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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS