Americans are from Mars ... Europeans are from Venus; US political

WHATEVER happens over the coming weeks, one thing is certain - relations between the United States and Europe will never be the same again. According to Robert Kagan, author of Paradise And Power: America And Europe And The New World Order, it is time to stop kidding ourselves that they share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.

Kagan, a senior associate at the influential Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was speaking to the Sunday Herald on a whistle-stop tour to Paris and London, during which he lectured at the London School of Economics, appeared on Newsnight and talked to journalists, punting Bush's pro-war stance.

According to Kagan, the US and Europe have been drifting apart for some years. "On the all-important question of power - the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power - American and European perspectives are diverging," he said.

While Europe turns it back on power, and cuts back on defence spending, the US is embracing power, not least because of its vastly superior military capability and financial muscle. The present transatlantic tensions, argues Kagan, did not begin with the inauguration of George W Bush in January 2001, nor did they begin after September 11. The divisions emerged during the Clinton era and earlier, when there were mutual recriminations over involvement in Bosnia.

"The first Bush administration refused to act, believing it had more important strategic obligations elsewhere," said Kagan. "Europeans declared they would act - it was, they insisted, 'the hour of Europe' - but the declaration proved hollow when it became clear that Europe could do nothing in Bosnia without the United States.

"When France and Germany took the first small steps to create something like an independent European defence force, the Bush administration scowled. From the European point of view, it was the worst of both worlds. The US was losing interest in preserving European security, but at the same time it was hostile to European aspirations to take on the task themselves. Europeans complained about American perfidy, and Americans complained about European weakness and ingratitude."

Since then, says Kagan, attitudes have hardened, as the Iraq crisis moves towards a denouement. "At the level of the intellectual class and foreign policy community, there's no great difference between Britain, France, Germany, Spain. There's a lot of unanimity. It's only at the government level that you see this division in Europe. You don't really see it at the popular or elite levels."

Why is this?

"Europeans and Americans as a general matter don't share quite the same view of the utility and legitimacy of military force. I think that's been evolving for a while. This view in Britain that Blair could go [along with the US and attack Iraq] if he has a second resolution, but he can't possibly go if he hasn't a second resolution, reflects a certain attitude towards the UN Security Council and world order and legal authority for action, which is just absent in the US. I mean there are few Americans who would say it's the right thing to do in Iraq, but if we can't get a UN Security Council resolution we shouldn't do it. So that's a big gap in attitudes.

"And then some of it is more recent and circumstantial. It matters that the US got hit on September 11 and Britain and Europe didn't."

But the US wasn't attacked by Iraq. So why is it so intent on attacking it?

"The Europeans always say: 'We've lived with terrorism, we know terrorism.' When Europeans think of terrorism they think of car bombs and supermarkets blowing up. They don't have the experience, and they actually don't imagine the possibility of cataclysmic terrorism. Therefore, it is possible for Americans to imagine weapons of mass destruction being used by international terrorists against the US. Therefore, it is possible for them to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who is building weapons of mass destruction, could make these available to terrorists. And then an amazingly high number of Americans think Saddam was somehow involved in September 11. Setting aside the question of who's right and who's wrong, the explanation still goes back to September 11. Americans do make the link between Saddam, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Europeans just find that to be completely irrational."

Should we, then, be contemplating war?

"Well, I myself don't believe that's the main reason to be going to war against Saddam Hussein. I've been arguing for removing Saddam from power for seven years now.

"For me it's always been more about the threat that he poses regionally. He's a natural aggressor. He's invaded two of his neighbouring countries unprovoked, used chemical weapons against his own people, used chemical weapons against the Iranian people and he's in violation of agreements he signed at the end of the Gulf war. So for me that's justification enough."