The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Differing EU and U.S. interests

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jun 17, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Differing EU and U.S. interests

Simon Tisdall

Washington gets uneasy as the EU increasinglyemerges as a credible rival to U.S. superpower.

AFTER HIS second term inauguration as United States President last January, George W. Bush quickly made Europe the target of his first major overseas foray. Following the bruising split over the Iraq war, Mr. Bush appeared keen on mending fences.

"Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy" chanted his new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Washington promised a fresh start. But less than six months after Mr. Bush's trip to Brussels, trans-Atlantic ties are again under growing strain on a wide range of fronts. For all the mutual efforts to patch things up, Europe and America are once more in danger of drifting apart — not in terms of shared values and beliefs, but because their interests are frequently and painfully at odds.

U.N. reform

The issue of United Nations reform, and specifically the enlargement of the Security Council, is a prime example of the trend. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's committee of wise men said expanded Council membership was needed to reflect the global balance of power in 2005, rather than 1945 when the U.N. was created. As the subsequent debate developed, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Germany emerged as favourites to take new, permanent seats on the Council. The issue is due to be decided at a U.N. summit in September. At least, that is the plan.

Enter the U.S. At a meeting last week in Washington, Ms. Rice left few if any doubts in the mind of her guest, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that the Bush administration would oppose Berlin's bid.

According to reports of the meeting, Ms. Rice finessed the rebuff as best she could. There were other reform priorities, she said; the U.S. was undecided about the overall enlargement plan. But the bottom line was clear enough: Germany was not welcome to join the club. And if people thought that had something to do with continuing U.S. resentments over Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, diplomats said, then they might not be all that wrong.

The snubbing of Germany is, in a larger sense, a snub also for Europe and the European Union. Right-wingers in the U.S. have made no secret of their opposition to the potential presence of three EU states on the Security Council (Britain and France already have permanent membership). They see the EU as an emerging, unwelcome rival to U.S. global leadership.

Germany's rejection may not make much sense. It is potentially deeply damaging in the longer term. It could derail the Council membership bids of other countries and collapse the whole reform effort. But all that apparently cut no ice with Ms. Rice. Engaged in a global power-game, she ruthlessly protected perceived American interests.

Tensions between the U.S. and Europe surfaced again last week in a very different context — in an argument over how Western countries should assist African Union peacekeepers attempting to curb the genocidal violence in Sudan's Darfur region. Leave aside for now the question of whether such assistance is too little, too late. The row bore scant relation to the humanitarian exigencies of the moment.

It centred instead on whether the EU's nascent, collective defence forces or U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) should lead a logistical support operation.

The U.S. has long viewed European attempts to create an independent defence capability with suspicion. France has long seen such a development as an essential part of Europe's ambition to counter-balance the U.S. In the event a compromise was found. But the argument left a bad taste.

"The priorities are profoundly wrong if NATO and the EU let their turf battle come before protecting the lives of civilians," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director for Human Rights Watch.

Diverging viewpoints

Diverging U.S. and European viewpoints were in evidence again during the recent visit to Israel of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. No sooner had he arrived than Mr. Straw found himself defending his decision, backed by other EU countries, to open low-level contacts with the Hamas' political wing. Hamas enjoyed considerable successes in recent municipal elections.

Such contacts are anathema to both the U.S. and Israel, which regard the Hamas as a terrorist organisation with no legitimate role. The EU and Britain, on the other hand, anticipating further Hamas successes in coming Palestinian parliamentary polls, argue that the West cannot encourage democratic engagement and then reject the people's choices.

Similar trans-Atlantic strains are apparent over how best to deal with Iran's nuclear programmes — with the EU engaging in dialogue and the U.S. standing back menacingly; and on major environmental issues such as climate change. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to identify specific international questions on which the U.S. and Europe wholly agree.

Sadly, next month's G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland may prove to be an exception. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who regards himself as a sort of trans-Atlantic bridge, is battling hard for debt relief, increased aid and fairer trade for Africa. But as matters stand now, countries such as France, Germany and Russia will be every bit as reluctant as the U.S. to dig deeper into their pockets.

Even if they cannot agree on very much else, it seems that the U.S. and Europe will agree in Gleneagles that Africa is worthy of concern — but not a lot of new cash.

- Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A tsunami and a reality check

Bird flu — preparing for the worst

The continuing power crisis in India

Differing EU and U.S. interests

The thrills without the frills

Fat versus fiction

Flying the leader, protocol and propriety

Surviving the monsoon

Governors as watchdogs

An opportunity lost

English & Tamil