The case for the overriding importance of a united Europe to Mr. Bush's goals is in many ways obvious. Although the United States proved it could win the Iraq war by itself, it has found it cannot win the peace unless the world - and Europe in particular - blesses Iraq's transition to democracy.
What??!!
Is this author serious? We won the war without Europe and we are winning the peace without Europe, too. Europeans help us. And Australians and Japanese and South Koreans and others, but "Europe" is stingy in aid and trains a few Iraqis outside of Iraq. In what way has Europe blessed the transiton to democracy in Iraq? Any European movement to accept a new democratic Iraq after their high comfort level with Saddam is only because we and our allies and the Iraqis themselves are making this work. Blessing the transition to democracy? The Europeans are barely tolerating it and mostly deny democracy is what is happening there. They lap up the al Jazeera and BBC stories of brave Sunni resistance (and never mind the car bombs or the beheadings).
And should we just accept a United Europe that entrenches a Franco-German anti-Americanism as a Europe-wide assumption? The article quotes someone who believes we cannot stop unification under Brussels:
"It's not that Europeans think the United States wants a weakened, sluggish or divided Europe," said Tony Judt, the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University.
"The fear is that what American wants is a Europe that does its bidding," Mr. Judt said. "But to suppose that because there are divisions in Europe, American policy can exploit them and turn some countries into American allies would be a big mistake. It would just backfire."
This astonishes me. In the long history of Europe, is this director honestly telling us that Europe has never been divided? That it is inconceivable that some states would be pro-American and some pro-French or pro-German if there was no Brussels to whip them into line?
Screw "Europe." And don't ever accept this abomination as a given. Work to give friendly states a reason to stay out of the EU and for God's sake, convince the Brits to stay out. And we need to keep doing the right thing in Iraq and elsewhere despite Brussels-based condemnation; and some people will appreciate what we do.
UPDATE: Andrew Stuttaford is rightly upset at the kind words from President Bush and Secretary Rice about a united Europe. As Stuttaford concludes:
The constitution paves the way for the transfer of increasing amounts of defense and diplomatic activity from Europe's national capitals to Brussels. Article 1-16 commits all member states to a "common foreign and security policy." "Member states" are required to "actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's actions in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness." In a recent radio interview, Spanish prime minister Jose Zapatero explained how this might work: "we will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service...we will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO."
And the more that the EU speaks with that one voice, the less will be heard from those of its member states more inclined to be sympathetic to America. And as to what this would mean, well, French Green politician Noel Mamère put it best in the course of an interview last week: "The good thing about the European constitution is that with it the United Kingdom will not be able to support the United States in a future Iraq."And would that, Secretary Rice, be a "good development"?
I can only hope they were being diplomatic and that in fact we are not supporting this project.
