BRUSSELS, May 27 (UPI) -- Listening to some "old" European leaders speak, one would think the U.S. government was furiously lobbying for a "no" vote in the French and Dutch referendums on the EU constitution.
"What is the interest of the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially the United States? It is naturally to stop European construction, which risks creating a Europe that will be stronger to defend itself tomorrow," stormed French President Jacques Chirac in a televised debate last month.
Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said the United States and other "Anglo-Saxon" countries "do not like the idea of a constitution, this strengthening of Europe." He added that U.S. officials would be happy to see a French "non" because it "would correspond to their idea of a weak Europe."
There is only one problem with these claims -- they have absolutely no basis in fact. Short of taking out advertising space on the Champs Elysees urging French voters to say "yes" to the EU's first constitution, the U.S. government could not have made its position on the charter much clearer.
In a landmark speech in Brussels in February, U.S. President George W. Bush made an impassioned plea for European integration. "America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world," he said.
According to Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper, an early draft of Bush's address written by U.S. State Department officials had the president saying: "I know Europe is creating a constitution. We in America value our Constitution and so should you." But last-minute lobbying by conservative activists in Washington and London succeeded in watering down the text, high-level officials told the paper.
In an interview with United Press International shortly after the visit, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Rockwell Schnabel -- a close friend and adviser of Bush -- said the president backed the controversial blueprint.
"The president supports the EU Constitution because it will address the foreign policy question -- there will be one person representing Europe -- and will streamline its institutions. It works toward a stronger Europe," he said.
Schnabel, who sat in on Bush's meetings with EU and NATO leaders in the Belgian capital, added: "Ultimately it's a European question and we have no influence other than to observe. But the constitution will be beneficial for the EU. If you are for a strong and prosperous EU, I would think you would favor it."
The blueprint, which would create the posts of EU president and foreign minister, give the union more clout on the world stage and scrap national vetoes in many sensitive policy areas, is the subject of fierce debate in Europe ahead of popular votes in France Sunday and the Netherlands. Polls show the "no" camp on course for victory in both countries -- to the evident disquiet of senior U.S. officials.
Asked her view of the referendums earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't have a vote, and so it doesn't matter," before calling for a strong and united Europe willing to spread its values beyond its borders. "We want to see the European project succeed, because a strong Europe will be good for the forces of democracy. We would hope that a strong Europe would be outward looking, that it would continue to bring, as it has, new members," Rice said.
Anxious not to be seen taking sides, the U.S. government has toned down its support for the constitution ahead of the French and Dutch votes. "We welcome a strong, integrated Europe that is an effective partner for addressing the many challenges we face together," said a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the EU in Brussels. "We have such a partnership now with the European Union and we expect to continue to build on this relationship, however the EU evolves."
However, this standoffish approach has not stopped both supporters and opponents of the constitution from dragging the United States into the campaign. For the "no" camp, the charter is caricatured as an "Anglo-Saxon" capitalist plot that would impose a U.S.-style "hire and fire" economic system on Europe and lead to the destruction of the cherished European social model. But backers of the 200-page text say it would help the EU stand up to the United States and China and enable it to play a more proactive role in world affairs.
"It is in the United States' best interests that French voters say 'yes' to the constitution," says John Audley, a senior trans-Atlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels. "A 'no' vote would complicate trans-Atlantic relations because Europe would go into a prolonged period of navel-gazing and issues like Iran, economic reform, the Middle East and global trade would take a back seat."
Washington officials may worry about the prospect of a European Union seeing itself as a rival power to the United States -- a position strongly advocated by Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But they also understand that the only more frightening sight than a strong Europe with a different world outlook to the State Department is a weak and introspective Europe incapable of sort out both its problems and those of neighboring countries.
