George W. Bush’s speech in Concert Noble, Brussels, yesterday was billed as an address on the US-EU relationship. In fact, it was broader, with a major focus on the Middle East and some pointed remarks reflecting American concerns about political developments in Russia. A number of European figures have asked that the White House provide more direct and personal leadership in the Middle East peace process in Mr Bush’s second term than was at times evident during his first. The President made it plain that he had a strategy to pursue in that region, which is entering a period of extraordinary volatility and opportunity.

In making his most important statement of this tour, Mr Bush avoided, wisely, becoming ensnared in the awkward arguments about and within the European Union. He did not, as some had predicted that he would, mention the EU constitution, let alone endorse it. As 58 per cent of the Spanish electorate did not bother to express an opinion in their referendum, it would have been a little strange if a visiting American had shown ersatz enthusiasm. The President instead confined himself to hailing a “strong Europe”, to praising the “democratic unity” of an EU that today includes members from East and West, and affirming the value of the transatlantic alliance.

Mr Bush was, however, quite unambiguous in his ambitions for the Middle East peace process. While he made forceful demands of the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours, he was explicit in what he expected from Israel. He asserted bluntly that Ariel Sharon should “freeze settlement activity” and accept that a viable Palestinian state had to have “contiguous territory on the West Bank . . . A state of scattered territories will not work”. The EU can hardly claim that this is not an even-handed approach to this question.

Peace in the Middle East, though, is at risk as much from the actions of Syria, the example set by Iran, or any failure in the effort to establish a secure democracy in Iraq, as it is from Israeli hawks or Palestinian zealots. It is this linkage that some nations in Europe have been reluctant to acknowledge, even if it is obvious in the Middle East itself. The peace process does not proceed in splendid isolation.

Mr Bush is right, therefore, to be encouraged by what he described as an “arc of reform” in the Middle East running from Morocco to Bahrain to Iraq and on to Afghanistan. He is also correct to imply that the EU could and should do more to promote political reform in the countries surrounding Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He was no less than honest in directing criticism at Syria, whose Government is believed to be complicit in the killing of Rafik al-Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister. Lebanon’s people took to the streets yesterday to demonstrate their disapproval of Syria’s murderous meddling, a practice that has also been a curse for Iraqis.

This presidential trip is supposed to be about “building bridges” between the United States and Europe. For this to occur, both sides must be prepared to pick up their trowels. The White House has recognised what Mr Bush described as the “greatest opportunity and immediate goal” of peace in the Middle East, triggered by the death of Yassir Arafat and the election of Mahmoud Abbas as his replacement. Europe, in turn, must back Washington as it attempts to exert serious pressure on those, such as Syria, who are deliberately obstructing that peace process.