A Stronger Europe for a Better World

No one can yet say how the war against Iraq will evolve or what its consequences will be. The military strategists generally know how to prepare for conflict but rarely how to deal with the ensuing peace. It is the job of the politicians responsible to sketch out the conditions necessary for a long-lasting peace. I should like to outline three simple lessons.

First, if we want to create a stable world of progress and peace after the war - which we hope will end as quickly as possible - we need to establish a "new internationalism" based on multilateralism and compliance with international law. France and many others condemned this war because it was launched unilaterally and without respect for international law laid down by the United Nations.

This multilateral approach should apply not only to the resolution of crises but, more widely, to the whole of international relations. This is not a matter of providing comfort to Saddam Hussein's detestable regime. The current violation of international law constitutes a dangerous precedent. If the US and its partners break international law today, why should other countries follow tomorrow, precluding peaceful solutions to crises? Lasting peace does not mean shameful compromise with those who threaten us. There is no right to attack others on the basis of a hypothetical threat in international law. And the law demands that, after the war, there will be respect for Iraq's territorial integrity, administered under the control of the UN.

Second, the genesis of this war shows the need to construct a united Europe and rapidly create a European defence force. European public opinion has shown its desire to avoid war and we must therefore improve the chances of this happening. But European governments are profoundly divided on this matter. Europe failed to stop the war; indeed internal splits came to the fore. It would be wrong to think that military union will occur now through some sort of remorse.

This war demonstrates the urgent need for Europe to advance political union, to become a federal Europe, both more democratic and integrated. Such a goal probably cannot be achieved throughout all the European member states at the same time - particularly not with 25 members. So there is a need for an advance party of countries that wants, and is able, to move forward more quickly. Creating a militarily unified Europe for this advance guard is essential. After the success of the euro, such a union constitutes, together with social union, the next great frontier to cross.

Europe was unable to make its voice heard in the US because it was divided and lacked a unified defence force. This deficiency only accentuates European divisions and precludes the European Union from tempering the forces of globalisation. If the countries of the former Soviet bloc leant towards the American position in the Iraq debate, it was because of their own history. They regard Nato - whose role needs now to be re-examined - as the only body capable of providing them with military protection, chiefly because no European defence force currently exists. We need to understand, and respond to, their belief, rather than simply giving them a stern talking-to. The new internationalism must not only reassert the law but be able to threaten force to back it up. Europe is currently unable to do that.

The construction of a European defence force requires France and Germany in particular to pool their military resources speedily, along with other countries in favour of the force. These should include if possible the UK, Spain and Italy. Without such a move, is unilateralism - today American, but perhaps tomorrow Russian or Chinese - the only response to the grave risks to world stability? As we have just seen, no single power is today able to combine the military force and legal backing needed to create long-lasting conditions for peace.

Third, there can be no peace in the world without a spirit of generosity and solidarity. Security is not just a question of military might. Solidarity with the developing world in the fight against hunger, disease and poverty is a global responsibility. This idea of solidarity should apply to all international issues: finance, health, education, the environment and even agricultural trade. It is not through war that we shall avoid a clash of civilisations, but through solidarity. This vision involves, for example, cancelling the poorest countries' debts and giving everyone some access to the world's natural resources. The US has at times subscribed to such a vision - notably during the Marshall Plan.

A final observation. There is a considerable risk that the conflict in Iraq will unleash a strong reaction in Muslim and Arab countries. Until now, the majority of Muslims and Arabs have wished above all for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Most reject a blind conflict that could set them against the west. But the possibility of a widespread conflagration unfortunately remains. We must understand and demonstrate that solidarity is another word for peace. In this way, by taking our lessons from the Iraq war, we could create the conditions for a vital rapprochement between west and east.