UACES Sponsored Conference 0430

Home > Conferences and Events > Previous Events > Events 2004 > 0430

Britain Between Two Continents: The UK, the EU and the US

London, 26-27 March 2004

Ref: 0430

The British alignment with the US over Iraq reflected a long-term policy preference, but the extent of the gulf between the US and the other major states made this stance far more problematic than in the past both domestically and internationally. This conference will explore these trends through analyses of the dynamics in the US, the EU and the UK.

Contact: Pauline Galea, Institute for the Study of European Transformations, London Metropolitan University (T: +44 20 7133 2927, iset@londonmet.ac.uk)

Further information about the Institute for the Study of European Transformations (ISET).

Further information about the London European Research Centre (LERC).

Programme (79kb PDF file)

Conference Report

The crisis over the Iraq war provided the context for this major international conference on 26-27 March in London. Sponsored by UACES, with further support from the Federal Trust, it was organised by the London European Research Centre and the Institute for the Study of European Transformations at London Metropolitan University.

In his opening address, David Calleo, the Dean Acheson Professor at Johns Hopkins University, asked: ‘The Transatlantic Relationship: Where it is it Going?’. Arguing against US unipolarity, he suggested that a more independent EU would be advantageous for the world, for Europe and even for America itself. However, this would be possible only if France, Germany and the UK were able to collaborate closely to build the kind of Europe that could restore balance and constitutionalism in the international system. This was followed by three speakers from London Metropolitan University, presenting differing interpretations of the forces behind American policy. Peter Gowan argued that, under the ideological framework of the Cold War, the US had constructed a single system incorporating the other advanced capitalist countries, but that this had now broken down. This meant that the current transatlantic conflict was based on structural fissures and that the policy of the Bush administration was embedded in the US system of global capital and investment. Stephen Haseler highlighted the distinctive contribution of the neo-conservatives, tracing their origins and current influence. He argued that they were attempting to use a specific form of right-wing ideology to mask the divergent interests between the US and the EU. Iwan Morgan maintained that it was misleading to claim that there was an American ‘Empire’ and presented a detailed analysis of the underlying economic and financial problems which, he argued, meant that the current US role in the world was unsustainable.

Pascaline Winand of the European University Institute in Florence then analysed US visions of European integration throughout whole post-war period. One of the striking aspects of this overview was its emphasis on continuities, with the US constantly oscillating between support for a potential partner in Europe and hostility to any attempts to rival its influence. She also highlighted the fact that De Gaulle’s fears of the role of the UK were justified when she showed that Kennedy had specifically hoped that British membership would dilute the Franco-German relationship and promote US influence. This theme was taken up by Fritz Scharpf, the Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute in Cologne, who argued that the UK had played a particularly significant role in undermining both the social and international potential of the EU. In his view, there is now a real possibility of the EU reverting to a Common Market under the constraints of the current system of EMU. Furthermore, British alignment with the US provides France and Germany with a choice between EU impotence in world affairs if there is no agreement with Britain, or a limited role confined to areas in which the US is not involved if Anglo-French-German co-operation is attained. Michael Smith of Loughborough University was a little more optimistic. Entitling his talk ‘A Europe That Can say No?’, he analysed a range of policy issues, demonstrating the differing factors that lead to complete EU solidarity against the US at one end of the spectrum – for example, within the WTO – to complete fragmentation at the other end – for example on Iraq. A rather different spectrum, with military power at one end and civilian power at the other, was highlighted in the presentation by Karen Smith of LSE. Here she argued that, although there had certainly been some shift in the EU, with the development of the ESDP, it still emphasised notions of ‘good international citizenship’ in its external policy. However, this certainly did not mean that transatlantic disputes over policy means and ends were likely to diminish in the near future.

The second day of the conference focused more specifically on Britain’s role. In an overview of the whole post-war period Alan Milward, a visiting Professor at London Metropolitan University, argued that undue concentration on security issues could be misleading. In fact, Britain’s foreign commercial policy was far more closely aligned with that of the EU than the US and the EU’s economic role in the world was more important. Michael Newman of London Metropolitan University looked more specifically at the current Labour government. He suggested that, despite the crisis over Iraq, Britain was less defensive in its relations with the EU than previous governments and had some basis for its apparent confidence that the Union was moving in the directions it favoured. However, he also argued that this was not helpful to the long-term future of the EU, for Britain had contributed to the weakening of its social policy and the fragmentation of its international stance.

In the final session, Christopher Hill of LSE analysed Britain, the CFSP and NATO, providing a systematic examination of the ways in which the UK is involved in each organisation, their differing characteristics, and the continuities in policy. He also illuminated the innovative aspects of New Labour’s policies. These, he argued, went beyond discourse and included a sustained challenge to the UN Charter in relation to humanitarian intervention, new forms of liberal imperialism, and a shift from regional to global concerns. Andrew Gamble of Sheffield University, in considering Social Policy and Strategy, provided another novel insight, by drawing attention to the way in which British elites tended to ‘imagine’ that their model of capitalism was far closer to that of the US than was actually the case. In reality, British social policy was a hybrid, but failures of imagination meant that there was little support amongst the political class for deep European integration. Finally, Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, asked the question, ‘Must Britain Choose Between Two Continents?’. In his reflective presentation, he argued that US capitalism was quite distinct from that of Europe and that, in many respects, it was clear that Britain was part of Europe in such areas as social and environmental policy. However, there was also no doubt that international terrorism was re-defining the world and that renewed economic recession was probable. There were many reasons for condemning the US response to these problems, but he was very sceptical as to whether the EU could escape the consequences of the American reaction to the next crisis. The implication was that Britain might not have the luxury of choice.

100 people from universities, embassies and research institutes from many European countries, actively debated these issues of contemporary importance throughout the conference. A variety of perspectives were offered on a range of complex problems. No overall conclusions were drawn, but the presentations and discussions were stimulating, informative and lively. All those present will have left with much to reflect upon.

Prof Michael Newman (m.newman@londonmet.ac.uk)
Director of London European Research Centre
London Metropolitan University