Transatlantic Visions [TIES]

For many people in Europe or in the US, the answer to this question seems obvious: the EU comes out weaker. Just take a look at the picture: on the one hand, US forces easily defeat Saddam's army, showing US supremacy at war; on the other hand, European countries are completely divided upon the question of the course Europe should take on Iraq issues. No need to go any further: Europe is weaker than ever.
But, is a photography sufficient to assess reality? Don't we rather need to watch the film in order to understand the trends?

Firstly, did Europe have a common foreign and defence policy before Iraq crisis? No, especially as regards to Iraq.
Indeed for more than 10 years the Iraqi question has been a divisive one for Europeans. Contrary to many foreign issues where they do converge, in the case of Iraq and since Gulf War I, the British and the French for instance never agreed on what to do next. So the current disagreements upon Iraq between European leaders are nothing new.
Strangely enough, something new emerged in the past months which is a palpable expectation from European citizens to see their leaders agree upon a European common voice on the world stage, with some clear direction assigned: key role of international laws and organisations, refusal of any kind of unilateralism, and opposition to any 'pre-emptive war' concept. In fact, if a new European divide did emerge, it occurred between European leaders and their people rather than among Europeans.

Beyond its divisions, Europe has showed that it could play an efficient role in terms of both military force and diplomatic skills

Secondly, was Europe in military competition with any other world power, or with the US in particular, and could not stand the competition? No.
The European Union has developed a power based on influence and ability to generate large agreements; it is relies only marginally on military power. Meanwhile, this crisis proved that the US had no significant military allies outside Europe, as British forces were the only US force's ally in this war. Meanwhile the other group of Europeans, around France, Germany and Belgium, did manage to show that they could prevent any power to bully the UN.
Therefore European countries, though divided, proved to be crucial both in terms of military partnership and diplomatic game.

Even divided, it is the first time since 1945 that the Europeans act on their own

Thirdly, is Europe less visible on the world scene today than yesterday? No.
Quite the contrary: Fifteen years ago, the Europeans would not have been able to say one word on such crisis. Eastern Europeans would have followed Moscow and Western Europeans Washington. During this crisis, it is the first time that the Europeans not only expressed themselves in an independent way, but actually generated the crisis by their disagreement. Would have they agreed with Washington, never would Russia or any other country have opposed the US. Would not have they opposed the US, never would Washington's hawks have rushed so many troops in the Gulf, closing the door to diplomatic solutions. Therefore, even if it is still in a negative way (as it was not able to propose a way-out), for the first time since 1945, Europe did play a key role in a major international crisis.
Putting together all these elements, and in particular the surprisingly strong convergence of the Europeans gathered for the first time into a truly European public opinion, then the answer is clearly than Europe comes out of this crisis stronger than before.

Thanks to the Iraqi crisis, the debate on Europe's future has finally met 'reality'

If one more example was needed, let's turn our gaze to the on-going debates on the future of Europe. Until the Iraqi crisis, these debates were mostly 'Brussels debates', away from political reality, conducted by bureaucrats and experts. Thanks to the shocks generated by this crisis, public opinions and politicians managed to take over the debate. The international situation acted as a sound 'principle of reality', reminding the Europeans that politics is about power and crises. Meanwhile it clarified positions and therefore allowed some countries to move forward in directions they were prevented to follow in the name of the 'common vision'. Now everybody is aware that:
. first, a common vision has to be built by visionary people, open to the others but not paralysed by them in order to move forward, as it has always been the case in the history of Europe
. second, all through Europe, a large majority of European citizens have expressed their view on what should be Europe's 'road map' to a Common Foreign Policy (72% of the Europeans are in favour of establishing a Common Foreign Policy, Eurobarometer April 2003), thus giving evidence of the fact that by 2005/2006 most European countries will be sharing this common vision (the good thing with democracy is that leaders cannot afford to go too long against citizens' opinions).

Last remark, without some Europeans taking part in the war in Iraq, Saddam may still be in power; but without other Europeans asserting the primacy of international law and refusing to sideline the UN and to regroup under a 'white man's banner', Europe has avoided a clash of civilizations and religions. It has also generated, in many parts of the world, a true desire to see more 'Europe' in future global debates and crises.

Altogether, it definitely does not look to me as signs of weakness, even if much has still to be done to make it a sign of strength.