Washington Post

Ambitious. Hard-Nosed. Charming. Quite Clear.

Sunday, June 17, 2001; Page B03

AS THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT criss-crossed the European continent the past five days, he left a wealth of editorial opinion behind. Outlook excerpted a sample, day by day.

'George W. Bush's Spanish stopover'

EL MUNDO, Madrid, June 11

It is not by chance that the president of the world's foremost power has chosen Spain in which to begin his first official visit to Europe. George W. Bush's stopover in Madrid is in line with the priorities of U.S. foreign policy in the new Republican era. Since he was elected president, this Texan who seasons his speeches with phrases in Spanish has made clear his intention of reorienting the strategy promoted by his predecessor. Instead of playing the role of the world gendarme of democracy, Bush aims to reconquer America. Proof of this is the fact that his first two official visits were to Mexico and Canada. And proof of this is his visit to Spain.

Spain and the U.S.A. have a relationship independent from the one between the U.S.A. and Europe: historically and culturally, Spain is the bridge between the New World and the Old.

'George W. Bush's 'Me-Nation''

LE MONDE, Paris, June 12

Americans born after the war, the baby boomers, are thought of as having made up what in the United States is called the "me generation."

The expression suggests a philosophy of life that runs on one prime principle: "me first." Wrongly or rightly, it is supposed to stigmatize a thorough selfishness, unfettered individualism, and a search for immediate satisfactions. George W. Bush the baby boomer, who is visiting Europe this week, is applying this principle to his foreign policy. His ambition seems to be to turn the United States into a sort of me-nation, a country essentially busy, on the international stage, defending national interests defined in the narrowest way. . . . (Alain Frachon)

'Mr. Bush is not the only one who needs to change some of his ways'

THE INDEPENDENT, London, June 12

Rarely has an American president arrived on this side of the Atlantic in such inauspicious circumstances. . . .

The slightest garbling of syntax, the merest confusion of Slovenia with Slovakia, will confirm every fashionable prejudice on the European centre-left that the 43rd president is a bloodthirsty, ignorant Texas oilman, in way over his head. . . .

Before we Europeans yield to fury or condescending mirth, it is worth considering how our continent appears, not only to a hard-nosed Republican administration in Washington, but to some of its own more thoughtful citizens, too. It is a Europe which self-righteously howled at President Bush for his abandonment of Kyoto, but which has failed to ratify the convention itself, and which prattles about defence cooperation and burden sharing within NATO -- but where defence spending instead of rising, continues to fall. . . . Beyond question, the Atlantic relationship is in urgent need of attention . . . . Mr Bush has perhaps done everyone a service by bringing the strains into full focus.

'More than allies'

ABC, Madrid, June 13

The new U.S. administration no longer sees Spain as a mere ally, but rather as a partner and a really important reference point. We refer to Latin America, an area on which Bush has focused a large proportion of his efforts abroad and where Spain and the United States have a dominant position because they are the main investors; the Middle East, a region in which our country enjoys the trust of Arabs and Jews; and Europe. Could Spain become the U.S.A.'s second-favorite ally in the Old Continent, alongside Britain? The great scope of the presidential visit, and the trust and cordiality between the two leaders, seem to confirm it.

'Europe Does Not Need Leaders'

LIDOVE NOVINY, Prague, June 13

Bush and his people are not short of leadership qualities. 'We have a democratic mandate from American voters,' they claim when vigorously enforcing measures that have an impact on the security and the environment of the entire planet. . . .

Alas, leadership conceived in this way elicits in Europeans the exactly opposite reactions. In lieu of leadership they offer partnership, otherwise they will go to the other side, perhaps a little bit out of spite. Bush's insistence is, however, good in one thing. It makes Europe realize that it must cultivate its own leadership qualities.

Nonetheless, would it not be better, after all, to start contemplating partnership again, Mr. Bush? ( Pavel Masa)

'A European Cause'

LE MONDE, Paris, June 13

The death penalty has become a diplomatic problem for the United States. And in particular in Europe. . . .

As if expressly, [Bush's] trip begins the day after the media-saturated execution of the terrorist Timothy McVeigh that sparked a wave of indignation in Europe, where the death penalty no longer applies. Another unfortunate coincidence for Mr. Bush is that the first stage of his trip takes him to Madrid at a time when Spanish public opinion has been brought to fever pitch over the death penalty: Joaquim Martinez, a Spaniard sentenced to death in Florida, returned home Sunday [10 June] after having successfully established his innocence.

A diplomatic problem becomes embarrassing when it starts to interfere with scheduled agendas and speeches. . . . [Bush] no doubt did not expect to have to defend the death penalty under pressure of public opinion. An argument of the type: "We have our laws, you have yours" has little chance of disarming the critics. It is the one used by the Chinese leaders when condemned for human rights violations. . . .

The Europeans have rightly found a providential cause in the rejection of the death penalty. It allows them to lay claim to a moral and legal superiority over the U.S. power.

'The Boss -- Charming and Tough'

SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, Munich, June 14

The atmosphere in Europe before Bush's visit was a little like a firm that is expecting a new boss: Some have already seen him, no one really knows him, but there's one point everyone agrees on: He is disgusting. . . .

The Europeans have learned three things from their first meetings with Bush, and they are the same experiences that the opposition in Washington has had. First, it's risky to underestimate Bush. Second, he can be exceedingly charming, but he is, thirdly, brutally tough when he is set on something. George W. usually gets what he wants.

Sure, he didn't stint on cheap blandishments toward his European colleagues, whom he even called "the other leaders of the free world.". . . But on the facts he remained tough. Neither on the climate protection nor with the ABM treaty did he give a millimeter. . . .

In NATO and the EU, just as in a firm, there are troublemakers and rebels, who don't want to take everything the new boss orders. For Bush these are Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who still want to resist America's missile shield. . . .

Bush himself made his priorities unmistakably clear: The heart of a free and peaceful Europe is NATO. The EU was not even mentioned. (Wolfgang Koydl)

'Mr. Bush and Europe'

THE IRISH TIMES, Dublin, June 15

President George W. Bush's visit to Europe this week comes at a crucial time in the transatlantic relationship, making it important from his point of view that it should go well. And so it has, judged on the evidence so far. At his meetings with NATO and EU leaders in Brussels and Gothenburg, he has been authoritative and cooperative, displaying a good grasp of the issues and a readiness to address them constructively . . .

The statement issued after the summit meeting in Gothenburg goes well beyond the usually obscure trade policy disputes that have dominated these summits in recent years. High politics intrudes, with agreement to disagree on global warming, a firm joint commitment to trade liberalisation and a new World Trade Organisation round (if little concrete progress toward setting its agenda).

'Vital fight for future of planet'

THE MIRROR, London, June 15

The Kyoto treaty without America's signature will not be worth the paper it is written on. Around a fifth of the pollution which is destroying the ozone layer comes from the United States.

The rest of the world can curb the environmental damage it is doing, but that will have little effect without America's involvement.

President Bush says he and the European Union countries will have to agree to disagree. What a stupid thing to say.

He clearly does not realise the importance of Kyoto. Even if he did, he is no more than a mouthpiece for the US oil industry, which employed him and funded his presidential campaign.

'A Better Understanding Between Us and Europe'

THE SCOTSMAN, Edinburgh, June 15

(I)t might help if we Europeans tried harder to understand where Mr. Bush is coming from. Begin with his "rejection" of Kyoto. For a start, it was the entire U.S. Senate -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- who threw out the Kyoto treaty by 95 to 0 in 1997. It is permissible to think they were wrong, but it is then necessary to try to understand why Kyoto has produced this popular rejection in America -- a rejection any U.S. president must respect.

. . . Above all, Europeans need to understand that America is in the middle of a major energy crisis. . . . Seen from this perspective, the Bush remedy of a massive expansion of fossil fuel extraction is rational. . . .

Or consider the question of National Missile Defence. . . . If anyone in Britain wants to get angry over this issue, why not start with Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has just fought an election without mentioning the subject? At least the U.S. president can't be accused of duplicity on this one. Again, Europeans need to remember that it was President Clinton who initiated this programme and that it was also supported by candidate Al Gore. . . . Missile defence is only destabilising if it is unilaterally deployed by one nation. Bush has offered to take the 'national' out of the equation and let other countries have access to the technology. . . .

'Gothenburg morning'

THE TIMES, London, June 16

There is a Swedish proverb which asserts that "the afternoon can know what the morning never suspected." That is an apt reflection on the teargas-scented meetings held this week in Gothenburg, first between George W. Bush and the European Union and then within the EU leadership itself. The two sides deployed as much diplomacy as they could muster to disguise what are profound disagreements over the pursuit or not of national missile defence (NMD) and the ratification or not of the Kyoto protocol . . . New forms of missile defence and international environmental protection have much in common. Both involve an assessment of distant risks.

. . . [But] political structures and systems in our time are particularly poorly conditioned for coping with issues which demand an investment now but give scant return, if any return at all, until 20 or 30 years later. . . .

President Bush . . . represents those who are confident that the technical difficulties associated with NMD can be overcome and that similar knowledge will limit the damage of carbon emissions. Most EU leaders are caught somewhere between their fearful protesters and the forthright President. Only one thing is certain. Whatever decisions are eventually taken, the case for massive current expenditure must somehow be judged against incalculable and distant future benefits. All will have to wait for the afternoon to discover what secrets were denied to the morning.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001