Rice, addressing her audience at the Institute d'tudes Politique, pointed out that, being a slave-owner, even Thomas Jefferson's passion for liberty was flawed, and gave credit to the men and women on both sides of the Atlantic for standing firm in the face of tyranny and refusing to accept as final the iron curtain which separated them from the universal values of liberty, freedom and human dignity.

She assured the Europeans of the second Bush administration's preference for power of ideas, of compassion and of hope over military and economic power. She, however, remained firm on the concept of abridgement of sovereignty based on "the belief that the fundamental character of regimes cannot be separated from their external behaviour. Borders between countries cannot be peaceful if tyrants destroy the peace of their societies from within states where corruption and chaos and cruelty invariably pose threat to their neighbors, threats to their regions and potential threat to the entire international community." So to face the interwoven threats posed by terrorism, proliferation of WMD, regional conflicts, failed states and organized crime, Europe and America have to stand together.

On the heels of Condi Rice's visit to Europe President Bush went there. Addressing the European leaders in Brussels President Bush reassured them that transatlantic alliance "is the main pillar of our security" -- a refrain he had no difficulty in conveying to Tony Blair the next day, but perhaps not so successfully to Jacques Chirac, who admitted the existential divergence of opinion between the two countries but agreed to cement, broaden and strengthen the US-EU relations within their broader context.

At Bratislava (Slovakia) President Bush admonished Vladimir Putin on the slow pace of democratization in Russia. Russian worry over expansion of NATO in 2002 and the recent developments in Ukraine edging the country closer towards the EU and away from Moscow did not appear to have figured prominently in the talks. US could consider the possibility that Putin's successor could very well be a "restorationist" dedicated to regain lost glory of the Soviet Union. American dismissive attitude towards Russia, consultations in Russia-NATO Council notwithstanding, may weaken the prospect of eventual reconciliation with Russia.

But if a man is known by the company he keeps then we should note that while Bush let go of Colin Powell he retained Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-cons, promoted Condoleezza Rice, and appointed Ambassador Negroponte as the new Intelligence Czar.

The Europeans may find it difficult to forget Rumsfeld's caustic remarks when NATO for the first time in its history invoked Article 5 relating to commonality of threats to all members if one member is attacked (prior to NATO bombing of Afghanistan) or of his derisive description of the European countries who disagreed with the Anglo-American plan to invade Iraq as "old Europe" and no less importantly of the concept of American exceptionalism and doctrine of preemption expounded in the Bush National Security Strategy "based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests."

One is at once reminded of Robert Kagan's suggested division of work of the Americans "making the dinner" and the Europeans "doing the dishes." In Kagan's view, World War II destroyed the European nations as great powers and subsequent relinquishment of the colonies denoted perhaps the most significant retrenchment of global influence in human history. Added was Europe's loss of centrality in the American security matrix as a result of the end of the cold war.

As expected, President Bush did not show any sign of contrition over the Iraq invasion (albeit the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a collateral benefit of the war) which went against the grains of Professor Michael Walzer's exposition of the principles of just and unjust war. Walzer's argument rests on the premise that as with domestic crimes, use of force would require actual or imminent boundary crossing, invasion or physical assault to justify war. Otherwise any use of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another state would be a criminal act.

President Bush and his administration had already dismissed the idea that the Iraq invasion was unjust and are congratulating themselves over the recent elections in Iraq, which they hope may encourage other Arab countries to ease repressive measures in place for many years. Additionally the Bush administration appears to continue with its belief that sovereignty is not a blank cheque and sovereign status of a country depends on its fulfillment of its obligations both to its own citizens and to the international community.

Condoleezza Rice in her Paris speech reminded the world of the firm belief of the transatlantic alliance that "the fundamental character of regimes cannot be separated from their external behaviour." It is not clear, however, how convinced the European allies (except UK) are of American muscularity given the fact that most Europeans believe that the world is now far less safer than it was before the Americans went on a rampage without the consent of the UNSC.

Equally they are not very sure how far US threat would succeed in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Iran in making these countries shed off tribalism, stop alleged help to terrorists, curb nuclear ambition and adorn themselves with traits of modernity. However much the Muslims would like to prove Bernard Lewis wrong that democracy is a parochial custom of the English speaking people for the conduct of their public affairs which may or may not be suitable for other cultures, undeniably Islamic countries suffer from democracy deficit and seem to resist embracing democratic practice in the conduct of their public affairs. At the risk of being too self-critical we may wish to remind ourselves of Henry Kissinger's assessment that it would be unwise to expect the Muslim world to adorn itself with all the traits of modernity that took the West centuries to get comfortable with.

Wisely perhaps, both Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder have accepted American unilateralism in Iraq as a thing of the past and have decided to move on. But then the European anger at the US act of preemption loses meaning if one were to accept Professor Michael Glennon's thesis that UNSC's failure to prevent the Iraq war was not a failure at all, but was due to the incompatibility of the new global configuration resultant of the towering preeminence of the US with the way the UNSC was framed to function. Though the French, Chinese and Russian efforts since the end of the cold war were directed to bring about some semblance of multipolarity in global politics it was forgotten by these powers that while Europeans found comfort in democratic legitimacy flowing from the will of the international community, the Americans, in the words of Francis Fukuyama, "tend not to see any source of democratic legitimacy higher than nation-state."

The second Bush administration would love to see reforms of the UN, including that of the UNSC, an organization which caused grief to the conduct of US unilateralism in the run up to the Iraq war. The debate on the reforms have gathered force due to global recognition of existential threats posed by rogue states, failed states, and non-state actors. Princeton Professor Annie-Marie Slaughter has advocated rewriting or at least reinterpreting some of the rules and provisions of the UN Charter to face these threats.

She argues that recognition by Kofi Anan of the gravity and unprecedented nature of the threat facing the 21st century and his call on the UNSC to consider "early authorization of coercive force" strengthens the case for reinterpretation of what constitutes "threat to peace" under the UN Charter.

In an address to the UNGA in September 2002 Kofi Anan warned member states of the challenges facing the 21st century and created the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to suggest policies and institutions that the UN would require in this century. This High Level Panel has identified six cluster of threats including war between states, violence within states, poverty, disease and environmental degradation, terrorism, transnational crimes, etc.

The panel appears to have suggested revision of Article 51 of the Charter relating to self-defense by suggesting the UNSC to be more pro-active in the future, and take decisive action earlier before distant threats become such that these cannot be met with little or no reaction time. The panel endorsed the concept of responsibility to protect civilians from large scale violence, a responsibility that rests with the governmental authorities. When a state fails to protect its civilian population, the panel suggests, the international community then has to act through humanitarian operations, monitoring missions and diplomatic pressure, and ultimately with force if necessary when all other means fail to produce results. This accords with Garth Evans chaired International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty which, inter-alia, recommends international intervention to defuse humanitarian crisis caused by massive violation of human rights, genocide, famine or anarchy

Besides Westphalian model of sovereignty, particularly the purist concept, already corroded by globalization, now has a theoretical existence due to willful abandonment of sovereignty (e.g EU) or invasion (e.g. Iraq). The current mood in according sovereignty most recently espoused by Condoleezza Rice in Paris is contingent on how a government treats its citizens, its foreigners, or its prisoners which in a substantial part provides or deprives the government of the legitimacy it needs.

The most recently published open letter titled A Compact Between the United States and Europe signed among others by Clinton National Security Advisors Sandy Berger and Tony Lake, academicians Ivo Daalder, James Dobbins, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Annie-Marie Slaughter, Susan Rice, former British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, Oxford Professors Timothy Garton-Ash and Kalypso Nicolaidis should be given due consideration.

The Compact shows sort of desperation felt by this assembly of iconic presence that it is time for Europe to realize that it cannot expect America to recognize the errors of their ways and reverse the policies of the past four years and for the Americans to realize that they can not simply explain the rightness of their ways and expect Europe to come on board. Each side must recognize the legitimate concerns of the other. The Compact identifies US-EU areas of agreement on Iraq, Iran Middle East Peace, China, climate change, democracy in the Middle East, the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan, Sudan, the developing countries, and the UN and suggests ways and means to bridge the gaps where they exist and redouble efforts in areas of agreement.

The very fact that such a group of eminent people thought it necessary to publicly advise the US and Europe reflects their conviction that global peace depends in large measure on the extent of concert of power wielded by the two sides. But then again, while transatlantic fissures should be mended, Nato should not substitute the UN nor should the world give in to the idea that the absence of unipolarity is not multipolarity but apolarity denoting "anarchic new Dark Age, an era of waning empires, and religious fanaticism, of endemic plunder in the world's forgotten areas, of economic stagnation, and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves." The UN with all its imperfections continues to remain the preferred destination where majoritarian view reflective of universal consciousness will help the conduct of international relations.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.