Transcript

Host: This is “On The Line,” and I’m Eric Felten. Two crucial European countries are seeing new leadership for the first time in a decade. Newly elected French president Nicolas Sarkozy took office this week. The outgoing president, Jacques Chirac, had been in office since 1995. British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he will step down from the office he has held since 1997. Mr. Sarkozy, of the center-right UMP party, defeated Socialist candidate Segolene Royal. He is expected to make dramatic changes from the policies of the Chirac years, including mending France's tattered relationship with the U-S

Sarkozy: "I want to tell our American friends that they can count on our friendship, which was forged in the tragedy of history that we confronted together. I want to tell them that France will always be at their side whenever they need help. But I am going to tell them, too, that friendship is also that a friend can think differently."

Host: Though the U-S may be gaining an ally in Mr. Sarkozy, the departure of Mr. Blair represents the loss of one of America's staunchest allies. The Prime Minister's unflagging support for the U-S cost him politically. Mr. Blair noted that his decision to support the United States in the war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq has been profoundly unpopular. But he defended that decision as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Blair: "Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since, with global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. And for many, it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists who threaten us here and around the world, will never give up if we give up. It is a test of will and of belief, and we can't fail it."

Host: President George W. Bush said he would miss Mr. Blair.

Bush: "He is a political figure who is capable of thinking over the horizon. He's a long-term thinker. I have found him to be a man who has kept his word, which sometimes is rare in the political circles I run in. When Tony Blair tells you something, as we say in Texas, you can take it to the bank."

Host: Mr. Blair is expected to be succeeded by his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. How will new leadership in France and Great Britain affect the U-S relationship with those countries and with Europe as a whole? What will it mean for the direction of Europe? I'll ask my guests, John K. Glenn, Director of Foreign Policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States; Simon Serfaty, a Senior Adviser in the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Charles Kupchan, Director of the Europe Studies program at the Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome. Thanks for joining us.

Charles Kupchan, which is going to the bigger change -- the change of leadership in France or in Great Britain?

Kupchan: I think in some ways, they go together and they will be equally important in the sense that Sarkozy is likely to be as warm and open to the United States as any president really since the postwar period. I wouldn't expect there to be a revolution. There is still a lot of skepticism about the Bush administration in the French public and in the French bureaucracy, so no overnight revolution. And then in the U.K., clearly, Gordon Brown is going to distance himself from Washington because Blair paid for being too close to Bush. He will likely want to lower Britain's profile. But I think on balance, what happens is the U-S loses its closest partner in Europe but gains entrée both in Berlin, where Merkel is pro-American, and in Paris, where Sarkozy leans to the U-S So, in some ways, the U-S-European relationship may, in the end of the day, be better because Britain always kept its distance from Europe, so even though Blair was close to Bush, that didn't give the U-S direct access to the E-U Having direct ties to Paris and Berlin may mean stronger American ties to the E-U as a whole.

Host: Simon Serfaty, stronger ties to Europe as a whole for the U-S?

Serfaty: I'm going to qualify Charlie's response slightly to the extent that Sarkozy's election in France means an instant sense of renewal for France, which has been stuck with two men over the past twenty-six years -- Mitterrand, who was president from 1981 to 1995, and Chirac from 1995 to 2007. And that sense of renewal, I think, helps France redeem the European context as a more active and proactive partner for its neighbors. And second, Sarkozy, I think, will have an immediate impact on Merkel's, the German chancellor's, own attempt to relaunch the institutions of Europe, and thus, to that extent, the coming of Sarkozy, to my mind, implies a new dynamism on continental Europe, which is of great significance insofar as America's relationship where the Europeans is concerned.

Host: Well, John Glenn, on that question, is more important not the attitude that Sarkozy has toward America per se but rather this dynamism that he may inject into France and into Europe as a whole and the effects that it will have?

Glenn: I think that Simon is right. I think that this new dynamism will be France seeking to reassert its role of leadership within the European Union. Now, there are many issues that it has continued to do so. We can think of Iran, for example, where we have Britain, France, and Germany taking the lead on this issue. But I think that, particularly on the issue of transatlantic relations, as Simon and Charlie were both suggesting, I think that France's role will be very powerful. But if I may, I'd love to place these two critical elections within the context of the coming Turkish elections, the coming elections in the United States, and what we even expect in 2009 in Russia. We're seeing a whole constellation of leadership changes at a particular period that could have really dramatic consequences for the leaders who engage with the transatlantic relationship and the global issues that it focuses on.

Host: Well, Charles Kupchan, is France still going to see itself as a counterweight to the U-S?

Kupchan: I don't think you'll see as much focus on the French counterweight or the E-U counterweight. Chirac played that card effectively, but it didn't last very long, and it's interesting that the two leaders that led the charge against the war in Iraq, Schroeder and Chirac, ended up, in some ways, out of the scene. Their political careers have come to an end. So, there wasn't a lot of momentum behind that refrain. I don't expect it to return. I don't think you're going to see the French say, “Let's get behind the U-S on every front,” but I do think that that traditional Gaullist narrative is going to die down.

Host: On this question of Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac and the bump they got for a while from anti-American rhetoric, but did it just prove out that anti-Americanism, though popular to some extent, couldn't be a substitute for success with your own domestic policies and things going on at home?

Kupchan: Yeah, I think it sent two messages. One is that this is not an issue that will make or break politicians. The issues are still very much at home -- taxation, immigration, how to deal with Muslim immigrants. These were the issues on which the French and the German elections turned. But I do think that there is good news here for the transatlantic relationship in the sense that even if there is a quiet anti-Americanism in Europe, the Europeans, when they look at life after Pax Americana, and they got a glimpse of it when the Iraq War occurred, didn't like what they saw. They weren't that comfortable with an E-U or a European continent that had no attachment to the United States. And so I think that's one of the reasons that, in the end of the day, countries that are believers in the E-U project want a Europe that remains Atlanticist, that still keeps the link to America.

Host: Simon Serfaty.

Serfaty: This is the essence of the past couple of years. The lesson that was learned on both sides of the Atlantic is that the Europeans, one state at a time, one national capital at a time, simply do not have enough weight to be an effective counterpart of the U-S, irrespective of where the E-U is and even when there is convergence of views and policies on those issues. We understood that on this side of the Atlantic. This is why Mr. Bush went to Brussels in early 2005 to engage the Europeans as a union and as members of NATO and the alliance. Conversely, the Europeans themselves worked hard to develop, for example, a united viewpoint on Iran and on other related issues. Chirac, Schroeder, Blair acting individually, in the end, had no effective influence on Mr. Bush because they were acting separately, and they understand that. And accordingly, the focus now has been placed on acting together. And if I may make a couple of sentences about anti-Americanism, that was never the issue. That was never the issue. This is senseless, senseless. Chirac was the first president of France to like both America and Americans when he was elected in 1995, and everything he attempted to do between 1995 and 1999 was focused on a desire to assert France as a close ally of the United States. There was a profound disagreement over Iraq, and there they parted company. They parted company over an issue, not over the perception of America or even American power.

Host: Well, John Glenn, let's talk a little bit about the issue that Simon Serfaty brings up about the importance of Europe and how much influence countries may have individually as opposed to as the European Union. Is there going to be a change now in what happens with the E-U -- perhaps the Turkey question? And then also the question of renewed effort to achieve some sort of E-U constitution, which had gone down to defeat when a referendum was put to the French people and Dutch people.

Glenn: Sure. Well, let me begin with a broader issue that both, I think, is suggested by Simon and Charlie's response. I think that since 2003, when we had this really profound rupture in U-S-European relations, there has been a shift away. The transatlantic relationship now, I would say, is less about U-S-European relations. It's less about how we feel about each other. It's more about what we can do in the world. It's really more about how the U-S and Europe face global problems. It's how they deal with Iran. It's how they deal with international terrorism. It's how they deal with economic issues, which is the one area I disagree with Simon. I think that in the economy, Europe actually can be a very powerful force with the United States. It's in foreign policy that I think you're certainly right. And so we see that Europe and the United States are looking at common issues, and the question is what we can do together. Now, I think the impact on the E-U is going to be very, very interesting. Let me start with the second, if I may, and I'm sure my colleagues will have something to say. The constitution, I think -- We will, I expect, see a renewed effort to resolve some but not all of the issues, and I think those issues are simply the issues of institutional reform, the issues of the six-month presidency of the European Union, the issues of having foreign policy dealt with by two if not more parts of the European Union bureaucracy, the issues of waiting of the member states, and I think that there is a perceived need to do that. We hear about Sarkozy talking about a mini-treaty. We hear Blair talking about moving, hopefully, perhaps around the G8 summit towards an agreement in which they would come up with an amended treaty that would take care of some of these institutional issues but would not be a constitution, per se. I think that the results in France and the Netherlands show that there is a gap between the European Union elite and the publics, vis-à-vis the issue of political integration, vis-à-vis the issue of a federal Europe. And there are some for whom that will always be their dream, but I think that the publics said, "We want to slow down. That's not what we're ready for now." And on Turkey, we could say more. Maybe I should wait for a moment and see what they have to say.

Host: Let's ask Charles Kupchan about the Turkey question. The new French president, Mr. Sarkozy, has not exactly been a staunch advocate of Turkish integration into the E-U.

Kupchan: That's putting it mildly.

Host: So, what's going to happen? How big a role will he have to play in the question of whether Turkey continues on a path to entering the E-U?

Kupchan: I think the Turkey issue is going to be pushed off for now in the sense that there is little enthusiasm anywhere inside the E-U for pushing hard and fast on the question of Turkish membership, nor does anybody want to come right out and have a bust-up and just say, "It's over. Let's close the door." So, I think what you'll get is obfuscation and delay. One other thought that I'd like to add, because it runs a little bit against what Simon and John said, is that I agree that Sarkozy will breathe new life into the E-U, that there's likely to be a deal on some revised -- I would call it a treaty, not a constitution. I think that was one of the mistakes they made. But I think the E-U is still in a very fragile situation today, that we've witnessed over the last two, three, four years the renationalization of political life in Europe, manifesting itself in terms of economic protectionism, in terms of discontent with the political establishment, in terms of deep discomfort with the growing presence of Muslims inside the Union. And politics, in some ways, is going away from Brussels back down to the national state. Yes, Sarkozy can help that, but I think we're going to be looking at an E-U that's very inwardly focused for the next several years.

Host: Well, Simon Serfaty, let's talk about this question that Charles Kupchan raises of unassimilated Muslim minorities, both in France and in England. Gordon Brown has said that one of the changes he hopes to make in Great Britain is to reach out more to the Muslim communities, and then, of course, you have the aftermath in France of the riots in the banlieue. What's going to happen with these new leaders? Is the issue going to be resolved at all?

Serfaty: This is an E-U-wide issue. It is not limited to France and the U.K. It is found in Germany, in Denmark, in Spain, Italy, and so forth. It does link up, incidentally, with the issue of Turkey because the debate about Turkey is whether, in fact, a Muslim state can become a European state, whether having done everything that needs to be done in order to be compatible. In terms of governance, in terms of economic development, and so forth, with the other members of the European Union, Turkey actually qualifies as a state that belongs to the Union. If the Europeans say no to Turkey, by implication, they seem to suggest that the same is true of the twenty to twenty-five million Muslims who live within the E-U that you can be a Muslim in Europe but you cannot quite become a European Muslim. And that is fundamentally at the center of the domestic dilemma -- how to integrate those millions of people, all with different backgrounds? I think that the answer which you will find with Sarkozy, hopefully, and which Tony Blair began to work on is whether, in fact, you can develop new educational practices, new opportunities, economically, for those people.

Host: It's also in sync, though, with the effort in France to open up the economy to some extent, that you have this inability of people to find jobs.

Serfaty: Absolutely. Look, the rate of unemployment in France for young people aged fifteen to twenty-four, right, is about fifteen, eighteen percent. For the Muslims, it is twice that much -- forty-five, forty-six percent. The level of Muslims in France aged fifteen to sixty-four -- fifteen to sixty-four -- without any kind of a diploma is forty-eight percent, so you've got to open up the economy, make it more flexible, create jobs, invest resources into education. It's a long-term process, and Tony Blair began to move in that direction as well, and the problem is less significant, in my judgment, in the U.K. than in France, but, at the same time, you've got to keep the more extreme pieces of that community under some kind of control. The night of the election, seven hundred and fifty cars were burned throughout France. Don't go and burn cars as a way of releasing your tensions. And so it's a delicate problem. It's a problem for the E-U, and the answer is probably in terms of the economic development, economic growth, and the like.

Host: John Glenn, we've only got a couple of minutes left. What about the sense of cooperation between the U-S and E-U countries on the sort of big foreign-policy issues, most prominently Iran? Is there going to be a change on cooperation on that?

Glenn: I don't think so. I think, in fact, Iran is the best example of how well things are going on a number of issues despite our differences on Iraq. I think that Iran is -- In many ways, you're seeing the United States act against the caricature that was made of it around Iran -- against the unilateralist, against the militarist impulse. You see it coordinating with its allies. You see it working through the U.N. Security Council. You see it working gradually to increase pressure on Iran. You see it working to do so with a broader regional perspective. I think the other issue is Afghanistan -- whether or not we will get the sort of renewed commitment to Afghanistan from European leaders that I think we simply cannot expect on Iraq. But I think that, unfortunately, we can't take that as a given. German public opinion is apparently turning against the mission in Afghanistan, and I think that the new European leaders who come in have a burden on them to take leadership on the issue of Afghanistan and explain why this matters for Europe.

Host: Charles Kupchan, we have less than a minute. On the question both of Afghanistan and Iran, what's your sense?

Kupchan: I'm guarded on both fronts in the sense that the war in Afghanistan is not going particularly well. Casualties are increasing. Sarkozy says, "Let's get out." The Prodi government in Italy fell a few months ago over the mission in Afghanistan. As John said, things in Germany, as well as in Canada, our neighbor to the north, are getting dicey on the domestic front. On Iran, I'm more or less in agreement for now. I fear if we go down the road and the U-S presses for more tight sanctions, perhaps starts talking about military force, that the coalition that thus far has been pretty steady could start unraveling.

Host: I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word for today. We're out of time. But I'd like to thank my guests, John K. Glenn of the German Marshall Fund of the United States; Simon Serfaty of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our Web site at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For "On The Line," I'm Eric Felten