Better Transatlantic Relations in Style, not Substance
President Sarkozy gets a dozen standing ovations from Congress. And Chancellor Merkel gets to stay at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, which is supposed to be some high honor bestowed upon only President Bush’s very best allies.
Will this charm offensive result in better transatlantic relations?
I seriously doubt that Merkel feels all warm and fuzzy now, although that seems to have been the purpose of the invite to Crawford. Likewise, I doubt whether ex-Chancellor Schroeder was saddened when President Bush gave him the cold shoulder treatment. I think the White House exaggerates the power of such symbolism. European politicians are not going to be more supportive of the US because of a visit to Crawford or standing ovations.
Has the charming worked in the US? Le Figaro (translation at TMV) opines that Sarkozy accomplished his goal of “conquering the hearts of Americans.”
Apparently, it is not so difficult to impress Americans these days:
In a country that finds it hard to believe how disliked around the world it has become, it was refreshing to hear a foreigner from the Old Continent express himself with such sincerity on the often-disparaged anthem of the American dream.
Le Figaro concludes: “The unanimous enthusiasm of Congress shows that the plan for seduction was a success. This also suggests that its effects will not be short-lived.” Likewise, USA Today and the Associated Press celebrate the asssumed US and French agreements.
I disagree with Le Figaro and share The Economist‘s skepticism regarding transatlantic relations: “A renewed friendship between America and its once-tricky partners may prove to be longer on style than substance.” Is Washington desperate for better relations with Old Europe?
Come back, old Europe, all is forgiven: that seemed to be the tune playing in Washington this week as the leaders of France and Germany—countries once despised by American hawks for their churlish refusal to back the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—were received with a mixture of fanfare and homespun warmth by George Bush.
The Economist also has a word of caution for the Democrats and the Europeans, who long for a Democratic president:
Philip Gordon, a veteran Europe-watcher and adviser to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, says that even under a Democratic president there would be a risk of disappointment. Europeans would expect a Democratic president to give ground to their concerns over say, climate change, and Americans would expect better co-operation over Iran and Afghanistan. But such hopes could all too easily be dashed.
Andrew Purvis writes about the Merkel visit to Crawford in Time Magazine:
The transatlantic love-fest will be put to the test in Crawford, where Merkel, known in Germany as the Queen of the Backroom for her softly-softly negotiating style, is expected to warn Bush about the “catastrophic” consequences of a military strike on Iran. Bush, for his part, will urge the European leader to pursue tougher economic sanctions against Tehran, regardless of whether the U.N. Security Council follows suit. Germany has significant trade ties with Iran and has until now resisted pressure to ratchet up sanctions outside of the U.N. framework.
And Nile Gardiner has recycled his usual Heritage advice: “The Bush–Merkel Summit: Washington Must Pressure Berlin Over Iran.”
Crossposted from Atlantic Review
9 Responses to “Better Transatlantic Relations in Style, not Substance”
I agree that there will be rocky road ahead for trans Atlantic relations for all the reasons cited int the post.
I would also point out, that tensions preceded current conditions (Iraq, Iran) by many decades.
The EU was formed in large part to rival the US, not to form a partnership with it. Both sides fail the realitly test by not understanding he historic and cultural differences and expecting, instead, the other to become darbon copies of hemselves.
The best hope out there is, IMO, that the relationship will be like that of a reasonble divorced couple discussing how to manage common interests, like raising children: suspicious but pragmatic.
[...] Mine Better Transatlantic Relations in Style, not Substance » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
joerg,
Here’s a question for you: What does Europe want from America? What policies does Europe wish America would follow?
@ Entropy
1. Negotiate with directly with Iran over its nuclear program. Offer security guarantees as part of grand bargain, that includes recognition of Israel etc.
2. Use less energy etc
3. Send chocolate chip cookies every week
Joerg,
Stated US policy for over a year now is that the US will discuss anything with Iran as long as it suspends its enrichment program. Note that “suspension” is a temporary measure designed to prevent Iran from simply stalling during negotiation while it masters the technology. I don’t find this stance particularly unreasonable particularly since suspension is now a chapter 7 mandate under UNSCR 1747.
Still, if the US negotiates with Iran unilaterally and unconditional, allowing Iran to continue work on its enrichment program, is Europe prepared to implement the kind of sanctions regime required if negotiation fails? It would require a comprehensive set of sanctions – perhaps even more than what Libya endured. Because let’s face it, the US has few sticks left to compel Iran short of force. It’s one reason why we’ve pursued a multi-lateral approach with the Europeans. There’s a perception that for all the talk of soft power and negotiation Europe is not interested in serious sanctions – a perception only reinforced by the sanctions debacles with Iraq before the war.
1. Answer to your question: Yes.
2. Aren’t there a few more conditions in addition to suspension?
Joerg,
Not that I’m aware of:
There are plenty of conditions (keyword: “activities”) and limits (only talk about nuclear issue, not normalization of relations) in that quote.
Joerg,
Activities are nuclear activities. There isn’t any hidden meaning here. Some additional clarifying statements Rice has publicly stated:
and
and
Could the US go further and specifically offer a “grand bargain?” Sure, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a temporary suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities while that takes place. Iran, however, hopes to delay so it can master the technology – once it does, then they believe their nuclear program cannot be negotiated away and will have to be accepted by the West. Here’s the Iranian thinking from the former head of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team in 2004:
That is the reason the US, EU, Russia and China all demand suspension. Without suspension, Iran will jaw-jaw until it masters the technology. At that point, of what utility are sanctions?