18 February 1998
EUROPE ON IRAQ: THERE GOES THE COMMON EUROPEAN POLICY
The debate in Western and Central-Eastern European countries over the best approach for defusing the Iraqi crisis has made it painfully clear--to the European media, at least--that, once again, the divisions among European Union and NATO member and aspirant nations prevent them from speaking as one. "The crisis," London's conservative Times declared, "made a mockery of the EU's attempts to adopt a single voice abroad...as France and Britain have chosen different camps, with the other EU states strung out between their two positions." Observers fretted that this failure to present a common front by countries torn between promoting a more assertive Europe and preserving the U.S. "shield" for the continent continues to reinforce what some see as a U.S. tendency to unilateral decision-making on the international stage. Paris's privately run Europe One Radio lamented, "As long as there is no...common interest, international policy in diplomacy, commerce and industry will be led by the U.S." The press found a similar "cacophony" when NATO allies or would-be allies debated their answer to U.S. requests for political and military support should the U.S. and Britain decide to use air strikes against Baghdad. These were highlights in commentary: BRITAIN, GERMANY AND FRANCE--European analysts chastised London for rushing to Washington's side despite holding the EU presidency. French ones bemoaned the blow inflicted on the Franco-German entente by German Chancellor Kohl's expressions of "full support" for the U.S. Right-of-center Le Figaro of Paris complained that Mr. Kohl acted "without a thought for France and the risk of isolating it." German pundits divided on the wisdom of their government's action: Some heartily endorsed it, others deplored it as half-hearted and others rebuked Mr. Kohl for his "unconditional loyalty to the U.S." when Iraqi lives are in danger. THE MEDITERRANEAN--The bulk of available Italian comment disapproved strongly of the "disconcerting" position adopted at first by Rome during a visit by Russian President Yeltsin. "The Prodi government...has de facto chosen the foreign policy of Russia versus the policy (of) America," charged centrist, influential La Stampa. Spanish dailies split on the Aznar government's decision to authorize U.S. use of the Moron air base. Portuguese publications objected to Lisbon's "involving" the country "in a military adventure" or suggested that Portugal at least should gain some advantage from the deal. Turkish writers were the most anxious about an attack, speculating on the emergence of a Kurdish state were Iraq to fall apart. HEADING NORTH--Although there were forceful statements from Danish, Dutch and Swedish opinion-makers arguing that their nations should stand by the U.S., there were many calls in these countries and in Norway warning of the risks of military action and the importance of exhausting all diplomatic avenues before resorting to strikes. CENTRAL-EASTERN EUROPE--Despite concerns about the sacrifices entailed in, as one Polish journalist put it, "sending our boys to Arab sands," articles in this region emphasized the link between a strong show of support for the U.S. and each country's bid to join NATO. Top-circulation Nepszabadsag of Budapest, for instance, insisted, "Hungary now has to prove that its territory, air space and air bases are all part of the Western military Alliance." This survey is based on 67 reports from 19 countries, Feb. 7-18. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below EUROPE GERMANY: "Kohl Was Right To Promise Full Support" Christoph Bertram noted on the front page of left-of-center weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (2/12), "Chancellor Kohl was right to promise full support of the FRG and to promise the use of German military bases. This is evidence of Bonn's dual interest in cooperating closely with the United States and in maintaining the authority of the UN. Without the willingness of the United States to use force, the United Nations would be helpless towards the dictator.... But even this is no guarantee of Saddam's future good behavior. Partners in Europe expect the United States not only to establish a credible military threat, but also a conclusive strategy (for the region)." "German Behavior Is Embarrassing" Centrist Offenbach Post (2/12) judged: "Yesterday, Foreign Minister Kinkel again promised 'absolute German solidarity' for a military strike against Iraq. But the disillusionment followed immediately: No military, no financial contributions and no material supplies. Kinkel acted according to the slogan: Solidarity yes, but not too much, please.... The German behavior is embarrassing." "From Bonn: Moral Support" In the view of centrist Badische Zeitung of Freiburg (2/12), "Foreign Minister Kinkel's clarification leaves little doubt that the Bonn government is distancing itself (from the United States) and continuing to pin its hopes on a peaceful diplomatic settlement of the conflict--along with the majority of Germans. The government is not even willing to offer financial assistance. How should it explain to a detached public in an election year that there is no governmental money available anywhere in the country, but all of a sudden billions of DM for an adventure in the Middle East? The Americans will have to accept the fact that Bonn will only offer moral support against the dictator in the Gulf." "Kohl Created Confusion" Right-of-center Allgemeine Zeitung of Mainz (2/12) concluded: "Chancellor Kohl created confusion with his statement at the Munich security conference that he supported the United States in the Iraq crisis. Has the chancellor promised the use of German air force bases or has he not? Or did his promise only refer to U.S. bases on German territory, as FDP leader Solms interpreted? If there is a military strike against Iraq, the question of German engagement will be raised again anyway. If the issue is the protection of Israel from poisonous gas and other attacks, the Bonn government will help as it did in 1991. We must always remember the fact that the government must make up for a many things which unscrupulous German merchants made possible in Iraq's rearmament." "There Is A Need For Explanations" Ewald Stein said in an editorial in business Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (2/10), "Of course, the Americans are right when they say that Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is not only a U.S., but a global problem. But if this is the case, then the solution to this question must be looked for on the international level.... Such difficulties are no justification for Washington to determine all by itself what has to be done, thus degrading the Europeans and others to compliant lackeys." "That Old European Problem" Walter Roller observed in an editorial in right-of-center Augsburger Allgemeine (2/10), "The Iraq crisis has again revealed an old European problem. The EU thinks that it is mature enough for a European currency, but in foreign and security policy questions it is unable to find a common policy." "A Few Threats, And Kohl Folded?" Right-of-center Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung (2/9) pointed out, "A few rebuffs were directed at the Europeans and a remark that the United States might reduce its engagement in NATO a bit were enough to make the German chancellor fall to his knees. This unconditional loyalty to the United States, which the chancellor demonstrated in Munich...again made clear that Helmut Kohl is not willing or able to raise critical questions regarding Washington's policy nor to formulate an independent German position. And this is even true when the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are in danger." "Embarrassing For The French" Right-of-center Thueringer Allgemeine of Erfurt (2/9) concluded, "Chancellor Kohl's move is embarrassing for his French neighbors.... Bonn politicians have now created the impression that they want to play the role of model pupil." BRITAIN: "Iraq Drives A Wedge Between EU Partners" According to the conservative Times (2/11): "As the clock ticks towards a possible strike on Iraq, President Saddam Hussein can already claim one victory: The crisis has caused friction between France and Germany and made a mockery of the European Union's attempts to adopt a single voice abroad. The Brussels foreign policy machine, bolstered in the Treaty of Amsterdam and now under London's chairmanship, has been kept out of the Iraqi crisis as France and Britain have chosen different camps, with the other EU states strung out between their two positions." "Please Spare Us A Choice" An editorial in the independent Financial Times held (2/10), "On the most burning international issue of the moment, on which the United States is urgently looking to its allies for support, the EU has yet to find, or even to seek, its collective voice. What price the much touted common foreign and security policy?... Tony Blair decided it was an opportunity to cement Britain's special relationship with the United States, and for himself to earn the undying gratitude of Bill Clinton. The French, for their part, would see no virtue in a common European stand on such an issue unless it demonstrated Europe's capacity to think and act for itself rather than tag along behind the United States. Other EU members are strung out uncomfortably between those two positions. The dearest wish of most of them is to be spared having to make a choice." FRANCE: "France's Last Attempt To Avoid A War Against Iraq" According to Mouna Naim, writing in left-of-center Le Monde(2/18), "France is the only Western country to be directly involved in finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis, and for the first time it isn't being criticized by either the United States or Great Britain.... Paris is also the major force pushing for Kofi Annan to visit Baghdad...a visit which is considered to be 'necessary' by Hubert Vedrine.... Paris has kept Washington informed every step of the way, and its initiatives are appreciated by most Middle Eastern countries.... Washington and London have apparently understood that the differences with Paris are more about the method than the goal. In other words, France is not looking to circumvent the Security Council resolutions but to convince Iraq to abide by them." "Turkey: A Reluctant U.S. Ally" Musa Akdemir commented in left-of-center Liberation (2/12): "As a key NATO ally and a close Washington partner, Turkey feels unsure of its role in the military strike against Iraq that will probably follow.... After much hesitation, Turkey's prime minister admitted that Turkey was not neutral and that it had chosen sides: 'Iraq must respect UN decisions.'... Caught in the middle, between Washington's wishes and the fear of seeing a replay of the Kurdish movement, Turkey is from the outset, 'the big loser of a strike and its consequences' says a retired Turkish diplomat." "French Politicians Largely Uninterested In Iraqi Crisis" Isabelle de Gaulmyn wrote in Catholic La Croix (2/12): "With their heads bent over regional election issues and Corsica, the French political class seems not at all interested in international issues such as Iraq.... On the political left, only former Prime Minister Michel Rocard has taken a firm stand in favor of a strike." "European Cacophony" Left-of-center Le Monde's editorial remarked (2/11): "On Monday, Secretary Albright said that to understand Europe 'you must either be a genius or French.'... The EU's bizarre attitude in the Iraqi crisis, where each nation has its own position, makes for easy criticism.... Germany's discreet attitude is easily understood: Its alliance to Washington is traditional. What is more troubling is Tony Blair's clamoring allegiance to the U.S. position, forgetting that Great Britain holds the presidency of the EU.... This is one more example that proves that a joint European foreign policy is still a dream, and that the only reality is the euro." "Lack Of Common Interests Divides Europe" Alain Duhamel told his audience on privately run Europe One Radio (2/10): "Behind Europe's division...there are two different issues. On the one hand, there is the question of the Iraqi issue, with its corollaries of Arab policy and oil interests, which vary from one nation to another, and which put the United States and France at odds. There is also the question of Europe's position toward the United States. There are those, like France, who wish for a European Europe with its own defense, and hope to stand as a distinct and equal partner of the United States. Then there are those who consider that the protective shield of the United States grants America a role of its own.... As long as there is no common analysis or common interests, international policy in diplomacy, commerce and industry will be led by the United States." "Kohl Added Insult To Injury" Jean-Paul Picapier wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (2/9): "Without a thought for France and the risk of isolating it, Kohl added insult to injury when he said that Germany held a majority position in the West. Chancellor Kohl cut short any possibility for debate when he insisted on Germany's 'special responsibility toward Israel.'... Paris contends that Germany's decision is rather more linked to its desire for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council." "Clarifications On France's Iraqi Stand" Jacques Malmassari declared in right-of-center France-Soir (2/7): "There is no doubt that France is a friend of the United States and that it has not forgotten the sacrifices made twice in this century to save France from foreign occupation. But we must be clearer on the Iraqi crisis. We cannot accept having our request for a more appropriate response to Iraq be considered as support of the Iraqi regime." ITALY: "We All Make Mistakes" A commentary by foreign policy expert Boris Biancheri, former Italian ambassador to the United States, ran in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/12): "The British behave as though the rules of foreign policy and European security did not exist.... It is as if they told each other--we have an excellent, tested, professional military force which we want to use.... But the UK also holds the presidency of the EU at the moment. Therefore, it was its duty, besides being within its power, to activate all the necessary mechanisms to formulate a common line agreed upon by European nations.... Italy has also made its mistakes: First, with its long silence and then with a rather disconcerting position, which emerged after the meeting with Yeltsin.... We should have said clearly from the very beginning that if the resources of diplomacy failed...then Italy would be, without hesitation and ambiguity, on the side of the United States." "The Italian Pendulum" Renzo Foa commented in PDS (leading government party) L'Unita(2/12): "It is not really easy to understand the line that the Italian center-left government has been following towards the new Iraqi crisis during recent days. The wavering and swerving (of the Italian government) is clear to everyone's eye. Criticism by leading mass media of the joint Prodi-Yeltsin communique was very explicit. The prime minister's explanation which followed was clear-cut, almost a disavowal. That is to say that the image that the prime minister projects to the Italian public, as well as to our European partners and Atlantic Allies, first and foremost the United States, is marked with uncertainty.... It cannot be entirely excluded that, among other causes, the current indecision of the center-left government is due...to the chilly atmosphere with Washington caused by the Cermis ski-lift accident and to a sense of anti-Americanism that creeps in every now and then.... Let's hope that Prodi's and Dini's statements will mark the beginning of a more stable attitude. Let's hope that foreseeable polemics raised by Communist and other domestic critics will not make the government change its opinion again." "Choosing The In-Between Position" A front-page commentary by leading foreign affairs commentator Franco Venturini said in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (2/11): "Isn't Boris Yeltsin the one who expressed concern about the possible outbreak of a World War III?... For those who view us from Washington, it is evident that friendly Italy has signed a 'joint declaration' on the Iraqi crisis along with the leader of the front (very large indeed) which is accusing America of incurable bellicosity. From the few lines of the declaration emerges the embarrassment of a government which, like everyone else, prefers peace but does not seem capable of defining a line of conduct in the case that peace does not last.... At the same time that Blair is proposing coordination among European leftist forces, the latter are splitting over Iraq. But they are at least taking sides and admitting that when we talk about dictators, the United Nations, bacteriological weapons and missiles, it is not possible to beat about the bush.... If Saddam fails to receive the passionate appeal in the Rome declaration, it will be necessary to define an Italian strategy in the case of a war. It will be necessary to make a decision, any decision, on the (use of) military bases.... Perhaps the Italian government will realize that, in a world without blocs, those who stay in the middle end up sinking." "Siding With Russia Against U.S.?" Barbara Spinelli charged on the front page of centrist, influential La Stampa (2/11): "The Prodi government...has de facto chosen the foreign policy of Russia versus the policy which America is pursuing along with Germany, Great Britain, and the Eastern European countries which are about to join NATO. It has chosen to support a precise strategy by Russia, defined by the Communists and by their successors since the Gulf War in 1991: a strategy aimed not at disarming Iraq, but at overturning U.S.-Russian balances of force as well as relations among Russia, Europe and the Atlantic Alliance.... This is the strategy Italy is pursuing in these hours, along with France, the UN secretary general, the Vatican, and several Arab nations: a strategy which does not have Iraq, but America and competition with America, at the center of its mental and strategic reasoning." "A Message To The White House" An editorial in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica stressed (2/11): "With a clever initiative, Yeltsin and Prodi yesterday agreed on a joint appeal on Saddam Hussein which reminds Iraq of its responsibilities, but is de facto a message to the White House from a European stage of which Russia is beginning to be part." "European Disunion Encourages Saddam Hussein" Aldo Rizzo commented in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/9) under the headline above: "Germany's decision is an important one from a political point of view. Thus, vis-a-vis a very serious international crisis, the European Union has once again split in two like an apple. European Disunion. Of the four leading EU countries, in fact, two are openly siding with America (Great Britain and Germany), while the other two (France and Italy) are not opposed but maintain a position of critical distance.... America should be careful not to indulge in a sense of omnipotence, Saddam be cautious in making his calculations, and Europe should reflect upon this umpteenth, disconcerting demonstration of division and, therefore, of weakness." RUSSIA: "Europe Wants To Do Things Its Own Way" Vladimir Katin in Brussels filed this article for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/12): "Europe is reviewing its attitude toward the United States as an indisputable authority, clearly tending to uphold its own, distinctly European foreign-policy principles and priorities." AUSTRIA: "U.S. Ends Up Acting As Global Policeman Again" In independent Kurier, Otmar Lahodynsky expressed these thoughts on the foreign policy of the EU and Austria in the Gulf region (2/18): "How should Austria orient itself? As in the case of the war in Bosnia, the EU, with the exception of Great Britain, has once again adopted a wait-and-see attitude. U.S. diplomats pointed out that Iraq's potential of biological and chemical weapons represents a much more immediate threat to Europe than to the United States. Without launching at least an initiative of its own to solve the crisis, the EU (and thus Austria) will have no other choice but let the Americans act as the global policeman once again." "Don't Be Surprised If One Day The World Fireman Does Not Come" Andreas Schwarz, foreign editor of prestigious Die Presse, stated in a front-page commentary (2/9), "What is the importance of NATO, if the majority of the Allies is not on our side? Defense Secretary William Cohen accused the partners on the Old Continent of being too much concerned about themselves and the monetary union, as it seems, to be able to deal with security policy issues. Is the United States' righteous anger justified, its feeling to always be the friend in need, without ever being rewarded? It is a fact that nothing goes without the only remaining superpower, in the event of an impending crisis anywhere in the world. That the help of the Americans is accepted with pleasure (Bosnia, maybe Kosovo in the near future), when Europe's own inability (foreign and security policy) sets limits. And that in spite of all that, the foul aspersion of the uncontrolled world policeman is cast on the United States. Well, nobody must be surprised if the United States one day ceases to be on call like the fire brigade." BELGIUM: "Paris Preparing Ground For European Policy" In independent Le Soir (2/13), Pierre Lefevre concluded: "Whatever its outcome, France will have played a decisive role in the Iraqi crisis. It has confirmed its rejection of the U.S. 'dual containment' policy directed against Iran and Iraq and proposed for the region an alternative policy, inspired by its self-interest, but of which Europe could take advantage.... Above all, Paris and Moscow long to conclude handsomely profitable oil and trade deals as soon as (the sanctions) will be lifted.... This political-economic rivalry could lead to an open transatlantic conflict at the WTO, and to a deep freeze within NATO. Considering this political rivalry, Washington will be even less inclined to yield the command of the southern flank demanded by Paris to return to the Alliance's military structure. "It is striking to see that regarding Iraq as well as the Southern Command, Germany openly plays the American card.... The European Union does not even have the embryo of a Mediterranean or Middle East policy. However, Paris is preparing the ground and the Fifteen could benefit from it, provided at least that they want eventually to adopt a joint foreign policy." BULGARIA: "Sofia Should Give Up Happy Medium" Centrist 24 Hours (2/15) stressed, "Bulgarian government officials should give up the policy of the happy medium once and for all and decide whom they support--Clinton or Saddam. Otherwise, we'll be waiting in vain for both NATO membership and Iraqi dollars." "When There Is Thunder In Desert" Centrist Novinar (2/15) cautioned, "The Persian Gulf is not close to the Vitosha mountain. However a 'Desert Thunder' would affect us through increased oil prices, through the growing tension between the United States and Russia, and through the Arab nations' hostile attitude towards the Christian world to which Bulgaria belongs. That's why we should be very careful about every step we are making (or we are not making) in the Iraqi crisis." CZECH REPUBLIC: "Help And You Will Be Helped" Defense analyst Jan Gazdik wondered in a commentary in right-of- center Mlada fronta DNES (2/13), "Have Vaclav Havel, Jaroslav Sedivy [Czech foreign minister] and Michal Lobkowicz [Czech defense minister] lost their minds when they launched a discussion about sending Czech troops into action against Iraq and thereafter even preparations for doing so? [It may seem so] only at first glance [and] irrespective of the fact that the [Czech] military has for several years been balancing on the brink of survival due to a lack of funds.... What, then, was Secretary Albright after when she asked her colleagues from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic about their position on a military attack against Iraq? [Was she after] political support in resolving a sensitive problem? Certainly so. Yet, Albright's question was also a test for the countries that want to join NATO. Because if the Alliance admits a country, politicians, the military and citizens should take it for granted that when a NATO member finds itself in an emergency [situation], a helping hand must be extended to that country without speculation about the advantages of this gesture and its consequences." DENMARK: "Why Denmark Must Contribute" Pro-SDP government Aktuelt carried this op-ed piece by Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen (2/18): "As an active member of the international community, it is Denmark's duty to assist in crisis situations when they occur. We cannot stand passively by and watch while a dictator ridicules the international community and the UN.... It is tremendously important that the greatest possible pressure is exerted on Saddam Hussein.... We support the current (diplomatic) initiative being made by the UN, but we are also ready to act if necessary." "Symbolic Gesture Important" Center-left Politiken maintained (2/18): "It's the thought that counts. The fact that Denmark supports military action against Iraq is the important thing. Essentially, the Danish decision is an expression of the acceptance of security-policy related realities. The EU is not of any importance concerning security policy. The United States is the only nation that is able to defend international peace and security, and the United States deserves our support. Solidarity with UN partners, such as the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, represents both a moral and pragmatic Danish choice." "Denmark's Clear And Positive Response" Center-right Jyllands-Posten (2/13) praised Foreign Minister Helveg Petersen for his "clear and positive" response to General Clark's request for Danish assistance on Iraq: "Petersen's clear and positive response showed the Danish position on the Iraqi crisis.... It was courageous of the United States to go it alone initially....in order to convince its NATO allies and other old friends that the battle against Saddam is worth fighting." "Not Without UN" This view was the one running in center-left Aktuelt (2/13), "Up until now Denmark has considered it to be crucial that any planned action should be supported by the UN. That is the way Denmark ought to continue to think." HUNGARY: "Iraq And NATO Enlargement" Readers of centrist, conservative Magyar Nemzet (2/12) saw this by Washington correspondent Gabor Lamberth, "It is important to the Clinton administration to have the support of as many countries as possible, of the traditional allies and the countries in the region first of all, because it would be the justification of one major fact: The full destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal is not solely a U.S. affair. Therefore it is not surprising at all that the Central Eastern European foreign ministers, currently running talks on NATO expansion in Washington, have also been requested to grant possible support to possible actions against Iraq. As U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it: A coalition of countries with the same values and ideology is forming now. At present it seems that 12 hesitating lawmakers need to be convinced for the ratification in March, since the senators are voting on many issues in connection with enlargement." "The Desert Test" Under the headline above, an editorial in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (2/11) asserted, "Atlantic integration costs a lot and the tasks are dangerous. Hungary now has to prove that its territory, airspace and airbases are all part of the Western military Alliance. Hungary has to convince skeptical Washington senators that the country is now forgetting about the past and is building a modern and a reliable army, ready to be mobilized if required. The Hungarian participation in a possible operation against Iraq is a real military activity and not a charity move. We do not know yet how successful the diplomatic efforts are going to be and we don't know yet whether Iraq's position is going to change such a way that the military machine can be stopped. But we have to take the possible consequences into consideration as well. The Hungarian government is discussing the issue now and is going to refer it to parliament as soon as possible. It is expected that there will be a 'yes' answer given to the request--in case diplomatic efforts failed, which seems quite likely. Politicians now share a big responsibility." "Send Our Boys To Iraq?" Washington correspondent Gabor Lambert commented in centrist, conservative Magyar Nemzet (2/11), "When the time for the attack comes, the United States rather needs moral than military allies, as hardly any other countries could contribute a more advanced military technology than what the United States is prepared to use. It has to be clearly seen that the U.S.' request...(to) Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic does automatically mean that we have to phrase the question like this: Should we send our Hungarian boys to Iraq? The issue is more complex here and not only in this situation but in the longer run as well. The question is: What should our orientation point be, the United States or the European Union? And in case they do not agree on all aspects of this current Iraqi issue, then where should Hungary, a NATO candidate country with one leg already in the doorway to the EU, step at all?" "Cooperation Goes Both Ways" Second largest circulation Nepszava (2/11) concluded, "Hungary would like to become a NATO member, which means if we were threatened, we would also ask for the support and help of the Western and American forces. In case of threat, no doubt, other Western European countries would apply for protection from the United States, even if they have not rushed to back Washington now. But those countries can consider what they are doing, as they are already inside the gate. If we did the same, Washington might suppose that, as a NATO member, Hungary would think of a cooperation in this one-way-street form. And in that case we could easily find ourselves outside the gate." THE NETHERLANDS: "We Should Not Move Too Fast" Calvinist-left Trouw front-paged this editorial comment (2/11): "Prime Minister Kok did his utmost to remove the impression that the Netherlands already has one foot in a new Gulf war against Iraq.... It would not be responsible to move too fast. Working on finding a diplomatic solution should get preference...especially since a military intervention in Iraq is very complicated and risky.... However, should the Netherlands decide to participate, then this decision should be very clear." "Consider Well Our Participation" Liberal De Volkskrant said (2/11): "The Netherlands is considering making a contribution to a possible U.S./British military action against Iraq. Decision making on such an important issue should be well-considered and made by the Cabinet and the Second Chamber. State Secretary Gmelich Meijling has acted very prematurely.... The fact that Saddam Hussein constantly obstructs the work of the UNSCOM is undoubtedly a good reason to threaten with the use of force.... The United States has made clear that air strikes will be conducted to force Saddam to cooperate with the arms inspections, should diplomacy fail.... This is where we start getting doubts. First of all it is unclear whether air strikes will have any effect on Saddam and it is unclear how heavy and how intense these air strikes should be. Air strikes are not the best way to eliminate biological and chemical weapons. The air strikes have an indirect goal: forcing Saddam to cooperate with the inspections. There is a good chance that this will require an enormous number of bombs bringing along enormous risks for the people.... The differences of opinion within UNSC but also within NATO and the EU will only become sharper. It is, of course, not certain whether concentrated air strikes will have such counter political effects but this is a real risk.... The United States deserves full support in finding a way to allow the weapon inspectors to do their job. This also includes Dutch support. However, this is different from unconditional cooperation in a large-scale military action. Given the current circumstances, the use of military action is much too risky." "Premature Statements On Dutch Participation" Conservative De Telegraaf ran this inside-page editorial (2/11): "Yesterday's Second Chamber debate about the premature statements made by Gmelich Meijling had a high dose of 'it does not say what it says.' The government emphasized that it had not yet made an official offer for Dutch participation, but at the same time there is an unofficial offer to express solidarity with the Americans.... The caution shown by the Cabinet in determining its position, should be seen in the context of a division among coalition factions in the Netherlands as well discord in Europe. The PvdA in particular, is being difficult. It is a misconception for this party to think that diplomatic pressure without 'sabre rattling' makes sense. Those who wish to put credible pressure on the Iraqi should be willing to go all the way. Otherwise, putting pressure makes no sense." "Dutch Should Follow U.S. Policy" Conservative De Telegraaf contended (2/11): "The United States is totally right to put heavy pressure on Saddam Hussein and to even threaten with air strikes.... It is good that diplomatic channels are first being explored.... Hopefully this will work to prevent innocent citizens from becoming victims. Should this not work, then it is Saddam Hussein who will be fully responsible. The fate of his people is in his hands. The Dutch government should follow the U.S. policy. And by expressing solidarity with the Americans, PM Kok has indicated that this is the case. The Netherlands will not follow France. Bolkestein's call to follow the U.S. policy seems more like election rhetoric." "Netherlands On Iraq: Somewhere Between France And Germany" Influential NRC Handelsblad commented (2/11): "The fact that France has made clear that it will not participate in a military intervention, and the fact that Germany fully supports such intervention, shows the European incapability to reach a common foreign and security policy." NORWAY: "U.S. Should Ease Up On Demand For U.S. Weapons Inspectors" Two researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs commented in independent tabloid Dagbladet (2/4): "An American decision to bomb Iraq is guided more by diplomatic codes of honor than of real politics. By rejecting any discussion of the composition of the UN inspection corps and financial sanctions, Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright are about to forget the most important issue: preventing Iraq from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, Norway should encourage the U.S. to ease up on its demand for American participation in the UN's inspector corps, and to use sanctions as a negotiating card against Iraq. POLAND: "Side-By-Side With U.S. On Arab Sands" Leftist weekly Przeglad Tygodniowy (2/18) maintained in a piece by Miroslaw Glogowski, "Not everybody in Poland likes the idea that our soldiers are becoming specialists in taking part in military actions side-by-side with the Americans in an international forum.... As much as it was assumed that at a delicate moment in the Polish effort to achieve ratification [in the U.S. Senate] of Poland's membership in NATO we would decide to support Washington...only a few would have assumed that we would be eager to take a direct part in a possible war action in the Middle East.... "It is interesting that we are sending our boys to Arab sands despite not very favorable support in Polish society. The proof is in the public opinion polls taken last week by some regional papers.... Politicians responsible for the decision [to send troops to Iraq] argue that Poland cannot afford to be neutral in this case. They suggest that our aversion to support the Americans might be detrimental to Poland on our road into NATO.... The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, even unofficially, is not concealing the fact that the possible sending of our troops to Iraq is the result of American pressure.... "Political commentators ask a question: Why did Geremek speak, after this meeting (with Albright), about the Poles' consent to sending Polish troops to the Middle East when the [Polish] government had not expressed its view on this issue? Was he allowed to make such a commitment? Has this decision been analyzed and 'weighed' by competent departments of the Foreign Ministry, or it has been taken only out of fear of the Americans? Why don't the Hungarians have to send their troops to Iraq?" PORTUGAL: "Again With Lajes" Bimonthly columnist Jos, Medeiros Ferreira wrote in leading, center-left Di rio de Not¡cias (2/17): "Washington sent to Lisbon its permanent representative to the United Nations for discussions over the facilities it would concede at Lajes [Air Force] Base for the projection of military power in the Persian Gulf. It is thus once again demonstrated that Portugal's single greatest strategic asset is situated in the Azores and that it alone can obligate the United States to pay attention to one of its natural allies in Europe.... For its part, the government of Portugal should demand some content from the Agreement on Cooperation and Defense currently in force. If it does not derive greater benefit from the 1995 agreement, [then] the attitude of the Portuguese government [in conceding the use of the base] was rash." "Ready To March?" Weekly columnist Miguel Sousa Tavares groused in center-left P£blico (2/13): "While the country, as usual, concerns itself with circumstances, the minister of foreign affairs is about to involve us in a military adventure where we have neither interests nor responsibilities of our own to protect, in which we have nothing to win and everything to lose. "A two-hour visit to Lisbon by an underling of Ms. Albright was sufficient for [Portuguese Foreign Affairs Minister] Jaime Gama to declare himself ready to march at the sound of a trumpet (or a saxophone) by the United States, in that nebulous `imminent' military operation against Iraq. Under Ms. Albright's orders, Jaime Gama promised everything he could: understanding and political support, complicity at the Security Council, and the military commitment of our aircraft carrier: Lajes [Air Force Base in the Azores]. At the request of the United States, the Portuguese government is ready to declare war on Iraq--without consulting either the country or the parliament, and without even explaining to us in the name of what or at the service of which interests or policy.... "Contrary to what is happening now, American intervention in `91 was designed to put a halt to a very real danger to world peace; it was intended to put an end to an illigitimate aggression; it brought together an ample consensus of the international community; and it defended the strategic and legitimate interests of a vast area of the world, in which we are immediately included.... The least we could have had the right to expect from `our great ally' was an identical attitude in relation to the invasion of [East] Timor by Indonesia.... [This] merely means that Portugal aligns itself with the strategic interests of the United States--in any and all circumstances. We do not even wait to know the political orientation of the European Union, whose foreign policy is supposed to be common. We are the Puerto Rico of Europe." "The High Price Of Not Having A Common Policy" International editor and former NATO tour participant Teresa de Sousa observed in center-left P£blico (2/11):"The new crisis in the Gulf has once again provided dramatic evidence of the high price Europe is paying for not having a common external [security] policy.... Faced with a grave international crisis, Europe is limited to reacting to North American positions in a random fashion and without any overall strategic sense; the European cacophony is audible to the whole world, discrediting even further its capability for action outside its borders and reducing to zero its negotiating power with the United States." ROMANIA: "A Test For The Alliance" Under the above headline, pro-government Ziua featured this editorial (2/12) by Romania's former foreign minister, Adrian Severin, who argued that Romania should strongly come out in support of the United States in the Iraq crisis: "Unlike Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, (Romania) established a strategic partnership with the United States in 1997. However, a partnership involves not just rights, but obligations. A scrupulous fulfillment of those obligations...is all the more important since Romania can neither afford changing customers every day nor the luxury of losing its clients. A strategic partner of the United States can place itself outside the American camp only for life and death reasons.... Objectively speaking, Romania can play in Eastern Europe the role Britain is playing for the United States in Western Europe. Therefore, while taking into consideration its weight in the region, (Romania's) attitude must be similar to Britain's in similar situations." SPAIN: "Alliance Commitment" Conservative ABC contended (2/12): "The arguments put forward by certain opposition groups in the past few days against the Spanish government's decision to authorize use of the air base at Moron by the United States for refueling operations in a military intervention against Iraq resemble naive anti-war chants.... What Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar made clear yesterday was Spanish support, not for arrogant or capricious war-mongering, but for an authorization that will be forthcoming, when needed, once the diplomatic option has been exhausted." "U.S., Iraq And Aznar's Error" Independent El Mundo railed (2/12): "Aznar is very wrong not to have understood that Spain has good reason not to be among those promoting military action of doubtful justification and problematic efficacy. Learning that a base located in Spain had been used to rain death on Iraq during the Gulf War without achieving anything substantial in furtherance of world peace was hard to swallow. To now give the United States an OK to make free use of the same base, with similar expectations, and without even the support of the United Nations, should have merited, at a minimum, a serious and thoughtful debate." "Aznar Aligns Himself With Clinton" Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia noted (2/12): "If there is anything we are all agreed about, it is that all the possibilities for negotiation with Saddam Hussein need to be exhausted before supporting an attack by the United States against Iraq.... Spain will be with its allies if diplomacy fails, that is, it will provide help as needed. Few alternatives remain." "Spain And Iraq" Liberal El Pais asked (2/11): "Should Spain authorize--as it did [seven years ago]--the use of Moron air base by American forces in an operation to punish Iraq? This time there would appear to be reasons to think not.... In 1991...after the failure of all peaceful attempts at persuasion, there was no alternative but to accept the absorption of Kuwait or intervene militarily. Nothing of the sort has happened now.... Almost all the Arab countries, Russia, France and Italy believe that diplomatic pressure can still be applied before resorting to the use of force. That has been the Spanish position as well during the past few weeks, and one that it should maintain even if it means denying Washington the use of Spanish bases for an operation that, more than punishing Saddam Hussein, will only punish the Iraqi people." SWEDEN: "Sweden Must Be Clear On Its Stand" Regional Sydsvenska Dagbladet (2/12) said in an editorial, "As a member of the Security Council, Sweden must be clear when taking foreign policy stands...and during yesterday's foreign policy parliamentary debate, the Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm- Wallen made it quite clear that military force cannot be excluded to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. The UN 'cannot be endlessly humiliated,' she said, putting the blame for the sufferings of the Iraqi people on Saddam Hussein.... It is a good thing that the foreign minister speaks plain language on Iraq...and in the foreign policy declaration, many refreshing clarifications were included. The Swedish foreign minister stated that 'it is important that the American engagement in Europe be maintained,' and she also left openings for a dialogue on Sweden's future security policy. This, like the clarification on Iraq, is an indication of an open mind and an understanding that also Sweden will be affected by a changing international reality." TURKEY: "A Kurdish State?" Sebahattin Onkibar wrote this front-page editorial in conservative/religious Turkiye (2/11): "Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit voiced his concerns over the possibility of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. In response to that, the American ambassador spoke for his country, and he assured that such a thing will not happen. Ecevit's sensitivity deserves appreciation, however, whether or not his concerns match with reality, that's another argument.... What would be the U.S. benefit in giving a green light to a development which will bring more problems in an important oil region? Such a thing is, first of all, against U.S. interests." "Why Create A Kurdish State?" Hakki Devrim told readers of intellectual Radikal (2/10): "I do not think that the U.S. administration plans to establish a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. As pointed out by the former Turkish Ambassador Elekdag, why would the United States, instead of maintaining its relations with big and solid Turkey, desire a so-called state encircled by Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey? What kind of benefits might the United States expect by creating a new Israel and asking for more trouble? Mr. Ecevit is a senior statesman, but it is difficult to understand him." "It Will Be Turkey Who Suffers Most" Ergun Balci held in intellectual/opinion maker Cumhuriyet (2/9): "When it comes to opinions (in Turkey) about the Gulf crisis, what we need is rationality because the current picture represents a real confusion of opinions. It is wrong to think that the U.S.' sole aim is to destroy Saddam's chemical and biological weapons or to ignore the fact that Gulf region owns the half of world's oil reserves. But it is also an unrealistic approach to defend the idea that United States should abandon Incirlik air base or that the United States should leave the Gulf.... It is clear that Turkey wants the diplomatic option worked on. In the case of U.S. military strike against Iraq, it will be Turkey who suffers most. We do not need anti-Saddam fanatics; nor need the obsessed pro-Americans. We need to be rational. Turkey's geo-strategic position requires rational policies rather than sentimental approaches." or more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 2/18/98 # # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
