He's Just Not That Into You, EU

Today, Roger Cohen of The New York Times wrote a column arguing that there may be negative consequences in the future for the Obama Administration's "benign neglect" toward the EU.  I would argue that there's a more complex strategy behind this benign neglect, that the Obama Administration is attempting to constrain the EU's role in global affairs.  This is a trimmed-down excerpt from an essay I wrote on this topic last May for my class on European Union Security and Defense Policy at Boğaziçi University:

After the breakdown and forced reconstruction of Atlantic relations in George W. Bush’s presidency, many hoped that Barack Obama’s administration would re-emphasize alliances and multilateralism.  Over the last fifteen months, however, the Obama Administration’s signals to the European Union have been contradictory.  Diplomatic officials speak of the EU as a global security actor, but the president and the Secretary of Defense reflect frustration and perhaps disinterest.  

Key members of President Obama’s foreign policy team have publicly welcomed a strong Europe as a global security actor.  Philip H. Gordon, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, was a long-time critic of President Bush's relations with Europe.  He proposed a division of labor between NATO and the EU in which the EU would handle homeland security, democracy promotion, and humanitarian assistance, while NATO would remain the key instrument for military action.  

One could also look at the March 1, 2010 report of the Atlantic Council, which in Bush’s first term heavily criticized Europe.  In this report, the Atlantic Council, like Philip H. Gordon, recommends a division of labor in European defense between NATO and the EU: “If military action is called for and a U.S. role is required, NATO will have primary responsibility; if not, then the operational framework can be the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) or the United Nations.”  

Similarly, in a speech to the Atlantic Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We do not see the EU as a competitor of NATO, but we see a strong Europe as an essential partner with NATO and with the United States.”  Clinton’s and Gordon’s shift in rhetoric toward a division of labor between NATO and the EU’s own defense forces was also perceived by EU officials. In March of 2009,  EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner proclaimed that “we see with this administration a very different attitude . . . We have the United States with us and the United States has Europe with her. This is a different approach and we are quite hopeful!”

However, the president and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have delivered opposite signals.  In a February 23, 2010 speech to the National Defense University, Gates criticized the “demilitarization of Europe,” claiming that “large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — [this is] an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21^st [century].”  

Perhaps most importantly, President Obama has been reportedly cold to the European Union, preferring to meet bilaterally with individual countries and repeatedly “snubbing” various European leaders.  After his first U.S.-EU Summit Obama is reported to have wryly quipped that “political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate.”  Months later, President Obama famously snubbed dinner with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris.  Most telling, Obama seems to have repeatedly excluded EU participation from central negotiations.  At the December 2009 Copenhagen Summit for Climate Change, Obama tried to negotiate with the Chinese Prime Minister directly, without Europeans in the room.  In February 2010, Obama declined to attend the 2010 EU-US Summit in Madrid.  Finally, President Obama failed to invite even one EU representative to the signing of the new START Agreement in Prague and his nuclear summit in April, which brought more than forty heads of state.  In a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which claims to have input from Obama Adminsitraton officials, the writers say: “the Obama administration has seen European governments . . . weak and divided—ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave toward them—a combination of attention-seeking and responsibility-shirking.”

It is not clear whether the European Union will be treated as a global security actor by the United States under the administration of Barack Obama.  I would argue that the Obama Administration is trying to constrain the EU’s role in global affairs by simply denying it a seat at the table, as President Obama literally did in Copenhagen and Prague.  If the European Union wants to be an effective global security actor, it will need to break free from the current dynamic with the United States and reshape it to match the EU’s own identity and interests.  

No Love for New Orleans

I’ll admit I’ve been waiting for this.  I knew it would happen, and it has.  I’m responding to the NFL Network staff’s picks for various awards and games in the upcoming NFL season, in which my beloved New Orleans Saints have been dissed.

Some things to remember.  Drew Brees has been exactly as good as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady over the last four years.  Brees has thrown for more yards than either of them, more touchdowns than Manning, with the same QB rating as both of them, with a higher completion percentage than either of them.  He’s admittedly thrown a few more interceptions than they have in that time span, but he’s also won a Super Bowl in the last four years, against Manning no less.

Speaking of that Super Bowl, yes, that would be the game in which Drew Brees proved he was an equal of Manning and Brady.  That’s the game where the Saints dismantled the favored Colts in a come-from-behind victory with an efficient, balanced offense, a defensive touchdown, perfect execution on special teams, and perhaps the largest disparity in coaching style and quality in Super Bowl history.

But now the New Orleans Saints’ season of dominance has been swept away and forgotten (I’ll resist the obvious metaphor).  Of eleven NFL Network analysts, only one listed Drew Brees as the most likely offensive player of the year.  Well, actually I would probably agree with that.  Hasn’t Brees finally progressed from the subtle insult of that award to the legitimacy of being the league’s most valuable player, should he reach the same mastery as he did last season?  No.  Not a single expert is picking Drew Brees, the best quarterback of last year statistically and one of the best three for the last four years, to be our most valuable player.

In fact, of the eleven analysts, only four think that New Orleans will even repeat as the champions of the NFC South!  The rest pick the Atlanta Falcons.

Four of the eleven also see the Saints reaching the NFC Championship game.  Only Deion Sanders predicts the Saints will return to the Super Bowl.  Sanders emphasized that Saints coach Sean Payton is “the best play-caller” in the league and called Drew Brees “the best quarterback in the game today.”

Now I’m not saying the Saints are entitled to predictions of a Super Bowl-repeat.  These people make predictions based on evidence to say what will happen, not what should happen.  But I think they have made a mistake here.  A long tradition of dismissing the “Aints” is clouding their judgment.  It’s the same reason that last season week after week sports writers talked about the Saints needing to prove they were for real.  When they were 3-0, it was said they needed to beat the Jets to be the real thing.  They did.  When they were 5-0 they weren’t legit until they beat the Giants.  They did.  Even at 10-0, people were saying the Saints needed to prove themselves by beating the Patriots on Monday night.  Bam, it was done.  And then the Drew Brees and the Saints outgunned, out-thought, and out-fought the four-time MVP Peyton Manning and his Indianapolis Colts.

I don’t blame these people for not picking the Saints.  They might not be my choice either.  But I’ve never seen a Super Bowl champion regarded with this little respect.  And, based on last season, there’s a common outcome when people doubt the New Orleans Saints.  It involves Gatorade, a halftime show with an aging rock band, and some new jewelry.

The Oyo System

With a recorded history that begins in the 1400s, but possibly began much earlier, the Oyo Empire in modern-day Nigeria developed a noteworthy political system. In this empire the Oyomesi, a council of seven wise men believed to have divine powers, selected the Alaafin, or king. Imagine British parliament if there were seven parties whose leaders together appointed the prime minister. The Alaafin was expected to consult to Oyomesi on all critical decisions, and the Oyomesi would sometimes select a weak Alaafin to prevent the office from gaining dominance.

There was also a standard procedure for removing a bad Alaafin. The Oyomesi had to present him with a basket of parrot eggs, which effectively ordered the Alaafin's abdication. Then the Alaafin, his eldest son, and one of the seven members of the Oyomesi each had to commit suicide so the government could start anew.

This system of checks and balances is obviously a little exotic, with parrot's eggs, group suicide, etc. On the other hand, as my African Politics and Society professor emphasized, the process makes some sense. Why parrot's eggs, he asked. I thought about symbolism, and it took me nowhere. Because it's hard! he exclaimed. It requires planning and searching. Parrots don't leave their eggs on the lowest branches. The same followed for the suicide of the society's three most visible leaders. It ensures the Oyomesi would not depose Alaafins recklessly.

My professor stressed that this was a remarkably stable system. If one simply looks at the history of the Oyo Empire, it's clear that this system couldn't save them from colonialism, or themselves, but I agreed with my professor that it possessed a certain elegance.

I kept thinking about this after class for two reasons. One, I remembered hearing the story and how strange it all sounded until the professor explained more. My mind was too closed at the beginning.

Second, I imagined such a system's impact in today's America. For example, would Republican leaders have impeached President Clinton if it would have required a human sacrifice, not to mention the suicide of innocent Chelsea Clinton?  Presumably not. Then again, I can easily see the Republican candidates pledging to sacrifice themselves to stop Obama's jihad against Capitalism, perhaps each one jostling to volunteer for a more gruseome suicide than his or her rivals will. If their roles were reversed I suppose Democrats would probably agree that someone should commit suicide without ever deciding who and in what manner. Maybe our politics are just too dysfunctional to adopt the Oyo system.

Keep Dreaming

The Pew Research Center this week released a poll in which 18% of Americans claimed President Obama is Muslim.  This is an increase of 7% from March 2009.  While most attention has been focused on those figures, including other less-reported portions is more informative.  For example, the number of people who claimed not to know whether Obama is a Christian increased by 9%, while the number stating that he is a Christian decreased by 14%, including a 9% decrease among Democrats.

Given all of these statistics, the Pew Research Center’s press release title "Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim” appears misleading and sensationalist.  The most honest interpretation would be: “Fewer Americans Sure of Obama’s Christianity.”

Being an agnostic and a secularist, it offends me that Obama’s religion is even taken as an important topic, but I accept that most Americans are not agnostics and secularists who share all of my values.  From a pragmatic standpoint President Obama clearly has to do more to communicate his Christianity if it threatens his re-election.

Nonetheless, I am reminded of John McCain’s presidential campaign, when he was credited with defending Obama against criticisms of being “an Arab.” McCain called Obama a “family man, citizen” and encouraged his supporters to “be respectful.”  The defense was so minimal and token that the praise it garnered for civil politics in America is just embarrassing.

That said, with the news this week, not even a defense as weak as that has been mustered by the leaders of the Republican Party, including John McCain.  I haven’t seen any commentary from a Republican leader defending Obama’s Christianity--I invite anyone to find it for me.

Surely, this defense is the primary duty of Obama’s PR department, and not the Republican Party’s, but considering the religious right has been mobilized by the Republican Party, they presumably have some responsibility over the monster when it goes racist and irrational.