It's been a good few weeks for President George W. Bush and America. Britain's Nato allies agreed to the construction of an anti-missile system, and Silvio Berlusconi improbably persuaded Italy's voters that he deserves another chance to solve their nation's problems. Add France's flamboyant Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's solid Angela Merkel, and you have a pro-American line-up that brings a smile to the face of the president, and suggests that Bush has not completely alienated his allies, as his critics claim.
Last week that smile became a broad grin. Pope Benedict came over from Europe, leaving what columnist George Will calls the secular land of empty cathedrals for religious America. Americans loved his uplifting sermons, and he warmed to Bush's agreement that there is room for religion in the public square.
Brown had used his first visit to Bush to demonstrate to his Left that he is no Tony Blair, no Bush poodle, but a fierce bulldog. This time, the presidential and prime ministerial staffs cut a deal: Bush would not publicly remonstrate with Brown for keeping his troops safe in their Basra base while Americans did their fighting for them, and Brown would not use the White House press conference to air his usual complaint that the US is the source of the world's economic woes.
So all was sweetness and light at the lightly attended press conference. Brown rediscovered his pro-American leanings, and defied the anti-American faction of his party - and the much larger anti-Bush bloc of British voters - by praising the President. Which means that America can now count on all four major European powers to give its foreign policy needs serious consideration.
Unfortunately, Brown's visit to the John F Kennedy presidential library to hobnob with his favourite political clan and deliver what he considered an important policy speech was somewhat less successful.
Sort of nobility
The prime minister's speech did have a sort of nobility - Brown at his best, drawing on his extensive knowledge of history in a plea to our better natures, calling us to band together in an international effort to improve economic performance, cool the earth, fight terrorism, and prevent humanitarian disasters. But then comes implementation, and the old belief that government institutions, the bigger and more multilateral the better, are the cures for what ails us.
Yes, there is a nod to individual action and charitable organisations. But in the end it is all about "international architecture''. The International Monetary Fund is to develop an early warning system before the next economic storm. This is the organisation so poor at forecasting that it is avoiding going bust only by selling gold reserves and belatedly pruning its bloated staff.
Then there is the World Bank, which Brown would have become a "bank for development and the environment - transferring billions in loans and grants to "the poorest countries''. This is the same organisation that lends money to China and is also the organisation that met charges that some of its projects are rife with corruption by firing its entire anti-corruption department. Its new president, Bob Zoellick, will do much to fix these problems, but he won't be there forever, and the odds of regression to the norm - corruption - remain sufficiently high to make one wonder where those "billions'' will end up.
Which brings us to the United Nations, which in Brown's new world order would help nations develop the rule of law, give Security Council approval to the use of military force, and receive still more money from members. This is an organisation so corrupt that one of its administrators has been found guilty of accepting bribes, so biased that its General Assembly spends most of its time condemning Israel, and so impotent that it resists efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Finally, there is the question of terrorism, being fought co-operatively and quietly by national security services, with little of the "architecture'' that so attracts Brown. Which is a good thing, since it gives Brown little opportunity to impose his view that poverty is a root cause of terrorism - a view that every study proves to be false: it was, after all, rich Islamists who piloted planes into the World Trade Center and a very rich Osama Bin Laden who funded the effort from a paid-for base in Afghanistan.
The prime minister is a good man, but he has yet to learn that unaccountable bureaucrats are unlikely allies in his fight to make the world a better place.
