Europe divided
The war council in the Azores irreparably damaged European unity. In its wake, anti-war and pro-war states traded insults and pursued conflicting agendas, writes Gamal Nkrumah
Never since the 1963 Elysée Treaty between France and Germany have the two European powers had a more amicable relationship. And, never have they been more committed to the cause of world peace. But the gulf of misunderstanding is as wide as ever between the Franco-German peace-lovers and their belligerent allies in London, Madrid, Rome and Washington.
"Without the United Nations, there is no international peace policy. That is why we always support strengthening the UN," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said of the decision by United States President George W Bush to strike Iraq without the explicit approval of a UN Security Council vote. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher elaborated, "The UN is the most important forum for establishing global rules. No other organisation has a comparable legitimacy and credibility."
Anti-war Europeans strongly object to the manner in which the UN has been roughly pushed aside and rendered ridiculous by the Bush administration. But, pro-war Europeans still solidly stand by Bush. Nowhere was this pro-US stance more graphically demonstrated than at the Azores summit convened earlier this week. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Spanish counterpart Jose Maria Aznar presented a united front. Dismissive of Franco-German advice, the intolerance of the anti-war axis views demonstrated by the three hawkish leaders at Azores highlighted the stark divisions within Europe that have been engendered by the Iraqi crisis.
The message emanating from Azores was loud and clear: world opinion is irrelevant. The narrow interests of the Bush administration are all that matter. Washington clearly has given up on the UN process rather than suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of what it sees as the anti-war intransigence of the French, Russians, Chinese and Germans.
The UN Security Council failed to reach a consensus on a punitive military action against Iraqis and is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. After weeks of desperate lobbying to get the minimum nine votes for the US-UK-Spanish resolution, the Bush administration ended with only one nation, Bulgaria, publicly declaring support for war.
The divisions within Europe over Iraq are not confined to the UN. The military trans- Atlantic alliance of NATO, too, has been badly shaken by the polarisation of attitudes between the pro-war group of Western states led by the US, the UK and several smaller southern and eastern European states on the one hand and the anti-war axis headed by France, Germany and Russia on the other. Last week's refusal of NATO members France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to back US-led military assistance for Turkey was viewed by Washington as an impertinent affront.
The acrimonious rift within NATO threatens the credibility of the Western alliance. "Iraq is playing the UN and playing some of our friends in the permanent membership of the Security Council like a fiddle," warned US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The European Union, too, appears more vulnerable than ever, even as it stands poised to admit 10 new accession southern and eastern European countries. The newcomers seem far more loyal to the US than to the Franco-German core of the EU.
US-led aggression against Iraq will unquestionably strengthen the hegemonic hand of the US in the post-Cold War international arena. "It will determine the pattern of international politics," stated Blair, Washington's closest European ally. To anti-war protesters, it will reinforce America's image as an arrogant and ruthless world bully. Leaders of Europe's anti-war axis are banking on the groundswell of European public outrage at US arrogance and war-mongering.
Demonstrations are planned across the globe next Saturday. Organisers predict that they will be even bigger than those that took place on 15 February. The leaders of the US and the UK, however, remain unmoved by the anti-war pleas. Parleying offered little hope for the Iraqi people, Washington and London argued at the Azores summit. In their view, it unnecessarily delayed a full show of US force. "More discussion is just more delay," said Blair, parroting the US position.
Washington, along with London and Madrid, argued that it was legitimate to strike Iraq under the implicit authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, approved unanimously last November. "The Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force," Bush categorically stated.
In sharp contrast, French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin share a deep-seated conviction about the ever-encroaching evil by flagrant US disregard for the international rule of law. They are appalled by the law of the jungle currently applied in which military might makes right.
"Does the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator justify a war, which is sure to kill thousands of innocent children, women and men? My answer in this case was and is: No," said Chancellor Schroeder.
"Whatever happens in the coming days or even weeks, you can be sure that my government will pursue even the smallest chance for peace," Schroeder vowed. Putin, too, expressed "regret" at Bush's ultimatum to Iraq. The Russian president described war as "a serious mistake with the most serious consequences".
No less equivocal, Chirac warned that war was a "serious decision because the disarmament of Iraq is taking place and the inspections have showed that this is a credible way of disarming a country". The French president warned against acting "without the legitimacy of the UN, to favour the use of force over war".
All said and done, the anti-war axis countries of Russia, Germany and France are not necessarily hostile to the US-stated goal of instituting more democratic structures in the Arab world. They empathise with the Americans but disagree with the tactics. Democracy cannot be imposed on a people by force.
"As desirable as it is that the dictator leaves his post, the goal of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 is the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," Schroeder warned.
The Americans speak of a new, democratic post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. One in which human rights will be respected and upheld. They say that they intend to make Iraq a shining example and a beacon of democracy for the entire Arab world. Anti-war Europeans abhor Washington's determination to impose its sense of moral rightness on Arabs and Muslims. The Americans, they warn, are only stirring up trouble for themselves later on. They suspect that the chief reason behind the impending US aggression is a greater control of the vast oil reserves of Iraq and the entire Middle East region.
The anti-war axis do understand the need, but not the urgency, of correcting undemocratic ways of the Iraqi regime. But why is the Iraqi regime singled out for retribution? "Iraq does not represent today an immediate threat that would justify an immediate war," Chirac said.
It may be that change is inevitable, but the European allies of the US are hoping that something can be salvaged from the ashes of war. "We should bring this situation into the legal framework because only the UN Security Council has the right to settle such situations," said Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.
A long, drawn-out war with a devastating death toll will prove that the French, Germans and Russians were right all along to oppose war. A quick and decisive strike with few civilian casualties means that Washington will be vindicated.
C a p t i o n : Chirac
Blair
Schroeder
Aznar
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 20 - 26 March 2003 (Issue No. 630)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/630/sc5.htm