PDA

View Full Version : Global Views: US/Iraq foreign policy



wrbones
01-24-03, 03:41 PM
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2583/newsletter_info.htm








A Common Foreign Policy for Europe?


January 23, 2003

They said it could never happen. While European nations might govern their economies by a common set of laws, even sacrificing the sanctity of their former currencies, foreign policy would always remain a bastion of self-expression and national identity. This week, however, militarily weak European nations – led by France and Germany -- have revealed that in forging a common front opposing war in Iraq, they might effectively counter an American administration prepared to disarm the rogue Middle Eastern nation by any means necessary. Although the diplomatic offensive has rallied many supporters worldwide and could have an enormous impact on future transatlantic relations, it is unlikely to be more than a temporary deterrent to an expected American-led invasion of Iraq, as nearly 150,000 American troops prepare for battle in the Gulf region.

Europact

It is appropriate that increased bilateral relations between France and Germany, along with the beginnings of a common policy on Iraq, came about on the 40th anniversary of the Franco-German alliance, known as the Elysee Treaty. According to a report in the Daily Telegrpah (UK), the historic 1963 agreement came at a period in which Charles de Gaulle described the European nations as “two weary wrestlers, forced to lean on each other.” Now, says Telegraph correspondent Philip Delves Broughton, “rather than leaning on each other, they appear to be seeking each other's support.”

The result has amounted to what one American official described as a “diplomatic version of an ambush” on American ambitions to disarm Iraq by force. It has also revealed a growing body of nations willing to support the stance taken by what most perceive as the heart of the European Union. “It is urgent and necessary to the balance of the world that Europe fulfill its role as an international actor, that Europe speak with a single voice,” said French President Jacques Chirac, according to a Le Monde report.

“The two men are acknowledging that separately, they simply cannot hope to wield the kind of influence each would love to have on their own,” said a report from Canada's Globe and Mail. “Together, France and Germany figure they can make a difference, and they don't seem to mind if that irritates the Americans.”

The two nations are in a primary position to do just that. France turns over its chairmanship of the United Nations Security Council to Germany at the end of the month, and both nations have pledged to nominate common candidates to international bodies, such as UN and NATO.

Still, some remain doubtful that the grandstanding announcements offered up by French and German leaders this week will live long enough to impact international policies. The French, says one BBC report, “have been careful not to close their options over a second United Nations resolution” authorizing the use of force, while Germany has ruled out such support all together. Others, such as the International Herald Tribune's John Vincour, point out that while such efforts may indeed temporarily thwart aggressive U.S. policies towards Iraq, European consensus has yet to come up an alternative method of judging the success of weapons inspections. “Short of the discovery of a smoking gun, there is no unified European statement of what constitutes sufficient evidence, what could be interpreted to the satisfaction of all as Iraqi obstruction, or then in either case what to do.” Such issues will have to be dealt with if European diplomacy is to find a seat at the international negotiating table.

“Although on the face of it, the Versailles meeting adds greatly to the tally of recent Franco-German initiatives, in practice some of them are likely to end in squibs. In foreign policy, for instance, there are bound to be disagreements over the coming months – perhaps even over Iraq,” write the editors of the Economist. “For now, though, the Franco-German motor is purring away like a BMW engine.”

European Alliance Finds Support Worldwide

Not only has the Franco-German position deeply divided the United Nations Security Council, but it has penetrated diplomatic discussions within NATO as well. As Russia and China – both veto-bearing members of the UN Security Council – echoed the French position in support of continued inspections, support from NATO nations that would be crucial to an American-led attack on Iraq, such as Turkey, was put into question with this week's announcement. “We have a handful of countries, for reasons of timing, that would like to wait,” one NATO official told the Washington Post.

In addition to access to air bases and ports, American officials also hope that NATO allies will play a major role in relieving U.S. forces from duties such as patrolling the eastern Mediterranean Sea, according to the New York Times.

As European leaders prepare to meet next week in Brussels to discuss a common policy on Iraq, Ankara has called “a regional summit of all the major Middle East countries to discuss a non-violent solution to the crisis,” according to The Guardian (UK). Worldwide public opinion polls and protests against a war in Iraq have also bolstered the Franco-German position. Demonstrations from Tokyo to Moscow to Washington D.C. along with international public opinion polls suggest that the majority of citizens around the world, including Americans, would prefer the crisis to be dealt with through the United Nations.

American Objectives

The United States has countered the position of France and Germany with a barrage of appearances by top officials throughout the week. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Jim Lehrer News Hour that “there are some nations in the world that would simply like to turn away from this problem, pretend it isn't there.” His comments were backed by his deputy, Richard Armitage. “This is not about America -- and what we may or may not be prepared to do,” he said in remarks to the U.S. Institute of Peace. “ But the point is that if you are hanging your hopes on Saddam Hussein's voluntary willingness to comply, and the veracity of his regime, you are engaging in some very dangerous wishful thinking.”

Perhaps the most contentious comments, however, were delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, in which he called the nations of “old Europe” a problem. “Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem…but you look at the vast numbers of countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States.” Rumsfield added that European opinion does not rest solely with France and Germany. “You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east.”

Some within the administration have suggested that France and Germany will eventually come around to support a war against Iraq if it in fact becomes inevitable. Philip Gordon, director of the Center on the United States and France at the Brookings Institution told the Times that this would be a miscalculation. Monday brought “a warning from France that the U.S. cannot count on that,” he said. “In the game of chicken, the French seem to have responded with ‘Maybe we will call your bluff and see whether you are prepared to do a war without Security Council backing.'”

In addition to the public appearances and reiterations on the threats posed by an Iraqi regime with access to weapons of mass destruction, the administration said it would call next week on European allies to admit that Iraq has failed to fully cooperate with resolution 1441. “We want to create a situation where they have to respond to the obvious facts and then explain why they don't act on them,” said one official to the New York Times. “Our goal is to rub their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we are going to do about it.”

Why Europe Matters

Although the U.S. has stated that it welcomes additional support -- a so-called coalition of the willing that at present is made up of the United States, Britain, Australia and Spain -- it has also been quick to point out that it is prepared to act alone if necessary. “We have in my estimation and I think in General Frank's estimation, the coalition support to do what we need to do,” said General Richard B. Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a New York Times report. “Obviously the more of that, the better, for all sorts of reasons.”

One of the reasons is the enormous cost of another war in the Gulf, which some analysts put as high as $200 billion. “A U.S. failure to rally support from allies as important as France could raise the monetary costs of war with Iraq, leave the United States – and to a lesser extent, Britain – shouldering prime responsibility should the war go badly, and risk endangering profound and lasting strains that could effect relations in the Middle East and elsewhere,” said a report from the International Herald Tribune.


(lots more info on this site.)