The Hindu : Will the war divide E.U.?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Mar 20, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Will the war divide E.U.?

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI MARCH 19. It is too conspicuous to be missed — the trans-Atlantic divergence, between the U.S., on the one hand, and France and Germany, on the other. Acquiring a new sharpness during the hectic diplomatic activity at the U.N. since September last, it appears to have reached a point of no return now that the U.S. bid for U.N. support to its plan for military action in Iraq was frustrated because of opposition by two countries of the ``old'' Europe and Washington chose to act unilaterally.

Particularly hurting to the U.S. was the attitude of France because its ``no'' to any U.S. (or British) move in the U.N. Security Council carried with it the veto power.

As a matter of fact, the U.S. and Britain ascribed their decision not to press for vote their latest resolution, seeking authorisation of the Council to the use of force for the disarmament of Iraq to the explicit stand of ``one country'', made known in advance.

The ``one country'', obviously, was France. On their part, the French representatives said that the U.S. move, in any case, was opposed by the majority of the Council members — nine out of 15. France was one among them.

``Veto is not the issue, because there is no majority to start war,'' was the French position.

All this was clear from the news columns in the last few days. What was not clear was the ramification of this rupture. Will it lead to the emergence of another pole, on which the French had been keen since the end of the cold war?

Will it divide the European Union and make difficult its task of evolving a common foreign and security policy? Things, it is clear, will not be the same again but the future shape would be determined by the outcome of the Iraq operation. If it is quick and sharp, in a reasonable time-frame, the U.S. would feel vindicated, while France and Germany would be placed in an awkward situation, searching for ways to mend their fences with Washington. If, however, the U.S.-British adventure misfires, the operation is bogged in a quagmire of strong even if disjointed opposition, or the task of administering the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq becomes unmanageable, the rupture would widen, laying foundations for a bipolar world.

Why France and Germany have carried their opposition to the U.S. plans to the present extreme limit is the subject of intense speculation. Various theories are in vogue. One, post-war France had, all the time, followed two foreign policies — one as part of the Western alliance and the other an autonomous one. After the end of the cold war, the autonomous dimension became pronounced.

In any case, France did not hide its unhappiness over the unipolar ascendancy of the U.S. Two, there had been traditional rivalry between the U.K. and France over their role in Europe — and with London meekly following the Washington line, Paris saw an opportunity to carve out an independent position. As far back as September last, the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, in an exclusive interview to me in Paris, conveyed his Government's unequivocal opposition to the doctrine of regime change as also to the idea of unilateral action.

In Germany, the Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, in his bid for the second term in the federal elections in September, sensed a strong anti-war sentiment among the people, took a firm anti-U.S. line, and was rewarded. After the victory he tried to restore the disturbed equation with the U.S., but there was no change in his strong opposition to the recourse of force in Iraq. Germany does not have the veto power in the Security Council but had the presidency during the crucial stage of the discussions on Iraq.

The other day, the German President, Johannes Rau, in a written question-answer interview, conceded that there are irritants on both sides but there would not be a lasting damage to the trans-Atlantic bond. For obvious reasons, he was being too mild.

The French President, Jacques Chirac, in an interview to CNN this week, expressed his opposition to the use of force, and pleaded for continuance of inspections for a ``couple of months''. What stood out in the interview were his responses to some provocative questions — on the perception in the U.S. of his being a pal of the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, having long contacts with him, on French help to Iraq to build a nuclear reactor, and on France's oil deals with Iraq. Chirac's replies were as follows: He last met Saddam Hussein in ``1974 and 75 or 75 and 76, never since''. But ``some important figures of the current U.S. administration had contacts with him as late as 1983.'' The trade of France with Iraq accounts for 0.2 per cent of total French trade, and France's oil imports are 8 per cent of Iraq's oil exports. ``Preposterous'' — this was his reaction to the charge that Mr. Hussein had contributed to his election campaign.

Heard at a diplomatic cocktail. Which country will witness a regime change first — Iraq or the U.K.?

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Grim times ahead

Cynical games

A war to enforce disarmament?

Saving science for our future - I

The northern mis-alliance

Will the war divide E.U.?

Rationalising Hindutva

Say `no' to war

Stirring up trouble

Heroes and anti-heroes