 |
|
Some consequences for EU-U.S. relations of the war in Iraq
|
by Nicole Schley,
Senior Research Fellow, Center for Applied Policy Research, Munich.
22/04/2003 |
 |
The
transatlantic crisis is reality. And it has deepened with
the differences of views over the question of attacking
Iraq and changing the regime there. In Europe Iraq was for
a long time not seen as the main aggressor and the main
threat to the western world. And after all, the United States
has failed to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September
11, 2001. So three main criticisms have been stated by the
Europeans:
-
Europeans
thought that attempts to change the regime in Iraq could
well lead to an Iraqi use of biological and chemical weapons,
and therefore favoured a policy of containment.
-
Pre-emptive
military action was also considered to be against international
law since it violates national sovereignty and sets a
bad international example.
-
A greater American commitment to solving the Israel-Palestine
problem would have been a bigger contribution to stability
in the Middle East region and would not have further developed
anti-western feelings in the region.
These differences in strategic thinking between the U.S.
and the EU have contributed to the widening of the gap
in the transatlantic relations. And this lack currently
seems to develop into a complete and mutual misunderstanding
of foreign policy approaches of the respective partner,
especially when it comes to the use of force.
The
post-war situation
Since the war in Iraq is almost over now the question to
deal with mainly is the question of a new order in and for
Iraq. The need to implement security, prosperity and good
government is undisputed. This at first sight seems to be
a perfect starting point for a renewal of transatlantic
relations and for an overcoming of the deep rift between
the two sides. Americans and Europeans could share the task
of rebuilding Iraq - with the help of the Iraqi people and
the international community, represented by the international
organisations - and could thus base the relations on a clear-cut
division of labour. But do the two partners want that? Is
there still the will on both sides to mend the relationship?
Or does the U.S. think it can do it alone whereas the Europeans
think that their task lies in humanitarian aid and that's
it?
Concerning
the future of the transatlantic relationship, basically
much will depend on the answers to three questions:
-
What will be found with regard to weapons of mass destruction
(or components) in Iraq?
-
Do these weapons constitute a sufficient threat to warrant
the use of force?
-
.
How will the Iraqi people react to their liberation from
Saddam Hussein? Will joy or resentment dominate the scene?
If
the war could - in retrospective - be justified and if the
Iraqi people mainly applauded the American presence in their
country, this would be a completely different situation
for the transatlantic partners than a situation in which
no weapons were to be found and the Iraqi people mainly
resented the presence of US soldiers. In the first case
the European standing would be rather weak and the US could
even further establish its role as the world's only superpower.
In the latter case the US will probably be forced to return
to a multilateral approach - including when it comes to
the control of the Iraqi oil.
Overall, the war in Iraq is a defining event for the future
of transatlantic relations that will trigger a variety of
consequences that cannot be predicted today. One of them
can be huge geopolitical consequences of a successful military
outcome in Iraq: These consequences can be positive and
they can also be negative in nature, meaning they can be
understood as a new system of deterrence by rogue states,
or the pre-emptive nature of the war provides a dangerous
precedent for other states to use force to change what is
considered to be a threatening regime. Another geopolitical
consequence could be the triggering of counteraction by
states like Russia - maybe together with some EU member
states - or China to create a strong counterweight to such
a strong superpower. Seen like that, this war would definitely
not solve the transatlantic crisis but only make it worse
by dividing Europe even further.
What
can be done to reduce transatlantic tensions?
Europeans urgently need a strategic debate about their future
role in world politics in general and about their approach
to the transatlantic relationship in particular. The single
European nation states have all lost their role as a world
power a long time ago. But instead of compensating this
loss by developing a European stance to foreign policy,
they still act as nation states. Only if Europeans are willing
to think as Europeans, the EU'S Common Foreign, Security
and Defense Policy will have the relevance that is necessary
for the EU to make an impact as an international actor.
As for Americans: The US needs to reconsider its role as
hegemonic superpower. Even the US could - during the Iraq
war - not have dealt with a second source of crisis if the
situation n North Korea had gotten out of hands. It cannot
be the world's policeman and free all countries from dictators.
It does not have the money for it and will certainly loose
the people's commitment to waging a similar preventive war
against Iran and/or North Korea. So the country's course
should be toward multilateral international planning and
decision-making - as opposed to multilateral action with
changing coalitions of the willing that only joined the
party after it had already begun.
Under
these two prerogatives, I still have this vision that transatlantic
relations can be repaired, that the US and the EU still
have a lot in common and share basis values and interests.
It is now a question of political will and of communication
abilities. Only if both sides understand the necessity to
commonly meet the challenges of the future will this relationship
survive. Otherwise the break will be there forever.
copyright
TIES
|
|
|
|
|