91Èȱ¬

The new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has clocked up quite a few air miles in the last few weeks. China, Japan, Indonesia, the Middle East. Last and perhaps least, Europe.

Now she is in Brussels for a meeting with Nato foreign ministers and with Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission. But only the most pompous should be offended that Europe is tagged onto the end of the visit. Today's visit may be dominated by Nato's traditional role - eyes fixed on Russia. But Afghanistan remains the trickiest subject.

US Vice President Joe Biden will be in Brussels next week and the president will meet Nato leaders in France and EU leaders in Prague at the end of the month. European politicians as a whole welcomed the election of Barack Obama as almost one of them, with similar views on everything from Iraq to climate change. If he's being accused of European-style socialism at home, some joke that at least he'll fit in here.

But it's not that simple. A little earlier in the week I was at a gathering to publicise a joint report of the and the Venusburg group about . There was a video link to Washington and the collective view seemed that this was an important moment to heal the breach that occurred most obviously over Iraq with President Bush, but in fact stretches back to many differences during the Clinton administration.

I was slightly surprised how strong the American voices were in calling for a confident European Union defence policy and a single voice to put the European case. When I asked if many in Washington still felt this would undermine Nato I was told that that sort of thinking had been abandoned four or five years ago, and certainly no one in the new administration thought that way. The feeling was that the demand is for Europe to do more, not less, and which initials are at the top of note paper matter less than commitment.

But will Europe actually do more? The US demand for more fighting troops in Afghanistan is repeated in public and in private. But Professor Yves Boyer, Deputy Director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research, told me:

"I do think the time when the Americans could come to Europe and have a shopping list and ask the Europeans to fit to their demands is finished. We try to build a partnership with the United States: EU-US. And a partnership is made among equals and so we cannot abide all Americans demands, particularly related to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to define a new strategy towards those two countries. We have difficulty defining our enemy, so can we dream about victory?"

Note that he says EU, not Nato. But the real point is the perception that Obama doesn't know what he wants to surge towards, or why.

The secretary of state will get a warmer welcome here than would otherwise be the case, simply because she flies in from a visit to Gaza. Some observers say that Europe's foreign policy priorities are the reverse of the United States's. If the US list goes AfPak (as the jargonistas now call it, with the political purpose of stressing Pakistan is very much part of the regional issue in Afganistan), Iraq, China, Middle East and Russia, then read that backwards for the priorities of many continental Europeans.

There's little doubt that Afghanistan is the immediate priority. It's true that some countries don't like risking their soldiers and don't want to take on combat duties. But it is deeper than that. Many argue that while the invasion of Afghanistan was carried out after 9/11 under - mutual defence if a member country is attacked - the mission is now completely different and needs to be defined.

, is part of and has visited the country many times. He told me: "I have met all European ambassadors in Afghanistan and all of them told me the conflict cannot be solved militarily. We need a new strategy.

"There is one positive thing, that this American administration gives a much higher importance to the development of civil society and the Afghan army and police. In my opinion these are the most decisive ways of stabilising Afghanistan. The increase of military forces, particularly European military forces is not the right way."

I asked him, wasn't this issue likely to be seen by the Americans as a badge of Europe's commitment to the United States?

"Yeah, that's the problem, for the Europeans and especially for the Germans, but I hope the German government is able to address a realistic strategy for Afghanistan and co-operate closely with Americans, but at the same time make clear the differences."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?