Actually, it was very diplomatic and very civil. Monsieur Jean David Levitte stated that the difference between his (and other European) governments and the US administration was not that much about the substance (he believed that Mr. Hussrin was a bloody dictator) but about the legalities. He favored a cooperative multilateral approach instead of the US unilateralism, albeit he did state that the war was unjustified on thegrounds of security threat, since threat posed by Iraq was minimal. However, he was very eager to put the past behind and look into the future cooperation, not just on Iraq but in general, because we share not only common values but a big deal of trade as well - not to mention that the combined economies of the EU and the US amount to about two thirds of the global GDP. He looked forward into the UN role in rebuilding Iraqi economy and democracy as well as diffusing further conflicts. He was very optimistic about the prospect of cooperation between the US and EU, and believed that working together can solve a host of world problems, from poverty, to national security, and to environmental protection.
He spoke for about 30 minutes, and then invited questions from the audience - as the lecture was extremely well attended (I would say well over 500 people, which is a lot for Hopkins, albeit I am not good at estimating the size of the crowd). The discussion that followed was also very democratic and civil. Some peaceniks (including myself) expressdd their gratitude for upholding the rule of international law and trying to solve the crisis through peaceful means - which drew some applause form the audience. Others posed questions reflecting the views of the US administration, such as - why should the UN be allowed to participate in rebuilding Iraq when it refused to figh alongside the US (Mr. Levitte's reply - do youthink you can do it alone? <laughter in the audience> and Mr Levitte continues: we have colonial experience and we know that disregarding national sovereignty does not work) - why should the UN give forum to undemocratic rougue nations (Mr. Levitte's reply - because they are members of the familty of nations and dialog with such countries can bring democratic changes in those countries, as it did in x-USSR and Eastern Europe) - what is the France's interpretation of UN security resolutions regarding the authorization of force; or - whether it is true that France Germany and Russia are plannig a meeting to discuss the future of Iraq (yes, in St. Petersburg)
The question which I posed (the last question from the audience) was whether growing US unilateralism and belligerence will result in closer cooperation between EU and Russia and China to counterblanace the US threat. Mr. Levitte responded that we can expect such closer cooperation for this reason, but he emphasized that this should not be interpreted as the emergence of a new bipolar division a la the Cold War - because that would be a bad thing for future international cooperation and solving world problems.
In short, Mr. Levitte's speech was aimed at mending fences, dialog in spite of differences, international cooperation, and optimism about the future. I think his message was very effective - especially given his audience - but I also think it would be dismissed by the majority of the US-ers: too brainy, too sissy, too hand-holding, too weak, too unlike the blunt cocksure arrogance and self-righteousnes projected by Bush that sells so well in the US population.
Wojtek