December 4, 2003	Thursday	Shawwal 9, 1424

LONDON: Love Actually is a Christmas confection that’s all icing and marzipan and no cake - not the kind of movie rabid anti-American lefties frequent. But its one political moment draws a surprising roar of approval from the audience. Hugh Grant’s fantasy prime minister — his most ludicrous role yet — repeatedly attacks old Europe and its social provision, painting us as closer to the US neo-cons than to our neighbours. Then he holds a press conference at the end of a visit from the US president in which he has been offered nothing much by an arrogant ally. (What the dispute is, we have no clue: it’s not that kind of movie.) In front of the press and the president, prime minister Grant makes a fine speech about standing up to the over-mighty, a small country still holding on to pride and principle. A roar went up from the audience and apparently every audience cheers as loudly at our PM telling the Americans to bog off.

What does it mean? What could it mean, if only we had the right political leaders to interpret it? Whatever the polls say - and they have been fickle - there is a strong instinct out there that resists Britain doing whatever the neo-con White House wants us to do, reducing our standing, dignity and influence in the world. But if people are against our apparent poodle-dom, what are they for?

There are those who dream of a “plague on both your houses” stance, a plucky little boat navigating the seas alone. Neo- Bennites talk of side-stepping globalizing forces in some incoherent union of like-minded progressive free-spirits, wherever they might be. Conrad Black’s crazed push to join Nafta and 51st state status will fade with his fall from the Telegraph. Tony Blair’s imaginary bridge between the EU and the US has finally been stretched beyond breaking. Choices fatally avoided by every post-war prime minister now have to be made. Ray Seitz, former US ambassador to London, in a caustic book on Britain’s delusions about its “special relationship” with America, wisely observes: “If Britain’s voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington.” Geo- politics will out and Britain’s future can only be European.

But there is now no powerful voice making the case. The pro- Europeans have fallen into despairing silence. Gordon Brown’s disgraceful anti-European sally in the Daily Telegraph, of all places, suggests that political opportunism is all on the side of euro-scepticism at present. His repeated attacks on Old Europe’s social provisions draw him closer to US neo-cons. The prime minister has abandoned persuading the people on our European destiny: a no-show for his promised euro roadshows.

Yet here is the EU at last showing its potential power. It now looks certain that George Bush will capitulate on steel tariffs in a last-minute climbdown to avoid the EU unleashing strong retaliation. Bush’s walloping 30 per cent tariffs protect the steel industry in the pivotal states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Yesterday he addressed a fund-raising lunch in Pittsburgh with the president of US Steel, but now that’s over he is expected to announce the end of tariffs for fear of EU sanctions against citrus fruits in Florida and other products from key swing states.

It was the combined trading might of the EU that achieved this climbdown. It was not that embarrassing state visit, personal bridges or hotlines to the White House that mattered in the end, but the sheer power of Europe’s trading muscle. Perhaps Blair will get the release of our own Guantanamo prisoners, but that will be an awkward favour unless the shameful status of all those prisoners is resolved according to international law.

No one understands the raw nature of power better than America. It might seem odd that the tiny beginnings of an EU defence force created such animosity in Washington, since Europe has only 10 per cent of America’s military capability. The EU couldn’t even airlift a handful of troops to the Macedonian border without borrowing US transport planes. It is not unreasonable that it should want the ability to undertake local missions which the Americans don’t want Nato involved in, such as the Balkans, Moldova or the Congo. Until Bush, the US rightly chided European governments for failing to spend on defence, relying regularly on the Americans, like querulously childish dependents.

It was time to grow up. Europe does spend 50 per cent of what America spends on defence, yet only gets 10 per cent bang for its buck. It is high time it used that money better, abandoning costly but useless conscript armies and buying equipment together for a joined-up peacekeeping force of its own.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.