Rumsfeld is a diplomatic genius

[Dinner]

Spiffor: You spoke about the upcoming creation of an EU constitution. How much centralized authority will the constitution give to the EU parliament? Will the EU have the power to declare war and force member states to comply with it's declarations or will power continue to rest with the national governments with the EU only acting if there is unanimous agreement?

DU: I think you are misreading the Republican (Right of center) idea of power. In their view the economy is the most important manifestation of power because that is where diplomatic and military power is derived. Republican administrations, like Bush’s Presidency, believe strongly that the U.S. should define its own interests and then prosue those interests irrespective of what other states think. The Democrats (left of center) tend to be more inclined to follow the international consensus since they believe this will engender greater good will with other states and make them more sympathetic towards America’s interests. It’s kind of boils down to different attitudes of how & when to exercise power though they both believe power is derived from the same three pillars.

[Spiffor]

Oerdin :
First, thanks for this interesting answer to DU. I'll keep it in mind when discussing about Bush with my friends in the future.

The EU constitution isn't that ambitious. Its purpose for now is mostly to get rid of the "treaty-syndrom" of the EU (i.e all founding texts are intergovernmental treaties, and not a unified supranational text). Basically, a constitution will be much easier to amend and change than treaties, because any State may disagree in signing a treaty.
In the draft, I have barely found anything about the foreign policy, except that :
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from actions contrary to the Unions's interests or likely to undermin its effectiveness" (article 14)

This was drafted before the axis of weasels and the axis of vassals formed

Until now, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (I guess CFSP is the English acronym) has been purely in the hands of national governments, and its boss, Javier Solana, mostly tried to ease communication and coordination between member States. There is nothing supranational in CFSP for now, and the constitution is too much consensual to suggest such a radical change.

[Dinner]

"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from actions contrary to the Unions's interests or likely to undermin its effectiveness" (article 14)

Since the EU parliment is lacking an effective means to enforce article 14 then I doubt it will mean very much and every time a devisive issue comes up the EU will find itself powerless to speak with a common voice.

[Spiffor]

Absolutely. We'll need much time and much change in the mentalities for the European parliament to have any power on these issues. Heck, it has nearly no power on other matters (it is the least powerful of the 3 decision-making institutions of the EU)
Europe will not speak with one voice on security issues before long