Much has been made about Bush’s (reluctant) trip to Europe. It has been the mother of all faux love-fests. I saw a clip with him and Chirac last night, and was that the fastest handshake in history? Blink, and you’d have missed it. It was almost as if each didn’t want to touch the other. And the “looking for a good cowboy” remark – blllluuuuurrrgg!!! See my Wild, Wild Horses thread for how much of a cowboy ol’ Dubya is. But, all the sweetness and light can’t hide the tension, specifically over the issue of lifting arms embargos on China.

What the French papers are saying: Article (I would have posted direct links to the French papers, but, well, they're in French.)

What German papers are saying:


And just to put the cherry on top, Bush is admonishing Russia.

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?

If the EU Constitution passes (and Spain has already voted for it), how will that affect relations with the US?

I am confident that this trip will not improve much of anything, and is an utter waste of American tax dollars. I, personally, could care less what people in France think about American affairs and would rather not even address their opinions as if they were of any consequence.

The European Union and a constitution to bind them is an utter farce. Even if it is ratified, European nationalism will dictate that it will have little or no meaning. It's similar to the Euro; completely fictional and predominantly meaningless. European relations will forever be bound by financial interest. There are few European nations without economic ties to the US that run deeper than malcontent. The US still comprises 1/3 of the World's GDP, and the vast majority of western industrialized nations have a large portion of their economies wrapped up in American industry. They made not be happy with us... but what's new? They will still drive Fords and drink Coca Cola.

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?

I can't imagine diplomatic meetings such as these were ever anything other than window dressing..I believe they are probably heavily scripted and guided events..made to present a certain image.
I think the fact GWB went to Europe and is in fact meeting and dining with these European leaders is the show or the window dressing that is being put on in order to show the world that US/Europe relations have improved.

Also just so it is known....Spiegel Online is hardly the "German Media" and it does always take a certain *ahem* slant to American issues when reporting them. I am quite confident that Spiegel Online does not speak for the German people as a whole. Just wanting to make sure that everyone was well aware of this.

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?

No. This trip will do nothing to improve the 'relationship' between the USA and Europe.

For that to happen, the people of Europe would have to see somthing more than just words. The damage has been done, and the loss of confidence in the USA cannot be mended by a poorly articulated speech and few choice sound bytes.

What we're seeing from GW Bush and Dr Rice is so predictable as to be laughable. Our political leaders have tried to tell us that in his second term, Bush will be more accomidating and will seek to mend the differences between us.

I'm not sure if anyone really believes this is the excersize though. It seems more as if we are being invited to participate in the new Bush doctrine of spreading 'Freedom', and that is something the majority of Europeans are wary about.


If the EU Constitution passes (and Spain has already voted for it), how will that affect relations with the US? It won't make any difference. The current internal relationship between the EU member states is already set. The EU is now on a course towards greater autonomy and there is nothing the USA can say to make that change.

The EU may fail, or it may succeed. We don't know yet. There are some nations which are very Eurosceptic (Denmark & the UK for example)

Moif is completly right, this trip will do nothing what so ever.

Hate to have to point this out to all the naysayers..but Bush didn't go to Europe to win a popularity contest. This is not a matter of how the people on the streets of Europe feel about Bush, Iraq and democracy..he went there to appeal with the Heads of State in Europe and to address America's allies at NATO. NATO happens to be headquartered in Europe ya know.

If you all wish to turn this into negative spin or a meaningless thing or something that will have no effect then why not explain to us how NATO's final agreement to assist us in Iraq that was agreed upon by every NATO member..all 26..including France..something we had not achieved and had not been united on before...is no different..or nothing...or just window dressing?

Because the questions posed for debate were not about why Bush went to Europe.

The questions for debate are about whether or not Bush's visit will improve the relationship with Europe and the impact that EU expansion may or may not have on the relationship between the EU & the US.

Sending NATO troops to Iraq is just window dressing because the people of Europe are not going to change their opinions with regards to GW Bush because he held a 'concilliatory speech'. We're not so stupid as to believe what GW Bush (or Dr Rice) says! Its as clear as a bell that they're just saying what they think we want to hear.

In fact, you can already see the varnish starting to crack.

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?
Not if the Europeans remain intransigent and obliviously committed to Continental suicide.

If the EU Constitution passes (and Spain has already voted for it), how will that affect relations with the US? It will result in further deterioration. Americans have little respect for people who surrender their lives to bureaucrats, and rightly or wrongly, that's how most Americans who even know what the EU Constitution is believe is happening there.


I understand your perspective, but disagree.

I'm curious, but why is it Bush's and America's task to mend the rift. Europeans chalk up America's lack of respect for their opinions, their perspectives, to American stupidity (recall the headlines after Bush won re-election?), or naivety, or foolishness, or greed, or imperial ambition, corruption, etc. Few have the breadth of vision to even consider that American's have lost respect for Europe because of Europe's failings, not ours.

What, in truth, have the governments of Belgium, France and Germany, as well as the vast "street" of Europe, and most of all, the "chattering classes" done in the last 5-10 years that is worthy of respect?

Stand up to defend a blood drenched dictatorship (or two, or three?)

Quash free speech on a scale that warms the hearts of "hate law" lovers everywhere?

Cry about the poor starving Iraqi children because of the sanctions, yet give the UN, Kofi, and the various and sundry European kleptocrats a pass when the Oil for Food Scandal erupts?

Cry "foul, thief" over the 2000 US Election, yet honor and accept Arafat's 10 years in office on a 5 year term?

Birth a new incarnation of anti-Semitism?

Consistenly maintain an unemployment rate that hasn't been seen in America since the Great Depression?

Re-elect leaders whose entire platform amounts to anti-Americanism?

Tell me Moif, is it all America's fault, or is it time for Europe and Europeans (yes, a generalization, with all the shortcomings therein) to get their act together?

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?

Firstly, Bush went to Europe - Europe did not go to Bush. Bush needs European help if his whole 'spreading freedom and democracy' plan is going to work. That is a big and expensive job.

The EU is the world's largest economic area and generally intends to at some point become a super-power (or France intends that it will and France really calls a lot of the shots). Sooner or later (probably later) the EU is going to have a common defence policy...increasingly countries are signing onto the idea and, for all its stupid beaurocracy, the EU is increasingly becoming the dominant factor in European politics.
I'm not a huge fan of the EU, but it has a lot of financial clout and, despite it's over-reliance on bearocracy - is becoming more democratic. I wouldn't so quickly dismiss Europe as irrelevant on the world stage*just* yet...

This trip may improve realtions, but at the end of the day, the view of the world from France and Germany is very different to the American view of the world. Broadly, France and Germany believe that terrorism can be contained (as is not really a problem - we're used to it) and democracy cannot easily be spread - it has to arise from within a country, rather than be imposed from without. This difference to the US view will probably be a sticking point in relations - but generally the EU and US both support democracy (the EU has steadily been spreading democracy throughout Eastern Europe by offering the carrot of EU membership if countries can make democratic and economic reforms) and want a peaceful world. So a general consensus can probably be reached.


If the EU Constitution passes (and Spain has already voted for it), how will that affect relations with the US?

Not at all. The EU constitution is really just formalising the way things already run in the EU. It has no bearing on foreign policy (the UK was quite careful to make sure it didn't) - so the relationship between the US and individual EU countries will be unaffected.

Bikerdad

I have to ask this, but what respect? When did America ever respect Europe? Through out your history, Americans have defined themselves against what they perceive as 'Europe's tyranny'.


They have protected their citizens, sent aid to foreign countries, worked towards greater European unity and co-operation, helped eastern European nations move towards democracy and possible membership of the EU.

They have provided a meager counter weight to American global domination.You may be surprised to learn that a good many people regard America as a threat to world peace in the same way they regard Israel, Iran and North Korea as such threats. Most probably you disagree with this but what you should recall is that your opinion is besides the point in this context. People make up their own minds based on their own perceptions and when they see one large nation using violence and aggression to forward its own agenda, then the by product of a dubious election in Iraq does nothing to alleviate the fear and hostility generated by a Texan President who uses, lies, legal loop holes and war as a foreign policy tool.


Yes. Europe is corrupt. I admit it.
But, Europe is no different in that regard than anywhere else on this planet. Corruption is a universal problem that has plagued the USA just as much as any where else.

The difference between Europe and the USA, and the difference that GW Bush represents in the eyes of many many people, is that the USA, under GW Bush has violated the geneva convention, castrated the UN, and used warfare for geopolitical gain.

Most people agree that Iraqi democracy (if it works) is a good idea.

Very few agree that Iraqi democracy is actually why the US military invaded Iraq.

George W Bush holding a speech that no one is even bothered to listen to is not going to bridge that gap.


I'm not sure how all of Europe has done either... ? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by this? The only voice capable of speaking on behalf of Europe as a whole would be the EU, and I am not aware of the EU having cried "Foul" or "Thief" as a result of the 2000 election.


Actually, its the same anti semitism that has always existed, and continues to exist everywhere on the planet.

Yes, I know its so nice to point the finger at Europe as being anti semitic, but its a bit hypocritical coming from a country that has its own problems with anti semitism, with racial tensions, with human rights violations and with a history of racism, xenophobia and the ethnic cleansing of an original population.

Yes. We have racists here in Europe. I won't deny that, but I don't think its any better in the USA and regardless of what your myriad pro Israel web sites might tell you about Europe, I can assure you the Jews are not the people who are at threat here.
That would be the Muslims.


...and consistently maintain some of the highest standards of living on the planet at the same time.


Who?


The EU is exactly that. It is a project to bring together the differences in Europe and create a single voice instead of a confusion of clashing political ambitions and opinions.

Imagine how crippled America would be if your individual states were all running their own foreign policies independent of the federal government?

Europe is very old, and it takes time to change stagnated tradition. Half of our nations are still monarchies for example, and the royals are harder to get rid of than cockroaches.

We are not better than any one else. We don't have the right to impose our will upon any one else, even when we do. The answer to your question however, is yes. It is America's fault.

The USA is, and has been for six decades the foremost political power in the western democratic world. During that time, America has consistently worked towards its own enrichment and the consolidation of power. During that time, the old European powers have become weaker and weaker as their former authority was included into America's growing global dominance until finally we have reached the point where the one mighty British Empire is reduced to an American side kick with no real influence on America foreign policy.

After the second world war, America imposed its values and culture onto a broken Europe and the Marshall plan, NATO, the UN and the cold war all ensured the continuation of authority of the two big winners of the second world war. The USA and the USSR divided the spoils between themselves.

People in Europe were over joyed when the Berlin wall finally fell. It was widely perceived that the cold war was over and that a new period of peace was about to dawn. GWH Bush encouraged this when he talked of a new world order and moved to liberate Kuwait.

But then reality slowly sank in. People in Europe found the world had not changed. Kuwait never became the democracy GWH Bush said it would. Instead it was business as usual. The Soviets were gone and Moscow was being sacked by the Clinton administration. The Russians were complaining constantly about the world the American bankers had imposed upon them and when Yugoslavia erupted into violence, the Russians refused to allow the UN to act.

European soldiers were sent to the Balkans wearing blue helmets instead of NATO uniforms because the Russians refused to allow it in the UNSC. The Americans sneered at Europe for doing nothing even whilst our young men and women were being shelled by the Serbs & Kroats and the memory of first world war stalked Europe like a spectre with the fear of the conflict spreading as it had the last time the Balkans exploded. It took years but NATO was finally allowed in and the fighting stopped and the trials began. It was the same with Kosovo. Then it was the USA that stopped the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovans by bombing Serbia but ignoring the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs. Today, Americans talk online about how 'we had to stop the fighting in the Balkans because Europe did nothing', in much the same way that they talk about bailing out Europe in the second world war, or France in Vietnam or how 'Europe killed the Jews'. Its so easy to gloat when you never hold yourself accountable or ignore the reality of a situation.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, the US military found itself having to ship its forces to liberate Kuwait. The USA called on Europe to lend a hand, but in Europe, the process of disarmament after the overwhelming burden of cold war expenses meant that Europe was in the process of getting rid of most of its unneeded military infrastructure. At the same time as America, unable to move its own military resources was using civilian ships, the European nations were faced with the problem of moving an entrenched military with virtually no logistical capabilities. For the past five decades the European powers had been digging in and building a defence against a Soviet invasion that would never arrive. As a consequence, Europe didn't have any long range transport planes. It didn't have super carriers. Its military resources were considerable, but land locked in Europe. At the same time, the EU was facing a population hungry for an end to war. As usual Europe was criticized by Americans for not doing enough. The GWH Bush administration actually told the European nations, sixty years after most had fought any kind of war, and only a few years after the fall of the Berlin wall and the 'end' of the cold war, that Europe needed to boost its military power.
People in Europe were stunned. Amazed that in a time of 'peace', we were being told to strengthen and rebuild the vastly expensive military infrastructure of the cold war.
And for what purpose?
To bale out oil rich nations in the middle east who do lucrative deals with the Bush family?

When 11th September 2001 happened, there was a lot of misery in Europe. An awful lot. For many it was as if we ourselves were attacked. At the same time however, most people shrugged and nodded to each other. No one was really surprised that America's decades long interference in so many places around the world was finally causing a backlash.

One thing I really don't understand is how Americans won't grasp what it was like to live in Europe during the last six decades. How this continent was bombed into almost total ruin and later subjugated to the political will of the USA and the USSR. How the cost, in material, mental and physical anguish did not simply go away when Hitler was defeated, but how it carried on for years and years afterwards, through the rationing and post war political turmoil in shattered families struggling to survive and rebuild broken nations, through the misery and shame of the Holocaust, and through the fear of the nuclear war that was all to easy to imagine for a people who had just experienced, first hand, the two largest and most destructive wars in all history and the devastating aftermath that we still live with.

Perhaps this arrogant disdain for Europe stems from a misunderstanding? After all, how can a people who have never truly suffered from war fully comprehend it? Perhaps the reason why America is so 'trigger happy' is because America has never had to face the consequences of her actions or accepted responsibility for them. When was the last time an America city was subjected to an ariel bombardment? When was the last time Americans had to flee their homes and sit in refugee camps for months on end? When was the last time an American army had to retreat from its own territory? How many American women were raped by an invading army or watched their husbands shot in the back of the head by an extermination squad? How many death camps or mass graves has America had to discover?

Every American who has ever experienced the horror of war has done so in other people's nations and the idea that you are better, or more moral, or more upstanding or not responsible, or not at fault because your wars are all fought at a comfortable distance, is a blood drenched lie.

There is nothing that George W Bush can say that will improve US / European relations. We will continue to judge him, and the people he serves on the basis of his actions and not his words.

Please don't correct me on the subject of debate...if you have a problem with me and the way I have responded to questions of debate report me to the admins. Besides your need for integrity of the debate and the questions asked comes off very disingenuous after you went into that massive monologue about life in Europe in the US Foreign Policy forum.

I think the question asked does require us to examine or give opinion on why Bush is in Europe..so I feel my response is not off topic or inappropriate. Are you going to respond to it?

Fact is the US got what she wanted in Europe which is NATO assistance and funding in Iraq. Fact is she hadn't been able to achieve this before. And the fact is that obviously relations between the US and her NATO allies in Europe are improving. Calling funding and actual military assistance "window dressing" is absurd. It is a massive change in relations and cooperation on Iraq as a whole and a major concession for the European NATO allies towards US foreign policy in Iraq.

You claiming..
Sending NATO troops to Iraq is just window dressing because the people of Europe are not going to change their opinions with regards to GW Bush because he held a 'concilliatory speech'. We're not so stupid as to believe what GW Bush (or Dr Rice) says! Its as clear as a bell that they're just saying what they think we want to hear.
rings so false because the vote in NATO shows a completely different reality.

Right the politicians may be buying into some of the bonuses that come with agreeing with the US foreign policy, but the people? that's a different matter entirely.

A vote doesn't mean people see eye to eye or believe that Bush popping over to give a speech takes anything away from his actions and crying war. It was said before Bush jnr came to power that his appointment would mean war, and so it has proved. No one nation has the right to run the world, to tell them what kind of government they can have, or to bully (or buy) the smaller (and sometimes greedier) nations to agreeing with them.


Is that how quickly you write off the humbling truth? Do you think they're not connected? since when has the US had to feel the consequences at home of her actions abroad? We have, for decades. We've also had to live with the continuing "if we hadn't helped Europe out" rubbish, like we weren't doing anything ourselves. It is this historical, and recent arrogance towards the feelings and situation of Europe that has caused the bad relations towards the US, and if you think this speech, or any number of speeches will count for anything against recent actions, and current proposals for further wars, then i'm amazed. Even now the US happily underplays the role of the UK and her forces, as your claims and attitudes have made clear. Don't dare stick us in the same pot as France.

Bush is a reluctant diplomat, no question. He hates having to agree his foreign policy with other nations, but would he feel different if he'd been on the receiving end of war? or was in charge of a weaker but no less legitimate country?

No, I don't think it'll do much, but I think it is a semi-legitimate attempt to mend the relationship. I think that as negatively as we feel about some European countries here, they feel the same way about us. There's too much hate on both sides, and the government can't fix that. People in Europe and the USA have to get over disliking each other before our governments kiss and make up. In addition, not to be offensive, Europe needs to get in on the War on Terror. Not to say that they haven't done anything, they are not doing enough. That's my main problem with some European countries.

I'm no expert on the EU, its Constitution or anything about it. So I'm not sure. But I don't find the idea of a united Europe very Earth shattering.

CP

Just a "quick" reply: Europe is old, has old power bases who have been powerful in their respective countries for a long time. ASking them to concede power to a central pot is VERY Earth shattering.

In perspective, asking the US presidency to run their foreign policy by the UN is hard enough. That is a single country. Imagine asking a couple of dozen countries to do the same, to allow age-old (and well founded) resentments to drop. And to ask us (the British) to allow the Germans, French and Spanish to decide how much tax we pay, and whether we can have a new tank.

The problem with this speech is that no-one here believes that the US government has just turned over a new leaf, or that when push comes to shove, she won't just do her own thing regardless of all the agreements in the world.

LOL, I can't say I do either, however bear in mind that as a unified economy it is the largest economy in the world and economic reforms are happening (at truly glacial place) that hopefully should show improved growth.

Militarily the EU is a pygmy, however it is starting to build up an army. I doubt that the EU would really want to work against NATO and besides which although there are countries in the EU that are (currently) quite anti-American, equally there are many countries in the EU that are strongly pro-American.

But an increasingly united Europe would be in a position to build up a larger military force. Within the EU there are already two large and sophisticated armies (including Britain, home of the very best Army in the whole wide world, yay) and many countries with a militaristic history. Sure, a unified Europe right now wouldn't do to much, however it has the potential (and the political will) to develop into something considerably more powerful.



To be honest we're (broad European generalisation) a bit unsure that there even needs to be a WOT, let alone that we should participate more. We have had the threat of terrorism in Europe for decades and have grown to accept it and contain (rather than eliminate) the threat. Personally I hope that Bush is right and that spreading democracy will a ) work and b ) end terrorism, however many people in Europe are skeptical and believe that (for example) invading Iraq has increased rather than decreased the terrorist threat.

However, at the end of the day, Europe and America have a lot more in common and could achieve a lot more by working together than by working independently, especially given that a democratic and peaceful world is something we all need. I really think that a lot of politicians are warming to the idea, even if some of the populace disagree with Americas foreign policy.

(There's a link in the topic question that outlines the major components of the EU Constitution.)

I agree with Genesis; it is very “earth shattering”. In fact, Bush and his bunch are vehemently against it. One of the right-wing think tanks puts it this way:


What happens when the US is no longer the lone superpower able to bulldoze its way through the world unimpeded? In my opinion, Bush only strengthened the EU’s resolve to band together by his “bring freedom and democracy” yadda yadda.

The EU Constitution is a polar opposite of everything Bush believes.

A united Europe presents a very real threat to Bush’s ability to implement his new world order. Trade with China is the first glove-in-the-face challenge. Bush can bluster all he wants, but a strong and united EU will not listen.

A personal side note: By starting this topic, I was hoping to get the European perspective on the situation. Moif, Genesisblade and Ptarmigan all have a perspective any of us here in the US do not/cannot. I, for one, am saddened and disappointed by the condescension shown to the Europeans on this board. Is it any wonder they have such a low opinion of Americans?

I hate to pile on here, but I agree with moif as to the 'window dressing' argument. As Mark Steyn noted on 9/11 - this was the end of NATO - "a military alliance for countries that no longer in any recognisable sense have militaries." As he notes in yesterday's telegraph (uk), the additional commitment by the 26 NATO nations in Afghanistan amount to:

As GW and Rummy and Rice tour a largely post-military Europe, it seems specious to continue to stress our "military" alliance. Europe just isn't interested. Thankfully, Bush is stressing how our mutual interest can be served by peace in Israel and a non-nuclear Iran.

edited to add - I don't mean this in any way condescending to Europe or NATO, as both are valuable friends and allies. But, the EU can't demonstrably be construed as having a military sufficient to fight the WOT (if they were interested) and Europe seems to me to truly believe that their future lies as a (mostly) demilitarized entity. Which, given US / NATO security guarantees, may be a reality but could continue to strain relations.

edited to add - The Belgians are showing their love for GW in this visit...

Ptarmigan, you're absolutely right [as most Europeans are in EU threads ], the EU economy would be enormous, and you're correct in that Old Europe is slowly reforming economic policies that would foster growth. No doubt that economically the EU would be very possitive for Europe. With that being said, a large EU military force is...nice, but I don't see anything more than a symbolic, "Hey, now we're like America." in it. The only thing it prevents is a large-scale American invasion of America *curses*.

I understand. And please understand that I'm not rooting for this to happen, but it may take a terrorist attack on the Eiffel Tower to "wake up" Europe to the terrorist threat. I don't believe that America will be Islamic terrorism's only target...But I don't think Europe thinks the way I do [imagine that].

I understand where you're coming from, but it seems to me as if Europe has been "uniting" since after WWII, power has been centralizing for a long time. In addition, who trying to jockey for the most power in the EU, Germany, France and England...Sounds a lot like Old, Pre-EU Europe to me.


CP

Working together necessarily means AGREEING on moves BEFORE action. It also means being held responsible for failings. I like your understatement, Ptarmigan... "some of the populace disagree"...

y'know, i've got nothing against working with other countries, and doing the right thing. But as we "know" from the move to remove Saddam, many members of the world community aren't very open with their true reasons for action and non-action. It was very much suggested that the French among others had agreements about oil that they didn't want to lose. Likewise, on the other side, it is widely accepted that the WMD excuse was always weak and a cover for a mixture of motives, some good, some not so honorable. Will this change from meetings, or isn't there too much inherent distrust, and too many fractions and allegiances to make this whole nonsense anything more than a charade?

The only way this process can work is if the individual leaders can learn to trust each other properly. I don't believe the populations can never learn to trust each other, until we are united by an action that threatens us all.

Whether a hit on the Eiffel tower would do it is unlikely (seen to many puppet films recently?)... many in Europe have had and got terrorist groups in our countries. We've kind of gotten used to it... Plenty of jockying for position, but very little trust between parties. How can you trust people that have invaded you repeatedly. The scars still remain.

Genesisblade

Well - Japan is one of the most pro-American countries in the world and the Americans dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on it. I think that if the coalition leave Iraq in a better state than before they went in, then ultimately Iraqis will support the US.

CP

Well sure - and a large military would only be useful if the political side of the EU could get its act together to put it to good use - and the US has explicitly said that it has no intention of losing its military supremacy, so however much of an army the EU raises, it's never going to be on that sort of scale.



Ah, well again 'Europe's thinking is profoundly fragmented - thats partly the problem..however we have it on the authority of Osama Bin Laden himself that if we stay out of fundamentalist Islam's way, it'll leave Europe alone (although such largesse probably doesn't extend to Britain!). Whilst European politicians aren't going to start listening to a mass murderer any time soon, it does create problems for politicians who want to support the US, as people now think that overt US support may make terrorist attacks more likely. Whilst one answer would be to join the US in the WOT, another tempting (although fatal) answer would be to stay out of it...

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?
I was refraining from comment on this initially because I was still analyzing what was going on. As much as I dislike Bush, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that this trip might actually be about starting to repair relations. I know, I should stop being naive.

There was an article in Der Spiegel that described the cancellation of Bush's only public event in Germany:


I'd say that without a shadow of a doubt the fact that Bush was unwilling to participate in an unscripted event proves that this whole thing is window dressing. This is especially true considering the stated purpose of the meeting in the first place, to "get in touch with the people who he most needs to convince of his policies." But when the "average Germans" in the audience won't be asking scripted questions, well Bush simply cannot convince these people of his policies... unacceptable! It is so much easier to convince plants than to convince real people, any fool knows that....

If Bush was really interested in repairing relations in Europe then he should be prepared to face criticism and do his best to address it. Heck he might even need to apologize about a thing or two. Diplomacy only works if you are actually willing to compromise from time to time and let the other side get something they want too. I do not believe this administration understands that and therefore we won't see any real healing for at least another 4 years.

I personally am ashamed that Americans cannot travel proudly abroad and state where they are from without scorn in countries which are supposed to be our "allies". I would think this would be a common feeling amongst all Americans, but we apparently have some that wish to approach this with the attitude of a 10 year old.

Genesisblade.....
Right the politicians may be buying into some of the bonuses that come with agreeing with the US foreign policy, but the people? that's a different matter entirely.

And..so? I already explained I felt Bush didn't go to Europe to ask the European people to change their approach to the war in Iraq..he went to ask the governments...and he got a full and unaminous agreement to do so. Quite significant I think when the European populace as a whole does not support such changes.


No one nation has the right to run the world, to tell them what kind of government they can have, or to bully (or buy) the smaller (and sometimes greedier) nations to agreeing with them.

This has to be one of the most hypocritical statements or sentiments to come out of some European mouths of late. In line with the poll presented at the opening of this debate one would think Europeans somehow feel that such strong pushes by the US for democratic change is opposed on the basis or notion of a resistance to meddle in other's affairs or to judge other's governments as inferior. But that is not what is really being said at all because the EU is as much to tell another nation how to govern themselves as America is. What exactly is it the Western European nations are asking the Eastern European nations to do but not tell them what kind of government they can have? This is just such a ridiculous and terribly untrue distinction to try and make between EU and US foreign policy. What it is they really mean to say to us is..The US has no business promoting democracy in other nations without European consent and permission.

Is that how quickly you write off the humbling truth?
Well it was hardly humbling or the truth..it is just one man's opinion among a sea of millions. What the truth is in reference to EU and US relations is far more complex and contains far many more realities then just the one expressed here.

since when has the US had to feel the consequences at home of her actions abroad?
You are joking with us ...right? You really need me to answer this obtuse question or do you think highlighting it's absurdity will be enough?

Bush is a reluctant diplomat, no question. He hates having to agree his foreign policy with other nations, but would he feel different if he'd been on the receiving end of war? or was in charge of a weaker but no less legitimate country?
Um I think the guy just may in fact feel he is on the receiving end of war. Perhaps?

carlitoswhey...
I hate to pile on here, but I agree with moif as to the 'window dressing' argument. As Mark Steyn noted on 9/11 - this was the end of NATO - "a military alliance for countries that no longer in any recognisable sense have militaries." As he notes in yesterday's telegraph (uk), the additional commitment by the 26 NATO nations in Afghanistan amount to:

Oh well thank for piling it on anyways I disagree again. I don't ever think it was a big kept secret or an unrealized fact that the US is the military in NATO. As much as it was proven in Afghanistan and before that in Yugoslavia..the Europeans provide very little in regards to military logistics..their commitment is usually more of a monetary one. Which is basically what they have again agreed to do with Iraq. Without a agreed upon or recognized threat NATO is meaningless...no matter. And the Europeans as Ptarmigan pointed out really honestly do not feel terrorism is a threat.
Your quote highlights that maybe this means something "principled moral opposition" to Iraq. Where is the principled moral opposition gone?

Regardless the NATO forum meant enough for France to make a stand in and refuse to allow actions to be taken to assist the US on Iraq before and if that meant something to others here (as I am sure it did) then when France or any other European NATO ally no longer feels the need to take such a stand or show such opposition then I do believe more than window dressing has occurred.
Yet undoubtedly gobs of carefully scripted or analyzed comments are made for the sake of the "audience" that I would not disagree on I just feel the message being displayed is different than what anyone here claims it to be. There are some European governments who act much like the KSA lately with their relationship with the US..they must always compensate for their obvious agreements on foreign policy by highlighting the disagreements. They use hatred towards the US as their defining role and purpose in the Gov. They distract the people from dire domestic troubles that are results of poor government policies and inactions with the their shared ideal..America is bad. It is foolish to a point of self harm..while they all sit discussing how bad America is their own nation's lie in need of their attentions.

DaffyGrl....
While pursuing a policy of engagement with the European Union, however, President Bush should avoid making statements that could be perceived as a U.S. endorsement of the EU Constitution and Franco–German plans for a unified foreign policy. Such statements would only strengthen the hand of America’s opponents in Europe…

A united Europe presents a very real threat to Bush’s ability to implement his new world order. Trade with China is the first glove-in-the-face challenge. Bush can bluster all he wants, but a strong and united EU will not listen.

First must come the strong and united EU..we hear all about this strong united foreign policy but we see very little of it.
Also just so it is known DaffyGrl's post ...reluctantly I am sure... forget to mention that Bush despite the apparent conservative think tank opinion..told the EU yesterday..
Mr Bush's willingness to speak to Europe through its EU institutions signalled a break with recent US policy of working with allies in national capitals. "America supports Europe's democratic unity," Mr Bush said. "America supports a strong Europe."
link
Has any other US president thus far even bothered to say this? No. Dr. Rice made the same concessions earlier. And I feel that is significant for EU foreign policy...especially so in regards to one of the main oppositions to a YES vote on the EU constitution. But then again I am sure all Bush went to Europe for was to get dressed up in a tux.

Actually no...I haven't seen any puppet movies [I assume you're talking about Team America, haven't seen it, don't know anything about it]...But my point is, sure, they've gotten used to it, that's easy, they aren't the ones that the terrorists have focused their ire on. As an ally of the United States, don't you think Europe should at least help make sure its ally is protected...Seems like we would do that if Europe was in such a predicament.

CP

bucket

I have no such problem. You asked a specific question...

... I gave you a specific answer.

What is there to complain about?


I have no such need. I was merely explaining why I did not answer the question you posed.


You have every right to pose your question, and it was indeed appropriate to your point of view.

However I am not going to respond to it again, because I have already answered the question. The NATO agreement means nothing. Such agreements have been made in the past and later ignored. What GW Bush has received is window dressing.


If you wish...

In fact there are already 'NATO' troops in Iraq, and there have been others in the last few years who have since been pulled out. Like the Danish (NATO member) battalion currently serving in southern Iraq, their numbers are small, their duties light (no combat) and their presence symbolic.

I'll believe GW Bush got what you say he did, when I see it manifested in reality rather than just on paper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Genesisblade

Exactly. It was very telling to note that the BBC, in a large news piece today, were unable to find a single German in the street who was willing to say anything good about GW Bush.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conservpat

Ah, well, you see... part of the problem is there is no such thing as the 'war' on terror.

There is terrorism, and terrorists. Crime and prevention. To argue that you can wage a war against these is to argue for an eternal war. Thanks to Mr Orwell, very few people in Europe so blind as to be willing to engage in a meaningless struggle that will never end under a daft sound byte that has no real meaning.

By all means let us catch those terrorists who threaten us, but let us not pretend that bring 'freedom' to Iraq has anything to do with 'terrorism'.

There was no more connection between Iraq and al qaeda than there was between GW Bush and the Taliban. Saddam Hussein was just a convenient excuse.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ptarmigan

Yes, the EU will never be a military super power like the USA. Instead, I believe it will be an economic power that uses its wealth as its primary weapon. There is no point in building a vast global military in the same way that the USA has done. To do so would be expensive. Its far better to allow the USA to shoulder the burden of being the worlds police man and then simply ignore the USA when ever its in our interest to do so. After, all, what are they going to do? Invade us?

As things stand now, America, and its economy are vulnerable and that is why it uses its military to deal with its problems. I reckon the EU is taking advantage of that, and that is why GW Bush has come to Europe. He wants something.

Since he is an appalling diplomat, then the only way he is going to get it, is by buying it. At this point in time though, its impossible to see what he's bought and how much he paid for it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Daffygrl

It may not seem so, but I actually have a very high regard for Americans. I just have to accept the conclusions as I read and watch the world unfurl. I don't really bear any grudges, and I still feel a sense of identity with our American cousins... even if I do think your making a lot of mistakes.

I don't believe most Europeans feel hatred towards Americans, though some do. I think its more a sense of exasperation and frustration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


bucket

The trouble with this answer is that your assuming the majority of Americans accept the notion that 11 Sept was as a consequence of US foreign policy and not just an attack on America, 'because they hate your way of life'.

I partially agree, partially disagree. I think America is fighting a War on Terror, and I'm not sure that we'd be able to continue on without fighting terror, with that said, we will never irradicate terrorism...Ever...So in that case, you are right.

I don't believe I've mentioned Iraq in this thread. In fact, to clear things up, if I knew what I now know about Iraq before the war, I wouldn't have supported it...But I never said anything about Iraq, and I'm not pretending it's part of the "War on Terror".

Again, this is a non-sequiteur...In addition, I completely agree I wouldn't quite call SH an excuse, but, I basically agree.

CP

I guess I could sell the idea that NATO troops are in Iraq by highlighting the fact American or British (both NATO members) battalions are also currently serving in Iraq too. You are not getting my point...troops or any form of military support in Iraq from NATO was not being sought. America does not and never has been led to expect anything from many of it's NATO European allies when it comes to military logistics except the symbolic. I think we all fully understand the agreement of NATO and the arrangement we have always had. No need to keep attempting to embarrass or shame Americans over this imagined foreign policy failure. Most Americans do not feel shame about their military and it's purpose of national defence.
I took a little look back to the last time the US president approached NATO on this thorny issue of Iraq...
President Bush said Thursday that he did not expect NATO to provide troops to Iraq, abandoning hope for such help after partners in the alliance raised objections. In a news conference ending the three-day Group of Eight meeting of industrialized nations, which Bush hosted in Sea Island, Ga., the president said his only hope for the military alliance would be for help in training Iraqi troops if the new interim government requests it. "I don't expect more troops from NATO to be offered up," he said. "That's an unrealistic expectation. Nobody is suggesting that."
See there Nobody was suggesting it 8 mo ago and I am sure Nobody suggested it a few days ago either.
oh but wait you do not believe anything Mr. Bush has to say so allow me to quote Mr. Blair on it too...
British Prime Minister Tony Blair quickly echoed Bush's statement that NATO troops would not be sought. In a news conference, he said there has "never been anticipation NATO troops will go in there in the same way coalition troops have been in there."
link


And you are assuming too...that my comments only reference 9/11 which they didn't. They include 9/11 but hardly adhere to that only piece of American "consequences". It was the anniversary of the Marines battle of Iwo Jima today. I think all those 400,000 + American lives lost in WWII..a decision of foreign policy..actions taken abroad..perhaps had some effect "at home".


ConservPat It is troubling to try and contemplate the very different attitudes Europeans have towards "terrorism" compared to the one most commonly held by Americans. Your apparent struggle to understand this very real and most defining difference between the two reminded me of a comment made in a German newspaper..and yes they have other German media sources than just Spiegel.....
“Militant Islamism is only a tiny force in Europe”, wrote the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “yet it is dangerous, because many societies on this continent have elevated their defencelessness into a virtue.”
link

First off, i'd comment that although Britain is physically part of Europe, i'd question how much we historically have toed the EU line when it comes to action. As i recall we were allies in Iraq, regardless of EU opinion on the move. It seems that we are a bridge between the EU and America, without a true ally on either side.

Ptarmigan

Yeah, you'd think, and i'd hope. But i'd say that the situation was better the moment we removed saddam, and the response wasn't exactly unanimously appreciative. I don't see it being resolved any time at all soon.

Bucket


It is a little bit more than just one man's view, and a bit more than just opinion.


Not at all. The EU (like the UN) is a collective, rather than an individual nation. The line (I believe) is that to be integrated into Europe, they have to meet the criteria. The only way to improve the world is through action in unison, as a world / majority, rather than taking it upon one's self to "set up democracy". Off the top of my head, i can't think of a single functioning democracy that was created, rather than evolved. I have my doubts as to whether forcing democracy can work.

The last line is something strange: "promoting democracy"? We (together) invaded the country to remove the dictator, to enable the people to chose a new elected leader and government. We didn't promote it, we forced it.



Indeed. Although it was called a declaration of war, it was stated that it was in response to a war that had already been started.

The US has not historically had to suffer bombings on her home soil, or the destruction of her buildings. This one event, and that of pearl harbour, do NOT compare to the destruction of France, England and Germany, nor that of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trust me, i don't defend the events of 9/11, but don't pretend that you've borne the brunt of war on your home soil.


Clearly you do, but then you've never been on the receiving end of war, so how could you possibly know. I personally haven't either, but my country has.


Exactly. Even I don't feel hatred towards Americans. I feel hatred towards stupidity and ignorance. Hell, part of my family is American.


We'll, it's not that it was easy. Afer decades (plural) of IRA bombings, Londoners had become pretty bloody-minded about it. You can't allow yourself to be beaten into submission, or they win. However, to say that they haven't included Europe (Britain at least) in their ire is to be mistaken. It is a major problem here, but one that thankfully the appropriate forces have been more or less on top in, so far... we haven't taken terrorism lightly at all. On the contrary, it has been regular news here for far too long.

You don't think we've helped America? What the hell do you want us to do, police your streets? As for the last sentence, lets hope it never comes to test that again. The US has not always been as quick to help as we might have hoped, although in fairness it is not always practical to do so; but less said about decades support for the IRA the better.

GenesisBlade

The same could be said for a large number of EU member states. Most countries join the EU for mostly selfish reasons, fortunately it is a union that rewards good behaviour (i.e. democratic and economic reform) with access to wider markets and a lot of aid.
There is no official EU line in terms of foreign policy. It is still very much down to the views of individual nations. Certainly, Britain has strong cultural and historical links to America - but really, so do a lot of other European nations.
(And to be frank, if America does not represent a 'true' ally to Britain then I would have to ask 'who does?'. Certainly over the twentieth century America was an ally in three major conflicts (WW1, WW2 and the Cold War) and I don't think we've been in the twenty-first century for long enough to start saying that has changed!)

Moif

Yes, but I think the EU could (in theory) also shoulder some of that burden by supplying peace-keeper forces and logistical support to the US. It may well be that EU countries will never be comfortable with a force that actively fights (other than in self defence) - but that doesn't mean thare aren't a lot of ways in which the EU could help through peacekeeping, to a far greater extent than it does now.

allies are fluctuating things. They only exist when the agenda they each have is shared. It took a final trigger (Pearl Harbour) before the US joined WW2, and we shared a common threat in the Cold War.

America doesn't feel she needs any allies, but then she is the only nation in the world that probably doesn't. However, friends (or members of the gang) she does need, if she has any sense, because allies can become enemies easily enough if they don't become friends, and all countries have too many interests abroad to not be political about it. That is what all this speech and visit is about. A public show of fostering a sense of togetherness, and shared purpose (while i'm sure covert meetings about those shared interests are going on).


Certainly some countries could contribute more than they do. I don't think it is fair to say the EU needs to do more, but to point at individual countries who are being cheapskates about it. As you mentioned before, the EU only discussed politics. This war on terror should be fought under UN or NATO colours, not country's own colours and flags, and all members should be expected to contribute. But that in itself means not being able to take personal credit for "liberation of Iraq", etc. It is this, and other such attitudes, that get in the way of progress.

It is but one man's view. Did you see that yesterday he also claimed that "It was very telling to note that the BBC, in a large news piece today, were unable to find a single German in the street who was willing to say anything good about GW Bush." How ridiculous...I myself am aware that Germans in Germany organized a *gasp* pro American rally for German-American friendship that took place in Mainz on Bush's arrival. Why didn't the BBC ask them? I am sure they didn't see them there are grouped together waving American flags and signs of welcoming.

And the US is not acting alone in Iraq but as a collective.

hmm..history does not treat you hypothesis kindly. The UN has many times been the means of how not to take action..look at Sudan and how the UN refuses in unison to acknowledge a Genocide when there is one in order to avoid action. Also even in unison the UN has had her fair share of failures. I don't agree at all I don't think a world majority is the magic needed ingredient.


Before you go about telling Americans about their own history perhaps you should be sure you are fully aware of it too. The US suffered a civil war ..yes on her own soil..are you familiar with this? The south..the losing side..was DESTROYED..towns burned, industry in rubble and totally and utterly financially destroyed. Many people claim the south's unending claim to some of the highest poverty rates in the US is a result of the damage that war caused and that these states are still recovering from it. Your assertions are just simply not true.

Whoa buddy! If you were to re-read one of my earlier post you would see "I know Europeans have helped us a little already" [in regards to the WOT], or something to that effect. I've never said that the Europeans aren't helping...I did say that they could probably help more. Also when I said "they've gotten used to it", the "it" in that case was Islamic terrorism, which, as far as I know, has not focused its wrath on Europe.

CP

And these flagwaving people are on every street. As one of the more balanced world news agencies, i think its a little OTT to suggest they went to the only street in Germany that there weren't US supporters. Like it or not, this is the way things are in general.


It may be a collective by name, but barely in practice. That is not the fault of the US and the UK (and others who have forces there) but the unwillingness of other countries to act. Saddam was universally condemned, but that the arguement used to go to war was unfounded was all the excuse some countries needed to not back up their membership with action.


I don't suggest that the UN does things the right way - democracy necessarily obstructs quick action. But it is the ideal and correct way to do things, if we are to properly acheive the goals. It should never be a request for forces from the member countries, but an automatic entitlement to be called on. If the decision is taken, the effect should be immediate. Alas, the UN members have too many political and greed-oriented agendas. None the less, it is the correct ideal to seek, and that was the point.


I assumed it went without saying that civil war did not count. You could include the argument that foreign soldiers were involved, but that isn't quite the truth of it either. You have never, except for the relatively small instances mentioned, felt the result of war with another country, on home soil. I'm afraid, regardless of the damage done in civil war, civil war does not deter the statement.

You know full well what was meant.

I was also disappointed about this meeting cancellation - wonder what happened.

According to Der Spiegel, though, Bushie has some of them fooled.

Moif, I also agree and disagree with this statement. Will Terrorism ever be completely eliminated? No. Does that mean there isn't a War going on? No. This is much, much more than simple crime prevention. What exactly is it that differentiates crime from war? State sponsorship. Is terrorism as it currently exists state sponsored? Clearly. This alone takes the issue above any criminal investigation matter. Crime prevention units simply have neither the wherewithal or the jurisdiction to prevail in such matters, and failure to recognize that will inevitably lead to failure to adequately address the problem. There is also the matter of scale. Al Queda alone is reported to have tens of thousands of members. That is not a gang...that is an army. I'm curious....exactly which police unit is capable of dealing with tens of thousands of criminals, spread world-wide, with state sponsorship, all the while also maintaining their current duties? There is also the matter of scale in their attacks. The attack on the WTC, in addition to the magnitude of casualties, had worldwide financial implications. That makes it a matter of state interest, and elevates the issue above simple crime prevention. There is also the matter of scale in their goals. They are not after money, or attacking individuals. They want to completely disrupt our whole way of life. Crime prevention agencies are not geared for such attacks. In fact, it is over just such issues that wars are fought. Failure to properly categorize the nature and scale of this issue will only result in fairly to adequately address it. So, in fact, states would be derelict in their duty to not treat this as a matter far, far above crime prevention.

I also must vehemently disagree with any lack of connection between freedom in Iraq and terrorism. Terrorism springs from many fundamental social issues. One of the primary ones being lack of participation in the government and lack of other social freedoms. Until those fundamental social issues are addressed, there will continue to be an unacceptable level of terrorism. Bringing freedom to Iraq is an attempt to change the fundamental social construct in the area, and, as such, is not only directly related to the war on terror but is in fact the MOST terrorism-reduction related activity being undertaken. I heard a very good point on the radio yesterday....if the war in Iraq isn't related to terrorism, why is it that all the terrorists think that it is? You can tell from numerous statements that they have made that defeating democracy in Iraq is imperative to their cause. Doesn't that alone provide extremely strong evidence that that is in fact the case? Even if it isn't, just the fact that they think it is justifies it as terrorism related (perception being reality).

So, there seems to be two different paths to take. Treat terrorism as a criminal activity, and forever be incapable of adequately dealing with it, or treat it as the larger issue that it is, and at least have the proper perspective and ability to muster sufficient forces against it. Remember, it was dealing with it as a criminal matter that led to the attacks on 9-11. How many more such attacks need to occur before one elevates its status? If anything, it should have been raised to that level much, much sooner.

carlitoswhey It's true there is not a single consensus on how Europeans or even just Germans feel about US foreign policy and their own role within it. Amazing isn't it!
Richard Pearle was in Germany too pre-Bush visit and he was pretty tough with the Germans on this exact issue in an interview it is all in German but basically he said the Germans will be wrong about Iraq just like they were wrong about the Cold War. Also Rumsfeld came out on a little pre-Bush tour too and in his speech in Munich he asked...
As ambassador to NATO in the 1970’s, I can remember having to fly back to Washington to testify before the United States Senate to try to defeat an amendment in the Senate to withdraw all of America’s forces from Europe. Think of it – in the middle of the Cold War in the mid-70s. What if we had lost our will?
He goes on to say..and this is where I personally believe the US/EU relationship is having it's greatest divide...
So our Atlantic Alliance relationship has navigated through some choppy seas over the years. But we have always been able to resolve even the toughest issues. I submit that is because there is so much that unites us: common values, shared histories, and an abiding faith in democracy.

I am not so sure any more that some of the nations in the European Union share the common value of democracy anymore..and it is now being speculated by many that the US and the EU will further drift apart..and if this does occur I believe it will be mostly because of this one fundamental difference...democracy.
Better to make your cynical peace with the worst aspects of human nature than to pretend that free men will always choose good over evil. Much better to make a mutually profitable trade-off behind the scenes than to expose political decisions to the popular will. What evidence is there that the people actually know what is best for them? Most charitably, the European philosophy of government - shortly to be permanently installed under the EU constitution - is paternalistic. At worst, it is arrogant and authoritarian.
link
I believe the further united the EU becomes the less democratic they become and the less common values we share.

That being all said...

I obviously do not support the idea the UN is a democracy. I also feel in order to claim the Un is the " ideal and correct way to do things" you should perhaps be required to provide more evidence than just saying so. The UN itself has reported that it is in dire need of reform..it has even recognized it's long list of failures..It speaks of "major failures" to halt ethnic cleansing and genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, and in Darfur today. It calls the UN's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis "shockingly late and shamefully ill-resourced." And it castigates the UN Human Rights Commission for creating "a legitimacy deficit that casts doubts on the overall reputation of the United Nations."
link

I couldn't agree more. In addition it would aid the effort considerably if (as too many people, politicians and commentators fail to actively do) the war on terror was disassociated from Islam. It serves no good purpose, except to alienate those normal followers of a peaceful religion.

This is, supposedly, a century of truth, information and knowledge rather than ignorance and blind following. A standard follower of Islam will be as against such acts of terror as anyone else; it goes against their very religion. Indeed, to have all true followers of each faith, would hugely increase the support, and remove the fear that Islamic communities in our countries are a hotbed of terrorists.

Those that claim to be "Islamic fundamentalists" should be openly ridiculed on both sides, for they discredit their religion and encourage the distrust of the true followers of their faith. They are terrorists, with agendas and nothing more. Nay, they are murderers, and nothing less.

Vaguely associated rant, over.

Bucket


er... how are these member nations of the EU, to which you refer, undemocratic or don't share democracy as a value? you vote, and if there is a majority the action is carried. It doesn't work as well as it should (for reasons unnecessary to go into), and likewise the UN, but to say they are undemocractic lacks, well, everything.

On the contrary, it was this very democratic process you claim to hold so dear that Bush wanted to bypass in the route to war! I never said that the UN as it is now works effectively or correctly. BUT a united group of world nations must be the most democratic way of running and governing world affairs! What would have instead? A military wing going off and liberating people without heed to international opinion or debate?