Europe confronted by the Iraq crisis : divisions at the top, unity on the ground
One of the mysteries of history is the way in which it varies between slow phases and bursts of acceleration. We are clearly experiencing quite sharp acceleration in Europe and the world. The Iraq crisis has shone a glaring light on contradictions that have hitherto been carefully underestimated or even concealed. It requires players on the international stage to ask questions in public that are normally taboo. Observers, quick to jump to categorical and definitive conclusions and overawed by the fracas of words and weapons, have sometimes missed the point.
1 – In spite of the commendable contribution of President Chirac, the seriousness of the transatlantic crisis is not primarily due to the attitude of France. The United States has long since learned how to handle the French loose cannon, the ‘unruly pupil’ of the Atlantic class, just as the European Union has learned how to handle its own unruly pupil in London. On this occasion, for the first time, Germany has joined France in its dissent, and that changes everything. A Franco-German bloc representing 40% of the population and wealth of the European Union, the pioneering axis of the entire process of European integration, cannot be treated like a common outsider. Its opposition changes everything, especially since the French and German leaders are expressing the deep-seated feelings not only of their own peoples but also of public opinion throughout Europe, whose population is protesting everywhere against the military solution.
What makes the German attitude all the more important is that it is not simply a personal stance taken by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. The Cold War has been over for twelve years. However grateful the Germans may be for the decisive backing they received from the United States against the Soviet threat and for the successful reunification effort, the political and military interests of Europe and America are no longer identical; the knot has been untied.
2 – The tension created by the standoff between the United States and the Franco-German axis has compelled our other European partners to take sides publicly in words and deeds. The result has been astonishing: while European leaders are divided, sometimes to the point of treachery, the people, for their part, are unanimous.
Now at the same time, the Convention on the Future of Europe has met in Brussels to draft the constitution of a political Union, and we have to hand in our copy by mid-June.
The crisis has had one beneficial effect on the work of the Convention in that it has put the real issues on the table. The leaders had hitherto been pretending that they wanted a common foreign policy. Now the masks are off. The debate has entered the public domain and will have to be pursued to a conclusion, especially since the European public now expect a European voice to express their common view.
From the outset, all progress with European integration has stemmed from Franco-German initiatives. The only area where scarcely any progress has been made is the very one where France and Germany have had fundamentally different views. As soon as both argue for an independent Europe today, the gradual establishment of a common foreign and defence policy, comparable to the process that culminated in monetary union, becomes possible. We shall see which countries are prepared to take part in it.
3 – Lastly, it is not only a new Europe that will emerge from the crisis; there will also be a new United Nations. Whatever their fate, the efforts made on all sides to arrive at a Security Council decision are an acknowledgement of the political need, even for the United States, to acquire the legitimacy which only the UN can confer. In this context too, there will surely be some awkward questions to ask: is it right for France and Britain to retain the purely historical privilege of permanent membership of the Security Council when China is the only permanent member in the whole of Asia and neither Africa nor Latin America has a permanent seat? Is it right that four out of the five permanent members are Christian countries, while the Muslim world does not have a single representative, despite the fact that the Indonesian island of Java alone has more inhabitants than the whole of Russia? Has not the time come to democratise the UN with the aid of regional organisations of neighbouring states, organisations covering continents or subcontinents? An African union would benefit from a right of veto on decisions affecting Africa, just as the European Union benefits from the right of veto on decisions affecting our continent.
The Cold War has been over for ten years, but decolonisation took place four decades ago. It is high time to recognise this, unless we want the Third World to form a political Third Estate, challenging the arrogant aristocratic minority of the Western world.
Alain Lamassoure, 12 March 2003