Europe, U.S. Diverging on Key Policy Approaches
By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 4, 2002; Page A13
PARIS -- The Sept. 11 attacks initially brought Europe and the United States closer together, with spontaneous outpourings of sympathy on
the streets of Europe and pledges of solidarity from the corridors of power. But nearly six months on, the transatlantic allies are at odds over
how to deal with key international issues highlighted by the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
While Americans are still coming to grips with their newfound vulnerability, many Europeans -- long accustomed to terrorism at home --
believe it is time to move on. While the Bush administration has made the war on terrorism the central focus of its foreign policy, Europeans
are pursuing a more broadly focused policy that looks at what they see as the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty, disease and
environmental degradation.
Europeans are continuing overtures to North Korea and
reformist groups in Iran, rejecting President Bush's view
that those countries and Iraq form an "axis of evil."
On the Middle East, the Bush administration has largely
followed the lead of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
isolating Yasser Arafat and blaming the Palestinian leader
for not clamping down harder on Palestinian "terrorism."
But the Europeans see a Middle East settlement as
crucial to solving the global terror problem, and say the
way to get one is to be far more critical of Israeli incursions into
Palestinian areas and to insist that Arafat remains the legitimate
voice of the Palestinians.
Above all, the Europeans believe the threats exposed by Sept. 11
require more than ever a multilateral approach, and that the United States
is trying to go it alone.
"You can't deal with the dark side of globalization -- the terrorism,
the financing of terrorism, the crime, the drugs, the trafficking of human
beings, the relationship between environmental degradation and
poverty and security . . . unless you deal with them as a result of
multilateral engagement," said Chris Patten, the European Union's
external affairs commissioner.
"There is a real European perplexity in the face of an
American administration that, in a little more than a year,
has opposed the Kyoto protocol [on global warming] . . . several
disarmament accords, and took advantage of its Security Council
veto on the question of the Middle East," French Foreign Minister
Hubert Vedrine said in an interview in Friday's Liberation newspaper.
In December, the United States cast
the lone veto of a Security Council resolution calling
for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian-controlled territory.
"Perhaps there had been a certain underestimate in Europe of the
dreadful shock that was the discovery by the Americans of vulnerability,"
Vedrine said. "But this doesn't explain this growing unilateral temptation
. . . . The fight against terrorism cannot take the place of a policy for
all the problems in the world."
A certain amount of discord has been a constant feature
between the United States and its European allies, the more so in recent years as
Europe has moved tentatively closer to a common voice on foreign and security concerns.
But many Europeans are surprised by the intensity of the current debate
and the depth of criticism coming even from self-professed
"Americaphiles" such as Patten. In the 1990s, as the last British
governor of Hong Kong, he was a favorite of U.S. conservatives for his tough
stance against China.
No one indicates the current debate will lead to any kind
of permanent rift. Diplomats, politicians and analysts note that the United States
and Europe still share common values, interests and liberal democratic systems.
But there is also broad agreement that the Sept. 11 attacks and their
aftermath have opened a fundamental divide between the United
States and its European allies, and the debate is likely to intensify
as the Bush administration decides, for example, whether to begin
military operations to dislodge Iraq's Saddam Hussein from power.
"There's just a really different view of what the problem is and how
to deal with it," said Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow in foreign policy
studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
"Americans see the Europeans as wanting to put their heads in
the sand," he said. "We see this as a long-term struggle."
Almost six months after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were hit, "Europeans want to put the whole thing in parenthesis," said
Francois Heisbourg, a French defense analyst. "That is indeed terrible. I consider the Europeans on this one are totally wrong."
Much of the difference is rooted in different experiences with terrorism.
For Europeans, terrorism has long been considered an unfortunate
fact of life. France has endured bombings linked to Algerian militants,
while Italy suffered under the Red Brigades. Germany experienced a
wave of terrorism from the Baader-Meinhof gang in the 1970s,
and Greece is still home to the small but deadly November 17 group.
"Europeans have always felt vulnerable," said Daniel Keohane,
research fellow at the Center for European Reform in London. "But what they
don't understand is that for Americans, this is a new development."
For Europeans, the lessons of terrorism are that it must be fought,
but that the root causes must also be addressed. "One can walk and chew
gum at the same time," Heisbourg said.
Patten cites "linkages" among social, economic, political and security issues.
"Am I so naive as to think if you drop 20 million European aid
packages on Sudan or Somalia or Afghanistan that terrorism is going
to disappear tomorrow?" he asked rhetorically. "No. But do I think
there is a relationship between global inequity and state breakdown
and violence and instability and terrorism? Yes."
The European Union spends about $30 billion a year on
development assistance, nearly three times the U.S. figure.
Shortly after Sept. 11, Gordon Brown, the British finance minister,
recommended that the developed world double its level of assistance, to
$100 billion a year. But the idea was shot down by
Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who said as recently as last month he believes "there
is precious little to show" for past U.S. aid programs.
Europeans were stunned that Bush, in his January State of the Union
address, talked at length about the "axis of evil" and terrorists
acquiring weapons of mass destruction, but did not mention Third World poverty.
On Iran, Europeans said they would continue their policy of engagement,
including trade and building ties with reformers and the middle
class.
On North Korea, Europe has relaxed textile trade controls
to try to stimulate economic activity, and is moving ahead with a plan to bring
North Korean managers to Europe for training and firsthand experience with market
economies.
Concerning Iraq, most European leaders see Hussein
as a threat. But the Europeans would like to push more aggressively to force him to
accept U.N. weapons inspectors. As for a possible military campaign
to oust him, one European diplomat said, "Show us the plan first."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
