Post Cold War realignment: the case of Iraq
By Hyppolite Pierre
On June 7, 1981, Israel bombed the Osiraq research reactor inside Iraq, over fear that the Iraqis were building a nuclear weapon. Besides the well-known and documented Iran-Iraq war that had begun in 1980, to end only in 1988, this was the most pivotal point to consider for understanding the current international quagmire over war, or peace in Iraq.
A nation established by European powers, notably England in 1932, marking the end of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq took birth alongside other countries in the region like Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. After years of political instability, Iraq fell under the domination of Saddam Hussein in 1979.
Secular by character, Saddam is rarely if ever seen in traditional Arab attire like his Kuwaiti and Saudi homologues. Cruel, effective, and even ruthless, he brought at first relative prosperity to his people. Right from the start however, he made it clear that his goal was to re-establish one way or the other, some new form of Pan-Arabism that would encompass most, if not all the countries in the Arab world. With all his oil money, since Iraq has the second or third largest oil reserve in the world, he could have been able to at least achieve partially his goal. Soon enough however, he would be stopped in his hegemonic goals by no other than the very power that had brought him the kind of legitimacy that he would need to get there: the United States of America.
The new configuration since 1979
The year 1979 is an important one in the annals of the Middle East. That is the year when the Shah of Iran was deposed during a revolution that brought into power religious fundamentalists from the Islamic religion. The late and infamous Ayatollah Khomeini was then the personification of this new revolution, causing to end, decades-old friendship between the United States and Iran. The final blow to this friendship came about when Iranian students took as hostages American Embassy personnel in Tehran.
Saddam Hussein, fresh in power as the incontestable leader of Iraq, felt that his goal of Pan-Arabism was threatened by this new fundamentalist regime in Iran. He thus made the move to invade the Iranian frontier over a 200 kilometer border dispute, in 1980. That war lasted about 8 years, to end in 1988.
During that time, he managed to crush all potential adversaries or enemies to his régime, made sure that he controlled the entire country through his well-known and documented ruthlessness, and worked hard at creating a "modern" state under his absolute control.
Feeling threatened by this new revolution in Iran, the U.S. decided that Iraq had to be helped so a wave of Islamic revolutions à la Khomeini would not overtake the Middle East. Saddam thus acquired intelligence from the U.S., and bought sophisticated weapons from the then Soviet Union. He made friends with the Americans, and even had the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, visit Baghdad to meet with Iraqi officials of the highest echelon.
Saddam, the nasty warrior
Saddam was a friend to America during his war against Iran, but the Israelis kept a close eye on him. That explains why on June 7, 1981, the Israelis bombarded his nuclear reactor. Back then, many were upset. Yet, as years were going by and as people had begun to read between the lines of Saddam Hussein's régime, a bleak picture drew itself which caused fear on all sides.
Saddam is the kind of leader who ruthlessly pacified his country, and in the process even used chemical weapons against the minority Kurds within his border. The Kurds were apparently seeking greater autonomy from his régime, if not simply independence.
At the end of the 1980's, Saddam complained before the Arab League over Kuwaiti's new habit of tapping into his country's oil resources, and threatened to invade that border country. The matters were discussed before the League, and the Kuwaitis agreed in theory to end their practice. When they did not, at least not according to Hussein, he referred back to what he knows best: the use of military power.
On August 2, 1990, Saddam decided that he would begin achieving his goal of Pan-Arabism. His first stop would be Kuwait. He did so because at the time and after the war with Iran, his country the aggressor was in poor financial shape. He thought by invading and controlling Kuwait, he could bring in back "the goods" to his people and the military since Kuwait is another rich oil country of the Middle East.
With thousands of well-equipped troops, a war machine that had been tested during the Iran-Iraq war, experienced generals, and resolve, he forced his troops onto the gates of Kuwait, taking many lives and properties in the process. He thought that indeed, he was about to get through the first step of his new goal, and annexed Kuwait.
The United States intervened by going to war against Iraq over this issue on February 23, 1991. On that day, the equation for Saddam changed drastically, perhaps or better, probably for good.
Saddam was emboldened by his exploits in Iran, even though thousands of people died on both sides of the border for basically nothing (at least 100,000 from his side alone). Wrongly convinced that he could only win against the coalition forces led by the United States, he refused to back down during the flurry of diplomatic initiatives, the repeated calls by other Arab neighbors for him to leave Kuwait, and the political moment that was clearly against him.
Finally President George Bush the father called upon his Secretary of States James Baker to meet with Tariq Aziz who was then Iraqi's Secretary of Foreign Affairs. After a raucous and highly publicized meeting during which his Iraqi counterpart refused to back down, James Baker along with the United States administration decided that they would go to war.
In this version 1 of the Gulf war, the U.S. and its traditional allies from the NATO bloc countries, and also many other Arab nations like Saudi Arabia overtly supported the war efforts against Saddam Hussein.
This was a time when even the late president of Syria, Hafez El Assad joined in the coalition to demand that Saddam leave Kuwait. He was afterwards, handsomely compensated by the West for his small but psychologically significant collaboration.
A humiliating loss
Saddam lost within weeks. His troops were vilified. Bush the father was then convinced that he wouldn't last long after such defeat. Not only did he lose the war, but also he signed a peace that was humiliating to his generals.
To this day for instance, the Iraqi government claims that it had lost some of its territories as a result of that war. Saddam signed a peace treaty that not only confined him to Baghdad (he rarely if ever travels outside his country nowadays), but also curtailed his country's revenue from its biggest and surest world-hungry product: oil.
The new UN resolutions passed after the end of that war, indeed put further strain on Saddam Hussein and his régime. He could no longer produce weapons of mass destructions (hereafter WMD). He had to let inspectors in, to verify what he had, what their military production was, and destroy his biological and chemical weapons.
After years of inspections, accusations of spying by the inspectors from Hussein's side and counteraccusations of treachery and hiding from the West, the program came to an end in 1998. Saddam and his régime decided that there no longer was a need for inspections, since they claim they no longer had those weapons, nor were they interested in making them.
Meanwhile, other Western nations had begun to grumble. As a result of that war, Saddam could no longer sell his oil directly to the world. He could only do so through a program established by the United Nations called Food for Oil. The UN sells the Iraqi oil on the world market, and the proceeds go towards buying food and medicine for the Iraqi people.
According to the Iraqis and other independent sources, thousands of children died, as a result of that policy. Consequently Western European countries like France, and others like Russia, began to get nervous over the prolongation or renewal of that policy. They had in the meantime signed very lucrative business deals with Saddam Hussein's government, and could not bare the thought that Iraqi oil could no longer flow as freely on the world market as before. They wanted to end that it, especially as allegations were emerging that thousands of deaths in Iraq had been a direct result of that policy.
As the pressure mounted, the United States was being accused of playing strong arm tactics to keep the policy alive. Finally, a compromise was reached which allowed more oil revenue to flow into Iraq. All seemed to be working well, until after September 11, 2001.
Terrorism and its consequences
September 11, 2001, left a sore into America's heart that will take a very long time to heal if ever. Yet, it is following this date of the deadliest terrorist attack against the U.S. ever perpetrated on its soil, that the debate over the removal of Saddam Hussein from power had begun.
In its January 27, 2003 issue, Time magazine reported the story of what took place at Camp David in Maryland, on September 15, 2001, just a few days after the attack. While top members of the Bush administration were devising ways to overthrow the Taliban régime in Afghanistan, a brainy, 57 year old member of Bush's cabinet, former Yale University Professor Paul Wolfowitz began to suggest a different path.
Wolfowitz, according to Time, began to argue that the war on terrorism will have to be confronted along different paths. One of those is, according to his logic, Iraq. Whatever would be done to Afghanistan, Iraq must also be purged of its current régime for one that is much less threatening to his people, the region, and the United States.
He was apparently not taken seriously at first because the focus was not on Iraq, but rather on Afghanistan where Bin Laden had established his terrorist headquarters. Eventually however, after the Bush administration finished off with the Taliban régime in Afghanistan, the subject must have resurfaced. The subject of Iraq began to gain momentum in the news report, and slowly but surely, the Bush administration zoomed in on Saddam.
At first, no one thought that it would go that far. As usual indeed, the Iraqi government declared that they would no longer cooperate with U.N. inspectors, most of whom they had accused previously of being spies serving under some secret payroll of American Intelligence Services.
When the threat became clear to Saddam, and as he realized that the Bush administration was serious and that Europe could not be his Para vent despite their objection, he agreed late in 2002 to full cooperation, as stipulated in Resolution 1441 of the United Nations. Why, is Saddam even considered as a "terrorist threat" to the U.S.?
Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMD
Chemical and biological weapons are banned weapons. Yet, many individuals or groups with enough cash could potentially get their hand on such weapons for a hefty price, or perhaps even for free, so long as these weapons are in the hands of leaders like Saddam.
A very ambitious leader who right from the beginning, professed his desire to create some kind of a Pan Arab nation, no one will ever know for sure whether for instance, he would not have tried to eventually get his hands on Saudi Arabia as well, had he not been displaced from Kuwait. His ambition or ambitions did not or could not end after the Gulf War. Although he managed to stay in the shadows after the inspectors had left in 1998, he went for all that time without inspections from any credible international scientific body, qualified on issues of biological and chemical weapons.
His nuclear program was practically decimated. Nonetheless he still had, or has a few hundreds of qualified scientists who could still be doing research along those very lines that they censored against him. With such human potential, he could for sure quietly go on to develop, refine, redevelop, or expand his country's capacity in these fields. He is also known as an enemy of the United States, and a dreaded enemy of the State of Israel.
Worse, despite his containment by the U.S. after the Gulf War, and despite the sanctions, he still had managed to sell more oil to the world through schemes with other countries in the region like Jordan, and possibly Turkey, schemes that have been financially beneficial to these countries or their leaders.
The non-discussed issue
There is also one very important issue in this debate that had rarely if ever been debated: it's the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Israel stands alone in the Middle East, with very few friends. Since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister a few years ago, the Palestinian demonstrations known as intifada, with the ritual rock-throwing at Israeli soldiers had resumed and is in full force. Worse, a new occurrence has been added to that equation. It is called, suicide bombing.
According to media reports, Hussein had employed a strategy over the past couple of years, of "compensating" suicide-bombers families over their loss, by paying a few thousands of dollars to them every time one of their children perpetrate such deadly acts against Israel or the citizens of that country.
For a desperate people with no hope, suicide bombing then becomes more than attractive. Putting aside the ideological concern and the need of the Palestinian people for a homeland, killing others and dying in the process become a barometer for hope not for the "sacrificed suicidal", but for his or her family. After all, the few thousands of dollars that follow from Saddam's coffers to the Palestinian's family bring more hope to such a family in terms of material betterment.
How then, do you resolve the issue of suicide bombing, unless you are also willing to tackle Saddam Hussein heads on? That is just one of the multiple questions that are causing so much stir today around the world.
How do you resolve the issue of terrorism globally and in the United States? How do you create an atmosphere that is conducive for lasting peace in the Middle East? How do you build the United States' secret goal in this debate, of making the region more "democratic" and at par ideologically with the West in terms of structuring government, with Saddam Hussein always in the wind, flying high at times, and low at other times?
The "democracy" issue
Jordan, a country that has territorial border with Iraq, has a constitutional monarchy modeled more or less in its form after England, and in its laws after the French Code and Islamic laws. It is a country with a sizable Palestinian minority if not a small majority. Yet, Jordan has yet to produce any significant terrorist group that purports to attack and destroy the State of Israel.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand (which also borders Iraq), has an outdated monarchy which despite the oil wealth, had produced the likes of Osama Bin Laden, and hundreds of other terrorists in the region, ready and willing to attack the United States and Israel.
The list of those sorts of differences goes on and on, but shows one constant: when people have however limited a say in the affairs of their country, they focus more on making things happen within their border than on other problems, of and in the region.
It is thus clear that for the United States, the ideal is to create some greater democratic space within those regions. The goal seems to be to start with the biggest fish in that sea, Iraq. At least in appearance, according to the United States establishment's calculations, it is best to start there by removing Saddam Hussein.
The problem is that Saddam is looking more and more like a victim, rather than a source of difficulties in the region. Thus comes the question, why?
Saddam Hussein: the untold success
In a little noticed article published in the Washington Post on February 3, 2003, entitled "Stockpiling Popularity with Food: Rations Quell Iraqi Discontent, Post Foreign Service correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran argued that over the years since the Gulf War, Saddam had managed to build a network of distribution that rivals that of the United Nations itself. Iraqi families get to store food distributed through a very savvy network created by Saddam Hussein's people, for the equivalent of 60 U.S. cents per month.
What has rarely been discussed as well, is the degree of cohesion and stability that he has been able to maintain inside his country, despite the sanctions. Even more importantly perhaps, he is one of the very few leaders in the Middle East who has managed to foster a scientific community. The story now is well-publicized for instance, that the U.N. inspectors have been trying desperately to get Saddam's cooperation so that some 500 Iraqi scientists can talk to them, on the issues of WMD.
This is a Middle Eastern country, reputed for its obsession with religion and fundamentalist formalities. Yet, one is talking about scientists, people who use reason and facts first as their primary basis for discovery through analysis.
The buildings, his attempt to recapture the past glories of his land, or what he perceives as such, must have had a profound impact perhaps not as much on his people who bare the brunt of his brutal régime, but others in the region, desperate to see that they as well, are of some values that are beyond the usual stereotypical view of them in the world. It is a classic case of the res (things), working to boos the esse (the soul).
Finally Saddam by making deals with future values with major European countries, despite Europe's and Russia's denials, may have given the most comprehensive preemptive blow to the United States in their attempt to remove him. Europe since at least the presidency of G. W. Bush, perhaps unconsciously had been seeking for an issue that they could tie the hands of the Iraq with. This one seems to be the one.
The perfect place to try democracy
It is from those "kinds" of success of the Saddam régime that the Bush administration seems to be relying on to build a democracy in Iraq. Putting aside his cunning style, his machinations and brutality, a post-Saddam's Iraq has the great potential for a sizable middle class. Women in his society have more rights than most others in the Middle East, notably countries like Saudi Arabia and even Kuwait that seems to now be reverting towards the old, fundamentalist way on that issue.
There are university-educated women in Saddam's Iraq, alive, at work, and functioning in civil society. The level of rational thinking above that of religious fanatics is higher than in most Middle Eastern countries. There is at least a potential for great wealth in a country like this one, where the black gold, oil, is so proficient.
As it is becoming clearer now, the goal of the Bush administration is to build a democratic Middle East. The first stage of that "democratic" creation is Iraq. Yet, no one knows or can even pretend to know whether they will succeed. There are many impediments to it.
The unreliable partners
On February 12, 2003, National Public Radio News in the United States broadcasted a report based on a recent article published in the magazine "The New Republic". This broadcast suggests that the State Department and other officials of the Bush administration have recently concluded that a post-war Iraq would have to be governed for a period of 2 years not by the Iraqi opposition, but instead by a military general from the United States. It would be much in line with the way that Japan was governed by the United States after the war. There may be different reasons to this.
When in December 2002, the Iraqi opposition convened on the issue of a post-Saddam Iraq, they could only agree on very little, which amounted most to formalities. Putting those opposing groups together after the war and asking them to govern the new nation, would guarantee mostly infighting rather than a cohesive government. The risk is too great for the U.S. as they're trying to create a model in the region. Nevertheless, one should still ask whether this temporary government by an American general à la Mac Arthur after the war with Japan would guarantee the success of democracy in this country after they leave.
Although Iraq is much more secular than many of its neighboring countries, it is a country that has been governed for at least the past 25 years under the authoritarian rule of a ruthless megalomaniac, Saddam Hussein. Thus, a political culture has already developed there, which resembles the religious equation of dichotomy (the good versus the bad). Perhaps not as strong as in say Saudi Arabia, but still, shouldn't more than one ask whether the U.S. truly believe that they can succeed in transforming this authoritarian culture overnight because Iraq is more secular?
Still, the time seems to be for war in the eyes of the Bush administration. The United States is for instance, already dropping leaflets on Iraq, suggesting to officers from Saddam's régime to not follow orders from their superiors if they are told to drop weapons of mass destructions on their enemies. This seems to be a tactic devised to discourage mostly mid-level officers from obeying their superiors.
Interestingly from this logic and the analysis that ensued on NPR (National Public Radio), one can or could infer that the United States government is counting on many from these mid-level officers in a post-Saddam Iraq to maintain order and keep a cohesive country.
Probably ambitious, and not knowing when their turn to become generals will be, these mid-level officers may indeed follow through with those orders from the Americans. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that they will be as palatable as the U.S. would like them to be if or when some of them become generals after what the U.S. calls, the liberation of Iraq.
If the European Union strongest nations are also thinking about these issues, they may be even much less inclined, much more reluctant to join into war against Iraq. They also have their own issues with the current administration which, whether the war takes place or not, will most definitely damage the current alliance between them, and the United States.
The analysis of that probable rupture of the alliance came down from the pen of no other than a former high-ranking CIA officer, Graham E. Fuller, whose text first published in Global Viewpoint, was translated and published on lemonde.fr on February 13, 2003, a well respected European newspaper. The translation text in French reads the following: La puissance militaire de l'Union européenne sera longue à émerger, mais les Français et les Allemands viennent, sous nos yeux, de franchir un cap décisif après lequel la vieille alliance automatique avec les Etats-Unis ne tient plus. (The military might of the European Union will take time to emerge, but the French and the Germans have just, right under our eyes, taken the decisive step proves that the old, automatic alliance with the United States is no longer).
This may not mean much from the perspective of how strong and mighty the United States is militarily today. Still, we need to consider the European point of view as well, to perhaps put their frustration into perspective.
The European issue
A few years after the end of the Cold War, the heavy weight of the European Union, countries like France and Germany, began timidly to discuss the issue of American superpower. At the time, they debated the possibility of increasing their military budget as a way to counterbalance a too strong and too powerful United States.
With Bill Clinton in power between 1993 through the year 2000, their political psychology perhaps, the momentum at least was not in that direction. After all, Bill Clinton sent troops to the Balkans to resolve the Serbs vs. Croats and Bosnians issue, and did a pretty good job at it, offending no one group overtly.
As the year 2000 approached however, they began to once again discuss that issue of increasing their military expenditure. One could find here and there in periodicals, short articles relating to that debate within the European Union. Yet, nothing was done about it. The reasons may be multifold.
On the one hand the EU, or those countries in the EU qualified by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "Old Europe", was as always, more focused on issues of social expenditures than on military research. On the other hand, it is, was always nice to have someone else protect you. All members of NATO, they benefited and still do, from the U.S. (also a member of the Atlantic Alliance) and its permanent military research apparatus. However, George W. Bush became president of the United States and began to take decisions that its European partners judged to be unilateral, the nervousness started to sink in.
It was first over Bush's move, away from the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Then came his refusal to sign, or rather his decision to "un-sign" the previous Clinton Administration's adhesion to a world Court Tribunal for war crimes established in July 2002 at the Hague. There was also the lower level American representation at the Durban, South Africa, Conference on Slavery which perhaps and fortunately for him diplomatically, ended like a fish's tail when some countries tried to equate Zionism with racism, in early September 2002.
Every step of the way, the European Union or perhaps, Old Europe, felt slighted by what they perceive to be the Bush administration's unilateral stance and approach on issues that have international scope. But then came Iraq, and "Old Europe", just exploded.
The spark that boiled the water
When G. W. Bush began to seriously push for war against Iraq in November 2001, Europe and most other nations got together and argued that the proper way to deal with Saddam and the Iraqi problem is through the UN. At first, the U.S. Administration seemed reluctant at best, to even go through the U.N. The rhetoric used by Bush was in a way even threatening to the United Nations. He debated through the American media, that the U.N. must prove whether it is a body as worthless as the old League of Nations, the precursor to the current U.N., or an institution that can prove its validity.
Bush spoke along those lines, although less hawkish members of his own administration suggested that he should at least try diplomacy first. He relented at last, and drafted a resolution (Resolution 1441) that in December 2002, went through the United Nations Security Council which all permanent and temporary members signed onto, including Syria, an Arab nation not known for being sympathetic to the U.S. Inspections in Iraq would therefore resume.
All along however, the United States and its staunchest ally in Europe, England, seem to have had one goal in mind: the removal of Saddam Hussein through an invasion of that country, preceded by intense bombing of most if not all that country's communications infrastructure. While Bush was marching towards war, "Old Europe" began to drum louder the beat of inspections. Bush, more and more menacing in his language towards Saddam's Iraq, kept on suggesting through increasing military deployment in the Persian Gulf region that he was more focused on removing Saddam altogether than making sure that the inspections work. Some thought that it was a case of diplomacy by show of force. Most have now realized that it is perhaps or even probably, a case instead of diplomacy for force.
Thus, while "Old Europe" was and still is more interested in a policy of containment towards Iraq, Bush was and still is more interested in removing that man and his Ba'ath party from power. Saddam on the other hand, keeps on playing a "cat and mouse" game at every step of the way, only giving in when it seems absolutely necessary to avert the United State's military wrath.
As a general rule, one or most would expect the United States and "Old Europe", old friends for years before the end of the Cold War, to debate their contention in private. The media at large would pick up the steam without revealing, or even knowing the content of their disagreements.
The Iraqi issue is so pivotal in the relationship between and among those nations that the water just boiled over, and everyone can now see not just the steam, but also the very water flowing off the pot and onto the political stove.
G.W. is depicted in Europe as the bully, the archetype of an old-style Texan wearing his cowboy hat and whipping those on the ground while riding his wild and fearless horse. To Europe and perhaps even to most of the world according to public opinion polls, going to war is not the solution. It is not even the way. To most Americans on the other hand, war is necessary. What is truly causing the European fear? Also and as importantly, why the French-bashing?
Why the American wrath on France
"Old Europe" as Rumsfeld calls it, is comprised of nations like France and Germany, two very staunch opponents of war with Iraq. German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder during his reelection bid late last year used skillfully the Iraqi issue to put his opponent off balance, and win. During that campaign he used uncharacteristic language for an ally, to depict the Iraqi policy as proponed by the United States as dangerous. French president Jacques Chirac on the other hand has used more cautious words to characterize his opposition and that of his government to the American policy. Yet, France has been the joke of most American comedians on late night T.V., like David Letterman. To understand the American unease about France is also perhaps to understand the political significance of France in the body of European politics.
Although Chancellor Schroeder of Germany has made it particularly clear that he considers it wrong to go to war in Iraq, the French government has been the one trying to push forth alternative resolutions at the U.N. in order to avert war. Chirac has basically been undermining Bush's policy, by suggesting for instance a new resolution that would increase two or threefold the number of inspectors in Iraq. France has managed with two other European nations at its side, Belgium and Germany, to impede the United States so far from using NATO logistics to protect Turkey, a fellow European member of the Alliance bordering Iraq, in case a war would begin. Their logic is that war is not yet an option in the present conflict.
France is also where Russian president Vladimir Putin went on Monday February 10, 2003, for a three-day visit during which they debated heavily over the issue of viable alternatives to war in Iraq.
France is in a sense if not in fact, the capital of the opposition to the United States' policy towards Iraq, the place where the anti-war drum beat loudest and perhaps most efficiently. Yet, what most seem to ignore is that "Old Europe" is also fighting in this case for its political relevance in this conflict.
"Old Europe" and its concern over its political relevance
"Old Europe" headed by France and Germany, seems quite concerned over its relevance in this new international order. Should the U.S. go to war, the U.S. will win and will as well increase its reach and power in the Middle East. Once again, "Old Europe" relevance to the new international order will have been if not shattered, at least temporarily proven ineffectual and, or insignificant.
Worse, "Old Europe" is a place with a sizable Muslim minority and as such, they are quite concerned that terrorism will hit their territory with little or no mercy as a consequence of that war.
These European nations are also concerned that the Bush administration will put out any information, or use any bits and parts of information to further their goal. They are afraid as to what may happen in the future over such "unilateralism". Quite skeptical about the real American intention on this issue, they seek to verify every piece of information concerning Iraq and that country's connection to terrorism and everything else that the Bush administration divulges.
An article published on the web by the French daily Le Monde, contends that European secret services have tried and failed to verify the connection between Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Iraq's Saddam Hussein as suggested by the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell during his speech at the United Nations on February 5, 2003. According to them, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz had refused back in 1997, to agree to get Iraq involved in any kind of way with the terrorist network.
This proves once more how skeptical these European nations are of G.W. and his administration on the matter of Iraq. Concerned over their relevance, they try to "expose" whatever discrepancy they purport to find in the administration declarations in the matter of Iraq.
To strengthen their case against the war, they must let the world know of their own findings on the issues so they can make it more difficult for Bush to go to war against Iraq. They have so far done a good job at it, in Europe but not in the United States. If anything, their steadfast resolve to challenge Bush on this issue has only increased the willingness of the American public, or so it seems, to move ahead with war preparations.
On Tuesday February 10, 2003, for instance, the Bush administration had made public that once again, they're sending additional logistical reinforcement to the Persian Gulf region in their final stage of preparation for war against Saddam Hussein's regime. All the while, what the Administration qualifies as Old Europe continues on insisting for a more diplomatic approach to resolve the issue through a process of verifying that Saddam Hussein no longer has weapons of mass destruction, and is incapable of producing them.
Dividing Europe: the Bush diplomatic strategy
The moment the Bush administration realized that they had a problem in their hands with France and Germany refusing to join in, in that war, they explored and utilized a new strategy. With Tony Blair's England on their side, they managed to gain the support of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar Lopez, and that of other poorer European countries from the former Eastern bloc.
Countries like Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, all of a sudden gained at least in the eyes of the current American government, political prominence. The strategy worked for some very basic reasons.
In the cases of Italy and Spain, there is a greater ideological affinity with the Bush administration, both countries under a conservative leadership. In cases of countries like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, all former states within the Soviet Union, the reason may be simple economic. These countries are poorer, and a war in Iraq which they would support would be lucrative for them afterwards. If they support the war, they should and would indeed get either some kind of financial compensation, or perhaps more likely some of their citizens would be recruited as workers inside Iraq, bringing back in a greater flow of cash inside their country.
The same goes for much more prominent nations from the Eastern block like Hungary and Poland. Although already within the sphere of the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Hungary and Poland are two countries that are also interested in getting more lucrative deals for their own country. This new American Alliance with the "New Europe" has the smell and shape of future financial rewards. Old Europe on the other hand would and will simply remain empty-handed.
The case of realignment
This strategy by the Bush administration also demonstrates that for sure, Europe is being realigned. It is no longer the West, versus the East as we knew it at the height of the Cold War. There is no longer a Soviet Union. Yet, the Old Europe is trying to shape itself as a bloc, intended to challenge the United States partly out of fear, partly because they want to show and prove their relevance in this New World Order.
If the United States go to war against Iraq without the approbation of the United Nations, and without even the tacit agreement of Old Europe, the system that we have known since the cold war, with Western Europe aligned faithfully behind the United States will be destroyed. What that Old Europe will then be comprised of almost for sure, are countries like Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands (Holland), and Switzerland. Eventually and depending on their success, others may join as well including countries like Italy and Spain.
The new Europe will probably be constituted of other European nations from the East, like Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. It is also a virtual certainty that countries like Poland and Hungary will be in difficulty for admission into the European Union, although they had long applied. Turkey, which had also applied to that Union and is in difficulty for admission, would and will remain a much stronger partner to the United States whatever does or does not happen. These other nations of the former Eastern bloc will have to rely much more from that point on, on the United States.
The rupture may not be severe, for all those nations of the West and the United States share some if not most of the same value. They have strong democratic régimes, and believe and rely on a market economy, although with a more socially conscious bend. Yet, it is undeniable that Old Europe is finally ready to go its own way. They will almost certainly increase their military expenditure and will take positions more at odds with the United States than before.
England was, is, and will remain the odd kid within the European Union because it is a country that has traditionally been more aligned with the United States than any other from that Union. The political world once again is changing right under our eyes, as the United States is gearing towards war with Iraq.
George Bush as it seems, will simply not back down. This administration has perhaps even calculated the risks entailed in pursuing that "Old-Europe – New Europe" strategy. Again, the most contentious issue for these two camps currently forming (the U.S. vs. Old Europe) will be over the Palestinian issue in the Middle East.
The United States will remain a firm ally of Israel over anything else, while the nations of "Old Europe" will probably remain stronger allies to the Palestinians on the issue of an independent state. They hope to thus maintain stronger bonds with the larger population of and in the Middle East.
On the other hand, with the Bush administration considering Iraq as its first step in its strategy to "democratize" the Middle East, no one knows for sure how successful Old Europe will be. They may or may not make headways. After all, once the Middle East becomes less autocratic after this virtually certain war, the Palestinian issue may not have the same drumbeat as they do now, for everyone else in the region may get more focused on issues that concerns them more directly. That is, if there become indeed as a result, many more democratic governments in the region.
The Palestinian issue at that point may simply become a nuisance, and a final solution to it may be adopted much more easily, whatever that solution may be.
Overall, the world is changing once again, after the Cold War. Everyone thought that we were living under a unified and more peaceful world. However, history once again is teaching us that every time there is a force going in one direction or with so much strength, it will always find a counterbalance overtime.
