NEAL CONAN, host: 2003 will go down in the books as a very strained year in the history of American-European relations. Although there have been disagreements before--a Suez crisis in 1956, the French withdrawal from NATO--this year's conflict over the war in Iraq has expressed major fault lines. Joining us now to talk about the future of US-European relations is Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, co-author of "America Unbound: The Bush Revolution In Foreign Policy." He is with us from his home in Vienna, Virginia. Good to talk to you again.

IVO DAALDER: Very glad to be here.

CONAN: And also with us is Josef Joffe, the editor of Die Zeit, a German weekly newspaper. He joins us from Italy, where he's at a New Year's Eve party.

And thanks for taking the time to join us.

JOSEF JOFFE: Oh, it's a pleasure.

CONAN: The split between the US and Europe over Iraq showed a difference in approach to Saddam Hussein, but it also displayed a deeper rift. Josef Joffe, has this gone any way towards being repaired since the war ended?

JOFFE: Well, if I may, by way of introduction, say the following: the split was not just between Europe and the United States. The split was between Europe and Europe. In fact, more nations, though not the largest ones, supported the United States on the Iraq war than opposed it, and those were about 18 nations that ranged from Spain and Italy to Slovenia and Slovakia, etc., so it's not just that split. But what you're talking about is essentially a split between the United States on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other, with France and Germany trying to organize Europe into a kind of counterweight to the United States. Has that split been repaired? No. Are both sides trying? Yes. Will it be repaired next year? No. But the kind of acrimony and the sheer nastiness that suffused the debate in the last year, that hard edge will be gone.

CONAN: Well, Ivo Daalder, as you certainly know, President Bush is being accused of abandoning the alliances that stood the United States in such good stead over half a century and more in Europe--that the United States has abandoned the policy. Is that an accurate way of putting it?

DAALDER: Well, I think it's more accurate, actually, than Joe Joffe puts it, which is basically to say there was a disagreement about Iraq and that disagreement was actually stronger within Europe than between the United States and Europe. I actually think the split that was manifested by the debate over Iraq is deep-lasting and likely to continue for some time, in part because it reflects a fundamental change in direction of American foreign policy in exactly the way that you, Neal, point out, which is that instead of relying on alliances, this administration has created coalitions of the willing.

They have exploited divisions within Europe in order to cherry-pick niche capabilities, so that the Poles could provide a particular kind of capability, the Czechs could deploy the biological and chemical detection capability for the Iraq war, and they have abandoned the process and the policy that has characterized American foreign policy for a good part of a half a century, which is to work in partnership with our allies and friends, to go through international institutions and to adhere to the basic norms of international law in favor of a belief that the way we get ahead in this world is to do as we can, and because the United States is more powerful than any other country and, in some ways, the most powerful country that history has ever seen, we can go it alone and we don't need Europe in the way that we thought we needed Europe in the past 60 years. That ...(unintelligible) change.

Listen to the complete interview at npr.org