WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
Paris, Berlin react to Bushs speech
Europe lays down conditions on Iraq
By Ulrich Rippert
12 September 2003
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
President Bushs appeal last Sunday for greater international
support for the US occupation of Iraq was greeted coolly in most
European capitals.
The governments in Paris and Berlin made it clear that they
are not willing to simply provide troops and money to bail Bush
out of a disaster that they had previously warned against but
were unable to prevent. At the same time, they indicated that
they are prepared to intervene in Iraq should the US make the
appropriate concessions. Neither government calls for the withdrawal
of the occupying troops and the right of the Iraqi people to determine
their own destiny; instead they favour the formation of a colonial
or puppet government upon whicheither directly or via the
United Nationsthey could exercise decisive influence.
German foreign minister Joschka Fischer (Green Party) emphasised
that the prerequisite for German involvement is complete transparency
regarding activities in Iraq and unrestricted control by the United
Nations. A military participation by Germany is currently not
an option, he said, and this time there will be no direct payments
to the US, as was the case following the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
Fischer made it clear that the days of cheque-book diplomacy
are over.
In an interview with the conservative newspaper Le Figaro
late last week, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin
referred to a statement from his ministry that said the French
government is not prepared to play the role of fireman in Iraq
after exactly what we warned of from the beginning has taken
place.
According to de Villepin, the position of the French government
is well known and neednt be changed. Despite recent tensions,
Paris is prepared to cooperate, but such cooperation is bound
up with clear conditions. This includes a UN mandate for Iraq,
which clearly stipulates that all countries taking part should
be placed on an equal footing. France strictly rejects the dominant
role demanded by Washington for the US-British-led coalition in
post-war Iraq.
In addition, de Villepin demanded the rapid return of Iraqi
sovereigntyunder the protection of the United Nationsincluding
a clearly delineated plan for new elections to take place before
the end of the year. These conditions must be fulfilled, he added,
with no compromises or half measures.
The speech by President Bush also met with sharp criticism
from the European daily papers. The British Independent
said that there was much in Bushs speech that was objectionable,
and not only the consciously misleading connection made
between the September 11 attacks and Iraq. He lectured
those countries which were opposed to the war on their duties,
but this is hardly the right tone to convince other countries
to risk the lives of their soldiers on dangerous Iraqi territory.
The Zurich Tages-Anzeiger noted that the most important
element in the speech by the US president was what he did not
say. The president neither mentioned the failures on the
part of his government regarding post-war plans for Iraq, nor
did he outline the shape of a strategy for withdrawal from the
Gulf. He neither mentioned the unsuccessful search for weapons
of mass destruction, nor the related dubious information of the
US secret services prior to the war...Just to call upon
our friends to forget past divisions in the light
of new challengesthis is not enough.
The Frankfurter Rundschau reported in a similar manner
under the headline Bushs mishaps that the US
president had delivered a Texas-style mea culpa. Bush
had not addressed the issue of weapons of mass destruction
which remained to be found, nor was there any serious tone
of self-criticism detectable in his speech, the paper noted.
In an even clearer manner, the newspaper Neue Westfälische
Zeitung commented last week on the American proposal for a
new UN resolution on Iraq. The draft resolution that is
currently being presented to the UN Security Council by US strategists
to get it out of the whole mess is nothing less than an insult.
The world community is being asked to take part in a so-called
multinational peacekeeping force involving unpredictable risks,
under conditions where it would not have the slightest influence
on the aims and the implementation of the mission.
Despite such sharp criticism, the European Union (EU) remains
deeply divided over Iraq. On the one hand, the German chancellor
met with the French president in Dresden at the end of last week
to declare their desire to continue their close collaboration.
They clearly distanced themselves from the draft resolution presented
by Washington to the United Nations, which is very, very
far removed from a line which Germany and France could fully support.
On the other hand, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland have
already sent troops to Iraq. And in his latest trip to America,
the head of the Italian government, Silvio Berlusconi, who currently
holds the chair of the European Union council, effusively praised
the policies of the US president.
Last weekend, the 15 foreign ministers of the European Union,
together with 10 ministers from candidate member countries, could
agree on only a very vague and general declaration at their informal
meeting held at Lake Garda in Italy. Their statements afterwards
merely indicated that the most important aim must be to transfer
government power to the Iraqi people themselves as soon
as possible and maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq.
While Germany and France sought to use the Lake Garda meeting
to improve the draft resolution, the Blair government in London
was in the process of increasing its troop deployment in Iraq.
Only shortly before the meeting, Poland had sent its own troops
to take part in the US-led occupation.
In their manoeuvres over a new draft resolution at the UN,
the issue for Germany and France is not if, but rather under what
conditions, they will participate in the occupation of Iraq. Together
with the criticism levelled against the US, there are also more
moderate voices to be heard. Last Sunday, for example, German
chancellor Gerhard Schröder called the American draft a
step in the right direction, which just did not go far enough.
He also implied that Germany was quite prepared to help
out in the reconstruction of Iraq. It was possible, for
example, for his government to assist in the training of Iraqi
police and soldiers. The chancellor is also in favour of a multinational
force when such a move is sanctioned by an appropriate UN resolution.
The conflict centres on the issue of who plays the leading
role in post-war Iraq. Germany and France are attempting to exploit
the growing military and political crisis of the American government
to limit its powers in Iraq. They are also using the UN to increase
their own influence, thereby gaining access for European companies
to the countrys oil wells as well as securing a role for
European concerns in reconstruction projects. Washington urgently
needs international help in the form of soldiers and money, but
is not prepared to accept any restrictions on its military, economic
and political power.
Up until the beginning of the 1990s, Germany and France were
Iraqs two most important business and trading partners.
It was only the 1991 Gulf War and the sanctions imposed afterwards
that severed these economic ties. Both countries had used their
influence to arrange the system of sanctions in a way that would
enable them once again to develop close links with Iraq. However,
the latest war finally put an end to these plans. This was one
of the reasons why both countries opposed the war in the first
place.
Since then, fears have grown in Paris and Berlin that Iraq
is developing into a powder keg threatening the entire Middle
East. This is another reason why both governments are ready in
principle to intervene in Iraq.
A growing number of German politicians are also calling for
Berlins participation in Iraq. The foreign policy spokesman
for the conservative opposition in Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble
(Christian Democratic Union, CDU), warned the government against
categorically rejecting an intervention by the German army. He
told the newspaper Welt am Sonntag: If it is convinced
that reconstruction should take place in Iraq under a UN mandate,
then the government cannot on principle reject participation.
We should support the current change of mind by the Americans.
The chairman of the German military association, Colonel Bernhard
Gertz, argued in a similar fashion. In his opinion, the government
cannot avoid the eventual participation of German troops. Gertz
told the magazine Focus that, should the United Nations
agree on a resolution for Iraq along the lines favoured by Germany,
the government will not be able to maintain its stand.
Contrary to current propaganda, which alleges that a European
intervention would serve humanitarian purposes, the deployment
of German and French troops in Iraq would do nothing to stabilise
the situation in the Middle East and would undoubtedly encounter
considerable resistance from the Iraqi people. These troops would
be part of a regime of occupation responsible for the colonial
suppression of the country aimed at the exploitation of its oil
wealth.
It is clear that, despite all the demagogic talk of introducing
freedom and democracy, a brutal dictatorship is being prepared.
The commentary by an American academic in the influential Financial
Times Monday did not mince words. Harvard Dean Stephen Walt
recommended that the Bush administration concede to European demands
and prepare domestic Iraqi forces to take over control of the
country. The aim is not to introduce democracy, he
wrote. What is necessary is basically a government of minimal
effectiveness, which can hold the fort. Unfortunately this must
take the form of an authoritarian government, because that is
what is needed to prevent the disintegration of Iraq.
German-French participation will also do nothing to dissipate
tensions between the two countries and the United States; quite
the opposite is the case. The struggle for economic influence
and power in this strategically important region will only intensify.
See Also:
Bush seeks UN bailout of Iraqi occupation
[4 September 2003]
Iraq: Attack on UN spurs plans
for international military force
[30 August 2003]
Chancellor Schröder moves
toward a German military mission in Iraq
[22 August 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |