Opinions | Columnists
Bush bashing in Europe is lame duck
The gigantic protests that used to accompany the US president's visits to the continent will be missing this time.
- By James Forsyth, Lat-WP
- Published: 23:36 June 9, 2008
- Image Credit: Illustration: Diana Chamma/Gulf News
When the US President George W. Bush came to Britain on a state visit in November 2003, more than 100,000 people turned out to protest against him - the largest ever weekday rally in London.
But when the president comes to town this week, we'll be talking closer to 100 protesters than 100,000. Newspapers won't be running multiple pages of open letters to Bush from the great and the good. The television schedules will go undisturbed.
It will probably be the same on the other stops of what could be Bush's last European tour as president. He will, of course, receive a warm reception in the chancelleries and palaces of Europe: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown are all firm believers in the Atlantic alliance.
But this shouldn't be seen as evidence that Europe has finally reconciled itself to the man. Nor should the absence of large-scale anti-Bush rallies be taken as a sign of approval. All this shows is that Bush-hatred, like the president himself, has become a lame duck.
The gigantic protests that used to accompany Bush's visits to Europe were a backhanded compliment - the tribute that impotent rage pays to power.
Their sheer scale testified to his status as the most powerful man on Earth. Their likely absence this week will suggest that this aura is fading fast.
Bush might reflect that, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the one thing worse than being protested against is not being protested against.
Brown's two visits to the United States since taking over from Tony Blair a year ago are indicative of Bush's rapidly declining relevance in the European public's mind.
When Brown paid his first visit last July, he was so keen to demonstrate that he was not "Bush's poodle" (as Blair was unkindly and unfairly dubbed) that he kept his suit on despite the heat and the relaxed atmosphere at Camp David.
He was determined to show that the trip was all work and no play. He even publicly stated that "We have had full and frank discussions" - not-so-subtle code for a bloody great row - to ram home the point to the British public.
But when Brown returned to Washington this April, he stood next to Bush and declared that the "world owes President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude for leading the world in our determination to root out terrorism". There was no outcry back home.
Ironically, the widely loathed Bush will actually leave his successor a good legacy when it comes to Europe. The next president will receive a significant boost from simply not being Bush.
The departing president will be the scapegoat, carrying away America's sins in Europe's eyes in much the same way that the exit of the reliably prickly Jacques Chirac helped redeem France in Washington's view.
We got a flavour of the competition to come when John McCain came to London in March, and Brown and Conservative Party leader David Cameron were desperately eager to one-up each other in their photo-ops with the presumptive Republican nominee.
The new president will also have the opportunity for a lot of "quick wins" with Europe. Both McCain and Obama would probably close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, ban torture and accept the need for concerted international action against global warming.
Under this cover, many Europeans will slide back into the pro-American fold. And if Barack Obama is the next president, he'll flip all the soft anti-Americans in Europe.
In years to come, it will be convenient to blame all the turbulence in the trans-Atlantic relationship these past few years on the departed leaders of the time - Bush, Chirac and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who reneged on a promise to Bush not to make his opposition to the Iraq war a big political issue back home. In truth, they all deserve some of the blame.
But there were structural reasons why things reached such a low ebb. Throughout the Cold War, the United States had protected Europe from the Soviet threat.
But the threat that America rightly wanted to respond to after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was one that many Europeans thought didn't affect them.
Or, to be more accurate, they feared that the real threat was not Al Qaida terrorism but the US response to it.
To Americans, the Islamist threat came from outside; to many Europeans, it was already inside their borders, in the unintegrated immigrant ghettos that dot so many European cities, and the danger came from anything that might further alienate already disenchanted Muslims.
Now, though, Europe is beginning to realise that the inspiration for the Islamists inside its borders comes from outside, from those who preach jihadism and death to America.
At the same time, the United States has developed a more rounded approach to the problem, mixing hard and soft power more effectively. This has left Europe and the United States closer together in their threat perceptions. In addition, Europe is now more alarmed at the rise of Russia and China than it had previously been.
Europe is now more inclined, to adapt the old English rhyme, to stay close to Uncle Sam for fear of something worse.
Bush's visit to Europe is part of that ritual of a presidency's final year: the valedictory world tour. But he is coming to a continent that has already, mentally, moved on.
There will be no tearful European goodbyes on this tour. But at least there won't be a need for tear gas, either.
James Forsyth covers politics for the British magazine the Spectator.
Share this article
Related Articles
-
Bush heads to Europe for farewell tour
Bush heads to Europe for farewell tour
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Turkey is thinking creatively
Ankara is seeking peace and reconciliation in the Middle East, but has not turned its back on the West
-
Abdullah may see crisis on horizon
Could it be that the king of Jordan dissolved parliament because he believes a regional war might be in the offing?
-
More action needed to nab murderers
Those guilty of involvement in Philippines massacre deserve the most severe penalty
