| |
THE ROVING EYE
Listening to
Europe
By Pepe Escobar
CAIRO - Whatever the results of the Bush-Blair
Camp David summit on Friday, Europe's role remains the
key for a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis.
Although President George W Bush it made clear
in his State of the Union address earlier this week that
the course of a superpower may not be dictated by the
decisions of others, the Middle East's future will be
decided by Washington with influence from some European
corridors of power.
For the developing world
though, it has no say: the Arab world - as well as Asia
- has absolutely no input in the matter.
The
Saudis, nevertheless, are still desperately putting all
their efforts on an exile option for Saddam Hussein.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has had frantic talks
with the leaders of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates
and will soon travel to France and Germany. He keeps
hammering to the Iraqi leadership the fears of the whole
Arab world: the massing of American troops is not a
bluff. Mubarak had to admit, though, that Iraq "usually"
does not answer to Egypt's warnings "but sometimes we
feel they agree". The Arab strategy, in fact, consists
of warning Iraq and urging it to surrender
unconditionally to the US: But Saddam and the
Revolutionary Command Council would rather perish than
lose face in this manner. Arab repressive regimes know
that Iraq will be the first domino to fall in a very
long series.
At the recent World Economic Forum
in Davos in Switzerland, Jordan's King Abdullah said,
"It would take a miracle to find a dialogue and a
peaceful solution to this crisis." The recent Istanbul
meeting of key Middle East nations produced only a vague
communique. A Turkish diplomat goes straight to the
point, "We get nearly all of our military equipment from
the US. We owe more than US$30 billion to the IMF
[International Monetary Fund]. We can't afford to
antagonize the US."
Washington may not give a
damn about the reactions of the Muslim, and specifically
the Arab street; as all Arab regimes are not democratic
anyway, Washington trusts that the security apparatchiks
will do the job expected of them, repressing the anger
at boiling point of their own populations. But
Washington is very much aware of what might happen in
South Asia. Two possible nightmare scenarios: The
government of Pakistan's President General Pervez falls,
replaced by a pro-Islamist army junta very much in tune
with widespread anti-American popular resentment in
Pakistan; and India's hardliners in the government see
their opening to launch a preemptive strike against
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.
Divide and rule.
The British imperial motto keeps being effectively
applied by America. If the disunited Arabs are now
appallingly apathetic, the Europeans themselves are
alarmingly divided. The British government - through
premier Tony Blair - once again has made a clear
strategic decision to play Greece to America's Rome.
Arab and European political analysts concur: Britain was
responsible for the Balfour Declaration - which is the
cause of all, absolutely all, problems in the Middle
East. Britain was part of the Sykes-Picot agreement -
which in fact represented a balkanization of the Arab
nation, with the ultimate objective of preventing the
constitution of a unitary kingdom. And once again, in
Britain, foreigners are plotting to redraw the map of
the Middle East.
The map of Iraq, as is well
known, was drawn by the British on a napkin. The new
look won't stop with Iraq, of course. Asia Times Online
has learned from diplomatic sources that there are
serious discussions in London's Foreign Office right now
on a feasible partition of Saudi Arabia: the Wahhabis
would keep Mecca and Medina, the Anglo-Americans would
"liberate" the "oppressed Shi'ite minority" and keep
controlling the oil, and there would be two Arabias.
There are also plans for a partition of Iraq. The
central Sunni and Christian sector would be incorporated
into a new Hashemite (princely Arab family claiming
direct descent from the Prophet Muhammad) kingdom from
the Jordan river to the Gulf. Britain is contributing to
the configuration of the end of the post-Ottoman Middle
East with as much technical and historical advice as
with thousands of special forces.
France, on the
other hand, clearly identified Washington's long-term
strategy: total US hegemony over the Middle East and its
oil resources. Not only France, but a majority of
countries in the European Union, as well as Russia, know
that after Saddam goes, the US will never hold Iraqi oil
"in trust" for those with large interests in the country
(France and Russia) - as Washington has promised. Both
Paris and Moscow have to carefully factor the
consequences of potentially being excluded from the
loot.
What Italy's Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi is too blind to see is the fact that a war
will also have devastating consequences - crucially in
the form of tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of
refugees drifting to Europe (including Italy). France
also knows very well that a war will propel a new round
of terrorism in Europe, and "it will lead to the
recruitment to many anti-American terrorists", in the
words of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in a
recent visit to Cairo. As Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, from the
Egyptian Council of Foreign Affairs, estimates the
situation, "We are facing a crisis not only for the
Middle East, for the Iraqi people, the Palestinian
people, indeed for all the peoples in the region, but
for the whole world. The crisis could eventually engulf
the entire planet, including Europe." As all of the Arab
world is aware, Sid-Ahmed reminds everyone "we are
facing two superimposed crises, each reacting with the
other: Iraq and Palestine."
Blair is largely
perceived not only in France and Germany, but by large
sections of public opinion across the continent, as
Washington's Trojan Horse in the European Union -
something that deeply embarrasses the British
pro-European business elite. On top of it, almost 70
percent of British public opinion is not convinced of
the necessity of war, or why Blair so obsessively
torpedoes Europe's unity in favor of Washington's
designs. One particular psychological trait has to be
taken into consideration: a shrewd politician, Tony
Blair never engages himself in a policy when he does not
have absolute certitude of winning.
France and
Russia (permanent Security Council members) and Germany
(which takes the presidency for this month) fully agree:
only the Security Council, through a second resolution,
can legitimize the use of force, which is not at all
justified for the moment. Washington's mantra is "time
is running out". Paris - along with Berlin and Moscow -
says that there's no time limit to the work of the arms
inspectors in Iraq. Belgium shares the same position,
expressed by its Foreign Minister Louis Michel: "I
believe a critical mass of European countries follow our
line". But he's also alarmed by the dangers of disunity:
"The four European countries now members of the Security
Council must indicate that the European countries which
will authorize an American attack without a second
resolution will bear an enormous responsibility."
No wonder that the bombastic episode championed
by what is now known in Europe as the Gang of Eight -
which openly proclaimed their faithfulness to the US
line this week- could not but rejoice Washington ('New
Europe' vs 'Old Europe' on Iraq). Not only was it a
portentous slap on the face of France and Germany, it
might cause tremendous problems to the credibility of
the European Union itself. Many European diplomats and
businessmen are not contesting the content of the letter
- even though most of the 15 EU members don't consider
regime change in Iraq an end in itself. Most of all,
they are contesting the form and the moment chosen for
its publication. Ironies are flying from Brussels to
Strasbourg, and from Amsterdam to Barcelona: the members
of the Gang of Eight either fell into a trap, or are
being dubbed "the vassals brigade".
One just has
to examine the list of signatures. There's not a single
dissident of the US line. The original idea for the
letter is from conservative Spanish Prime Minister Jose
Maria Aznar, an extremely close ally of George W Bush.
France and Germany were not even contacted. Greek Prime
Minister Costas Simitis - the current European Union
president - also was not contacted. He only knew about
the text late at night on Wednesday, via Hungarian Prime
Minister Peter Medgyessy: the text was splashed on the
front page of newspapers across Europe on Thursday
morning. Simitis, publicly, regretted the lack of
coordination between the Europeans, but privately he was
furious. A Greek government spokesman said on the record
that Bush and Berlusconi did not say a word about it to
Simitis when they talked on the phone on Thursday.
No less than 10 full members of the European
Union did not sign the letter. So the Gang of Eight
consisted of Britain and four right-wing governments
(Spain, Italy, Portugal and Denmark) as EU members; plus
three soon-to-become members, Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic. Poland is the fiercest US ally in Europe
at the moment, behind Britain and Spain. Poland and
Hungary are governed by two former communists. And the
Czech Republic is already contributing to America's war
effort. Not by accident, these three Eastern European
nations are the only candidates to membership of the
European Union which are already members of NATO. This
is in fact a group portrait of the "new Europe" so
cherished by the Pentagon.
And the list could be
even longer. Any country from Eastern Europe, previously
in the orbit of the former Soviet Union, and eager to
enjoy America's favors, would happily join. Latvia and
Lithuania signaled that they would have signed the
letter. French, German and Dutch diplomats note in a
playful tone that these countries obviously were not in
George Bush's list.
France, through Foreign
Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to play the split
down, especially because at this very moment Brussels is
trying to come up with a real, credible European common
foreign policy. "Let's try not to oppose one Europe to
another while everyone sees we defend the same
principles: firmness toward Iraq and the will to find a
solution to the crisis in the framework of the United
Nations." Belgium and the Netherlands also officially
confirmed that they did not sign the Gang of Eight
letter because Europe should speak with one voice.
Whether the four Europeans currently sitting at
the Security Council will speak with one voice is still
a mystery. Javier Solana, the de facto EU foreign policy
chief, defends the work of the inspectors, with no time
constraints. At the Security Council, this is the
situation as it stands. France, along with Russia and
China, all permanent members with veto powers, are in
favor of "no time limit" for the inspections. The US and
Britain, permanent members with veto powers, say "time
is running out" (the US) and "now it's the last chance"
(Britain). Spain and Bulgaria, non-permanent members,
more or less follow the American line, but they would be
willing to wait a little more. The other non-permanent
members are Germany (which takes the presidency during
the crucial month of February), Mexico, Chile, Guinea,
Cameroon, Syria, Angola and Pakistan. The US could
easily coax all of them to vote for war - except Germany
and Syria - with a varied basket of carrots.
At
the World Economic Forum in Davos, US Secretary of State
Colin Powell dismissed a Swiss proposal to host an 11th
hour meeting between Americans and Iraqis to avert war.
Now Washington knows that it does not have a majority in
the Security Council for a vote authorizing a war. It
may always opt for the wobbly "coalition of the
willing". At least 53 countries have been contacted so
far. The White House says that 21 countries are already
on board - among them Australia, Kuwait, Qatar and
NATO-happy Eastern Europeans - disguising the fact that
this is fundamentally an Anglo-American war.
For
Washington, Iraq is guilty until proven guilty; for the
international community, Iraq still has the benefit of
the doubt. Can the US build its case on the grounds of
moral credibility and not imperial arrogance? All over
Europe - and the rest of the world, for that matter -
people are increasingly sure that for Washington's
hawks, the world doesn't move forward because it doesn't
follow America's orders. More and more people also know
that America will attack as soon as it secures the
necessary number of troops to "contain" or police Iraq
as an occupation force for enough time to deliver
re-election to George W Bush. The unspoken truth amid
all the spinning is that Bush's Iraq policy is his
economic policy. So this is not about "liberation", it's
about power politics.
Can Europe finally make a
difference? Yes, if European governments listen to their
own public opinion. According to the latest EOS Gallup
Europe poll released in Brussels on Wednesday, 82
percent of people in the 15 EU member-countries - and 75
percent in the 13 countries that are candidates for
membership - say "no" to a war without a mandate from
the UN. The numbers couldn't be more crystal clear.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
