"Estranged Partners" by Jessica T. Mathews, in Foreign Policy (Nov.–Dec. 2001), 1779 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Although European leaders have voiced bled relationship. More telling, says Mathews, strong support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism, president of the Carnegie Endowment for the show of unity belies what has become a trou-International Peace, is the string of international issues on which the United States and Europe have failed to see eye to eye. "In a solid bloc," Mathews says, "the European Union (EU) approved, and the United States did not, the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the ban on antipersonnel land mines, the biodiversity treaty, and a verification mechanism for the Biological Weapons Control Treaty."

These differences amount to more than the familiar "quarrels among friends" of years past. They stem from changes in Europe since the end of the Cold War and the unwillingness of the United States to compromise in the international arena. During the Cold War, Europe often deferred to the United States, but with its end, the focus on both sides has shifted more to economic matters and other domestic concerns. Europe’s integration into a common market, though halting, has not only increased its global economic clout, but also, says Mathews, has "allowed Europeans to acquire day-to-day experience—and hence a level of comfort—with exactly the kind of painful compromise, frustrating negotiations, and less-than-perfect outcomes" that characterize major international agreements.

The United States, by contrast, has repeatedly taken a "me-first" view on international issues. Take Washington’s reason for opposing the ICC: "that U.S. military personnel might be arbitrarily prosecuted for war crimes." Such an argument means little to Europeans, who "also regularly send troops abroad on peacekeeping missions." Further, it undermines the authority for international sanctions that America wants to impose on countries such as Iran, Libya, and Cuba.

The United States increasingly finds "itself on the wrong side of lopsided international judgments." The breach is widest over environmental issues, such as the regulation of genetically modified foods and the reduction of greenhouse gases. Europe is now taking the lead on brokering many global agreements, such as the 1997 Kyoto climate accords. But it is also using its economic might to increase its global influence in other areas, as evidenced by its diplomatic mission to North Korea last May and its lead role at last fall’s Durban conference on racism. The EU now boasts a gross domestic product roughly equal to that of the United States. It pays a bigger share of the United Nations’ core budget (37 percent versus the United States’ 22 percent). All of this means that Washington no longer can count on "a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U.S. leadership."

For its part, concedes Mathews, "Europe needs to outgrow its knee-jerk criticism of the United States for either doing too much or too little and its addiction to feel-good international agreements without regard to their content or actual ability to solve problems." (No European country has met its Kyoto Protocol commitments.) But "leaders on both sides of the Atlantic will have to adapt if they hope to close the widening gap that not only threatens the United States’ ability to achieve its international aims but also greatly reduces the likelihood that global challenges can be met."