Is strategic disaggregation of Europe a part of US policy? It makes sense It would seem that the United States can serve a range of interests through a strategy supported by specific tactics to create disaggregation in European interests on key questions. This concept is not new, it is the tactic of divide and rule. The topic Strategic Disaggregation was the theme of a retreat organised by SEEL on 10th and 11th May, 2003 in Hampshire, UK. Turning Europe into a joke is an effective tactic in undermining the Union Irrespective of what is stated in public, some policy groups in the US are particularly concerned at the rise in power of the European Union in economic and technological terms. In these specific areas Union can mean considerable more punching power and presence. A tactic is for some strategists to make little of Europe, calling it a club, or the Rumsfellian "old" and "new" Europe. The issue here is to undermine the vectors which will result in a more cohesive Europe. Part of the problem is the undue haste of European enlargement is bringing in countries without democratic traditions, with government agencies which maintain, even today, policies which border to criminal neglect and, of course, corrupt administrations. Basically the United States can use this Central European handle to get support where it wants by using nothing more sophisticated than the offer of money. Maybe more serious than we think It isn't so much that the USA is smart it is more that Europe can't defend things which remain largely undefined An analyst from SACI presented a range of fascinating scenarios worked out by Ibn Bn Nr, the international strategic expert, as to where it was in the interests of the United States to make use of tactical disaggregations of Europe's interests. These covered general politics, economics, finance and technology. The backdrop to the talk was the image on the right. The presentation became quite scary. Scary because of the simplicity of just how Europe's interests could be undermined in an essentially legal, lobby-based or bilateral agreement based way. At no point were we left with the impression that the speakers were anti-American, or anti-European for that matter, they simply delivered a clinical and logical analysis. Mundane Bretton Woods not so mundane One part of the analysis showed the effective use made by the United States of the Bretton Woods institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and even the soft loans IDA. The first two institutions are used to enforce or encourage countries to follow largely US-sponsored directions. In the past the US has used the threat of not supporting a needed IMF bridging loan to the United Kingdom, to effectively emasculate the UK military aerospace capabilities (TSR-2 saga) and commercial prospects at the time. Several examples of corporate procurement benefits contracted through the IDA seemed to be more beneficial to the United States than to the recipient countries. Indeed, many of the companies lobbying for the US government to pardon chronic debt on the part of some of the poorest countries were the corporations who benefited most under IDA contracts. The new Europe outvotes the United States on all of the Bretton Wood institution boards. To date the Europeans have never made use of this. Where there were winds that they might, behind the scenes moves ensured they were easily parted. So Bretton Wood's "policies" broadly favour the United State's interests. If Europe got its act together it could completely change the level of convenience of the Bretton Woods setup to the United States. Is there any way out of this mess? The obvious question raised was is there a way out of this mess? It seems there is, but at the moment European institutions have lacked leadership which provides focus. The current work on the Constitution was cited as an example. Europe has lost an opportunity to create a European focus through a simple inspirational document. The work on governance, which preceded the Convention was described as a complete shambles, unfocused amateur affair with no effective output. During the whole of the last Commission, and this one, the consensus was that there has been no focus on issues of importance which might galvanize the public of Europe. No one in the European parliament, the European Commission nor even national parliaments has effectively articulated what might be important for Europe and Europeans. This is a fundamental gap which results in the European public, business and political leadership being void of a collection of principles to latch on to. Without this, Europe wallows in an environment where just about anything goes and anyone playing at strategic disaggregation really faces no resistance. Its like falling off a log.