America and Europe go their separate ways

For the last century, Europe has been the undisputed focus of US foreign policy.

Millions of US troops were deployed to Europe during the First and Second World Wars and Europe was the principle theatre for the Cold War.

But quietly and politely, leading US diplomats are beginning to make it clear that this is no longer the case.

Nick Burns, the former US ambassador to Nato, now number three in the US State Department, behind Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte, was back in Brussels last week.

He said: "The great change that has come about as the EU has developed is that America’s policy towards Europe is not really about Europe any more."

He added: "US-European relations is now fundamentally different [from what] it was ten or 15 years ago or 50 years ago, because, happily, it is no longer about Europe."

He was echoing remarks that he had already made on the other side of the Atlantic. In a little-noted speech in Washington, DC in February, he spoke of "a very dramatic and undeniable shift in the European-American relationship". He told an audience of Atlanticists: "The United States’ policy towards Europe is no longer about Europe. It’s about the rest of the world."

The impact of that shift, Burns continued, will be felt for a generation to come.

With Europe stable, the Balkans aside, Burns said the US and EU could turn their attention elsewhere to "bind ourselves together in a common global strategy".

His comments represent more than an attempt to pull together the disparate strands of transatlantic co-operation that exist today.

Since George W. Bush’s second term began, visits to Brussels by senior US diplomats have become more and more frequent. More often than not these visits are focused on global issues such as the Doha round of world trade talks, post-Kyoto climate-change targets or flu pandemics, or on regions outside the EU such as Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and the Southern Caucasus.

In trying to establish a "common global strategy" Burns hopes to create an overarching set of principles and priorities that will drive policy on both sides of the Atlantic - a new narrative for transatlantic relations.

It does not follow that Burns’s vision will be possible to achieve. Even after the lesson in humility that the US has been forced to absorb in Iraq, US willingness to suffer the constraints of joint-transatlantic decision-making is still low. Allowing the EU to pursue negotiations with Iran was an olive branch to Europe, but it was one that grew only out of military necessity. On the other side of the Atlantic, the EU is slowly developing its own strategic personality, which is different in significant ways to that of the US. Improving multilateral institutions and global governance are likely to be central principles that the US is not yet fully signed up to.

Recent evidence for the EU and US’ ability to work together outside Europe is mixed. Apart from the glaring example of Iraq - which pitted EU member state against each other as much as Europe against the US - on China, political Islam, Iran, weapons of mass destruction and anti-terrorism both sides have struggled to stick together.

The US reaction to suggestions that the EU may lift its largely symbolic embargo on arms exports to China is one example of radically different outlooks. Many EU strategists have emphasised the need to "hug China close" to ensure its self-proclaimed peaceful rise remains peaceful. The Bush administration remains much more of a sinosceptic.

After the invasion of Iraq, contemplating transatlantic relations, Kristen Archick, a researcher in European affairs at the US Congress, described a future US policy of "de-emphasising Europe".

Archick said that this policy essentially represented "an end to the political and strategic transatlantic which exists today, although the vast trade and investment relationship would continue".

It is one possible outcome were Burns’s quest for a "common global vision" not be met. Indeed it is difficult to feel this policy is not already in motion.

Last week top EU and US diplomats met in Washington to prepare for the EU-US summit that will take place on 30 April. The focus of the summit will be to establish a "new transatlantic economic partnership", focused on regulatory convergence and investment.

Important as this may be, it will be necessary but not sufficient to ensure that Europe and the US can continue their partnership into the next century and that both can pursue their interests around the world.

Trade targets

EU and US leaders will meet in Washington on 30 April and hope to launch a "new transatlantic economic partnership", designed to eliminate some of the regulatory barriers that business groups say hamper trade.

Capital markets, technical standards and intellectual property rights are some of the areas that EU and US leaders hope to tackle.

Supporters say the deal could increase gross domestic product on both sides of the Atlantic by as much as 3%. They say the measures will build on the one billion euro-a-day trade between the EU and US and create thousands of jobs in the process.

The European Commission estimates that harmonising rules on aviation services could create 80,000 jobs alone.

Trade is currently governed by multilateral rules, set out at the World Trade Organization, and the transatlantic economic partnership that was agreed in 1998.

The new agreement would stop short of creating a free trade area, but would create a common transatlantic market by 2015.

For the last century, Europe has been the undisputed focus of US foreign policy.