What can the European Union do in the current situation of international crisis?: the view of Paul Magnette of the University of Brussels Paul Magnette is associate director of the Institute of European Studies at the Free University of Brussels, as well as the author of numerous publications on the institutional system of the European Union, on the political thought of European integration and on the theory of negotiations. We interviewed him and asked for his analysis of the international situation after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Professor Magnette, you have undoubtedly had occasion to discuss with your colleagues, both in Belgium and in other countries, the recent terrorist attacks in the United States. What is your state of mind and that of the academic community? “The general sentiment of consternation and compassion for the victims is accompanied by questions about the political consequences that these acts may have in the long term. In this regard, a substantial dichotomy exists within the academic world: on the one hand, there is the ‘Atlantic line’, of total solidarity with the USA and full support for the reactions of the White House; on the other, a more critical position towards the American Administration and its foreign policy is evident: we may think, for example, of the support furnished to terrorists who strike at regimes ‘hostile’ to Washington, or of the recent decision to abandon the UN Conference on racism. In the view of some, the Americans are now paying the consequences of a situation that they themselves have in part helped to create”. The controversial application of article 5 of the Atlantic Charter: in your view, in what terms is it possible to consider legitimate an intervention of the Allies against an enemy not well defined and against a threat that is essentially latent? “NATO’s decision must respect the terms of the Treaty. The duty of the Allies to stand side by side with the United States has been subject to one condition: certain proof that the terrorists have received the support of a government of a sovereign State. America has furnished this proof. The extension of the application of article 5 would otherwise not have been justified. It is not plausible that NATO as such should individually pursue a terrorist network, no matter the gravity of its actions, if its link with a particular government has not been demonstrated”. Thanks to the efforts of the Belgian Presidency of the EU. European foreign policy is enjoying a period of new and powerful impetus. What’s your opinion about this, also in the light of the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council? “As regards foreign policy, the European Union has not yet developed a strong unitary line. Europeans are still divided on many questions: the national traditions and the personal considerations of the political leaders still exist. The hesitations within the Council are clearly perceptible. But as often happens, it is the ‘exogenous shocks’ that rapidly encourage dynamics that in normal circumstances would require long-term processes. It’s perhaps a paradox, but the terrorist attacks are having the effect of accelerating some processes of integration in the sector of justice and of internal affairs rather than in that of external relations”. The Troika composed of Louis Michel, Javier Solana and Chris Patten has conducted a diplomatic mission by visiting some capitals of the main Islamic countries. What’s the role and what are the real possibilities of the foreign policy of the European Union? “Fortunately the Union is not physically involved in the terrorist attacks. The Troika‘s mission was essentially aimed at ensuring the primacy of the ideals of peace, cooperation and development that are at the basis of the EU Treaties. To be realistic, however, it cannot be said that the chances of a decisive intervention by the Union are high”. Gian Andrea Garancini
