U.S. SECRETARY of State Condoleezza Rice came to Europe this week on what has been described as a “fence-mending” trip. She said and took back with her strong words on the rekindling of relations between America and the EU. But did her European tour signify anything other than the easing of strained transatlantic relations?
There is a change in rhetoric and tone, but there is no breakthrough yet, according to Fraser Cameron, director of studies of the well respected Brussels-based think-tank ‘European Policy Centre’.
In an interview with the Sunday Mail ahead of the earnestly awaited visit to Brussels by the US President, the British expert in transatlantic relations says Rice brought the message that the new Bush administration is willing to engage with the EU.
However, he believes it is up to George W Bush, who will meet EU and NATO leaders on February 21-22, to send strong signals in major policy areas.
Cameron also refers to the philosophical differences between Europe and America, but appears sure the new Commission President Barroso, who had taken a more pro-US stance during the Iraq war, and President Bush can build a good working relationship.
How substantial is the breakthrough in EU-US relations?
There is no breakthrough yet. There is a change in rhetoric, style and tone, but not yet any change in substance. I think the EU will be looking when George W Bush comes for a change in some major policy areas, principally engagement in the Middle East, a willingness to at least engage in discussion on climate change and also to support multilateral institutions. These are just three key areas for the EU.
So you don’t believe Rice did anything of great substance to change minds here?
That wasn’t the purpose of the Rice visit. The purpose of the visit was to signal a willingness of the Bush second administration to engage with Europe and to change the tone and style. That in itself is important, but it didn’t signal any change in policy areas.
Was there any point, even before the Bush administration, where EU-US relations were really good? Isn’t it a difference in philosophical stance?
EU-US relations have had their difficulties for the last three-four decades. There have always been disputes… and people often forget that even in the early years of the Clinton administration there was a huge transatlantic rift over the Balkans. So, obviously what happened in 2002/2003 (Iraq) was very serious and arguably the worse rift in transatlantic relations of the past 40 years, but it is important to remember that these relations have had their ups and downs during that period as well.
Do you believe there is a difference between the US and the EU on military power?
Yes. Firstly, America simply has a far greater military potential than the Europeans do, and hence when you’ve got this potential there is always pressure to use it. And America often tends to look at solutions to problems in how to use the military, which is usually the last way the Europeans look at a problem. Europeans tend to look at it in terms of diplomatic efforts, trade measures, financial pressure and so on. So there is a rather different philosophical approach which reflects different resources as well as different traditions, history, culture, etc.
Do you now see any change on the part of the Bush administration, does it realise Europe has its own concerns and its own way of doing things?
There is an increased recognition of the importance of European ‘soft power’. I think there is increased recognition that having the EU with you on many issues is actually useful for the US and hence there has been a change in the rhetoric. You no longer have the Rumsfeld approach of ‘old Europe-new Europe’, there is no longer talk about dividing Europe, and I think it was important that Rice emphasised in Paris that the US wants a strong united Europe. This is a matter of some contention in neo-conservative circles in the US, as to whether a strong united Europe really is in the best interest of America. It was important that she reiterated that message and I hope President Bush does the same when he comes.
During the Iraq crisis, the EU was divided. However, in order to co-operate with the US the Union has to be able to speak with one voice. What is your view?
Iraq was a trauma for the EU, but I think they recognised almost before the conflict was over that they had to improve their common views and this led to the European Security Strategy at a first instance, which was a remarkable document, and secondly it led to agreement on the security parts of the Constitutional Treaty, which are quite tricky, and thirdly it led to agreement on the EU-NATO relationship. All this happened literally six months after the Iraq military conflict ended and showed the willingness of the Europeans to move forward and particularly for Britain, France and Germany to act together. Iran is a good example of doing that. So this crisis, as happened throughout European history, actually helped Europe to move forward a couple of steps. It was a big step backward, but then it was two steps forward again.
Do you believe the new Commission President’s stance during the Iraq war will help to at least bring the EU’s executive closer to the US and prompt more co-operation?
Yes I do. I think there are very good relations between President Barosso and President Bush and that is a very hopeful sign which should ensure some stability. Barosso is now in office for the next five years, Bush for the next four years, there is a good chance that they will get to know each other well and establish a good working relationship, as far as a warm, friendly relationship.
