Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

• Share

When it comes to military interventions — whether in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq — the United States and its allies in the European Union have arrived at an effective if somewhat lopsided division of labor: the U.S. does most of the actual fighting (preferably from the air) and the E.U. keeps the peace. Or, to put it in less flattering terms, the Americans make the dinner, and the Europeans do the dishes. But with the Bush Administration serving up the prospect of a fresh invasion of Iraq, Europeans are increasingly alarmed at the size of the mess they might be asked to clean up.

Last week European opposition to an assault on Iraq was particularly shrill. In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder kicked off his re-election campaign by proclaiming in a speech in Hanover that "under my leadership, this country won't participate in any adventures [against Iraq]." And in Britain, everyone from trade union leaders to former military chiefs felt compelled to air their misgivings. Pax Christi, a Catholic group, submitted a petition signed by nearly 3,000 individuals to Prime Minister Tony Blair condemning any invasion as "immoral and illegal."

The timing of all this is odd, though, given that the U.S. has recently made a show of rhetorical deference to its allies — President Bush said last week that he "will be patient and deliberate and ... consult with our friends and allies" before proceeding against Iraq — and the consensus in Washington is that an invasion is not imminent anyway. If an attack is far off and the Americans have promised due consultation, why all the fuss?

Because European leaders are still feeling burned by the Bush Administration's rejection of multilateral initiatives like the Kyoto accords on global warming, treaties on biological and chemical weapons and the International Criminal Court. They want to register their objections to "regime change" in Iraq early, before an American military campaign becomes a fait accompli. "Much of the solidarity expressed for the U.S. after Sept. 11 has been whittled away," says one E.U. diplomat. "The standing of the Bush Administration is quite low in Europe, and many Europeans feel that a military attack on Iraq is yet another expression of American unilateralism." Be that as it may, the Europeans will have to do more than just say no to military adventures if they want to influence U.S. thinking. If there ever was a good time for a common E.U. foreign and security policy, this is it.

"Iraq is the Achilles heel of E.U. foreign policy," says Steven Everts of the Centre for European Reform in London. "The European debate has been too reactive: Do you or do you not support a U.S. attack?" Everts argues that instead of responding with horror to each new leaked report of U.S. battle plans, the E.U. should come up with alternatives of its own and inject these into Washington's deliberations.

The outlines of such a "European way" can already be discerned. And there may be more common ground between the U.S. and the E.U. than editorialists and ideologues on both sides of the Atlantic would have us think. Most American and European officials would agree, for example, that military action to take out Saddam Hussein might eventually be necessary. Where they disagree is over what should happen before and after such action. "There is complete agreement on the diagnosis," says another Brussels diplomat. "It is the cure about which we differ." A more proactive and coherent E.U. foreign policy could make a crucial difference in finding a cure for Saddam that's not worse than the disease itself.

There would likely be four main components to any European initiative, and the first priority would not be Iraq itself but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To Europeans, this is the clear and present danger in the Middle East. "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen as more threatening to the stability of the region than Saddam Hussein," says Michael Emerson, a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels. "The continuing violence puts more and more pressure on moderate pro-Western governments such as those in Jordan and Egypt. An attack on Iraq without solving the Israeli-Palestinian situation could lead to a takeover by Islamic fundamentalist factions in those countries."

Unfortunately, the E.U. has a poor record of mediation in the Middle East. It's not for lack of trying, though. Javier Solana, the E.U.'s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, has made several attempts to broker a cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians — to no avail. And in April German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer put forward proposals that could serve as a blueprint for fresh talks. Fischer's plan calls for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to appoint a caretaker prime minister until January, when newly elected officials would carry out the reforms necessary for the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of next year. That state would then complete negotiations with Israel over final borders and other issues by the end of 2005. Of course, there will be no progress in the Middle East without direct U.S. involvement. So why not link U.S. backing for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement with E.U. support for an eventual move on Saddam? In the meantime, continue the containment policy against Iraq.