Falling Short of Re-Centering On Central Europe

October 27, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Nixon Center, The National Interest 

At the Nixon Center’s National Interest, Naval War College Professor Nicholas Gvosdev explains:

Given the ambitious foreign-policy agenda facing the Obama administration—the two wars in the Middle East, coping with the rise of India and China, dealing with contentious trade and climate-change issues—the value of central Europe is less its “strategic real estate” (although still important for protecting Europe from the threat of rogue missile launches from the Middle East) and more in terms of what capabilities can be provided to augment U.S. efforts globally. The vice president paid tribute to Polish and Romanian soldiers already serving in Afghanistan—but it is no secret that Europe as a whole could be doing far more to aid U.S. efforts.

And given the increased strains on the U.S. economy, Washington is in no position to unilaterally do the “heavy lifting” of transforming eastern Europe. When one examines trade and investment flows in the former Soviet states, particularly those in the west and south, the lofty rhetoric about “eastern partnerships” doesn’t quite meet the reality of dollars or euros on the ground flowing in from western and central Europe. Nor can the United States be expected to single-handedly solve the region’s problematic dependence on Russia for energy. Diversification of supply and alternate routes will cost money and may result in higher energy prices for regional consumers. But if this is truly a national security issue for these countries, then the burden has to be accepted—it cannot be borne by the United States.

So the vice president is sounding all the right notes on this trip—reassurance, partnership, engagement. But he’s also signaling that the relationship of the United States to central Europe is changing, one might even say maturing. And as a result, America feels it can begin to turn its attention to other parts of the world without neglecting friends and allies who, two decades after the end of the Cold War, have “made it.”

Comments