Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=01/31/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01270

TITLE=COALITION OF THE WILLING

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0037

CONTENT=

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Who will be in the "coalition of the willing? Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: This is On the Line and I'm Eric Felten. Chief U-N Weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has reported on whether Iraq is living up to its obligations under U-N resolution 1441. The resolution requires the regime of Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully and actively with weapons inspectors to ensure that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. But according to Mr. Blix, that cooperation has not been forthcoming. He told the United Nations Security Council that "Iraq appears not have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." U-S officials argue that if Iraq chooses not to disarm, inspectors are of little use. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that without full Iraqi cooperation, the U-N inspectors are searching in the dark.

[Powell in speech January 27, 2003]

"Even at this late date, the United States hopes for a peaceful solution. But a peaceful solution is possible only if Iraq disarms itself with the help of the inspectors. The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark. It is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and to come clean. And the answer is, not much more time. Iraq's time for choosing peaceful disarmament is fast coming to an end."

Host: But some members of the U-N Security Council are balking at the prospect that it will take military force to bring about the disarmament of Iraq. Even though that disarmament is demanded by the U-Ns own resolutions. "Nothing," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told the Security Council, "Nothing justifies envisaging military action." If the U-N fails to act, President George W. Bush has promised to lead a "coalition of the willing" against Iraq. Who would be in "the willing?" I'll ask my guests, John Barry, National Security correspondent for Newsweek magazine; Reginald Dale, editor of European Affairs magazine; and joining us by phone from New York, Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Host: John Barry, what's the state of play at the U-N?

Barry: I think that everyone is waiting to see whether it is possible to have negotiations between the U-S and the U-K [United Kingdom] on the one hand, and between France, specifically, on the other. But France is allied to Germany on the issue of whether you can agree some final, final period, a last, last, last, last, chance for Iraq to disarm and to prove it's disarming, whether that's fifteen days, thirty days, forty-five days, whatever. The U-S is unwilling to even discuss that sort of continuance resolution, unless it gets an agreement, as I understand it, from France that France does agree that this really would be the end of the line. You wouldn't have another demand in thirty days for yet another extension. And so there's a good deal of behind the scenes maneuvering, negotiating going on at the moment to see whether it is possible to continue the consensus of the Security Council that we had back in November.

Host: Reggie Dale, how did this French-German coalition come about?

Dale: Well, I think the first thing to remember is that January 22nd was the fortieth anniversary of the original Franco-German partnership agreement, the Elysee Treaty. And they've been going to great lengths, these two governments to re-launch that relationship, the Franco-German relationship. Not only on the European stage, but on the world stage, they wanted to mark that anniversary with a big sign of new initiatives and agreement and that's one of the factors that's been behind this Franco-German rapprochement on Iraq. Although it's important to notice that they're not completely in the same position. The French have pointed out that the main difference between themselves and the Germans is that whereas the Germans would not engage in military action in any circumstances, that is not true of the French. That is to say, they've left a window open for possible involvement in military action.

Host: Max Boot are you there by phone?

Boot: I am.

Host: Are the French going to hold the trump card if you will on whether the U-N sanctions action against Iraq?

Boot: It's clear that the French do hold the trump card, although people tend to forget why that is the case. It is in fact the case because of a great gift that the United States of America and Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman gave the French when the U-N was being formed, which is a permanent seat on the U-N Security Council, which it was pretty clear in 1945 and is even clearer today, the French actual power and place in the world do not warrant, but nevertheless we were trying to be nice to a wartime ally whom we had rescued from Hitler's tyranny. And of course this is the way the French repay us, which is, I suppose to be expected, because this permanent seat on the U-N Security Council is pretty much the only way that the French can exercise power effectively in today's world. As you see in the Ivory Coast, they are hard-pressed to deploy even 25,000 troops anywhere into a chaotic situation like the Ivory Coast, so they clearly lack the traditional military means to assert themselves. And therefore they are asserting themselves through what some people call soft power, which they're exercising now at the U-N through diplomacy in attempt essentially to put France on center stage and to make everybody do the bidding of Monsieur [Jacques] Chirac [President of France].

Host: John Barry, is this action by France less about Iraq than it is about France asserting itself as a power?

Barry: No. I think it's more about American power. The debate at the U-N before 1441 was not primarily about Iraq at all. There were disagreements about the final forms of words and so on in 1441, but the actual debate that was going on, the principle that the French were asserting and that, I have to say by far a majority of the Security Council went along with, was that the French were saying that this was a deciding moment in how, if at all, there should be any international constraints or limits upon the power of the great superpower America. And the French regard it as being important at this point, as I understand it from talking to French officials, that the U-S is seen to be respectful of the will of the international community as expressed through the security council. Now Max is right. Whether or not France should be on the Security Council, whether other nations should be -- we can discuss that endlessly. But the fact is that there is a Security Council of fifteen nations, five of whom are the permanent nations and France found that it did occupy the center of the argument before 1441 and believes that it occupies the center of the argument now at the Security Council with most nations believing that certainly, one, Iraq should be disarmed; two, it is probably necessary for Saddam to be overthrown for that to happen; three, that it should be done with U-N Security Council approval if at all possible.

Host: Max Boot?

Boot: John, you make an excellent point and what I'm struck by listening to the debate in Europe over what should be done about Iraq is that many Europeans seem to view George Bush as a greater threat than Saddam Hussein.

Barry: Amazing isn't it? Absolutely amazing.

Boot: Yeah, it's just incomprehensible from an American perspective but that seems to be the received wisdom now.

Host: Reggie Dale, are the French more interested in reigning in the U-S than reigning in Saddam Hussein?

Dale: They're interested certainly in asserting France's role as a global power, I think. And of course as Max Boot has said, the main forum in which France can do that is the U-N Security Council, because it has a permanent seat there. But France believes and has said that it was largely responsible for the first U-N resolution, Security Council resolution which we mentioned 1441 - which sent the inspectors back into Iraq. They say that it was as a result of their diplomacy that such a resolution was agreed in the first place. And they want to play a similar role now and at the same time -- they've always said they wanted a second resolution -- at the same time they want to distinguish themselves from the United States in the eyes of the world. Both because of anti-Americanism in France, the huge Muslim population in France and also because they see France's role as being an independent autonomous role in the world separate from the United States, with an influence over the United States and in this case in restraining what they call the "rushed war". Now that doesn't mean at the end of the day France won't be there in the coalition, they still could be.

Host: John Barry, will France be in the coalition at the end of the day?

Barry: Yes, I think they probably will. What's going on at the U-N is brinkmanship, essentially, which is what went on before 1441, which was that France was willing to bet that at the end of the day the U-S would not walk away from the Security Council, President Bush would not walk away from the Security Council, that he would agree to the compromises in wording which 1441 in the end required. Now, that was a bet, a gamble on the part of France, because the U-S was threatening, yes, we will walk away. And it left countries like Britain for instance, absolutely terrified that the U-S would take its bat and go home. Because at that point, the Brits feared that the U-N Security Council would become impotent, the League of Nations, the famous analogy to the 1930s international body. And in a sense, that's what's going on again. The French are betting that the benefits of going with an international coalition and with an internationally sanctioned use of force through the Security Council will be sufficiently evident to President Bush that he will be willing to acceed to at least some further extension of the inspection period. My judgement, I have to say, is that France is right, that the U-S will, but the question is, you know, what the terms will be. Which is why I say that there's a lot of behind the scenes haggling going on at the moment. But it is essentially brinkmanship with the relative importance of the Security Council as the stake.

Host: Max Boot?

Boot: I think John is right, but what's striking to me is that France and French diplomats went through this big song and dance act two months, last fall, spent negotiating the exact terms of resolution 1441, often directly with Secretary Colin Powell, and after it was passed unanimously by the Security Council, the French seem to be disregarding the actual wording of this resolution, which is quite clear in that it says this is a last chance for Iraq to disarm. That's the wording that France agreed upon and yet now, when Hans Blix comes forward to say Iraq is not in fact disarming, the French response is: "Well, did we say last chance? We don't really mean it. Let's give them another year or two. Let's give them another chance and another chance after that. Pretty amazing, which is that the French are trying to have it both ways, on the one hand to pass this resolution, but on the other hand to ignore it.

Host: Max, you bring up Colin Powell, he was seen by many people as the biggest advocate within the administration for the pursuit of diplomacy at the U-N and the negotiation with France. And Colin Powell seems to have become much more tough on the Iraq line since then. What's going on there?

Boot: I think the French have overplayed their hand. Dominique de Villepin, I think made a grave mistake a week ago at the U-N Security Council when he ambushed Secretary Powell, he used the session on terrorism to attack American policy on Iraq and to threaten a veto of any further resolution, which caught Secretary Powell off-guard, and I think enraged him at what he saw as French duplicity. Now, it seems that in the past week or so, Secretary Powell has been emboldened to join with other people in the administration who have been preaching a more militant line all along, so I think that the French maneuver, while initially seen as clever, has backfired and has not achieved the results that France was hoping to achieve.

Host: Well, Reggie Dale: if Colin Powell was the main person negotiating among various countries for the U-S and he is emboldened as Max Boot says, how will that affect these negotiations going forward?

Dale: Well I think it will because the Europeans have tended to look to Colin Powell as almost their representative in Washington in negotiations with the harder line, what the Europeans see as the hawks, the White House and the Pentagon. So, they would be somewhat concerned if Colin Powell seemed to be abandoning that role. But I would also like to point out that when we look at the European allies, we tend to look at it in terms of France, Germany and Britain also, but Europe itself is very split on this and you do have, in the American camp, along with Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and maybe, in fact certainly, a lot of the countries that are just joining the European Union in Central and Eastern Europe. So I think it's wrong to put the focus entirely on France. Particularly as the Europeans are trying to have a common foreign security policy. And of course, not only do you have to look at France's actions not only in terms of its relations with the United States, but what it's doing to that common European foreign policy, which was of course undermined by Germany at the time of the last elections.

Host: John Barry, will those countries be part of a "coalition of the willing" if the U-S takes military action in Iraq absent a U-N resolution?

Barry: Yes, I think so. I think it will be more difficult for them. It would be easier with; in my judgement it doesn't require a second U-N resolution for the Europeans to go along. I think it requires the administration to have demonstrated that it's gone the last possible mile to get an international consensus at the Security Council. And if it becomes clear that there are simply immovable forces of obstruction at the Security Council, whether it's France or whether it's Russia, then it seems to me that as in Kosovo, the Europeans will act without a Security Council mandate. I mean, that was the first time they'd done that. And so I think yes, you will get the Europeans going along and I think, as I say, they will do that without a Security Council resolution but it will take a further U-S effort.

Dale: If I could add that Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister has actually been preparing that eventuality.

Host: How has he been doing that?

Dale: He's been saying that Britain would join a coalition of the willing if there was a broad consensus in the Security Council and they would not be deterred by what they might regard as an unreasonable use of the veto. So that's already saying if France or Russia were to veto the Security Council resolution in a way which Britain considered an unreasonable manner, that would not prevent Britain from considering it had U-N backing to join any action.

Host: Max Boot, countries like Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, what kind of role would they have? Is it more a political role expressing some kind of consensus or will they actually have a role in military action?

Boot: I think their actual military role would be slight, but their political role would be large because what they will show is that France and Germany do not represent all of Europe. Secretary Rumsfeld got into hot water in Europe for saying that France and Germany were the old Europe. But I think he is exactly right in the sense that France and Germany are the countries that are used to thinking of themselves as being the leaders of Europe, the great powers. But they are great powers no more and they are having a very hard time adjusting to their reduced role in the world. The fact of the matter is we should not accord them the great power status that they so desperately crave because they have not earned it. And we should be looking, as I think President Bush is in fact looking, to other nations of Europe, to Spain, to Italy, but especially to the States of Eastern Europe, Poland and Hungary, in particular, who are much more pro-American and much more in sync with the Anglo-American view of how we should confront problems such as Iraq and Saddam Hussein. France and Germany claim to speak for Europe. In their act of trying to leap a continent, when they look back they will find very few followers in their wake. Most of those states I think are much more comfortable with the vision articulated by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair than with what Chancellor [Gerhard] Schroeder and President Chirac are trying to accomplish.

Host: John Barry?

Barry: I think there are real limits to the extent to which that strategy could hope to be successful in anything other than a very short term. And the reason is as follows: you're dealing with different entities when you talk about Europe. On the one hand you have N-A-T-O, on the other hand you have the European states in the Security Council. But also you have the European community. And, however much countries like Poland and the other countries of Central Europe might agree on foreign policy matters with the United States, the fact is that it isn't going to be the U-S that's going to be paying the bills in the European community. When it comes to supporting Polish agriculture, supporting the rebuilding of Polish infrastructure -- those sorts of things -- it's going to be the large payers inside Europe and that's going to be Germany and France to a significant degree. So it seems to me that there are real limits on the extent to which the U-S can hope to divide Central Europe from Western Europe simply because day to day in the E-U, it's going to be the big countries of Europe and not America that matters when it comes to money.

Dale: I'd like to just follow up on that. We'll also be looking at, after military action against Iraq, rebuilding Iraq and at that point the United States will want to work with the European Union on rebuilding. I mean, I imagine the European Union will be asked to provide rather a large financial contribution to that. And it's at that point that you will need France and Germany back on the reservation. Because, the European Union will not be able to play that role if France and Germany say no.

Host: Max Boot, let's talk a little bit about some countries outside of Europe. Are there countries outside of Europe that will be part of this coalition of the willing if the U-S goes forward?

Boot: Absolutely. All of Iraq's neighbors will be part of the coalition, which is a striking thing when you look at how little a lot of those countries have in common, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, the other small Gulf States. Many of them have serious differences among one another, but you know what unites them all? And Israel I might add as well. What unites them all is sheer hatred of Saddam Hussein. It's truly striking the fact that the democratic Iraqi opposition has been able to operate in Iran and in many of these other neighboring states, even states that are very worried about Saddam Hussein. I think the message that Washington has been getting from those neighboring states of Iraq is "we will be with you if we are sure that this time you will be serious. If you will finish the job and not lead us to deal with Saddam Hussein in our neighborhood anymore." And I think the more they realize that the Bush administration is serious, unlike the Clinton administration or the first Bush administration, the more that they realize that the U-S is really going to get rid of Saddam this time, the more they will support us. Even the Saudis, who have had a very difficult relationship with the United States since nine-eleven, and quite rightfully so, I think, have decided that they will probably get behind this effort and provide some access to their bases for American forces. And I think Turkey will be the same way and so will all the others. That should tell you something, that Saddam Hussein is so universally reviled by all his neighbors that they're all willing to put aside their differences and even to confront the so-called Arab street in supporting American and allied action against Iraq.

Host: Reggie Dale and John Barry both, we have about fifteen seconds left. Will the Arab neighbors support a war against Iraq?

Barry: Both the Arab neighbors and Turkey, yes, but they'll do it much more willingly if there is U-N consensus.

Host: Reggie Dale?

Dale: Yes I agree with that. The support, of course, that they will mainly give is making bases available for any military action.

Barry: Bases and airspace, over flights.

Dale: Yes.

Host: I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word. We're out of time for today. I'd like to thank my guests: John Barry of Newsweek magazine; Reginald Dale of European Affairs magazine; and by phone from New York, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations. Before we go, I'd like to invite our audience to send us your questions or comments. You can e-mail them to On theline@ibb.gov For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.