OPINION/Mark BrennockWith the Convention on the Future of Europe entering its final phase, there is much talk of the "democratic deficit".
The phrase is currently the property of critics of the European Union who oppose further moves towards integration. They argue that EU institutions operate in varying degrees of unaccountability, so moves to give them more power should be resisted.
However recent months have exposed a serious democratic deficit in Europe which exists precisely because of the failure of the EU to move towards greater integration.
The UN Security Council may be asked to decide shortly on the question of military action against Iraq. All the evidence suggests that the EU public is strongly opposed to it, but most EU Governments have so far given out signals suggesting they will support - or at least acquiesce in - the combative US position.
This "democratic deficit" is startling. As US troops pass routinely through Shannon to the Gulf with Government permission in preparation for possible war, the only evidence is that the Irish public strongly opposes any such action.
An Irish Times/MRBI poll in September showed a 59/29 majority against a war, even if it gets UN authorisation. A solo run by the US without UN authorisation won just 22 per cent support with 68 per cent against it.
It is the same story elsewhere in Europe. The Blair government in Britain has been the most supportive of President Bush's approach - although on Thursday Downing Street did give a hint that it would like to slow down the slide to war by saying the arms inspectors must be given time to complete their work.
This is the first sign that they may yet move closer to the views of the British public. With the exception of a November Guardian/ICM survey which showed an even divide (in the immediate aftermath of the Bali bomb attacks), polls there have shown consistent anti-war majorities.
In Spain, whose government has also been anxious to be seen to show solidarity with US designs, a poll held by Instituto Opina and the El Pais newspaper showed 87 per cent opposed war, while a mere 9.3 per cent supported it.
Public opinion in Germany is so firmly opposed to war that the Chancellor, Mr Gerhard Schröder, won what seemed to be a lost election on the back of strong opposition to military action. The Italian government of Silvio Berlusconi has also been very supportive of the US position, despite facing the largest anti-war demonstrations. French opinion is also strongly anti-war.
Few dispute the thesis that a majority of EU - and Irish - citizens opposes war on Iraq. However, the positions adopted by the individual EU member-states have not given this view any great strength.
The reason is clear: in the absence of a structure and political will to allow for a unified EU position to be voiced, there is no prospect of Europe having the influence it deserves. In this situation each member-state is looking to its own interests and in many cases, they have calculated the benefits of taking a strong individual position against the possible damage this could do to valued relationships with the United States.
Take Ireland for example. It would be courageous indeed for the Government to take a strong position against a war if it is clear that other larger and more powerful states are going to acquiesce. Ireland will not stop a war. The Government must therefore decide whether strong anti-war speeches at the UN coupled perhaps with restrictions on US military personnel passing through Shannon will serve any practical purpose. It would undoubtedly make the good relationship with Washington very frosty indeed. It is possible that it would also affect US investment here. It could cost jobs. And if President Bush wants a war, he will have it anyway.
This is not exactly a morally pure position but governments look after national interests and in doing so often lack moral purity. The same reckoning is going on in other EU capitals. Since re-election late last year, the German government has been busy making clear to the US that while it will not get involved in any war, it will not necessarily stand in the way.
This follows a series of sharply disapproving gestures from Washington: President Bush neglected to send the customary message of congratulations to Mr Schröder on his election success; the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, snubbed the German defence minister at a NATO meeting in Warsaw, while the Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, got a frosty reception on a fence-mending visit to the US.
If a powerful state such as Germany feels anxious about offence caused to Washington by an anti-war stance, can we really expect a small state such as Ireland to take an independent line? Yet collectively, Europe could exercise enormous influence. Four of the five largest EU member-states are now on the UN Security Council. Britain and France are permanent veto-holding members while Germany and Spain have just joined for a two-year term. The potential for huge European influence will remain unfulfilled without a common EU foreign policy.
Those who campaign in Ireland against the war are, in general, opposed to movement towards a European common foreign and security policy as well. They are suspicious of superpower politics and see the development of a European power-bloc with its own military capacity as an escalation of such politics.
It is ironic that the biggest obstacle to the development of a common policy is the wish of the larger EU members to retain their own limited international strength rather than pool their influence with the other EU members.
Britain and France in particular still see themselves as global players and will not easily give up their right to a national position - and their seats on the UN Security Council - in favour of a single EU voice.
Without a single EU voice, though, member-states will continue to face in all directions. Britain will tend towards the tough US position, France and Germany will argue for the alternatives to war. The smaller states will proceed cautiously, watching their backs.
Of course a common EU foreign policy would not be automatically democratic - that would still have to be fought for - but it would allow individual EU states, reluctant to take a stand alone, to stand up together with more confidence and power.
Surely it is in the interests of a small EU state such as Ireland to have a common EU policy which we have some prospect of influencing, rather than watch as the large member- states pursue their own policies, over which we have no control at all? In this case, it would be in the interests of the anti-war campaigners as well.