US bid to prepare NATO for war stalled by four EU states

Date: 30/01/03

By Dana Spinant and David Cronin

THE fault lines between Europe's capitals widened further last night (29 January) as four EU countries - Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg - lined up against a plan put forward by Washington for NATO to defend Turkey against Iraqi aggression in the event of war.

However, at the same time, eight European countries came out in solidarity with the US in an appeal for the transatlantic relationship not to become a casualty of the Iraqi regime's "persistent attempts to threaten world security".

The leaders of Spain, Italy, the UK, Poland, Denmark, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic put their names to a declaration highlighting the shared values and historical bonds between Europe and the US.

If they were attempting to isolate France and Germany, however, they failed.

For European Voice has learned that Belgium and Luxembourg have backed the Franco-German stance at NATO by declining to support a call from Washington for the Alliance to prepare protection measures to aid Turkey.

The ambassadors for Belgium and Luxembourg said they did not want to consider a war scenario that could pre-empt diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis.

Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to NATO, told this paper that he would table the plan again very soon.

"With NATO decisions being taken by unanimity one must be patient," he said. The four countries are "not opposed to it in principle; they have a problem with the timing", he said.

The divisions within Europe over how far to go in supporting the US were acknowledged by one top American NATO diplomat: "You have trouble in the Alliance when some of the large countries are not ready to use force when their partners consider it necessary and justified. You have the feeling that they are not on your side."

A senior EU Council official echoed that view. "We are going through a moment of difficulty - it is not the first, it is not the last, but it is extremely serious. We have to do our utmost to avoid breaking apart," he said. "It is the first time that we have had a rift of values."

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, agreed that "important differences" between EU members of the Security Council were not helping the situation.

However, in a powerful speech in the European Parliament on Wednesday (29 January), he insisted there could be no excuse for "slipping into war" because of the dictates of logistics or the weather.

"The case for war must be overwhelming - so far it is not. The consequences of war, while always uncertain, must be judged - so far they have not. And the motive for war must be clear and clearly understood by our public - so far it is not," he declared.

However, he warned that if, having offered Saddam every opportunity to comply with the demands of the Security Council he fails to do so, "the European Union will have to face up to its responsibilities".

If it wished to be taken seriously about constructing a world of order built on respect for rules "we must be serious also in enforcing rules", he added.

His comments came as it emerged that two of the four EU members of the UN Security Council have obtained legal advice stating that the body must pass a new resolution before war can be declared on Iraq.

France and Germany take a sharply different view from the UK and Spain on whether a 'material breach' of resolution 1441 passed in November amounts to a casus belli. The resolution warns of "serious consequences" if Saddam fails to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, but does not spell out what those consequences would be.

Germany, which takes over the Security Council presidency on Saturday (1 February), said its lawyers do not believe the wording encompasses the use of military force.

A French diplomat said Jacques Chirac shared this view, having also consulted lawyers.

France, along with the US, the UK, Russia and China, has a permanent seat on the Security Council and the power of veto. An opinion poll published on 29 January states that 79 of the French public believe its government should use its veto if the US seeks explicit Security Council approval for a war.

By contrast, Tony Blair, the UK premier, has made clear he does not feel a second resolution is required. Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, this week accused Saddam of being in "material breach" of 1441 after chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reported that Iraq "appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament".

Spanish premier José-María Aznar is taking a similar, though not identical, view to Blair. Insiders say he feels duty-bound to support the US because it has military bases on Spanish soil.

Greece's EU presidency is trying to coordinate the four EU members of the Security Council in the hope of achieving a common stance. But a meeting with their foreign ministers on 27 January sidestepped the issue of whether a new resolution was needed. One Greek diplomat said "nobody was in the mood" to discuss the matter.

George Papandreou, the Greek foreign minister, said that it was still too early to discuss the second resolution question at EU-level but added: "In a hypothetical case, where there is an escalation or military action, most member states do say they want a second resolution."

This article has been specially updated for the online edition of European Voice.

The fault lines between Europe's capitals widened further on 29 January 2003 as Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg lined up against a plan put forward by Washington for NATO to defend Turkey against Iraqi aggression in the event of war.