Anthony Barnett (London, OK): In a striking and I think very important article in the Financial Times the despicable John Bolton, one time US Ambassador to the United Nations, lays down the line, telling Britain, and in particular Gordon Brown and David Miliband (whom he accuses of being “clever but meaningless”) that “You can’t have two best friends”.
Leave aside the school playground language (in adult life one can have different “best friends”). Or perhaps, on second thoughts, don’t, because this is what international power politics can be – bullying and egoism. Despite this it is essential to look hard at the question Bolton poses. He says that,
"the re-emergence of a European 'constitution' – under whatever name – has brought Britain to a clear decision point. The long, slow slide into the European porridge has had few clear transition points. In the aggregate, however, the magnitude of changes in the status of the EU’s formerly Westphalian nation-state members can no longer be blinked away."
This exposes what I predict will be a growing US hostility to the EU. Washington was a co-architect of European unity after 1950 and into the Cold War, both to build a trans-Atlantic market and prevent Moscow from picking up allies. Now, especially with a weak dollar and a strong Euro, Washington wants to prevent the emergence of a competitor. It is precisely because he fears that the EU will not be “porridge” that Bolton wants to warn team Brown from preferring Sarkozy to Bush. Usually, the Americans indulge the vanity of Brits who say they will be all things to all people. Now Bolton sets out to puncture the illusion:
"Saying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral”. What is Britain’s most important “relationship”?
This is a good question. Bolton wishes that it will need an answer soon,
"Iran’s nuclear weapons programme...will prove in the long run more important for both countries than the current turmoil in Iraq. Here the US has followed the EU lead in a failed diplomatic effort to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. If Mr Bush decides that the only way to stop Iran is to use military force, where will Mr Brown come down? Supporting the US or allowing Iran to goose-step towards nuclear weapons?"
The Europeans will do everything possible to prevent such a demarche. Let's hope they succeed. The force of Bolton’s question is lost because for him it comes down to an insane neo-con foot-stamping, bomb-dropping US assault upon Iran, which could have been a US ally in the Middle East if only a sensible policy had been adopted by Washington after 2000.
However, even if this showdown is prevented, Miliband’s first Chatham House/Avaaz speech which we covered like Gordon Brown's Washington Post article (see Kanishk Tharoor), did indeed finesse the long term issue of Britain’s future role: are we a European country defining our interests from this point of view, or not? Traditional British policy is that one does not need to ask or answer the question. Its a policy built on the UK's exceptional constitutional 'flexibility' (that also help underpin the 'special relationship' with the US: see Andrew Blick below on rendition). Here the EU as it codifies itself will eventually press in to demand an answer to Bolton's question: Britain, where do you stand?
