Extract from

Blair interview with Financial Times

28 April 2003

FT: …You said after the disagreement at the Security Council that there was a lot of hard talking that was going to have to be done within Europe about its attitudes to American power. Do you agree with those that say that one starting point is that France should be punished for the attitude it took in the United Nations?

A: I am really not interested in talk about punishing countries, but I think there is an issue that we have to resolve here between America and Europe and within Europe about Europe's attitude towards the transatlantic alliance. And I don't want to see a situation develop again in which either Europe or America sees a huge strategic interest at stake and we are not helping each other, and I think there is a difference of vision.

Some want a so-called multi-polar world where you have different centres of power, and I believe that that will very quickly develop into rival centres of power. And others believe, and this is my notion of this, that we need one polar power but which encompasses a strategic partnership between Europe and America and other countries too - Russia, China - where we are trying to ensure that we develop as I say a common global agenda. Because I think the danger of rival poles of power is that you end up reawakening some of the problems that we had in the old cold war with countries playing different centres of power off against each other, with countries who really should be together falling out over issues, and that destabilises the world.

FT: But isn't the danger that one pole is so dominated by the United States that the only thing that the other so-called partners in this pole can do is say yes?

A: Well that is the argument, but I don't think that is true. You see this is where I take a different view. My view, I want a stronger Europe, more capable of speaking with a unified voice, but I don't want that Europe setting itself up in opposition to America, because I think that won't work, I think it will be dangerous and destabilising. And the truth is America needs to reach out, and I think is reaching out. And for example in what America is doing in relation to the Middle East peace process at the moment, so I think taking account of the fact that there are views out there that believe this is a major question for the rest of the world that we need to address. And Europe needs to recognise that America, particularly post-11 September, has a fixed determination to deal with its security threat, which I happen also to believe is a threat to the rest of the world too.

Sometimes I think people think I reduce this to too crude a choice, but I think the choice is actually quite crude. In my view what we should have done, what Europe should have done with one voice back last September, is to have gone to America and said: look we understand and we agree that this issue of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is a threat, we agree that Iraq has to be dealt with, we will deal with it through the United Nations, and we ask you to go through the United Nations. And at the same time we ask you, America, to recognise that dealing with Iraq has to fit in to a broader vision for the Middle East that also encompasses a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Now I think if we had done that and we had followed through the logic of that position, we would be in a far stronger position as Europe. Now in the end, I suppose we have done this in the sense that that has been our own position in relation to this. But those people who fear "unilateralism" - so called and in inverted commas - in America should realise that the quickest way to get that is to set up a rival polar power to America and say we are in opposition to you.

FT: Do you consider yourself a bridge between Europe and America on these issues?

A: Yes I do. I think that our role is to try and bring people together round a common agenda. And it is very important to realise that when we talk about Europe, Europe is not simply the French-German position in the course of this dispute over Iraq. Spain and Italy, Holland, Denmark, Portugal, took the same position as Britain. All 10 accession countries took the same position as Britain.

FT: This difference that you have set out is a pretty fundamental one: it is not something that can be fixed over a dinner with Jacques Chirac or an evening with Gerhard Schröder. Are you talking about a fairly fundamental divide here which will take some time to bridge?

A: The more I go on in politics the more I think that sometimes it is a better idea, rather than trying to gloss over a particular difference, to have it out in the open, and I think there is a difference of view. Now incidentally, having said that, France is a great country with a great tradition, a huge future role to play both in Europe and in the outside world, and I have always thought that Britain and France should be natural allies and partners together. But there is a difference about this, because I think that the best way to make progress is for Europe to be America's partner, not its rival. And although people will say well if there is a multi-polar world it doesn't mean to say they are rivals, that is the reality. In fact in the last few months you can see that is exactly what has happened, and there it is and we need to resolve this for Europe and for the relationship between Europe and America.

FT: And for the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, it is hard to see us being as you have often said we should be, right at the centre if we fundamentally disagree with such an important partner?

A: Well no I wouldn't say that, but I think if Europe as a whole went in the direction of an anti American position, that would be a problem for Britain, but the fact is it won't because actually that would be a problem not just for Britain but in an enlarged European Union for the majority of European Union member states. And the reason why I say it is so important for Britain to be a full partner in Europe is precisely so that we don't say if there is a division of opinion in Europe, well we had better just take our bat home and go away, we say no I am sorry we are going to be out there fighting our corner.

FT: Do you get irritated at the way that Jacques Chirac tends to treat you as a sort of Blair of the third form?

A: Does he?

FT: There is an element of that.

A: I don't find that.