ANALYSIS White House rivals sing from same hymn book on Europe

Date: 02/11/00

As the fight for the presidency and control of Congress goes down to the wire, Craig Winneker assesses the likely implications of next week's election results for the Union

AS AMERICANS go to the polls next week to decide one of the hardest-fought US presidential contests in decades, the odds are that they will not be thinking about hormone-free beef or tax subsidies to corporations doing business overseas.

In fact, issues of great importance to the EU barely register on the radar screen of the average American voter, who might be hard-pressed to find Brussels on a map. The electorate - at least, the half which actually bother to vote in even the highest turnout years - is generally more concerned with the domestic agenda and the strength of the economy. Americans have always voted with their wallets, or, in the 21st century, their mutual fund statements.

Nevertheless, the results of next Tuesday's (7 November) vote will have a measurable impact on relations between the US and the EU, especially in such volatile areas as security and defence, trade and the environment.

Vice-President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush are locked in a dead heat for the presidency, according to opinion polls. Of nearly equal importance for the Union is the battle for control of the US Congress. Republicans are struggling to hold both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and no matter which party ends up with the majority of seats, the margin of control will be narrow.

A chief legacy of the Clinton years is that Democrats do not sound much different from Republicans any more, at least when it comes to politics at the national level. There are disagreements over domestic policy, especially when it comes to taxes and health care but, for the most part, presidential nominees make a mad dash to the centre.

In the foreign policy arena as well, the similarities between Gore and

Bush outweigh the differences and the US is unlikely to change its world view regardless of who wins. Neither candidate is an isolationist, and both have promised to assemble an experienced team of advisors who pose no threat to international stability.

As a result, EU officials are observing the political situation in the US with something less than alarm. They expect to be comfortable with whoever moves into the White House next January.

However, one campaign issue of concern to the Union is Bush's call for a reduction in the US military presence in Europe. The Republican argues that his country should play less of a role in NATO peace-keeping missions and crisis interventions. Bush says he wants to see American troops in the Balkans replaced by European soldiers, even though forces supplied by EU member states already make up around 80% of the peace-keeping effort in the region.

For the Union, which is busy trying to establish its own defence force, such talk might be taken as a sign that the

US considers Europe fully capable of taking care of itself. But Bush's policy would amount to a major shift in the international security burden and, considering that the US is the driving force behind NATO, it has not been well received on this side of the Atlantic - even if it is only campaign rhetoric.

It is unclear whether Bush, if elected, would continue to repeat the foreign policy mantra that he does not want the US to be involved in such "nation-building". But given that he has already shown he can be fuzzy on the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia, and may refer on occasion to "Germanians" and "Grecians", concern that he may be less than interested in European politics is understandable.

An even greater worry for the EU is Bush's strong support for a strategic missile defence system, even at the expense of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty signed between the US and Russia in the Seventies. "This clearly is something that causes great alarm among the European allies," says John Palmer, director of the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think-tank.

Gore, meanwhile, is busy grappling with the Nader factor - as in Ralph Nader, the dishevelled consumer-rights crusader who is mounting an energetic campaign as the Green Party's presidential candidate. Nader serves up a buffet of populism, environmentalism and quasi-protectionism which resonates with a sliver of the electorate Gore ordinarily would count in his camp.

The election may end up being decided by one or two percentage points, and Gore has spent the closing days of the campaign wooing Nader suppporters. This has necessitated stepping up his attacks on "big business, big oil and big drug companies" and more emphasis on environmentalism.

Some of Gore's new messages may be music to European ears, especially as he plays up his support for the Kyoto climate change targets and promises to push for alternative energy sources. But the Democrat is also having to court the anti-free trade, anti-World Trade Organisation elements in the Nader camp, and this is not winning him any friends in the Union.

Trade is always a potential minefield in EU-US relations, and neither candidate - Gore's desperation rhetoric notwithstanding - would veer too far from the current administration's approach. Major disputes will continue to plague the two sides, with disagreements over beef, bananas, aircraft hush kits and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) tax breaks set to fester well into 2001.

New problems also await the next president, such as a brewing battle over legislation passed in the closing hours of this Congress which would give American steelmakers and other companies the proceeds of anti-dumping duties imposed on their foreign rivals.

Such policy tinkering is often the product of powerful parochial interests in the Congress. The Democrats only need to pick up a handful of seats in each chamber next week to win back the majority they lost six years ago.

Their chances of success seem better in the House of Representatives, and a return to power there would make Richard Gephardt of Missouri the new speaker. Gephardt has long been considered a protectionist, but has softened his position over time. Unlike Gore, who mostly pays lip service to organised labour, Gephardt would oppose or water-down most free-trade measures.

The Senate is expected to remain in Republican hands, and many of its members who have figured prominently in recent battles with the EU will be around to continue fighting them next year. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who recently held up the Clinton administration's efforts to resolve the dispute over hormone-treated beef, is a sure bet for re-election. Likewise, Senator Mike DeWine, a vocal critic of the Union's competition policy, will be returned to office.

With control of both chambers coming down to just a handful of seats, there will be more of an emphasis on compromise. But the nearly even party-split will also make it harder for the president to get legislation through which could be important to EU-US relations.

European Commission officials say they are not spending much time worrying about the election results, other than to anticipate what issues they will face next year. One said, for example, that experts would take a close look at voting in Florida to try to gauge support for Bill Clinton's decision to relax the embargo on trade with Cuba.

With his clear edge in foreign policy experience, Gore realises the importance of diplomacy to untangle bilateral disagreements before they escalate into full-scale trade wars. The recent efforts to resolve the FSC and beef fights demonstrate the current administration's commitment to ending disputes with the Union. Many in the EU - where Clinton remains popular despite the ongoing trade arguments - would favour a smooth transition to Gore, which would keep a number of the same faces at the negotiating table next year.

But Bush's team of experts includes a number of veterans of his father's administration, including top national security adviser Condoleeza Rice and former State Department official Robert Zoellick. Bush also hopes to entice popular retired General Colin Powell to join his administration if he wins. These are not unknown actors on the world stage.

Bush and Gore have shown on the campaign trail that they cannot match Clinton's skills as a political operator. Gore has the intelligence and tenacity, but lacks the Kennedyesque sex appeal. Bush has the good-old-boy charm, but is not as gifted at selling policy.

Still, Bush and Gore are known quantities, even to observers from across the Atlantic. Both were raised in political families and in many ways have been preparing all their lives to be president.

Europe, in other words, should expect no surprises next week.

Major feature. As the fight for the Presidency and control of Congress goes down to the wire, author assesses the likely implications of the election results for the Union.