Transatlantic VISIONS

Transatlantic Citizen to Citizen Dialogue
by Tim Erickson: President of Politalk 13/02/2003

Citizens and civic leaders from across Europe and the United States are in the process of discussing and debating the possible war against Iraq in a unique online forum, titled - Iraq: Inspections or Invasion ( http://www.politalk.com/topics/Iraq/ ).

It is impossible in this short space to adequately summarize the range of opinions that have been expressed in that forum, by a very diverse and opinionated group of concerned transatlantic citizens. However, I can summarize several emerging themes and discuss the problems/issues that they pose.

Let's start with the sudden concern over the credibility of UN resolutions by individuals who normally shun the United Nations and fear US entanglements in international legal institutions. US proponents of military action are continually seeking to justify their policy position, based upon the notion that military action is essential if we are to maintain the credibility of international institutions like the United Nations. Some examples:

"If the UN does not choose to enforce its decrees, then they are meaningless paper…"

"International Law only has meaning, if the UN worked. Right now it seems to be heading the way of the League of Nations."

One critic of US policies found this silver lining in the current debate - "It seems to me that one of the more notable--and beneficial--results of the antiwar and slow-down movements ……. has been the fact that even those who most strongly favor attacking Iraq now base their arguments on 'the importance of international law.' "

While this argument appears to be designed to appeal to a European audience that is more trusting that than most Americans are of international institutions, Europeans simply don't believe it. Europeans are quick to respond with accusations of US disregard for UN resolutions critical of Israeli actions in Palestine.

For example, "The US has for many years ignored UN resolutions on Israel too, and indeed could be said to be in material breach of these resolutions by continuing to take actions which support the occupation of the West Bank."

I suggest that Americans take a closer look at the US commitment to international law and the moral authority of the United Nations before offering this argument, it simply appears to be disingenuous and is certainly not very convincing to a European audience.

Looking back across the Atlantic, I'm struck by what appears to many Americans to be a very sudden and unexpected interest in the potential for weapons inspections, on behalf of European governments and the public. Here is an example:

"The aim was to bring UN inspections back into Iraq. Therefore, for now, Hussein is under control, the Inspections work, but need more time."

The problem that many Americans have with this argument is twofold. First of all, the fact that weapons inspections are only taking place in response to the imminent threat of attack. The perception for most Americans is that it required a credible threat of attack to get not only the attention of Saddam Hussein, but also of European governments and public opinion.

And secondly, most US supporters of military action fear that once the immediate thread of attack is withdrawn, both Iraq and Europe will loose interest in the inspections regime and Iraq will once again have free reign to pursue whatever plans they have for weapons of mass destruction.

Both the issue of international law and that of weapons inspections, lead us back to another theme of the online discussion - the question of leadership. Several of the US participants have expressed a common US frustration, which is that the international community is facing a moment of truth, during which we can either face down the international terrorist threat or live in its shadow for decades to come. These advocates of military action, believe that past failures to prevent genocide and other international atrocities have been failures of leadership. An unwillingness of anyone to take the initiative and deal with a leader or country that is posing a threat.

"I feel that the world has had issues like this before, and that from a lack of strong leadership, evil thugs have killed millions."

This issue of leadership is one that hangs over the transatlantic debate and fuels European resentments, as shown here:

"I think that this demonstrates a serious and profound problem with the US foreign policy. The US projects itself as the leader, as being better, of being able to sit in judgement of others, as almost religiously seeing itself as following the Only True Way."

And finally, this leads me to one final theme that has come out of our discussion and reflects the broader transatlantic debate, the issue of Good vs. Evil. It has been well documented by others how much the rhetoric of good vs. evil is used by proponents of military action from the President of the United States on down to citizen supporters. This rhetoric has been apparent in our discussion as well.

"I do not like war, but I understand that good has to take a stand against evil, and follow through."

Or

"Saddam's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is an unacceptable risk to my kids." "To me, it is irrelevant if he has any Weapons of Mass Destruction on hand now, or has hidden them, or not. He has made his policy clear, and I need he and his state structure out of power so my family can be safe."

The internet provides an exciting new opportunity for Europeans and Americans to dialogue on a citizen to citizen level. Hopefully, these dialogues will contribute towards a greater understanding of our respective views on issues of mutual concern and help to prevent a further eroding of the US/EU relationship.

Tim Erickson is the founder and president of www.politalk.com and is the moderator for the Transatlantic Perpectives series of online forums. He can be reached at tim@politalk.com.

copyright TIES