This week, Condoleeza Rice will land in Europe for her first visit as United States Secretary of State. Her tightly packed agenda will take her to London, Berlin, Warsaw and Paris -- a mix of Old and New Europe aimed at showing that Washington views all of its allies, including less obedient ones, as equals. During her confirmation hearings in the Senate, Rice said the purpose of the trip is to "unite this important alliance behind the kind of great goals that we have."

In Europe, politicians have highly ambivalent feelings about Rice. The idea of an African-American woman as America's chief diplomat is attractive -- engendering the image of a progressive side of the US too often overlooked here -- and as a concert pianist and former Stanford University provost, she garners cultural and intellectual credibility from European sophisticates. But when she talks diplomacy, in the past she's come across with all the grace and subtlety of a snapping turtle. She didn't exactly make friends in Old Europe when she commented in the wake of the Iraq war that America's response should be to "punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia." The nations were quickly dubbed the "non-nein-nyet axis."

Yet many European diplomats -- leery of letting European-US relations strain any further than they already have -- are optimistic about Rice in no small part due to her close proximity to Bush. Her predecessor Colin Powell was well-liked and widely admired, but European diplomats never felt he truly represented the Bush administration -- and many saw him as an impotent negotiating partner because of his famous splits with cabinet hawks. With Rice, at least, they'll get straight answers -- whether they like them or not.

Rice's stated ambitions are bold and filled with superlatives: She wants this "great alliance to work in the service of the great causes that we have ahead of us." The goal, she says, is to "enlist unite and discuss how we move ahead together" on what she calls "the agenda of our time."

Of course, the "agenda of our time," differs from country to country, and especially between Washington and European capitals, and Madame Secretary has her work cut out for her on issues ranging from Iran to the Middle East and from global warming to how best to try the war criminals responsible for the mass murder in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Troubles with the mullahs

Many here fear the prickly issue of Iran will explode into an Iraq-style tug o' war in the United Nations Security Council and will once again divide up along the non-nein-nyet axis. European leaders and Bush are equally driven to keep Tehran from getting its hands on a nuclear weapon. Yet Europe and Washington are still far apart on the issue, despite positive tones from Rice in recent days. Rice has said she believes the Iran issue can be solved through diplomacy. She has even indicated that Washington would give Berlin, Paris and London a little more time to find a diplomatic way of stopping Tehran's attempts to develop a nuclear bomb. But at the same time, the Bush administration continues to distance itself from the efforts -- refusing to participate in negotiations. There's almost universal agreement in Europe that no diplomatic agreement with the conservative ruling mullahs can have teeth unless Washington is on board.

For his part, Bush has said he can't rule out military options for resolving the conflict. Few here seriously believe Bush would wage a full-fledged war against Iran, but most consider targeted strikes by either the US or Israel as highly plausible. And few will forget the line Bush gave during his last visit to Berlin in 2002, when, speaking of Iraq, he said "I have no attack plans on my table, and that's the truth." Ten months later, the invasion began.

The greenhouse effect

During his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week, Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, came the closest yet to an outright attack on Washington. "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of their agenda, too," he cautioned. High on that agenda is the issue of global warming -- with one horror report coming after the other. In 12 days, the Kyoto Protocol will go into effect, but the US will not be a part of it. As with so many international issues, the US is going its own way. Echoing the sentiment of most European leaders, Blair said the world's most pressing problem would not be solved if a common international approach is not found. And, as Blair told the Wall Street Journal, "You would be hard put to say there is no evidence to suggest that this is a significant, serious problem." Until his famous flip-flop on global warming in 2002, Bush dismissed the increasingly ominous reports of climate change as fuzzy science. But don't expect him to hop on the Kyoto bandwagon anytime soon. In her confirmation hearings, Rice said "we will certainly be in discussions with our allies on this issue because Prime Minister Blair has made it a discussion issue for the G8. And so we will want to work with him." Then came the caveat: "We're going to have to bring on board the large developing states like China and India if we're going to be able to approach this issue of climate change." True, but the line suggests a cynical Washington approach in which it refuses to take a leadership role in global warming if China and India don't first take steps.

Loosening the reins in Beijing

Washington has also come out critically against the expected decision by the European Union to lift its weapons embargo against Beijing. Europeans have become dependent on trade with China, home to 1.3 billion people, and many here expect to be rewarded by Beijing through the prospect of lucrative contracts if the embargo is lifted. The common line here, as argued by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder during his December visit to the country, is that China has become a "different country" than it was at the time of the bloody events of Tiananmen Square 15 years ago. But the idea of lifting the ban sends shivers through the Bush administration, which sees a horror scenario in which the US would end up fighting against Chinese armed with European weapons if it ever had to intervene in a China-Taiwan clash. Europe has said it would attach strict conditions to the sale of any weapons to China. Washington isn't talking about sanctions, but Rice has warned that the embargo should stay in place. It was imposed "because of human rights concerns out of Tiananmen, and one has to be very careful not to send the wrong signal about human rights," she said.

Bringing justice to Sudan

The tricky issue of the mass slaughter in the Darfur region of Sudan is also fast emerging as yet another wedge between Europe and the United States. In its report earlier this week, the United Nations stopped short of calling the mass killings of at least 70,000 innocent villagers by the cold-blooded government-supported Janjaweed militia genocide, but it did describe them as "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." The perpetrators must be brought to justice, and the venue preferred by the international community, or at least 94 members of it, is the International Criminal Court, which the United States has refused to support out of fear that its own politicians and troops may be prosecuted. Viewed cynically, the Bush administration's stance is looking increasingly smart -- especially in light of this year's Abu Ghraib torture scandal. And any paradigm shift is unlikely in a Bush II administration.

To be fair, as New York Times editorialist Nicholas Kristof poignantly notes , Bush has in fact done more than most other leaders to try and stop the killing there. At the same time, he's sent an army of officials to New York to derail any attempt by the UN to prosecute the heinous crimes through the international court. Instead, Bush wants the creation of a new court associated with the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda -- a step that, as Kristof opines, could take "another year and 120,000 more deaths." Meanwhile, the ICC in The Hague is still waiting for its first case. As with the Iraq war, the issue is dividing Europe. Though all 25 EU member states are also members of the ICC, there is widespread disagreement over whether Washington should be pushed on the issue. Many are also angered that British Prime Minister Tony Blair appears unwilling to take up the case in Washington on behalf of the EU.

Iraq aid

When she passes the hat around Europe for collections for the reconstruction effort in Iraq, Rice may also face a lot of empty shrugs or even snickering. Washington got universal praise from European leaders over the success of the Iraqi elections this week, but it shouldn't be interpreted as an endorsement of the US invasion and occupation of the country. There is widespread support on the issue for moving on and ensuring that Iraq becomes a stable democracy. Most countries in Europe will probably offer additional support in training police and troops and they will continue to invest in the reconstruction effort, but countries like Germany and France will maintain their steadfast refusal to send workers or troops to Baghdad. As the Guardian's Ian Black wrote this week, the situation in Iraq is another example of the "old saying about the US making the dinner and the Europeans doing the dishes."