The US-Iraqi war split the principal organisations on which world order was founded since the end of WW II: the UN, NATO and the EU. The war accelerated the crisis of the world political system and the power clash brought to light two opposite views of the world order. The American one entrusts a solitary superpower, that places itself above the international community, with the monopoly of power, the responsibility of the maintenance of world order and the power to judge in an unchallengeable way on legality and justice of the other states'behaviour. The one of a part of Europe, led by France and Germany, Russia and China supports the goal of a multilateral governance of the world to be exerted within the UN, conceived as the guardian of a world order based on law rather than might.
The Iraqi war marked a turning point in international relations similar to the one brought about by the decision, taken by President Nixon in 1971, to put an end to the fixed exchange rates system formed at Bretton Woods. Then the weakening of the dollar and the renunciation of the US to assure the stability of international economy opened the way to the European monetary unification and the evolution of the international monetary system toward a multipolar order.Today the American unilateralism and the decision of the US to act outside of the UN framework and to escape every form of international discipline - even that of NATO - has opened the way to the formation of a European independent security system, as shown by the initiative of the Four (Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg) for the creation of a European Security and Defence Union.
This means that the US has ceased providing public goods of great value for the world: the stability of the international economic and political order. The unipolar world is challenged by the rise of the EU, that, for the moment, is unable to play a significant role in world politics apart from the sphere of currency, but can become independent in the sphere of foreign and security policy.
The EU does not aim at replacing the US in the role of stabilizer of world order, nor would it have the power to carry out a plan aiming at world hegemony. This means that, in the future, the resetting of world order will not be assured any longer by a hegemonic power, as occurred during the two past centuries first with the pax britannica and then with the pax americana.
The new terrorist attacks at Riyadh and Casablanca after the Iraqi war have shown that unilateral initiatives make the world situation worse. An effective reply to global challenges demands a joint management of global issues. Only multilateral co-operation within international organizations, first of all the UN, can improve world order. Actually a potential convergence of interests among the world's major states in seeking a joint solution to global issues can be perceived.
Through political unification the EU can become an equal partner of the US, increase its influence on the US, share the US world responsibilities and push the US to co-operate with the major states within the framework of the UN. The ultimate objective of this strategy should be the integration of the US armed forces into a UN police force. Now we should ask ourselves how this aim can be reached. The adoption of a EU Constitution is still under consideration and the clash between sovereigntists and federalists is still in progress. In order to allow Europe to speak with one voice, it is necessary to construct a constitutional mechanism that can overcome the differences of interest and opinion among member states.This mechanism is majority voting. If the majority principle will not prevail in foreign, security and fiscal policies, we will not have a Constitution, but a Treaty. Europe shall not become a world political actor as long as the decision-making process is based on the veto power.
Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi conceive Europe as a great market without independent political institutions. They uphold the subordination of the EU to national governments. But the survival of this principle is incompatible with the enlargement. Widening without deepening endangers the ability of the EU to function, can dilute the Union and paralyze its decision-making structures. In other words, the Europe those leaders are promoting is a Europe that does not aim at becoming a credible international actor and challenging American primacy. This is the reason why Bush is pushing for eastward and southward enlargement (Turkey included) of the EU as quickly as possible.
The US does not promote any more European unification. Its aim is to divide and weaken the EU. It is common knowledge that the "Letter of the Eight" (five members of the EU and three candidates) supporting the American attack on Iraq was inspired by The Wall Street Journal. However there is no center of power in the world that can prevent the achievement of a European Federal Union except the EU itself.
After the end of the cold war the world's major states discovered they no longer had an enemy. War among them has become a remote prospect. Therefore a European security system has to be adapted to the threats of the new era of world politics: terrorism, poverty, overpopulation, epidemics, degradation of the environment, financial crises and so forth. All these threats to national security cannot be faced through traditional weapons and armies.
For this reason the EU can adopt and relaunch Gorbachev's strategic doctrine based on the principle of "mutual security", which could accelerate the reduction of the war arsenals with the prospect of the elimination of all aggressive weapons, in conformity with the principle of "nonoffensive defence". Therefore the European security model should be based on a small professional army. Crises management beyond the EU boundaries demands not only the organization of peacekeeping missions, but also economic assistance. Furthermore, if we take into account the waste deriving from fifteen military budgets, an agency for weapons standardization would allow considerable savings in military spending. Moreover a civilian service could allow the creation of a European peace corps that could play a fundamental role in the management of nonmilitary aspects of international crises. Lastly, a European satellite system (Galileo) designed to identify the position of any moving vehicle, could also play a military role and will be an important condition for the EU to achieve independence of the US.Therefore European security may rest on a light military apparatus.
It is impossible to carry out now a Federal Union within the framework of an enlarged Europe, that includes the UK, the other states which are not members of the Monetary Union and Central and Eastern European countries. But the project could be promoted directly by a hard core of states built on the foundation of the Franco-German axis. This is the way the Economic and Monetary Union was established. The same way can be followed now in order to build a Federation within a Confederation. The members of the Confederation will be allowed to enter the Federation later on.
The process of European unification is at a turning point. Either the European misshapen caterpillar will generate a cosmopolitan butterfly that will provide wings for the dream of peace through the constitutionalization of international relations, or it will fade transforming itself into a heap of trifling states.