In the 18th century it became the custom for young British aristocrats to undertake what was dubbed “The Grand Tour”. This was a tour of European capitols particularly in Italy and France to complete their educations by learning something of art, architecture, history, and geography at first hand. It also had social aspects—the young gentleman would meet his equals overseas and form business and political contacts that could be very useful in later life. There was also a dimension of kicking off the traces in The Grand Tour and quite a bit of drinking, gambling, and general debauchery could also be involved.
By the 19th century The Grand Tour had become a custom for young men of means on both sides of the Atlantic. The custom persisted somewhat into the 20th century. My dad took a year off after completing law school in 1936 and undertook a Grand Tour. I’ll tell you about that some other time.
Now President Bush has undertaken a Grand Tour of his own. Marc Schulman of American Future has re-produced Mr. Bush’s itinerary (gleaned from The Washington Post). What does Bush expect from his Grand Tour and what can we expect? Marc has also done a good job of rounding-up punditry from both sides of the Atlantic on the subject. The consensus seems to be that this trip is necessary but not sufficient, a desireable extending of the olive branch, etc., etc.
I think this is a mis-reading of the situation.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it would be splendid if the successive “charm offensives” by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and, now, President Bush would usher in a new strengthening of trans-Atlantic relationships and bring the French, Germans, and other EU members as willing partners in Bush’s Grand Strategy. But I don’t think it’s going to happen and I don’t think that either Bush or his advisors are naive enough to believe that it will.
Look at things from a French or German perspective. Chirac and Schroeder’s anti-American obstructionist stances are politically popular with their respective peoples. The French and Germans don’t believe that they have any enemies against whom a military response would be useful or effective. They’re decreasing their military expenditures (as a proportion of GDP) correspondingly. These two factors taken together mean that they have neither the will nor the ability to make material contributions.
The de-militarization of the two major Continental powers will have implications. Not only will they be less willing to participate in military action, they will be less able to do so, and less able to respond quickly to issues that require a rapid response with a trained and disciplined force whether for military or any other purposes as we have seen in the aftermath of the recent Sumatran earthquake and the following tsunami.
Add to the inability to project force or aid beyond their borders the decreasing proportion of European output as a proportion of world GDP, the demographic problems on the horizon for Europe, and the implications of those demographic issues on productivity and I think it’s pretty obvious: Europe just isn’t that important any more and isn’t likely to get much more important soon.
So why has Bush gone to Europe? I think there are three reasons. First, half a loaf is better than none. Anything that Europe can bring to the party will be gratefully received. Second, when the French and Germans stiff him (as they undoubtedly will), they will look churlish. This won’t go un-noted in New Europe. For New (or Old) Europeans who aren’t predisposed to despise anything American this may be a very important trip particularly if, as some have predicted, the European Union collapses within 15 years.
But Bush is a politician and the third and, in my opinion, most significant reason for Mr. Bush’s Grand Tour must certainly be for domestic political consumption. What might the domestic political considerations for this trip be? He may be trying to demonstrate that he’s doing his utmost on the diplomatic front. This should strengthen his hand for whatever actions are required as future events unfold. And there’s a lot of unfolding going on.
Well, I wish Mr. Bush well on his Grand Tour. And I sincerely hope he enjoys himself as much as his 18th, 19th, and 20th century predecessors did.
This may be only a different way of saying what you’ve said, but in politics — and especially in international politics — perception is reality.
The probability that perceptions of Bush and US policies will worsen as a result of the trip is virtually zero. The expected value is greater than zero.
Everything to gain, nothing to lose. So why not?
Well said Dave. My agreement is here is almost total.
I’ll go you one better though. After the tour and probably a few similar goodwill gestures the Bush administration is going to offer a good deal to the Iranians, good enough that eyebrows will be raised.
When Khameini spurns it, as I’m sure he will, the hardliners will be completely isolated from the Europeans, their own people and even the more normal side of the Iranian government. Either Bush will use the moment to get Europe to agree to real and damaging sanctions on Teheran or he’ll strike militarily and degrade as much of their A-bomb program as possible.
My European friends have been telling me how much the gestures and perceptions matter over there — and how poorly they think GWB has performed in that regard. He certainly could have done better, though I think the poverty of his performance in that regard is exaggerated by the twisted media coverage it gets in Europe. Most of his backers in the U.S. seemed content that he was getting stuff done.
I’m pleased to say that he’s gone to Europe and said all the things that my European friends have been lamenting that he never says to them, on issues from the EU to Russian authoritarianism. Whether this changes their overall low opinion of him, and us, remains to be seen. More likely they’ll find it easier to contradict themselves and come back saying, “well, he SAYS the right things, but look at what he DOES.”
That’s essentially what I’m saying, Callimachus. I don’t see any way the French or Germans can look anything but foolish and bigoted after this trip. Look at the French commitment to the NATO support for Iraqi officer training: one officer. Bush has been very gallant about it and tried to put the best possible face on it but how can it fool anyone? Chirac’s way of saying “Well, we are participating; we’re just not doing it very enthusiastically”. That’s childish and petulant.
I guess I’m just not cut out to be a diplomat but the next time any Western European nation save Britain asks for anything whatsoever we should send them bundles of old clothes (since they’re obviously so poverty-stricken they need that kind of help).