Contenu du sommaire

After a rather long span of high growth rates, slow inflation and financial stability, the world faces a period of prices volatility, economic uncertainty, social instability and loss of confidence. In order to implement anti-deflationist and fiscal pro-growth policies, and to organise international cooperation on these matters, state intervention is once more needed. More generally speaking, new forms of world governance must be engineered (G20, a new distribution of mandates in the IMF, etc.)

During the last twenty years, financial globalization has strongly stimulated world growth. But it entailed a negative consequence: the spread of the financial crisis all over the world. This crisis demonstrates how necessary a new world governance system is. It must be implemented on two levels: at the economic level, in order to reduce the recession s stretch and its duration; at the monetary and financial level, in order to dodge, or at least to limit the importance of future crises.

The financial crisis hits European institutions that are already shaky. The French presidency gave the illusion that the European Union was well governed, even if the rules remained unchanged. The European Central Bank is presumably the institution which held best, while the European Commission became marginalized. Furthermore, the European Council has not proven autonomous enough in respect to the bi-annual presidency. As for the Lisbon Treaty, it is unsure whether it will be able to cure the European Executive's persistent weaknesses.

Far from mirroring the perversity of the financial system, the current crisis reflects the complexity of social practices. Wrong interpretations that are seemingly obvious must be kept at arm's length, as they are misleading and hide real dangers. Risk aversion, which engenders insecurity, is a bad omen of economic recovery. Criticism of financial engineering may end up in protectionist measures in respect to trade relations. To properly interpret this crisis, a broader historical perspective is necessary, beyond short-term reactions.

Several factors have contributed to make transatlantic relations looser: the end of the Cold War and its threats, the strengthening of US power and changes in American foreign policy under George W. Bush, the progress made in the building of the European Union. A new partnership has to be founded on new bases; the United States should give support to the constitution of a strong European Union, especially in the field of foreign policy.

In 2003, many calls were made in favor of an economic boycott both in the United States and in some European countries that disagreed with the Iraq war, but they had no serious economic consequences. Several factors can explain why trade was not sensitive to transatlantic tensions, the first and foremost being that trade is carried out by multinational enterprises. It is nevertheless possible that some products, as those typically symbolising a country's specialty, will suffer from these measures in the long run.

American and European positions on climate change are based on historical choices concerning energy use as well as on different international and economic strategies. The United States will participate in a multilateral agreement only under the condition that their main industrial interests are secured or, to put it in other words, when the balance of pros and cons tilts on its side.

International relations theories intend to explain why countries subscribe more or less quickly to the statute of the International Criminal Court. However, a rigorous analysis shows that to do so, a country must accept the idea that the international rule is superior to the national rule and furthermore, that judgements by international courts supersede national ones. These criteria explain why the United States and the European countries have different positions in respect to the ICC.

On the basis of public announcements made during the campaign and of what President Obama's advisers and supporters have written, the President's options should not totally oppose the political choices made by the previous government. However, there should be a change in the way America deals with the problems in the “arch of crisis”: Iran, Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli question and Afghanistan. It is precisely on the last two points that the statements made by President Obama are so far unclear and almost contradictory.

The new American administration offers a window of opportunity to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The United States and the European Union will hold a prominent position in the negotiations, but they must draw the lessons of past failures. Mediators must be active; international control mechanisms have to be implemented; the living conditions of Palestinians need to be quickly enhanced, and Hamas has to be allowed to govern; otherwise the Middle East peace-making process will be once more hampered.

Will the new American government be able to clarify the conditions under which it will engage with Asia? Washington must bring an answer to the fears and expectations of different actors. What will the American position be before China's difficulties due to the crisis? How could Japan be reassured about its place in the American strategy? How to deal with Pyongyang and how to establish a stable partnership with New Delhi? What could be the right place for the already existing regional institutions ?

The Syrian President's visit to Paris during the summer of 2008 symbolized a new course in French diplomacy, and the end of the French-Syrian disagreement. However, it still has to be proven that this new situation leads to a stable political solution in Lebanon, to a more significant French influence in the area, or to speeding up the Syrian-Israeli negotiations. Uncertainties remain, such as the regime's economic and political stability and its links with Teheran.

Non-governmental organisations, and among them political foundations, have become important actors in international relations, especially since the end of the Cold War. Americans and Germans hold a prominent position, many of their foundations acting either as a support or as an opposition to their governments. However, the part they played in democratization processes of post-communist societies and in developing countries has not always been well considered.