This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 001309 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR, EUR/PPD, 
 
¶E. O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO PREL OPRC OIIP FR
SUBJECT: PUBLIC AFFAIRS PERSPECTIVES IN THE WAKE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO EUROPE 
 
 
¶1.  Summary:   French opinion leaders across the political 
spectrum commented at length on every stop of the 
President's trip to Europe.  As with the visit of Secretary 
Rice, several, sometimes conflicting, themes emerged.  Even 
long-standing critics of recent U.S. policy heralded the 
visit and President's remarks as a signal of transatlantic 
"reconciliation" and a "change in tone" by the United 
States.  Not far behind, however, came questions about the 
"real" motives behind the change in tone and insistence that 
tonal changes cannot mask fundamentally different approaches 
to foreign policy challenges, even where goals are the same. 
Many commentators adopted a wait-and-see attitude, and 
reserved judgment on the extent of the narrowing of the 
trans-Atlantic divide, recalling Europe's unease with U.S. 
"messianic patriotism" (national center-right daily Le 
Figaro).  Subsequent actions on both sides of the Atlantic, 
they opined, would determine whether U.S. foreign policy 
remained at its core unchanged, what path and institutions 
the U.S. would choose for engagement with Europe, and 
whether Europe would be prepared to assume a united, 
constructive - if not always the same - policy toward the 
U.S. and global objectives. While French opinion leaders 
remain divided, it is clear that the President and Secretary 
have generated new openness to U.S. views among France's 
elite.  Our comment offers some thoughts on maintaining the 
positive momentum. End summary. 
 
CHANGE OF TONE AND (LIMITED) RECONCILIATION 
 
¶2. Headlines and articles trumpeted "reconciliation" and "de- 
icing" of relations (Le Figaro) with some commentators 
declaring the President's visit a success even before his 
arrival: "Condoleezza Rice's conciliatory tone in Paris two 
weeks ago established the theoretical framework for 
reconciliation. The President's trip this week will put it 
into practice " (Editorial in Catholic La Croix).  "There 
has been a spectacular change in tone" and the President's 
"objective is no longer to go to war or the crusade against 
terrorism; it is to fight tyranny and spread democracy" 
(Editorial in Le Figaro).  With Iraq behind us, "the scars 
left by the intervention . have been for the most part 
erased by the January 30 elections" (national center-left 
daily Le Monde), and the French media viewed the 
Presidential visit as symbolizing "blue skies" for the 
transatlantic relationship (Editorial in La Croix).  Other 
commentaries saw the visit as important American recognition 
of the EU: "This is the first time, since the EU has 
existed, that an American president has dealt with it 
directly as a union. This is the acknowledgment of the 
international role that the EU plays." (Editorial in the 
regional daily Midi Libre). 
 
 
¶3. This transatlantic "reunion" may have been "without 
bitterness" but it was also "without enthusiasm," with the 
EU worried about the President's "messianic messages and 
military doctrine" and desire "to pursue the dream of a 
universal American leadership" (Liberation).   The media 
uniformly singled out transatlantic differences over Iran, 
the Chinese arms embargo and NATO's future as points of 
friction marking the "limits to reconciliation" (Le Figaro). 
Europe and the U.S. might share goals in Iran, 
Syria/Lebanon, and China, but commentators steadily 
contrasted the EU's preferences for multilateral diplomacy 
with U.S. preference for "the big stick of military might" 
(national center-left daily Liberation).  Pascal Boniface of 
the IRIS (Institute for International and Strategic 
Relations) acknowledges that the U.S. has gone farther than 
Europe to effect reconciliation, but sees in the new U.S. 
tone a realization of practical limits to unilateralism.  In 
his Liberation op-ed of 02/28, "The U.S. Softens Its 
Approach," Boniface calls President Bush's European trip "a 
veritable charm offensive which confirmed the previous 
messages sent by Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. 
President Bush's intention was to bury the hatchet which 
Iraq had raised between Washington and the Europeans. Since 
January, and to the surprise of those who expected Europe to 
have to pay for its dissidence, there has been a series of 
gestures from the U.S. towards Europe. This proves that 
although the world is not a multipolar world, neither is it 
a unipolar one, because the Americans cannot face major 
international challenges by themselves. Neither can they 
impose their strategic agenda. . While a Euro-American 
rapprochement has taken place, it is clear that the 
Americans have traveled a longer road than the Europeans. 
They have also become aware, more so even than the Europeans 
themselves, that Europe's power is growing. The U.S. has not 
become a multilateral nation abiding by international law. 
But it has gone from `multilateral if we can, unilateral if 
we must' to `unilateral if we can, multilateral if we must.' 
The U.S. is holding to the same policy, but with a larger 
dose of realism, less arrogance, and a smile on their face." 
 
 
EUROPEAN SELF-ANALYSIS AND THE FUTURE OF EU-US COOPERATION 
 
¶4.  Analytical pieces appearing at the end of the Brussels 
trip raised the question of how Europeans can best respond 
to America's overtures, but they gave no answers.  "Bush has 
discovered that Europe exists. Following his re-election, 
George Bush recognized that it was urgent to re-establish a 
healthy trans-Atlantic relationship. But does he really need 
Europe? Despite what he has been saying repeatedly, it is 
not so certain." (Le Figaro).  Others think the U.S. hopes 
to "coddle" Europe in the hopes that Europe will fall into 
line with U.S. positions. "George Bush did not come to 
Europe to negotiate with his allies, he came to convince and 
convince them some more of the righteousness of his crusade 
for freedom." (Regional daily Le Journal de la Marne) 
 
Some commentators noted the allies "are talking past each 
other" (Le Figaro) as illustrated by the Bush-Chirac dinner 
when President Bush "insisted on bringing up democracy in 
the Greater Middle East. and President Chirac chose the 
issue of climate change" as their personal priorities (Le 
Figaro). 
 
Guy Sorman, (Le Figaro), provides an introspective look at 
what might be on the horizon for the U.S. and Europe in an 
op-ed entitled, "What If Bush Were Right?"  Sormon, who has 
made similar arguments in the past, marshals evidence of 
accelerating reforms in the Middle East to question the 
absence of any European vision for democracy in that region. 
"The fact that peace between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians may be possible re-enforces President Bush's 
analysis. The elections in Afghanistan are also a feather in 
his cap. In Egypt, candidates are running against Mubarak. 
The initial intention of redesigning the Middle East map as 
a preamble to peace may have looked unrealistic at the time, 
but seems to be on the road to appearing achievable. The 
Europeans were too skeptical and underestimated their (the 
Arab world's) desire for freedom. For the U.S., the success 
of the Iraqi elections means that they will continue to 
export democracy with whatever means possible. Bush and the 
neo-cons may give the impression of hesitating between 
diplomacy and war. But their hesitation will be short-lived. 
Unless the Europeans can achieve a warming in Iran and 
elsewhere. the U.S. government will pursue its 
democratization process." 
 
 
MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT: NATO'S ROLE 
 
¶4.  Gerard Dupuy in left-of-center Liberation on February 22 
asserted that: "NATO today seems about as useful as a 
bicycle to a fish. but that it is a topic of discussion to 
be avoided in order to agree for the sake of agreeing." 
However, as Le Figaro reported on February 23, NATO's role 
and future provided another area of friction.  "If anyone in 
Europe had doubts concerning NATO's raison d'etre 15 years 
after the end of the Cold War, President Bush gave them an 
answer Tuesday:  `NATO is the most successful Alliance in 
the history of the world,' he said twice.  It is `the' vital 
security relationship for the U.S. ...  Seeing through the 
maneuver, Jacques Chirac only repeated the European mantra 
of reviewing the situation, `It is necessary for us, as the 
German Chancellor has said, to continue to measure changes 
occurring on the European Continent.'  This direct reference 
to the European defense project elicits ambiguous reactions 
from the other side of the Atlantic." 
 
 
 
CAPITALIZING ON THE POSITIVE 
 
¶5. Comment:  There is genuine French satisfaction with the 
President's visit to Europe and the gesture of outreach to 
European leaders and publics.  While the French media remain 
alert to our policy differences and seem eager to highlight 
them, their voices have become less shrill.  Given the 
extremes of anti-Administration rhetoric we have witnessed, 
even in the cases of lukewarm receptivity, a positive step 
forward has been acknowledged.  The change in tone was a 
necessary - and successful -first step in any 
reconciliation. 
 
To address the wait-and-see critics and build on the success 
of the Secretary's and President's trips, we propose the 
following public affairs considerations for the upcoming 
months: 
 
¶A. Sustain the positive momentum of public dialogue through 
frequent travel of senior officials, to include a public 
event during their visit.  We highlight the success of the 
Secretary's and the President's public addresses.  These 
 
SIPDIS 
events have a doubly positive effect in that the event 
itself provides the image of trans-Atlantic dialogue and the 
media covers these events widely.  The combination generally 
has a more powerful effect than a media encounter alone. 
 
¶B. Include senior staff briefings for foreign media beyond 
the traveling press.  Briefings provide further opportunity 
to amplify - and clarify when necessary -- the principal's 
message and help combat journalists' personal spin, which is 
frequent in the French media.  Moreover, the encounter 
itself is a further "proof" of our interest in dialogue. 
 
¶C. Repeat and elaborate the themes in the President's speech 
that had positive resonance with French opinion leaders: 
 
  ¶1.   The media noted with satisfaction that the President 
     spent many minutes of his speech on the resolution of the 
     Israeli/Palestinian conflict, answering a long-standing 
     European complaint that the President had not given 
     sufficient priority to the conflict which was the basis for 
     other problems in the region (and with Muslims around the 
     world). 
 
  ¶2.   Many commentaries focused on Europe's difficulties in 
     finding fault with the President's message of democracy. 
     The President emphasized again that the values of human 
     rights and freedom were not an American exclusivity; rather 
     it was Europe which was at the foundation of these 
     principles. 
 
  ¶3.   While action and optimism should drive us, the 
     President's acknowledgement of the long and difficult 
     process in the development of democracy reinforced the image 
     of an Administration that has thought through its policies, 
     answering earlier critics of Iraq and Broader Middle East 
     policy. 
 
  ¶4.   The U.S. finds a strong, united Europe in its interest 
     and is ready to work with Europe as a partner. NATO, an 
     organization of consensus among members, will remain the 
     central institution for the trans-Atlantic security 
     relationship, answering conflicting criticism in Europe that 
     the U.S. no longer cares about NATO and Europe, that the 
     U.S. directs NATO to its own aims, and that, for the U.S., 
     "the mission will determine the coalition: is the U.S. 
     preferred approach to security. 
 
  ¶5.   The President values cooperative efforts with Europe, 
     and gave examples of such ongoing coordination, including in 
     the area of development and the environment, addressing the 
     image of an unhearing, powerful America which alone claims 
     to know the way. 
Leach