For
many people in Europe or in the US,
the answer to this question seems
obvious: the EU comes out weaker.
Just take a look at the picture: on
the one hand, US forces easily defeat
Saddam's army, showing US supremacy
at war; on the other hand, European
countries are completely divided upon
the question of the course Europe
should take on Iraq issues. No need
to go any further: Europe is weaker
than ever.
But, is a photography sufficient to
assess reality? Don't we rather need
to watch the film in order to understand
the trends?
The
only new divide in Europe is between some
leaders and their citizens
Firstly,
did Europe have a common foreign and defence
policy before Iraq crisis? No, especially
as regards to Iraq.
Indeed for more than 10 years the Iraqi
question has been a divisive one for Europeans.
Contrary to many foreign issues where
they do converge, in the case of Iraq
and since Gulf War I, the British and
the French for instance never agreed on
what to do next. So the current disagreements
upon Iraq between European leaders are
nothing new.
Strangely enough, something new emerged
in the past months which is a palpable
expectation from European citizens to
see their leaders agree upon a European
common voice on the world stage, with
some clear direction assigned: key role
of international laws and organisations,
refusal of any kind of unilateralism,
and opposition to any 'pre-emptive war'
concept. In fact, if a new European divide
did emerge, it occurred between European
leaders and their people rather than among
Europeans.
Beyond its divisions, Europe has
showed that it could play an efficient
role in terms of both military force and
diplomatic skills
Secondly,
was Europe in military competition with
any other world power, or with the US
in particular, and could not stand the
competition? No.
The European Union has developed a power
based on influence and ability to generate
large agreements; it is relies only marginally
on military power. Meanwhile, this crisis
proved that the US had no significant
military allies outside Europe, as British
forces were the only US force's ally in
this war. Meanwhile the other group of
Europeans, around France, Germany and
Belgium, did manage to show that they
could prevent any power to bully the UN.
Therefore European countries, though divided,
proved to be crucial both in terms of
military partnership and diplomatic game.
Even
divided, it is the first time since 1945
that the Europeans act on their own
Thirdly,
is Europe less visible on the world scene
today than yesterday? No.
Quite the contrary: Fifteen years ago,
the Europeans would not have been able
to say one word on such crisis. Eastern
Europeans would have followed Moscow and
Western Europeans Washington. During this
crisis, it is the first time that the
Europeans not only expressed themselves
in an independent way, but actually generated
the crisis by their disagreement. Would
have they agreed with Washington, never
would Russia or any other country have
opposed the US. Would not have they opposed
the US, never would Washington's hawks
have rushed so many troops in the Gulf,
closing the door to diplomatic solutions.
Therefore, even if it is still in a negative
way (as it was not able to propose a way-out),
for the first time since 1945, Europe
did play a key role in a major international
crisis.
Putting together all these elements, and
in particular the surprisingly strong
convergence of the Europeans gathered
for the first time into a truly European
public opinion, then the answer is clearly
than Europe comes out of this crisis stronger
than before.
Thanks
to the Iraqi crisis, the debate on Europe's
future has finally met 'reality'
If
one more example was needed, let's turn
our gaze to the on-going debates on the
future of Europe. Until the Iraqi crisis,
these debates were mostly 'Brussels debates',
away from political reality, conducted
by bureaucrats and experts. Thanks to
the shocks generated by this crisis, public
opinions and politicians managed to take
over the debate. The international situation
acted as a sound 'principle of reality',
reminding the Europeans that politics
is about power and crises. Meanwhile it
clarified positions and therefore allowed
some countries to move forward in directions
they were prevented to follow in the name
of the 'common vision'. Now everybody
is aware that:
. first, a common vision has to be built
by visionary people, open to the others
but not paralysed by them in order to
move forward, as it has always been
the case in the history of Europe
. second, all through Europe, a large
majority of European citizens have expressed
their view on what should be Europe's
'road map' to a Common Foreign Policy
(72% of the Europeans are in favour
of establishing a Common Foreign Policy,
Eurobarometer April 2003), thus giving
evidence of the fact that by 2005/2006
most European countries will be sharing
this common vision (the good thing with
democracy is that leaders cannot afford
to go too long against citizens' opinions).
Last
remark, without some Europeans taking
part in the war in Iraq, Saddam may still
be in power; but without other Europeans
asserting the primacy of international
law and refusing to sideline the UN and
to regroup under a 'white man's banner',
Europe has avoided a clash of civilizations
and religions. It has also generated,
in many parts of the world, a true desire
to see more 'Europe' in future global
debates and crises.
Altogether,
it definitely does not look to me as signs
of weakness, even if much has still to
be done to make it a sign of strength.
|