PHILIP GORDON: This letter came at exactly the right time for the Bush administration, which keeps repeating, contrary to current thinking, that Europe on the whole is not hostile to a war with Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has clearly explained the American position: France and Germany have the right to disagree, but that does not concern the Administration too much, because there are other European governments supporting Washington.
PASCALE RICHE: Do the Americans really think they can change the minds of the Germans and the French?
PHILIP GORDON: If the Administration succeeds in demonstrating that there is not a European consensus to oppose them, then there will be a lot of pressure on Germany and France, particularly on France. A veto would have three extremely damaging consequences for them: marginalization of the UN Security Council (to which the United States would no longer come); a weakening of the European Union (who will have demonstrated that it is far from having a common foreign policy); and a degradation of transatlantic relations (Americans have a long memory).
PASCALE RICHE: Do you think the French will jump on board at the last minute?
PHILIP GORDON: If France thinks that by hardening its opposition it can dissuade the United States from going to war, then they are probably miscalculating. Dominique de Villepin jumped the gun in his speech after Hans Blix?s report at the Security Council. Now that we have heard the Blix report—which was very critical of Iraq—France risks having to backtrack in order to preserve European unity and the role of the Security Council.
PASCALE RICHE: Isn't Washington doing all it can to divide the Europeans?
PHILIP GORDON: No, I do not think that a goal for the Americans is to divide the Europeans. What concerns the Americans is whether European foreign policy coincides with their own. The United States often pursues two contradictory policies: we want a more effective and therefore more united Europe, but we do not want Europe to be so strong that it can oppose the United States...
PASCALE RICHE: Does the United States push for European and NATO expansion in order to dilute Europe?
PHILIP GORDON: There are two reasons to explain the administration's enthusiasm for enlargement. The first is that the eastern European countries are clearly more pro-American: they are grateful of the role the United States played during the Cold War, they are more appreciative of the American rule of law, they believe that at the end of the day, their security rests more with the American superpower than with the medium-powered Europeans. The second reason is that the Bush teams believes that NATO is no longer relevant. They do not care if they dilute it, because they no longer have the intention to use it for military operations.
PASCALE RICHE: Do you see continuity between Bush and Clinton in their approach to Europe?
PHILIP GORDON: There is a large difference. For the Bush administration, the Europeans do not really count: in their eyes, they see the world differently, and that is not worth compromising with them; the United States is so powerful that it can act alone: if others do not want to follow, that is their problem. To the contrary, the Clinton administration believed more in multilateralism, diplomacy, and considered the Europeans to be valuable partners.