European referendum (followed): reappear footprints left by Mssrs Bush and Rumsfeld

Now that Holland and France voted non, American journalists and editorialists suddenly realise how worrisome the return to a divided Europe could be. Hence Mortimer Sellers, professor of Law at the University of Maryland, in the Herald Tribune: « The rejection of the European constitution threatens seriously the American interests. » (6/2/2005).

But when the division between Eastern and Western Europe was about to disappear, was it not deliberately revived by the Bush administration? Let’s remember the elaborately differentiated treatment of the European capitals according to their degree of alignment on the American demands at the time of the debate on the Iraq war. Let’s remember Donald Rumsfeld’s scornful words opposing “old Europe” and “new Europe”. The American diplomacy succeeded in deriding Europe, while European powerlessness to make themselves heard had all to do with a pigheaded American administration turning a deaf ear on them. Good work by the American spin doctors!

But now the French voted against this Europe which they felt was out of control. Why equip ourselves with a common European diplomacy only to lose our right to differ with Washington? The supporters of the “yes” were clearly on the defensive there, and had to argue that since the constitution project requested an unanimous decision for any action of the European diplomacy, it would have changed nothing, obviously a self-defeating argument!

One comes to regret the time when the United States had a real foreign policy, like under the Clinton administration. It was of course perfectible –everything always is -, but it was coherent, responsible and anchored in a solid moral foundation. The former secretary of state Madeleine Albright wrote it in his autobiography: "Although the United States has much in common with other nations, it is also unique in power and global reach. This uniqueness creates enormous opportunities but also dangerous temptations. For better or for worse, American actions and policies serve as an example. This means, in the absence of a balancing power, that the United States must have the discipline to limit its own actions in accordance with the standards it applies to others. If we attempt to put ourselves above or outside the international system, we invite everyone else to do so as well. Then moral clarity is lost, the foundation of our leadership becomes suspect, the cohesive pull of law is weakened, and those who do not share our values find openings to exploit. I have always believed America to be an exceptional country, but that is because we have led in creating standards that work for everyone, not because we are an exception to the rules."

We were not in the same league then! Europe will need to be accompanied by that type of America if the allies are to stop drifting away from each other, as we discover that the values that used to unite us are less and less clear. The Europeans are disgusted by this America that lives in a fortified camp, routinely infringes on human rights and international conventions, condemns to death and executes so many of her own citizens, including some under 18 and some mentally handicapped. The United States is today further removed from European Union adhesion criteria than Turkey. In its item II-62 "Right to life", the European Constitution states: 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

America must learn that not everything can be settled by force. She must see that in many of her last experiences, collateral damage largely exceeded positive results, when there were any. Military intervention did not bring much progress in Haiti, did make democracy loose ground in Somalia, made some gain in former Yugoslavia but left the region in a deep state of shock with recovery still a distant prospect.

As for Iraq, future will tell, but it is already clear that the cost of the intervention is out of proportion with even the most pessimistic projections. The economic consequences are pushed back for the moment, as America gets deeper and deeper into debt, but they will eventually be extremely heavy. America must also see that her present policies are not sustainable in the long run, for they sow the seeds of many future conflicts, to the emergence of resistance movements confronting foreign occupation and to the ensuing worsening of the terrorist threat. And as Madeleine Albright pointed out, they send a terribly wrong message to all those who feel wronged and seek reparation.

The anti-terrorist stance of the American administration itself would be so much more credible if the United States started to cooperate with international institutions such as the International Penal Court, recognised past responsibilities in the destruction of numerous democracies, notably in Iran and in Latin America, AND direct responsibility in the financing of terrorist movements such as the IRA. This is of course private financing, but al-Qaeda was also privately funded by affluent Saudis, and that left no one indifferent.

While waiting for America to elect worthy successors of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, Europe must, for her part, assert quietly but firmly her humanist values. It is not absolutely necessary for that to have a constitution; a charter would be enough. It would be necessary to have it adopted quickly by the European population for the World needs it urgently.