THE BUSH WHITE House has earned itself a reputation for a highly reactive rather than thoughtful foreign policy. Its first instinct has always been to bully or strike out. Worse, with its Middle East agenda largely dictated by the US Zionist lobby, it has foolishly accepted a set of policy positions which in the long run may well prove largely inimical to US interests.
But Secretary of State Colin Powell always seemed to be different. As a military man, he was known as a team player, someone who sought out the best advice from as many quarters as seemed reasonable and then carefully listened to it. If he went against what he had been told, it was only after he had thought a question through himself. In the end, however much a general may look to his team of advisers, the final decision rests with him as the commander. Powell was good at being a general.
He has also seemed good as secretary of state, managing to distance himself slightly from some of the White House’s wilder assertions, while never for a minute seeming to be disloyal to his chief. The fact that he has picked up the ball of the projected Middle East peace conference and run with it, despite the ultimate peril to his own political reputation, would seem to demonstrate that this is a man with a wide and selfless vision of the world, in which he has been asked to do an extremely tough job.
Suddenly however Powell appears to have stepped out of character. He has rounded upon the Europeans, accusing them of continuous carping about US foreign policy, specifically in the war against international terrorism. The European Union, in particular its commissioner for foreign affairs, Britisher Chris Patten but also European countries in general, with the exception of the slavish UK, have indeed been critical of America’s intemperate saber-rattling. Bush’s January attack upon Iran, Iraq and North Korea as “the axis of evil” was considered by the Europeans to be intemperate. One top EU official described it as “absolutist and simplistic” and Patten himself said such language was “unhelpful”.
Now Powell has sought to justify the Bush take-no-prisoners hard line by saying that it has worked. North Korea, he says, now wants to talk to Washington and Iraq is giving the appearance of better behavior. All the grim warnings about the intervention in Afghanistan have proved plain wrong. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that, and Powell, who is no fool, should know this. The Europeans may sometimes immure themselves in excessive subtleties, but they have been practicing foreign policy for a great deal longer than Washington. At the very least, Europeans believe that proposed lines of action as aggressive as those being taken by the Americans, need a bit more thought, need to be tested in debate and assessed for the long rather than the short-term consequences.
Europe therefore, which has no real animus against the United States, has merely sought to press gently on the brakes; to stop a headlong rush into disaster and to examine all the options more deeply. This ought to have been a line with which the military man in Powell would have find sympathy. But clearly he does not. He and his president will shortly be embarking upon a European tour and Powell has chosen this moment to launch his outspoken attack. It looks as if there are going to be a lot of raised voices echoing down European corridors of power when the Bush-Powell road show arrives.
Hopefully the trip will not degenerate into a series of slanging matches. The Europeans may seem too cautious for US tastes. They may be suspected of having the ulterior motive of building up the EU’s global standing as a political, as well as an economic bloc. Nevertheless, the plain fact is that Bush’s foreign policy will fail without European backing. Even if the president doesn’t appreciate this, his more thoughtful secretary of state ought to.
