The cancellation of the US-EU summit: a slap in the face or a fix?

There is definitely a gap between Europe and the United States. Hillary Clinton's speech at the end of January at the Military School was already an indication that the European Union and its defense policy mattered very little or not at all in the eyes of Washington (read here). Obama's decision not to ensure his presence at the EU-US summit is a new slap in the face, far more substantial, since it concerns a long-planned agenda.

Even if, on both sides of the Atlantic, we try to minimize the incident, citing calendar problems, this is not really what seems to be in question. The State Department spokesman, questioned by reporters on Tuesday during his daily briefing, has also recognized. The United States no longer understand very well who is really in charge in the "European shop" and are waiting to see that the smoke clears.

With "Lisbon", we no longer really know who does what in Europe.
These are basically the terms of Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State: "... We're – in light of the Lisbon treaty, we're going through – Europe is going through some adjustments in terms of the processes through which US-EU summits occur. Up until recently, they would occur on six-month intervals, as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the rotating EU presidency; you've got an EU Council president, you've got a European Commission president. So Europe itself is reassessing how these meetings are going to be – when these meetings are going to be held. » (...) We're at a juncture where the structure has changed, and so the structure is not only at the leader level, but at the ministerial level. All of this is kind of being reassessed in light of meeting architectural changes in Europe. »

A transatlantic misunderstanding?
To believe that Catherine Ashton's visit to Hillary Clinton last week served no purpose if not to blur the European message even more. What was really said between the two women? One can legitimately wonder about the content of the conversation and the European conviction developed by the High Representative of the EU. Either the relationship between the EU and the United States has “deteriorated” to such an extent that it is urgent to repair the transatlantic link. Either Catherine Ashton was not very convincing, if at all, which
convinced the Americans not to change their tune, and that it was more urgent to prioritize Russia, Asia and even Africa than Europe. Either, again, which would be particularly twisted, she played a double game, convincing the American Minister of Foreign Affairs that the only valid interlocutor was the European Commission...

The American Lesson of Lisbon. One can take the offended air of this American "interference" which chooses its interlocutors, refuting the Spaniard too weak for its taste, to prefer another: Herman Van Rompuy or José-Manuel Barroso. One can also have a more optimistic reading (which is also reflected at times in the intervention of Hillary Clinton, at the military school). The United States wants to have a Europe, which takes care of itself, on its own, and does not come begging for an anti-missile shield, for means of transport, weapons, or protection for its troops in Afghanistan or in Africa. , etc... And above all a Europe that stops feeling sorry for itself while lecturing the Americans. They feel, perhaps a little like a father (or a mother) facing a young adult who stays at home, with the meal made by the mama, the car and the washing machine available... and who allows himself (still) to criticize when the meal
is not served on time or is asked for a collective effort...

The slap, deserved!
Europe could, perhaps, stop focusing on its (small) institutional problems and take matters into its own hands. To assert yourself a little more? There is no point in having "heads" if they do not express themselves, do not elevate the debate a little, show the way... One day, the Europeans will also have to consider the means of their autonomy: having the means of their security for example. Why is the anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe not supported and installed by Europeans together? After all, the Iranian (or if Russian) risk concerns Europeans as much, if not more, than Americans. Why do we always have to rely on the Americans to provide the strategic means of transport or pool them? Why are the Europeans incapable of making the effort of visibility and logistics of which the Americans were capable in Haiti? Why don't the Europeans say “no” clearly to a double American strategy which persists in Afghanistan and undermines all the efforts of pacification: on the one hand development, reconstruction, on the other the offensive military action Enduring Freedom? Etc... There would be matter for debate there. And I bet that Obama would then make the trip...

(photo credit: White House, Union Speech)