Bush brings more than just a smile to Europe

By Max Kohnstamm and Stanley Crossick

Date: 03/03/05

As the dust begins to settle on the George W. Bush visit, Europeans are seeking the answer to the question: are we witnessing a genuine shift of policy or only of style?

Before the visit, we were sceptical and saw only a change in style; now we are much less sure, for a number of reasons.

The European 'fence-mending' appears to have been planned before the November election. Some say that it began at the EU-US summit in June 2004 in Ireland; but this may have been the catalyst rather than the first step. The charm offensive ahead of last week was led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, supported by the 'new' Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, and Carlos Gutierrez, secretary of commerce. Perhaps the most significant remark made during this period was by retiring homeland security chief, Tom Ridge, who admitted that his main regret over his time in office was not going to Europe earlier.

Bush's 21 February speech at the Concert Noble was superbly crafted without a phrase out of place. The text bears careful analysis of what was said on each issue and what used to be said, and what was omitted. Departures from that script in subsequent meetings were of increased significance. The president's tone was confident and optimistic, neither triumphalist nor apologetic.

There were two significant themes in his initial speech. First, "America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world". This contrasts with the mixed views expressed by different members of the George W. Bush I administration. This view was underlined by the president's decision that Europe would be the destination of his first overseas trip after re-election and his frequent reference to the "EU" during his visit.

Second, the Israel/Palestine problem was the first policy item addressed in the speech and the one on which he spent by far the most time. This is significant as hitherto the issue has been very high on the European list of priorities and very low on the American one.

The president called upon Israel to "freeze settlement activity, help Palestinians build a thriving economy and ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable, with contiguous territory on the West Bank. A state of scattered territories will not work". This was a diplomatic way of making clear that a large number of West Bank settlements will have to be vacated.

President Bush, with reference to Europe, mentioned "alliance" 14 times and "partner" twice. This was no accident. He clearly seeks close co-operation with Europe and speaks with a respect for Europe previously absent. But it is by no means clear that he seeks a genuine - and equal - partnership: he has probably not made up his mind and may be influenced by Europe's reactions to this 'reaching out'. The difference between 'alliance' and 'partnership' and the consequences should not be underestimated.

Europe must forge its own agenda and then see whether a common EU-US agenda for the future is possible. Europe needs America, just as America needs Europe. Europe must exert its influence by speaking with a single voice. Iraq is the only major external policy issue that fundamentally divides the EU. But the lack of a single voice is due more to the domestic politics of the member states than to policy divergences.

We are not likely to see different and competing voices coming out of Washington in the future. Bush has made quite clear who is in charge.

Leaving the world mainly to military might could lead to disaster, as it did Europe. To be useful, military power must be the servant of a long and demanding process of binding the world's actors into a slowly growing web of common interests and the realisation of common responsibilities, supported by common institutions. Hard power alone cannot deliver freedom and liberty, and cannot defeat determined international terrorists. The soft power of Europe and others is needed too.

Europe must reach out to America. The visit of Bush will hopefully lead to a joint action to contain the two major threats: terrorism and the misguided hope that the possession of ever more destructive power can prevent the world from repeating history.

• Max Kohnstamm is honorary president and Stanley Crossick is founding chairman of the European Policy Centre. They write here in a personal capacity.

Analysis feature in which the authors, who are honorary president and founding chairman of the European Policy Centre, discuss whether the visit of US President, George W. Bush, to the European Union, February 2005, meant a genuine shift of policy or only of style.

• Primary Source