President George Bush is getting a hostile reception in the Europe. And rightly so. The Europeans have several major differences with directions taken by the Bush presidency: global warming; the missile defence plan; human rights and trade. In each of these areas, the stance taken by the Bush Administration (away from the stance of the previous Administration) has either created or exacerbated the difference between the United States and Europe.
In that the broader historic context, the United States is following a long up running pattern of swinging slowly between isolationism an engagement with the rest of the world, and Europe in particular. Europe, on the other hand, has engaged in a major historic shift since World War II. European nations, who are members of the European Union or aspire to membership, have deliberately encouraged tolerance, human rights, protection of the environment, dialogue, and co-operation in defence matters. In the face of these historic trains, the attitudes been expressed by Mr Bush on his European tour look decidedly out-of-place and outdated.
Mr Bush’s first port of call was Spain. It seemed that Mr Bush thought that smiles, handshakes, back-slapping and oleaginous statements would be enough to paper over fundamental differences. Mr Bush said, “There’s so much more that unites us than divides,” and he would refuse “to let any issue isolate America from a Europe”. If those platitudes were to mean anything, Mr Bush will have to change his stand. It is not just a question of him having a lot of work to convince the Europeans that his positions are sound. In fact, he will never convince the Europeans to abandon their positions on the environment, defence, human-rights and trade in favour of the American positions. This is because the American position on these matters is by and large less justifiable than the European position.
On the environment, the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, quite reasonably said, “If the Americans have a better system than Kyoto, they should explain it to us.” Mr Bush’s position that the science is not good enough and Kyoto will cost jobs is flawed and is an obvious delaying tactic. He has no other plan despite his words that America is “”committed to reducing greenhouse gases”. His position is inconsistent. If the science is flawed, why does he commit America to reducing greenhouse gases even on a voluntary basis? The Europeans have worked out a way to implement Kyoto without costing jobs.
On defence, Mr Bush’s missile defence system is a breach of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. Sure, that is an old treaty but to abrogate it would invite an arms race. Moreover, coating the United States with a shield its own flies in the face of Mr Bush’s general rhetoric that the US would like to have co-operative defence arrangements.
On human rights, the nations of the European Union are opposed to capital punishment per se, and have expressed concern at the racially discriminatory way it is applied in the United States. It makes it difficult for any credibility to be attached to any joint US-EU condemnation of breaches of human rights in other parts of the world.
On trade, the US has happily shouted the free trade mantra while at the same time imposing trade sanctions on companies that trade with Cuba. The EU also takes issue with the U S on a number of other trade commodities.
Mr Bush would be very much mistaken if he thought he could treat the sophisticated Europeans with platitudes and Southern charm without going some way to changing his policy positions. But the journey to Europe might do Mr Bush and US policy-makers in general some good in that it will open them up to some new ideas beyond pandering to US business interests and populist posturing for the domestic US electorate.