A rchive Date
[ 12-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ European Union ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/stanway.html
Europe divided over war with Iraq
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
February 12, 2003
The outcome of war is always unpredictable, but it's already safe to say that the looming U.S-led war against Saddam Hussein has opened up a rift between Washington and some of its European and NATO allies that will be very difficult to close. France and Germany have taken the lead in aggressively trying to block U.S. moves against the Iraqi dictatorship, first at the UN and now within NATO.
The latest UN move involves something called Project Mirage: a grandiose German plan to triple the number of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, deploy peacekeepers and allow overflights by reconnaissance aircraft to keep an eye on the Iraqi military. The UN would, in effect, take over Iraq, with Saddam remaining as little more than a figurehead.
There is no chance that the Iraqi dictator will agree to a plan that would see him neutered by the UN rather than the Americans, and which would turn Iraq into a virtual UN protectorate. The Americans also won't support it, nor should they.
Why would Washington hand over political and military control of operations against Saddam to the UN, which relies on the U.S. for most of its funding and would have to ask the Americans to provide the logistical and military backing for any operation in Iraq? Unless the French and Germans are planning to shoulder the responsibility?
I don't think so. The anti-American manoeuvring within NATO has been particularly crass.
France, Germany and Belgium tried to delay potential NATO (i.e. U.S.) assistance to Turkey in the event of war in neighbouring Iraq. A nervous Turkish government has asked its NATO allies for Patriot anti-missile batteries, AWACS surveillance aircraft and chemical protection suits for its military and emergency services personnel.
If there is any doubt as to the real target behind this move, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel clarified matters for his country's VRT television network: "They (the Yanks) did not succeed in catching bin Laden and now they have to find an enemy they can beat. I think it has to do with power, probably also very likely with oil and the humiliation they suffered."
Humiliation?
That's one way of describing Sept. 11, but it speaks volumes that the foreign minister of a country liberated from the Nazis by another American-led coalition would choose that description rather than "terrorist atrocity," or other words that don't automatically convey a sense of appreciation for Osama bin Laden's heroic efforts.
What's driving all this has less to do with Iraq than internal European politics.
With common economic policies, open borders and the introduction of the euro currency, Europe has been moving ever closer to a "federal" union. The last step is contained in a draft document created by a constitutional convention meeting in Brussels. It envisages a European superstate that would take over most important decisions from its member nations - including making foreign policy.
The problem is that the 28 current and probationary members of the EU are far from united on relations with the world's remaining superpower.
In opposing U.S. policy on Iraq, France and Germany have only Belgium for support, while the pro-American camp includes Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and the whole of eastern Europe.
For the French and German governments, losing the debate on Iraq means losing the leadership role in future European foreign policy to a more pro-American group led by Britain. The result is a nasty split that threatens the unity of the European Union and its future relations with the United States.
The knee-jerk anti-Americanism of some Europeans is beginning to bother Washington.
President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, put it this way: "Europe would have been in very dark circumstances with Nazism and communism had it not been for the willingness of America to risk American lives for what was not at the time, many believed, a direct threat to the American homeland."
At home, Jean Chretien had positive things to say about NATO helping Turkey to prepare for the possibility of war.
Thank goodness, because the only thing worse for Canada-U.S. relations than the current confusion, fence-sitting or whatever Canada's policy on Iraq is, would be to confirm Washington's doubts about its northern ally by joining in the obstructionism.
Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@edm.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|