Posted 4:24 AM by Dil
July 31, 2003

We must stop deluding ourselves in Europe
Peter Riddell
The diplomatic damage done by the war in Iraq cannot be brushed aside



Tony Blair is an incurable optimist. He would make Dr Pangloss proud. His transatlantic bridge collapsed amid bitter acrimony, Europe was split, and relations with France were the worst for years, if not decades. Yet everything is all right.
At his pre-holiday news conference in Downing Street yesterday, I asked him how his 1997 goals of ensuring that Britain takes a leading role in Europe and of improving relations with France and Germany had been affected by Iraq and the euro decision. Surprisingly, he paused in replying, as if unsure, before giving a revealing answer.

After claiming that Britain has made “substantial progress” in its position in Europe, despite being out of the euro, he added: “In respect of Iraq — this may seem like a slightly counter-intuitive thing for me to say — I think in a curious way after the disagreement, there is a genuine desire not to repeat that experience if at all possible. I would say that our relationship with France and Germany at the moment is strong.”

Up to a point, Prime Minister. He is deluding himself, and the rest of us, if he brushes aside the damage done to British foreign policy by Iraq.

The rows, misunderstandings and confrontations leading up to the breakdown at the UN in mid-March were a saga of inept diplomacy. Everyone performed badly. President Chirac grossly overplayed his hand, in the process making war certain, while both the French and the Americans, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, made the transatlantic gap worse by going out of their way to antagonise each other.

Gerhard Schröder acted weakly, both in his gratuitously anti-American election campaign last September and by, later, seeking refuge in an alliance with France. Admittedly, the Chancellor was pushed in that direction by President Bush’s refusal to forgive, or forget, the earlier insults.

Mr Blair was, and is, right on strategy, but wrong on tactics. He is correct that the West needs to be united in the face of terrorism, while Europe should seek a partnership with America, rather than create a rival pole of power. President Chirac’s multipolar view of competing power blocs risks self-indulgent impotence. But Mr Blair’s tactic of nestling up close to Washington has made it harder for Europe to work together as America’s partner.

Downing Street and the Foreign Office consistently misread French and German intentions last winter. They failed to spot the significance of the revival of the Franco-German alliance at an EU summit last October when Mr Blair was ambushed over reform of farm policy. He wrongly believed that France would come on board at the last minute and not veto a further UN resolution. So Mr Blair and the Government could save themselves only by blaming France for the breakdown.

Mr Blair may never have been able to avoid a split in Europe, given the animosities created by the German election and the US/French rows. He would probably always have backed military action. But he could have reduced the damage if he had devoted as much time to Paris and Berlin as to Washington. The result has been a major diplomatic failure, undermining Mr Blair’s hopes of detaching Germany from its long-term alliance with France (they have become closer), while making it harder to win a euro referendum.

Moreover, as Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform think-tank argues in a thoughtful new study Transatlantic Rift, it is self-defeating for the Americans to deepen the divisions between old and new Europe. Of course, an enlarged Europe will be different. But France and Germany cannot be consigned to history. They remain integral parts of Europe. Moreover, in a divided EU, Britain would have less influence and would be less likely to achieve economic reform or to change the Common Agricultural Policy, both of which are in American interests. A divided Europe would make life harder for America.

None of these problems can be wished away. Mr Blair has a point that in Europe there is a “never again” mood. There are some positive points. The new security statement put forward by Javier Solana, the foreign affairs representative of EU governments, recognises the threat from WMD, and accepts that force may have to be used.

Mr Blair and Jack Straw have been trying to restore good relations with Paris, Berlin and Moscow. But there is limited movement from Washington.Some in the State Department accept that the problems in postwar Iraq show the need for a greater UN role. However, continued hostility from the Pentagon means that France and Germany, and others, will not send troops.

As Mr Grant argues, good intentions are not enough. Both Europeans and Americans should insulate economic issues, notably the world trade talks, from security differences. They should agree a common approach on Iran (more stick from Europe, more carrot from the US), and try to agree a common approach on when to intervene and on WMD.

Britain and France are, Mr Grant argues, the key to more constructive transatlantic relations. France should become less anti-American and Britain less pro-American. President Chirac should abandon his illusion of a competitive multipolar world and a core mini-Europe. Mr Blair is right to work with America so it does not have to act alone. But he should be more willing to speak for Europe when agreed EU views are different from Washington’s. This poses tricky questions for British defence policy. Do we just want to fight alongside the US? Or is Britain serious about creating a EU military force that can operate on its own?

A stronger Europe would be a stronger partner for America. But that involves candour rather than self-delusion. Everything is not always for the best in the best of all possible worlds.