Global Policy Forum

By Patrick E. Tyler

The last thing Europe wants is to be accused of going wobbly on Iraq. But the American talk of overthrowing Saddam Hussein by military force is raising alarms in European governments.

They are saying that any American miscalculation could undermine the international coalition that is fighting against terrorism, and the broad-based diplomacy needed to solve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Also, they fear that a drive against Iraq would drive a wedge between Britain and the rest of Europe.

An exasperated French official said in an interview in Paris on Friday that some of President Bush's conservative aides have become "obsessed about Iraq, while we are obsessed about achieving peace" between Israelis and Palestinians. "The important thing is to build a coalition for peace in the Middle East, not to build a coalition for war in Iraq," he said.

Washington's increasing talk of "regime change" is hindering diplomatic strategies to press Mr. Hussein to open his country again to United Nations inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction, this official said.

Those reports continued with a British newspaper report on Friday that Prime Minister Tony Blair is preparing for a significant call-up of military reserves in the fall and that he has pulled an armored division out of training exercises so it could be made available for special deployment later this year.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Blair said that Britain has gathered extensive evidence that "Saddam Hussein is still trying to develop weapons of mass destruction" and that Britain will publish the evidence "at the appropriate time." Last fall, the British government published the first detailed report that Osama bin Laden was directly linked to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, thus laying down an important predicate for the war in Afghanistan.

There is a striking agreement in European capitals that Mr. Hussein's government is dangerous and may need to be confronted one day. But any agreement breaks down over strategic priorities in the Middle East, which Europeans consider neighboring territory for trade and security. With America the lone superpower, they are ever prickly over any hint that the United States is ignoring their views or assuming, as one German official said, "that we are Euro wimps" when it comes to the use of force.

The European Union's top security official, Javier Solana, warned in an interview of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" of war against Iraq. "If Saddam Hussein thinks that this option is inexorable, why would he yield to inspectors?" Mr. Solana said.

He said it would be "very, very difficult" to sustain allied support for an assault against Iraq unless progress is first made toward creating a Palestinian state.

The debate with Washington reminded The Economist magazine of Churchill's confidence that, "You can always rely on America to do the right thing, once it has exhausted the alternatives." The right thing, for Europe, is to concentrate first on getting Israelis and Palestinians to desist in a conflict that is roiling emotions and shaking governments across the Arab world.

One European leader said King Abdullah II of Jordan came to him "in tears" over recent reports that the Americans were thinking of attacking Iraq from Jordanian air bases at a time when Arab frustration with the lack of progress on the peace front is soaring.

Besides the Middle East, Europeans point out that it is critical to achieve some stability in Afghanistan, where Western intervention has destroyed the Taliban, but has not assured that the interim government of Hamid Karzai will succeed as a stable replacement.

"There is a lot of understanding of U.S. impatience vis í  vis Iraq," said an adviser to Chancellor Gerhard Schrí¶der of Germany. "At the same time there is a tremendous amount of concern about anything that would destabilize the situation in the Middle East. Things are bad enough now and we don't need to worsen them."

European leaders, as well as most Arab states, welcomed the meetings just held by Arab foreign ministers and Western governments on how to improve security for Israel against suicide bombers while at the same time moving toward negotiations that would realize the vision of a Palestinian state within three years. Yet this American-backed initiative is barely a first step and will require months of intensive diplomacy to generate real progress, officials said.

"The timing is very narrow to get something going that changes the attitudes of Arab leaders and public opinion in the region," said Mr. Solana, especially if the United States wants to consider a military campaign in Iraq this winter. There is also the question of the Palestinian elections in January, he said. Would they take place during a buildup for war in Iraq and under Israeli occupation? "It's going to be very difficult to have elections under these conditions," he said.

Interviews with officials in London, Paris and Berlin revealed striking agreement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents the highest priority for Western governments, not only to end the carnage, but also to strengthen Western credibility in the face of the appeal of militant Muslims, who are exploiting the plight of the Palestinians to increase support for violence.

Mr. Blair's government, the United States' closest ally, surprisingly distanced itself from Mr. Bush's call for the removal of the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, saying that it would do business with whomever the Palestinians elect. A senior British official suggested that the United States should push harder for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians because otherwise "it may not be possible" to build support for action in Iraq.

"We need to get the show back on the road," he said, adding that "American energy" was essential to create the basis for new negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Britain, too, has distinguished its position on a change of government in Iraq from the Bush administration's. "We believe that regime change is desirable, but ending the threat of weapons of mass destruction is our objective — getting the inspectors back in," the British official said.

As for a possible military campaign, the official said that, "Obviously, planning is going on" and that European criticism of Britain's support for American military intervention would not affect British policy.

"Nobody wants to go into a war, but sometimes you can't avoid it," the official said. "We'll look after our own interests and if others are not as a resolute as us, then they're not, but we are not going to change our position because of it."

Britain's determination to remain shoulder to shoulder with the United States still leaves major questions hanging over the prospect of any campaign in Iraq.

In London, Paris and Berlin, the fundamental questions posed to Washington have been the same. Who would guarantee the territorial integrity of Iraq after a war? What government would replace Saddam Hussein's? Is America prepared to invade and occupy Iraq for a decade or more to protect a successor government from subversion and attack from Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria? Who would pay for the war?

"The questions have been asked, but the answers have not been given," a French official said.

"We will be directly hurt if there would be a miscalculation," said the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, in an interview in Berlin.

He expressed doubt that Mr. Hussein represented a strategic threat to Western security and indicated that he was more concerned about the threat to European security from a new war in the region that might further inflame the passions of Arabs who want to see an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

"Our people were hurt badly, wounded or burned to death, in Djerba," he said, referring to the German tourists who were victims of a truck bomb attack on a Tunisian island this spring.

"Millions of Germans," he added, "go to the Mediterranean summer and winter," and "we have millions of Muslim immigrants from the region."

In the end, he said: "It is a decision of the United States. I mean this will have results for all of us, but first of all it is a debate in the United States. It is not a debate here, not a decision here." But there was also a palpable strain of disappointment in Berlin over the failure of the United States to include its allies in that debate.

"After Sept. 11, we had the feeling there would be a more multilateral approach" to international affairs by the Bush administration, said the adviser to Mr. Schrí¶der. But more recently, "We have been seeing a very assertive administration on the move in so many areas that people on this side of the Atlantic come to the question whether really there is a new approach."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.