What do you think?
Rate this book
Free World: America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West
"We, the free, face a daunting opportunity. Previous generations could only dream of a free world. Now we can begin to make it." In his welcome alternative to the rampant pessimism about Euro-American relations, award-winning historian Timothy Garton Ash shares an inspiring vision for how the United States and Europe can collaborate to promote a free world.
At the start of the twenty-first century, the West has plunged into crisis. Europe tries to define itself in opposition to America, and America increasingly regards Europe as troublesome and irrelevant. What is to become of what we used to call “the free world”? Part history, part manifesto, Free World offers both a scintillating assessment of our current geopolitical quandary and a vitally important argument for the future of liberty and the shared values of the West.
At the start of the twenty-first century, the West has plunged into crisis. Europe tries to define itself in opposition to America, and America increasingly regards Europe as troublesome and irrelevant. What is to become of what we used to call “the free world”? Part history, part manifesto, Free World offers both a scintillating assessment of our current geopolitical quandary and a vitally important argument for the future of liberty and the shared values of the West.
292 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2004
8 people are currently reading
208 people want to read
About the author
Timothy Garton Ash
54 books281 followersTimothy Garton Ash CMG FRSA is a British historian, author and commentator. He is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University. Much of his work has been concerned with the late modern and contemporary history of Central and Eastern Europe.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 23, 2008
Timothy Garton Ash is a very smart man. But more importantly, Timothy Garton Ash is a very sensible man. The man can organize and express thoughts about extremely complicated situations in a way that not only makes them seem more understandable, but much less hysterical than most commentators in the news media would have us believe.
The discussion in this book centers on the situation of the US, the EU, and Britain and the seperate dilemmas that each of them bring to the 21st century. More specifically it centers on how each area can bring their strengths to bear on the problems of the world, and be the most effective. He questions whether the US and the EU have grown too far apart to work on he same team, as many very very stupid people appear to believe. (Sorry, he doesn't say that. I clearly have my biases). Of course his conclusion is that things are not as black and white as they seem. "The Americans" and "The Europeans" are not one single entity, and nobody can claim to speak for them all. Especially not after the expansions of the EU and the polarization of America. And what, really, are our differences when one gets right down and examines it? Are these differences that are likely to be permanent? Will America and Europe too engage in the "clash of civilizations" of sorts?
Again, no no no no. I think my professor put it best, if perhaps rather colorfully, in what he called the "Ghostbuster Doctrine." If the US cannot do something alone in the world, who are we gonna call? There is nobody else to call. As ineffective as the Europeans can be, as unclear as our family relationship is to them (son, uncle, father, daughter, what?), they are the ones who are going to sit on our side of the table. Certain core values are there. Again, with his sensible outlook: We do not disagree on the ends in large part, we disagree on means. Which can all be explained by history and soothed by a little sensitivity to that.
In any case, anyone who wants to understand US-EU relations should read this book. The only warning I will give is that the last few chapters do switch into a rather preachy, pedantic moral case about the US-EU obligation to fix the world. But it's just the last few chapters. The rest is some of the most sober, intelligent, engaging analysis on the subject that I have read.
Highly recommended!
The discussion in this book centers on the situation of the US, the EU, and Britain and the seperate dilemmas that each of them bring to the 21st century. More specifically it centers on how each area can bring their strengths to bear on the problems of the world, and be the most effective. He questions whether the US and the EU have grown too far apart to work on he same team, as many very very stupid people appear to believe. (Sorry, he doesn't say that. I clearly have my biases). Of course his conclusion is that things are not as black and white as they seem. "The Americans" and "The Europeans" are not one single entity, and nobody can claim to speak for them all. Especially not after the expansions of the EU and the polarization of America. And what, really, are our differences when one gets right down and examines it? Are these differences that are likely to be permanent? Will America and Europe too engage in the "clash of civilizations" of sorts?
Again, no no no no. I think my professor put it best, if perhaps rather colorfully, in what he called the "Ghostbuster Doctrine." If the US cannot do something alone in the world, who are we gonna call? There is nobody else to call. As ineffective as the Europeans can be, as unclear as our family relationship is to them (son, uncle, father, daughter, what?), they are the ones who are going to sit on our side of the table. Certain core values are there. Again, with his sensible outlook: We do not disagree on the ends in large part, we disagree on means. Which can all be explained by history and soothed by a little sensitivity to that.
In any case, anyone who wants to understand US-EU relations should read this book. The only warning I will give is that the last few chapters do switch into a rather preachy, pedantic moral case about the US-EU obligation to fix the world. But it's just the last few chapters. The rest is some of the most sober, intelligent, engaging analysis on the subject that I have read.
Highly recommended!
September 5, 2023
I thought I had reviewed this when I first read it a decade or so ago. Well, on what I think is my third re-read (which would make four overall) I found out that was not the case.
The book gets five stars for its prescriptiveness, overall. Britain increasing its footing in both the EU and as a bridge to the US would be great. The EU getting its economic unification more together, and looking at some sort of partnerships beyond would be great. The US "growing up" more would be fantastic. (Calling for the expansion of the EU yet further east, as in Ukraine? Ash's biggest gaffe, even back then and without the benefit of hindsight.)
Ahh, hindsight.
In reality, this book is HUGELY dated. The Tory economic equivalent of American Tea Partiers, aided and abetted by an ambivalent Jeremy Corbyn (who should have resigned as Labour leader if he couldn't support an official party cause vote to "Remain," and couldn't support it vigorously), wound up thumbing its nose at the EU with the "Brexit," and under Boris Johnson, even worse, a no-deal Brexit. The deal may not be QUITE as bad for the UK as the worst predictions claim. That said, re Northern Ireland and Scotland, how much of a "Great Britain" will even remain in another 20 years.
And, this is to say nothing about the rise of Donald Trump in the US, and his America-First stance undermining any chance at a semi-unified "Western" stance against China's Xi Jinping, whom Ash also didn't predict.
Ash's prescriptiveness also didn't meet reality with the EU, which really showed itself to be half a bunch of individual nation-states and half a German Ebenezer Scrooge during the Great Recession. And now, 10 years later, it looks like little has changed overall in the EU even as Merkel, on her last legs, fears her own wingnuts inside Germany.
In reality, the prescriptive-predictive gap is so huge in so many ways, I doubt it will be closed by 205o.
Update, Sept. 4, 2023: I should have downgraded this a star with the second read. I'm now downgrading it a star for that, and a second star for Ash's Tweet of this Financial Times NATO warmongering piece against Russia.
The book gets five stars for its prescriptiveness, overall. Britain increasing its footing in both the EU and as a bridge to the US would be great. The EU getting its economic unification more together, and looking at some sort of partnerships beyond would be great. The US "growing up" more would be fantastic. (Calling for the expansion of the EU yet further east, as in Ukraine? Ash's biggest gaffe, even back then and without the benefit of hindsight.)
Ahh, hindsight.
In reality, this book is HUGELY dated. The Tory economic equivalent of American Tea Partiers, aided and abetted by an ambivalent Jeremy Corbyn (who should have resigned as Labour leader if he couldn't support an official party cause vote to "Remain," and couldn't support it vigorously), wound up thumbing its nose at the EU with the "Brexit," and under Boris Johnson, even worse, a no-deal Brexit. The deal may not be QUITE as bad for the UK as the worst predictions claim. That said, re Northern Ireland and Scotland, how much of a "Great Britain" will even remain in another 20 years.
And, this is to say nothing about the rise of Donald Trump in the US, and his America-First stance undermining any chance at a semi-unified "Western" stance against China's Xi Jinping, whom Ash also didn't predict.
Ash's prescriptiveness also didn't meet reality with the EU, which really showed itself to be half a bunch of individual nation-states and half a German Ebenezer Scrooge during the Great Recession. And now, 10 years later, it looks like little has changed overall in the EU even as Merkel, on her last legs, fears her own wingnuts inside Germany.
In reality, the prescriptive-predictive gap is so huge in so many ways, I doubt it will be closed by 205o.
Update, Sept. 4, 2023: I should have downgraded this a star with the second read. I'm now downgrading it a star for that, and a second star for Ash's Tweet of this Financial Times NATO warmongering piece against Russia.
December 21, 2013
The author has been encountered previously via his intelligent contributions to the Guardian. This is the first of his full length books I've read. And it's an entertaining dissection of the post 9/11 world. A world in which the West is challenged not by the Cold War problems of MAD but by religious extremists both within and without.
In one section the author makes a comparison between Europe and America and asks which is better? He concludes that neither is intrinsically so. From my own vantage point here in the UK I think that we are as he points out Janus Britain which is the best way to be. The European way is more humane though and given the choice I would reject the semi fascist ideology of the American right. Sadly it seems that most people have swallowed the propaganda and are persuaded that they need to get rich in order to be happy. To the hell with society which in any case doesn't exist according to Thatcher.
The chapter entitled America the powerful is convincing. In the authors opinion - one that I share - America will pursue its own interests regardless of the effect of the international community let alone the long term future of mankind on this planet. So we're basically fucked.
A fascinating book from which I learned much for instance that the frontiers are Europe were originally defined by Eratosthenes in about 200 BC.
The book may need updating to include the rise of BRICS but it's still an intelligent commentary on the modern world.
It's manifesto is clear : we must learn to live with one another despite our differences. Free the world.
Otherwise as David Simon has suggested the disenfranchised may eventually become too many. Orwell thought there was no hope in the proles. Perhaps he was right and mankind is heading straight to hell.
In one section the author makes a comparison between Europe and America and asks which is better? He concludes that neither is intrinsically so. From my own vantage point here in the UK I think that we are as he points out Janus Britain which is the best way to be. The European way is more humane though and given the choice I would reject the semi fascist ideology of the American right. Sadly it seems that most people have swallowed the propaganda and are persuaded that they need to get rich in order to be happy. To the hell with society which in any case doesn't exist according to Thatcher.
The chapter entitled America the powerful is convincing. In the authors opinion - one that I share - America will pursue its own interests regardless of the effect of the international community let alone the long term future of mankind on this planet. So we're basically fucked.
A fascinating book from which I learned much for instance that the frontiers are Europe were originally defined by Eratosthenes in about 200 BC.
The book may need updating to include the rise of BRICS but it's still an intelligent commentary on the modern world.
It's manifesto is clear : we must learn to live with one another despite our differences. Free the world.
Otherwise as David Simon has suggested the disenfranchised may eventually become too many. Orwell thought there was no hope in the proles. Perhaps he was right and mankind is heading straight to hell.
August 14, 2018
Looks like this book has been updated several times. Many books along similar lines I guess. is anyone listening?
Read
November 29, 2025Simpler times the 2000s
January 16, 2026
Mission 2026: Binge reviewing all previous Reads, I was too slothful to review back when I read them
Reading Timothy Garton Ash’s 'Free World' now feels like opening a document written in a moment when liberal optimism had not yet learnt how brittle it was.
What struck me most on returning to it was not how wrong it is—because much of it isn’t—but how earnest its faith in conversation, convergence, and moral persuasion now feels. Garton Ash writes as a participant-observer of Europe’s post–Cold War reimagining, and the book carries the confidence of someone who has seen walls fall and believes that history, while messy, bends toward dialogue rather than rupture.
Reading it today, that confidence feels both admirable and painfully exposed. The book’s strength lies in its attentiveness to lived political culture: cafés, newspapers, courtrooms, and parliaments matter here as much as treaties and summits.
Freedom is treated not as an abstract ideal but as a set of habits slowly learnt and easily forgotten. Yet I found myself increasingly aware of the assumptions underwriting this vision—that economic integration would soften nationalism, that shared norms would outpace grievance, and that memory of catastrophe would inoculate Europe against repetition.
What lingers now is the gap between those assumptions and the present reality of resurgent borders, hardened identities, and democratic fatigue. Still, the book resists cynicism. Garton Ash refuses the seduction of inevitability, insisting that decline is not destiny and that the West’s future depends on choices rather than historical scripts.
Reading it again, I felt less persuaded than chastened.
'Free World' reads today less as a prophecy than as a moral record of what was hoped for—and therefore of what is at stake. It doesn’t offer blueprints for survival, but it preserves a language of freedom that hasn’t yet surrendered to despair.
In that sense, the book remains valuable not because it predicted the future correctly, but because it reminds us how much imagination democracy once demanded—and may need to demand again if it is to endure.
Most recommended.
Reading Timothy Garton Ash’s 'Free World' now feels like opening a document written in a moment when liberal optimism had not yet learnt how brittle it was.
What struck me most on returning to it was not how wrong it is—because much of it isn’t—but how earnest its faith in conversation, convergence, and moral persuasion now feels. Garton Ash writes as a participant-observer of Europe’s post–Cold War reimagining, and the book carries the confidence of someone who has seen walls fall and believes that history, while messy, bends toward dialogue rather than rupture.
Reading it today, that confidence feels both admirable and painfully exposed. The book’s strength lies in its attentiveness to lived political culture: cafés, newspapers, courtrooms, and parliaments matter here as much as treaties and summits.
Freedom is treated not as an abstract ideal but as a set of habits slowly learnt and easily forgotten. Yet I found myself increasingly aware of the assumptions underwriting this vision—that economic integration would soften nationalism, that shared norms would outpace grievance, and that memory of catastrophe would inoculate Europe against repetition.
What lingers now is the gap between those assumptions and the present reality of resurgent borders, hardened identities, and democratic fatigue. Still, the book resists cynicism. Garton Ash refuses the seduction of inevitability, insisting that decline is not destiny and that the West’s future depends on choices rather than historical scripts.
Reading it again, I felt less persuaded than chastened.
'Free World' reads today less as a prophecy than as a moral record of what was hoped for—and therefore of what is at stake. It doesn’t offer blueprints for survival, but it preserves a language of freedom that hasn’t yet surrendered to despair.
In that sense, the book remains valuable not because it predicted the future correctly, but because it reminds us how much imagination democracy once demanded—and may need to demand again if it is to endure.
Most recommended.
February 21, 2008
strong push for a world of cooperation, respect for human rights, less military and all things good. I particularly liked his bent for increasing development aid but thought his suggestion that everyone donate 1% of income to charities too short. my goal is 20% of my income this year.
September 17, 2008
Fair look at modern global politics from a European's point of view.
October 27, 2008
The thing I like best about this book is that it probably takes the right level of abstraction concerning foreign policy ideas from different regions of Europe, the UK, and America.
Read
January 7, 2011i think i'll just stick with tga's guardian column from here on in.
December 26, 2012
A great example of liberal thinking. The book proposes some lines of thought on the concept of "The West" which are not only interesting but highly instructive. Much recommended.
October 8, 2014
A brisk look at the history and future of the West.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews