Europe divides on Iraq

Columnist Ansar Mahmood Bhatti analyses the European divide on Iraq.

As many as thirteen EU candidate countries have endorsed a declaration by existing members warning Iraq that it had one last chance to disarm. This declaration has virtually divided Europe and has also caused a dent to the European Union integrity. This is perhaps for the first time ever since the existence of the European Union that such split mandate has come to fore on a certain issue. Two main countries in EU, Germany and France have been suggesting ways and means other than a full fledge to deal with the Iraq crisis. This is the view widely held by most of the countries the world over. There is no denying the fact that the Franco-German stand on this particular issue is very significant one and carries a lot of weightage as compared to the rest of the EU member countries. Therefore, it seems, as if the will of these two nations will prevail upon at the end of the day despite the disturbing fact of EU’s clear cut division.
The internal European rift started in January when 8 European countries including Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom decided to support overtly all US moves to dislodge the Saddam government. The important point is that among these countries, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary are the EU candidate countries destined to join the club by 2004. Germany and France have openly criticized these nations for siding with America. This is another development which is likely to cast negative impact on the future enlargement of the European Union when the candidature of all the candidate countries still requires ratification by all member countries including Germany and France.
French President Jacques Chirac, few days ago, had categorically denounced the European countries support to US, a step that has invoked scathing criticism from all the European countries except Germany. A Czech minister said, ‘France appeared to be bullying the candidate countries, while Romanian President Ion Illescu said, “the French president’s remarks were “inappropriate”.
Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld said, “Poland has a right to decide what is in its own good and France should in its turn consider it with respect”. Likewise, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair backed the small nations, declaring that all countries should be free to speak their minds. What probably angered more the EU countries were President Chirac remarks about Greece, which is currently holding the EU rotating presidency, that the decision by the EU Greek Presidency to exclude the future members from the emergency EU meeting was not appropriate. Greece has taken these remarks as interference in the EU Presidency’s priorities and decisions. Normally, no EU member country comes out with dissenting views on any of the decisions taken by the EU incumbent President therefore, this development, if taken in the context of Europe’s division on Iraq, seems quite normal.
It was after summit in Brussels that Mr Chirac accused the candidates, who had signed letters backing the US position and termed that childish and irresponsible behaviour. “It is not well-brought-up behaviour. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet,” Mr. Chirac added. He had warned the candidate countries that their position could be dangerous because the EU’s decision to accept 10 new members in 2004 still had to be ratified by existing members. He said, Romania and Bulgaria – currently due to join the EU in 2007 – could not have chosen a better way to spoil their chances of joining the club. This is indeed a clear-cut warning from the potential member of the EU and will lead to straining of French-Romania relations.
Last week’s EU summit in Brussels, however, tried to bridge some of the gaps dividing them on policy towards Iraq. Ten countries that supported US include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Poland, this time decided to keep a mum. The declaration said, Iraq must disarm fully and completely, and that force would be used as a last resort. It also said, war was not inevitable, and that UN weapons inspectors should be given more time. The compromise was a synthesis of the more hawkish position taken by the UK, Spain and Italy and the dovish position taken by France and Germany. Most of the candidate countries have sided with the hawks, promoting US Defence Secretary to compare the New Europe favourably with what he called the Old Europe. Among the politicians who lined up to criticize Mr. Chirac, Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Lubmir Ivanov said his remarks would not help to create unity in the Security Council. The Chairman of the Hungarian Parliament’s EU integration committee said “No one can oblige us to be silent”.
But, the most vocal criticism came from Slovak Foreign Minister Eduard Kukan who said, “I do not comprehend why Mr. Chirac is not criticizing Italy, Spain or Portugal. After all, they said exactly the same. I do not like it, and I do not think this way of marking us out is justified”. Estonian foreign ministry spokeswoman interpreted Chirac’s remarks in a different way. “All we would say is that the more plurality of opinion in Europe, the better it is. Our country and other countries have a right to express our opinions”.
All said and done. The prevalent crisis situation seems to be becoming more and more grim with remote chances of any rapprochement. The division of east and west would, in no way, serve any purposes. It can only put the future of Europe in jeopardy. The enlargement process may also witness some sort of difficulties. What is direly needed at this particular juncture is that the entire European countries adopt a unanimous approach on Iraq as well as other issues. The dissenting approach could only lead to disintegration and fragmentation, which is of course against the very spirit of the European Union. The smaller countries are equally justified in their assumption that they have every right to have their own opinions on certain matters but when you are a Union you ought to exercise unity in all spheres of life and on all issues.
Dissension should not be taken as belligerence or defiance and every country should be given due importance. Above all, the German-Franco decision on the Iraqi situation seems to be based on logic hence there seems no harm in supporting that.
The Iraq crisis has also caused split among the NATO countries particularly after the veto prerogative used by Germany, France and Belgium on the troops deployment issue. This development is alarming in the sense that European Union’s own rapid reaction force is very much in the making. Tussle among the NATO countries may also harm the future of that force, which according to many, is in direct conflict with NATO. The primary task of the reaction force has been defined as a crisis management body but its mandate will definitely go beyond its defined role when this outfit comes into existence. Its success would largely depend on the unity among the European countries, which at the moment, seems in a shambles.