Article...Europe Doesn't Hate Bush...
A report from Sweden.
opinionjournal.com
BY BRET STEPHENS
Friday, June 15, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT
GOTEBORG, Sweden--All week long, we've been waiting for the eruption, the botch-up, the blowout.
Did the president of the United States really call the prime minister of Spain "Anzar"? (It's Aznar.) Did George W. Bush's inadequate Spanish cause his hosts to cringe? Would the president fall on his face in his discussions with European statesmen? Would he even know who they were? And would an outpouring of millions of protesting Europeans steal the limelight and ruin the "Toxic Texan's" maiden voyage?
On Tuesday I attended one of these protests, in Brussels. Actually, it was a collection of protests. A demonstrator from Oxfam wanted to "Stop the Israeli Occupation of Palestine." The Ethical Vegetarian Alternative pledged Mother Earth's revenge against the U.S. An American contingent pleaded "Dear Europe--We didn't vote for him either." Then there was Gordon Clark of Greenpeace, who'd flown in from Washington to shadow the president. Mr. Clark confided that he was planning something big for the president's arrival, but wouldn't say what. The next day, he and about 30 others chained themselves to a set of traffic lights near the airport to block Mr. Bush's motorcade. Alas, it was the wrong set.
All in all, there were about 700 people at the protest, 1,000 tops. Here in Sweden, it's a different story. An estimated 9,000 protesters, representing some 80 different groups, are in town--fewer than the 25,000 anticipated, but enough to shut down parts of the city center. Police have formed a line around the school where city officials--this being Sweden--have housed a contingent of anarchists, whom now they will not let out. But despite some sporadic clashes between demonstrators and police, things are fairly tame. Many of the "protesters" are simply onlookers; others aren't protesting Mr. Bush so much as the EU summit also taking place here.
So where is this fabled tidal wave of European anti-Americanism? Three places: in the media, among left-leaning nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and among a handful--albeit a much-quoted handful--of European politicians.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it's the U.S. media that, as if seeking confirmation of their own political biases, lead the pack in denouncing Mr. Bush on behalf of "the Europeans." "Across Europe," writes Suzanne Daley of the New York Times, "there is little love for America's new president and a growing perception that the United States, under his leadership, is looking out only for itself these days, polluting the skies, breaking treaties and flirting with new arms races. . . . Europeans look at America and see a harsh society, with far too many have-nots."
It's hard to know what to make of this analysis, since Ms. Daley's reportage contains no polling data to substantiate its claims. Indeed, one looks in vain for any reliable survey of European views on the Kyoto Protocol, missile defense, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, U.S. policy toward China and North Korea, Mr. Bush's job performance, or any of the other issues about which "the Europeans" are said to have strong views. (One exception is the death penalty: A 1995 MORI poll finds that 76% of Britons are at least "sometimes" in favor of it.)
Instead, what goes by the name of "European opinion" ends up being what the editorial pages of Le Monde and the International Herald Tribune (a "bible" in the French foreign ministry, according to one senior official), or media-savvy NGOs like Oxfam, Greenpeace and Amnesty International, say it is. These groups fancy themselves the consciences of the Continent and the voice of "civil society"--and they exert a great deal of influence in the undemocratic ambit of European institutions in Brussels. Thus the constant attention devoted by the EU to depleted uranium, genetically modified foods, plastic softeners, greenhouse gases and other "issues" with an anti-U.S. tilt that resonate strongly on the left but leave most Europeans indifferent.
Then there are the politicians. Here too, the media have managed to work a miracle of selective quotation, so that the designated spokesman of "Europe" usually turns out to be the Socialist prime minister of France, Lionel Jospin. The conservative Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is treated as a near-pariah for his ardently pro-American views.
It is true that Europe's mostly center-left political leaders have become more vocal than ever in denouncing U.S. actions. But the reasons for this are widely misunderstood. They have more to do with domestic political concerns than with deep-seated opposition to U.S. policy.
The flap over Mr. Bush's rejection of Kyoto illustrates this. In the latest issue of Time magazine, reporter James Graff relates the conventional view that Mr. Bush's "artless kiss-off in March of the Kyoto accord on global climate change enraged Europeans so much that Washington actually noticed." In fact, Mr. Bush did precisely what he was expected to do, given the U.S. Senate's 95-0 rejection of the treaty in 1997. And the "rage" expressed by Europe's leading political figures was mainly a feat of histrionics, not an expression of genuine concern for the environment.
The center-left governments of both Germany and France govern in coalition with the radical Greens; politically, they have no choice but to adopt a pious expression in the face of this environmentalist holy grail. Yet given last September's fuel-tax protests, which succeeded in all but shutting down Britain, Belgium and France, it's doubtful whether these governments will want to raise fuel taxes by further whopping percentages in order to meet the emissions targets demanded by Kyoto. Having the U.S. do the dirty work of rejecting the treaty offers the ultimate political escape hatch.
Then, too, for all the European rhetoric about their environmental credentials and the need for "global leadership" on global warming, no EU country has yet ratified Kyoto. Currently, eight EU member states--France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland and Greece--have exceeded their emissions targets, some by nearly 100%.
True, large emissions reductions in Germany and Britain have allowed the EU as a whole to claim it has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 4% from 1990 levels--half of what Kyoto requires. But much of those gains have been achieved by one-time closures of coal-burning plants in the British Midlands and the former East Germany. Further reductions will be a lot more painful to achieve.
So in addition to offering Europeans an alibi for getting out of Kyoto, Mr. Bush's rejection of the treaty conveniently deflected attention from Europe's own environmental peccadilloes. And it handed Europe a moral victory.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush cruises through Europe, to grudgingly good reviews. He acquitted himself well in Spain, winning an important endorsement from Jose Maria Aznar on missile defense. Journalists who covered him at the NATO meeting in Brussels came away fairly impressed. In Goteborg, the Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, "agreed to disagree" with Mr. Bush over Kyoto. Even French and German leaders seem to be coming around to the notion that ballistic missiles in the hands of Middle Eastern crazies may pose a threat.
And slowly, steadily, European leaders are coming to grips with the fact that the "selected president" is not going to lose in the next recount, not going to go away, not going to be blown off course by the howlings of Greenpeace or the glowering of Jacques Chirac.
At a recent luncheon, I asked EU foreign-policy supremo Javier Solana if he worried that all the anti-American rhetoric might have an unfortunate effect on trans-Atlantic ties. "I cannot conceive of a really important strategic issue on which the U.S. and Europe will not be together," he said. And he's right. What a pity for those who had been hoping for the worst.
Mr. Stephens is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe. |
