Kirsty Hughes You have talked about tackling the causes of terrorism, particularly the darker side of globalisation: stark inequalities, poverty, crime, disease, environmental degradation. Are you pushing the EU to take a new and distinct role and initiative to tackle these causes globally in an effective and coherent way or is it really a question of pressing on harder with existing policies?
Christopher Patten The EU has been involved for years in tackling such problems. We are the largest provider of development assistance in the world by a street. With the United States we are the most important trading block. And, notably through the process of enlargement, we play a crucial part in projecting stability both within and beyond our borders. Already, then, the EU plays a distinct and valuable role.
Yet the events of 11 September were a wake-up call, spurring us to consider new options, using all the tools that the EU has at its disposal to fight terrorism, to shine light on the dark side of globalisation and to promote sustainable development.
The challenge now is to ensure that the momentum of the past few months is not lost and that we and others continue to make sustainable development as much a part of our contribution to global security as the investment we make in our armed forces.
KH You have put a lot of emphasis on the importance of human rights throughout the world. What risk do you see that the new realpolitik around the US-led coalition, combined with new counter-terrorism measures, will lead human rights to take a back seat both internationally and within the EU what can be done to counter this risk?
CP The worlds reaction to what occurred on 11 September is all about promoting respect for human rights. Terrorists show no such respect. The Taliban treated human rights, and in particular womens rights, with contempt. That is why we are committed to helping build a broad-based and decent post-Taliban administration in Afghanistan.
But I am concerned that, as your question suggests, some countries may use increased awareness of the international terrorist threat to introduce oppressive legislation. Laws recently adopted by Robert Mugabes government in Zimbabwe, for example, reduce media freedom and hamper legitimate democratic opposition in the name of counter-terrorism. We have to be alert to these tendencies, whether they occur in Europe or in the wider world.
More fundamentally, this crisis has demonstrated the threat posed by states that deny their citizens human rights and democratic options. Democracy and the rule of law have been, and continue to be, the cornerstones of EU policy around the world. And recent events have demonstrated just how important such notions are in contributing to a safer world Far from taking a back seat in times of crisis, I take the view that human rights need to be at the forefront of policy. This is the conviction that underpins the EUs conflict prevention policy.
Not a single, but a shared policy. The last few months have seen new alliances and an apparent political will for change; we must now take advantage of this and ensure that it is a symbol of hope, rather than expediency.
KH Some argue that the current crisis has had the positive effect of leading to a much more multilateralist US policy than in the initial months of the Bush Presidency. But others suggest this is a rather pragmatic, skin-deep, a la carte multilateralism. How and in what main areas can the EU have most impact in encouraging a genuine and persistent multilateral engagement from the US?
CP The European Union is a pathfinder, internationally, in seeking a synthesis between the prerogatives of its members as independent nations, and the advantages they can gain by pooling aspects of their sovereignty. We seek to preserve those things that give Europe its depth and richness our separate traditions, languages, identities and idiosyncrasies while overcoming what has been most destructive about nationalism in the bloody history of our continent. This experiment is of great relevance at a time when all nations are having to come to terms with the implications of increasing interdependence.
Because of the history, size and pre-eminence of the United States, it has had a long tradition of self-sufficiency, and a suspicion of foreign entanglements. Modern proponents of this school would argue that multilateralism is for wimps, not for superpowers (though they might not put it in quite in those terms). The tragic events of 11 September have shown, on the contrary, that multilateral engagement is not just a moral obligation but a matter of security; a national interest. As Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, put it in a recent speech: Hard-headed multilateralism is not an alternative to leadership, but its manifestation.
You ask how the EU can encourage US engagement. We can best do so by example: by shouldering our share of responsibility for our own security, for example; by demonstrating the success of our own experiment in pooled sovereignty; and by leading the way in trying to tackle the dark side of globalisation from climate change to trans-national crime.
KH The EU has shown considerable solidarity in its statements about the crisis, but the central actors have been the big nation states the UK, France and Germany. Does this mean that the only prospect for a strong common foreign and security policy in the EU, particularly after enlargement, is one led by a directoire of the large member states and will this be acceptable to the small and medium sized member states?
CP Your question betrays a common misconception about the nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. What price CFSP, say its critics, if as soon as the stakes are raised the big Member States take over the show? The point to get clear is that the EU does not aspire to a single foreign policy. It has a common one. We agree joint objectives, and an overall approach. Thereafter, each country, each institution, plays to its strengths and deploys its resources in the common cause. There is much that we can do together in joint actions and through the Community institutions. External trade agreements and EU external assistance are obvious examples, but the potential goes far beyond that, as we have demonstrated in the current crisis in the field of counter-terrorism. But there is also much that Member States can contribute independently. Vigorous action by each Member State can strengthen the common endeavour, and vice versa.
The fact that especially in a crisis Member States take independent initiatives, and that the larger ones are to the fore, is not a demonstration of the failure of the EU. It is an illustration of its very nature.
The Middle East vortex
KH The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East is widely seen as one key crisis area which must be tackled to promote greater stability and social justice internationally. What are the main ways in which the EU can contribute to a just solution to the crisis and how dependent is this on greater involvement of the US?
CP The EU is heavily engaged in seeking a way forward in the Middle East. The deterioration over the past year and more has been a matter of profound concern.
Javier Solana was a member of the Mitchell Committee whose recommendations offer the only viable plan currently on the table. Miguel Moratinos, as the EUs Special Envoy in the Middle East, is in constant communication with the various parties. The EU provides political, trade, economic, financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority, helping to sustain a viable partner with which Israel can negotiate. In 2001, that support amounted to over 200m. Over the last two years we have also committed 50m to support peace-building programmes in the region.
The countries involved in the conflict belong to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This has now been operating for more than five years, and represents perhaps our most important single contribution. It provides a basis for trade, co-operation and political and cultural dialogue between all the countries in the region, and with the EU itself. Through this process, and the Association Agreements that underpin it (opening the prospect of future Free Trade Agreements) we can help to create a context in which peace will take root.
You ask how far progress depends upon US involvement. I have no doubt that the US contribution is a crucial one. But that contribution can be even more effective if it represents a wider international constituency. The EU, like the US, wants to see a secure state of Israel with internationally recognised borders and a viable Palestinian state, living together in peace.
Afghanistan: learning from experience
KH How big a role do you see the EU playing in rebuilding Afghanistan once the conflict ends? What are the lessons that need to be learnt from Bosnia and Kosovo about the difficulties of successfully establishing effective political and institutional structures and avoiding long-run dependence on international institutions?
CP The EU should play a substantial role in helping the Afghans to rebuild their lives and their country after two nightmare decades. Already, we are heavily engaged in humanitarian assistance: the EU has offered half a billion euro in the last decade of which about 100m has been committed in 2001. That brings the total contribution by the Commission and all member states to over 320m this year. That work must continue. But I hope that the focus can gradually shift towards longer-term needs.
In the Balkans the EU has taken on by far the lions share of reconstruction work not least because of the geographical proximity of these countries, and their aspiration one day to join the European Union. In Afghanistan we shall assume less of the overall burden: but we can still play a major role as we have in Kosovo and Bosnia in helping to forge stability and to establish the rule of law in communities racked by violence and conflict. Until we are able to conduct a thorough needs assessment in Afghanistan, and until we have found our place in the international structures that are being put in place to oversee the effort, it is hard to say how we shall best be able to help. But I have no doubt that our experience in the Balkans as also in such places as Cambodia and East Timor will be relevant.
One lesson is likely to be the importance of providing early support for institution-building, helping to create local institutions adapted to local cultural and political circumstances that can command confidence in the community. It has not proved enough in Bosnia, for example, to rely on frequent elections to create legitimacy. Another lesson from the Balkans applicable, I suspect, in Afghanistan is the importance of avoiding a dependency culture, not least by encouraging small businesses, and a climate that enables them to thrive.
