December 2, 2003 © New York University. All Rights Reserved. Bush in London: The Perils of State Visits By Erik Goldstein Global Beat Syndicate (KRT) BOSTON —Several years ago I was asked to give a talk about state visits and in doing so I learned a good deal about such occasions, some of it pertinent to the scenes in London in recent days as President George W. Bush conducted his state visit to Britain. Normally state visits either underscore existing strong ties between states, or signal a rapprochement. In looking into the subject it became apparent that while state visits are meant to be positive events, they can often be destructive. President Bush's just-completed state visit bears many of the hallmarks of a counterproductive encounter. The state visit, full of pomp and pageantry, is a rare survival of medieval diplomacy in the modern age. Unlike a summit meeting, no political outcome is expected, there are no treaty signings, no final communique. It is all about atmospherics. It is the very formality and ceremonial that provides the state visit with its utility; the basic script is generally the same from visit to visit and country to country, and -- in contrast to summitry -- does not desire surprise announcements or breakthrough. The calmness surrounding the diplomatic atmosphere of the best state visits assists in the confidence building measures that usually underlie its purpose. Political discussions in the wings of the visit are a bonus and often benefit from the diversion of attention to the showier events. Without the pressure of expectations, such discussions often thrive. President Bush's visit is the third to Britain by an American president. The first, by Woodrow Wilson in late 1918, was a disaster (it was not officially termed a state visit at the Americans' request, but otherwise had all the trappings of one). Wilson was the first and, until now the only, American president to stay at Buckingham Palace. The interaction between Wilson and his British hosts was intended to solidify an alliance forged in the recent World War. By the end of the stay, King George V was referring in his diary to Wilson as "an odious man." One of Wilson's staff spent the time estimating the value of the gold dinner service at the state banquet (he guessed $15 million), and wondering why Britain was unable to repay its war debts. Anglo-American relations took two decades to recover. The next visit, by President Ronald Reagan, went more smoothly, but only just. Even the Iron Lady, Mrs. Thatcher, was unable to deliver an offer for Reagan to address parliament, due to opponents of the president blocking the idea. She found a face saving gesture by having Mr. Reagan speak in nearby Westminster Hall. Other problems were resolved by making the official venue of the visit Windsor Castle, the monarch's country retreat, thereby removing most of the visit from London altogether. State visits are normally intended to support alliance building by providing public evidence of the warmth between the host country and the honored guest. Richard Nixon's state visit to Egypt in 1974 was the catalyst for a major shift in Anglo-American relations and opened the road to the Camp David peace accords only five years later. Nixon was in terminal political decline at home, but the impact of the visit survived his political demise and the capital gained was used by his successors in both parties. Equally, it takes time for relations to recover from a disastrous state visit. At least Bush's sojourn had none of the unsavory elements of some notorious state visits. In 1978, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauscescu embarked on a series of state visits to western Europe. He sought the political legitimacy of high profile events with the leaders of Europe's major states, and made it clear that lucrative trade deals with Romania would not be forthcoming if he was not invited. In Paris, his horrified hosts discovered that the official guest quarters had been stripped of much of their easily portable furnishings by the departing entourage. President Giscard d'Estaing earned much goodwill by warning his neighbors what had happened, and Buckingham Palace hurriedly removed all valuable objects. State visits by U.S. presidents are a vast logistical affair. President Reagan's 1985 visit to Spain and Portugal, involving an official party of 10, was accompanied by about 170 -- compared to the 17 Hungarian officials required for a 1995 state visit to Dublin. But this latest state visit dwarfs even its mammoth predecessors. With the biggest security operation since World War II -- estimated to cost the British taxpayer $10-20 million -- and with much of London traffic totally disrupted for three days, polite British friends would call it a "bit if a muddle." The visit was also a magnet for opponents of Bush's policy in Iraq and for Prime Minister Blair's own opponents. Huge demonstrations highlighted stress lines in our "special trans-Atlantic relationship," quite opposite the objective of a traditional state visit. History indicates he would have been better off to have stayed home. ABOUT THE WRITER Erik Goldstein received his doctorate at Cambridge University and taught at universities in Britain for over a decade before becoming a professor of international relations at Boston University. © 2000 New York University. All Rights Reserved. The Global Beat Syndicate, a service of New York University's Center for War, Peace, and the News Media, provides editors with commentary and perspective articles on critical global issues from contributors around the world. For more information, check out http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/. Home | About Archives | Advisors | Staff