European governments expressed their solidarity with the American people and administration immediately after Tuesday's murderous atrocities in New York and Washington. Human sympathy and a realisation of the enormity of these events drove their response. How that co-operation develops in the weeks and months ahead will determine US-European relations for years to come, at a time when they were undergoing a deep-seated equalisation after the end of the Cold War.
Two contrasting views illustrate what is at stake. Stephen Pollard, a British Eurosceptic commentator based in Brussels, argued in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that "at its root, the anti-Americanism that underlies European integration is not some third way between America and the enemies of freedom; it is siding with the enemies of freedom". He praised Tony Blair for his unconditional support for the US administration and criticised French and German reservations. These are based on the need to engage with Iran, Libya and other states suspected by the administration of harbouring members of the networks responsible for the attacks, and to distance Europe from Sharon's Israel.
Richard Morningstar, the outgoing US ambassador to the EU, told the European Policy Centre in Brussels that the American people and government have been moved by the outpouring of sympathy, offers of help and political support from across Europe in their hour of grief (www.theepc.be).
"I truly believe this will drive the US and the EU together. The key issues on which we demonstrate our common values will take precedence over what I think we can all agree today are some of the lesser issues on which we have been concentrating in the last couple of years," such as trade disputes and rows over aircraft hush kits.¿ He said Washington had in the past few days realised the need to work with others to build a coalition against terrorism rather than going it alone. He praised the development of the EU common foreign and security policy and the Rapid Reaction Force as positive and co-operative.
In his article, Pollard quoted a defence analyst close to Vice-President Dick Cheney: "If you think we think the Rapid Reaction Force isn't a European Army - a counter to NATO - you must think we really are idiots." The same source added: "Jump into bed with the French and the Germans and we can kiss goodbye. Why should we share information with you if it then goes to the French, who would hand it over to Iraq, or to the Germans, who'd fax it to Tehran."
So the way Europeans respond and how the Americans choose to conduct their war against terrorism will be critical. The clear unilateralist trend of the Bush presidency, marked by serial disengagement from the Kyoto Protocol, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and other international agreements, has alarmed European governments and reinforced their determination to develop a more multilateralist approach to international affairs. They will assert European interests and values where they conflict with those of the US.
A fear that the US might go it alone after this disaster drove much of the European response this week. It was a major calculation for Tony Blair, keen to preserve a special relationship with the US, less so for other leaders. But they too agreed with the unprecedented NATO decision to invoke Article 5 of its treaty which says an armed attack against any NATO member in Europe or North America "shall be considered an attack against them all". It would be activated only if the US declares this week's attacks originated outside its borders and requested help; thus it is a potent symbol of solidarity rather than a hard military commitment.
Insiders do not expect the US formally to request NATO help, since that would require it to follow a laborious consensual procedure in selecting targets. It is more likely to create a coalition of the willing in any action against Afghanistan (probably including the British who are about to mount a 10,000-strong troop exercise in Oman next month).
It is one thing to affirm solidarity and a common approach, quite another to agree on any US retaliation and the conduct of a longer-term war against terrorism, increasingly canvassed by US leaders and demanded by American citizens.
Timothy Garton Ash usefully suggests three possible scenarios in an article published by the lively web magazine openDemocracy (www.openDemocracy.net). In the first, the US starts behaving more like a Greater Israel. Embattled and besieged it lashes out with its high-tech weapons at anyone who might even seem to want to attack it (the same psychology can be detected in certain intolerant US attitudes to anyone who suggests its foreign policy might have encouraged these attacks - the anti-Americanism canard). This is the course urged by some Wall Street Journal editorial page writers, influential right-wing figures in Washington and Israeli leaders such as Ehud Barak.
They would: target states they suspect harbour terrorist networks, such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and Cuba; deepen the alliance with Israel; and attack Afghanistan immediately for harbouring the chief individual suspect, Osama bin Laden.
But this would rapidly become part of the problem not the solution. It would boost the appeal of such groups and give them the war they want. It would appeal least to European governments steadily developing a mediating role in the Middle East based on different interests than those of the US.
Garton Ash labels the second scenario The West Versus The Rest. It would mobilise NATO allies and a few other traditional friends of the West such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Israel, Mexico, Argentina, and perhaps Russia. They would develop a concerted and long-term campaign against terrorism and those who harbour it, but would themselves become vulnerable to similar attacks, especially if the rogue states were encouraged by China. Existing inequalities and diminishing solidarity between rich and poor states would be reinforced. The case that peace must come with justice would be drowned out.
The third scenario is described as the United Nations Versus The Rest. It would see the Bush administration take action against those actually responsible for the murderous attacks while building a worldwide coalition against terrorism and its root causes, including China and less developed states.
European governments will tend to support scenarios two or three. They will have their own arguments about which to choose as will the US when it debates its options. It is vital to assert common values between the US and Europe. But we should not forget that politics concerns choices and disagreements about how they should be achieved.