The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Europe Can Overrule US on Iraq, Mideast



Dear list members,


FYI.


Best

andreas


            A N U
Assyrian News Watch
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Assyrian Chaldean Syriac


---------------------------------------------------


The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 25, 2002

Europe Can Overrule US on Iraq, Mideast
by William Pfaff

PARIS -- TENSION AND distrust are now overriding factors in Washington's
relations with its European allies. The initial European response to last
September's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington - a tightening of
alliance links - has been wasted by the United States.

The US press is given mild and conciliatory messages about the underlying
firmness of trans-Atlantic cooperation in the war against terrorism and the
unimportance of European criticisms, but these reassurances are not borne
out by conversations with European leaders or in analyses in the mainstream
European press. Criticism and apprehension about the consequences of US
policies prevail. In private there is consistent criticism. In public,
nothing serious is said or done by the European governments.

It might seem that Americans could therefore ignore what the Europeans
think or say in the belief that European objections to US policies make no
difference. The Europeans will eventually fall in line. They have no real
alternative. This time, that might be a dangerously complacent conclusion,
because the Europeans do have alternatives, explosive ones. They could
overturn the post-Cold War alignment tomorrow and do so to their own
probable political and economic profit.

They do not themselves understand their power. Few among Europe's leaders
seem to grasp that if the European NATO governments and public indeed
object to a US attack on Iraq, they can prevent it, or block it for many
months, while accomplishing a transformation in the Middle Eastern
situation.

Few understand that the European Union does not have to wait until it has
built up its feeble military forces in order to have an independent world
policy with independent international influence to rival that of the United
States. The world today is not one in which military forces are the most
effective means of power.
This is already evident in the commercial and economic relations of
Brussels between Washington.

Washington cannot dismiss European corporate strength and economic
competition. It is compelled to deal with the European Union as a powerful
trade rival to whom it has to make concessions.

The same thing could be accomplished in political relations if the European
NATO allies, or even some of them, were to take a simple but decisive step:
reaffirm that, as its founding treaty states, NATO is an alliance of
independent and politically equal countries.

The Europeans could refuse US use of NATO's European assets in an attack on
Iraq on the grounds that such an attack does not fall under the agreements
on countering terrorism that produced NATO's antiterrorism resolution of
last September.

To do this would not destroy NATO. It might even save it by recreating in
it a political equilibrium. Sooner or later the European powers will have
to deal with the consequences of US unilateralism, and if the European
public feels strongly about Iraq (and indeed about the Israeli-Palestine
situation), now could be the best occasion to act.

The fundamental reason that NATO will not be destroyed is that the United
States needs NATO more than Europe does.

NATO no longer serves to protect Europe from any threat. The threat is
gone. NATO provides the indispensable material and strategic infrastructure
for US military and strategic deployments throughout Europe, Eurasia, the
Middle East, and Africa.

NATO gives the United States a military presence, usually with
extraterritorial privileges, in every one of the alliance member countries
and in most of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries that are members
of the Partnership for Peace.

Washington needs NATO because without NATO the United States has no
legitimate claim to a say in European internal matters. Richard Holbrooke
once said (to some European indignation) that the United States is a
European power. So it is, so long as NATO exists.

A polite mutiny by some or all of the European NATO countries on the
question of war with Iraq would certainly produce what Saddam Hussein might
describe as the mother of all trans-Atlantic rows, but in the end the
United State would back down.

After such a mutiny, NATO would be a different alliance. After that, the
European allies would certainly never again have reason to complain that
Washington was paying no attention to them. But do the Europeans really
want this? Or is it all talk?

William Pfaff is a syndicated columnist.
 Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company



_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]