as well as political and economic reform in unstable countries around the world.

But, says Ronald Asmus, a top priority has to be for the U.S. to resolve its differences with Europe. Relations with France and Germany in particular need to be improved. These are the continent's two leading powers: together they have been the major powers in the European Union since the 1950s. French President Jacques Chirac's stand against the war in Iraq gained him immense popularity at home and abroad. Many Europeans see America's "hyperpower" as something that's dangerous and in need of balancing. The U.S. also has to reaffirm its "support for a strong, unified, and pro-Atlanticist Europe" instead of picking and choosing only some members of the EU to build "coalitions of the willing" on its own terms, according to Mr. Asmus. And, he says Europe also has to alter its approach because "any attempt to build Europe on an anti-American basis is doomed to divide the continent."

Above all, he says both sides of the Atlantic need to reestablish the network of close consultations that built a "bedrock of transatlantic cooperation" in the past to deal with the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, some think that the U.S. is undermining European unity with a policy of "divide and rule." And, some European leaders have made it their goal to build the EU to the point where it's powerful enough to challenge the U.S. In the words of Romano Prodi, the head of the European Commission, one of the EU's chief goals is to create "a superpower on the European continent that stands equal to the United States." And, Sweden's Prime Minister described the EU as "one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to U.S. world domination."

Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggests that the European Union is in deed America's greatest challenger. In an article in The Atlantic Monthly in November 2002, Professor Kupchan pointed out that the EU's annual economic outputhad reached about $8 trillion. Comparing that with America's $10 trillion led him to believe that the euro would soon threaten the dollar's global dominance. "Europe is strengthening its collective consciousness and character and forging a clearer sense of interests and values that ate quite distinct from those of the United States," he writes. "The EU's member states are debating the adoption of a Europe-wide constitution (see page 28), building armed forces capable of operating independently of the U.S. military, and striving to project a single voice in the diplomatic arena ... The transatlantic rivalry that has already begun will inevitably intensify. Centres of power by their nature compete for position, influence, and prestige ... An ascendant EU will surely test its muscle against America, especially if the [go-it-alone attitude of] U.S. foreign policy continues. A once united West appears well on its way to separating into competing halves"

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. The Transatlantic Strategy Group, created in 2002, suggested in 2003 that the European Union and the United States should establish "ah informal but far-reaching 'G2 caucus,' which would function as an informal steering committee to manage their own economic relationship and to provide leadership for the world economy. "As the world's only economic superpowers, the Group says the EU and the U.S. need "a fresh conceptual foundation to replace the common enemy of the Cold War era. A G2 would also help counter the chief foreign policy shortcomings of each partner: the US tendency to unilateralism and the European tendency towards introversion and fragmentation." Discuss this proposal and outline some of the ways you think the two powers could improve their relationship.

2. When the Pew Centre pollsters asked if America was acting main[y in its own interests in the "war on terrorism," 80 percent of French people and 85 percent of Germans agreed. In Britain, 73 percent did. Outline what you think the reasons are behind this view. 3. In a newspaper article in May 2003, Canadian journalist Richard Gwyn expressed the view that Canada's ties with Europe are "simply fraying away. Little trade and investment and commerce now go back and forth across the Atlantic. The entire continent now accounts for less than six percent of all our exports. Few immigrants come from there to here now. We're only nominally now members of NATO; none but a few Canadian soldiers remain in Europe to help defend it against enemies that no longer exist.... Europe can no longer serve Canadian interests as a counterweight to the overwhelming influence over us of our next-door neighbour." Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Gwyn? Give reasons for your opinion.

Websites

The Bertelsmann Foundation--http://www.emcc. eurofound.eu.int/content/ organisation/o0029.html

Canada and the EU http://www.dfait-maeci.gc. ca/canadaeuropa/canada-eu-b5-en.asp

NATO http://www.nato.int/

IN THE BEGINNING

Discussions among the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom led to the establishment of NATO in 1948 and 1949; France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands soon joined, followed by Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Italy, and Portugal. During the Cold War, the organization grew to include Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain.

Until 1999, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic became members, NATO was enlarged strategically to boost collective defence against Soviet aggression. But, at the end of the Cold War, NATO expanded its requirements for membership. Countries that wanted to join were expected to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and free markets. Human rights, peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, as well as democratic, civilian control of the military also became membership issues.

FIX PALESTINE FIRST

As a justification for its attack on Iraq, Washington argued in 2002 that Iraq destabilizes the Middle East because it feeds Palestinian militancy.

However, much European opinion held that the Middle East will never be stable until the Palestinians have their state. So, Europeans believed that to attack Iraq before the Arab-Israeli conflict is settled, could set the whole region on fire. Alarmed by aggressive American policies, they fear the results of Washington's talk of "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia.

CANADA LOOKS EAST

NATO has been an enormous benefit to Europe, which is more democratic, peaceful, and secure than ever. But, some Americans question its value because of the enormous cost to U.S. taxpayers of maintaining bases and about 100,000 personnel in Europe. For Canada, NATO has been useful as a counterbalance to the enormous power of the U.S. and its overwhelming presence in the affairs of Canada. Canada has become more and more tied in trade with the United States--89 percent of our exports now go to our southern neighbour.

At one time, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau made a half-hearted attempt to develop transatlantic trade to counter our over-dependence on the U.S. Some people now think it might be a good idea to revive this initiative. While experts agree that the United States will remain Canada's closest partner in world affairs, some believe it's also time for the Canadian government to take a more proactive role in analyzing Canada's strengths and weaknesses in export trade, including the prospects for developing new overseas markets.

That was one of the issues on the minds of leaders at the Canada-European Union annual summit in June 2003 in Athens, Greece: Canadian and EU summit leaders said they would work to conclude global trade talks dubbed the Doha Development Agenda, and agreed on a deal on wine and liquor. They also said they would look at proposals for a Canada-EU trade and investment enhancement agreement at the Canada-EU summit to be held in December 2003 in Ottawa.

CONFLICTING POLLS

A European Internet poll in March 2003 found that while 25 percent of those surveyed picked Iraq as the greatest threat to world peace, 32 percent named the United States. According to The Economist, several other polls showed that the British population saw U.S. President George W. Bush as a worse and more dangerous man than Saddam Hussein. At the same time, three-quarters supported an attack on Iraq with United Nations approval, and less than a quarter were in favour of an attack without the UN's approval.

But, the hostility was directed toward some of the Bush administration's policies (such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and global warming), not the American people. A poll in late 2002 found that the number of British people who say they "like Americans as people" rose from 66 percent in 1991 to 81 percent. And, those agreeing that "we could learn a great deal from America" rose from 39 percent to 50 percent over the same period.

In fact, many Americans don't like what their president is up to: on a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent), the British rated the Bush administration at 1.8 on the Middle East. The Americans gave it a 2, with a similar gap on Iraq.

Nevertheless, a poll by MORI, an opinion research firm in the U.K., showed that only 37 percent of British people rate America as the most important foreign partner, compared with 57 percent for the EU.

FACT FILE

Jacques Chirac, France's president, has insisted on the need for a "multi-polar world," meaning an EU that can match the United States, while Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair warns of the dangers of dividing Europe from the U.S.

FACT FILE

Colin Powell, America's Secretary of State (foreign affairs minister), is hailed in Europe as Washington's voice of reason and multilateralism.

FACT FILE

More than a trillion dollars of corporate investment mores between the U.S. and Europe every day.