Three controversial aspects. The first meeting between the EU authorities and Barack Obama will take place next Sunday (if all goes according to plan). It should have been a celebration but it's not going to be at all. The largely positive and sometimes enthusiastic European welcome for the new US president will certainly be borne out and transatlantic friendship and cooperation will be highlighted. But at the same time, there are still a few twilight zones. Orientations are not the same on all subjects and uncertainties persist with regard to what the US intends to do in certain areas. Last week, Mr Topolánek, the president of the European Council, expressed a few sharp words with regard to certain aspects of American policy. Notwithstanding some of the ambiguities of the simultaneous interpreting, the French version of the Czech text (translator's note: and translated here from French into English) provided the following with regard to economic and financial questions: “the US is repeating the errors committed in the 1930s which are the road to hell”. Mr Topolánek also warned listeners “not to expect too much from the summit,” and that “that the US president is not a Messiah”. Further developments are still possible by Sunday. At this moment in time, the areas of controversy can be broken down into three points:
1. Partially divergent orientations on policies to follow and measures to take for tackling the economic and financial crisis. This section looked at this issue in EUROPE 9867. We will have to wait for the results of the G20 summit this Tuesday to see things more clearly.
2. Uncertainties regarding developments in US policy in the Near and Middle East and Iran, in particular.
3. US pressure on a number of domestic European issues such as Turkish accession, on which the EU should reach its decision in a totally autonomous manner.
Indirect US influence on the ratification of the LisbonTreaty? This column has absolutely no intention of pontificating about anti-crisis policy or the model of certain US Nobel prize-winners (which in fact contradict each other) but does seek to illustrate some of the factors in the dossiers mentioned above. Mr Topolanek's criticism of Mr Obama's policy was very probably influenced by aspects that he chose to leave out, such as the likely abandonment of the US anti-missile shield whose partial installation in the Czech Republic and Poland had previously been planned. Prague and Warsaw had agreed to this without European level coordination and according to several commentators this project became a domestic strategic component in the Czech Republic whereby a compromise between the Liberals and Socialists would have approved the anti-missile shield at the same time as the Lisbon Treaty. This strategy becomes pointless if Mr Obama abandons the shield and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (which the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus opposes) becomes more complicated.
Three factors in support of dialogue with Iran. The US has always asserted that the anti-missile shield was targeting Iran rather than Russia. This project, however, becomes meaningless if US offers of dialogue proposed to the authorities in Tehran are acted upon. Mr Obama's message on this subject, which represents his most significant and spectacular initiative, could produce two results if successful: it would provide reassurances to Israel and help solve the EU's energy supply problems. Three factors come into play: evolution of civil society in Iran (especially with regard to women); the scale of Iranian oil and gas reserves (indispensable if the Nabucco project is to be profitable); the direct or indirect role that Iran could play in the whole region (including Afghanistan and Iraqi Kurdistan). Banking on Iran means banking on the future, Mr Ahmadinejad is not eternal.
There have always been differences. Some of the Euro-US divergences should be located within the comprehensive framework the European Parliament discussed at length last week (EUROPE 9869 and 9870). There have always been a few differences and these arose well before the arrival of Mr Obama (Airbus/Boeing affair, hormones in meat, visas etc) but are insignificant compared to the level of ties. The goal of a united transatlantic market by 2015, taken up by and supported by the EP, does create some concern because it brings to mind the free-trade zone it had envisaged at the time of Mr Brittan. The EU and US represent by far the most important bilateral relationship in the world at both a political and economic level. It is inevitable that the two parties do not always agree on everything. Disagreements have to be discussed seriously but let's not forget the overall situation.
(F.R./transl.rh)