CHAPTER VII - RECOMMENDATIONS
Some European countries wonder whether it is worthwhile to have an active foreign policy in the Middle East and, if so, in which framework it should be conducted. Is it better for the European Union to pursue a single, but ineffective policy, or should each country strike out on its own diplomatic course? France is directly concerned by this question.
I. WHAT FRAMEWORK FOR WHICH POLICY?
A. IS ACTIVE MIDDLE EAST DIPLOMACY NECESSARY?
The question might seem incongruous for France or England, which have had close ties with the Middle East for at least two centuries, but not for the other European countries.
Italy, which had four maritime republics, was the first and for a long time only point of contact between the Christian West and the Muslim East. "With the exception of Venice and a few Frenchmen, nobody in Europe understands anything about the question of the Orient," Michelet wrote in the late 19 th century. 63 ( * ) Today it would be hard to define Italy's Middle East policy in a few words, except for its decisive contribution to the new UNIFIL and participation in the coalition forces during the Iraq War.
Germany has deliberately stayed out of Middle East affairs until now, but is it worse off than France? Today German diplomacy in the Middle East seems to be coming out of its stupor. That is good news for Europe, although the Federal Republic feels more comfortable negotiating with Iran than with Israel.
The European Union's new members in the East had little diplomatic contact with the Middle East during the Soviet period.
In "old Europe", the Netherlands give the impression of limiting their Middle East policy to unconditional support for Israel.
Each country may have its own history and inclinations, but Europe in general and France in particular cannot remain indifferent to what happens in the Middle East. This is not a question of international prestige or a matter of economic interests involving each country's energy needs, market size or exports.
It is a question of security for Europe, which wants to be and thinks of itself as a peaceful power whose natural interest is to have the best possible relations with its neighbor, the Muslim world. France knows by experience that certain foreign policy choices in the Middle East can have a high price.
For Europeans the Middle East is simply a question of vital interests because what happens there influences everyday life in our countries, which is not the case in the United States, Canada or the other Western nations. Harmony between Western and Eastern civilizations is particularly important in the ongoing construction of our countries. France has five million Muslims and 500,000 Jews (Europe's second-biggest Jewish community and the world's second-biggest after the United States). But it is also true for the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain. France's Middle East foreign policy starts with parliament and the laws it passes. There is no doubt that a law on the burqa would influence how France is perceived in that part of the world.
In addition to the European nations' cohesion, the Middle East raises the question of building a wider Euro-Mediterranean space, which contains the seeds of the Union for the Mediterranean. It would be a shame if the UFM became a useless institution or a gimmick: it could be a great project for Europe. There are obvious economic complementarities between Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Together we are responsible for turning them into comparative advantages to face the emergence of India or Asia. It is important for the future of Europe and France to have an active Middle East policy.
B. WHAT IS THE BEST FRAMEWORK?
The Quartet associating the United Nations, the United States, Russia and Europe seemed like a good idea. Unfortunately, it has actually turned out to be inoperative, if not dangerous. As we have seen in the part of this report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the conditions the Quartet posed in 2006 to dialogue with Hamas were an obstacle on the road to peace. Where was Tony Blair after the Gaza tragedy? If we want the Quartet to serve a purpose, it is absolutely imperative to make it more operational.
The European Union offers the ideal framework of intervention because it is potentially the most powerful, but unfortunately, for the moment it is ineffective. Two paradoxes characterize Europe's intervention in the Middle East: Europe pays the most but has the least influence; its positions on the Middle East are far more advanced than those of the present US administration but it has received no credit for them.
The change in the US administration's positions makes it easier for the Europeans to bring their views closer together. All the European countries that had a very pro-Israel position because of their support for the Bush administration, such as the Netherlands and the Eastern European nations, today find themselves on the wrong foot, while the evolution of France's policy and its closer ties with Israel facilitates things. The ideal would be to find a consensus on the European level. If the Irish adopt the Lisbon Treaty by referendum, its entry into force would probably be a favorable factor 64 ( * ) .
But even with the Lisbon Treaty, the definition of a European foreign policy in a framework that is still not federal will continue coming up against current limits, including the lack of a common vision between the member countries and the delicate coexistence of an embryonic European defense and a domineering Atlantic alliance. Europe is powerless to act in the Middle East because it is not a State and has neither the means to define a policy that would be anything more than the smallest common denominator, nor the external instruments of power: an army and a diplomacy.
What can be done? Wait for the United States of Europe to define a foreign policy in the Middle East?
Obviously not. No great European country ever renounced its own national ambitions when it had them. That is the case of France and Great Britain in particular.
While waiting for a federal Europe that may never exist, a few European countries must closely cooperate with each other in order to act and define a Middle East policy.
Instead of shuttling back and forth between Tel Aviv, Gaza, Cairo Washington or Brussels, our diplomats should try to define the main lines of a common European Middle East policy in London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome and a few other European capitals.
Of course, that is no easy task and the fact that each country holds elections at different times does not help matters any. But the search for a European line of action that is more than a minimum consensus must be our foreign policy's top priority.
If a structured group of countries succeed in having a clearly defined policy, it would be indispensable to associate Turkey , whose skillful, effective diplomacy in the Middle East for two decades furthers the cause of peace. That is no coincidence. Europe and Turkey need peace more than others because the Middle East is their neighbor. In that perspective, it would be profitable to associate Turkey in talks with Iran .
Of course, the Euro-Turkish group would have to consult with the United States . That seems more within reach than ever. It would be regrettable not to take advantage of the convergence between American and European policies. Associating Russia and China, which is increasingly present in the Middle East, would be even more effective.
* 63 Jules Michelet, Histoire de France, le XVI ème siècle, tome II . Quoted by Paul Balta in La politique arabe et musulmane de la France, Confluences Méditerranée, n° 22, summer 1997.
* 64 See the report on the Lisbon Treaty by the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, no. 188 of January 30, 2008 - Jean François-Poncet.