Iraq War Ends, Not Europe’s Acrimony with the US

BRUSSELS: Transatlantic battles over post-war Iraq look set to become a repetition of the acrimonious quarrel that preceded the US-led attack on March 20-- but with a twist. Those in the European Union who backed America's rush to war may be balking at their unilateral plan of building peace.

The swift American-British victory in Iraq has not made European opponents of the conflict any less hostile to the Bush Administration's post-war plans for Iraq. And in contrast to its earlier success in splitting the 15 nation European Union into fractious pro-war and pro-peace factions, Washington cannot rely this time around on the unstinting support of its British and Spanish allies. In a rare show of EU unity -- signaling that Iraq's post-war rebuilding could lead to a healing of the bloc's internal wounds caused by the conflict -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar have joined other leaders of the bloc in demanding that the United Nations must set the agenda for administering and rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq. The message is expected to be reiterated at a meeting of EU leaders in Athens on April 16-17.

Access to billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts is clearly one reason why Europe's governments -- and European companies -- want a multilateral and neutral body like the UN to take charge. A recent decision by the US Agency for International Development Aid to accord the first eight Iraqi rebuilding contracts to American firms, along with suggestions by senior US officials that companies from anti-war nations France and Germany should be excluded from future bids, have reinforced EU fears that European enterprises will be cutout of all lucrative post-conflict ventures in Iraq. In the first round of bidding even British companies were excluded. While these contracts will be paid for by US tax payers, handing out contracts to American companies without international bidding would be a violation of the World Trade Organization rules, which require procurement contracts to be open to all bidders, domestic and foreign.

The European Union policymakers, however, are adamant that their fight to give the UN a dominant role in Iraq is about more than money and commercial interest. Having fought a war widely regarded as illegal under international law, EU officials argue that coalition forces must move rapidly to correct past mistakes and hand over responsibility for Iraq's physical, economic and political reconstruction to the UN, the only organization capable of providing legal cover to the project. "Not everyone sees the war as legitimate. We must make sure that the peace is seen as legitimate," EU foreign and security policy chief Javier Solana insisted recently. "That is why the role of the UN in political reconstruction is important."

French President Jacques Chirac, still smarting over the U.S.-British decision to go to war without UN backing, is even more emphatic that the task of rebuilding Iraq is "a matter for the UN and for it alone." The UN must play a "central role" in restoring Iraq's sovereignty, the French leader insisted at a recent tripartite" peace camp" summit hosted in St.Petersburg by Russian President Vladimir Putin and also attended by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

The French leader's pro-UN stance reflects both a commitment to the principles of international law and a desire for effectiveness and efficiency, adds a French diplomat. The UN, having operated successfully in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor, possesses the experience and know-how needed to tackle complicated political realities, he says. Its presence will also be vital in securing the acceptance of Iraq's new government by skeptical Arab neighbors and other Muslim nations.

By opposing America's unilateralist rush to set the rules in post-war Iraq, EU governments are also signaling their rejection of a macho U.S.-dominated new world order. "Europe is saying that two countries -- the U.S. and Britain -- can't decide the future of Iraq. The EU is trying to establish global governance... not just for Iraq but for other crises that could emerge," underlines John Palmer of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre. EU security chief Solana says it would be wrong to want "a wholesale return to the politics of the caveman, where the guy with the biggest stick carries the argument." Instead of relying on military might alone, the U.S. should uphold and strengthen the rule of law to "preserve a position as a benign world power," he urges.

Many in the EU are convinced that the UN, sidelined and discredited in the run-up to the war, can and must be rehabilitated during the peace. "The UN is the only alternative to US unilateralism," says an official in Brussels. If it is granted only a minor role in post-Saddam Iraq, providing relief and emergency supplies as some in the U.S. would favor for instance, the world body's reputation could be scarred permanently. A discussion paper drawn up for the EU's Athens meeting points out that like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, European governments will not be able to pledge money for Iraq's reconstruction without an explicit UN mandate. A similar argument is made by NATO officials who say members of the Alliance could take over some post-conflict peace keeping operations in Iraq -- but only if the mission has UN approval.

Despite their over-riding divergences over a UN role, EU governments do not, however, dispute each and every aspect of America's post-war blueprint. There is agreement, for instance, that the immediate focus must be on restoring law and order and making sure humanitarian aid gets through to civilian victims of the conflict. Citing the need for "pragmatism," French Foreign Minister Dominique deVillepin told EU ministers recently that only coalition forces had the firepower and resources needed to quickly secure Iraq during a first "emergency" phase. Officials on both sides of the Atlantic also concur on the eventual goal of restoring democracy in Iraq through the organization of national elections.

But the second phase of the Pentagon plan to install an interim administration, possibly headed by exiled Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi, has set alarm bells ringing across EU capitals. "If the US has a free hand in stage two of Iraq's rehabilitation, it will end up controlling Iraq's political future and that is unacceptable," warns an official. "That is why it is important that the UN is put in the driving seat."

There is no clear EU line, however, on just how UN endorsement is to be obtained. With Chirac and Schroeder opposed to any new UN resolution which could give post-facto legitimacy to the war, diplomats say the EU will probably eschew another potentially sterile and divisive debate in the Security Council and opt instead for a specific case-by-case endorsement by the world body of different elements of Iraq's reconstruction, including the setting up of a civilian administration, the opening of war crimes trials and economic rebuilding. Seeking as ever to bridge the gap with the U.S., Blair has suggested that the interim authority envisioned by Pentagon planners could gain UN backing through an international conference on the lines of the Bonn conference on Afghanistan. Different formulas for a significant UN role in Iraq need to be explored in detail, says an EU diplomat, adding, "We are not fixated on one specific model... there's a need to be imaginative."

Support from Russia, China and Japan for a central UN role gives added weight to the EU's stance on what happens next in Iraq. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's presence at the EU summit in Athens on April 17 is also an important boost for the bloc. EU officials say they have few illusions that having won the war, the Bush Administration will pay much immediate attention to the voices of multilateralism echoing on the other side of the Atlantic. But given the complexity and the financial cost of the numerous post-war tasks facing the U.S. led coalition forces in Iraq, EU governments are confident that America will in the end recognize the need for international consensus and European support. Post-war anarchy in Iraq also makes it urgent that America and Europe stop beating around the bush and hammer out a coherent strategy for the country.