It is commonly believed that America and Europe are very different societies, and growing apart. A look at the data shows that the anecdotes are misleading and that the differences across the Atlantic have been overstated.

Peter Baldwin, Professor of History at UCLA, is author of several books on the comparative history of European and American state building, most recently, Disease and Democracy: The Industrialized World Faces AIDS.

Introduction by FSI Senior Fellow Josef Joffe.

In recent years, the United States and its European Union partners have often diverged in their policy outlooks towards the wider European periphery—the diverse region stretching from the Balkans and Turkey, to the Westernmost former-Soviet republics and Russia. Whether a temporary hiatus or a more profound strategic divergence, this state of affairs reflects a departure from the mission of extending peace, freedom and prosperity to the European continent that the two sides have pursued in the post-Cold War period.

Image

Event Synopsis:

Dr. Tassinari's talk draws upon his recent book, "Why Europe Fears its Neighbors" (Praeger Security International, 2009), which attempts to survey and quantify the many challenges facing Europe with respect to its borders. Tassinari describes Europe's position toward neighbor countries as being influenced by the threat of immigration. He describes a "security-integration nexus" in progress since 1945, involving a gradual economic opening of Europe's borders to promote stability. While the EU today maintains to some degree its enlargement policy toward Turkey and the Western Balkans, other border-region states are classified under a "European neighborhood policy" with no prospects for EU membership. Recent policy discourse has decoupled security concerns from integration. The neighborhood approach, undermines EU policy by keeping neighbor states at too great a distance.

Next Tassinari offers Turkey and Russia as case studies. The debate within Turkey is leaning away from EU membership as the primary path toward modernization. Recent dialogue focuses less on meeting technical standards for EU membership and more on reckoning with issues of religion, identity and history within Turkey. With regards to Russia, in the past decade the country has become more assertive abroad and moved away from cooperation with the EU, preferring not to be grouped with countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia in the EU's approach to foreign policy.

In addressing the transatlantic relationship, Dr. Tassinari reflects that the US and EU have long disagreed about EU membership for Turkey, the direction of state building in the Balkans, and integration of some of Europe's neighbor states into NATO.

Finally, responding to the question of whether this divergence comes from a conflict over the "European power constellation" or rather is simply the result of issue-specific philosophical differences, Dr. Tassinari offers three arguments:

1. Strategic: EU policy reflects multi-level integration, wherein countries can be "more than partners and less than members." Tassinari believes even countries with no prospect for membership should be integrated as much as possible. 
2. Normative - in reality, the US and EU share goals for Europe's "neighborhood" - promoting democracy, human rights, and other values. Despite this, each side's initiatives are viewed with suspicion by the other. 
3. Institution - US policymakers buy in to the EU enlargement policy, with its firm commitments and well-rehearsed conditionality process, and don't see alternative policies such as the "neighborhood" approach as being useful. 

A Q&A session following the talk raised such issues as: Will the EU’s problems with “deepening” its relationships with neighbors hurt its prospects for “widening” through enlargement? What are the reasons for the mixed signals to Turkey from the EU? Do arguments about the EU’s denial of Turkey’s membership being based on racism hold any merit? If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, what cross-border policy areas will remain the prerogative of nation-states and which might fall under EU Commission jurisdiction?

Praised by international organizations, Slovenia and Estonia constitute the most successful post-communist economies. These two states are likewise success stories when it comes to democratic consolidation and state-building. Slovenia has opted for gradual market reforms guided by social justice while Estonia quickly reformed its Soviet economy into one of the most liberal in the world. Still, I argue that their roots of success coincide. Crucial opportunities of civil initiatives were never repressed in Slovenia and Estonia during the Communist period as in several other Yugoslav and Soviet republics. Distinct national identities continued to form and re-form during these decades and became deliberated rather than repressed, later strengthening reform capacities in decisive areas. In Estonia, national identities were further emphasized by ethically dubious processes that locked large Russian-speaking minorities out of citizenship.

Li Bennich-Björkman is Johan Skytte professor in political science at University of Uppsala, Sweden. She has published on the organisation of creativity, Organising Innovative Research, (Elsevier/Pergamon Press, 1997), on educational policies, integration and political culture. A dominant theme in her present research on Eastern Europe and post-Soviet States has been how historical and cultural legacies relate to the divergent post-communist trajectories. A particular focus has been on the three Baltic States. Within this framework, Ukraine has been included. Recent research activities have concerned the impact of the European Union on elite values and political culture in Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. Her latest publication is a monograph published with Palgrave/Macmillan, Political Culture under Institutional Pressure. How Institutions Transform Early Socialization, (2007), dealing mainly with the Estonian Diaspora. Articles have appeared in the Journal of Baltic Studies (2006), East European Politics and Societies (2007) and Nationalities Papers (2007) as well as Higher Education Quarterly (2007). Comparative state-building in Estonia and Latvia was addressed in a recently published volume on Building Democracy East of the Elbe (Routledge/Sage:2006).

The assumption that states can and ought to stop the flow of funds to terrorist organizations deserves greater scrutiny. Potential benefits obtained by disrupting financial networks may not decrease the intensity of attacks, even as they weaken terrorist organizations. The anti-money laundering model currently applied by the UK and US has proven counter-productive, undermining the states' counterterrorism efforts. The erosion of individual rights incorporated in the regime risks leaking into criminal law, thereby altering basic constitutional entitlements. Efforts to prevent extremists from obtaining funds may have a devastating affect on social services in poor regions and impede the development of civil society and "state building." What is intriguing about ATF is that it evokes many of the same issues that arise in other areas of counterterrorism. Whether and how to surmount them remains less than clear.

This event is a collaborative effort between CISAC and European Forum.