The World

I was in Brussels last week and talked to some of the European Union’s top foreign policy officials. The EU, of course, does not make policy for the Union on its own. But the Brussels foreign policy types do play an important role in framing and co-ordinating policy – and often serve as the public face of Europe. They are also have a unique vantage point. All European leaders spend a lot of time in Brussels. And everybody of importance – from President Bush to President Putin and the leaders of the Middle East – passes through at some point. One of the people I saw made a point of telling me how many important people had sat in the very chair in which I was now reclining. I was honoured, of course.

Anyway, here is my composite summary of the views of the officials I met:

Kosovo:
This is probably the most urgent problem in the EU’s in-tray – both because it is in Europe’s backyard and because the issue will have to be resolved in the next few months. There is a feeling that Kosovar independence is basically inevitable. But EU officials are worried by three things. First – maintaining EU unity because it is an open secret that some countries – led by Greece – are very sceptical of the notion of an independent Kosovo. Second, trying to ensure that Russia does not use its veto to block a UN resolution setting up an independent Kosovo. Third, trying to ensure that the UN process is not so dragged out that people on the ground get nervous, and violence breaks out again. All three points are connected. If the EU can maintain its unity, then it is less likely that Russia will dig its heels in – “it will just be a question of the price they extract”, says one top EU official. And if Russia agrees to a deal quickly (say, by the end of May), the situation on the ground is less likely to get out of control.

Iran and the Middle East:
There is dwindling faith that diplomatic negotiations can persuade the Iranians away from the path to nuclear weapons. But EU officials think that tougher sanctions – if they can be agreed at the UN – might be helpful. The Iranian economy is already hurting and there is growing dissent against President Ahmadi-Nejad.

The EU people remain convinced that military action would be a mistake. Ultimately, if the Iranians do succeed in getting the bomb, the Brussels elite would place their faith in nuclear deterrence. The Iranians would have to be left in no doubt that a nuclear attack on Israel would lead to a nuclear strike on Tehran – by Israel’s allies, if not by Israel itself. But the Brussels line is that a pre-emptive (conventional) attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to a huge escalation in terrorism and would probably provoke a counter-attack on Israel. The EU people do not think that Israel is capable of taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. And they think that America is now leaning against an attack.

EU officials have been startled by the vehemence of anti-Iranian feeling among the Saudis and the Egyptians. They are “spitting poison against the Persians”. But – according to the EU types – their Arab interlocutors also do not favour military strikes on Iran. They prefer to pursue a political strategy aimed at weakening Iranian proxies in the region – Hizbollah and Hamas. This could have a positive spin-off, because it means the Saudis are getting much more engaged in trying to promote Middle East peace and a stable political settlement in Lebanon. The fact that Lebanon has not imploded is cited as a rare piece of good news coming out of the Middle East.

Iraq:
There is little prospect of an immediate improvement in the situation. The best that can be hoped for is that the situation staggers on more or less as it is, and eventually people get sick of killing each other. The bleaker scenario is that the country effectively splits, with the Kurds dominating the north, the Shia the south and the centre of the country dominated by Sunni insurgents. Early American withdrawal would make this more likely. Therefore, it seemed to me, EU officials tacitly support President Bush’s “surge”.