Brussels, 20/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - When he appeared on Wednesday before the EP Committee on Foreign Affairs to give, in principle, a report on the EU's role in Afghanistan and in the Balkans (see below), European External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten was covered with praise for the openness of his remarks concerning the "unilateralism" and "simplism" that could be said to taint American policy since 11 September (see EUROPE of 16 February, p.10).
"Your reaction to the speech by President Bush on the State of the Union was the right one. Your reaction was Europe's reaction", Luxembourg Socialist Jacques Poos told Chris Patten. German Green member Daniel Cohn-Bendit proposed that a joint Commission/Parliament/Council delegation should go to the United States "into the universities and into the American society" to debate the choice between multilateralism and unilateralism, and the way that terrorism should be combated. Last year, Mr Patten said, he had spoken a good deal in the United States about unilateralism and multilateralism but his remarks had hardly been noticed, whereas now everyone is taking an interest. José Ignacio Salafranco, Partido popular member, also congratulated Chris Patten for his stance. Spanish Socialist Emilio Menendez del Valle, who noted that the High Representative, Javier Solana, had said that, in his view, American policy is "not simplistic", criticised this "aggressive policy". Just when we are trying to rekindle the peace process in the Middle East, we certainly do not need an attack against Iraq, Mr Menendez said. With more nuance, British Conservative Geoffrey Van Orden said "we cannot overcome US unilateralism by a tendency to unilateralism in Europe", but Mr Patten replied that the last concept is "almost meaningless" as the "EU is an example of multilateralism. In practice". Should one not accept "division of labour" whereby the United States would take on military tasks at the international level and the Union civil tasks?, asked Mr Van Orden, who was joined by Dutch Liberal Bob van den Bos. They felt each should perhaps only do what they are best at. Mr Patten, however, rose up against what is, unfortunately, a frequent and simplistic view that, he said, can be summarised by the picture of a "social worker" Union while the United States deploys its military might everywhere. Yes, we must develop our civil instruments, exclaimed the Commissioner. He said, however, that it is also necessary to spend enough on intelligence services, air transport capacities, and special forces. (The Commissioner recalled that most of the peace-keeping forces present in the Balkans are European).
Mr Patten said he believed that, in this affair, everyone has behaved in "good faith" and no-one can accuse him of being anti-American. He sought to bring the debate back to more constructive ground. He stressed that they all sympathised with the Americans after 11 September and appreciated the "prudence and efficiency" with which they were able to form an international anti-terrorist coalition. The New York Times, he said, recently raised the problem that is at the heart of the debate: - Is the United States stronger when it acts alone or when it acts with allies, even if this causes frustration? Regarding the direction the debate had taken, Mr Patten addressed those who believed it would have been preferable to express any criticism in private. He said he had had a very "civilised" exchange of views yesterday on this with the members of three commissions of the North Atlantic Assembly, including Americans (see EUROPE of 18/19 February, p;7). He asks: "Should I have spoken in code, or rather not said anything at all?" It is true, he continued, that there is a certain anti-Americanism in Europe (also in the United Kingdom, he said, citing two writers, Evelyn Waugh on the right, and Graham Greene, on the left), just as there is anti-Europeanism in the United States. He noted, however, that the dominant view is that Europe and America "are better off" when they work together whenever possible.
In substance, Mr Patten defended the European position on three subjects of discord with the United States: - North Korea: This is a Stalinian regime, which makes huge expenditure on arms when its people are dying of hunger, admitted Mr Patten. But he also asked whether "in the medium and long term, and even the short term, there is an alternative" to Union policy, a policy that it has, moreover, been encouraged to pursue, he recalled; - Iran: Here also, Mr Patten said, we are "completely naïve". He says he has several times raised the problem of respect of human rights with the Iranian authorities. He asks whether, here also, we are helping the moderates by entering into dialogue with them, or not. He noted that Colin Powell, himself, has made "rather generous remarks" about the aid given by Teheran following 11 September: - Iraq: Saddam Hussein is an "evil dictator", but our relations with his country are based on UN resolutions, declared Mr. Pattten, observing that, here too, the EU is not shutting its eyes, and that it considers, in particular, that it had to be very tough over the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction.
Having heard you, I wonder if we are not seeing a "sliding of roles", and if you are not in the process "of becoming our second Mr. Cfsp", said French socialist Veronique de Keyser. "I have no wish of becoming a second Mr. Cfsp, we already have an excellent one in Javier Solana, who, moreover, works for two", replied Chris Patten, stressing that the Commission itself had a "significant" role to play, using the instruments at its disposal. This role, needs playing "with the discipline of a Trappist Monk", he commented, while adding: from time to time, "I slip an opinion", but I believe that that that must be allowed.
Patten also turned to: (1) Afghanistan, considering that the EU should continue to play a role over the coming years, if the Afghan authorities respect the undertakings made at the Bonn conference. Having helped "expel the Russians" from Afghanistan, twenty years ago, "nobody found it useful to stick around" to help the country, which became a centre for terrorism and heroin, that it exports, he observed. He then stressed that the bureau the Commission had just opened in Kabul "will be fully de-concentrated", enabling it to assume financial and administrative tasks, so far the remit of the central office. The Afghans have the right to be better ruled than "by warlords", he commented; (2) the EU police mission in Bosnia (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.5), paying tribute to Jacques Klein who led the UN operation, of which the Europeans will take over; (3) extension of the activities of the Reconstruction Agency for the Balkans in Macedonia, saying that "it is going well". We have already re-built 400 houses and 300 more will be finished by April, he stated, regretting the fact that certain houses that had been rebuilt had been burnt down (and hoping that "better behaviour will prevail"); (4) the Middle East, telling Jacques Poos (who thanked in on behalf of the Socialist Group for his declarations in plenary in February and who asked him when he would present Ariel Sharon with the "bill" for Palestinian infrastructures funded by the EU and destroyed by Israel) that, just at a time when he was speaking with an Israeli official about this damage of some 17 million euro, a project intended to ensure "a better future" for East Jerusalem was "shut down". Do we increase security in this way?" he wondered for the umpteenth time.