01/02/2005
As our readers may know, I took part in a discussion at Kingâs College, London on the subject of European identity. (My colleague is talking about enlargement even as I type these words.)
The discussion afterwards was quite lively and confirmed my view that the big division is between those, no matter what age, nationality, gender or generation, who think that institutions are essential for everybodyâs well-being and decisions on everything must be taken by experts, and those who actually believe in freedom and government accountability.
Inevitably, the question of âEuropeâ as a strong player on the world scene came up. As usual, I replied that while you can put together any number of structures, committees and commissions, until there is a core agreement on what it is âEuropeâ wants to achieve, what the purpose of all those structures is, there can be no question of it becoming a superpower that rivals (in a friendly way or otherwise) the United States.
Well, there we are. No sooner said than done. For a time, anyway. âEuropeâ is once again united, as it was over the mess in the Balkans, once NATO, led by the Americans and the British imposed a kind of a solution.
âEuropeâ is united in praising the Iraqi elections, which would not have happened if some of those âEuropeansâ had had their way. It is also united in offering aid to support efforts to support security. Good of them.
France and Germany are now grudgingly agreeing to train a few (800 I believe) Iraqi police officers. Well, every little bit counts.
President Chirac, apparently telephoned President Bush and told him rather grandly that
âThe strategy of terrorist groups had partly failed.â
Did President Bush manage to keep a straight face? Iâd like to think so. Partly failed? Ahem, what was it supposed to achieve? A break-down in the electoral process, I believe. It failed completely. And how much did France or the European Union contribute to that failure? Well, there is that unspecified sum paid over for the two journalists, not to mention peevish opposition to all attempts to rid Iraq of a noxious (but really rather profitable for some people) regime in Iraq.
Joschka Fischer was also quick to make a statement to praise the courage of Iraqi voters.
âThey deserve great recognition for the will they have shown to shape the future of the country peacefully and democratically, despite massive intimidation.â
They do, indeed and we must not stint our praise and admiration. But, should there not be some acknowledgement of the people who made all this possible: the American, British, Australian, Polish and various other soldiers? And, of course, the Iraqi soldiers and policemen who bought the right "to shape the future" with their blood?
Still, we do now have a âEuropeanâ consensus. As I have mentioned, we did before, in the Balkans. In fact we had two lots of consensus. First, there was the consensus to prevent a âlevel killing fieldâ in the fragrant words of the then Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, to keep Yugoslavia together even if it meant complete support for Milosevicâs bloody policies.
Then there was another consensus. When Bosnia was allowed its independence and Kosovo a form of autonomy (both Muslim countries, incidentally) by NATO troops, âEuropeâ once again united to further freedom and democracy in the former Yugoslavia.
None of this precisely makes âEuropeâ a superpower that will have some influence in the world, especially not influence for what one might describe as liberty. Of course, only those crude Yanks would use such unnuanced expressions.