Straddling two continents
It's very strange, being a European in the US at the moment. Opinions on both sides of the Atlantic are so far apart and so strongly expressed that it's hard to have a conversation with anyone, from either side, without ending up in a war of words.
Funnily enough, both sets of opinions exist on both sides of the Atlantic - I've heard very strong opinions against American actions in the last few weeks from Americans and Europeans alike. Similarly, the strongest criticisms of French policy that I have heard have come from Europeans. Regardless, the current anti-European and anti-American feelings are good for no-one, and can only lead to worse things.
I'm still reading the texts from EU newspapers and news websites (the BBC is my favourite) as well as watching and reading the US news, and hearing US opinions on the war and on Europe all around me. I've never felt such strong anti-Americanism from Europe, and neither have I ever felt such anti-Europeanism in the US. It's very unpleasant and more than a little worrying.
The BBC is running an article describing how Blair wants to heal the US-EU rift, and how he is not shy of applying pressure to Chirac in order to get him to stop rocking the boat. On the subject of the potential for rapprochement between the US and EU, the BBC explains the concerns of some EU states very clearly:
The suspicion in some EU countries and with some sections of the public, is that this would be an unequal partnership.
They believe the conduct leading up to the war suggests the US would only countenance such a partnership so long as it held the whip hand.
More fundamentally, many do not see the same natural alliance between their countries and the US that the prime minister sees between London and Washington.
What seems to be happening is a complete blindness on both sides as to the perspective of the other. Unable and unwilling to see things from the other's point of view, opinions expressed in this context resort to long rebuttals of arguments made by "the other side". So much for diplomacy.
On the EU side (at least those of the EU that are against war), a number of concerns exist...
- The right of veto of a nation in the UN security council was sidestepped by a nation state. Disagreement exists as to whether this vote was necessary for war or not, and therefore as to whether the war is approved by the security council (and therefore legal) or not, but the sense is that the diplomatic language for war is "all necessary means", and not "serious consequences", which was far too vague a term.
- A feeling exists that the US pays little mind to the opinions and desires of others, that the UN is not the deciding entity when the US feels strongly about something, and that therefore the international order doesn't properly or sufficiently counterbalance the power of the US, which ignores international law when it is convenient to do so.
- The argument that the UN must stand by its resolutions leads automatically to the question of why resolutions regarding Iraq are acted upon, when resolutions regarding Palestine are ignored.
As you can see, much of this is not about Iraq - the transatlantic disagreement is not driven by this war or Iraq's status as the target of hostilities. This is not good, as it implies that the perceived reasons for anti-americanism in the EU will persist after the war with Iraq is over.
On the other hand, the US perception of things is also ignored by the EU...
- The US is the guarantor of peace through the deterrent effect of its willingness to use force where a threat exists. It is the US's safety umbrella that gives certain European states the safety and space to espouse the diplomatic and peace-promoting attitudes it expresses.
- If the US doesn't stand up to Saddam Hussein, who will? We know he's a bad person, we know we should get rid of him before he develops the kinds of weapons that will make it much harder to get rid of him, therefore we must move sooner rather than later. Decisively.
- The US perceives a threat from Iraq. That threat is believed to be real, significant and in the present. It must therefore be dealt with.
- September 11th 2002 may not have any direct links to Iraq, but we know (or have strong indications) that Hussein is seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. We also know that he has a hatred for the US. While he cannot deliver a missile to the US mainland, it is unacceptable to have him develop such weapons when we know that he will provide them opportunistically to any terrorist group willing to attack the US with them. He is a potential terrorist ally with the motive, and soon the means, to attack the US.
- Given the magnitude of the attacks of September 11th 2002, Americans are no longer willing to wait until after the attacks have taken place to tackle the threat.
- The French and Russians only want to protect Iraq because they have oil contracts there.
Interwoven with these polarised arguments are other considerations...
1. Does the US participate in international entities by choice?
There's an argument that says that the US is capable of going it alone, that it has the economic and military might to coerce the rest of the world into following it. If this is true, then its membership of entities such as the UN and NATO is entirely by choice, a voluntary concession to multilateralism. If these entities tie it down, it will inevitably reconsider the multilateral nature of its relationships, and turn them into bilateral relationships with "coalitions of the willing", since it has no need to be on good terms with all of the rest of the world.
2. What are everyone's motives regarding Iraq?
A lot of mud has been thrown on this issue, and people assume that some of it sticks. France and Russia have companies with oil contracts in the region, and that fact, combined with their resistance to armed invasion, is deemed sufficient to conclude that their motives are entirely driven by economic interests. On the other hand, the accusation that Bush is doing this solely because he wants to "finish the job his father started", or because America's new foreign policy requires a show of strength against a defeatable enemy. While there may be grains of truth in the above, they actually fall under the guise of conspiracy theories, because the stated motives of the parties concerned are clear. We do not know that France's motives are based on Elf's contracts, neither do we know that George Bush is attacking Iraq because his father did. Since we don't know, we should withhold judgement. Instead the allegations above are brandished as emotional weapons in a war of words.
So where does that leave me, and my opinions? I am unwilling to be drawn to either extreme, since I don't feel comfortable with the arguments of either side. Unfortunately, given the tone and nature of the conversations I get into, there's very little middle ground to stand on. When I am heard to disagree with a point of view, my point of view is automatically assumed to be at the other extreme. I have to assume, since I actually hold a reasonably healthy respect for those parties at both sides of the argument, that as time passes, moderation will sneak into the opinions voiced.
In the meantime, my only advice to those in the midst of such arguments is that words like "apologist, peacenik and warmonger", and comparisons to historical figures such as Hitler, are all wholly inappropriate, and have no place in a civilized discussion. The two sides have been goading each other with barbed words, and look where it has brought us.
PS. While I'm on the subject, if you haven't already heard of it, Blogspot is hosting a weblog of a 29-year-old in Baghdad - it makes for interesting reading : Where is Raed?
Posted by nlvp at March 25, 2003 11:41 PM