Alrighty, usually any thread I start in GD has the shelf life of… well, no shelf life but I’d like to flesh this out a little bit, particularly with our Euro-Dopers.
Let’s assume as true for a moment:
The majority of those in Europe do not trust the U.S.’ intentions, and more specifically President Bush and his administration.
The rift between the U.S. and allies, although significant, is not permanent and unable to be repaired.
John Kerry wins the Presidential election in November over President George W. Bush.
For discussion, and particularly for Euro-Dopers:
How far does the election alone go towards repairing the rift between our countries?
How long do you think it will take to restore the trust between allies?
Do you think that the U.S. will have to completely cave to Europe and/or the U.N. over the first couple years of the Kerry Administration to gain back that trust/credibility or can it continue to pursue its own agenda?*
Besides the election, what is the single most significant thing the U.S. can do to help repair relations?**
Thanks,
MeanJoe
I realize that comes across as a “loaded question” and I do not mean it to be one. I am curious as to the measures you feel the U.S. will have to go. Specifically, if the U.S. continues a “War on Terror” and continues to attempt to build a democracy in Iraq under the Kerry administration would Europe still hold the same view (negative) as it does today? Also, I realize that “continue its own agenda” is loaded - the scenario I imagine is the U.S. re-engaging the U.N. and its allies but still pursuing an agenda that benefits the U.S. (afterall, we are a soverign nation and like all nations we will look out for our interests)
** Be realistic please, for example the U.S. is just not going to pull out of Iraq immediately to appease the anti-war types. Whether you agree or not with the cause, the effect is we are there now and must do the right thing to give the Iraqi people a chance of peace.
I’m not an euro-doper… but a south american one. Still here goes:
The election itself will be a major repair… especially if its not too tight a win. The more Kerry wins… the more it seems the US electorate has turned around from warring views and truculence. If Kerry is stronger due to a good win he has more political leeway (internally) to start things well.
The first weeks will determine how well Kerry comes across too. Naturally there will be a very big amount of good will in relation to Kerry and the US can even take advantage (good sense) of that right at the start. Relief at seeing Bush gone will open a lot of doors.
Underlying your statements seems to be the question... will Kerry have to grovel or bend over a bit in order to get the allies back. I doubt it. He must naturally sooth feelings and visit the european allies (equally) soon after election. Naturally pulling troops from Iraq does little good and I doubt they will ask for it or Kerry offer it.
South America, that is in Europe isn’t it? Haha! World view opinions are always welcome, I mentioned Europe as that seems to be the focus of most of the diplomatic fall-out but clearly we’ve alienated some of our Southern Hemisphere friends too.
You are right that an underlying concern is will the U.S. have to grovel or bend over to the U.N./Europe. Although a certain amount of conciliatory work is going to need to be done by the U.S. to regain trust, I think a fair amount of people in the U.S. who align themselves as conservative have a real issue with the idea of having to grovel to the U.N. I do not mean to frame my questions however to imply that Kerry will do this, as some anti-Kerry folks will claim. I am not interested in debate on the merits of Kerry as President and if he would indeed grovel to the U.N. - I am interested in what would sway world opinion and help improve relationships between the U.S. and her allies.
Bending and grovelling? I can’t think of a single European country that would require that, and if any do, then they aren’t worth any US attention. Schmoozing, on the other hand, schmoozing would definitely be necessary, but it’s no humiliation to schmooze–if it’s done well.
Europe is not so naive to believe that a country will always adhere to moral principle and ignore its own national interest.
However, where I believe the US has strayed during this administration is not so much treading on a few toes as deliberately stomping around in Soviet-style hobnailed boots. A Democratic president might still have invaded Iraq and thrown out Kyoto or any number of international treaties, but would have valued diplomacy as a way of avoiding an utter loss of good will between nations. (However, I don’t think a Dem administration would ever have started a trade war with Europe or denied its combat prisoners legal recourse like the current one did.)
Some commitment to international law would be welcomed: I think only the most tinfoil-laden paranoid neoCon would equate this to “caving in” to Europe. And note that the UN is its member states - there is no “them” and “us”.
There is tremendous source of basic good-will towards the United States in Europe, as in most of the rest of the world, which a Kerry win - especially a decisive win - will be able to immediately tap. The first hundred days, as usual, will set the trend.
It is not a matter of time but of positive action within a certain time. A six month to one year track record of positive diplomatic effort should crack it is my best guess.
Grovelling should not be asked for or offered. The US have the opportunity to take the high ground again - by fully engaging with with UN processes (whilst looking after the essential US national interest as you have always done) and meeting their legal and outstanding financial obligations to the UN. A flip flop on ***one ** * important issue towards something Europe can agree to (not a complete cave in even) would do it. Surely that should not be so difficult given the neocon agenda.
Take on the Zionist lobby in the US and force Israel into concessions and the negotiation table. Ideally breaking the stategic alliance with them - and not using the US veto at the UN on every initiative on the ME that hits the table. This is probably a stretch target given the traditional Democratic support for Israel is at least as strong as the GOP but would be the most important single act the new administration could do. It would be a historic break with post-War US policy, however would be seen in a **VERY ** positive light by the rest of the world, especially the Moslem world, **without ** being seen to give in the terrorism. In my view this is a precondition to the ultimate defeat of much of international terrorism against the US by winning hearts and minds, and cutting the ground from under the terrorists.
Let me give me take on it, which is broadly similar to the other posters contributions.
I think just the election alone would improve relations a great deal. Not because he’s a Democrat, but because he’s not Bush, and not responsible for what happened under Bush’s presidency. However if Kerry just continues along the path Bush is going, then this goodwill would evaporate very rapidly.
The US would not have to “cave in” to Europe or the UN. Just an attempt by the US to improve diplomatic relations with various countries, even if this is not accompanied by any concessions whatever would have an effect i think. The Bush administration gives the impression it decides what its going to do, and then does it, regardless of any other countries’ position on the matter. This is stupid, even if you are going to carry out an action whatever happens you don’t say it, you still listen to your allies, give the impression you have taken in their positions, and then do it anyway.
The most significant thing IMO the US could do to help repair relations would either be handing over control of Iraq to the UN, or perhaps showing real commitment to a ME peace process.
sailor - I have read your contributions to this board many times in the past and have agreed and disagreed with your positions so no offense intended - what is the point of this post other than to Bush bash?
My OP clearly stated as an assumption that the majority of Europe do not trust the U.S.’ intentions, specifically the Bush administration. Your cite is therefore pointless, no one (yet at least) has questioned that premise.
It is clearly implied that this is not a discussion of President Bush but rather working from the assumption that Bush is no longer President and what can be done to win back some of the trust and goodwill of the US allies.
If you feel the need to contribute to the SDMB an opinion on world sentiment and Bush’s responsibility feel free to start another OP. It has been done a million times so far but who knows, perhaps it will give another opportunity for people to argue in circles. I desire in this OP to exchange ideas/opinions on how, assuming a Kerry administration, the rift can be closed. I’d be very interested in your thoughts on that subject.
I agree that more U.N. involvement, or a complete turn-over, would be a smart move at this point.
Concerning a “real commitment to a ME peace process”, can you expand on what you mean by this? I do not want to hijack my own thread but I am curious as to what you suggest as policy and to what end?
As NotQuiteKarpov alluded to, I do not think this is a realistic policy shift as both the GOP and Democratic Party have strong allegances to Israel. Nor am I convinced, even if it would result in more good will towards the U.S., that an abandonment of US/Israel relations is a “good thing”. Unfortunately, this issue is one where a moderate voice/compromise does not seem to satisfy either side…
Thanks for your thoughts on this topic, I appreciate it!
IMO, re-engagement with the UN by Kerry would be greeted with a cautious welcome by Europe. Conversely, exactly the same re-engagement by Bush would be greeted with abject suspicion.
[BTW, here’s the full survey mentioned in the Washington Post. Europe’s negative attitudes to the US are bad, but nowhere near as bad as they are towards Bush. (57% negative rating even with the US’s chief ally!) There are some serious bridges to be rebuilt.]
MeanJoe, I think my post contained factual information relevant to the topic at hand but please, by all means, feel free to ignore any posts if you consider they do not add anything useful. If the thread was being hijacked you might want to reconduct it but a single post with some factual info is probably best ignored if you think it is irrelevant. . . or shall we get sidetracked arguing about whether the post is relevant or not?
I mean some sort of serious attempt to get a peace process between Israel and Palestine up and running again. I’m imagining something like EU or US negotiators talking to both sides, and publishing some sort of timescale for various things to happen, then applying heavy pressure on both Israel and Palestine to stick to it. It doesn’t mean that the US should do it single handedly, or have to sacrifice its good relations with Israel. It is a widely considered opinion that any ME peace process would need the full support of the US to have any chance of succeeding.
A) Generally speaking, the countries implicitly named are either not our allies in fact or approve of our actions. Lets face it, France has not been a real ally of the US except when it serves their interests. Germany is nominally an ally but has little to do with military operations. Therefore, I think your conidtion is a wee bit innacurate.
B) Plain fact of the matter is that even Kerry is far different from what the French want in the Oval Office.
I think an argument could be made pro and con about the nature of the alliances with France and Germany.
Although I am not certain to what extent Kerry may indeed differ from the desires of France do you think there is an expectation on behalf of European or other nations that they are going to get everything they want out of the U.S.?
I think many have posted to this thread an opinion* that they do not expect as much from the U.S. and that expects that we are still going to pursue our interests, albeit preferably with more diplomatic tact.
Which attitude would be more prevalent?
As an American, and considering the heated discussions on this board about the Bush administration and the declining opinion of the US around the world, I am glad to see some very reasonable and moderate responses. It is good to know, at least from this small sample, that there are doors still open.
One thing suggested at by a couple posters in this thread is the margin of victory being a factor. Is this reasonable? If Kerry wins by a narrow margin, the implication is that world opinion will be less swayed than by a larger margin.
I cannot help but think of the Bush administration’s narrow victory. Does the failure to deliver an overwhelming victory, or mandate, thereby undermine confidence? Clearly an observer must take into consideration that the US is a very diverse population and cannot necessarily be judged by the margin of victory but by the policies of the country?
I don’t think the vote count counts for anything. When Kerry comes in you would have a grace period of pleasantries and butt sniffing and then everything would be directly dependent on actual results. If Kerry is as incompetent as Bush he is not going to get any better results.
Nations deal with the President of the USA and they do not care about whether he was elected by a wide or a narrow margin. IMHO it is the way it should be too. The prez speaks for the nation and it is not right that in a summit the presidents start comparing the sizes of their. . . margins. It would be funny though.
This to me is an example of the sort of thinking that has lead Bush’s administration to struggle diplomatically.
There are several statements and implicit assumptions in it.
France and to a lesser extent Germany are not allies.
Treat them like they’re not allies, and they soon won’t be. The fact is both trade a lot with the US, and share common values of freedom and democracy. Additionally, all three countries are allied militarily, in NATO.
France has not been a “real ally” except when it is their self interest
Expecting any country to act against their own self interest is naive. Noone expects the US to act against its own self interest, why should you expect France too? This may come as a shock to you, but the only reason the US and UK are such strong allies is because it is in both their own self interests.
Germany is nominally an ally but has little to do with military operations
Germany is a member of NATO.
The French would only be happy if the US President did whatever they want
No country expects any other to act against their own self interest. France is no different in this regard.
It is hostile assumptions like this that cause the US to suffer diplomatically, when it has no reason too! The US and Europe share a great deal of common bonds - bonds of trade, culture, history, ideals, aspirations. To treat European countries as if they were the enemy is counter productive.
I do believe Bush has accumulated such ill will from Europe that Kerry would have a huge advantage initially, at least initially. His main advantage is that he is not Bush. It is no secret that European leaders dislike Bush and would prefer to deal with anybody else. Zapatero has already said so and the premier of Poland just made some declarations about how he feels about the WMD non-existance (in other words, having been lied to) and said he feels stuck in Iraq but may withdraw the Polish troops earlier than planned and as soon as possible without causing major disruption.
It may be that the fall of the bushistas in Spain has triggered the panic and everybody now will distance themselves from Bush like the plague which means they would endorse Kerry. No doubt Kerry would start with enormous international goodwill. What he does with it is another matter but, let’s face it, right now the bar is pretty low.