BUSH'S EURO-SCEPTICS
It is not scepticism about Union that predominates in Europe, but scepticism towards the American-led campaign against Iraq. The new Euro-sceptics are European leaders, intellectuals and political activists campaigning against the war. But underneath the surface, the differences have less to do with what to do about Iraq, and much more to do with the Great Power pecking-order.
US diplomats and journalists are all retailing the same story, of the American who was told by a well-heeled guest at a dinner party in a European capital that the attack on the twin towers on September 11 was a good thing. The anecdote has all the hallmarks of an apocryphal story - happened to a friend of a friend, variations of the European nationality and so on - but it is retold because it rings true. It is the case that many European commentators, such as the Guardian's Polly Toynbee, saw the attack blasting the US out of its (supposed) unilateralism back into engagement with the world.
The waters of historical memory are already meeting over the first nine months of the Bush administration and its determination then to withdraw from global diplomatic obligations in favour of the national interest. Then Europeans were demanding that the US support European-led initiatives such as the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases and the International Criminal Court - both rejected by an administration that understandably saw these as a trap. The perception of a Middle Eastern threat has been embraced by the US as the new raison d'etat governing its foreign policy. Like the Cold War of old, the struggle against terrorism will provide the glue that holds together the alliance.
Having been the focus of nine months of European protests against Capitalism, the 'Toxic Texan' George Bush has now become the hate figure for an 'anti-war' campaign. No doubt much of the sentiment behind the protests is a genuine hatred of war, also enhanced by anxieties that the conflict will generate more terror not less. Protestors are also motivated by sympathy for the Arab targets of the war-drive. But it is also clear as day that the protests would never have got the hearing they have if there were not also extensive sympathy for an anti-American message amongst Europe's elite - and that Euro-scepticism is not driven by solidarity with the victims of imperialism.
On the contrary, the driving force behind elite Euro-scepticism over the war is a desire to enhance European power at the expense of American power. Europe's leaders have no difference in principle with the US campaign against Iraq. They are themselves past masters at the military subjugation of the peoples of the Middle East and elsewhere. Their real difficulty with George Bush's war on terror is the fact that US firepower will be used without paying obeisance to Brussels' sensitivities.
Over and over again, European leaders and polls have made it clear that the opposition to the war is not substantially that the Iraqi people will suffer, but that the US is 'out of control'. Europe's preferred solution is that America be tied up in diplomacy at the United Nations, and that international bodies like the weapons inspectorate be the focus of the campaign to destabilise Iraq.
Different European powers have different specialisations that they want to see reflected in the campaign. Britain wants a piece of the military action - to advertise its much-mocked arsenal - France wants a role for its bloated diplomatic corps, Germany does not want to be handed the bill after hostilities without some political pay-back: ideally a permanent seat on the United Nations security council.
Genuine antiwar campaigners make a terrible mistake when they welcome the Euro-sceptics contribution. No doubt European doubts could frustrate the US war-drive. But US-European conflict itself is accelerating the international conflicts that lead to war. An enhanced European military position will lead to more bloodshed, not less.
-- James Heartfield