After his second-term inauguration as US president in January, George W. Bush quickly made Europe the target of his first major overseas foray. Following the bruising split over the Iraq war, Bush appeared keen to mend fences.
"Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy" chanted his new Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as Washington promised a fresh start.
But less than six months after Bush's trip to Brussels, trans-Atlantic ties are again under growing strain on a wide range of fronts.
For all the mutual efforts to patch things up, Europe and America are once more in danger of drifting apart -- not in terms of shared values and beliefs, but because their interests are frequently and painfully at odds.
The issue of UN reform, and specifically the enlargement of the Security Council, is a prime example of the trend.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's committee of wise men said expanded council membership was needed to reflect the global balance of power this year, rather than 1945 when the UN was created.
As the subsequent debate developed, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa and Germany emerged as favorites to take new, permanent seats on the council.
The issue is due to be decided at a UN summit in September. At least, that is the plan.
Enter the US. At a meeting on June 8 in Washington, Rice left few if any doubts in the mind of her guest, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, that the Bush administration would oppose Berlin's bid.
According to reports of the meeting, Rice finessed the rebuff as best she could. There were other reform priorities, she said; the US was undecided about the overall enlargement plan.
But the bottom line was clear enough: Germany was not welcome to join the club. And if people thought that had something to do with continuing US resentments over Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, diplomats said, then they might not be all that wrong.
The snubbing of Germany is, in a larger sense, a snub also for Europe and the EU.
US right-wingers have made no secret of their opposition to the potential presence of three EU states on the Security Council (Britain and France already have permanent membership). They see the EU as an emerging, unwelcome rival to US global leadership.
Germany's rejection may not make much sense. It is potentially deeply damaging in the longer term. It could derail the council membership bids of other countries and collapse the whole reform effort.
But all that apparently cut no ice with Rice. Engaged in a global power-game, she ruthlessly protected perceived American interests.
US-Europe tensions surfaced again recently in a very different context -- in an argument over how western countries should assist African Union peacekeepers attempting to curb the genocidal violence in Sudan's Darfur region.
Leave aside for now the question of whether such assistance is too little, too late. The row bore scant relation to the humanitarian exigencies of the moment.
It centred instead on whether the EU's nascent, collective defense forces or US-led NATO should lead a logistical support operation.
The US has long viewed European attempts to create an independent defense capability with suspicion. France has long seen such a development as an essential part of Europe's ambition to counter-balance the US.
In the event a compromise was found. But the argument left a bad taste.
"The priorities are profoundly wrong if NATO and the EU let their turf battle come before protecting the lives of civilians," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director for Human Rights Watch.
Diverging US and European viewpoints were in evidence again during the recent visit to Israel of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
No sooner had he arrived than Straw found himself defending his decision, backed by other EU countries, to open low-level contacts with Hamas's political wing. Hamas enjoyed considerable successes in recent municipal elections.
Such contacts are anathema to both the US and Israel, which regard Hamas as a terrorist organization with no legitimate role.
The EU and Britain, on the other hand, anticipating further Hamas successes in forthcoming Palestinian parliamentary polls, argue that the west cannot go against the people's choices.
Similar trans-Atlantic strains are apparent over how best to deal with Iran's nuclear programs -- with the EU engaging in dialogue and the US standing back menacingly; and on major environmental issues such as climate change.
Indeed, it is sometimes hard to identify specific international questions on which the US and Europe wholly agree.
Sadly, next month's G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland may prove to be an exception.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who regards himself as a sort of trans-Atlantic bridge, is battling hard for debt relief, increased aid and fairer trade for Africa.
But as matters stand now, countries such as France, Germany and Russia will be every bit as reluctant as the US to dig deeper into their pockets.
Even if they cannot agree on very much else, it seems the US and Europe will agree in Gleneagles that Africa is worthy of concern -- but not a lot of new cash.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath