There is more to the row between the United States and the European Union over trade sanctions against Iran, Libya and Cuba than can be explained by the simple facts of electoral competition in the US or the great public unease there following recent acts of terrorism. By signing the legislation sponsored by his Republican opponents President Clinton has gone beyond threats to take action unilaterally and without consultation, specifically by taking extra territorial powers against non-American companies.
The EU states have quite correctly taken sharp exception, despite the commitment they insist they share with the US about confronting the terrorist issue. There are different perceptions of how best to tackle it and clearly different interests at play, which affect the way in which US and European states respond. These factors were clearly visible at last week's Group of Seven meeting in Paris, at which the US representatives held back from pushing their policy on Iran and Libya, to avoid a public disagreement with their allies.
The EU council of ministers last month rapidly agreed to prepare retaliatory action, for fear of the precedents that could be set if the US successfully applies extra territorial powers. It now looks as if they will have to be sharpened up sooner rather than later, in coming weeks, under the direction of the Irish EU Presidency. Last night's statement in Dublin sets out the European point of view clearly and directly.
European ministers are well aware that the presidential and congressional elections in the US have forced the pace with Mr Clinton. They should not underestimate the fear and bewilderment that has swept through American public opinion following the TWA crash on July 17th, which is widely assumed, but not yet proved, to have been caused by a bomb, and by the atrocity in Atlanta. Mr Clinton has shown his customary political skills in response to them it would also be a mistake to underestimate his determination to turn these events to political advantage as the election campaign intensifies with the two party conventions this month.
What has to be evaluated carefully on both sides of the Atlantic is whether the disagreements over trade sanctions have the potential to affect other parts of the EU US agenda, on such matters as Bosnia, NATO enlargement and the selection of a successor to the United Nations Secretary General, Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali. There has been considerable tension on each of these fronts. European governments are worried that popular neo isolationism could combine with an impatient use of the US's superpower status and political opportunism to pitch US EU relations into an unintended confrontation.
Successful management of these tensions in coming months will require considerable sensitivity and sophistication on both sides of the Atlantic. Against the background of the US elections and the genuine differences of opinion and interest over the issue of terrorism it will be necessary to prevent these trade sanctions from escalating into a broader trade war. It is not easy to see how this can be done if the US sets about implementing the powers that Mr Clinton has signed into law. European governments will rather want to wait for the elections and probe means of mitigating the effects of such legislation. But they should also prepare to respond so as to protect important principles of trade practice and international law.