Interview BBC We'll just start by asking you how you like to be described on the programme. Daniel Cohn-Bendit: You do it what you want. I'm Co-President of the Green Group in the European Parliament. BBC Mr Cohn-Bendit, during the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, we saw some very deep internal divisions opening up in Europe. How serious do you think this is, and what do you think the fundamental causes are? Is it something long-term or just a short-term thing caused by the crisis in Iraq? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Well it is profound. If it's long-term or short-term short-term, I don't know, but it's a profound crisis because it's a different interpretation of what Europe should be. I think, you know, that England has to decide - and it's not only Blair, it's really the Conservative majority or part of Labour and even Green - have to decide if you want Europe only as a free trade zone or if you want Europe as a political, social, ecological Europe who is Europe should be able to defend their interests, their vision of the world, their vision of the globalisation, their vision of responsibility ecological responsibility in the world. And if you want, the crisis in Iraq shows us, you know, that the common references for our place in the world, this is something that we have to again to decide in common because we haven't yet at the moment. BBC: Do you think that Europe does have some common interests which differ significantly from the interests of the United States? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Yes, absolutely. I think Because if you see the functioning of the American society, the function The American society is and has always been a neo-liberal society and I don't have to criticise this. It's their decision, it's the decision of the Americans. If they want another society, they should decide for another society. But Europe has another vision. If you see how we see the international world, how we shee how we see to make law, to make new justice in the world, our vision of with an international tribunal, our vision with an international convention on the climate, etcetera, so we had another vision of the world should function in the relation with the different regions of the world. We have another vision to solve conflict in the Middle East. So I think to be accepted in the world, we must define our autonomy. BBC: So do you think that Europe has different strategic or geopolitical interests from those of America and, if it does, what do you think Europe's strategic interests are? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: I think that Europe's strategic interest is that it developed in the world a lot of regional cooperation, like Europe is in the world history completely new form of regional cooperation with common institution, common and common administration. And we should we have been interested this development in Latin America, as Latin, in Africa, so that we are a tool to help to develop a mighty global world society and the American strategic interest is to lead the world under the definition and the image of America. This is the big difference. BBC: So what's the European answer to the American rhetoric about the axis of evil? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Well, first, if America really talks about the axis of evil, they would put two thirds of the world in it, so it's a completely really useful definition. Europe - and there is the critiques that we have to make to Europe also - is to say we must build the axis of democracy. This is the interest. I You know the interest My interest is how to help that Iran become a democracy, that Saudi Arabia become a democracy, that the Palestinian state become a democracy, how we have that democracies in Africa can really live and can have a relation together. These are what we have to build. And there we are weak because we at the moment, with our political, economical power, ecological know-how, we are not able to build this axis of democracy. BBC: Changing the subject slightly, we seem to have seen a resurgence in recent months of the Franco-German partnership as one of the motors, one of the engines of Europe. Does this reflect a deep convergence of interests between France and Germany or is this also perhaps just a temporary, tactical thing? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: No, I think there is a deep interest between France and Germany, but I think they made a mistake, the French and the Germans, not to understand that this deep common interest should be in the framework of a more European position, you know. And I think the danger is that against the Anglo-Spanish position, the French and the Germans want to lead Europe. But I think it's wrong. There must be a force of proposition, they must have inside intern European diplomacy, you know, to get really a European position. But France and Germany at the core of Europe of today because if you want, you know, the reconciliation of France and Germany is the beginning of this new old Europe, you know, and I think they have the French and the Germans have a very deep common interest. I think that if England thinks about and decides once forever where what where it wants to go, will England be at the end the fifty-one state of the United States or the thirteenth state of the Euro. England must once in their life decide. BBC: What about an even more ambitious partnership - apparently between France, Germany and Russia. We've seen that emerging in the last few weeks. Is that a permanent feature of the European landscape, or is it just a temporary thing? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: No, well I think No because the French and the Germans you know we are in the framework of Europe with common institution. I think the bad thing in the axe of peace you know that we had is the relation with Russia and China is that we forget the Chechen, we forget the Tibetian, you know, so I don't think that the privileged relation between France, Germany and Russia will be stronger than the necessary relation between Russia and the United States or even Russia and England. BBC: I wanted to ask even between France and Germany, there are some quite significant differences of political culture. For example, we think of France as a country which is prepared to use military force in certain circumstances and Germany as a country with a much deeper aversion to the use of force for historical reasons. Does that in some way compromise or limit the scope of Franco-German cooperation at the heart of Europe? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: No because they had a big change in Germany. Look the Schroder-Fischer Government was ready and did it to push Germany in two big military interventions in Kosova and in Afghanistan. So I think you know the theory of the pacifist German, you know, is not right, you know. It's not because you say no to one war that you go back to a totally sterile pacifist, you know. This is, I think, wrong. Secondly, I would say you know the problem with the Germans is that once the world has to choose what do you like more - Germans who want forever to go everywhere as soldiers, or do you want Germans to take responsibility and think about sending soldiers in the world? BBC: But there are some people, including some French people, who think that the European common defence or security policy won't ever be effective unless European countries spend more on defence and Germany's spending on defence is quite low as a proportion of GDP. Can you imagine that German taxpayers will be prepared to spend a bit more on defence? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: When G I can imagine, but can you imagine English taxpayer paying so much for the unification like the Germans did? Eight hundred millions billions of euro in ten years to pay unification. I mean if you want to discuss why Germany has a lot of problems, one of their problems is paying unification. So I would say in the long-term of course, as everybody knows, we have to invest more in a common security policy, but first in Europe you should decide not to do fifteen times or twenty-five times the same thing. So I think if you professionalise the European armies, you can improve a lot the capacity of intervention of European armies. Then you have to invest in modern technology - this is true - and this we have to see at the level of the possibility what will be in the next years, and I think everybody is aware about it. BBC: But as a general statement, regardless of Germany, do you think it's true that it would be worthwhile for Europe as a whole to invest more in defence? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: It would be worthwhile for Europe to invest more in responsibility in the world - not only in defence but also in defence. BBC: Looking ahead to the next few weeks and months, what do you think presents the best hope of healing the rifts within Europe? Or have we seen a kind of divorce which will perhaps be permanent between the Anglo-Saxons and the continentals? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: I didn't know that Spain is Anglo-Saxon. It's really an interesting interpretation of Anglo-Saxon. Or Italy. But why not? I mean you can do what you want, you know, now. I think I think one is sure there is a deep problem in England with Europe and I said it before, and I think the most interesting thing for me will be when and which English premier will be have the courage to make the referendum on the Euro in England. And this will be a big step towards Europe and then I am waiting for it. So the problem is not only the differences. The problem is that the own the consciousness of the political class, of the people in England, you know, and this is I think a non not decided thing, you know, by the English people. BBC: Of course some people in England will say that we were right to be with the Americans in Iraq and this proves to us that we have more fundamental interests in common with the Americans than we do with the continental Europeans. What would you say to those English people? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: If they think like this, why not? So say it and stop to be in Europe, make a new relation with Europe, and perhaps your future will be as the fifty-one state of the United States. Why not? This would be a new history. After the war of liberation of the Americans against the English crown, there will be the unification of England and the United States centuries later. Why not? But to decide something. Not only to want to have to want to eat the butter, you have to sell the butter. You have to decide what you want. This is what I am saying. I won't be offended if the English say "We like more to be we have more interest with the Americans not only because they speak English and the French only French or the Germans only German, but because we like more the way of thinking, we like more the tax and capitalism than we like the German capitalism." Why not? But say it. BBC: Moving away from England for a moment, we've heard this rather provocative expression 'New Europe versus Old Europe' from Donald Rumsfeld, and of course what he had in mind is that some of the new members of Nato, some of the future members of the European Union tend to be more pro-American in their attitudes than, for example, France and Germany at the moment. Is it at all meaningful to speak of New Europe versus Old Europe? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Well it depends. You know I'm very interested. New Europe is Poland, okay. Mr Miller. Mr Miller shared common value with the Russians in 68 in Prague. Now he shares common value with the Americans. Wonderful he changed, but everybody can change like this and that and I say the majority of the Polish people are not supporting their government on the position on the war in Iraq. So I say there is no New Europe, Old Europe; there is changing mood in societies. And, for instance, take the result of the referendum in Slovenia. Ninety-two percent for Europe and sixty percent only only question mark for Nato. So I think that the people, the society knows that their living future is this Old Europe. And for this, you know, I think that the in a few years Mr Rumsfeld will be very astonished to see how this New Europe - old one and new one together as a New Europe - will respond to the wrong politics, if there is, of the United States. BBC: As you correctly said, Spain and Italy are not Atlantic powers and yet they seem to be - at least temporarily - aligned with Britain. Daniel Cohn-Bendit: I said they are not Anglo-Saxon. BBC: Yes, they are not Anglo-Saxon powers. Indeed, Spain is an Atlantic power, of course. But they were at least temporarily aligned with Britain in the run up to the Iraq crisis. Some people would say that that was partly a sort of response by Spain and Italy to the arrogance, if you like, of the Franco-German partnership; that they were trying to get back at the French and Germans for an apparent attempt to dominate Europe. Do you think that there was perhaps a mistake on the part of the French and Germans in trying to dominate the European scene and, therefore, somehow alienating the Spanish and Italians and perhaps others? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: No, I think I think there was an error, but not I wouldn't say dominate. I think the French the German-French response was a response first to England because before there was a discussion in Europe Blair said "I'm with Bush." Before. He didn't discuss it in Europe. Then the French and the Germans say we have another position, but then they said this is the European position and there are a lot of states who said we are not comfortable with it. Not because we don't share even this position, but we want to decide for us what is our position and not let the French and the Germans decide it for us. This is a critique that I can understand. But then you had Asnar Asnar for completely different reasons alienates himself from his own population and then you had Berlusconi who said yes to Bush, yes to Blair, yes to Schroder, yes to Chirac. He said yes to everybody. And I want to count the number of Italians and Spanish soldiers who are in Iraq now! It would be interesting to know. BBC: As a final question - perhaps a bit provocative - could one say that the American tactic of dividing and ruling in Europe has to some extent succeeded? Daniel Cohn-Bendit: Well this was the first half time, you know. This was the first half time. Let's have the second time of the game and then I'm interested to know on the ruling in Iraq how Blair will go on with Bush. Let's And Asnar will go on with Bush. And then I am really interested to know how Blair and Asnar will go on with Bush on the Palestinian problem. Let's see. You know nothing is done - even that Manchester United can beat Rio Madrid on the return. Everything is possible.