An American in Brussels

George W. Bush went to Europe to bury the hatchet. He is even spending three nights in Brussels, a tribute to Europe’s ostensible capital that few European leaders themselves would deign to pay. From there, Bush is heading to Germany, and then on to Slovakia for a meeting with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin.

In a forceful speech Monday, Bush put to rest his earlier divide-and-conquer approach to the Continent by endorsing “Europe’s democratic unity,” a reference to the ongoing process of the European Union’s integration. Disagreement with France and Germany over Iraq had led conservatives within the Bush administration to argue that a less united Europe might be in the United States’ best interest, as it would allow countries like Italy, Poland and the Netherlands to continue backing Washington. Hence Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s old-versus-new view of Europe.

In his speech, the president said that “no temporary debate, no passing disagreement of governments, no power on Earth will ever divide” Europe and the U.S. These are soothing words to European ears, and Bush deserves credit for trying to put “passing disagreements” over Iraq in perspective. Holding a grudge is not a good foreign policy.

That said, there is a competing danger in pretending that the transatlantic relationship, after a bit of turbulence, can rekindle its romance of the Cold War era. That isn’t going to happen, and any illusion that it could will only set expectations too high and lead to more of the same dramatic bitterness that marked the disagreement over Iraq.

The United States and Europe, although close allies bonded by common interests and common values, will continue to differ on the best way of handling some issues. Both sides should become more comfortable with the notion that honest disagreements do not amount to marital infidelity.

The transatlantic relationship has evolved and matured from its post-World War II model. For starters, Germany is no longer a nation on probation, and the absence of Soviet tanks threatening to cross the Fulda Gap means that trade disputes and other disagreements are no longer muted. Still, the interests of the United States and Europe remain broadly aligned. Islamist-inspired terrorism, instability in the Middle East and nuclear proliferation are as much threats to Europe as to the United States, if not more so.

The Bush administration needs to make clear that it cannot tackle these problems alone, and it needs to drop its outright hostility to some multilateral efforts that are important to Europeans, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court. For their part, European leaders -- France’s Jacques Chirac and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder, to be precise -- should move beyond their own post-Iraq grudge and work alongside the United States to prod Iran to abandon its nuclear program, help stabilize Iraq and help promote freedom in the Middle East. And Europeans should increase their defense spending over time if they want to bear their relative share of the burden in the world as an equal partner with the American superpower.

The transatlantic marriage still holds a great deal of promise, even if the honeymoon has long been over.