Lest we be accused of running an all-football blog in June, let’s pause to briefly take note of the fact that George Bush is on the continent at the moment, beginning in Ljubljana (and a little unsteady on his feet?) for the EU-US annual summit before going to Rome, Berlin, Paris, London, and Belfast. One interesting aspect this time is how few people seem to care — for the most part, Europe seems content to wait him out and see what Obama or McCain can offer in January. Adding to the sense of fin de siecle is that, all going well, this will be the last EU-US summit in its current format i.e. with the EU counterpart whoever holds the 6 month rotating presidency at that time. Because of course, if the Irish people listen to Bernard Kouchner, they will vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty and the permanent EU presidency could be up and running in time for the summit with President Obama/McCain in Washington this time next year.
More broadly, Bush finds himself working the sidelines of several global issues. He won’t negotiate with Iran but delegates that task to selected EU countries — a tactic that risks divisions among the partners.   Then there is the oil price, with his friend (as he calls him) King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia springing the apparent stunt of calling for a summit of major oil producers and consumers — which is probably a stalling tactic in the hope that some of the speculative element in oil prices will unwind before the summit actually happens.
In the middle of all this, Bush will be trying to push the need not to forget the war in Afghanistan — a message that his European counterparts will be too polite to remind him, he could have followed himself in March 2003. And finally, there is the symbolism beloved of the White House on these trips — a Berlin airlift and Marshall Plan anniversary (and an associated speech doubtless loaded up with analogies to the present), and a trip to Belfast to celebrate the up-and-running peace process, notwithstanding an earlier stage thereof that involved negotiating with terrorists, completely contrary to the current White House talking points.
Who can blame the average European for shrugging his or her shoulders and settling in for another match instead?
Post-American World?
Post-Bush World! 8)
Pingback: By The Fault » Blog Archive » Linking Up with the World
The next president will say the same thing about Afghanistan and if anything the situation will have become worse. Do we gain anything by waiting?
The Irish mammals are not listening to their reptile masters.
http://wombatdiet.net/2008/06/10/irish-mammals-getting-out-of-hand/
No, can’t see that there’s much to be gained by waiting.
It would be neat so see, if Europe were willing and ready to grasp the nettle in Afghanistan. And interesting. And unexpected. Very unexpected.
Very well, if so then what?
Leave it to the US, if that’s the option will we have something of NATO left when this is over?
Moreover, if the former members of the Warsaw Pact are faced with a choice between sustaining NATO and a common security policy, what is their rational choice?
So what is such a bad thing about dismantling NATO? The US seems to think those obligations are odious, many EU member states (or at least the people in them) believe so too. I say take it down.
The US is still committed to defending Europe against Russia. To eastern Europe this is worth a lot. And that commitment is real, as it is in the national interest of the US.
If we bring the eastern members into the awkward position of having to choose between NATO and EU we’d give the US an enormous lever.
By the extension of 2004 we’ve also committed to NATO.