Until Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons’ inspector, made his
presentation to the UN’s Security Council on Feb. 14 it was still
unclear which way the Europeans were going to vote on authorizing war
against Iraq. Many had assumed the French in the end would go along, to
get along — to maintain their status at the UN and to make sure their
serious economic interests in Iraq were not jeopardized. This is no longer
true. Indeed one can go even further and say that Britain, until now
America’s most faithful ally, is beginning to waver. One can see it in
Parliament, one can see it in the newspapers, one can see it on the street
and, most important of all, one can see it on Prime Minister Tony
Blair’s face.
The Americans, in particular Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have
tried to divide Europe, to mock the notion of an emerging common foreign
policy, to set “old” Europe against a “new” Europe, the
pro-American Eastern Europeans. But, apart from the fact that the East
Europeans are not yet in the European Union and need to watch their step
in case they provoke a delay in their promised entry, the important
development of the last few days is that it has become clear that the
electorate of Europe has a common foreign policy even if the leaders do
not — and that is to oppose war with Iraq. The Americans, the crowds on
the marches seemed to be saying, may be assuming the inevitability of war
but surely they are not claiming infallibility! The Europeans want the
Americans to stop, look at the evidence that Blix and his colleague,
Mohamed El-Baradei from the International Atomic Energy are garnering with
an open mind, and also think hard of the awful likely consequences of a
war.
What are these? The real danger is that Saddam Hussein with his back to
the wall and with the end of his life only hours away gives the order for
the use of chemical and biological weapons. The Americans have said that
in this case they might use nuclear weapons, and Israel almost certainly
would if they were attacked too. It is quite impossible to imagine how
angry 80 percent of the world would be at such an act. It is nearly
everyone’s greatest taboo (apart from a relatively small circle of
neo-conservatives who have the ear of President George Bush — Rumsfeld,
Vice President Dick Cheney but certainly not Secretary of State Colin
Powell who would certainly resign taking some of the important service
chiefs with him). Humanity in unison would seethe with anger. America
would never dare show its face again.
But even if war did not degenerate to this level it will still trigger
enormous waves of political bitterness against America all over the
Islamic world. These tidal waves of anger will certainly topple the regime
in Pakistan, putting the country’s nuclear weapons in the hands of
extremist Islamic militants — although American troops will probably
race to forestall them — and they will rock to their very foundations
some governments in the Middle East. There will be thousands of new
recruits for Al-Qaeda, which will find that the present-day social
sanction against further murderous activities — quite rigorous in most
Islamic societies despite the superficial analysis of American
“experts” – will have softened by many degrees. Besides, the way a
war is going to be fought in all likelihood — almost house to house in
Baghdad — is going to produce an appalling loss of civilian life.
No wonder the Pope, no great radical and a staunch believer in the
valuable role played by the US in the Cold War, has come out against what
he sees as an unjust war. These protests were not the old student kind of
the 1960s. They were middle of the road people, professors as much as
students, the thinking middle classes and working class, people with
experience who know quite a bit, and who don’t even necessarily want to
see their government replaced. They just want it to change its mind.
Whatever economic difficulties there may be in Europe the one thing
cannot be said is that the continent is in the grip of Europessimissm.
That period if it ever existed has long gone. It is generally positive and
optimistic. Neither is it a “used up” civilization. There does not
have to be a federal Europe for a powerful Europe to exist, as my
colleague William Pfaff has long and correctly argued. Europeans are aware
of their common experience. They built the European Union to avoid the
mistakes of their fathers — the too ready resort to war. And
increasingly as the demonstrations, the newspapers editorials and the
critique of politicians have shown, a Europe is emerging that is going to
stand up to America on this need for war. Iraq and its weapons of mass
destruction can be contained as they have been contained for the last
decade without another war.
Perhaps Bush has done the world a service. He has made us all hold Iraq
up to the light. But a majority in Europe have concluded that whilst
Saddam Hussein is an evil man, inured to any sense of human rights, a war
would be the worst of all human wrongs.