Europe's Dilemma: How Do You Solve a Problem Like America?

James Graff: Well, they're going to go ahead with the talks scheduled for Bonn in the summer that had been scheduled to discuss mechanisms of implementing Kyoto. The Bush administration had twice asked that those talks be postponed to allow it to participate, and it appears that the Americans plan to be there. There's obviously some fear among the Europeans that the U.S. will now simply try to block everything at Bonn.

Many Europeans believe that Bush hasn't made clear exactly what he's opposed to. Although Bush's criticisms concern the form of the Kyoto accord, it's clear that his objections are more basic. Many Europeans believe that the real objection may not be the Kyoto Protocol itself, as much as the very idea of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

So where does that leave the European governments who want to go ahead with the treaty?

Some are advocating that the only realistic option now is to go ahead and reach an agreement without the U.S. Clearly there's no prospect of getting the Americans back on board now. Some see this as simply another sign of the growing unilateralism of the Bush administration, citing examples ranging from national missile defense to North Korea to Russia. And they believe that they'll manage to forge a stronger agreement without Washington, which will eventually bring pressure on the U.S. because it will apply global standards that will result in American companies' losing business abroad, and so on. Some environmentalists are even calling for boycotts of U.S. oil companies

But others are saying it would be disastrous to exclude the U.S. because many Americans are as concerned about the Bush administration's position as the Europeans are. And trying to pile on the pressure won't work either, because the administration clearly doesn't give a toss what the Europeans think. There's also a fear that this wave of anti-American sentiment may camouflage the fact that the E.U. countries themselves are behind on their efforts to reach their own emission-reduction targets, and that they still have to ratify the treaty.

Next week, an emergency E.U. delegation will arrive in Washington to plead with the administration to change its mind. How do they hope to persuade Bush that he's wrong?

I don't know to what extent they harbor any real illusions. There's a feeling that they need to be seen to be doing something. But [German chancellor Gerhard] Schroeder had no impact when he met with Bush on Thursday, and there's no reason to believe the E.U. delegation will fare any better. They'll make their representations to whomever they get to see — it'll be interesting to see how many deputy assistant secretaries of state they get to meet. But besides reiterating Europe's concern, they're unlikely to have any new arguments. There have been some veiled suggestions of tying the issue to the future of trade, but I don't think the discussion will move in that direction any time soon.

For those counseling moderation, the key point is patience. They argue Europeans should have patience, even if that means waiting another four years to bring the Americans back on board.

But surely reducing it to a problem of the Bush administration is misleading. After all, President Clinton may have signed off on Kyoto, but he only did so safe in the knowledge that the Senate had rejected it 95-0. And in the negotiations on implementation, the Clinton administration was trying to get the Europeans to agree that the U.S. would actually have to make no real cuts because it has so many forests. So isn't Bush simply speaking more bluntly and honestly than his predecessor?

Some see it that way, others don't. But as you say, the reality was that no matter what Clinton was saying, the U.S. was never going to ratify the treaty.