Even after President Bush’s trip to Europe, the reluctant conclusion must be that the fence is not mended.

After Secretary of State Rice’s visit here but prior to the President’s arrival, this writer wrote in an article titled “Fence Mending” that not too much should be expected from these trips. Now, after the dual event, if the surface is peeled off the product, the emerging substance confirms the essentials of the cautionary note.

All things considered, arguably Ms. Rice’s trip, given the rules by which diplomacy is played, constituted a political necessity. It was to prove US flexibility regardless of Iraq and the recent past. That was useful even if it was unlikely that the transatlantic spat has gone bye-bye. The attempt to discuss issues face-to-face on a lit stage could be expected to marginally pacify the domestic Euro-fan community. Additionally, it could have invalidated some of the European leftist-multicultural appeasers’ grumble about needing to confront the crazed superhawks perched atop Washington. Moreover, there was a chance to be taken, to dispel through direct contact any misunderstandings. After all, some genuine misperceptions might have been floating around in the background of the quarrel that came into the foreground wrapped in the Iraq matter. Iraq being only one component in which all other remaining, growing disagreements crystallized, preventive action on the remaining items on the agenda could be seen as having some urgency.

At the same time, an excess of eagerness and high hopes for blue skies over the common horizon were to be avoided. The weakness of the idea justifying the tour and speaking for lowered expectations is in the word, “misunderstanding.” The significant — though in the course of the visits soft-peddled — policy differences regarding Iraq were in no way a “misunderstanding.” A misunderstanding is when a situation is misjudged because it is not decoded properly. The drift apart of America and most of Europe is not propelled by “getting it wrong” but by prejudices. The difference is significant. A misunderstanding can be resolved if the positions are restated and this is done clearly. A prejudice is impervious to arguments, clarification and facts. An expository dialogue that dispels dogmatically held prejudices is necessarily an effort in the service of a lost cause.

Let the case be made by a few quotes from the Letters to the Editor lifted from the February 21st issue of the German weekly Der Spiegel. The writers quoted reacted to the feature article, “The Nut With the Bomb,” about baby Kim’s nukes. “A supposed nut …who possibly disposes over a few bombs gives me less to worry about than one that endangers world peace with more than 10 000…” Rest assured — not Chinese or Russian nuclear inventories were meant by Mr. Grützkau.

His concerns are shared by Ms. Winterstetter with this: “Funny, when I think of a nut with a bomb then somehow it is not Kim …that comes to my mind.”

Mr. Kühn’s analysis penetrates deeper. “If the sanity of persons is questioned then this can only become wind in the sails of those who attempt to pacify the earth through violence intended to change systems.”

Apparently circumspect fairness is the suggestion of J. Löwner. “The tyrant and the bomb? This headline could also fit the USA. And when we talk about the ‘nut’ in North Korea we should not fail to look for once at Washington.”

These samples might be useful to get you angry or to make you laugh. One thing these views and the attitude they express are unsuited for is rational debate. If this is true then the reasons for the limited expectations to be attached to “visitation summitry” are justified.

This writer questions the soundness of the concept behind the President’s trip to Europe more than he approves of having sent Ms. Rice here. The best about Mr. Bush’ journey is that at least he did not go to Paris. However, meeting Schröder, he inadvertently and inevitably improved the Chancellor’s chances for reelection. Overtly and implicitly that will confirm the anti-American tendency of German foreign policy.

A further negative incurred through the effort to show that “W” is a nice guy. Unfortunately this endeavor might be interpreted as proof that Zapatero, Putin, Chirac and Schröder were right: the cowboy is coming around. Here Canossa comes to mind.

Moreover, the recent past could hardly be said to have created a satisfactory foundation for a friendship tour. An excess of cozens — if the term fits the behind-the-scenes events — imperils the settlement of the still outstanding issues upon which America has to act — preferably with Europe’s support. The least important of these might be the Iraq policy from here on. The really tough ones are Tiny Kim with his big bang and, most important of all, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear capacity. By the outward appearance of things, on none of these issues has there been any significant move that the US can consider as a success.

The shortcomings of what the voyage netted, if we do not count the smiling handshakes, are not President Bush’ fault. Nevertheless, in assessing the new state of the alliance, the reluctant conclusion must be that the fence is not mended. Its gaps are at best consolidated. Furthermore, there is a silent agreement that all concerned will act as though they would not notice the holes, ignore the guys with wire-cutters in their hands and fail to detect those who slip through them.