A new European Treaty will be needed if the European Union is to have a more effective foreign policy, Peter Mandelson told a Fabian Society fringe meeting in Manchester on 'The World After Bush'.

'If Europe wants to do more as a partner for the United States, then Europe itself needs to be bigger, better and more resourced than it is at present. It may not become a relationship of equals, but at present it is one of two decided unequals'', said Mandelson, arguing that the desire for a more effective European foreign policy also 'means that we are going to need, in due course, a new Treaty for the European Union', said the European Trade Commissioner, reopening the debate about Europe's future following the defeat of the Constitutional Treaty in referendums a year ago in France and the Netherlands.

Mandelson was speaking at the Fabian Society and Young Fabian fringe meeting on 'The World After Bush' at the Labour party conference in Manchester with Jef McAllister of Time Magazine, Mary Kaldor of the LSE and Mark Leonard of the Centre for European Reform.

The limits of military power

Jef McAllister argued that his was the 'most depressing moment in US-European relations for twenty years'. Travelling across the continent he had found a strong sense that popular opinion was turning against the USA, and said he feared a 'tipping point' where 'the soft power resources that the United States brought to world affairs are slipping away'. For example, an elderly Italian who described himself as pro-American had told him that 'the America that liberated Italy is a different America from that of Abu Ghraib'.

Mandelson stressed that "Europeans share more fundamental values with the united states than with any other single partner we have in the world. That might not be popular with those on the left who think George Bush is a bigger threat to world peace than the Taliban or President of Iran, but it remains the case that, between Europe and the United States we continue to share fundamental values and interests. Our fundamental strategy must be one of engaging with the United States', he said.

But he acknowledged 'real tensions' in the post-Cold War transatlantic relationships. 'There are cultural differences in how we see the world – from dealing with crime to the role of force in the world', though the US was itself more sharply divided than ever before. The different capabilities of the US and Europe also strengthened this difference in worldviews: 'If all you have is carrots every problem looks like a rabbit; if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail', said Mandelson. After 9/11 the feeling in the United States of being 'under attack' had not been so strongly shared in Europe, exacerbating these divisions.

'What alarms many in Britain and Europe is not whether the United States should act in these complex and unstable circumstances, but how it does so', said Mandelson, arguing that the 'limits to the use of military power are now pretty clear'.

'The polls show that most Europeans and most Americans agree that more terrorists are being created than are being killed' said Jef McAllister.

Kaldor argued that there was no military solution in Iraq. 'You can win with conventional military force if you are prepared to destroy everything: the Russians have shown that in Chechnya. But you can not have a successful counter-insurgency strategy to win hearts and minds when you are killing civilians and doing so without legitimacy, she said, arguing that UN authorisation had conferred legality but not legitimacy in Iraqi eyes, because of the 'original sin' of the invasion.

After Bush

There was agreement that the Bush legacy would outlast his Presidency. 'Whoever wins, I think it would be a mistake to expect a fundamental departure', said Peter Mandelson. A Democratic administration would be likely to further accelerate the Bush second term trend towards a more multilateral approach. But the centre of gravity of US opinion was not very far away from where the Bush administration was, largely because 9/11. 'But a change of leadership in the United States and in major European countries will be an opportunity to renew relationships at the top', he said.

'No matter who the next President is, or the next Prime Minister, they will find their choices are seriously constrained by the decisions that George W Bush had made' said Jef McAllister, though he felt the next President would have 'some easy wins' by simply 'not being Bush'.

Mark Leonard agreed that 'the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistans will not go away in 2009, we're living it now and we will live it for a generation'. While foreign policy elites were working more closely together, 'they are constrained by the anti-Americanism on our side and the anti-Europeanism there'. It was striking that disillusion with the US was often in the countries which had been most pro-American, said Leonard.

Europe's agenda

Leonard also argued that a narrow focus missed out on some of the most important shifts in global politics. 'If we obsess about Bush and America, and play identity politics among ourselves, then we talk too little about what is going on in the world', including 'a profound economic and political shift from west to east'.

A progressive foreign policy required a Europe 'willing to do something in the world, rather than simply to step back and criticise the US'. 'Our voice will be very small in this world if we don't find an European alternative, and our own agenda to promote democracy in the world', said Leonard. This would require 'more creative thinking about legitimacy', particularly at a regional level, to avoid a 'catch 22 at the UN' where effective UN action in humanitarian crises could be prevented by a Russian or Chinese Security Council veto, 'wielded amorally' for reasons of domestic politics, not the needs of the international community.

Jan Kavan, who had been President of the UN General Assembly at the time of the Iraq crisis, responded from the floor, arguing that there had been alternative approaches to war in Iraq but there had not been a political willingness to take these seriously. UN reform should be a central cause of those who wanted to see effective multilateral institutions, said Kavan arguing that the Responsibility to Protect agenda and the reform of the Security Council could help to combine legitimacy and effectiveness in the multilateral system, giving the example of the Responsibility to Protect proposal that permanent members would not be able to use a veto once genocide had been triggered.

'We need a stronger EU, not against the United States, but which decides to set the agenda itself', said Mary Kaldor.'A new European Treaty should focus on foreign and security policy, which is the most popular part of the EU agenda', she argued. 'What Europe lacks is a foreign policy and a security policy. We need that but on a different model to the cold war one'. The key theme should be human security. This would recognise that we care about the security of people everywhere, not just in our state. It would also show how the security and development agendas needed to be closely linked, returning to the themes of ethics in foreign policy which Labour had adopted in 1997.

Kaldor was critical of Gordon Brown's announcement that he would upgrade Trident, arguing that nuclear weapons are antithetical to a human security approach. She advocated that a future Labour government should be prepared to 'put the issue on the negotiating table' as part of a broader global deal, for example in seeking to create a nuclear-free Europe and Middle East.

Mandelson said that engaging the United States required Europe to do two things: 'Our fundamental response must be one of engagement with the United States. On issues like world trade talks and the Doha development agenda, "there's no room for a we're right you're wrong approach. You don't corner the United States or finger point at the US but you do bring home the consequences of inaction. But if Europe wants to do more as an effective partner of the United States, then Europe itself has to be bigger, better and more resourced than it is now'.

Jef McAllister said that constructive and critical engagement' could help the debates within America about the US role in the world, particularly if this could show that it was not anti-American but seeking a shared approach to global problems: 'The best possible salesman for that agenda in the United States will be looking for a job as soon as he leaves downing street', said McAlister.

The Fabian fringe debate The World After Bush took place on Sunday 24th September 2006 in Manchester Town Hall on the Labour conference fringe. The speakers were Peter Mandelson, European Trade Commissioner; Mark Leonard, Centre for European Reform; Mary Kaldor, LSE; Jef McAllister, Time Magazine; Chair: Sunder Katwala, General Secretary, Fabian Society