When Students Rethink the Transatlantic Alliance

Concerns over the strength and viability of the transatlantic alliance have dominated the news in recent years. Reports on vital issues such as security, military funding, trade, climate change, and energy have highlighted the many disagreements or hostility between the US and European partners. Instead of surrendering the transatlantic alliance to pundits and politicians, Gerlinde Groitl (University of Regensburg) and I (Johns Hopkins University) created an opportunity for students at our two institutions to exchange their views and debate the most urgent matters confronting the transatlantic alliance.

In this contribution to EuropeNow’s campus dispatches, I discuss our motivations for creating this co-educational project—“The Transatlantic Alliance: Security and Foreign Policy Challenges in Europe and the US”—and how we designed it. I share the structural and intellectual challenges we encountered, reactions from our students, and the learning outcomes of the project. I also share the results of the project’s assessment, based on two anonymous student surveys Johns Hopkins students filled out after each class meeting. The project serves as an example of how small changes in the curriculum can provide considerable experiential learning opportunities that deepen students’ understanding of Europe and can substantiate otherwise often abstract debates about transatlantic relations.

Creating a transatlantic exchange

European and American academic calendars are often incompatible, rendering semester-long cooperation difficult. In our project, Groitl taught a political science seminar on “European Security: Challenges and Strategic Options” during the winter semester in Germany, while I offered a history lecture-based course on “Europe since 1945” during the spring semester in the US. Thus, the timing did not align. We nevertheless managed to schedule two class zoom meetings for late January and early February, which meant that Regensburg students were already wrapping up their semester, while Johns Hopkins students had barely started theirs. Despite the seeming incongruences, the timing inadvertently underscored the project’s relevance, as at the same time as our classes met a budget bill about military funding for Ukraine remained stuck in the US Congress, the Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump publicly disparaged NATO—as he had done in the past—and the EU passed a bill supporting a major assistance package to Ukraine, in effect positioning itself to replace the US as the main financial and military supporter of Ukraine.

Although the project paired an American and a German institution, the classes at either university were not homogeneous groups. For example, some students enrolled in the seminar at the University of Regensburg (UR) were not German citizens, and not all students at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) were American, having come from Asia and Europe. Their socioeconomic backgrounds also varied. Moreover, class sizes differed, posing a practical challenge. A total of 39 students were enrolled in the JHU class and only 14 in the UR seminar, which inevitably caused an imbalance that we hoped would be offset by the fact that the UR students were more advanced in the study of the topic. For our two meetings, we organized students in seven breakout rooms, each bringing together two UR students and five or six JHU students.

Preparing students for the transatlantic exchange

To prepare for the exchange, Johns Hopkins University students chose from a comprehensive list of reading suggestions, which ranged from EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen’s (2023) “State of the Union” addresses to statements by the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell (2023). The suggested reading list also included Anu Bradford’s (2020) article on the EU as a regulatory power, articles from Eurozine, and publications by the European Council on Foreign Relations. To create a common ground between both groups of students, many of these readings corresponded to those previously assigned in Groitl’s seminar. Allowing students to choose their readings placed the responsibility for shaping the conversations—and their education more generally—on them.

Academic spaces where students can freely express themselves need to be actively created. As such, academia is not free of power, gender, and racial hierarchies. Prior to the joint zoom workshops, the Johns Hopkins class discussed ways to create a respectful and inclusive environment in which consensual and contentious issues alike can be debated without misunderstandings or unintentional offenses occurring. With almost fifty people joining the zoom meetings, students understood that differences in opinion would be inevitable, and we discussed how accepting such differences and non-closure can constitute progress, too. When asked about ways to react if one of their peers was interrupted or had their idea appropriated by someone else—an experience not unfamiliar to many women in academia—the students proposed phrases that could express support, restore ownership, and rein in “conversation hawks” and “bullies.” Comments such as “Let’s get back to what (name) said,” “I would like to hear what else (name) is thinking,” “I second (name) suggestion that…”, or “As (name) already stated earlier,” are tested strategies of amplification and solidarity that not all students had been aware of.

Debating challenges faced by Europe and the US

During the first meeting, after a short ice breaker in zoom breakout rooms, the seven groups of students were asked to identify the top five security and foreign policy challenges faced by Europe and the US and to rank them according to their urgency or relevance. The main issues raised were as follows:

Challenges for Europe	# of groups & ranking	Challenges for the US	# of groups & ranking
Russia’s war in Ukraine or Russian aggression (ranked #1 by all groups)	All groups Ranked #1 by 6 of 7 groups	Internal polarization (listed by all groups as one of the top challenges)	7 ranked #1-#3
Rise of populism / authoritarianism, political polarization, and “democratic backsliding”	3 as #2 or #4	China, US-China relations, or Chinese claim to Taiwan	6 Ranked #2 by four of the 6
Economic dependence on China and Indo-Pacific conflict	3 Ranked #2 and #4	Border security and/ or migration (Southern border) (listed by four groups at various mid-ranks)	4 Ranked #3 or #4
Challenges to the liberal world order, including isolationism and “Trump as external threat”	4 Ranked #1 by one, #2	Palestine-Israel conflict / war in Gaza or Middle East	4 Ranked #1, #2 and #3
Palestine-Israel conflict/ war in Gaza / middle east	7 ranked #2, #3, #4 or #5	Russia’s war in Ukraine	7 Ranked #1 by only 1 group, by others #2 through #5
Migration and refugee crisis (listed by four at various ranks)	4 ranked #3, #4 or #5	Challenges to liberal world order, rise of authoritarianism, or isolationism	4 Ranked #2, #3, or #4
Energy dependence	3 ranked #2, 3 or #5	Climate change	1 Ranked #5
EU/ NATO unity, US leaving NATO or dependence on US	3 ranked #3, #4 and #5	Education	1 Ranked #4
Climate change and green energy efforts	2 Ranked #4 or #5	Cybersecurity and misinformation	3 Ranked #4 and #5
Organized crime	1 Ranked #4	Terrorism (listed by one group)	1 Ranked #4
		Economic decline (listed by one group)	1 Ranked #4
		Iran (listed by one group)[1]	1 Ranked #5

Reflecting on the first meeting, most students articulated their surprise that although University of Regensburg and Johns Hopkins University students had fairly quickly agreed on the main issues challenging Europe and the US, they did not immediately agree on how to define these challenges. Studies by the Körber Stiftung and the Pew Research Center have confirmed similar discrepancies in the ways in which people in the US and in Germany understand international issues.[2] For instance, whereas UR students identified Russia’s war in Ukraine as an existential threat, JHU students interpreted the war’s relevance for the US as a matter of moral obligation and necessity to uphold the international order. Additionally, although most students agreed that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) posed a challenge to both the US and the EU, what that challenge consisted of differed: whereas UR students tended to focus on whether economic dependence on China was “good” or “bad,” the JHU students weighed whether the PRC pursued an expansionist foreign policy that warranted stronger military posturing.

Envisioning the future of the transatlantic alliance

During the second zoom meeting, the same groups reconvened in breakout rooms where they were to deliberate about the evolution of one specific challenge and draft policy recommendations for Europe and the US based on that projection. What complicated the conversations was the uncertainty over the outcome of the US presidential elections in November 2024 and a possible return of Donald Trump to the White House. Many worried about the former president’s antagonist approach to international relations and the possibility of the US withdrawing from NATO, a threat that the Republican candidate would actually reiterate a few days after the class met.[3]

All groups engaged in nuanced discussions and demonstrated a good understanding of interdependencies and linkages between issues. Despite the prominence of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, which all had included on their lists of pressing challenges, none of the groups chose to debate it further. One can hypothesize that the issue felt too sensitive or too protracted for such an exchange. Instead, three groups developed policy recommendations addressing the war in Ukraine. Another group focused on securing NATO’s support specifically, while two additional groups drafted recommendations to address the relationships between the West, i.e., the EU and the US, and China or Russia. Finally, one group focused on political polarization in Europe and the US. Some of the recommendations made by the students remained rather vague. In general, although students considered that cooperation between Europe and the US remained pertinent, they all found that Europe should be more self-reliant in its defense and seek—in the words of French President Emmanuel Macron—“strategic autonomy.”

The end of the Alliance or a crossroad?

Exchanges between students at US and European universities were a hallmark of the Cold War. However, since then, disinvestment from and downsizing of the humanities and language studies in the US have negatively impacted opportunities for transatlantic engagement. Renewing these exchanges could halt further deterioration of the alliance and boost diplomacy and international cooperation. Direct educational interactions may enhance mutual understanding, improve critical self-reflection, and hone students’ ability to consider different views, which students confirmed in anonymous surveys they filled out at the end of the project. Moreover, such “soft skills” may sustain and improve collective decision-making in other contexts and are thus indispensable to pursue professional careers in international affairs and policy-making, which many of the participating students aspire to do.

The surveys we administered revealed that the experience was beneficial to students at JHU, as it gave them the unusual opportunity to engage with peers in Europe. Although most found the process of developing policies challenging, they also found it to be a valuable experience. Comments about the interactions were generally enthusiastic:

We all wanted to hear from each other.
It was engaging and interesting to see how differently people approach the [same] research.
Everyone brought forth useful and unique considerations.
Lots of cross cultural connections and communications.

These positive responses to the interaction were mirrored in UR students’ comments, one of whom even created a WhatsApp group to continue the conversation after the end of the program. This feedback underscores the importance and benefits of creating a framework for educational transatlantic exchanges, no matter how limited or small. Gerlinde Groitl and I plan to organize other similar workshops before and after the US presidential elections in the fall of 2024. The timing promises another productive and insightful exchange between the experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers of the future from both sides of the Atlantic.

Victoria Harms is a senior lecturer in the Department of History at the Johns Hopkins University, where she teaches classes on the Cold War and on German and European history in the twentieth and twenty-first century. A University of Pittsburgh and Central European University alumna, she came to Baltimore in 2018 as a DAAD Visiting Assistant Professor. She is the author of The Making of Dissidents: Hungary’s Democratic Opposition and its Western Friends, 1973 – 1998 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2024).

References

Associated Press, “How Trump urging Russia to invade ‘delinquent’ NATO members distorts how the alliance works,” (February 12, 2024). URL: https://apnews.com/article/nato-trump-delinquent-defense-allies-c1f7de696ff6ca06e4088f49b93122e1.

Borrell, Josep. “What the Eu Stands for on Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” The Diplomatic Service of the European Union (2023). Published electronically 15 November 2023. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/what-eu-stands-gaza-and-israeli-palestinian-conflict_en.
Bradford, Anu. The Brussels Effect. How the European Union Rules the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.

“EU Peace, Security and Defence,” published by Strategic Communications, European External Action Service (September 29, 2023). URL: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-peace-security-and-defence_en#:~:text=As%20armed%20conflicts%20and%20civil,climate%20change%20or%20artificial%20intelligence.

“Of Paradigms and Power Shifts,” The Berlin Pulse, Körber Stiftung, 2023/2024. URL: https://koerber-stiftung.de/site/assets/files/34825/the_berlin_pulse_20232024_1.pdf

When Students Rethink the Transatlantic Alliance

References

Recommended additional readings for students