Former assistant secretary of State Robert Gelbard sends along this declaration, a "Compact Between the US and Europe," published and signed by 55 prominent US and European foreign policy hands in anticipation of Bush's visit to Europe this week. From the press release:

Written in the format of an agreement between governments, the 11-page primer from the ad hoc group of policy experts tackles such thorny issues as climate change, the Geneva Conventions, Iraq, Iran, peace and democracy in the Middle East, China, the developing world, and the United Nations. On climate change, the primer would have the U.S. agreeing to set up binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases in major industries, power generation, and transportation.

Check it out.

Update: Australian reader Richard Tanter, of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, writes in response to the above:

Your reference... to the Brookings Institution-inspired "Compact between the US and Europe" was interesting. Interesting that it popped up in an American chemical industry news site, stressing the climate change aspect - a straw in the wind concerning concerns in such circles about the US stand-out position re: Kyoto.

But what really struck me was the limited character of the principles of the proposed compact, and the way in which the signatories are attempting to reconstruct a somewhat tattered Atlanticist position.

Leaving aside the weakness of the positions arbitrated on almost each of the issues concerned, it is striking to compare the tone and contents of the compact with the principles articulated by another set of European policy makers and advisors.

I'm speaking of the Study Group on Europe's Security Capabilities, which reported to EU Sec Gen Javier Solana in September last year, chaired by Mary Kaldor.

For the present purposes it's just worth noting that there is a clear "Europeanist" alternative to the compact's "Atlanticist" position, based on interesting and promising alternative security thinking. And that this is taken seriously by the EU.

[Here's the Study Group site, and a short Open Democracy piece on it.]

I won't burden you with more, except to say that for an Australian who works on security issues mainly in East and Southeast Asia, I find it slightly discouraging that non-US-centred views of the world don't get too much of a trot in American policy media, and that re-treads of old alliance-based views of security are so taken for granted in some places.

Point taken. Thanks for the letters.

Posted by Laura at February 20, 2005 11:33 AM