EUROPE-US: Action Must Follow Rhetoric, Say Observers

By Julio Godoy Reprint | | Print |

Julio Godoy

PARIS, Feb 9 2005 (IPS) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic efforts during her present European tour to mend relations with Germany and France will not suffice to restore confidence on both sides of the Atlantic, according to analysts and observers.

In a diplomatic tour de force, Rice visited ten European and Middle Eastern capitals in five days, starting in London on Feb. 4, and closing in Brussels and Luxembourg on Feb. 9-10.

Especially in Germany and France, Rice made a considerable effort to heal the wounds opened between the U.S. government of George W. Bush and what U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once pejoratively called "Old Europe", during the crisis over the Iraq war.

At the renowned Institute for Political Studies in Paris, where Rice gave a speech Feb. 8 on the principles that would guide U.S. foreign policy for the years to come, she said her government "has everything to gain from having a stronger Europe as a partner in building a safer and better world."

"So let each of us bring to the table ideas, experience and resources and let us discuss and decide – together – how to best employ them for democratic change," Rice added.

But her warm words towards Europe in general, and Germany and France in particular – in Poland she even described Rumsfeld’s reference to "Old Europe" as an "unfortunate concept, a total misunderstanding" – failed to convince many European observers.

Beyond the customary reactions from German and French officials to Rice’s tour – in Paris, France’s Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said her visit to Europe would "start in a new way this very old relationship" – independent analysts said they missed concrete proposals to restore a relationship based on mutual respect and compliance with international law and conventions.

Francois Heisbourg, a respected French senior researcher on international relations and military affairs and former diplomat who attended Rice’s conference at the Institute of Political Studies, called her speech "strange."

"Its basic line, apart from praising freedom and liberty, was let’s let bygones be bygones," Heisbourg said in a press conference. "But being against freedom and liberty is like being against motherhood and apple pie," he pointed out.

Olivier Duhamel, a political scientist and member of the European Parliament, said that the failure of U.S. policies in the Middle East have forced the U.S. government to reach out again to powerful partners.

"Reality punished the U.S. for its excesses in Iraq, so now they need France and they need Europe," Duhamel said. That need explains the new tune of U.S. diplomacy towards the EU, he added.

French and German students attending the conference also expressed distrust towards the U.S. government. Mélanie, a French political science student, said, "Rice did not convince me. She only repeated empty slogans, but said nothing new or of substance."

Using a play on words and referring to Rice by her nickname Condi, another student, Brigitte, said simply: "Condi ment". ("Condiment" means seasoning, but "Condi ment" means "Condi lies").

Pierre Moscovici, a former minister for European affairs and an expert on international affairs in the leading opposition Socialist Party, was not so harsh. But he said "I do not see U.S. positions coming closer to those of France or Europe. The U.S. government only says, ‘We are reaching out our hand to you’, but, when it comes down to action, it tries to do what it wants."

Commenting on Rice’s speech, leading diplomatic analyst Patrick Sabatier with the daily newspaper Libération said he doubted that future deeds would match the new U.S. foreign policy stance.

Sabatier wrote: "Rice talks the talk, but will she walk the walk?", to express his doubts that the new U.S. efforts are no more than lip service to diplomatic conventions.

"We must suspect that Bush’s conversion to the virtues of multilateralism and dialogue is only a tactical adjustment in view of the enormous difficulties he is facing in Iraq," Sabatier added.

Therefore, he suggested, "let’s judge the quality of this ‘new chapter’ in U.S.-European relations promised by Rice, on the U.S. actions in the Middle East, on global warming, on the policy towards Iran and China."

In all these questions, Sabatier added, Europe and the United States have different approaches.

This is especially true in the case of Iran. While the U.S. government has not ruled out the possibility of a military attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, arguing that the regime in Teheran is trying to build weapons of mass destruction, Europe, led by France, Germany and Britain, is engaged in a diplomatic effort to convince the Iranian leadership to renounce nuclear weapons.

In Germany, senior officials said the diplomatic crisis with the United States over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 created a new awareness of the country’s independence from the United States.

Karsten Voigt, in charge of U.S.-German relations at the German Foreign Ministry, said "Germany is no longer a U.S. junior partner."

According to Voigt, Germany has become "an exporter of geo-strategic security. But to export this security, (the German government) must be convinced that the conditions require our intervention."

Despite U.S. calls for German military engagement in Iraq, the government in Berlin has consistently rejected these demands and insists that it will continue accompanying the reconstruction process without any direct presence in the Middle Eastern country.

Rice’s difficulties in convincing a European audience largely lie in the role she herself played during the diplomatic crisis over Iraq in 2003. At the time, Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, suggested that he "forgive Russia, ignore Germany, and punish France" in response to these countries’ opposition to U.S. war plans against Iraq.

In early 2003, France, Germany and Russia had warned that they would oppose the U.S. demand for a United Nations Security Council resolution legitimating a military attack against Iraq. France even announced it would veto such a resolution.

But France has gradually come to the realisation that opposition to the U.S.-led war on Iraq, even if it brought some prestige in international forums, also underlined the powerlessness of France (and other European nations) to create an effective operating policy based on a sound moral position.

France’s acceptance of its own weakness in that respect is reflected by the concessions it has made to the U.S. administration on matters concerning Iraq.

Paris has officially praised the electoral process in Iraq, despite the constraints faced in the elections, and also ceased to call for a withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from Iraqi soil.

France even agreed to cancel Iraq’s foreign debt – something that French President Jacques Chirac had staunchly opposed, arguing that it would be immoral to write off Iraqi debt while other highly indebted countries have been involved in negotiations to that end for more than a decade, without attaining significant results.

But when the time came, Chirac and France turned their backs on that position and capitulated to U.S. demands.