Skip to main content

Rethinking transatlantic relations in a multipolar era

International Politics volume 51, pages 366–389 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

In an era of emerging powers and growing interconnectedness, transatlantic relations have lost their bearings. Elaborating a paradigm replacing the Cold War-era notion of a community based on shared interests and identity is, however, an exercise fraught with problems. The empirical evidence is contrasting: signs of estrangement, such as the US ‘pivot to Asia’, coexist with instances of cooperation that hint at an enduring partnership, such as the plan for a transatlantic free trade area. Theoretically, the evolution of the relationship appears in a different light depending on the assumed perspective. In this article we build three alternative scenarios based on a neorealist, constructivist and liberal understanding of social politics. We argue that, by using the scenarios as analytical tools rather than predictions of the future, we may draw a more accurate picture. We then identify the conditioning factors that may set transatlantic relations on a specific path of development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. All data mentioned in this paragraph are elaborations by the authors of World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD and SIPRI data.

  2. All data in this paragraph are re-elaboration by the authors of WTO, European Commission and US Department of Commerce data.

  3. Forty-five out of the fifty US states export more to Europe than they do to China. Strikingly, they include Texas (the major exporter to the EU among US states) and Pacific and Asia-oriented California (Galston, 2013).

  4. When asked whether the EU or Asia were more important to US national interests, a 55 per cent of Americans responded that the EU was more important than Asia – a shift of 17 percentage points over the 2011 survey (German Marshall Fund, 2012).

  5. As opposed to multipolarity, non-polarity emphasizes that while the former unipole – the United States – may be declining, it is not being matched by other poles of equivalent status (Haass, 2008). Inter-polarity instead stresses the meaning of multipolarity in an interconnected and interdependent world, where what matter is not simply the poles, but also and above all what takes places between them (Grevi, 2009).

  6. A ‘cooperative security structure’ is not a cooperation-based system but rather a system in which competition is not played out on an existential level. In other words, in a cooperative security structure international players compete for gains while still recognizing the sovereignty (and the rights that come with) of each other (Wendt, 1999).

References

  • Alcaro, R. (ed.) (2008) Re-launching the Transatlantic Security Relationship. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. IAI Quaderni English Series, No. 12.

  • Alcaro, R. (2010) Combining Realism with Vision: Options for NATO’s New Strategic Concept. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. IAI Working Paper, No. 1007 (May).

  • Alcaro, R. and Alessandri, E. (2013) A Deeper and Wider Atlantic. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. Documenti IAI 1301, 7 February.

  • Alcaro, R. and Jones, E. (eds.) (2011) European Security and the Future of Transatlantic Relations. Rome: Nuova Cultura, (IAI Research Paper, No. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Amsden, A.H. (2001) The Rise of the ‘Rest’. Challenges to the West of Late-industrializing Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ash, T.G. (2009) ‘A liberal translation’. The New York Times 25 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25iht-edash.1.19653694.html.

  • Asmus, R., Everts, P.P. and Isernia, P. (2004) Across the Atlantic and the political aisle: The double divide in U.S.–European relations. Interpretive essay in Transatlantic Trends 2004, http://mail.gees.org/documentos/Documen-262.pdf.

  • Campbell, K.M. (2004) The end of alliances? Not so fast. The Washington Quarterly 27 (2): 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, C. (1998) Twilight of the West. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M. (2004) Empire? The Bush doctrine and the lessons of history. In: D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi (eds.) American Power in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 21–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M. (2007) Another transatlantic split? American and European narratives and the end of the Cold War. Cold War History 7 (1): 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daalder, I. (2003) The end of Atlanticism. Survival 45 (2): 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeConde, A. (1992) Ethnicity, Race, and American Foreign Policy. A History. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. and Habermas, J. (2005) February 15, or, what binds Europeans together: Plea for a common foreign policy, beginning in core Europe. In: D. Lévy, M. Pensky and J. Torpey (eds.) Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe. Transatlantic Relations after the Iraq War. London: Verso, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deudney, D. and Ikenberry, G.J. (1999) Nature and sources of liberal international order. Review of International Studies 25 (2): 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, K.W., Burrell, S.A., Kann Jr. R.A. and Lee, M. (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J.D. and Wendt, A. (2002) Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In: W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, pp. 52–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fosler, R.S., Alonso, W., Mayer, J.A. and Kern, R. (eds.) (1990) Demographic Change and the American Future. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuerth, L. (2008) Prospects for a common transatlantic strategy to address newly emerged threats and challenges: Complexity and response. In: R. Alcaro (ed.) Re-launching the Transatlantic Security Relationship. IAI Quaderni, English Series, No. 12, Rome, pp. 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1989) The end of history. The National Interest 16 (Summer): 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W.A. (2013) Obama’s pivot to Europe: Forget China. An EU trade deal would be the real game-changer. New Republic, 20 February.

  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. (2003) Transatlantic Trends 2003, http://trends.gmfus.org/?page_id=2705.

  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. (2004) Transatlantic Trends 2004, http://trends.gmfus.org/?page_id=2703.

  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. (2009) Transatlantic Trends 2009, http://trends.gmfus.org/?page_id=2690.

  • German Marshall Fund of the United States. (2012) Transatlantic Trends 2012, http://trends.gmfus.org/transatlantic-trends-2012-released/.

  • Glaser, C.L. (1993) Why NATO is still best. Future security arrangements for Europe. International Security 18 (1): 5–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godzimirski, J.M., Græger, N. and Haugevik, K.M. (2010) Towards a NATO à la Carte. Assessing the Alliance’s Adaptation to New Tasks and Changing Relationships. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. NUPI Report.

  • Goldgeier, J.M. (1999) Not Whether but When. The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P.H. and Shapiro, J. (2004) Allies at War. America, Europe and the Crisis Over Iraq. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grevi, G. (2009) The Interpolar World. A New Scenario. Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies. EUISS Occasional Paper No. 79.

  • Griffith-Jones, S., Ocampo, J.A. and Stiglitz, J. (eds.) (2010) Time for a Visible Hand: Lessons from the 2008 World Financial Crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R.N. (2008) The age of nonpolarity: What will follow U.S. dominance. Foreign Affairs 87 (3): 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. (2012) A Transatlantic Agenda for Jobs and Growth. Testimony to the House Committee on International Relations-Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia, 27 March.

  • Hamilton, D. and Quinlan, J.P. (eds.) (2012) The Transatlantic Economy 2012. Washington, Center for Transatlantic Relations, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/transatlantic-topics/transatlantic-economy-series.htm.

  • Hamilton, D. and Quinlan, J.P. (eds.) (2013) The Transatlantic Economy 2013. Washington, Center for Transatlantic Relations, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/transatlantic-topics/transatlantic-economy-series.htm.

  • Hatlapa, R. and Markovits, A. (2010) The compatibility of Obamamania and anti-Americanism in West European discourse. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference of Europeanists, Montreal, 15–17 April.

  • Hellmann, G. and Wolf, R. (1993) Neo-realism, neo-liberal institutionalism and the future of NATO. Security Studies 3 (1): 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herd, G.P. (2010) Great Powers and Strategic Stability in the Twenty-first Century: Competing Visions of World Order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, M.J. (ed.) (1992) The End of the Cold War. Its Meaning and Implications. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. (2001) The European Commission and the Integration of Europe. Images of Governance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.P. (1991) The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.P. (2005) Who Are We? America’s Great Debate. London: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignatieff, M. (2003) ‘The American Empire; the burden’. The New York Times 5 January.

  • Ikenberry, G.J. (1996) Myth of post-Cold War chaos. Foreign Affairs 75 (3): 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G.J. (2001) After Victory. Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. (2003) Paradise and Power. America and Europe in the New World Order. London: Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, L.S. (2004) NATO Divided, NATO United. The Evolution of an Alliance. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O., Nye, J.S. and Hoffmann, S. (eds.) (1993) After the Cold War. International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koremenos, B., Lipson, C. and Snidal, D. (2001) The rational design of international institutions. International Organization 55 (4): 761–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, C. (1990) The unipolar moment. Foreign Affairs 70 (1): 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, C. (2003) The unipolar moment revisited. The National Interest 70 (Winter 2002–3): 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. (ed.) (1998) Atlantic Security. Contending Visions. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, and Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupchan, C.A. (2002) The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. and Thayer, B.A. (2007) American Empire. A Debate. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, M. (2011) Four Scenarios for the Future of Europe. London: European Council on Foreign Relations. ECFR Essay, No. 43.

  • Mallaby, S. (2002) The reluctant imperialist: Terrorism, failed states, and the case for American empire. Foreign Affairs 81 (2): 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2006) The logic of appropriateness. In: M. Moran, M. Rein and R.E. Goodin (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 689–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCalla, R.B. (1996) NATO’s persistence after the Cold War. International Organization 50 (3): 445–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (1990) Back to the future. Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security 15 (1): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Powers. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (1997) Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51 (4): 513–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, L. (2012) ‘The EU looks to its own Asia pivot’. The Wall Street Journal. Real Time Brussels blog 3 May, http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2012/05/03/eu-looks-to-its-own-asia-pivot.

  • Nye, J.S. (2000) The US and Europe: Continental drift? International Affairs 76 (1): 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J.S. (2002) The Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J.S. (2011) ‘Obama’s Pacific pivot’. Project Syndicate, 6 December, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-s-pacific-pivot.

  • Page, B.I. and Bouton, M.M. (2006) The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. (2006) Transatlantic relations after Iraq: Wolf at the door this time? European Political Science 5 (1): 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. and Pollack, M.A. (eds.) (2003) Europe, America, Bush. Transatlantic Relations in the Twenty-first Century. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. and Steffenson, R. (2009) Transatlantic institutions: Can partnership be ‘engineered’? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11 (1): 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J., Tocci, N. and Alcaro, R. (2012) Multipolarity and Transatlantic Relations: Multilateralism and Leadership in a New International Order. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. Transworld Working Paper, No. 1.

  • Peterson, J. (lead author) et al (2005) Review of the framework for relations between the European Union and the United States, an independent study commissioned by European Commission DG RELEX, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/MD020b05RevFramforEU_USRelations.pdf.

  • PEW Research Center. (2011) Strengthen ties with China, but get tough on trade. 2011 Political Survey Final topline, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1855/china-poll-americans-want-closer-ties-but-tougher-trade-policy.

  • PEW Research Center. (2014) While focus on foreign problems lessens, U.S. public keeps its eye on China, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/04/while-focus-on-foreign-problems-lessens-u-s-public-keeps-its-eye-on-china/.

  • Pond, E. (2004) Friendly Fire. The Near-death of the Transatlantic Alliance. Washington DC: Brookings Institutional Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryce-Jones, D. (1999) Bananas are the beginning: The looming war between America and Europe. National Review 51 (6): 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (1996) Collective identity in a democratic community: The case of NATO. In: P.J. Katzenstein (ed.) The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp 357–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2012) Determinants and Features of International Alliances and Structural Partnerships. Rome: Istituto Affari Internazionali. Transworld Working Paper, No. 3.

  • Ruggie, J.G. (1994) Third try at world order? America and multilateralism after the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly 109 (4): 553–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serfaty, S. (ed.) (2005) The Vital Partnership. Power and Order. America and Europe beyond Iraq. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serfaty, S. (ed.) (2008) A Recast Partnership? Institutional Dimensions of Transatlantic Relations. Washington: CSIS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, R.J. (2008) Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work. New York: St Martin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, R. (1996) U.S. and European attitudes toward intervention in the former Yugoslavia: Mourir pour la Bosnie? In: R. H. Ullman (ed.) The World and Yugoslavia’s Wars. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, pp. 145–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, J. and Webber, M. (2009) NATO: From Kosovo to Kabul. International Affairs 85 (3): 491–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzenmüller, C. (2010) End of a honeymoon. Obama and Europe, one year later. Brussels Forum Papers, March.

  • Toje, A. (2008) America, the EU and Strategic Culture. Renegotiating the Transatlantic Bargain. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W. (2002) As viewed from Europe: Transatlantic sympathies, transatlantic fears. International Relations 16 (2): 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, C.A. (2000) Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War. International Organization 54 (4): 705–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, S.M. (1998–1999) The ties that fray: Why Europe and America are drifting apart. The National Interest (54): 3–11, http://www.comw.org/pda/swalt.pdf.

  • Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yost, D.S. (1998) NATO Transformed. The Alliance’s New Roles in International Security. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, F. (2008) The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome, Italy

    Nathalie Tocci

  2. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA

    Riccardo Alcaro

Authors
  1. Nathalie Tocci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Alcaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Alcaro.

Additional information

This article is a profoundly revised and updated version of an early working paper produced in the context of the European Union-funded Transworld project on the future of the transatlantic relationship and its role in the world.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tocci, N., Alcaro, R. Rethinking transatlantic relations in a multipolar era. Int Polit 51, 366–389 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.10

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.10

Keywords

  • multipolarity
  • transatlantic relations
  • pivot to Asia
  • NATO
  • the EU