I believe that the European Union is weaker after the Iraqi War. It has been said : United We Stand, Divided we fall!
The decision to declare war on Iraq caused much dialogue among citizens of the world.
As members of this global community, we are used to hearing about border wars, conflict between Israel and Palestine and conflicts among other neighboring countries. These conflicts are either religious or territorial. However, the war with Iraq was based on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the threat these weapons presented to our global community and the issues of trust and honesty.
Trust and honesty are at the core of all societies. Each person has to ask the question : Was the war with Iraq necessary?
Some people believe, yes it was necessary.
Other people believe, there were ulterior reasons on the part of decisionmakers.
The answer lies somewhere in between. What does this mean for EU leaders and citizens? EU leaders and citizens are facing many issues at the same time. Leaders,as well as citizens, are divided on many of the issues facing the EU. The Iraqi war
exposed the difference of opinions even further, not only from within each country but also between countries. France and Germany opposed the attack on Iraq, while UK and Italy were in favor. These are four countries out of the 15 that make up the EU. France and the UK are two of the permanent members in the UN Security Council. By representing opposing views these countries neutralize their voting power in the UN. When the question is asked : Is the EU weaker or stronger after the Iraqi War? the analysis would indicate that the division among the member countries would make the EU weaker at this time.

While striving to develop is own identity, the European Union is organizing itself to emerge with a new image.The relationship with Iraq, the relationship with the US, the financial responsibility. Such innovations would rapidly test the salience and interest of the EU to its public. Combined with a genuinely clear, sharp new EU constitution, this could represent a huge leap forward in building a real European political and public space. Nor should it be forgotten, as was underlined at a recent Transatlantic Center debate, that the creation of the US political culture and demos followed, and did not precede, the writing of the US constitution. Leaps forward are possible. Moreover, the fact that the future EU will not be a federal state on the US model, but will continue to be in effect some combination of the US and the United Nations (UN), is all the more reason to emphasise and develop participative democracy and not simply institutional change.

But what about the possibility of a European constitution?
The EU is about sharing sovereignty. But we do not need to speak about a constitution because it embodies and implies a separate layer of sovereignty. Rather, we should look at having a constitutional text or Treaty, a simplified basic Treaty, which includes fundamental rights, so that everybody can read and understand the EU values, what it stands for and its basic institutional structures.Such a division of the current impenetrable lengthy set of treaties into a basic Treaty and other texts with less essential provisions, also raises the perennial issue of the national veto, with the possibility of retaining the veto only for the basic Treaty and moving to majority voting elsewhere. One of the fundamental challenges outlined by the Laeken declaration was the question of how Europe, as a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest could shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation. Barnier is clear that Europe has a role to play in the world and must be a political power but he says this must also be part of the political verification at the start of the debate: Do member states want Europe to play a global role?
He underscores the many changes brought by 11 September: The US understood that it was not invulnerable. These terrible attacks showed there are new threats and risks in the post Cold War world and that we must all adapt in the face of the the US has made it their fight, but the fight against terrorism cannot be done just by the US. They have need of us and we have need of them. We cannot impose this change, we must explain it and show its value. We must recall the basic aims of the European project on peace, stability and democracy. And we must show that it is in the interests of all citizens and enterprises that these countries next to us in Europe have the same standards, and rules, for conditions of work, for the environment, for production and so on the challenges facing the U.N. and the world community are daunting. To meet such challenges, the world community's response must be quicker, more targeted, and better coordinated than ever before. As the world's only truly universal organization in terms both of its mandate and its membership the U.N. has an essential role in the 21st Century.
Much of the discussion by the 8 members the world's seven richest nations plus Russia centered on the peace road map and was followed by a joint statement.[It] offers a historic opportunity to solve the conflict... within the framework of two viable states living side by side with secure and recognized borders and to bring decades of human suffering to an end.
Other talks focused on North Korea, Afghanistan, India Pakistan relations and the reconstruction of Iraq.French officials said the meeting between Mr de Villepin and Mr Powell, which lasted just 45 minutes, was "friendly and frank". Relations among 8 countries were badly damaged by the Iraq crisis, when Canada, France, Germany and Russia opposed the US drive to attack Iraq a policy supported by the UK, Italy and Japan.