Partners in Decline

It's anti-Europe season again in the United States. Once the season opens (usually in the second year of a presidential term, when the White House most needs a scapegoat), cabinet officials and analysts start taking their shots: "Europeans don't pitch in. They don't fight enough."

Andrew Bacevich's article, "Let Europe Be Europe," is just the latest example. His argument takes on a novel form: The United States should leave a dysfunctional NATO and hand the pacifist Europeans the remains.

Bacevich's article misses a fundamental point, however, just as all of this seasonal activity does: The United States and Europe are the best allies they've each got. Yes, they have similar traditions, share values, and have a long history of cooperation behind them. But most importantly, they are on the same side of today's geopolitical dividing line: Both are declining powers.

Even if Europeans and Americans enjoy a standard of living enviable to the rest of the world, the reality of the "double decline" is unarguable. Although their respective declines may be happening at different speeds, there is no doubt the United States and Europe will continue to slip into irrelevance. Europe had one-quarter of the world's population in 1900, around 15 percent in 1950, and only 7 percent today. Its share is expected to go down to 5 percent by 2050. The European Union's GDP as a percentage of global GDP has shrunk from 28 percent in 1950 to 21 percent today and may be as little as 18 percent in 2050, according to internal EU documents. America's decline is not as steep, but the rapid rise of countries like China, India, and Brazil mean it will inevitably be pushed to the sidelines. These facts are denied today only by an odd alliance of Hollywood studios, the Republican Party, and romantic Europeans. These groups carry on as before, perpetuating blockbuster myths about the limitless power of the West.

The truth is altogether more depressing. Yet it is the actual facts -- and not the number of European troops committed in Afghanistan -- that should shape debates over the transatlantic link and NATO's future.

The fight against the Taliban is important but not endless -- voters will not allow it to be. One day U.S. and European soldiers will come home. Hopefully the withdrawal of both sets of forces will come after a victory (however defined), but that clearly isn't a given. Few people hearing U.S. President Barack Obama's West Point address last December were left in any doubt that the U.S. commitment is time-limited. It certainly seems that Afghan President Hamid Karzai believes that NATO forces will not be in his country for as long as they have been. Recently, he has consolidated his power over a key electoral commission in the Afghan government, formerly overseen by the United Nations; the move signals his interest in quashing post-American opposition to governmental and electoral corruption and fraud. Put simply, the United States and Europe are leaving sooner or later, and Kabul is already gearing up for the aftermath.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

CUPPA

10:09 PM ET

March 1, 2010

lol Declinism

People really like to hype up the "rise of the rest"

FREETRADER

2:27 AM ET

March 2, 2010

Faulty Premise

The entire premise by this supposed 'expert' on international affairs is completely wrong. Whatever the status of Europe, the US is not in an actual, or even by most measures, relative, decline vis a vis the rest of the world. Whether some sort of decline is actually occuring, the US is going to be the most significant nation-state in the world for the foreseeable future -- the next 50 years or so -- if not long after. That is just a statement of fact. For the writer to base his premise on an increasingly 'irrelevant' US is laughably alarmist, or perhaps, fantastical wishful thinking.

I am not arguing that the US should 'go it alone' by any means. It helps, if only psychologically, to have allies.

ASGOLD25

10:35 AM ET

You ignore geopolitical reality

While I may agree with you that Europe's political and economic clout on the world stage is declining quickly, and that the US is no longer the world's sole preeminent power, your suggestion that the US will be "swept aside" by Brazil, China, and India, is at best naive, and at worst downright ignorant. As in real estate, when it comes to geopolitics, it's all about location, location, location. The United States borders the world's two busiest oceans, has full access to the arctic, an abundance of natural resources within its borders, is surrounded by nations that are more or less friendly to it, and is far removed from distant wars. It also doesn't face the demographic pressures that Europe does and, despite political gridlock, is still among the most internally cohesive countries in the world.

The other nations that you and others frequently cite as "rising powers" don't have these advantages and have a host of problems that the US does not face. India will never be a major player on the international stage. It simply has too many internal problems (poverty, proneness to natural disasters, separatist groups, etc), as well as violence on its borders (mainly with Pakistan and China). If one looks at how democracy in India functions, it becomes obvious that India will never be able to assert itself on the international stage, especially considering the fact that it is balanced out by China. China also faces similar internal pressures, as well as a serious demographic challenge (which is especially important considering your emphasis on changing demographics throughout the globe). Being bordered by Russia and India, two nations that are traditionally hostile towards it, will also seriously hinder China's ability to supplant the US, both economically and politically speaking. It is also wishful thinking to believe that its economy will continue to grow at the rate that it has in recent years. Any economist will tell you that it's unsustainable (and many are doubtful that the official government estimates are indeed accurate).

Brazil is, of course, another story. It shares many of the advantages that the US has when it comes to relative remoteness from conflict, internal cohesion (assuming poverty rates continue to decline), and abundance of natural resources. Nonetheless, I don't see Brazil attempting to challenge the US dominance for the sole reason that it makes no sense for them. They are better off having a cordial relationship with the US; it will, however, become the most important player in Latin America, reducing the United States' influence there.

On your broader point of countering the idea that the US should ditch NATO, I must agree. The US and Europe have much in common, and the same geopolitical goals are frequently shared by both parties. If anything, the US needs Europe to take up more responsibility on the international political stage. This doesn't necessarily entail a more significant military role for Europe, but a more significant diplomatic one.

NORBOOSE

11:59 AM ET

Thanks

Thanks for writing my basic thoughts, you saved me a lot of time.

12:14 AM ET

March 3, 2010

Well done

Good comments and perspective; I completely agree.

BLACKSHYLD

1:27 AM ET

March 4, 2010

I agree

This US has the advantage of location and demographics.

Location:

The US is the Only major power with a controlling presence in both the Atlantic and the Pacific and is the only country capable of responding to disasters and threats within a matter of hours and days no matter where that threat or disaster is. The traditional source of power for any major power is control of the seas and the US has that in spades never mind its current and most likely continued dominance of space a long with it.

Demographics

As Japan, China, and Europe's populations turn gray they will be hindered in their workforce.

Japan and Europe's birthrate is dropping while its elderly are living longer and China's one child policy coupled with the long term health problems related to declining environmental health and poor working conditions will also make it hard if not impossible for China to keep growth up at this rate.

China, India and Europe all have similar problems in regards to cohesion. In regards to Europe and India its a matter of to many different voices to busy trying to be heard, they will at best muster enough strength to defend their own regional interests but as for projecting a grand strategy abroad, that's unlikely.

As for China it has a history of tearing itself apart when it starts to open up, wealthy coastal provinces might not be thrilled with the idea of being held back by poor backwaters further inland and Beijing Bureaucrats out of touch with their needs.

To date the US has no such internal strife, we've had generations of practice in dealing with waves of various immigrants to help us better deal with different people and cultures. We may not be great at it but we certainly are among the best at it. America's population is stable with a constant flow of immigrants and we are underpopulated as is, at 300 million Americans at this point we still have room to grow.

We also have a graying population, but once the baby boomers begin to die off then we will see the biggest drag on the economy, entitlements, shrink down considerably. Which can only be a good thing.

America may not remain top dog forever, but it will hardly ever be rendered "irrelevant" in the same way Britain, France, or Germany will become.

TIMSTYX

7:13 AM ET

Times of change

Things are certainly changing on the world stage, more money and investments are currently being injected into these growing economies. However Europe and America still enjoy significant technological superiority over these emerging powers and that will always ensure their dominance while that disparity remains.

Partners in Decline

Why the United States needs Europe more than ever.

BY DANIEL KORSKI | MARCH 2, 2010

(8)