The Economist has a column this week on the gap in different perceptions between the EU and US, it makes interesting reading anyway but it also feeds into the discussion of everyone hated Bush so when New York lost an Olympic bid in 2005 no one cared but everyone LOVES Obama so in 2009 it is a personal rejection of him if the rest of the world does not support Chicago.
Follow me over the jump for some snips
The Atlantic Gap
The vote in the IOC where Chicago got the same 19 votes that New York got 4 years previously seems to be an issue in the US where because Obama is now President there seems to be an assumption that the rest of the world will like them again.
There also seems to be some disappointment in the EU that despite the election of Obama there is not going to be a major agreement at Copenhagen on climate change talks later in the year.
A "FLASHING yellow light". That is how one American official describes warning signs of trouble between his administration and Europe. Less than a year after Barack Obama’s election, European euphoria over the end of the Bush era is fading. Relations are still far better than in the dark days before the Iraq war. But as the official puts it, there is "a lot of sniping" going back and forth across the Atlantic. And, he adds, there is a recognition at the "highest levels" that such snippiness is becoming unhelpful.
If people in Brussels struggle to understand how troublesome Congress can be to an American administration, they should try this mental aid. Congress is a bit like France: prickly, status-obsessed, ruthless in defending national interests and addicted to subsidies for special interests such as farmers or industrial champions. Both are ambivalent about free trade: as the Copenhagen climate talks near, it is France and certain American senators who want to talk up "green tariffs" in case China and India duck binding limits on carbon.
From the European POV the comparison with France is interesting, at least in theory all decisions regarding Trade or Climate Change are taken at EU level but to get to an EU decision on many issues an individual state has a veto.
The misunderstandings are on the US side as well.
There are misunderstandings on the American side, too. American diplomats insist that Europeans see a failed Afghan state as a direct threat to their security. That is not true. "A very small number" of European governments believe Afghanistan is on the front-line of the war on terror, says one senior Brussels man. Most sent troops just to maintain good relations with America. Europe’s governments fear there is no strategy for winning the war but "some are afraid to tell the Americans the truth."
Finally, Americans may not realise how horrible their health-care debate looks to outsiders. It is not just that it is blocking other legislation. The partisan nature of today’s Congress looks mad to Europeans brought up to value consensus. Europeans also know that "European-style" health care does not include death panels prescribing euthanasia for grannies and are offended by the way such tosh is alleged in America.
Afghanistan is a major one the US has convinced itself it has taken on this burden for the good of the "Western" world and therefore is increasingly upset it is not supported by the rest of the world. To the Europeans it is a grudging commitment to keep on good terms with the superpower which they were happy to take on after 9/11 but are keen to get out of and see no connection to security at home.
Overall the US is an important country which has interests around the world and other countries try to influence those interests but they are not friends for friends sake they have their own interests.