The first risk will be the elections themselves, not in terms of who wins, but in terms of how the next US president will become the winner. The problems encountered in the 2000 elections, most notably in Florida, and their consequences (the recount, the decision by the Supreme Court, …) may have been marginal in comparison to that which may take place next November. For the EU, it is imperative that a US president is elected in 6 weeks time and that his election is devoid of suspicions of fraud or manipulation. Why? Because the EU needs to have a stable, and legitimate partner on the other side of the Atlantic and because, if the election is tainted with suspicions similar to those of 2000, the repercussions will be an increasingly high level of disturbances within the US. The current polarization of the electorate has attained drastically high levels, such that we can almost guarantee that anything short of a fair and well organised election will trigger a dramatic wave of internal instability in the country’s political system. Bluntly said, it is not certain that in such a case, the “other side” will calmly accept the results, thus creating a very delicate situation for the EU as well. So the first interest for the EU is in contributing to secure the legitimacy of the election process. The involvement of OSCE observers is a good thing. But the EU must prepare itself to adopt a common stance in the case that the election does not take place as smoothly as one may hope.

Secondly, in the case of the unfavourable scenario, the EU must be prepared to face a very unstable international environment around the US election date. And I am not simply referring to possible terrorist attacks. I am referring to the financial and economic consequences of political instability within the US, following a possible complex election process with no clear president elected on November 3rd. The world has changed a lot since 2000 and the US relations with this new world have changed even more. Any disturbance in the transition of power in the US, at a time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, of high tensions with Iran and North Korea, of global threats of terrorism, and of ballooning US deficits will immediately generate a volatile situation in world financial markets and consumer confidence. So to speak, it could trigger a major economic and/or financial crisis because we are today (contrarily to 2000) in a very fragile global situation. Today’s US is more than ever dependent upon the goodwill of Chinese, Japanese and European investors pay its deficit (each of the three represents about 100 billion dollars of the 2003 US trade deficit). The key component of this process is called ‘trust’. If trust in the US system, which is much weaker than before September 11th, is suddenly put in question, the consequences could be devastating. The European leaders as well as European Central bankers should try to get their colleagues in China and Japan to anticipate such potential risks and to develop joint policies aiming at preserving stability.

The fact that we all hope that the 2004 US election will go smoothly should not prevent us from engaging in a debate about current realities are and preparing ourselves for a less than optimistic scenario. It also requires a mentality change among European leaders. If they seriously want to be the partners of the US in coming years they have to act as such. One expects from his/her partner that he/she anticipates problems affecting the two of them. That’s what the EU has to do in the coming 6 weeks.