We are watching the decline of American power

Lord Ashdown, the international community's High Representative in Bosnia (oh, wondrous title), may believe that American threats to withdraw from Bosnia have shown how far Europe has progressed to take its place. The rest of us can only sigh: "In your dreams, Paddy."

There isn't the faintest indication that Europe has developed the unity or sense of purpose to contribute a united front on any international issue, from the Balkans to the Middle East or even its own enlargement, let alone being in a position to undertake major peace-keeping operations without America.

Of course Europe should. And there are those among us who believe that it will eventually. But it will be because the US impels it to by its own withdrawal, not because of any self-generated policy on Europe's part. In that sense, Washington is quite right to complain that it is almost impossible to get a sensible response to any initiative out of Europe. The capitals of the continent moan about President Bush's unilateralism and snipe at its particular policies from Iraq to Kyoto. But they do precious little to produce a power that might contribute something of its own.

Having said that, I still believe that the process of US disengagement from Europe is going on, and has accelerated since September. This is not because either party actively wants it. Washington's decision to sign up for another two weeks' participation in the UN forces training Bosnian police, and its delay of six months in the introduction of steel tariffs, are an indication that it has no desire for confrontation with Europe. Nor, judging from the reluctance of European leaders to criticise Washington directly, does Europe want to show too much clear water across the Atlantic.

But the realities are there for all to see. US objections to war crimes tribunals, the casus belli of its dispute over continued Bosnian involvement, are fundamental and extend far beyond the much-quoted fear of such tribunals being taken over by politically-inspired opponents of America. At bottom the US does not accept the right of civil-based tribunals to judge the actions of its soldiers. Not does it have any belief in the value or purpose of multinational institutions as an alternative to national interests. Those are its beliefs and no amount of pressure or argument from its allies is going to change them.

The wonder is that its allies have taken so long to understand this. Part of the problem is ignorance of the way America operates. The other problem is an over-estimation of the State Department as a vehicle of US views. For most countries, the State Department is still the only real avenue for communicating their views to Washington and vice versa. This is natural but no longer useful.

Put it the other way round. No one in their right mind would think that Jack Straw has much influence in forming British foreign policy, or that you could go to him to understand how British public opinion was moving on any particular issue. So too with the United States. Colin Powell has influence and he has in certain instances the right of veto. But he does not make policy. If you want to sense US feelings on internal issues, you have to go the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

The classic example of the the misunderstanding of Washington abroad is seen in Middle East policy. When President Bush finally announced his long-expected (and encouraged) statement on Middle East peace, he took the world largely by surprise. Most Arab countries had already prepared responses welcoming the statement on the basis of what they had been told by the State Department about the sections promising a Palestinian state. What no one had been prepared for – and what, one suspects, even the State Department didn't know about – was the additional paragraph demanding Yasser Arafat's removal from the scene.

But which was the true US Administration view – the attack on Arafat or the support of Palestine? All this week the State Department has been trying to persuade US allies that the real import of the statement was the pro-Palestinian part. But as each day goes by, the more obvious it is that the anti-Arafat part represents the true Presidential view. Having been pushed to the brink by allies and Arab nations demanding US intervention to force the pace of peace, George Bush had come up with the answer that suited his domestic purposes: America is not going to intervene before the Palestinians stop all violence, and until that time Ariel Sharon is free to do what he likes. It may not be a very helpful position, but it is one that enables Bush to go to the next election blaming it all on the side with the least American votes.

So too with steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, refusing to participate in international justice, and withdrawal from the Kyoto process – President Bush may not understand the world but he does understand American interests, and is going to pursue them.

You can argue (as I would) that what we are seeing is less the apogee of American imperialist power than its decline. America no longer has the means or the will to engage with the world. Instead it is retreating to its own security.

But whatever the reason, the implications are clear. Europe, like the Middle East and Asia, must forge a future for itself.

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk