Washington, 26/06/2003 (Agence Europe) - After the serious row that caused considerable division over Iraq and the management of international crises, the Europeans and Americans stressed their solidarity in the face of common threats, their unshakeable attachment to the fundamental values that unite them and their determination to strengthen their relationship on the basis of the vital interests and goals they share. To do so, they made several concrete, practical moves towards each other at the Summit meeting held on Wednesday at the White House. Discussions were "great", President Bush said, or "very good", "frank and open" according to President of the European Commission Romano Prodi and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, who still holds EU Council Presidency for the next few days.
Speaking to the press, however, they did not hesitate to push themselves forward to insist on their own priorities. The US President said he urged European leaders and those in the rest of the world to launch prompt and decisive action against terrorist groups such as Hamas and to cut off their assets and any support provided by the US. He insisted Hamas must be dismantled, although he was pleased with the recognition - finally shared - of the fact that the greatest threat for security is the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, the closest and most significant coming from North Korea and Iran, a country that the free world hopes will bring itself into line with the international treaties and give free access to IAEA inspectors.
The important thing, European discussion partners stressed, is that the transatlantic relationship should be strong and productive, that the Summit result in common achievements. This is fundamental, "vital for us both", for jobs and economic growth, for international security and order. As Mr Simitis insisted: "If we differ sometimes, it is on the best way to apply the principles we share". He welcomed with Mr Prodi the fact that the partners now realise it is normal and acceptable not to agree on everything. The "Union and the United States cannot of course have the same opinion and share the same policy in every sphere. There will always be questions and moments when we will differ" but "our friendship assumes that we agree to differ, that we manage our differences with discipline", Mr Simitis added. He noted pragmatically: "Cooperation with the United States on security and defence is inevitable and desirable". President Prodi said that, when Europe and the United States are united, there is no problem, no enemy can stand against them. He cited a remark made by President Bush in Poland, with a carefully weighed warning for the future: "If we fail to unite, any problem may become a crisis and every enemy a gigantic monster".
The Summit, which was clearly more productive and substantial than usual, was no doubt a red-letter day. The serious crisis that they have gone through perhaps contributed to the realism and maturity demonstrated by the partners during this meeting where the resolve was ostensibly, on both sides, to turn the page on the Iraq crisis by drawing lessons for the future. President Bush, who is currently tending to be highly critical of the European moratorium on GMOs and the Union's "lack of sensitivity" to this potential cure-all against famine, had even taken care to pursue the offensive outside the Summit, just a few days earlier, in the context of a conference on biotechnology (see page 12 on the subject of remarks by Mr Lamy and Mr Zoellick). Mr Prodi said they had focused on concrete decisions because they did not have any energy to waste for "bashing on differences", all the more as these differences are "shrinking". He placed emphasis on what the partners accomplished in Washington: the signing of agreements on extradition and mutual legal assistance (the first time ever in relations between the Union and the third countries), the kick-off given to a "major" effort in joint research for developing a hydrogen market, the launching of negotiations on an open transatlantic airspace (see p.13), the agreement between respective customs authorities on strengthening security of maritime containers in the existing framework of customs cooperation between the United States and the Union as such, as well as the marked resolve to make the Doha round of talks a success.
The European side welcomes the fact that the scope of transatlantic cooperation will be extended and that there is clearly a move toward this on both sides, especially with regards non-proliferation, even though the balance is now leaning a little more towards the American position and even if most of the controversial issues evoked at the Summit remain blocked (Hamas, International Criminal Court, the protection of personal data, reform of agricultural policy, genetically modified organisms, etc.)
Real and significant progress are, however, undeniable. Particularly in the areas of defence and security, the fact that the union now recognises that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a "real threat and that action should be taken" against rogue states, which was the focal point for Washington, while the US also believes in multilateral reinforcements and admits that resorting to preventive attacks is not done automatically. This allows for hope that there will not be a repetition of the recent trans-Atlantic crisis, this time over Iran. "Our perceptions about the threat to security converge more than in the past. The European thought then that the US exaggerated completely and the Americans that we were totally unaware. According to one senior official, the relationship was not good for reaching an understanding. Increasing consciousness at the US Administration of the enormity of the task (WMA, weapons of mass destruction), terrorism, reconstruction in Iraq and the need to be able to count on the closest and complementary allies, has certainly been a determining factor, in the same way that the leap forward made by the European in Thessaloniki by agreeing to the main principles in security strategy and a declaration on the proliferation, with a promptness that was quite unusual (see our special edition on 22 June). Added to this is the emphasis on economic integration between Europe and America. "They are aware that they can't do everything alone and that the damages cause by tub thumping from certain quarters (notably Donald Rumsfeld, whose absence could perhaps be interpreted as a desire for appeasement": Editor's note, according to one European expert's analysis. The Union is perhaps too old but the US is therefore too young and we both need to find a middle road, replied President Prodi during a joint press conference that closed the summit. But while the Bush administration succeeded in proving that its new trans-Atlantic commitment was genuine, the European admit that it is difficult for them to reach a common position and that a multiplication of representatives does not make it any easier for Washington, especially in the domain of external and security policy. President Bush stated that when the European had an opinion, we want to negotiate with them. "We are always speaking of what the Europeans are going to do at the meeting with the Americans but the Americans have also gone down the road, which is important for us and this is what we've been asking for a long time, noted one European source. Some have done it in agreeing to put their diplomatic and economic weight on their preferential relations with countries, such as Iran, towards which US security policy is currently targeting, while others are "genuinely" committed at the highest level to push forward the protagonists in the Middle East conflict and "implement" the Road Map to peace. This, say the Europeans, is proof that they complement each other.
Positions still far from convergent on Iran and Hamas
As well as the finer details regarding Iran, the summit appeared to allow critical dissent to persist between the trans-Atlantic partners with regard to the Palestinian organisation, Hamas. The realism that marked this meeting could, however, continue to win out and allow for convergence soon. The Europeans are clearly under US pressure with regard to Hamas and a new declaration, closer to that of the US, is being mooted. One diplomatic source said that there was a real possibility that this is done soon but with certain qualification. On the other hand, a European agreement appears more plausible on the "other Palestinian terrorist groups", targeted by Washington, notably Hezbollah, whose political and social dimension appears to Europeans to be much more bent to the military, which is not the case for Hamas. According to European sources, there is far more common ground than ever between Europeans and Americans on such organisations. They obviously agree, he says, that their deeds are to be condemned and that they undermine the peace process. At the same time, the Americans are beginning, it seems, to realise that real, clear and strong measures must also be imposed on the Israeli side, the European source continues. To this must be added the fact that America believes that, in post-war Iraq, there is a clear decline in the sympathy felt for the US in the region, and that the creation of a Palestinian state that is viable alongside the State of Israel will no doubt be a key test for its relations with the Arab world. On the subject of Iran, Mr Simitis said that "none of us spoke of force in this case".