The journey undertaken by the President of the United States to Europe \u2014 first to Cornwall for the G7 meeting, then to Brussels to meet the EU institutions and the NATO allies, and finally to Geneva to meet the Russian president Vladimir Putin \u2014 illustrated the United States\u2019 determination to return to the world stage and to multilateralism, and the restoration of a transatlantic alliance that had lost its lustre during the presidency of Donald Trump. This about-turn in terms of foreign policy and the renewal of the Atlantic alliance nevertheless raises several questions. Is it really true that \u201cAmerica is back\u201d, as Biden maintains? Is this a long-term opportunity for renewed understanding between the United States and Europe? Can Biden recover the trust of his European allies? To what extent can it be said that the United States and Europe are cooperating or diverging in relation to the major issues of the global agenda, such as vaccination, trade and China?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On 23rd June a virtual debate was held, jointly organised by the Government of Catalonia\u2019s delegation to the United States, the Government of Catalonia\u2019s delegation to the EU, and the Catalan Centre for Contemporary Studies (CETC). A number of foreign policy experts from both sides of the Atlantic assessed Joe Biden\u2019s visit to Europe and the current state of relations between the United States and the European Union. The participants in the debate, moderated by Isidre Sala, the delegate of the Government of Catalonia in the United States, were the following: Michelle Egan, a staff member at the School of International Service at the American University; Federiga Bindi, the Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative at the Institute for Women\u2019s Policy Research; Jeffrey Michaels, the chief researcher in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Barcelona Institute for International Studies (IBEI); and Ricardo Borges de Castro, the Assistant Director of the European Policy Centre. The debate also featured a closing address by Vict\u00f2ria Alsina, the Minister for External Action and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The debate started with the moderator, Isidre Sala, presenting the participants and asking them to highlight the most noteworthy aspects of Biden\u2019s visit to Europe. The first person to speak was Michelle Egan, who emphasised \u201cBiden\u2019s different tone compared with that of the previous administration,\u201d together with Biden\u2019s insistence on his message \u201cAmerica is back\u201d, by which he wishes to symbolise the United States\u2019 return to multilateralism. Egan declared that the journey could be qualified \u201cas a success\u201d in the sense that \u201cthere were agreements on subjects such as Russia and cybersecurity.\u201d Nevertheless, there are other topics, such as trade tariffs, the reform of the World Trade Organisation and the attitude that NATO should take towards China, where the two parties showed divergences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Federiga Bindi declared that she had \u201copposing viewpoints\u201d on this question. From an American viewpoint, the journey can be qualified as \u201cmission accomplished\u201d, especially with regard to Russia. From a European perspective, she stated that the EU was \u201chappy to once again have a U.S. President to tell them what they should do,\u201d a fact that shows that \u201cthe EU does not have the will or the strength to have its own foreign policy.\u201d This positive perception of the role of the U.S. on the part of Bindi was shown when she was asked about the impact of the pandemic and Biden\u2019s intention to organise a summit of democracies with the aim of strengthening democratic institutions. Bindi considered that, while Europe \u201chas been left behind\u201d, the pandemic has helped the American president to apply his progressive policies. \u201cBiden is a defender of values such as strength and the role of the United States as an example for others,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For his part, Jeffrey Michaels agreed that the journey had been a success in terms of the way of conducting political relationships, \u201cespecially when compared with Donald Trump\u2019s journey in 2017\u201d, and emphasised the sensation of a \u201creturn to normality.\u201d With regard to the content of his visits, Michaels underlined that Biden gave great importance to the Eastern European members of NATO, but was surprised by the fact that Biden spoke about \u201cred lines\u201d in his meeting with Putin, without defining exactly what they were.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, Ricardo Borges de Castro, asked about the EU\u2019s viewpoint, considered that for Europe the journey had been a \u201cgood reset\u201d, while affirming that \u201cthe hard work starts now.\u201d Borges noted that the EU is still discussing how to approach transatlantic relations, faced with uncertainty about knowing how long this period of good relations was likely to last. According to Borges de Castro, one of the greatest divergences at a geopolitical level is the position with regard to China. While the United States see China as \u201ca threat\u201d, many in Europe see the country more as \u201can economic opportunity.\u201d Another difficult in re-establishing transatlantic relations will be trade, since \u201cuntil the U.S. eliminates the tariffs on steel imports, Europe will not be prepared to move on\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second part of the debate focused on Biden\u2019s announcement of the donation of 500 million Pfizer\/BioNTech vaccines to developing countries and of his support for the liberalisation of vaccine patents in order to accelerate the vaccination process at a global level, and also on the EU\u2019s surprised reaction to the announcement. The moderator, Isidre Sala, asked participants to assess whether there had been coordination between the United States and Europe with regard to the COVID-19 vaccination strategy or whether in fact there had been divergences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michelle Egan indicated that, despite Biden\u2019s comments on the liberalisation of patents, \u201cthey had not resulted in any proposal to the World Trade Organization.\u201d It is in this domain that the United States and the European Union have had divergences, given that \u201cwhile Europe wishes to focus on supplying vaccines all over the world, the United States is focusing on legal terms concerning intellectual property.\u201d Finally, Egan emphasised that in both the US and the EU vaccination was the responsibility of the different US states or EU Member States respectively, for which reason she considers that \u201cit is confusing to speak about a global vaccination policy for the US or the EU as a whole. Ricardo Borges de Castro gave further details of the European perspective with regard to vaccination, and declared that the best way of accelerating the vaccination for Europe is to \u201cguarantee the production of vaccines\u201d so as to satisfy world demand and then to distribute this production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For her part, Federiga Bindi noted the importance of the fact that vaccination was free of charge in the US, a fact that she considered \u201cinteresting for seeing how this affects future US health policy.\u201d She continued by emphasising the idea that, in the field of vaccination also, the US had taken the lead through the financing of vaccine manufacturing companies, while the EU \u201chad been left behind\u201d. In this sense, Bindi referred to part of the previous discussion and spoke about the relationship between the United States and Russia, emphasising that Biden \u201cis one of the few people who understands the Russian viewpoint and their self-image as en empire.\u201d Biden is very much aware of this attitude, and through the bilateral meeting in Geneva the US president had given Russia this recognition. Finally, Jeffrey Michaels focused on Biden\u2019s own announcement about patents, and emphasised that the fact of informing his allies just a few hours before making a major political announcement is a characteristic of American foreign policy, and an aspect that \u201ccontrasts with the multilateralist rhetoric that Biden wishes to promote\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The debate closed with the address of Vict\u00f2ria Alsina, the Catalan Minister for Foreign Action and Open Government, who emphasised the importance of the transatlantic relationship for Catalonia. She started by stressing Catalonia\u2019s transatlantic tradition, which dates back to the year 1797, when the United States opened in Barcelona one of its first consulates in Europe. She also stressed the importance of trade between Catalonia and the United States, which she estimated as having a value of four billion dollars per year. Finally, Alsina reaffirmed Catalonia\u2019s commitment to the European Union and the fact that \u201cCatalonia can only envisage transatlantic relations within the framework of the EU\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The journey undertaken by the President of the United States to Europe \u2014 first to Cornwall for the G7 meeting, then to Brussels to meet the EU institutions and the NATO allies, and finally to Geneva to meet the Russian president Vladimir Putin \u2014 illustrated the United States\u2019 determination to return to the world stage and to multilateralism, and the restoration of a transatlantic alliance that had lost its lustre during the presidency of Donald Trump. This about-turn in terms of foreign policy and the renewal of the Atlantic alliance nevertheless raises several questions. Is it really true that \u201cAmerica\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":44755,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"video","type_m":[225],"segment":[],"subject":[],"class_list":["post-45168","media_post","type-media_post","status-publish","format-video","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","type_m-dialogue-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n