Split in NATO
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the crisis that threatened to tear NATO apart last week
In the context of a visit to Brussels and Paris by a delegation from the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs last month, we met with NATO's Secretary-General Lord Robertson and two of his top aides at the organisation's Brussels headquarters. During the meeting one of the aides casually mentioned that Washington expected NATO to play a role in the Iraq crisis, specifically to provide Turkey with logistical support in the event of war. Little did we realise at the time how significant this bit of information would turn out to be, or, indeed, that it would spark off the worst internal crisis the NATO has experienced since the end of the Cold War.
There seemed to be no question in the mind of our interlocutor as to the legitimacy of such an enterprise. After all NATO was a military alliance whose raison d'être was the defence of any member state by all the other member states in case of a military threat. NATO's involvement in the Iraq crisis was therefore a foregone conclusion, an obligation imposed by its charter. No member could object to NATO's effective participation in the defence of Turkey, a member state whose joint borders with Iraq placed it at high risk. But France, Germany and Belgium did object, on the grounds that NATO should step in only after war is declared, not before.
Though apparently over a procedural issue, the dispute among NATO members quickly acquired the dimensions of a full- blown crisis that threatened to overshadow the Iraq crisis itself. In a way the conflict with Saddam Hussein was the catalyst which blew the lid off a simmering crisis within the ranks of the main organisation responsible for the security of the Western world. An early sign of discord between NATO members was over Kosovo, which created tensions between the US and some of its European Union allies. Today the stakes are higher: NATO knows that unless it gets its act together it could well find itself helping to consolidate Saddam's position instead of helping to isolate and eventually overthrow him. In fact, unless the crisis was contained, and quickly, it would have had far reaching implications for the world system as a whole.
At the end of the day each and every member of NATO would like to see Saddam disarmed despite the current polarisation over how this is to be achieved between the US and Britain on one side and France, Germany and Belgium on the other. Does this mean they are willing to reach a compromise? There is no doubt that both sides have every interest in defusing the crisis by closing ranks and adopting a unified approach to the problem of Iraq. Although it has repeatedly threatened to go it alone if need be, America would certainly prefer to avoid waging a unilateral war. Even the most hawkish members of the Bush administration realise that a unilateral American invasion of Iraq, in defiance of international public opinion, would tarnish its image in the eyes of large sectors of the international community. It would also deepen divisions within Europe, undermine the role and effectiveness of the United Nations, expose NATO to rapid disintegration and poison relations between Europe and America.
Europe for its part does not want to see its differences with Washington driving it to adopt positions that will ultimately serve the interests of one of the worst dictatorships in the world rather than those of a state perceived in the West as the most authentic democracy. Moreover, the Europeans know that they alone cannot disarm Saddam Hussein and that it is only thanks to relentless American military pressure that Saddam was forced to make the concessions he did. European leaders talk of an alternative to war but have so far not come forward with any concrete proposals to back their claim. Is the alternative represented in last Saturday's massive anti-war demonstrations, in which millions of people all over the world took to the streets to protest any military strike against Iraq? Are the demonstrations an expression of a latent force that was not taken into account by the decision-makers on either side of the divide? How will governments react to this extraordinary manifestation of popular will?
Despite the rhetoric, the various protagonists have not closed the door on the possibility of compromise. Thus, while telling the Security Council that "nothing justifies war", French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was careful to add, "at least so far". In other words France believes war is premature but does not rule out the war option as a last resort. And, in an attempt to deflect the charges of ingratitude hurled against it by the American media, France expressed its deep appreciation for America's role in liberating it at the end of World War II.
Russia, which is also for giving the inspectors more time, says it supports French and German resistance to America's arm- twisting tactics. But Moscow was also careful to stress that nothing will be allowed to spoil its newly-forged friendship with Washington. In short, the war option is still very much on the cards. It is significant in this connection to note that not one of the speakers at last Friday's historic Security Council session said that Iraq had complied fully with the demands made on it.
Thus the divide between Washington and critics of its headlong rush to go to war sooner rather than later is deep but not insurmountable. The question is whether the US is ready to forego its unilateral stance in favour of a compromise solution. In a recent article Thomas Freidman made the case for building consensus with the allies rather than going it alone. As he put it, "I would gladly trade a four week delay today for four years of allied support after a war."
It remains to be seen whether reason will prevail over mutual defiance. At the press conference that followed the Security Council meeting Colin Powell said that America still hopes the disarmament of Iraq can be achieved through the UN. In reply to a question on whether Washington will try to push for a resolution explicitly sanctioning the use of force he said: "We will go on discussing this issue inside the Security Council." However, he did not comment on de Villepin's proposal for a Security Council meeting on 14 March.
Shedding his dovish image, Powell has dismissed the need for more inspectors, arguing that what is required is "more cooperation, more disarmament and the implementation of resolution 1441 which is still not respected". While conceding that force is the last resort, he warned that "force is necessary to ensure Saddam's compliance," adding: "We will have to resort to force in the close future." Meanwhile Saddam is reaping political capital from the rift in allied ranks. He has recently received a delegation from South Africa to brief him on how Pretoria dismantled its arsenal of proscribed weapons. He also received a delegation from the Vatican in an attempt to burnish his image in the eyes of Catholics worldwide. In addition he issued a decree prohibiting the importation of materials used in the production of weapons of mass destruction.
If the divide between the allies is working to Saddam's advantage it has only deepened the differences within NATO. In an attempt to heal the breach Belgium's prime minister came forward with a compromise formula to end the standoff. On the one hand NATO should provide Turkey with military support; on the other it should declare that the support is exclusively for defensive purposes, not a step towards war. He added that he will seek to get French and German approval for the formula. Lord Robertson declared that the crisis had been overcome, but much is still to be done to weather its after-effects.
Nobody advocates going to war immediately, not even Washington's staunchest ally, the UK. The war was initially portrayed as a blitzkrieg, a war of liberation that would be swiftly terminated. Now American intelligence sources see the war, rather, as of a colonial type that will have dramatic long-term effects. If the war does not proceed according to plan, if it results in hundreds of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, in a war with Israel and a recession in America, Bush will be personally blamed for things going wrong.
According to a poll conducted by the New York Times a week ago, 59 per cent of Americans believe Bush should give the inspectors more time; 63 per cent that America should not wage a war without its allies. That is, in both cases, a majority of Americans disagree with Bush. The results are expected to be worse after last Saturday's mass anti-war demonstrations. The situation today is very different from the post-11 September situation, when New Yorkers enjoyed the sympathy of the world at large. Now the picture is totally confused, extending from Bin Laden's recent video address accusing the Americans of going to war against the Arab states, to mass demonstrations all over the globe, against a backdrop of heated debates in the UN, among the western allies and in NATO itself.
It is in this context that President Mubarak called for an exceptional Arab summit to face the critical situation which carries within it a wide variety of options. The apparent hopelessness of the situation has led one Arab leader to decline the invitation on the grounds that there is nothing to expect from such a gathering. But that is to dismiss what is happening in the streets of the world. As people rally in the cause of peace on an unprecedented scale it is time for all parties to face up to their responsibilities or risk falling by the wayside of history.
