Hegemony generates opposition. And American hegemonial behaviour vis-à-vis Iraq generates Europe's opposition. In all Europe? No, unfortunately not. Europeans are divided over the Iraq question and more general over the features of their common foreign security and defense policy. Is this divide a permanent one? Where is the uniting factor working towards a common position?

The EU Convent
The EU crisis over Iraq has urged some members of the EU Convent that is currently working out a European Constitution to come up with the proposal to create a strong European foreign minister. Furthermore they demand - and thereby following a German-French proposal - to generate a European foreign policy stance by majority vote. In view of this crisis the EU Convent states that in order for Europe to become a strong partner in the transatlantic relationship, reforms have to be far-reaching and courageous.

The European Parliament
The European Parliament, which of course has only consultative powers in the European Union's foreign and security policy, on January 30 issued a resolution saying that pre-emptive strikes would not be in accordance with international law. The resolution was backed by 287 members of the Parliament, 209 voted against it. This resolution is just another expression of clear disarray between the 15 member states of the EU on how to respond to the U.S. policy on Iraq and the U.S. plans to attack Iraq.

Open letter of eight
This disarray has later on been underlined by an open letter signed by eight European leaders expressing support for the United States. Tony Blair and José Maria Aznar have initiated this letter which was signed by Britain, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Spain, as well as by the accession candidates Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. In opposition to the European Parliament resolution, that stated that the violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 identified so far do not justify the launch of a war against Iraq, the letter of eight - although expressing the wish to pursue the UN route - said: "We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate [UN] resolutions." By this the letter expressed a strong opposition to France and Germany who are leading the anti-war campaign in the European Union. These two are backed by the EU's High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, who said that the case for war is not yet made and that there could be no reason to launch war because of the "dictates of logistics or the weather". And interestingly enough, the population of the eight countries, according to a poll by EOS Gallup Europe are strongly - mostly by two thirds of the population - against the US taking military action without a UN formal agreement.
The disarray continues. At a press conference after the EU's extraordinary summit devoted to the Iraq crisis on February 17, 2003, Jacques Chirac strongly criticized the pro-American policy pursued by the Central European candidate states (especially those who signed the letter of eight) where not only did he say that "they lost a good opportunity to be quiet" but also warned especially Poland that this behavior might obstruct the ratification of the Accession Treaty. This provoked sharp responses. Another dividing line?

Germany, France and Belgium
Meanwhile the German Government urged its partners to develop a common European position on Iraq, with Schröder's spokesman, Bela Anda, stating that the "strength of the Union lies in its common position". The "logic of peace" stance with which especially France, Germany and Belgium have initiated the debate amongst the European partners has been underlined by millions of people peacefully demonstrating in several European cities.

NATO, the European Council and a Common European Position
On February 16, 2003, the NATO Defense Planning Committee came to an agreement on steps to help defend Turkey from a possible military attack by Iraq. The DPC decided on the implementation of a number of defensive measures, among them preventive deployment to Turkey of NATO AWACs and supporting logistics, Patriot missiles, and biological and chemical defense equipment and has thereby probably once more defended its existence as a military alliance. This agreement has marked the beginning of serious negotiations toward a common European policy. The united European stance sounds like this: The EU foreign ministers called for UN weapons inspections to continue and on Iraq to fully comply with UN resolutions. The European Council, after its extraordinary meeting on Iraq on February 17, only one day after the NATO agreement, concluded: "The Union's objective for Iraq remains full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions, in particular resolution 1441. We want to achieve this peacefully. It is clear that this is what the people of Europe want." And further on: "We reiterate our full support for the ongoing work of the UN inspectors… However, inspections cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of full Iraqi cooperation. Baghdad should have no illusions: it must disarm and cooperate immediately and fully. Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully. The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community…"

Conclusion
The divide between the European partners is by far not insolvable. Despite the ongoing crisis among the member states over how to deal with Iraq, they have come up with this common position which is based on the "war as last resort only-principle" and thus stated that they are still a Union. This is a clear signal to the world and to the EU's allies: Europe is still united. The hope now remains that one day the European Union will speak with one voice from the very beginning - and tries to do without embarrassing quarrels and power politics.