So
the UN route has been abandoned, and the United
States and its ‘coalition of the willing’ has
decided to launch an attack on Iraq. In his
resignation speech in the House of Commons, Robin
Cook expressed his deep concern about a war that did
not have the agreement of NATO, the EU nor the UN
Security Council. The decision to go to war lacks
the legitimacy and authority of the UN, and
represents a failure of that multilateralism, which
is the cornerstone of international stability and
the firm principle upon which the EU is built.
Europe's
influence and authority has been damaged, but that
does not mean that we should despair about the
possibility of building an effective set of policies
that recognise the shared influence we can have for
good. The big question is ‘what now?’, both in
terms of the consequences of war in Iraq, and also
for our multilateral institutions which have been
shaken and rattled by events over the last few
weeks. Many believe that the Iraq crisis has
seriously threatened attempts to build that elusive
EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
It
is ironic that Europe's divisions have come at a
time when the Convention on the Future of Europe is
mapping out a constitution intended to convince our
citizens that the EU has relevance and importance in
their everyday lives. I do not, however, believe
that the outbreak of war marks the end of the hope
that we can forge that common foreign policy.
European unity was, after all, founded upon the
conviction that peace and stability on our continent
could only be guaranteed if we build common
positions.
There
have, of course, always been spats and disagreements
between Member States, and with the US. There are
currently, for instance, disputes on steel subsides
and on GMOs. However, it should not be assumed that
when there have been disagreements between countries
of the European Union that this irreparably weakens
the understanding that we have a shared interest in
collaboration and co-operation on everything from
consumer rights to environmental protection, global
trade rules and civil liberties. Post-war Europe has
built an understanding that multilateralism and
strong international institutions, backed by
international law and clear global rules, create
stability on our own continent and in the wider
world.
Europe
has, after all, led on a Code of Conduct on Arms, on
the International Criminal Court, on Kyoto, and in
Johannesburg on sustainable development. There is,
for the first time, a European police force
operating in Bosnia, and now an EU military
operation is in place in Macedonia. Member States do
share a position on building peace and security in
the Middle East, and have taken a strong position on
governance, human rights and the rule of law across
the world. Efforts to tackle terrorism have been
implemented under the Justice and Home Affairs
pillar, and we know that unless we have
international co-operation, our efforts will not
succeed.
I
would also claim that the emergency EU Council
Summit on Iraq was not the failure that many had
predicted it would be. It showed that Member States
were still making a commitment to trying to ensure
that CFSP structures work, even in very difficult
times. It succeeded in highlighting shared positions
on multilateralism, support for the UN, and for a
regional solution in the Middle East. However, of
course, no agreement could be reached on the
necessity or the timing of the use of force.
Unusually, the role of the President of the European
Parliament was very positive and added legitimacy to
the Parliament's position on seeking greater
influence on the CFSP. In the general rubbishing of
the EU's prospects of being taken seriously at this
time, these positive elements should not be
forgotten.
France
and Germany - whatever you think of how they managed
their difference of opinion with the UK and Spain -
did show that a European voice can have a powerful
influence over events. This leads me to believe that
a united European voice can, and should, provide
balance in situations when the world's superpower is
holding sway. However we must acknowledge that the
CFSP has been damaged because so many member states
took a 'national' position. It was clearly in
no-one's interest to support the US going it alone
on Iraq, and it was Tony Blair who ensured that Bush
took the UN route. Also, his influence over the
conduct of the war and over the post-conflict
reconstruction will be essential.
As
the debate moves on to reconstruction efforts in
post-conflict Iraq, our Prime Minister's task is to
build trust again with his European allies. There
must be an agreement on the kind of UN Mandate which
was secured for work in East Timor, Kosovo and
Afghanistan. Also, humanitarian assistance must be
delivered in a neutral and impartial manner.
Clearly, our Prime Minister's dealings with other
European colleagues will be affected by the
questions which will be raised about the EU and the
UN picking up the pieces after military action
without that second UN resolution.
We
also, of course, need clear and unequivocal
reassurance that Bush is genuine about getting a
just and speedy settlement between Israel and
Palestine.
Clearly,
the role of Eastern European countries will continue
to complicate the search for a more coherent
European Common Foreign and Security Policy. EU
differences were very publicly exposed in NATO, and
Rumsfeld claimed, "if you look at the entire
NATO Europe today, the centre of gravity is shifting
to the East". Indeed, many of NATO’s newest
members from Central Europe, and those waiting to
join, are all committed advocates of the
transatlantic link. They are anxious to join the
side which won the Cold War battle, and tend to see
the US, rather than the EU, as being more likely to
provide a shield against any future threats.
New
members of the EU will, it appears, maintain this
commitment to the US and internal NATO differences
are likely to grow unless, within NATO, Europeans
develop, and support, a more coherent foreign and
defence policy. Despite the recent discussions on EU
defence co-operation and the Anglo-French
procurement deal on two new British aircraft
carriers, defence still remains more transatlantic
than European. Indeed, Eastern European entry into
NATO requires the opening up of markets to foreign
investment, and a commitment to spending at least 2%
of GDP on defence. Despite economic collapse,
Lithuania recently purchased stinger missiles worth
$34 million made by Raytheon Corporation of Tuscon,
Arizona. They may have to spend $240 million on arms
every year as the price for NATO membership.
The
consolidation of the CFSP before
EU enlargement is clearly important if bridges are
to be built and divisions healed. For the EU to
redress the disunity and imbalance within NATO, it
will need to begin by strengthening the European
Security and Defence policy (ESDP). The EU has
proved, in the Balkans and in Afghanistan in
particular, that we have a serious role to play -
especially when the US is unwilling, or unable, to
act. This also applied in the west of the former
Soviet Union, on the Turkish-Greek Cypriot issue, as
it does on the Mahgreb. This should be not be
interpreted as undermining the transatlantic defence
alliance, but rather as strengthening it.
If
Europe is to assert itself in any international
crisis, the 'soft' defence policies for which it is
traditionally associated with need to be enhanced,
along with a firmer commitment to 'hard' defence
policies. I agree with a comment made by the Belgian
Prime Minister, who said, "the more people
march in our streets in favour of peace, the more
urgent it becomes to develop a true European defence".
I
have believed for some time that a vital step
towards this would be to hold an EU comprehensive
defence and security review - the UK has already
indicated that it plans to add a new chapter to its
Strategic Defence Review. This is important if we
are to address the current security challenges.
However if the way we continue to deal with the
issues is in a predominantly national way then it
will not be surprising if Paris and London come up
with different solutions. A common foreign, security
and defence policy would be greatly strengthened if
it were built on a joint analysis of the threats and
challenges the EU faces. Whilst it could reach the
same conclusions as the US - that huge increases in
defence spending and the creation of an office for
Homeland security are the most effective ways of
protecting its citizens - it might reach different
conclusions, and offer a different vision. This
could be one based more strongly on the need for
diplomacy and prevention, backed by an improved
defence capability. Whatever the outcome of the
review the EU would then be better prepared to begin
pooling its capabilities and avoid duplication of
training and equipment.
The
Convention on the Future of Europe has begun to
address these concerns. Last December, the
Convention’s Defence Working Group discussed the
idea that European nations alone take responsibility
for the territorial defence of Europe for the first
time since the Second World War, suggesting that a
mutual defence commitment should replace the Article
V defence guarantee provided by NATO. But the
differences of opinion over Iraq have obviously
paralysed efforts to effect such a change of policy.
The Convention, which was due to present its final
proposals to the European Council in June is now
unlikely to do so, particularly in the area of
defence. There was a sense that despite
acknowledging, as the UK did, that ‘foreign policy
must remain a matter for national governments
co-operating freely’, progress was being made
towards a stronger CFSP. German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer ruled out any extension, however,
saying “it is all the more urgent the Convention
finishes its work on time”, referring explicitly
to the divisions over Iraq.
Discussions
were also taking place on how the EU could
strengthen foreign policy by creating a longer-term
Presidency of the Council, and by reinforcing the
powers of the EU High Representative, thereby
creating a European foreign secretary.
Way
back in June 2000, Commissioner Patten said in the
European Parliament, "all Member States should
acknowledge what those actually doing the work on
CFSP have long understood - that mere
intergovernmentalism is a recipe for weakness and
mediocrity - for a European foreign policy of the
lowest common denominator. That is the lesson we
still have to learn". The current situation
offers the EU a challenge - to prove that it is a
real player on the global stage. We must begin work
as soon as possible on repairing the very fabric of
international relations that have been so damaged.
We
are living through very dangerous times. When this
war is over, we will need to work together to
rebuild the credibility of the United Nations. A
stronger, more unified EU will be central to that.
We also need to forge closer links and a more
sustained dialogue with progressive forces in the US
- those who reject the blundering unilateralism of
Rumsfeld and Cheney, and who understand that global
stability needs to be underpinned by greater
international co-operation and agreement.
