Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=1/29/03

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=FEATHERSTONE BRITAIN

NUMBER=

BYLINE=REBECCA WARD

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=

///// AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY /////

HOST: A poll issued Wednesday finds that President Bush's State of the Union address appears to have persuaded many Americans of the need for military action against Iraq. The Gallup polling organization says 67 percent of people who watched the speech believe the president made a convincing case for military action. Before the speech, only 47 percent said Mr. Bush had made his case. But - how was President Bush's comments about Iraq perceived by the United States' European Allies.

Kevin Featherstone is a professor at the European Institute at the London School of Economics. He tells News Now's Rebecca Ward that while the British public has not yet been swayed to fully support military action against Iraq -- opinion can change if there is new information made available.

MR. FEATHERSTONE: Although we see in the polls high proportions of the public who are against intervention, military intervention, in Iraq, we don't know about the intensity of these feelings or the strength of commitment to these feelings. It has also been stressed repeatedly in the U.K., for example, and specifically within the government, that reference to the United Nations is absolutely crucial. So, therefore, on that logic, if the Security Council has before it everything which suggests breaches, everything which suggests links with al-Qaida, for example, then that could be, I'm sure, crucial to the reaction of the British public and, I would have thought, the reaction of publics in at least some other European countries as well.

MS. WARD: I wonder how many people in Britain might have even watched President Bush's speech. It probably would have just been excerpts.

MR. FEATHERSTONE: Certainly so. And it's these sound bites which count. And it's the sound bites in terms of perceived aggression, the perception of going it alone. I think it's the potential for unilateral action which many Europeans are so concerned about. Action which is supported by the United Nations would sway public opinion so much more effectively.

I would add another comment about the reaction of some of the European partners. As I think you mentioned before, Rebecca, what we have at the moment are a sequence of public statements by European governments. We are told that private statements are somewhat different or softer. I would have thought that the position of France was crucial. If military action was to take place, and in the U.N. Security Council it is only some non-European, rather apparent states, opposing a Bush-Blair initiative, then I would have thought, despite the alliance between Chirac and Schroeder, I would have thought that French prestige, French pride, international self-esteem, may make President Chirac rather more flexible than public statements are currently indicating.

MS. WARD: I wonder if some of that public posturing is a way for President Chirac to go back to his government and say, we've had some doubt but now we've been convinced.

MR. FEATHERSTONE: That would be telling, of course. But it takes quite the political act for a political leader, a president in France, to come and say publicly "I was wrong." Of course he could claim that there is new evidence, and this is what we've been waiting for. But there are risks there domestically in terms of esteem, reputation, credibility, consistency. But we're dealing with balancing uncertainties and political costs here.

MS. WARD: Why this fear of unilateralism? I think, from the American perspective, the United States has rarely acted unilaterally, from the Bosnia campaign and there is the coalition action in Kosovo.

MR. FEATHERSTONE: I think it's specific to President Bush. The perception of President Bush is of someone who may be prepared to take more political risks in foreign affairs. Some of the statements, "axis of evil," some of the statements, signals, which come from different parts of the administration about North Korea or about other countries, Saudi Arabia, some of the statements of figures such as Richard Perle, are reported here in Western Europe and make people nervous about exactly what is the purpose of military intervention, what is the feasibility of success, and where does it stop -- what next?

HOST: Kevin Featherstone is a professor at the European Institute at the London School of Economics.

VNN/WH/RAE