|
Open Page
The great divide... in the aftermath of Iraq
|
In spite of the Iraq happenings the current separation of the EU and the U.S. is manageable and retrievable. But this will largely depend on the U.S. adopting a more tolerant and collaborative approach to tackle the reconstruction programme of a devastated and ravaged Iraq.
|
THE U.S. policy on Iraq, its unilateralist action on invading Iraq, the alienation of the EU majors — Germany, Russia and France — the ping-pong diplomacy of the U.K. under Tony Blair have given rise to a distinct possibility of new global alignments. The U.S. action has created an unhealthy precedent in the form of a justification for a more powerful nation to liberate a lesser one. The Arab world and Asia have become increasingly vulnerable to such an occurrence in future. For the first time since the start of the Cold War we are seeing seeds of a `great divide' between the current and erstwhile superpowers taking strong root. After a long lull of over 50 years since the Second World War, the U.S. enjoys supreme power. The erstwhile USSR does not exist to provide deterrence to the U.S. as it once did during the Cold War. The belligerent and dictatorial U.S. attitude is a cause for concern for the entire developing world and a threat to the other superpowers of yesteryears.
The U.S. actions have catalysed a radical shift in the World order — a shift from multilateralism to unilateralism. The U.N. has been totally disregarded. The NATO has been a mute witness and may see a strategic move in its operating pattern. The U.S. has rendered NATO irrelevant in Iraq's context. The U.S.-led coalition had already made up its mind to be the sole decision-maker on Iraq. The seeds of unilateralism have been sown. Afghanistan may have had a logic and reasoning but Iraq is a cold and calculated act as seen by the majority of the world.
Questionable
The U.S. military action in Iraq may be questionable. The U.S. believes that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction and links with the Al-Qaeda. If recent reports are correct, some evidence is unearthed of the terrorist outfit's links with Baghdad. However, there seems to be a great scepticism on the eagerness to establish a Saddam-Osama link. But the U.S. thinks it does not have to answer anyone, being quite convinced of the righteousness of its invasion of Iraq. Before the breakdown of the USSR, the Soviet Union and the U.S. went through a silent but nervous confrontation during the many years of the Cold War. Each power provided the counter balance to the other's ambitious and expansionist designs. Then came the cleverly manipulated and strategic brainwashing of Gorbachev followed by perestroika that cost him his job. All his attempts to integrate the CIS into a united bloc disappeared into thin air. America had achieved its objective of dismantling the USSR after which it had no use for Gorbachev. The world was for the U.S. to rule.
Then followed a series of scattered events around the globe. And then Afghanistan, followed soon after by Iraq. Afghanistan is over 15 months old — already buried in the past. Where are those promises of reconstruction by the U.S. and its allies? And Osama's whereabouts still remain a mystery. Iraq is more complex. A duly elected regime has been ousted because of reasons hard to ascertain. The weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have not yet been found though both the U.K. and the U.S. continue to believe their existence. Let us remember that these were America's legitimate reasons for its action on Iraq. The U.N. arms inspectors have been refused entry into Iraq. No positive links to terrorism have been identified so far. What has been achieved is a planned and deliberate change in the balance of power in the region. It will clearly benefit Israel, a long-term ally of the U.S. and provide a much safer location for an American base in the future. What has been achieved is the control over the rich oil producing country that is bound to bring economic relief to the U.S. economy. Syria is under a stern watch and has already been served the first warning by the U.S. And so is Iran. Mr. Bush may have avenged Saddam's past insults and derogatory behaviour, but these are weak reasons for such an independent action in an existing world order of global integration.
EU in disarray
The EU majors (except the U.K.) have genuine reasons to worry about the U.S. agenda. The gulf between the EU and the U.S. seems to be widening in the aftermath of Iraq. France has been most vocal amongst its EU partners in making its anti-U.S. views on the Iraq war well known. The Germans and the Russians have been behind France but their statements have been muffled in order not to displease the U.S. beyond a certain degree. The French leaders and spokespersons have stated that in an inter-dependent world, as it exists today, military strengths and actions will not achieve long-term goals. France remains an ally of the U.S. but will make its own decisions and policies regardless of the U.S. pressures. France has repeatedly raised the issue of WMD and terrorism. Germany feels that the U.S. has structured the `Iraq menu' without consulting them, prepared the dishes and now the rest of Europe will be asked to do the cleaning act — that will take a long time and considerable expense in comparison to the three-week military victory achieved by the U.S. The U.K. allying with the U.S. on Iraq and diametrically opposing the view of its European allies has apparently caused a threat to the EU from within. Some smaller European countries have made the matter worse by siding with the U.S. on the issue. Such political alignments, however temporary, have thrown the EU in disarray. The EU is thus not able to get its act right. In this political quagmire there is a distinct possibility of a New World order forced by U.S.'s reduced commitment to multilateral bodies such as the NATO and the U.N. The NATO lies fractured and the Iraq events have raised questions on the utility of a body like the U.N.
In spite of the Iraq happenings the current separation of the EU and the U.S. is manageable and retrievable. But this will largely depend on the U.S. adopting a more tolerant and collaborative approach to tackle the reconstruction programme of a devastated and ravaged Iraq — by the war and loot and arson of its heritage. The EU majors believe that the U.K. may not be a strong force to support a common Europe, especially when there is a conflict with the U.S. John Major was even prepared to resign on Iraq reflecting his strong bonds with the U.S. perhaps more than his own political convictions. The French, Germans and Russians are quite peeved at U.K.'s behaviour though they have maintained a dignified silence. According to the U.K. statesmen, the Iraq issue is one exception and only a minor irritant in its relations with the rest of Europe. There are several critical issues such as economic collaboration, agriculture, climate change where the bonds are strong and a lot needs to be done to strengthen them. The Europeans see this as an opportunity to rebuild bridges with the U.K. in the post Iraq war scenario. There is political sagacity to keep the disagreements out of the way and resolve major gaps that exist on policy.
A sore point
France, Germany, Russia and others have been critical of the U.S. announcement that the economic benefits of the reconstruction of Iraq will go to the coalition countries. Already major contracts have been awarded to U.S. companies like Bechtel Corporation and others. This is an extremely sore point that has to be resolved quickly. The U.S. had earlier appeared to soften its stand on this but if one is to go by recent developments, the situation is worsening between France and the U.S. The EU has been pressing for the U.N. to play a larger role but the U.S. seems reluctant. These countries strongly feel that it is incumbent on the U.S. to hold informal discussions with the EU to make a place for the west or get Europe and the U.S. to work together. At this stage it is extremely difficult to predict or speculate the U.S. intentions on Iraq reconstruction contracts. The Bush administration is said to be `reviewing' all aspects of its relationship with France. Washington has summarily rejected a France backed U.N. proposal for allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to unearth the supposedly hidden weapons of mass destruction. In a somewhat autocratic statement, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, is reported to have said `we have a coalition on the ground to dismantle Iraq's WMD programmes and we think it is going to be effective,' thereby not allowing any space for the U.N. to get involved. Another critical divide between the U.S. and the EU (France, Germany and Russia) is on the lifting of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq. While the European nations want the sanctions to be lifted only after the U.N. has given a clean chit to Iraq on the WMD issue, the U.S. feels that Iraq minus Saddam does not require the continuance of sanctions. The U.S. has made its displeasure known to France by even going to the extent of saying that it is looking at ways to `punish' France for opposing the U.S. on Iraq. The U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in an interview "it's over and we have to take a look at the relationship." He went on to say in the affirmative that there are consequences for opposing the U.S. on Iraq. Tough actions against France that are being mentioned may include:
* Embargo on France (and perhaps others too) from being allowed to participate in the rebuilding work in Iraq. Huge investments made in French oil interests (Total-Fina-Elfan) will be impacted negatively.
* The U.S. has the option to use those NATO platforms for trans-Atlantic meetings in which France is not a member. In this way France will be isolated on major strategic decisions.
* Also lost to France will be the lucrative businesses with the U.S. government. This may pose a serious threat to French companies supplying arms to the U.S. Sodexo is known to have large orders to be executed. Many may lose their jobs if that happens.
The French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has taken a tough stand by saying that France would continue to act in accordance with its convictions and principles to defend international law. On the other hand President Jacques Chirac is hopeful. He feels that the U.S. is an ally and it will not be easy to impose unilateral economic sanctions considering France's membership of the WTO and the EU.
Even Americans are concerned about the U.S. overreach on Iraq. According to them arguments on WMD and terrorism have yet to be proved. Due to gaps in military strengths, NATO is weakened. In the context of globalisation the role of NATO and the U.N. has to be seen differently. A meaningful engagement is necessary between the EU and the U.S. in order to preserve the goodwill of 50 years. In the view of the U.S., it is NATO that is the natural bridge that connects the U.S. with Europe and is capable of playing a more critical role than the U.N. On the contrary some others feel that the EU is more important than NATO provided a critical portion of the agenda focuses on a long-term partnership with the U.S. Deft statesmanship and immediate engagement at the highest level is required between the EU and the U.S. to take stock of the unproductive inventory and take the necessary steps to narrow the chasm of the great divide that may throw the world out of gear.
B. S. RATHOR
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
