Crisis Over Saddam a Huge Test for Europe

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder says Germany "will not take part in a military intervention in Iraq," although it is less clear whether his government will oppose war when the UN Security Council votes. France also offers resolute ambiguity, threatening, but not promising, a veto.

Yet Washington remains skeptical that its critics are serious, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that he expects Paris to give in - as it always does. It is noted that Schröder won reelection by running against the Bush administration's plan for war in Iraq but later promised to send German troops to Turkey to crew AWACS planes sent by NATO. Even the refusal of NATO to approve America's request for assistance is seen as only temporary.

Over the years, Washington has learned that it can browbeat most any nation into submission on most any issue, but the coming showdown over Iraq offers Europe another chance. Simple criticism, however, whether from angry demonstrators or frustrated diplomats, will not dissuade President George Bush from ordering an attack on Iraq. Concrete practical steps are necessary.

First, France must do more than bluster. Only by vetoing any UN war resolution can France hope to stop the Bush administration's war plans. And only by making a commitment and sticking to it will Paris be able to encourage China and Russia to join it. A veto by two or three of the Security Council's permanent members, supported by the negative votes of Germany and perhaps other states, would demonstrate a sobering lack of international support.

Second, Schröder must prove that opposition to Washington is more than a cheap election stunt. The U.S. doesn't need Berlin's approval if it nevertheless allows unfettered American use of German airspace, permits Washington to shift forces from bases in Germany, and even mans AWACS planes supporting the war. If the chancellor believes Washington's Iraq policy to be misguided, even dangerous, he must say so - and vote against any Security Council resolution, bar the use of German troops in any fashion, and deny Washington use of German airspace and bases.

Third, France and Germany must encourage other governments to join them. A protest by several European states carries more weight than criticism by one or two. An opposition that included Pakistan and Syria - like Germany, temporary members of the Security Council - as well as India, Indonesia, and perhaps Japan would be more impressive still.

Fourth, Berlin and Paris should encourage Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, where a new government faces a public that opposes war by a nine-to-one margin, to stand firm against any war. Fifth, Britain's Labour Party must say no to war in its name. Prime Minister Tony Blair is supporting Bush administration policies, but this will not be Tony Blair's war.

Sixth, other U.S. allies must look after their own interests. Australia, for example, has strongly backed the Bush administration, yet war against Iraq would create additional Muslim grievances and encourage the use and transfer of whatever weapons of mass destruction Baghdad possesses, increasing the likelihood of an even more devastating, Bali-like attack.

South Korea and Japan are understandably focused on the prospect of North Korea restarting its nuclear program, but war in Iraq makes war in Korea more likely. Although Bush has proclaimed his intentions on the Korean Peninsula, no one should take him at his word. Once the conquest of Iraq is complete there will be rising demands inside the administration for military action against the North, and at that point opposition by Seoul and Tokyo may be too little, too late.

Lastly, other governments must warn Washington that they will not bail it out after any war.

The Bush administration is counting on European nations to furnish many of the tens of thousands of troops who will be needed for years to preserve some pretense of order among Baathists, Kurds, Shiites, and returning émigrés. Berlin, Paris, and others should tell Washington that it will be not only a U.S. war, but a U.S. peace.

If Berlin and Paris back down after publicly avowing their opposition to war in such strong terms, they will reinforce the justifiable contempt in which they are held in Washington. And U.S. administrations will continue to ignore them in foreign crises.

The credibility of European and other critics of Washington is at stake. Giving in will feed Washington's conviction that it can impose its will without constraint. The Iraq process will inevitably be repeated, only with Iran or North Korea as the next target. Or with a plan for coercive "regime change" in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. Or perhaps one to forcibly disarm Pakistan.

It will be difficult to stop Washington's rush to war. United foreign opposition offers the only hope of doing so.