Breaking the silence
Chris Patten sets aside the diplomatic niceties to argue against Washington's simplistic approach to the causes of terrorism

Jonathan Freedland
Saturday February 9, 2002
The Guardian

The grandeur of the office - the thickness of the carpet, the size of the picture window - is nothing new to him. As a former cabinet minister and the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten has seen more than his fair share of grand offices. But now, in Brussels, there is a larger world outside his window. As the European Union's commissioner for external affairs, it's his job to corral 15 different member states towards a common position on the world beyond the EU.

No one expects him to act as a kind of uber-foreign minister, selling a single EU foreign policy: there isn't one. Nevertheless the Brussels buzz says he's doing well, praised for both his thoughtful style and sure-footed command of terrain which can be treacherously complex.

On the day the Guardian came to call, he had just seen a delegation of Israeli and Palestinian moderates from the "peace coalition". To a man, they had only good things to say about Commissioner Patten. But, every once in a while, the situation demands a break from diplomatic niceties. The current direction of US foreign policy is one of those situations.

"President Bush has just announced a $48bn (£34bn) increase in defence spending," he begins. "Now if you mark the significance of Europe's relations with America by how much we're prepared to spend on defence, forget it! We can't even pay the entrance fee!" If the US measures seriousness by that standard, Mr Patten concedes, then Europe doesn't count: there is not a political party in Europe that would campaign for a 14% increase in defence spending, which is what it would take for the EU to match Mr Bush.

But, he says, "Europe provides 55% of development assistance in the world and two thirds of grant aid. So when it comes to what the Americans call the 'soft end of security' - which I happen to think is the hard end of security - we have a huge amount to contribute." Especially after September 11, when, Mr Patten says, we have seen "the dark side of globalisation". Now we know where the huge injustices of the global economy can lead. We know, too, how important it is to handle failed states properly - and to prevent them failing in the first place. We have realised that we have to tackle "the root causes of terrorism and violence".

Faced with that agenda, he said "frankly, smart bombs have their place, but smart development assistance" mattered more. And it's that simple idea that Washington doesn't get? "That's a polite way of putting it," snorts Mr Patten, slumping his shoulders to take another sip of Belgian coffee.

But is Washington even hearing that more complex position, staked out by both Tony Blair and former president Bill Clinton: that the west has to be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism? "I don't know but I think it's very dangerous when you start taking up absolutist positions and simplistic positions."

That's just one of a series of gaps now opening up between Europe and George W Bush's United States, according to senior European policymakers. Specific clashes include proposals for an international criminal court, a ban on anti-personnel land mines, action against biological weapons, a comprehensive test ban treaty and, most famously, the Kyoto treaty on climate change - all of which are supported in Europe and opposed by the US. A sharp difference is emerging too over the Middle East, with the EU continuing to fund Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority even as the US denounces it.

But Mr Patten - who describes himself as a lifelong "Americaphile" with "not an ounce of Americaphobia in my body" - fears a deeper, philosophical gulf could soon appear, with two wholly different views of the world taking shape on either side of the Atlantic.

While Europeans believe in tackling the root causes of terror, Washington seems keen only to eradicate the symptoms. While Europeans believe in "engaging" potentially hostile nations, trying to bring them into the fold, Washington brands them an "axis of evil". While Europeans believe in acting together, multilaterally, the US seems ever more bent on acting alone.

The commissioner quotes John Bolton, the hawkish US under-secretary of state for arms control, who has condemned multilateralism as a threat to American sovereignty - and who recently withdrew from talks on a convention limiting small arms because it would have undermined Americans' constitutional right to carry guns. "Now this is a different perception of the world," says Mr Patten, "and it's different from what America's been renowned for. No one could regard America as anything but the leading multilateralist of the 40s and 50s, creating institutions of governance which have made the world more prosperous and more stable."

Now, he fears, the US is turning away from that tradition although the battle might not be completely lost. "I think there's more rhetoric than substance to the policy so far," he says. There could still be a change of heart, one that would see the administration reflect the more multilateralist leanings of secretary of state Colin Powell. "I still hope that America will demonstrate that it has not gone on to unilateralist overdrive." The task now is for Europe to raise its voice - "I don't think that keeping quiet makes us good allies" - and for America to listen.

"Winston Churchill once said it was important to remember that when you had allies, they did tend to develop opinions of their own - and it's quite important to listen to those opinions." Chris Patten has broken the EU silence. Will Tony Blair follow? And if he does, will anybody in Washington hear him?