Obama's Europe visit: redefined ties and a touch of 'political Beatlemania'

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

European leaders warmed to President Obama's emphasis on pragmatism and mutual values. Playing ping-pong and visiting Moneygall, Ireland, didn't hurt his popular image, either.


President Obama addressed both houses of Parliament in Britain on Wednesday, the US president so honored.
(Andy Rain/AP)
By Paul Wootton, Correspondent
posted May 30, 2011 at 10:00 am EDT

London
Europe always provides good photo opportunities, but the images of Barack Obama's recent visit were a publicity consultant's dream: the quaint Irish village of Moneygall, hanging out with the queen, high-fiving Prime Minister David Cameron after a game of ping-pong. The media circus lapped it up.

As did the Irish and Britons. Thou­sands of Dubliners turned out to welcome him, thrilled by his efforts to sound Irish and his recently discovered Moneygall roots. In Britain, politicians fawned over him, hoping that some of his charisma might rub off. At Westminster, as the houses of Parliament awaited Mr. Obama's historic address, member of Parliament Tessa Jowell tweeted that the atmosphere was like "political Beatlemania."

Well before he'd moved on to France for the Group of Eight summit, Obama's European tour had already been hailed a success.

But beyond the feel-good photography and the cheerful bonhomie, there was purpose and substance to Obama's trip as well, specifically the need to redefine America's relationship with Europe in a much-changed world. That meant making a renewed commitment to the allies of old, but it also meant outlining a new approach to American foreign affairs.

IN PICTURES: Obama visits Britain

He spelled out this new direction in his speech to Parliament, emphasizing a more consensual approach to policy and talking of proceeding with humility in the Middle East.

"That's not something you would have heard in the previous administration," says James Ellison, of the School of History at Queen Mary, University of London, who acknowledges that America's new multilateralism is a pragmatic response to recent global events. Libya, in particular, he suggests, demonstrates how and why US foreign policy is shifting.

"The Americans are suffering from a deficit just like the Europeans are," says Mr. Ellison. "They can't afford to overextend themselves. But they also want the Europeans to think about their defense budgets. The longer the war with Libya, the more they will be forced to think about them. What we're seeing is the Obama administration's intent to make sure that Europeans lift their weight with defense."

Clear pragmatism

America's shift in foreign policy is clearly pragmatic, given the lack of appetite at home for more conflict, but it also highlights the different values Obama has brought to the presidency. One line from his keynote address makes this clear: "Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves, not imposed from without," he said. This emphasis on self-determination is a far cry from efforts in Iraq and Afghan­istan. As Ellison notes, Obama's Euro­pean visit has gone "a long way to extend America's history beyond Bush."

Xenia Dormandy, who served in the US government and now works for Chatham House, a British think tank, says the visit highlighted a marked change in tone. "Obama talks about mutual values and how they should guide our policy. The language of 'interests' has gone," she says. "The idea of supporting rather than leading change is a hugely different theme for the US."

Obama stressed these mutual values as he reaffirmed the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain. In the past, Obama has been criticized for being the least Anglophile of all US presidents. So the extent to which he affirmed the "special relationship," calling it not just special but "essential," was a striking feature of the visit.

It suggests a maturing of the relationship, says Stephanie Carvin, a lecturer in international relations at Royal Holloway, University of London. " 'Special' is an emotional word, but 'essential' makes the relationship sound practical," she says. "In the past there's been this worry that Obama is more interested in the Pacific, but I think this indicates that we don't have to be concerned about that anymore."

And if the British continue to fret about the state of this relationship, they should take heart from the knowledge that a strong bond between the two countries is important to the US, too, because "it's one less area of the world that the US has to worry about," says Ms. Carvin.

Beyond the rhetoric, Obama and Mr. Cameron announced there would be increased cooperation between the two nations in six key areas, including security, education, and cyberspace.

"There's a lot of work being done to bring the two countries closer strategically," says Ms. Dormandy. "This visit sets a new bar for the bilateral relationship away from the semantics, away from the superficiality of the idea of a special relationship, and away from the doubts over whether Obama likes Europe anymore. This takes it to a new level."

Legendary rapport with queen

And this time around, Obama seemed more genuinely engaged with Britain than before. Some of that is about personal relationships, of course. His rapport with the queen is fast gaining legendary status, and there was considerable camaraderie on display between Obama and Cameron, not least as they flipped burgers at a barbecue in honor of wounded military service personnel.

At the state banquet at Buck­ing­ham Palace, Obama also spoke of his gratitude for the support Britain had shown the US in the past. Such solidarity would be just as important in the future, he told Parliament the following day.

"Even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership," he said, "our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a century that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just."

And despite the new sensitive approach to foreign affairs, he insisted that the US and Britain together had a key role to play in the world. "As millions are still denied their basic human rights, we are the nations most willing to stand up for the values of tolerance and self-determination that lead to peace and dignity."

IN PICTURES: Obama visits Britain

© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.

France, Britain want NATO to fight harder against Gaddafi’s forces

Washington Post

By Edward Cody, Tuesday, April 12, 6:20 PM

PARIS — Thirteen days after the United States turned over command of the Libya campaign, the NATO alliance showed signs of strain Tuesday, with France and Britain complaining that their partners are not doing enough to help protect rebel-held cities from assaults by Moammar Gaddafi’s troops.
The unusual open criticism, from French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and British Foreign Secretary William Hague, raised questions about the ability of the 28-member alliance to smoothly conduct a large-scale, sustained military operation without the United States playing a commanding role, as it has in the past.
“The Americans have the numbers of planes, and the Americans have the right equipment,” said Francois Heisbourg, a military specialist at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.
But the Obama administration appeared to reject the possibility of an expanded U.S. military role in the near future. A State Department spokesman insisted Tuesday that NATO was performing adequately in enforcing the no-fly zone, and said the alliance was fine-tuning its tactics to address complaints about the campaign’s effectiveness.
“We have every confidence in NATO’s ability to carry out the task of enforcing the arms embargo as well as the no-fly zone and the protection of civilians in Libya,” the spokesman, Mark Toner, told reporters in Washington.
“The U.S., of course, as needed, would help out if requested in other capacities. But, really, our role has receded,” he said.
Juppe and Hague, in separate comments, urged more NATO countries to dispatch aircraft ready to participate actively in the bombing operations. A European official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue said Hague was speaking in particular of restrictions imposed by most contributing governments that have limited many NATO warplanes to secondary roles.
“We must maintain and expand our efforts in NATO,” Hague said upon arriving in Luxembourg for a European Union meeting. “That is why the United Kingdom in the last weeks supplied additional aircraft capable of striking ground targets that threaten the civilian population. Of course, it would be welcome if other countries did the same.”
Juppe, in even more direct remarks on France Info radio before departing for the Luxembourg meeting, also said NATO must increase the effectiveness of its bombing operations. That would help prevent Gaddafi’s forces from shelling the besieged city of Misurata and other contested cities.
“NATO wanted to take over military operations, and we accepted that,” Juppe said. “But it must play its full role. That is to say, it must prevent Gaddafi from using heavy weapons against the civilian population.”
What NATO is doing now, he added, “is not sufficient.”
‘Not enough aircraft’
Seventeen nations, with about 175 planes, have been officially participating in the NATO campaign since the United States stepped back March 31. Of those, only France and Britain are allowing their aircraft to fly without restrictions on their use, noted Jean-Pierre Maulny, a defense expert at the International and Strategic Relations Institute in Paris. Of the other aircraft, some have been barred from bombing, others from hitting vehicles and others from flying attack missions at all, according to reports from Brussels.
But Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm, NATO’s Dutch chief of allied operations, told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels that bombing operations have not dropped off since the United States handed over the command and withdrew most of its aircraft from the campaign. Over the past week, he said, the number of sorties — one flight by one plane — has averaged 155, of which 62 were strike missions.
Seeking to refute criticism that the campaign has become ineffective in protecting rebel-held cities, van Uhm said NATO aircraft destroyed 49 Libyan army tanks and nine armored personnel carriers over the weekend alone, most of them near the contested eastern city of Ajdabiya. The airstrikes were credited by rebels with helping halt a Libyan army assault on the strategic crossroads town, 99 miles south of rebel headquarters in Benghazi.
“I think with the assets we have, we are doing a great job,” he said.
NATO’s performance in running the air campaign was expected to be a key topic at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Germany later this week. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was scheduled to fly to Berlin on Wednesday for two days of talks, while the department’s top Middle East experts huddled with European and Arab counterparts and Libyan opposition leaders in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar to map out strategy.
Some NATO officials have suggested that their bombing would be more effective if the U.S. A-10 Warthog close-support plane were made available again, Heisbourg said, because none of NATO’s other air forces possess similar slow-flying warplanes.
“The essence of the problem,” he added, “is not enough aircraft and not enough of the right kind of aircraft.”
The pilots of France’s Rafale and Mirage 2000 fighter-bombers, for instance, have found their Sagem AASM 125 air-to-ground missile systems to be remarkably effective in striking Libyan tanks, he noted. But the problem is that they are fired from high up and Gaddafi’s forces have adopted the same ragtag uniforms and four-wheel-drive pickups as the rebels to blend into the desert landscape.
“If it’s a tank down there, it’s okay,” Heisbourg said. But the missiles “certainly can’t tell the difference between a rebel Toyota pickup and a loyalist Toyota pickup,” he added.
French objections
Juppe’s comments carried a particular edge because French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government strongly opposed turning operations over to a NATO command after the Obama administration decided to reduce its commitment at the end of March.
The ostensible French argument was that Arab governments would oppose any operation carried out with the NATO brand name. But its unsaid goal was to keep the command in the hands of the main combatants, France and Britain.
Sarkozy had to acquiesce to a NATO command, however, under pressure from the United States and Britain. Against that background, French officials began complaining that the campaign was bogging down within days of the U.S. withdrawal.
The unease grew as reports from Libya made it clear that rebel forces — which seemed to be winning as NATO took over — were in no shape to quickly overwhelm Gaddafi’s army and well-equipped militias.
A senior French diplomat, speaking anonymously to avoid committing the government, emphasized that France and its allies are relying on defections among Gaddafi’s aides and on diplomacy to bring the campaign to an end, realizing that the early hope of a clean rebel victory has evaporated.
Whatever the method, he said, France and its allies have decided the outcome must be Gaddafi’s departure from power.
Former Libyan foreign minister Musa Kusa, who abandoned Gaddafi late last month and fled to Britain, was set to leave Tuesday for the international meeting on Libya scheduled for Wednesday in Qatar, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. The trip would mark Kusa’s first since his defection, and he appeared set to offer insights on Libya to officials gathering for the forum in Doha.
U.S. officials confirmed that Musa Kusa had been invited to the Doha meeting by the host country, but said it was not clear what role, if any, the former Libyan intelligence chief would play in the meeting.