Chris Patten predicts that a second No vote on EU enlargement would damage the Republic, writes Denis Staunton in Brussels
Few European politicians have taken such a consistent and sympathetic interest in Ireland as the External Affairs Commissioner, Mr Chris Patten. As a British government minister, he was regarded as a moderate voice on Northern Ireland who opposed IRA terrorism but acknowledged its political context.
More recently, his report on policing in Northern Ireland was praised, particularly in the Republic, for its imagination, even-handedness and sound judgment.
But as he prepares to visit Dublin this week, Mr Patten knows he will face harsh criticism for his decision to wade into Ireland's debate on the Nice Treaty.
By declaring that a second No vote will halt enlargement and have serious political consequences for Ireland, he has gone further than any of his colleagues in the Commission, and he is prepared for the accusation that he is interfering in Ireland's internal affairs.
"It is difficult to say these things without being accused of attempting to bully people," he says.
Mr Patten argues that he is simply stating the truth - that Ireland's EU partners will not agree to enlarge the EU without the institutional changes agreed at Nice.
In predicting that a second No vote will damage the Republic politically within the EU, he is stating publicly what most senior diplomats and officials in Brussels acknowledge privately.
The commissioner is dismissive of claims that the EU is becoming militarised, pointing out that defence budgets are shrinking and that the new Rapid Reaction Force is designed for deployment in operations similar to the UN peace-keeping missions in which Irish soldiers have served with distinction.
However, he accepts there are good reasons for criticising the way the EU does its business, particularly the secrecy surrounding the Council of Ministers, with EU ministers legislating behind closed doors.
Despite his commitment to European integration, Mr Patten believes the nation state remains the most important democratic unit. "It's the main focus for political loyalty. It's the main political building block," he says.
However, he argues that national interests can best be promoted through multilateral action, by pooling sovereignty with other nations.
Mr Patten's area of responsibility, foreign policy, is one where EU member-states are especially reluctant to cede sovereignty.
He claims that the CFSP, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, has enhanced Europe's collective weight in the world and enabled European states to more effectively pursue their foreign policy interests.
"I think what's remarkable is the progress we've made in the CFSP, which is all about trying to use the influence you have in the aggregate and the powers you have in the aggregate, which are greater than anything that can be brought to the table by an individual member-state.
"It doesn't mean, to answer the Henry Kissinger question, that there is one telephone. It does mean that, on more and more subjects, whoever you telephone, you'll get the same sort of message," he says.
If multilateralism is a good idea for small countries such as Ireland, the commissioner argues that it is also in the interest of the world's most powerful nation, the United States, to co-operate with friends and allies.
His criticism of President George W. Bush's identification of an "axis of evil", comprising Iran, Iraq and North Korea, ruffled feathers in Washington, but Mr Patten maintains that in urging the United States to resist a retreat into unilateralism, he is playing the role of a candid friend.
"I am as enthusiastic an Americophile as you could find, but I know, and Americans know, that as well as a great deal of enthusiasm about America and love of America around the world, there's a lot of the other as well.
"And I think a superpower, the only superpower, is more likely to be able to command loyalty and is more able to lead a coalition if it's able to tap into people's respect and into people's affection.
"I think it is more likely to be able to give effective leadership in its own interest if it appears to be working with the grain of the international community rather than simply doing its own thing.
"So I think it is deeply in America's own interest to work with others. It's not pusillanimous to think that some coalition-building is the best way to tackle international problems," he says.
THE international coalition against terrorism that emerged after September 11th is showing signs of strain and European politicians are becoming more outspoken in their criticism of Washington's hardline policy.
Mr Patten argues that the world's problems are so complex the world's only superpower cannot solve them alone.
He suggests that the experience of Northern Ireland offers a lesson in the value of applying subtle policies to complex issues.
"I've spent a lot of my time going across to Washington, trying to persuade American officials and American politicians to take tougher measures against the funding of the IRA in Northern Ireland.
"I wasn't very successful at it, nobody was, but I'd have been even less successful if I'd gone across and denied that there was any social or political or historical context in which the problem of violence in Northern Ireland had to be tackled.
"Of course, I believe that terrorism is wicked, of course I believe there are some states that do wicked things, but I think that the way that you tackle those sort of problems is by working with others on a broad front and I think that you are more likely to be successful if you recognise that things have to be multi-faceted and multi-layered if they are to work," he says.