Bush II: what can Europe expect next?

By Fraser Cameron

Date: 10/11/04

It is hardly a secret that the vast majority of Europeans would have preferred John Kerry rather than George W. Bush as the next occupant of the White House. But Europeans will now have to come to terms with another four years of President Bush.

What are the likely implications for transatlantic relations? Will President Bush seek to change course as a result of his experience in Iraq? How will European leaders react to the re-election of the president most of their own voters heartily dislike?

For the first time in decades, foreign and security policy was a major theme of the presidential election. Polls placed national security and Iraq as the top issues ahead of the economy, education and healthcare.

Bush portrayed himself as the wartime commander-in-chief who was best placed to pilot America through uncharted waters in the "war against terrorism". Iraq and terrorism were practically the only two issues raised in foreign policy. Bush emphasized his unstinting support for Israel but there was no mention of Russia, China, Kyoto or the International Criminal Court (ICC) so dear to most Europeans. There was no mention of the European Union.

The problems in transatlantic relations did not start with the Bush administration. There were many problems during the Clinton era, with disputes over the Balkans, payments to the UN as well as the Kyoto treaty on climate change. But Europeans liked Clinton. In contrast, they have never liked Bush. No president has enjoyed such dismal poll ratings in Europe as the current occupant of the White House.

While Europeans recoiled from the unilateralist attitudes during the first nine months of the Bush administration, there was genuine sympathy for the US in the face of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But European hopes that this terrible event would bring the US back towards a multilateral fold were quickly dashed. Europe rejected the idea of an "axis of evil", rejected the idea of dividing the world into black and white and rejected the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. The subsequent US-led invasion of Iraq led to the most serious transatlantic divisions in the history of the alliance.

There are some who wanted Bush to win a second term in the hope that this would somehow push Europeans closer together. This is rather a naïve view because, instead of banding together in blind opposition to Washington, what Europe needs is a project to unite behind. As many American critics point out, the EU allegedly stands for "effective multilateralism" but it cannot agree on issues such as Iraq or reform of the UN security council or speaking with one voice in the International Monetary Fund.

President Bush is a conviction politician but also a realist. There is nothing to suggest that he is likely to change his fundamentally conservative views in a second term. But there are signs that he will make an attempt to reach some transatlantic understanding on key security issues. Bush has already returned to NATO seeking to give the Alliance a greater role in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has recognized the need for a UN role in Iraq. But the anti-Bush feeling in Europe will remain a large handicap.

It is unlikely that there will be real improvement in his personal relations with European leaders such as Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, and Jacques Chirac, the French president.

His best friend and ally in Europe will remain Tony Blair. Given his Atlanticist background, it is possible that Commission president-elect José Manuel Barroso could hit it off with Bush. That could be an important relationship for EU-US ties.

Following the harrowing experience of Iraq, Bush almost certainly recognizes that he will need the support of major allies in Europe to achieve US foreign policy goals.

The question is, what kind of grand bargain could be envisaged between the US and Europe? For Europe, a change in rhetoric will not be enough. There will have to be a change in substance. In terms of American priorities, the list starts with Iraq and includes Iran, North Korea, terrorism and proliferation. Transforming the wider Middle East is a medium-term priority.

Europeans have slightly different priorities. Top of their list is the Arab-Israeli conflict, stabilizing the EU's neighbourhood, supporting multilateral institutions, global warming, Iran and Iraq. Despite the overlap, too often Europeans and Americans talk past each other. There is often agreement on analyzing the threats but both sides then consider different ways to tackle them.

Given the centrality of the Middle East, what are the chances of the second Bush administration changing its unflinching support for Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister? Given American domestic politics, it is difficult to see Bush putting real pressure on Israel to go further than Sharon has announced (withdrawal from Gaza) or to provide substantial support for the Palestinians.

If Yasser Arafat dies, however, there is an opportunity for a fresh start. This is one area where Tony Blair could and should bring his influence with Bush to bear. At the same time Europe will have to speak with one voice.

Iran is a different story. More than two decades of isolation and sanctions by the US have led to a dead end. At the same time Americans criticize Europe for continuing a policy of "constructive engagement" with Iran. There are even some hawks in Washington who advocate military strikes at Iran's nuclear establishment. If the US were to move in this direction it would certainly lead to a major transatlantic row.

Obviously the EU and US can achieve much more in tandem. So far, there seem to have been insufficient carrots on offer to make the Iranians ready to strike a deal although a shift in Iran's stance may now be taking place. A more flexible joint EU-US approach could well bring about results.

With the Republicans strengthening their control of both Houses, Congress will act as a brake on any moves to get the US to sign up to Kyoto or the ICC. But Congress will likely support the president in continuing to promote free trade.

With a massive trade deficit and a huge amount of unfinished business in Iraq, Bush could certainly do with more European support. But there must be a major question mark over whether he is prepared to move in areas of crucial importance to the EU.

There must also be a major question mark over the EU's ability to get its act together and speak with one voice in foreign policy. Both sides face a stiff test if transatlantic relations are to see any real improvement.

• Fraser Cameron, director of studies at the European Policy Centre, writes here in a personal capacity.

Analysis feature in which the author, who is Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, discusses the outlook for EU-US relations after the re-election of US President George W. Bush.

• Primary Source