A Rift in the Alliance The US cannot stomach the fact that European allies are standing up to it. by P Lim
Anti-war campaigners of all hues and regions of the world express satisfaction
that Germany and France differ with America and the UK over Iraq. How does one
explain this?
There are different hypotheses:
French, German oil contracts with Iraq? Future Iraqi leaders have spoken of
annulling German and French contracts. Post-Saddam era contracts will be given
to the Americans and British. Is oil a credible explanation as Germany and
France also see Saddam as a menace?
Fear of the �clash of civilization�, West versus Islam and its consequences:
Instability will affect their countries with substantial Arab and Muslim
minorities.
They don�t want to see an American sea of influence over the whole region
excluding them. Opposition to war may gain them some pluses in the region.
Domestic public pressures in France and Germany. The Schroeder government has
been weakened by the loss of states in state elections and, to retain votes of
support, he must stick to a non-war stand.
There are also memories of World War II.
The evidence presented by both the US and the UK is weak. Hence, France and
Germany want more time for Blix and his team. The US wants to legitimize
pre-emptive interventions in the name of American interests and this has to be
resisted.
There is no one explanation for the German and French positions.
Will both countries stick to their position? They are committed to
multilateralism. It looks like they will - except if the UN Security Council
agrees to war because the Iraqis have not totally complied with regard to
disarming and there is no other way out. Nevertheless it must be said that the
UN is the cover to legitimize war as if its consent equals moral rectitude and
justice. UN legitimation does not equate with moral justice, which is of a
higher order.
The Larger Picture
However, French and German positions could be placed in a larger context.
France under de Gaulle pursued an independent foreign policy especially towards
the US and the UK. France withdrew its troops from NATO command and chucked out
NATO headquarters (now installed in Belgium) from France. France developed its
own nuclear force de frappe while the UK obtained its polaris missiles from the
Americans.
The de Gaulle era has left a streak of independence in French foreign policy
irrespective of whatever party is in government although in recent years there
have been moves to reconcile positions with the US and UK - but Iraq is
polarizing Anglo-French, Franco-US relations it seems. France always feared the
domination of the United States. France always feared the domination of the
Anglo-Saxon world.
Germany after reunification is now also trying to claim a place in
international politics. Involving German troops in peace-keeping outside its
borders is an indication of this. Schroeder�s post- World War Two generation
don�t feel that Germany should continue to live in the shadow of the past.
Younger generations of Germans should not suffer from the sins of their
forefathers. This is perfectly correct. Hence, Germany is beginning to exert
itself on the world stage. Realpolitik dictated involvement of German troops in
the Balkans. In Afghanistan, the Germans with the Dutch have jointly taken over
command of the multinational force.
However, Germany cannot stop the Americans using bases in Germany in a war
against Iraq because of a post-World War Two agreement.
The German public will probably be happy to see the departure of American
troops from their soil after the Americans threatened to pull out their troops
from Germany when Germany, France and Belgium first made objections to sending
over NATO assets to defend Turkey.
It must be said that certain circles in the US and the UK always felt that
continental Europeans owed them something for liberating them from the Nazis.
Germany was indebted because it benefited much from the American Marshall Plan.
This is unappreciated by continental Europeans. History does play a part in the
background.
Exasperated
In a wider context, the Americans have become exasperated with the continental
Europeans. They were not burden-sharing with them. Their defence expenditures
kept falling after the Berlin Wall. The Americans had to intervene in the
Balkans because the Europeans could not get their act together.
Even more so they are making moves that one day they could become a European
army. There is in existence the Eurocorps, which is composed of battalions of
German-French troops. The EU now has its Rapid Reaction Force of 60,000
soldiers for peace-keeping and peace-making and to facilitate humanitarian
assistance.
Economically, disputes between the EU and the US have been increasing over the
years in and outside of the WTO. One was the Burton-Helms and D�Amato
legislation - which sought to impose sanctions on companies trading with Cuba,
Iran or Libya - and this affected European companies. There have been rows
over bananas, GMOs, hormones in beef etc. GATT-WTO negotiations over the years
have been filled with disputes. The US cannot stomach the fact of a Europe
being able to stand up to it. The Euro is now a challenge to the dollar too.
One cannot discount this larger background haunting the behaviour of the actors
in the UN Security Council.
There is no one answer to explain the French and German stand.
What�s in there for Asia? In this post Cold War era, we have that old Europe
which has got some punch to stand up in realpolitik to the US. It is high time
that Asian countries put on the back-burner European colonization and give
serious attention to the rising European Union if they want some manoeuvring
space from the US.
20 March 2003
: The war has started while the UN Security Council meets to hear the report of
Hans Blix and his team and the speeches of France, Germany, Russia, China etc.
We shall see whether these European allies (does the US still see them as
allies?) still stick to their guns. As events unfold on the ground we have to
see whether they stick it out in not sending in their troops to support the US,
UK and Australia principally, especially in the event that Saddam uses
biological or chemical weapons, which Hans Blix and his team are saying have
been destroyed or that Saddam does not have them now.
|
||||||||||||||||||
