America's armed forces are stretched thin and Washington is seeking support from its European allies to re-balance the trans-Atlantic relationship, writes Gamal Nkrumah from London "When Europe and America stand together, no problem can stand against us," declared United States President George W Bush in Brussels on Monday. He won applause -- but failed to muster a standing ovation. "America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world," Bush explained. But there is growing curiosity about the real motives behind America's sudden change of heart. Europeans resent seeing the US strutting the world stage, waging wars and demanding that Europe abides by America's agenda. Be that as it may, America does not want to be in Europe's bad books. And, neither does Europe enjoy antagonising America. But it would be foolish to think that the countries Bush branded as "Old Europe" during his first term of office would now forget the outbursts, tantrums and slurs heaped on them by both Bush and others in the Bush administration. They cannot forget the past and implicitly trust Bush. They would be naïve to do so because they have a radically different agenda from that of Bush and his henchmen across the Atlantic. Liberal and secularist Europe instinctively mistrusts America's neo-conservatives and the Christian Right. Even so, three very important European nations -- Britain, Italy and Poland -- have committed to the idea of standing by the US and have troops stationed in Iraq. This week, Bush met Jaap de Hoop, the secretary-general of NATO. Bush wants NATO to supervise the training of Iraqi security forces, even though some of his European allies disapprove. No matter, De Hoop fully espouses the US dictates. "We have fully manned and financed what we have committed to do," De Hoop told reporters in Brussels, much to the US president's delight. Bush also met heads of state and governments of the 25 European Union member states and with President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. As a former prime minister of Portugal, Barroso played host to both Bush and Blair in the Portuguese mid- Atlantic islands of the Azores, a crucial summit that sealed the fate of Iraq, and prepared the ground for the US-led invasion. So Bush was among friends in Brussels. He might have his European critics, but his friends far outweigh his foes. Bush firmly believes that his fight for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, the rest of the Arab world and even further afield in places like the Ukraine is bearing rich fruit. Europe is more ambiguous. Even Bush's closest allies question the logic of invading Iraq. Europe is not so sure that Bush is on the right track in Iraq, at any rate. Europe might well want to advance freedom in the world, but its methodology is diametrically opposed to the gun-toting US style. Moreover, Europe is not too enthusiastic over America's meddling in European affairs, especially where it concerns European enlargement. Washington has vocally advocated that both Turkey and the Ukraine join the European Union. In Brussels, Bush said the Ukraine "must be welcomed by the Euro-Atlantic community," perhaps an oblique reference to NATO. The Europeans do not welcome such brash statements by Bush and other members of his administration. Both the Ukraine and Turkey have taken the opportunity of Bush's presence in Brussels to push for full EU membership. In Brussels, pro- Washington Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko called for speeding up accession talks with the EU. He needs all the US assistance he can muster in his quest for fully-fledged EU membership for the Ukraine. Indeed, Yushchenko's visit to Brussels was replete with significant symbolism. Yushchenko met Bush first before meeting his Belgian hosts and other European leaders. Both Turkey and the Ukraine are making the most of US pressure on Europe to admit two relatively politically weighty, strategically located and populous nations into the EU fold. Few Europeans believe in America's "great liberating tradition" as Bush so proudly proclaimed in his inauguration speech last month. But most Europeans deeply resent what the French term "American hyperpuissance" or "hyperpowerdom". Bush was given a polite hearing in Brussels, and a few European leaders, like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi and Britain's Blair, actually see eye to eye with Bush on key foreign policy issues. But even some of Bush's staunchest allies, such as Blair, differ with Bush on one key issue. Blair, like the vast majority of his European counterparts, strongly believes that poverty lies at the root of terrorism. A hungry world is an angry one. Poverty and gross social injustice engenders terrorism and violence. Neither does the US and Europe see eye to eye as far as Iran is concerned. The Europeans do not approve of America's arm- twisting tactics over Iran's nuclear policy. The Europeans want to encourage dialogue and goodwill with the Iranians. The Americans, it seems, are on the warpath. There is no meeting of minds as far as China is concerned. The EU has taken steps to lift the arms embargo on China and the Americans are far from being pleased. Washington wants to see more stringent safeguards on weapons shipments to China. On other important global questions, there are diversions of interests between Europe and the US. American hostility to the Kyoto Treaty on global warming and the diametrically opposing European and American views on global warming is a bone of contention poisoning relations between Europe and America. Europe wants to keep Kyoto alive as a burning issue of global concern. America is simply not bothered by all the fuss about Kyoto. America, though, is right to be worried about its own unpopularity in Europe and around the world. In Europe anti- Americanism is part and parcel of the growing anti-globalisation movement, as opposed to the official position. And Europeans are justified in their growing sense of alarm that foreign policy-makers in Europe can now only define European foreign policy in relation to Washington's agenda. Europe, it seems, is incapable of launching a foreign policy that clearly identifies vital European interests based on the more liberal views the continent upholds. Clearly Europe cannot be held hostage to US dictates.
