ISSUE AREAS:

BASIC MEDIA ADVISORY

20 FEBRUARY 2005

President Bush’s Visit to Europe:
A Bridge Over Troubled Water?

President Bush is expected to talk with European political leaders about a number of pressing international concerns, including specific steps to support the new government in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran's nuclear programme and the lifting of the EU arms embargo on China.

The tone of the second Bush administration so far has been different than the first. The recent visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a signal of this new effort in transatlantic relations. Dr Rice gave the impression during her visit that it was now recognised in Washington that a united and strong Europe is good for the United States. In contrast to the first term, when the Bush administration gave the impression that it was interested in a weak and divided Europe, picking and choosing countries that were convenient for various 'coalitions of the willing'.

However, a more positive tone will not be enough. On many issues-Iraq, Iran, the lifting of a weapons embargo to China, climate change, the 'war on terror' and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction-Europe and the United States remain deeply divided. The Bush administration needs to show that it is willing to compromise on certain issues if the United States is to expect more cooperation from Europe. European leaders will also need to give some ground as well.

On Iraq

So far the entire strategy has been decided in Washington DC. The heavy-handed tactics of the occupying forces seem to have abetted the forces of Islamic extremism and there is little prospect of an early withdrawal of US and British troops. The violence of the insurgency and sectarian and ethnic rivalries continue unabated.

A successful democratic Iraq is in the interests of the Iraqi people and neighbouring states, as well as the both the United States and Europe. A new strategic decision-making process is needed, perhaps by establishing a new Contact Group for Iraq, if the US expects more cooperation and participation. In turn, the EU and member states should offer more reconstruction funding and nation-building training for Iraq. After the drafting and ratification of an Iraqi constitution, and if requested by the Iraqi government, NATO could oversee a multinational stabilisation force in Iraq.

For recent BASIC analysis on Iraq, see 'How Deep and How Long Will NATO Go in Afghanistan and Iraq?' http://www.basicint.org/update/NATO041209.htm.

On Iran

Britain, France and Germany (EU-3) are attempting to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme in exchange for technological, financial and political support. President Bush has refused to say whether he would offer support for efforts by the EU-3. The US and Israel are skeptical that such talks will halt Iran's nascent nuclear weapon ambitions, while European leaders say Iran is unlikely to sign onto an agreement that lacks a US endorsement. US-Iranian relations are in a downward spiral: the US is accused of flying spy drones over Iran's nuclear sites, while Iran has formed a mutual self-defence pact with Syria.

The underlying hostility between the United States and Iran will have to be addressed and Iran's security needs will have to be met, for a sustainable and credible long-term solution. Continued US economic sanctions and veiled threats of military action are counterproductive.

For further BASIC analysis, see: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN041123.htm

On Arms to China

The European Union has been moving towards lifting its arms embargo on China, which it implemented after the Chinese government's crackdown on human rights protesters in 1989. The EU says that ending the embargo is part of an attempt to reintegrate China into the international community, and claims that its Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (established in 1998) is an effective substitute for the embargo. The United States is nervous about the lifting of the embargo, claiming that European countries will send sensitive weapons to China despite the Code. The United States worries that the lifting of the embargo will add to China-Taiwan tensions and undermine US efforts to use the withholding of weapons from China for leverage on its human rights policy. US senators have warned that they might introduce legislation blocking military cooperation with European allies.

The EU should maintain the arms embargo on China, review and strengthen the criteria in the EU Code of Conduct during the British Presidency of the EU, and push China to ratify the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights before it lifts the arms embargo. In turn, the US administration should support the development of an international code of conduct on arms transfers, such as an Arms Trade Treaty, which has been proposed by international NGOs and others (for example: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/images/ul/_/
_user_My_Documents_Amnesty_Work_control_arms_FrameworkConvention.pdf).

For more on the EU Code of Conduct and wider EU and US arms control relations, see the jointly-authored BASIC and Saferworld roundtable report: EU and US Co-operation on Arms Export Controls in a Post 9/11 World: http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Joint/EUUSemReport.pdf

On the Future of NATO

At a security conference in Munich earlier this month, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder declared (via a representative) that NATO is "no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and coordinate strategies." This remark took many by surprise. Others contended that Schröder is merely trying to incite NATO to do some deep soul searching but not trying to discard the alliance. Whatever Schröder really intended, he is likely to follow it up in Brussels as he is not alone in calling for a review of transatlantic security policy. Despite similar calls in the past for revamping NATO, the alliance is for the most part still designed for the Cold War strategic environment and has been badly damaged by poor US-European relations in recent years.

The Bush administration needs to move beyond recent rhetoric to repair the rift with Europe. Serious strategic reform of NATO is necessary to make it better able to face the challenges of the 21st Century. There has been far too much secrecy and lack of open debate about developments at NATO HQ, something that has hardly changed since the end of the cold war. A review of current operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, which instigates real policy change, could help NATO and countries within the broader transatlantic community better cope with post-conflict stabilization and conflict prevention missions.

An issue of particular concern, raised periodically by Germany, among other member states of the alliance, is NATO's nuclear strategy and the basing of US 'tactical' nuclear weapons in European countries. These weapons contradict obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not to share nuclear capabilities. Repeated refusal to address this issue within NATO demonstrates a lack of internal democracy and, in turn, has allowed the Russians to decline discussion on their own 'tactical' nuclear weapons. This nuclear stand-off 15 years after the end of the cold war needs to be urgently addressed.

Another important issue for the transatlantic relationship is missile defence systems for Europe. Several NATO member states are pushing ahead with developing missile batteries to protect deployed forces while others are actively considering basing long-range US interceptor missiles on their territory. Feasibility studies for missile defence systems remain secret and national parliaments never discuss these developments substantively.

For recent BASIC analyses, see:

'NATO-EU Relations State of Play as the EU Takes Over in Bosnia', http://www.basicint.org/update/NATO041207.htm;

'NATO's Nuclear Posture: What's Next?', http://www.basicint.org/update/NATO041208.htm; and

'NATO and Missile Defence: Stay Tuned This Could Get Interesting', http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2004NATOMissileDefense-IstanbulSummit.htm

New US nuclear weapons

The Bush administration's proposed budget for FY 2006 contains appropriation lines for resuming research on the nuclear bunker-buster. This proposal is likely to renew the heated debate within the US and with its allies over the role and shape of US nuclear forces. This research also contravenes US disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT. With the first post-9/11 NPT Review Conference set to take place in May 2005, the timing of this development is especially sensitive.

At the Review Conference, the US is expected to press for tougher global rules on the spread of nuclear weapons and the fuel-cycle technology needed to produce weapons-usable fissile materials, in light of North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT, the questionable nuclear activities undertaken by Iran, and the threat of terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons. Non-nuclear weapon states, in turn, are expected to link any agreement on tougher rules to stronger steps by the nuclear-weapon states towards nuclear disarmament, as required by Article VI of the NPT.

The United States has over 10,000 strategic warheads and another 5,000-12,000 nuclear pits in reserve (exact numbers are classified). The United States should be in the business of dismantling weapons, not building facilities and funding research to build new ones.

For recent BASIC analysis, see 'Washington Nuclear Update: Special Edition', http://www.basicint.org/update/WNU041124.htm

Climate change

Tony Blair has made the battle against climate change one of two priorities for the UK chairmanship of the G-8 (the other is poverty in Africa). President Bush has offered no apologies for opposing the Kyoto treaty that all the EU countries have ratified, and which came into effect this week. "They thought the treaty made sense. I didn't" he said recently. The US, which generates around a quarter of the world's greenhouse gasses, maintains that Kyoto would damage its economic growth. President Bush has said that he will invest in new technologies to help achieve a better environment.

The US and EU need to reaffirm their support for the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; launch a major new initiative to fund clean energy in the developing world; and work closely together in urging China, India, and other developing countries to join in an effective international greenhouse regime for the period after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. The US will need to participate in discussions for a post-Kyoto agreement, and in the meantime, establish binding limits on emissions in major industrial sectors.

International Criminal Court

The US administration refuses to recognise the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC) on the grounds that US officials and military personnel could end up in front of the court, on "false and politically motivated prosecutions". The ICC was created to deal with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Clinton signed the treaty establishing the ICC in 1998, but was unable to persuade Congress to ratify it. The US has been entering into bilateral impunity agreements with countries (over 40 to date). No EU country has signed such a bilateral accord, and there is strong public and political opinion in favour of the ICC in Europe. The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Darfur has "strongly" recommended that the UN Security Council refer Darfur crimes to the ICC. When it met last week, 12 of the 15 Security Council members agreed that perpetrators of atrocities should go before the ICC. The Bush administration, together with China and Algeria, opposed the resolution.

The US administration's push for special treatment is short sighted. The United States has forfeited to others a critical opportunity for international leadership and influence in shaping the evolution of the laws of war and international humanitarian law. However, US policy in unlikely to change in the short-term, and the best that can be hoped for at present is regular US-EU dialogue on the development of the ICC. Europe should also press the United States to support a UN Security Council resolution referring the Darfur crisis to the ICC.

Aid

President Bush said on the eve of his visit to Europe, that Europeans wrongly believe his only interest is America's security. "We also care deeply about hunger and disease," he said. Tony Blair, as chairman of the G-8, is trying to rally allies to work on poverty in Africa and around the world. The chancellor Gordon Brown is pushing strongly for an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would double global aid to $100 million through the sale of bonds on international markets. The US administration is opposed to this initiative. US treasury undersecretary, John Taylor, said earlier this month, "Not only does the IFF not work for the United States, we don't need the IFF".

The United States and the EU and member states need to make the reduction of global poverty a high and long-term priority. They need to reaffirm their commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, implement prior commitments to devote 0.7% of GDP to development assistance, and phase out agricultural subsidies that distort global trade.

ENDS