|
In an increasingly anxious chorus, the United States' closest allies are urging US President George W. Bush against early military action to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The warnings from key European and Middle East allies - except Britain - come amid signs of fierce debate within the Bush administration about military options for overthrowing Saddam, accused by Washington of developing weapons of mass destruction.
The leaders of France and Germany cautioned on Tuesday that they could not support a US assault on Iraq - home to the world's second largest oil reserves - without a United Nations (UN) mandate, which US and British officials argue is not legally necessary.
"Any attack would only be justified if a mandate was approved by the UN Security Council. That is the position of Germany and France," President Jacques Chirac said after talks with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Diplomats said both countries had sent stronger private signals that for Europe, resolving the burning Israeli-Palestinian conflict was far more urgent than attacking Iraq, which they see as a contained problem for the moment.
Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, whose country would be a vital base for any US strike on Iraq, said on Wednesday that he was trying to dissuade Washington from a military operation.
And Jordan's King Abdullah, due to meet Bush on Wednesday, told a British newspaper this week: "In light of the failure to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, military action against Iraq would really open Pandora's box."
Diplomats say the sudden hardening of the allies' public tone may have been prompted by media reports that one option under consideration in Washington is a quick strike before the US mid-term elections in November.
But Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is holding hearings on Iraq this week, said he did not expect the Republican administration to launch military action before next year.
Schroeder said he believed Bush would keep his word and consult allies before any decision.
But a senior European official said it was proving very difficult to get any transatlantic discussion on the divisive issue.
Bush's sole public European supporter on Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, faces a revolt in his own Labour Party against the idea of military action involving British troops.
With London newspapers publishing a steady trickle of leaks suggesting up to 30,000 British soldiers could take part in a US-led invasion perhaps early next year, many Labour lawmakers are demanding that parliament authorize any involvement.
Blair has declined to give such a commitment. His defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, said in March: "Legally, we would be perfectly entitled to use force as we have done in the past without the support of a UN Security Council resolution."
British officials acknowledge that a US decision to attack Iraq without a UN mandate could put Blair in an acute dilemma, tearing him between loyalty to Bush and solidarity with his European partners.
"A UN resolution would certainly be highly desirable to give us political cover, if we could get it," one British official said.
Nor can Bush expect greater German support if conservative challenger Edmund Stoiber wins a September general election.
Stoiber said on Wednesday that the world might be standing "on the eve of a war between America and Iraq" but that he wanted to avoid such a conflict by strengthening Europe's voice.
While European and Arab allies agree on the need to pressure Saddam to admit and co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, most see the prospect of another Gulf War as deeply destabilizing for the Middle East, and potentially for the fragile world economy.
Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel tried in vain last week to persuade visiting Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to let arms monitors back in while there was still time to avoid war. He said it was "five minutes to midnight" for Iraq.
US allies question Washington's long-term thinking.
"What we are saying to the Americans is, 'What plans do you have for holding Iraq together and rebuilding the country after Saddam? Are you prepared to keep troops there for five, 10, 15 years if necessary?' " a senior European official said.
Given the Bush administration's aversion to long-term "nation-building," some European policy-makers fear Europe could be saddled with the brunt of the reconstruction and peacekeeping burden, while US oil companies take the contracts.
Many shudder for the post-war stability of an Iraq divided among majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs - the former resentful of the dominance of the latter - and Kurds, whose quest for independence from Baghdad could inflame their ethnic kin in neighbouring Iran and Turkey.
Arab officials said a US strike on Iraq at a time of seething public anger in the Muslim world over Washington's support for Israel's actions against Palestinians could only fuel anti-Western violence and spawn new recruits for terrorism.
But some European officials said that once Bush makes a firm decision to attack Iraq, European government criticism will melt, and leaders will find ways to line up behind Washington.
(China Daily August 2, 2002)
|
