The Hindu : Europe ponders the Iraq issue

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 23, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Europe ponders the Iraq issue

By K. K. Katyal

The divergences on Iraq are certain to have a close bearing on the working of the European Union, especially the evolution of its common foreign and security policies.

IT IS an exciting time to be in Europe now that the evolution of its opinion on the Iraq crisis — and the ties with the U.S. — is moving towards a crucial stage. The way the European view takes shape will have major long-term implications, determining in the process the nature of trans-Atlantic equations. The national positions of the various countries of Europe will be as important as their internal pressures. It is going to be a defining moment for the relationship between the U.S. and Europe — and for the security architecture in the European Union. Also, while being in London, it is hard not to become aware of the new warmth in the India-U.K. relationship. The Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, who will be in Copenhagen on October 10 and 11 for the summit with the E.U., may pay a quick working visit to London soon after for talks with his British counterpart, Tony Blair.

Three countries — Britain, Germany and France — are vital to the evolutionary process in Europe; especially the first two, which represent two extremes, with France in between. To say that Great Britain has cast its lot with the U.S. on Iraq, and on security matters (but not on economic issues), is to stress the obvious. Mr. Blair remains steadfast in support to the U.S., even as there is a marked hardening in the stance of its President, George W. Bush. The idioms used by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are conspicuously identical. But there are clear signs of a ferment in the Labour Party camp. In Germany, the outcome of the federal elections holds the key to the country's position. There are some significant nuances in the positions of the two main parties, the Social Democrats and the present Opposition, the Christian Democrats.

The pressures within the political establishment in Britain are certain to come to the fore during the party conferences over the next three weeks — of the Liberal Democratic Party from September 22 to 25 at Brighton, of Labour from September 29 to October 3 at Blackpool, and of the Conservatives from October 7 to 10 in Bournemouth. As of now, the reservations over the U.S. stand on Iraq, and Mr. Blair's unquestioned support are most pronounced among the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives are supportive of the U.S., with only a tiny minority raising critical questions on whether and if so to what extent Britain's interests are threatened by Iraq. In the Labour Party, the vast majority backs the Prime Minister's stand and is opposed to any dilution of the trans-Atlantic alliance. But there are discordant voices too — some critics at the senior level have been managed but the backbenches and trade unions are adamant. Two senior Ministers — Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and John Presscot, Deputy Prime Minister — who had gone public in their dissent, have been brought around to the official viewpoint, but Robert Cook, Leader of the House in the Commons and former Foreign Secretary, as also the backbenchers are not convinced of the soundness of the Government's stand. To remove confusion and to dispel doubts, Mr. Blair has called a one-day session of Parliament on September 24 but has rejected the demand for a vote on the Iraq-related resolution. There is no danger of the motion on Iraq falling through but there is a real possibility of a section of the Labour Party opposing it. The backbenchers are more strident against the official stand, considered unsustainable after Saddam Hussein's readiness to an unconditional return of the weapons inspectors.

In the case of Germany, the outcome of the federal elections is extremely important. The Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, has taken a tough stand during the election campaign against the U.S. on Iraq — categorically stating that Germany will not take part in any American "adventure" — as his party managers disapprove of Washington's "war-mongering". In the event of his victory, he has ruled out even commitment of funds to any U.S. operation against Iraq. In comments to The New York Times, Mr. Schroeder criticised the U.S. Vice-President, Dick Cheney, saying Germany would not support the U.S. action even if it were authorised by the U.N. Last week, a senior Cabinet Minister (of Justice), Daeubler-Gmelin, likened Mr. Bush's tactics to those used by Hitler — "Mr. Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It is a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler used" — and, in the process, earned a severe rebuke from Washington for these "outrageous and inexplicable" remarks. As against this, the Christian Democrats and their leader, Edmund Stoiber, attach considerable weight to the trans-Atlantic alliance and show understanding of Mr. Bush's position. According to the party, the Social Democrats' policies risk Germany's isolation.

A section of European officials, however, feel that Mr. Schroeder, if re-elected, may go slow on the U.S. stand on Iraq and, as one diplomat put it, "America-bashing may fade into the electoral past". It is to be seen how U.S.-German relations shape in case the Social Democrats retain power.

The divergences on Iraq are certain to have a close bearing on the working of the E.U., especially the evolution of its common foreign and security policies. Even otherwise, Germany's E.U. policies are a matter of concern to Brussels. As noted by The Guardian in a despatch from Brussels, "a victory for Mr. Stoiber might be easier for the European Commission because Mr. Schroeder had indulged in the familiar support of Brussels-bashing, picking fights about economic liberation and other issues". Then there are individual likes and dislikes. The French President, Jacques Chirac, for instance, has a soft corner for Mr. Stoiber, seen in Paris as attaching greater weight to French-German ties than Mr. Schroeder.

From among the smaller European nations, the U.S. could count fully on Poland (due for entry into the E.U. on January 1, 2004). There is little doubt about that even though the Polish Prime Minister expressed the other day his preference for a diplomatic and political solution, and wanted intervention by the U.S., if it becomes necessary, to take an international dimension — that is, to be by the coalition under a U.N. mandate.

For Mr. Blair, the job of taming the Labour dissidents is one major concern that has an immediate relevance. The other worry arises out of the goings-on in the E.U. The outcome of the German elections, to cite one example, would mean a lot to the U.K. — the victory of the Social Democrats would sharpen the conflict between Berlin and London, while the success of the Christian Democrats would mean harmony between the two countries. However, on the future architecture of the E.U., both German contenders stand for a stronger role for the Commission than does the U.K. (or France).

Iraq and related matters are certain to be discussed between Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Blair, apart, of course, from the India-Pakistan problem and the Kashmir situation. (By then the Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir would be over). India, as is known, is opposed to the idea of a regime change in Iraq, though it had called for the return of weapon inspectors to Iraq, well before Baghdad indicated its willingness in this regard.

In the current fast-moving situation, it is hard to foresee the situation at the time of Mr. Vajpayee's visit to London. In case the crisis lingers in the present form, the two sides may not go beyond reiteration of their known positions — Mr. Blair calling for all-out support to the U.S. in any campaign against Iraq, and Mr. Vajpayee favouring ways to avert a conflict. For all the bilateral warmth for the U.K., India would find it difficult to go along with Mr. Blair's extreme stance.

It will be quite an ironic twist. In the case of South Asia, the combined Anglo-American pressure is directed at defusing of tensions between India and Pakistan and finding ways to guard against an armed clash. In the case of Iraq, it will be the other way round — India urging London and Washington to resolve the problem without recourse to force.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Abu Salem's arrest

Building on its strengths

Europe ponders the Iraq issue

The world order — I

BJP may try to bury Babri case

A free press despite foreign investment

U.S. aims to reorder West Asia

A global threat

Resolving Cauvery row