A Pointless Quest: Bush's Mission to Europe

Last November, when George W. Bush traveled to London for an official state visit, pundits wondered if the timing could possibly have been worse. Both Bush and his British counterpart Tony Blair were then "mired in slumping approval ratings" because of the shoddy state of occupied Iraq. The American public would get a taste of how their supreme leader is perceived abroad, with televised footage of anti-Bush protests and denunciations from the likes of Ken Livingston, Mayor of London, who called Bush "the greatest threat to life on this planet."

Nevertheless, Bush slogged through, leaving only a huge security bill and a few million disgruntled Londoners in his wake. In the end, while his tour of Britain did little to restore the luster to American diplomacy, it didn't hurt it much either.

Those must seem like the good old days now. In June, Bush is heading back to Europe. He's set to hit four major countries on what will certainly be the most scrutinized tour of his presidency. Now, the continuing disintegration of Iraq and the unfolding prisoner torture scandal have only heightened the disdain many Europeans feel for the already unpopular commander-in-chief. For sure, the timing is definitely worse.

Perhaps the president's advisors feel that a month of diplomacy in June will pay dividends for Bush. Pressing the flesh, symbolic photo opportunities, carefully-scripted contrition, and hours of backroom negotiation – what's not to like about it?

Yet after a closer investigation of the prevailing mood in Europe, one has to ask: George, why bother?

The New York Times Fingers the Pulse

Just what kind of a continent will Dubya descend onto in June? European sentiment towards President Bush is revealed by a recent New York Times survey. According to this report, support for the American president is abysmal:

"…In poll after poll, Europeans have shown themselves to be fervently anti-Bush. In Britain, America's staunchest ally in the war in Iraq, a poll of 1,007 people taken last month for The Times of London by the British polling company Populus found support for Senator John Kerry over President Bush by a margin of 56 to 22 percent.

From America, a poll of people in nine nations conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March found that opinion of the president and, by extension, the United States, had plummeted across Europe since Mr. Bush took office. In France, the poll found, the president had an 85 percent negative rating; in Britain, 57 percent; in Germany 85 percent; and in Russia, 60 percent."

Bush's unilateralism and simplistic view of the world were especially decried. Russian political commentator Aleksandr Yanov castigated Bush's famous "those who are not with us are against us" dictum as a reification of the "Bolshevik principle." And according to Guillaume Parmentier of the French Institute of Foreign Relations,

"…the idea that you have a leader of the U.S. who's not interested in listening to his allies is important in the way people perceive Bush… he has a very simplistic view of the world, which we find difficult to accept. In fact, that we find dangerous."

While Bush has been able to count on conservatives such as President Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, this constituency base, too, is being eroded. Sergio Romano, a former Italian ambassador to NATO, added that besides Bush's "understandable" unpopularity with liberals, "…he's not very popular with the conservatives or moderates either." The same result is being found in England, where even the traditional conservative allies of the American president, the Tories, are leery: "George Bush scares the hell out of me," said one. Another averred that "Bush is a man who might wail at the moon. I don't feel comfortable with him."

The cumulative European dislike for Bush and his foreign policy were summed up by Britain's "left-leaning" Guardian:

"…Senator Kerry carries the hopes not just of millions of Americans but of millions of British well-wishers, not to mention those of nations throughout Europe and the world… Nothing in world politics would make more difference to the rest of us than a change in the White House."

Italy: Blessing the Cursed

George W. Bush's European odyssey begins in Italy on June 4, where he will relive the liberation of Rome from the Nazis. Even if the field of victory is not Iraq, this 60^th anniversary special at least gives him the chance to symbolically liberate something.

Things are not looking good, however. Italian anti-globalization groups have vowed mass demonstrations. And the Italian opposition is calling for Bush's visit to be scrapped altogether, amidst continued public outrage over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Even though Bush can count on a warm reception from ally Silvio Berlusconi, members of the latter's government have offered withering criticism this week of America's occupation of Iraq. Minister for European affairs Rocco Buttiglione has even called for the resignation of top American leaders over the Abu Ghraib scandal:

"'…Politicians had the responsibility to monitor (the situation) but they didn't and they should resign,' Buttiglione said. 'The U.S. government should show how a democracy works. Political officials should pay politically and the guilty should go to prison.'"

The uproar in Italy has been exacerbated by new suspicions that Berlusconi lied to the people when he said his government had no knowledge of prisoner abuse until the US media broke the story late last month. This official line was contradicted this week in interviews with the top Italian military leaders in Iraq. Leading newspaper La Reppublica quoted Gen. Francesco Paolo Spagnuolo as saying prisoners' "most basic rights" were violated at Nasiriyah prison, where Italian soldiers are based under British command. And Berlusconi probably knew, according to the general, who "…said a complaint was filed with Iraqi judicial authorities and the Italian government was informed 'through the usual channels without a written report.'"

Even more damning was the testimony of Italian colonel Carmelo Burgio, who told Corriere della Sera Thursday that his troops' inspections of the prison had revealed "signs of torture on detainees," and that these findings were passed on to higher authorities. And, in contradiction of Defense Minister Antonio Martino's official statements, Amnesty International's Italian chapter also claims that it had informed the government of prisoner abuses. Finally, in a television interview on Tuesday,

"…the widow of one of the 19 Italians killed in an explosion at the Italian military headquarters in Nasiriyah last November said that her husband had seen evidence of violence and abuse against Iraqi prisoners."

These new revelations have angered the Italian people and helped the opposition win a major concession. After his return from Washington on May 20, Berlusconi will be obliged to hold a parliamentary hearing on removing troops from Iraq. Recent polls have suggested around 52 percent of Italians are in favor of removing the country's 3,000-strong contingent, and as reaction to the prisoner abuse scandal- now, encompassing yet another Iraqi prison- grows this percentage can only rise.

While the American president had hoped to conclude his visit with a beatific blessing, his scheduled meeting with the Pope promises to be just as bad:

"…John Paul II is expected to warn President George W. Bush when the two men meet on June 4 that his policy in Iraq is wrong and the actions of US troops are damaging efforts to bring religions closer together, a senior Vatican official said Thursday."

These comments, made by Cardinal Pio Laghi, reveal the vast chasm that exists between Bush's policy and the pontiff's. According to Laghi, Bush was so anxious to meet with the Pope that he even changed his schedule to do so. The Cardinal expressed some ambivalence on his decision. "…If ever there were a difficult time to ask for an audience with the pope it is now," he said, and proceeded to recite a litany of quite pointed complaints:

"…Referring to revelations this month of torture and humiliating mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers, the cardinal asked 'how is it possible to remain in Iraq if these abuses continue?'

…The cardinal said he also expected the pope to tell Bush that his policies in the Middle East in general were not helping the cause of peace.

'We must above all build cultural understanding between peoples and I do not believe that our American friends are doing that,' he said. 'Bombing mosques, going into holy places, putting women soldiers in contact with naked men shows a lack of understanding of the Muslim world which I can only call surprising,' he said.

'We must build bridges with Islam, not dig trenches between us,' he went on. 'And we must give top priority to the Israeli-Palestinian question, which is the root cause of terrorism.'

The pope would tell Bush that 'the fight against terrorism must not be purely repressive and punitive but must also proceed from the elimination of its causes, which are rooted in injustice.'"

If ever there was an utter and complete repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, it was this. In criticizing the US occupation of Iraq, its military tactics, America' favoring of Israel, and the entire rationale on which Bush's war on terror is being justified, Cardinal Laghi set out pretty clearly that the president can't expect much love from the leader of Christendom come June.

France: A Lukewarm Reception

After the Italian job, Bush moves on to France – yes, that's right, evil France – where he will confer with President Jacques Chirac and storm the beaches of Normandy along with other world leaders on the 60^th anniversary of D-Day. While the French are optimistically talking about this as a "tremendous occasion" for repairing relations between their country and America, we shouldn't count on any great rapprochement.

Jean-Maurice Ripert of the French Foreign Ministry optimistically speculated that:

"…whatever the differences were, or still could exist on some issues, we are still allies and we are still working together. We can live with the idea that our closest friend and ally, the United States of America, does not always agree with us."

Yet despite these warm words, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has bluntly stated that America must "…accept that its occupation of Iraq will end" on June 30 when the expected handover of power in Iraq takes place:

"'…We have to make sure that this government has all the levers of sovereignty and control,' Barnier said. 'What we need is for the Americans and the occupation forces to understand and accept this real break on July 1 and the break will be confirmed with the elections in January. The Iraqi government has to be in a position to manage its affairs, to handle the economy, the justice, manage its natural resources, manage the internal security forces at least the law enforcement officials. And also, it has to have a say in the use of the multilateral force that will be in Iraq from July until January,' he said."

Whether or not Bush admits as much, it goes without saying that he'll be forced to display a little more humility than he did last year, when attacking France for not going along with his war of liberation in Iraq.

Back when the Iraq war kicked off, and the French fry was banned, it was pretty clear that it was America that had a problem with the French. One wonders how Fox News and their ilk will cover it.

As for the D-Day ceremony, this looks to be nothing more than more symbolic schlock- and absolutely surreal at that. According to a spokesman, the ceremony is meant to deliver "a message of peace" to the world. "…We are here so that there is a space on a global scale for peace… otherwise it would make no sense. Why do all this if it is not a message of peace?"

Well, one could answer that it provides a handy excuse for simulating unity between alienated world leaders – some 17 of them, in fact, including major critics of Bush's policy in Iraq such as Chirac, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Considering that France plans to give its Legion of Honor award to 300 D-Day veterans (including almost 100 Americans) Bush will no doubt milk the occasion for photo opportunities with veterans too old to have been his personal liability and soliloquies on the valiant struggle for freedom, from Normandy to Iraq. Yet imagining George Bush saying "I bring you peace" only conjures up images of The Simpson's megalomaniacal Mr. Burns, in that 1997 episode when he states as much while deliriously whacked out on medication, bathed in a radioactive glow.

Ireland: the EU-US Summit

While President Bush will not visit Britain this time around, he will still get a chance to talk with British leader and key ally Tony Blair at the EU-US summit in Ireland. Yet like Bush, Blair has hit rock bottom. His credibility, at home and throughout the world, has been affected just as Bush's has by the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal. Even Blair himself is admitting that his job is on the line.

Just as in Italy, protestors in Ireland are preparing. On Thursday, the Irish Anti-War Movement (IAWM) announced its plans for mass demonstrations in Dublin and in Dromoland Castle, County Clare, where Bush will be staying from June 25-26. One of their statements reads:

"…Bush hopes to use his Irish visit as a backdrop for his re-election campaign. He wants pictures of smiling Irish politicians greeting him as a 'statesman'. The Stop Bush Campaign objects strongly to this charade.

… The Stop Bush Campaign believes that the vast majority of the Irish people are opposed to the policies of George Bush. He has steadfastly refused to look at the underlying causes of terrorism. Since September 11th, he has carried out two wars –in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both times he claimed that this would end the terrorist threat to the US and improve the human rights of the people who lived in these countries. In both cases he has been proved to be a liar!"

The anti-war group is being joined by members of four or political parties, as well as the Irish NGO Peace Alliance, "…to urge people to take to the streets and protest against the occupation of Iraq." Protest chairman Richard Boyd-Barrett promised "…a massive campaign to mobilise people and get every single sector of Irish society to come out." In his view,

"…the situation is getting worse and both Tony Blair and Bush are on the rack politically. Protests can have a direct effect on their position so it's vital to see everyone determined to take to the streets and march."

A hot issue for the Irish anti-war movement is the role their own government has surreptitiously played in the Iraq war. Despite its pious objections, they claim, the government has allowed the US military to ship thousands of troops to Iraq via Shannon Airport- a major airport located near the EU-US summit and where President Bush will be landing.

The Climax: Turkey and the NATO Summit

One day after the Ireland trip President Bush is expected in Istanbul, Turkey, where he will ring in the NATO summit. In every way this is the climactic event of his trip, and the Turks are pulling out all the stops in regards to security. All weddings have been cancelled from 27-29 June, university exams have been rescheduled, and hotel workers with questionable backgrounds are being sent on "early vacations" for the duration. Yet there is only so much the authorities can do, as Istanbul is an enormous, densely-packed city where the sort of protections allowed by rural Ireland cannot be matched. If there is any risk of terrorist attacks, it is here. In fact, a recently arrested terrorist mastermind in Turkey claimed that his group hit upon their plan to bomb the NATO summit while lamenting, "If only Bush's death were at our hands."

Even if no attacks occur, the inevitable hassles in the routines of ordinary civilians necessitated by such an event can only increase the anti-Bush sentiment most Turks have felt since the Iraq war began last year. Outraged at the American attack on a fellow Muslim country, and fearing that their own security could be compromised lest the Kurdish separation movement reignite, Turks are understandably distrustful of Bush and his policies.

Even if ordinary people don't take to the streets, it is expected that anti-NATO protesters from home and abroad will. And NATO officials themselves are decidedly gloomy about the summit:

"…Now, diplomats and politicians suggest, it is uncertain whether the alliance will have regrouped with enough strength by the summit meeting to provide a nameplate for an international force at the request of the United Nations and a transitional Iraqi government. As for NATO members providing new troops, that appeared a dim perspective.

'…In these circumstances,' one of the NATO officials said, 'the United State is hardly in a position to push anything concerning the [military] internationalization of Iraq to the breaking point.'"

Even Americans are conceding that the NATO summit will likely fall short of achieving Bush's diplomatic expectations. According to Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, there is no longer any prospect of "…NATO taking a bigger role before November's U.S. presidential election:"

"'…the last thing the Europeans want to do is come to the June summit and allow George W. Bush to preside over the alliance as a great leader,' he said. 'It is unimaginable that the Europeans will go to Istanbul and give Bush whatever he wants.'"

Meanwhile, the "New Europe" Fidgets Uncomfortably

As for Dubya's ace in the hole – the alleged "New Europe" – here too much ambivalence has arisen regarding the president's cause. Factors both short-term and long account for the new reticence of emerging countries that have supported the American war on Iraq diplomatically and with troops. First of all, the Abu Ghraib scandal and rising troop casualties have increased domestic opposition in many nations. Second of all, some of these countries, including the Baltic States and major troop contributor Poland, have just joined the European Union. For political and economic reasons, their future will increasingly lie with Europe and not with America in the future.

In Hungary, which has donated 300 soldiers to the Iraq occupation, the Abu Ghraib scandal:

"…has eroded the broad political support behind the mission. The main opposition party, Fidesz, said it was time for Hungary to reconsider its position and has called for talks involving all political parties about the future of the mission.

The leader of Fidesz, Viktor Orban, a former prime minister who until recently supported the Iraq mission, this week called operations there 'morally unsustainable.' The government has agreed to hold talks with opposition parties about the issue.

The uproar in Hungary is 'a direct response to the photographs,' said Sebestyen L. Gorka, executive director of the Institute for Transnational Democracy and International Security, a research organization in Budapest. 'It's on all the front pages here.'"

Like Poland, Hungary has vowed to soldier on in Iraq. But for how much longer? In the former country, new Prime Minister Marek Belka "…is up against increasing pressure from the public and his own coalition partners who oppose Polish participation in the coalition force in Iraq. They want a timeline for withdrawal of Polish troops." Poland suffered two more casualties last week. Bulgaria, which has suffered 6 casualties, sent 24 soldiers home after complaining that their mission was not what they'd planned for. And another 15 who'd been slated to go in August quit this week. Respected British defense analyst Jane's has speculated that Ukraine, which has suffered four casualties thus far, might pull its troops out despite official pledges to the contrary.

The Gloomy Conclusion

All of the evidence shows that Bush's European support in Iraq has weakened, and is perhaps beyond repair. Moreover, nothing he may do in his upcoming goodwill tour to the Continent is likely to change that. The president can point hopefully to a June 30 handover of power in Iraq, and claim that this will somehow put a happy face on the occupation. Yet few have high expectations in this regard, considering Iraq's ever-worsening violence and the volatility of the still unfolding prisoner abuse scandal. Ambitions of a NATO or UN role in policing the mess are at best premature and at worse a pipe dream.

And so, all symbolic World War II photo opportunities aside, Bush (and the American taxpayer) may in fact be best served by heeding the new slogan of Italy's protesters: "Yankee, Go Home!"