• English Site
• > Under the Scope

Bush Visits Europe

How Good is the Trans-Atlantic Relationship, Really?

George W. Bush is in Europe for his first trip abroad since his second administration began. Everyone's charm factor is on overload as leaders do back flips to pay each other compliments. Yet despite the candy-coatings, differences continue to separate Europeans from Americans and when it comes to Iraq, Iran and China, everyone's hidden daggers are unsheathed.

Even before he boarded Air Force One and began his first trip abroad of his second administration, United States President George W. Bush had already begun speaking in the sort of soft, conciliatory tones that were all but absent during Bush I. Instead of giving Europe the cold shoulder, the new Bush has nothing but warmth for the Europeans. "Differences, at times, frankly, caused us to talk past each other," he said at the White House last Thursday. To the shock of many, Bush suddenly seems intent on cozying up to Europe, putting past disputes behind him and showing Europeans, "that we can work together to achieve great goals." He's even gone so far as to show readiness to discuss favorite European worries -- like climate change and poverty in Third World countries. In his speech on Monday in Brussels, he used the word "alliance" 12 times to describe the American-European relationship. Europeans are lapping up the new openness, but also wondering just what is behind it and what exactly the world's most powerful man expects from them in return.

Germany, particularly, is wondering about all the special stroking the newly-elected president has offered it since January. First, Bush popped in for a surprise visit and impromptu chat with German Minister of the Interior Otto Schily while Schily was visiting Washington on Feb. 3. During the chat, Bush told Schily how much he was looking forward to seeing German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Feb. 23 in Mainz, Germany. (The two leaders have never been close friends and Bush has largely given Schroeder the cold shoulder ever since Schroeder made opposition to the Iraq war a cornerstone of his 2002 election campaign.) Then, freshly inaugurated Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived, oozing charm, for a goodwill spin through Europe. In Berlin, she buddied up to Schroeder, grinned widely with him for the cameras and announced "a new chapter" in American-German relations. Finally, even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- known for his acid tongue -- put on his best manners at an international security meeting last week in Munich and even managed to spit out praise for the German army, which is helping train members of the Iraqi army.

Private meetings with Iraq naysayers

Officials in Berlin's foreign ministry insist that Bush's choice to make Europe his first foreign destination of his second administration is a "sign of the particular value" he places on trans- Atlantic relations. His itinerary includes a visit to both NATO headquarters and the European Union seat in Brussels. He will also be having private meetings with each member of the triumvirate that opposed him on Iraq -- Schroeder, Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Bush almost seems to be going out of his way to play Mr. Nice Guy. On Monday, he is going to host a dinner for his former nemesis -- Chirac -- at the home of the American ambassador in Brussels.

"The climate is much better," Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, affirmed last week. Suddenly, all the bad blood among the nations that spurred Rice to tartly retort just before the Iraq war that the best diplomatic solution for America was to "Punish France, ignore Germany, forgive Russia" seems to have disappeared on a warm wind of trans-Atlantic love.

Of course, the irritation caused by Schroeder's speech on NATO last week did little to help. At the conference in Munich, Schroeder penned a speech heavily critical of NATO. In the speech, which was given by his defense minister, Peter Struck, Schroeder said that NATO "is no longer the primary venue where trans-Atlantic partners discuss and coordinate strategies." He suggested setting up a high-level panel of experts not unlike that convened by Kofi Annan in his efforts to reform the United Nations. The initial reaction was negative. NATO is still alive and "nowhere near ready for burial," insisted NATO Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. Rumsfeld grumbled that the alliance didn't need "another high level thing." Soon, however, the debate began to twist. De Hoop Scheffer suddenly came around, admitting that NATO did need to be more political and should not be an "executive body where decisions made elsewhere land."

Germany no longer a silent "yes" man

The truth is that it was less what Schroeder said than the diplomatically clumsy way he presented it that turned everyone sour. More importantly, it was a major blunder not to have warned high-ranking members like de Hoop Scheffer, Solana and Rumsfeld about the contents of the speech and to have given them a chance to read it and ready a response. One of the reasons everyone bristled so quickly was that they did not see the speech beforehand, as they usually do. Some, in fact, first learned of Schroeder's NATO comments in newspaper reports that were published before the conference.

Still, the flare-up that occurred in Munich offers a hint at just how damaged the German-American relationship is and how unsure everyone is about how to put it back together. The truth is that when Schroeder broke his 2002 gentleman's agreement to Bush not to use the Iraq war as a tool to win re-election and then broke that promise soon after, a new phase of German-American relations began. Instead of being a given, the trans-Atlantic relationship became something everyone had to work on. "Germany is no longer a 'yes' man," said Karsten Voigt, coordinator for German-American relations at the German Foreign Ministry, summing up the shift succinctly. In other words: Germany now has a mind of its own and a chancellor not afraid to offer an opposing voice.

Relations get particularly prickly when the US comes across as too overbearing and seems to step on the toes of its emancipated vassals. That could happen during the meetings in Mainz and Brussels. Despite everyone's best efforts to get along, issues such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and China still grate. As for Schroder's pet project -- nabbing Germany a seat on the UN Security Council -- Bush hasn't so much as whispered a single positive word, while he has long given the Japanese a tacit nod. Meanwhile, commentators and think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic are insisting that it is the substance of American and European policies that matter -- not necessarily how friendly the nation's leaders are with each other.

No concessions expected

The truth is, in Brussels and in Berlin, expectations are quite low for Bush to concede to any major policy shifts more in line with European thinking. "So far, in terms of content, there is no difference between now and the first administration," said Martin Schultz, a German member of the EU parliament. In terms of the debate about what to do to rebuild Iraq, Rice may be putting a pretty face on the quagmire, but her charm is only skin deep. In meaty, head-to-head debates not captured on camera, but that Rice has had with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Solana, Rice remains iron-clad in her opinions. In terms of Iran, she has turned down every offer of European diplomatic help to try to deter Tehran from its nuclear dreams. She has also said no to the idea of rewarding the mullahs for good behavior by giving them a place in the World Trade Organization. And, she has turned down the idea of reducing the economic embargo -- for instance by selling Airbus planes, parts of which are built in the US, to Iran. Such deals, insists Rice, would only help the hardliners in Iran.

The catch is that Washington knows Europe can't do the brokering alone. Any sort of European diplomatic mission in Iran can only be successful with US backing. That gives Rice license to play hardball. At one point, she even said that if America does agree to support an initial European initiative, Europe would have to agree to follow the tough American approach involving strict sanctions if their own softer line fails to move the mullahs. Rice is convinced that only political pressure and economic blockades can bring the land to reason and set in motion a protest movement against the intolerant mullahs. One thing is clear: The Iranians are different than the self-declared atomic power of North Korea in that they are not willing to go hungry or survive merely by "feeding on grass."

Rice often acts instinctively and after spending time in Europe she must know that Eurocrats themselves don't believe they can be successful in Iran. The real idea is to stall for time and to get Iran as democratic and as closely tied to the west as possible. One big stumbling block in this effort has been Russia's decision to support Iran on the nuclear question with Putin saying he is convinced Iran is not, in fact, interested in the Bomb. Still, despite all the grim talk about Iran from the US and Israel, no one in Brussels or Berlin seriously believes the US will turn its military might on Iran. The US is still too caught up in cleaning up in Iraq and would overtax itself if it tried to start a new war.

Diplomatic dancing

Iraq is clearly another fundamental topic: America does not want to have to carry the entire burden -- military and financial -- of rebuilding Iraq alone. After a full two years in Iraq, the "US is tired to the bones," a senior NATO officer said. Bush wants nothing more than to come up with a plan to bring the 150,000 US troops home. In order to continue ongoing searches for terrorists and peacekeeping in Afghanistan and to maintain forces stationed in the Balkans, Rumsfeld is having to scrape together reservists wherever he can find them.

The Europeans would like to offer the Americans a little relief. But wanting and doing are two different things. At a Feb. 10 meeting of NATO defense ministers in Nice, France, Europeans showed America that they, too, can play hardball. Rumsfeld tried to bargain, asking NATO for a few hundred military trainers and a 3,000-troop strong security force for Baghdad. The answer was a flat "no." The alliance instead offered 160 trainers and questioned whether it might be better to create a training camp in neighboring Jordan instead of in Iraq.

German Defense Minister Peter Struck did offer to add military engineers to the list of Iraqis being trained by the Germans -- a list that already includes Iraqi truck drivers and mechanics. But along with the other NATO members, Struck resisted US demands that the Afghanistan anti-terror operation "Enduring Freedom" be merged with the ISAF peacekeeping force under the auspices of NATO.

At the most, sharing in such areas like the exchange of intelligence and supplies transportation may be allowed. The British takeover of the southwestern region from US troops -- which was already supposed to happen in 2004 -- will likely only take place toward the end of this year. "Don't forget that we still have 11,000 men in North Ireland," one British conference participant cautioned in Nice.

As for Germany, Struck said Berlin could up the troops in Afghanistan by 250 to 300 men, but he pointed out Germany already has close to 2,000 soldiers in Kabul, Kunduz and Faizabad.

If Germany gave €500 million to tsunami victims...

In the civilian world, relations are about the same. During his visit to the White House, German Interior Minister Schily promised that Germany would help rebuild Iraq by contributing to infrastructure, particularly building up its interior and justice ministry. The EU has also said it would help instruct 800 judges, laywers, police officers and prison directors. But America wants more -- much more.

Bush likes to talk about the €500 million Schroeder promised to tsunami victims in the face of the December tragedy. Before he left for Europe, Bush mentioned the sum several times, saying it was an indication of just how much Germany can afford -- when it really wants to.

In addition to states in the Persian Gulf, one other nation poses tricky questions for the reflowering of the trans-Atlantic relationship: China. This summer, the EU wants to lift the weapons embargo, which has been in place against China since the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square. Just before Bush's trip, the US House of Representatives blasted the European move, in a 411-3 vote. "The degree of cynicism and greed evident in certain European countries makes your stomach turn," said Democrat Tom Lantos. "They are delivering the technology with which the Chinese will one day kill our soldiers."

Schroeder insists it has nothing to do with delivering weapons, but that lifting the embargo was a "symbolic act." After all, EU export regulations would continue to hinder weapons sales to Beijing, even without an embargo in place. Yet, it is also an act that will -- as everyone knows -- help open other trade areas with the world's most populous nation. France's Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has insisted the move is good diplomacy because in five years China will have the technology to make the weapons themselves anyway. The US, meanwhile, is suspicious of such reasoning.

Indeed, despite the sunnier face painted on the trans-Atlantic relationship, the truth is that tension keeps bubbling to the surface. "It's still tough to talk to each one about the other," said Gary Smith, who runs the prestigious American Academy in Berlin. The institution exists as a means of bringing the two sides together -- at least academically -- and sometimes serves as a secret means of diplomacy. Smith's advice to clear the air? Both sides have to "transcend their own self-interests."