Speaking in unison
The European Union's unofficial mission for years has been to "speak with one voice" on the world stage. The phrase cropped up again last week when rifts and splits over the Iraq crisis grew, and the chances of holding Europe together on a world-class political issue dwindled to almost nothing.
"Clearly, we are not united at the moment," a European Commission official said. "But Europe must develop a united front to be credible in such a situation. We must speak with one voice."
That was last week. Today EU leaders will meet in Brussels to try to demonstrate that they speak with one voice, even though they patently do not. But that will not prevent a joint statement from emerging, which clearly demonstrates that European thinking is harmonious.
How is this done? It's done by preparing a declaration on which it would be nice to agree and then passing it round to each national delegation and asking them to delete the bits they don't like. What is left is a classic case of Europe speaking with one voice.
Cynical? Not really. Every day so far in the endless search for European unity in the face of potential war, someone in Brussels has pointed out quite seriously that despite apparent splits within NATO and the EU, the continent is not divided. This is because last month EU foreign ministers met in Brussels to discuss Iraq and tackle the problem that five of the 15 member states back the US, six oppose a war and the remaining four are sitting on the fence.
The foreign ministers were triumphant. They produced a joint declaration on Iraq, signed by 15 governments, and claimed unity.
It seemed impossible and indeed it was: that three-way split today remains as it was then, but the foreign ministers' text was masterly. It has come to be called, by me at least, the motherhood-and-apple-pie text because it shows the EU speaking with one voice in calling on Iraq to fully comply with UN resolutions. And it underlines "the fundamental importance of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
What it does not do is address the question of launching military action or the circumstances in which it would be justified - the key issues which are driving European nations into their respective corners. To try to speak with one voice on these points would produce a discordant cacophony.
Today in Brussels EU leaders will perform the same trick, even though there is not enough wallpaper in the world to hide the real, heartfelt, fundamental political cracks which have emerged.
But at the end of last week the Belgians, who are in trouble for joining France and Germany in blocking a NATO agreement on Iraq, raised an interesting point: why should the Europeans agree? After all, isn't it in communist and fascist states that speaking with one voice is compulsory? The whole point of democracies is to be able to speak with many voices.
"Clearly, we are not united at the moment," a European Commission official said. "But Europe must develop a united front to be credible in such a situation. We must speak with one voice."
That was last week. Today EU leaders will meet in Brussels to try to demonstrate that they speak with one voice, even though they patently do not. But that will not prevent a joint statement from emerging, which clearly demonstrates that European thinking is harmonious.
How is this done? It's done by preparing a declaration on which it would be nice to agree and then passing it round to each national delegation and asking them to delete the bits they don't like. What is left is a classic case of Europe speaking with one voice.
Cynical? Not really. Every day so far in the endless search for European unity in the face of potential war, someone in Brussels has pointed out quite seriously that despite apparent splits within NATO and the EU, the continent is not divided. This is because last month EU foreign ministers met in Brussels to discuss Iraq and tackle the problem that five of the 15 member states back the US, six oppose a war and the remaining four are sitting on the fence.
The foreign ministers were triumphant. They produced a joint declaration on Iraq, signed by 15 governments, and claimed unity.
It seemed impossible and indeed it was: that three-way split today remains as it was then, but the foreign ministers' text was masterly. It has come to be called, by me at least, the motherhood-and-apple-pie text because it shows the EU speaking with one voice in calling on Iraq to fully comply with UN resolutions. And it underlines "the fundamental importance of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
What it does not do is address the question of launching military action or the circumstances in which it would be justified - the key issues which are driving European nations into their respective corners. To try to speak with one voice on these points would produce a discordant cacophony.
Today in Brussels EU leaders will perform the same trick, even though there is not enough wallpaper in the world to hide the real, heartfelt, fundamental political cracks which have emerged.
But at the end of last week the Belgians, who are in trouble for joining France and Germany in blocking a NATO agreement on Iraq, raised an interesting point: why should the Europeans agree? After all, isn't it in communist and fascist states that speaking with one voice is compulsory? The whole point of democracies is to be able to speak with many voices.
