RSS« Times London: Iraq Commander, mistakes were made | Iraq Invest. Code to be published »
September 18, 2003
Peel of FT on Euro Iraq policy
I very much enjoyed this column by good old Quentin Peel.
Quentin Peel: Europe must hold firm
By Quentin Peel 17 Sep 03
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479911265&p=1012571727126
Quentin Peel, one of my favorite commentator’s from The Financial Times (aside, I shall never forget the day on the SDMB that someone described FT as a “liberal” paper in the American sense of the word. Nothing like provincialism.) has a fine little article which rather captures my feelings on the issues involved in how Europe should deal with the Bush Admin approach in Iraq.
The focus of the commentary is on the shambles of the ‘common foreign policy’ for Europe (I think unrealizable) and on the tensions within the EU, and the upcoming trilateral mtg between Chirac, Shroeder and Blair.
Some key extracts:
“With luck, they will realise they share two fundamental concerns. One is over the miserable state of transatlantic relations. The other is a fear that without new impetus from the top, the European project may itself grind to a halt with the impending enlargement to 25 member states.”
There is of course something to be said for resuscitating the transatlantic alliance, although I daresay this is well-nigh impossible given the current Administration’s contempt for other points of view, or even rational analysis.
Perhaps as rather more important is addressing the issues in the EU, and the clear tensions over economic policy – foreign policy as well of course.
Continuing on:
“As far as transatlantic ties are concerned, it is not just about the lack of dinner invitations from the White House. The normal lively exchange of ideas between politicians and pundits from both sides has almost dried up. Even Mr Chirac, quite wrongly seen in Washington as an unreconstructed anti-American Gaullist, knows that both sides are weaker as a result. But the three leaders undoubtedly differ in their analysis of who was at fault, and how to respond.
The Bush administration must bear much of the blame, with its prickly unilateralism and fundamentalist division of the world into good and evil. Its insistence on trying to run the world with "coalitions of the willing" has caused extraordinary bitterness among old allies. But the EU is also at fault, because its leading governments have been so divided, although their voters were far more united.”
I rather like the turn of phrase I have to confess.
I am not sure, however, that I would analyze this in precisely this manner, above all in regards to the Europeans. Although as I pause and consider, in the end I have to confess that the total lack of coordination on the European level may be considered part of the problem.
Peel notes:
“A recent opinion poll by the German Marshall Fund* shows that the war has had a disastrous effect on European attitudes towards US leadership. Every single European country polled, except Poland, showed a large majority disapproving of US foreign policy. In Germany and France more than 80 per cent disapproved. In Britain it was 57 per cent.”
He continues a bit later on regarding the new found American interest in multilateralism, i.e. getting people to help in Iraq:
“ But is that simply an admission that the US wants more troops in Iraq, from anywhere but home? It may be a recognition that the US cannot succeed in stabilising the country on its own, but there is still little sign of realisation that it is because the US is seen as an occupying power in Baghdad - not a liberator - that the situation remains so chaotic. Nobody wants to make matters worse but there is equally no international enthusiasm for sending more troops - whether they are Indian, Turkish or French - until the US starts to hand over power.”
Peel adds, and I agree very strongly here:
“ This is not the right moment for Europe to swallow its doubts about US foreign policy, just for the sake of better transatlantic ties. There is a dangerous temptation to sign up to the US security agenda, with its focus on rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. That was wrong after September 11 2001 and it is wrong now. Europe is right to insist that tackling the causes of terrorism is most important, and using the tools of the multilateral system is essential.”
Now, I do not agree that the US security agenda is entirely wrong, in regards to ‘rogue states’ – there is some real content to that, other than Rumsfeld’s play to “roll everything up” strategy. However, I believe what Peel is getting at is the idiotic conflation of Sadaam with al-Qaeda, something the Administration continues to play the implication game with, despite an utter lack of evidence.
This dangerous, naïve, and ultimately self-destructive conflation has gotten the US into a bind which will be very difficult to exit. I have read some idiocy regarding it being better to fight “them” over “there” than in the States. This ad hoc line of reasoning is frankly a rather bankrupt, post hoc attempt to find some justification, rather illogically at that, for the current morass.
Now, Peel argues, and I agree as one might expect:
“If Britain, France and Germany could settle their differences on Iraq, they could at last become a positive influence on Washington. This is the moment to do so, when the mistakes of the US-led coalition are becoming obvious to all but the most obtuse. It would also be a vital signal to ordinary Europeans that their Union can forge a common foreign policy on something that really matters. Is that too much to ask?”
The last is too much to ask, but some organized pressure on this perennially stupid Administration would be useful.
* Transatlantic Trends 2003, www.transatlantictrends.org
Posted by The Lounsbury at September 18, 2003 05:15 PM
Filed Under:
Jan-Dec 2003
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1863
