Stardate 20020628.2235

(Captain's log): One of the most important aspects of Bush's speech on Monday which has gotten somewhat less attention is something I touched very briefly in passing on Tuesday: it was yet another exercise in American unilateralism.

With the possible exception of Ariel Sharon, there is no indication that Bush made any attempt to consult with anyone outside Washington before making his decision on what the speech should say. At the time he delivered it, its contents were as much a surprise in the capitols of Europe as they were everywhere else, and what he actually announced was very different from what they expected.

Part of why there was a stunned silence from Europe is because they weren't ready for it. What I think they expected was a variation on the following:

"We must, for the umpteenth time, reiterate our belief that it would be really cool if everyone in the Middle East stopped trying to kill one another and got back to negotiating, and so let's try yet another peace conference, only this time we'll invite not only the Palestinians and Israelis, but also the Europeans and the Russians and representatives of the Arab nations and diplomats from the UN and special guest star the Tooth Fairy. And in the mean time, Sharon, get those troops the hell out of Palestinian territory. Arafat, make another meaningless and empty denunciation of the bombings which doesn't prevent them."

I think the Europeans already had advanced plans for such a conference, and were waiting for Bush's speech so they could make final adjustments to their responses. But when he blindsided them with his announcement that he wasn't going to negotiate anymore with Arafat, it took a while to figure out what to say without looking like idiots, which is why we didn't really start seeing any kind of substantive comments until the next day.

What this shows is that Bush hasn't abandoned unilateralism. If anything, he's being even more unilateral.

Ever since last September, our NATO allies have been trying to use the invocation of Article V in reverse. I think what it says ("an attack on one is considered an attack on all") was originally intended to mean that everyone would activate their militaries and fight together against the aggressor. Of course, except for the British that didn't happen.

By some strange twist of logic, the Europeans converted that into the idea that the US alone would do the fighting (with a bit of British help) because only the US was able to reach the theater, but that instead of the US making the decisions and planning the war, that everyone in NATO would be able to get involved in deciding where and when and how the American forces would fight. Bush was polite but refused to fall for that in Afghanistan, and I think it's clear he has no intention of letting it happen when we decide to go into Iraq, either.

Bush consulted with the allies before the operation in Afghanistan, and all they did was bitch and moan and try to prevent it from happening. And while the fighting was going on, they continued to bitch and moan and tried to get it to stop. (Until Taliban resistance collapsed, and then there was embarrassed silence during the now-legendary rapid advance south.)

So this time he didn't even bother talking to them first. He made his mind up about the new policy and announced it, and they all found out about it at the same time the rest of us did, after it became official. They were not given an opportunity to kibitz it ahead of time because he doesn't care what they think.

Bush announced that he was tired of negotiating with the Palestinians. But his behavior says that he's also tired of negotiating with the Europeans. It will be interesting to see how they react to this.