June 2004 witnessed a concentration of summit activity on the issue of Middle East reform. At the G8 meeting in Sea Island, a Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative (BMEI) was agreed, while further discussions at the subsequent EU-US summit in Ireland considered the detailed form that trans-Atlantic cooperation within this new framework might take. A prominent feature of recent diplomatic activity has been Europe's hesitant response to US calls for trans-Atlantic coordination in the promotion of political change in the Middle East. Shortly after the attacks of 9/11, the Bush Administration formulated a new Middle East Partnership Initiative, which was followed by a proposed Greater Middle East Initiative, of which the finally agreed BMEI is a scaled down successor. In the development of its own democracy and human rights policies, the EU has increasingly found itself obliged to respond to US initiatives and policies. The extent of possible trans-Atlantic cooperation on democracy promotion in the Middle East has risen to the top of the international agenda. Even though European governments tentatively backed the BMEI at Sea Island, the perception is that profound differences remain between Europe and the US over the Middle East. It is widely judged that the well-established issues of trans-Atlantic divergence - Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Arab-Israeli conflict - have crystallised into conceptually different approaches to the broad agenda of democratic reform in the Middle East. The International Crisis Group recognized that the BMEI 'may at least apply some balm on a trans-Atlantic relationship rubbed raw by difference over Iraq', but concluded pessimistically that 'friction is almost as likely as balm...over the next few years'. This paper questions some of the positions adopted by the EU towards trans-Atlantic coordination in the Middle East. It develops three arguments. First, that differences between US and European approaches to democracy promotion are not as clear-cut as invariably assumed. Second, that the EU has been mistaken in the grounds on which it has chosen to confront US initiatives. And third, that the potential benefits of stronger trans-Atlantic cooperation on Middle East reform outweigh the likely drawbacks. Running through the paper is a central, critical theme: many aspects of the Bush Administration's Middle East policies have elicited justified European opprobrium; but Europe risks letting a general environment of trans- Atlantic tension lead it into potentially serious mis-judgment on the specific design of an effective Middle East reform strategy.

Table of Contents:
1. European Reactions to US Reform Initiatives 2. Over-stating the EU-US Divide? 3. Misdirected Fire? 4. Better Alone or Together?