|
France's vow to veto a motion authorizing war on Iraq brings closer a nightmare scenario in which the United States and Britain launch an attack without backing from the United Nations (UN), plunging the Atlantic alliance and the European Union (EU) into deep crisis.
Even before the first shots have been fired, the collateral damage to institutions that have been the foundations of Western stability since 1945 -- the UN, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and EU -- is growing daily.
EU diplomats are clinging to a slim hope that Washington and London will compromise and permit more time for Iraq to meet specific disarmament goals set out by UN weapons inspectors.
But with US President George W. Bush seemingly set on war with or without a new UN resolution, that looks increasingly improbable.
"The most explosive scenario would be if the United States and Britain get the nine Security Council votes needed for a resolution, France and maybe Russia veto it, and they go to war anyway," a senior EU diplomat said.
French President Jacques Chirac made clear his determination on Monday to exercise a veto, but said it might not be necessary since the war camp did not have nine votes for the moment.
Such an outcome would undermine the authority of the UN and tear at the fabric of NATO and the EU.
Chirac sought to play down the potential damage to transatlantic relations, stressing the common values, history and interests which Paris and Washington shared.
But France's active campaigning to persuade wavering Security Council members to thwart Washington's drive is bound to leave lasting scars, most analysts say.
The Iraq crisis has split Europe into a pro-American camp led by Tony Blair of Britain, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and an anti-war camp led by Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Most of the 10 candidate countries due to join the EU next year have sided with Washington, drawing a bitter French rebuke and raising the prospect of a more pro-American tilt in an enlarged 25-nation bloc.
EU diplomats say several key European leaders are barely on speaking terms and mutual distrust runs deep.
Disunity over Iraq has effectively neutered EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and risks making a mockery of current efforts to draft an ambitious constitution for an enlarged EU and build a closer common foreign and security policy.
There is growing talk that next week's summit may delay for several months the conclusion of the Convention on the Future of Europe, due to present a draft constitution in June.
European Commission President Romano Prodi told the European Parliament on Tuesday that the Iraq crisis should spur Europeans to do more to provide for their own security.
"We cannot go on with this European schizophrenia that consists of expecting the union and the integration process to provide prosperity and development while relying on the United States to guarantee our security," he said in a state of the union speech.
Prodi said the EU must guard against two temptations: "One temptation would be to build Europe in opposition to the United States (and) the second temptation ... is to focus solely on the dissension within the union."
Some EU politicians say they are worried the United States, which has backed closer European integration since the 1940s, may now actively oppose a common EU security and defence policy, seen as potentially hostile.
That in turn could have longer-term implications for transatlantic economic relations and world trade liberalization talks, pessimists in Brussels fret.
British Prime Minister Blair, whose political fate may hinge on the outcome of the Iraq crisis, said rifts and veto threats among the Western allies could send Iraqi President Saddam Hussein the message that he was "off the hook."
"The only people who will ever gain from countries being pushed into a position where they choose either for the transatlantic alliance or for Europe ... are the bad people," he said after meeting Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase.
"Dividing Europe from America, an alliance that has served us well for over half a century, I think would be a very, very dangerous thing to do."
(China Daily March 13, 2003)
|
