Mending fences in Europe?

There was an attempt towards a constructive approach on a range of issues. Agreement of sorts was also reached in certain areas, particularly with regard to development policy, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and HIV/Aids. There were however lingering differences of opinion on climate change, democratic transition in Russia, and Iraq.

The US team knew that there would be frank exchanges. However, during his four-day visit, the President tried to stress the American commitment toward working with a united Europe on the basis of shared values. He also expressed his understanding that the challenges now facing the transatlantic partnership lay in the implementation of the agreements reached at talks in Brussels, Mainz, and Bratislava.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This approach reflected a change in diplomatic style in these early months of the second Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's earlier visit to Europe had been the first element in this wider strategy. It is now expected that this visit by President Bush will be followed up by his trip to Moscow in May and the G8 summit in July.

This latest US initiative is however expected to face a bumpy ride. This need for vigilance arises out of the assumption that Europe and the United States do not share similar views with regard to imminent threats and global priorities. Europeans believe that a new era in international politics began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. For the Americans, this era started on September 11, 2001. Accordingly, there is sometimes a perceptional divide and the world is viewed in different terms -- for Europe this is a time of confidence on the global stage, for the US, this is an era of direct attack on its own territory.

Additionally, societies on both sides of the Atlantic are changing markedly. The US is becoming less of a coastal entity, with political realities driven by the "red" states in the centre and the south, and an overall inward-looking, self-centred approach toward policy-making. On the other hand, Europe appears to be more engaged in navel-gazing, as it passes through the ratification phase of its constitution. The complexity in Europe is further intensified through its ambition to take on a wider global role, driven by its desire to create a post-sovereign structure without outside threats.

These fundamental differences are crucial for understanding why Europeans and Americans read international political developments so differently.

The difficulty is further complicated by the fact that Europe continues to hold onto institutions that were designed for a different era.

I believe that institutions in which Europe and the US could debate common issues on a wide range of questions need to be created. Europe also probably needs to undertake additional effort to create such a functional dialogue. In this sense, the European Constitutional Treaty has been a step in the right direction -- but it has only been a step and more needs to follow. This is particularly required given the inevitable difficulty being created for dialogue because of the ever-increasing pace of international developments that require quick-fix solutions.

One thing has however been made quite clear through this latest visit of Bush to Europe. There is now a noticeable "new spirit in the transatlantic love-in." This change has however been gradual.

One could probably state that the US President's visit to Dromoland Castle, Ireland in 2004 was the first step toward an improved relationship. During that visit, the President insisted on the fact that a united and strong Europe was preferable to a disaggregated one. This was indeed very explicit. Such a sentiment was appreciated by the mainstream conservative European lobby, to whom words matter, more so, if they are reflective of common values. It is this belief that has encouraged Europe to re-focus on the European Security Strategy, and issues such as curbing the reach of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

The President's visit also appears to have encouraged the European Commission and the European Parliament to address themselves to the question of presenting the EU as a unified structure with a clear message on substantial issues. The recent London Conference on Palestine has demonstrated that the EU wants to be associated with the US in achieving pragmatic and concrete results in key areas like developments in the Middle East, Iraq, where both sides have agreed to hold a joint conference, if and when the Iraqi government requests it, and on Iran, where both sides have underlined their support for a diplomatic solution. There might have been a difference in the intensity in the perception of particular threats, but there does not appear to have been any true analytical difference on Iran. There was more of a policy difference on how best to sway Iranians.

Differences however still appear to exist on the question concerning the Chinese arms embargo. It may be recalled that the Europeans imposed the embargo over China's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. President Bush, during his discussion with several EU leaders underlined US anxiety over this and even went to the extent of pointing out that the EU decision to lift the ban on arms sales would undercut the balance of military power between China and Taiwan. This anxiety has since been reiterated by the Taiwan lobby in the US, consisting of top Republican and Democrat members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who have indicated that transatlantic future cooperation on a wide range of military projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter, was at stake. In other words, the ante has been raised.

One thing has however become very clear. Though European policy-makers played a united role for the US President, and tried hard to present a format of European unity, transatlantic relations are still evaluated very differently in Paris than in Warsaw. Basic divisions over Iraq still run very deep in Europe and this not only affects European relations with the superpower across the Atlantic, but also negatively impacts on the fledging cohesion between old and new member states.

Despite this, however, the visit has emphasised the many areas where intensive and positive cooperation continues across the Atlantic. There were major points of agreement with regard to the situation in Sudan, in Kosovo, and how to address questions of Homeland Security and Justice and Home Affairs, etc.

It may be noted that multi-layered cooperation in transatlantic economic relations between US and European authorities has already generated $2.5 trillion in trade flows, investments and sales of subsidiaries, and 12 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

The time has, however, come to assess the importance of rhetoric. It is in this context that we need to determine whether the transatlantic relationship can be better described as a "partnership" or as an "alliance."

The US administration knows that it needs an active partnership with the EU and a functional alliance in NATO. This awareness also makes it plain that the US has to move beyond oratory and honestly respond to the question, whether or not Europeans and Americans have differing views with respect to threat assessments.

In this context, the US probably has to distinctively recognise the EU's contribution to the spread of democracy, and offer a clear "thank you" to the Europeans for facilitating democratic transitions, most recently in Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia. It would probably also help if there was an open acknowledgement that EU-US relations needed to be transformed and that the US needs the experience, insights and capacities of the Europeans in promoting its "freedom agenda," and the peace building measures that derive from this agenda. Such a posture would be consistent with EU external policies, including the new Neighbourhood Policy and also the Barcelona Process.

There has been some change in the style and rhetoric of the US administration towards Europe, but there is still some way to go before the transatlantic relationship can be described as a partnership of equals. One has to still treat the future with some degree of caution.

Most political observers will agree that there is still a fairly steep hill to climb and a long way to go. There are many elements in the global agenda that are evolving, and it will therefore be difficult to conclude whether or not a new leaf head been turned and whether the gap has been narrowed between the US and Europe. The matrix might be clearer only after the summer has passed this year.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.