Raymond Seitz, the American ambassador in London, has become even more than is usual in his trade–a symbol of something bigger than himself. Soon after President Clinton’s election, a petition began to circulate in the British establishment, collecting several hundred signatures in support of a plea that, despite the change of administration, Seitz should be kept in office. Now, Seitz is a good man. As the first career diplomat ever to occupy a post more commonly the preserve of a party fat cat or presidential crony, he graces the London scene with exceptional intelligence and elegant, thoughtful speeches. But the effort to keep him signals something far beyond the personal. What the British feared from Clinton was a rupture between the United States and Europe. What they sought was the reassuring continuity that a distinguished ambassador, wise in geopolitics and sensitive to European complexities, would personify.
Two tendencies appeared in danger of coming together. First, the British are terrified of being marginalized. The 12-year transatlantic condominium of Conservatives and Republicans has been disrupted by a rude invasion of Democrats, and the Tories worry more than ever about Britaids continuing role as Washington’s favored ally. When Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in his first address to State Department staff, casually remarked that it made sense to review the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, the private response of ministers in London was close to panic at any suggestion that Clinton’s Washington might be about to support the withdrawal of one of Britain’s most valued, and least defensible, global perks.
Second, in the immediate postelection period there was a great deal of rumination about the prospect of an American decoupling from Europe. Troop cuts were not the problem. It was obvious that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, the U.S. military presence would be heavily reduced. More alarming was Clinton’s apparent philosophy of government. World leadership, it was implied, was a burden Washington no longer wanted to assume, at least not unaided. The Europeans should learn to solve their own problems.
Naturally this has a certain appeal in some quarters of the Continent, where the anti-American Gaullism of the ’60s is not entirely dead. With the cold war over, perhaps the entire concept of world leadership was a dangerous irrelevance. It has taken less than a month of Clinton’s presidency to disabuse all parties of this convenient illusion. Bosnia is only in part the catalyst. Europe’s own palsy has a wider reach than that. The integration process that was supposed to have taken a large stride forward with the Treaty of Maastricht 14 months ago has not happened, and indeed could be going into reverse. Recession and reappraisal eat into the military competence that alone can make sense of any policing role in the former Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union. This is not a continent that shows many signs of preparing to shoulder vast new responsibilities.
Clinton’s engagement with Bosnia, when it came, was cautious. But it is a decisive shift. It asserts an American will outside the area of immediate U.S. interest, where Europe and the United Nations have failed to carry the necessary weight. It avoids glib warmongering. Clinton proposes to build on the work of Cyrus Vance and David Owen, but doesn’t commit himself to stick to their plan, with its endorsement of ethnic divisions and validation of an evil status quo. It is hard to see this coming to anything if it is not backed by an American military presence.
What we see, in other words, is the reaffirmation of a leadership that Washington cannot avoid. As a European, I welcome it. Europe finds the act of deciding hard. There are 12 foreign policies in the European Community alone. In Washington, Congress notwithstanding, there can in the end be only one. It may lead to ferocious rows, as it is almost certainly about to over trade. But Bosnia, for better or for worse, shows that in all critical circumstances there’s only one source of meaningful leadership. Europe need not fear. But Washington still needs its best ambassador.
