A new special transatlantic relationship?

Date: 13/10/05

When the president of the European Commission turns up at the White House next week he will be given the red carpet treatment by George W. Bush..

There will be a full working session with the US president plus Vice-President Dick Cheney and State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, followed by a private lunch with spouses. Why did the US president make this important gesture?

It seems clear that there has been a fundamental reassessment of the importance of the EU at the highest levels in the Bush administration. The first manifestation of this change of heart was the visit by Bush to Brussels in February. As EU ambassador John Bruton noted recently, no one should underestimate the importance of this visit to the Berlaymont.

Second, the president respects José Manuel Barroso and considers the Commission an important institution with which he can do business.

Third, the balance between the EU and NATO in terms of which organisation is more relevant to today's security threats has swung in the EU's favour.

No part of the American bureaucracy has recog-nised this more than the Department of Homeland Security. Its first head, Tom Ridge, at the end of his term, lamented that he had not recognised how important the EU was in the fight against terrorism. His successor, Michael Cherthoff, did not make a similar mistake. His first overseas trip was to Brussels and his officials have been to the forefront in pushing for closer transatlantic co-operation in justice and home affairs. Whether dealing with container security, passenger data or money laundering it is the EU that plays a leading role, not NATO.

The top duo at the State Department, Condoleezza Rice and Bob Zoellick, are well aware of the contri-bution that the EU can make in helping to meet American interests such as promoting democracy and modernisation in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. Transatlantic consultations now cover a vast array of regions, countries and issues. Worth noting are the consultations on East Asia, which should avoid further misunderstandings like the China arms embargo and the co-operation in dealing with Iran.

The Trade Department has always recognised the importance of the EU in the trade field and the Doha Round will be high on the agenda at next week's meeting. Many other parts of the bureaucracy, taking a lead from the top, are beefing up their contacts with the EU. The Pentagon remains somewhat aloof from this trend. It was reluctant to see the EU as a full partner in crisis management but this may change as a result of direct experience in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. The new UN Peacebuilding Commis-sion could be a fruitful area for military and civilian co-operation between the EU and US.

The US change of heart is welcome but it should go a step further. First, the ad-ministration needs to convince sceptics in Congress and Republican think-tanks that a strong, united Europe is in the long-term interest of the US.

Second, it needs to stamp on any attempts at "divide and rule" with EU states, always a temptation but one that creates distrust and rarely brings any benefits.

Third, the US should end its ambivalence towards European integration. A united Europe may, at times, be a critical partner for the world's sole superpower, but it is also the partner that brings more resources to the table than anyone else. A confident Europe would also be better placed to stabilise its neighbourhood.

The EU too has to play its part. Member states have to recognise that there is much more to gain than lose by operating a common policy towards the US. This will require a change in the mindset of politicians and diplomats in the member states. But the US can help by boosting its relations with the EU as opposed to individual states.

Talk of a new transatlantic treaty is premature for at least two reasons. First, the EU needs time to recover from the shock of the rejection of the constitution by French and Ducth voters. It is unlikely that there will be any significant insti-tutional changes in the next two to three years. When the EU does have a foreign minister it will be opportune to revisit this subject. Second, Bush remains highly unpopular in Europe with less than 25% of Europeans approving of his foreign policy. It would be difficult to imagine a treaty while he remains in office.

But there is no need of a treaty to advance EU-US relations. What is required is to assess soberly what the EU and US can do together and refrain from unnecessary insults about the shortcomings of each other. Next week, Barroso and Bush can help cement a new EU-US relationship that will enable the damaged transatlantic ship to steam ahead in less troubled waters.

• Fraser Cameron is a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre and author of a recent book on US foreign policy. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Major commentary feature in which the author, who is a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre, says that the official visit of European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, to the White House, October 2005, was symptomatic of a recently increased recognition of the European Union by the Bush administration. Author suggests several steps to improve transatlantic relations.

• Primary Source

EEAS: Countries: United States of America http://www.eeas.europa.eu/us/index_en.htm

---