Next week, US President George W. Bush, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will meet on the cliffs of Normandy to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasions that led to Europe's liberation. They should also seize the moment to liberate themselves from the bitterness that has divided the Atlantic alliance over the Iraq War.
When the US launched the war against Iraq, France and Germany rightly warned that the invasion could end up worsening instability in the Middle East and increase the threat of radical Islamic terror. But now that America and its coalition have proven themselves incapable of bringing stability to Iraq on their own, the French and German governments can no longer smugly say "I told you so" as the situation deteriorates even further. Both governments must become seriously and fully engaged in what must now be a united Western effort.
Of course, it would be best for everyone -- France and Germany included -- if the current US-led coalition were to succeed and Iraq could turn into a pillar of Middle East stability and modernization. However desirable this outcome, it is no longer likely (if it ever was). Internal stability and economic recovery continue to be elusive, with the specter of civil war hovering ever closer.
A divided Iraq at war with itself would be a disaster for the region, for America's international credibility and authority, and for transatlantic relations. In an already fragile region, a major Arab country like Iraq would likely prompt interventions by its nervous neighbors -- of which there is no shortage -- if it becomes a failed state.
Instead of the rule of law, there would be the law of the mafia, of terrorist groups and of tribal militias. Many of these forces are already in place. Instead of moving toward modernization and development, the region would be confirmed as a cockpit for conflict, a threat to itself and to the world beyond.
Were the US forced to withdraw in failure, Islamic militant groups would claim a historic victory, promising more bloodshed for the West. America might also once again retreat bitterly into isolationism, blaming its failure on the UN -- and on its estranged European allies.
The stakes are high in Iraq, for Europeans no less than for Americans. That is why it is time that even those who have been most skeptical about US policy in Iraq start to do something about it. Both Chirac and Schroeder have repeatedly pronounced that what happens in Iraq is a strategic challenge to their countries. Yet their actions in response to this insight have been modest.
The recent turmoil in Iraq has strengthened those in both nations who argue that there is now even less reason to get involved on the ground. At the very least, France and Germany are demanding that the Bush administration openly admit its failure and its need for help.
Yet not only is such a demand naive, with the Bush team battling for re-election, it is not at all certain that most of America's European allies would heed a US call for solidarity if one were issued. Confronting the threat that an unsettled Iraq poses to Europe and to transatlantic relationships implies stopping these tactical games. The passing of authority in Iraq from the US-led coalition to an Iraqi government and the need for a much stronger UN role offers the chance and imposes the need for everyone to stop posturing.
For their part, EU governments should provide the UN -- whose involvement in Iraq they have long insisted on -- with the protective force it needs to prepare for nationwide elections in Iraq later in the year, and should ask others to join the effort. A UN staff protected by US Marines simply cannot do that job. With the consent of both the US and Iraq's new leadership, EU governments should also offer to organize an international conference uniting all those with a stake in Iraqi stability, including Iraq's neighbors, to work out a strategy and commit resources in order to save Iraq from further protracted turmoil.
If Europe is to act, France and Germany must lead. Precisely because they opposed the war, they are the only countries that can restore Europe's unity of action in promoting stability. France professes to bear a special responsibility for international order, but so does Germany; only a few weeks ago, Schroeder based his claim to a permanent German seat in the UN Security Council on Germany's readiness to shoulder such responsibilities.
Of all the crisis regions in the world today, instability in Iraq constitutes the greatest challenge to international order. But France and Germany can block European responsibility for solidarity with a US facing possible defeat in Iraq. The decision is theirs. It is time for both to realize that the consequences of inaction will be no less severe for the region than for the Atlantic relationship.
Pierre Lellouche is a member of France's National Assembly and vice-chairman of NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. Christoph Bertram directs the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS