The latest developments of the British position toward European construction are not of a kind that can appease perplexity. Tony Blair's declarations on uni-polar power and an article by the Minister for European Affairs, Denis MacShane, give an image of Europe in the future which is nothing like the ambitions of several other Member States, EU Institutions and the Convention.
Banishing misplaced dreams. Mr MacShane's way of expressing himself is already familiar to us from the article published in "Le Monde" in January, calling for a "down to earth" Europe, without political ambitions (see this column on 30 January). The minister is very single-minded. The article published in "The Financial Times" on 23 April confirms the same ideas but steps up the tone. After tonnes of heavy irony about the ambition of the Convention and its Chairman who likes to compare it to the Philadelphia Convention, the British Minister has finally banished any misplaced dreams: "The desire to write an American-style constitution that will be eagerly accepted by the peoples of all 25 EU member states needs to be put to one side. (…) That is why the remaining 60 days should be devoted to less debate on ultra-visionary architecture. (…) The Convention should focus on producing recommendations that will be broadly acceptable to Europe's governments. (…) If this means compromise and limited approach so be it. Otherwise, the Convention will be seen as just another longer, more expensive seminar on the future of Europe. (…) So in its last 60 days, the Convention has to have the ambition to be modest and give Europe a workable set of proposals - without minority reports and conflicting alternatives - that can command general support.
Mr MacShane based his sermon on the commonplaces in favour of a Europe that "does not provide a subsidy of $2 a day to each of its cows" and which is more dynamic, when there are currently "more than 7 million workers in France and Germany alone deprived of their most important right - the right to work because of the stubborn refusal of trade unions, employers and European Central Bank bureaucrats to promote policies aimed at creating jobs". As if a Convention entrusted with the task of elaborating a Constitution could deliberate on economic policy. Oh demagogy, once you have a hold of us …
Bill Clinton's ideas are not forgotten. After this enlightening description of Europe as the minister in charge of the United Kingdom's European policy sees it, Tony Blair's affirmations on uni-polar power have caused considerable perplexity, and was testily rebuffed by Jacques Chirac. We recall the essential differences of opinion. The British Prime Minister supported the idea of a "one-polar" power encompassing strategic partnership between the United States and Europe. The EU could influence American policy "from the inside" by being part of the same pole. Several European decision-makers find this simply means that Europe would give up having its own foreign policy or becoming a diplomatic and military power in its own right able to dialogue on an equal footing with the United States. Jacques Chirac replied that the uni-polar world is not an abstract creation but a natural process of evolution already in the making: - China, India, perhaps South America, as well as the United States and Europe. Links between these groups must be close in order to avoid clashes, and the connection between the United States and Europe is special because they are both part of one and the same Alliance, but "between equal partners". Otherwise, "it is another world, not that imagined by France". Chancellor Schröder added the now famous remark saying: "within NATO there is not too much America but too little Europe" (which is in line with the idea held by Chirac that "by building a stronger Europe, we are contributing to a stronger Atlantic Alliance"). Historians recall, moreover, that the notion of an Alliance founded on two autonomous pillars, one American and the other European, was the way Bill Clinton saw it, an idea stated on more than one occasion and approved by the NATO Summit in April 1999.
The United Kingdom has therefore responded in its own manner to the question raised by the European Commissioner of British nationality, Chris Patten, who wanted to know whether they were on the inside or the outside, whether they are partially detached from or party to the process aimed at affirming Europe's position in the world (see this column on 30 January). But let's not get it wrong: - Great Britain is not rejecting Europe. On the contrary it wants to remain within it and to play an increasingly important role there. What it does refuse is a concept of Europe that does not correspond to the aspirations of most of the British people and perhaps not even to the country's history, but which most of the continental countries nonetheless really want.
So how do we conclude this three-stage overview of the prospects of a political and defence Europe? I shall try to provide a few elements of an answer tomorrow. (F.R.)