President George Bush’s moves to repair the breach between the US and Europe over Iraq are extremely welcome. Washington has finally made the sea-change it has hinted at ever since the president started his second term and for which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paved the way with her own recent Eurotour, that might is not right. It may be the world’s remaining superpower, but the US has conceded the principle that it does not have the right to decide the fate of the rest of us, even when those decisions may be motivated by the best of intentions.
Even more encouraging than this mending of trans-Atlantic fences is Bush’s statement yesterday that peace in the Middle East is his “greatest opportunity and immediate goal”. This is language that the region and the world rejoices to hear — although if Bush truly believes that a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians is “within reach” and had made it his top priority, then what are we waiting for? There is only one person who can deliver if he really wants to — and it is him.
Bush’s five-day visit to Europe, which will see him having one-to-one meetings with almost every leader on the continent, is no rough wooing or one-sided affair. The Europeans too have decided that better trans-Atlantic relations are necessary and that the time for disagreements over Iraq is over. They are happy to be wooed and as a sign of their change of heart are now willing to actively help in its reconstruction. Not that they are without their own agendas.
There is a bride-price they want Washington to pay, and it includes, among others, American reconsideration of climate change and an end to the arms embargo on China. Germany and France in particular are keen to export their weaponry; for all the issues of political morality, business, after all, is business.
However, encouraging though the rapprochement in Brussels appears, Bush’s advances have a worrying undertone. It is not the anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian rhetoric of the speech, which was marked. But they will not be taken up by the Europeans. They may concur with Washington on the necessary end result in both cases — Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon and curtailment of the Iranian nuclear program — but they believe in dialogue to achieve it, not threats.
What sets alarm bells ringing is the underlying assumption in the speech that if the US alone cannot decide the fate of the rest of the world, the US and Europe can. This is no affirmation of multilateralism but an extension of the coalition of the willing. “Today America and Europe face a moment of consequence and opportunity”, Bush said. The US and Europe shared the challenge of bringing about peace in the Middle East, of Russia’s weakening democracy, of Iran’s nuclear program. But what about the rest of us? Do we not have a role to play as well, a voice to be heard.
International decision making cannot be left to a comfortable coalition of the Americans and Europeans. That is nothing more than Western colonialism in a modern guise. Multilateralism does not mean Washington and Brussels deciding what is best for us. It means the UN being the decision maker. If all Bush is doing in Europe this week is ensuring a slightly wider coalition of the willing, then it is to be rejected.
