War on Iran II: The case of Iraq

In the first piece of this series I argued that by taking over major responsibilities in Afghanistan, Europe is easening the overall burden of war of the United States. My argument in this text is that – contrary to the common view – Europe has played a major role supporting the Iraq war.

The “Coalition of the Willing” is dropping apart. After the withdrawal of Spain, Norway and Hungary in 2004, Portugal, Moldova, Netherlands, Ukraine and Bulgaria in 2005 and 2006 now Italy’s likely Prime Minister Prodi has announced to pull out the 2,600 Italian troops ASAP. The UK will reduce its troop number from 8,000 to 7,000 this month. Only Poland’s conservative Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz, reversing his predecessor’s decision, will keep the Polish force of about 1,500 troops stationed in Iraq, together with a few other European countries like Romania, Georgia and Denmark.

European death toll
The European death toll, as of April 10, is 207 soldiers is 8% of coalition’s total casualties: 103 of them British, 27 Italian, 18 Ukrainian, 17 Polish, 13 Bulgarian, 11 Spanish, three Slovak, three Danish, two Dutch, two Estonians and one Hungarian, one Latvian and one Kazakh. Relatively to the overall troop strength the Iraq war has been as deadly for Europe as for the US. (The image shows relatives of killed British Private Phillip Hewett at a remembrance service at Downing Street on April 26)

That’s a bitter end for a war that many European countries and definitely the majority of the European population did not want. The lack of a unified position within the Union (“old” and “new” Europe) has been interpreted as a split in between the member states, but in fact the role of the Union in Iraq is more complex.

The I-wanna-be-your-friend dilemma
Both in the built-up of the Iraq war and later most of the European governments have expressed the need of keeping the credibility as allies of the US. Especially Eastern European governments, both members and non-members of the Union, have been under pressure: if they want to stay friends with the Bush government and have their share in the obvious benefits of being an US-ally, they have to be supportive of the war. Even the most outspoken critics of the war, Germany, obviously felt the need to take back its capital NO to the war on informal levels of cooperation: German intelligence officers in Baghdad supported the invasion with crucial information.

Gimme all your money
Similar to Afghanistan, the Union has turned into probably the biggest civilian donor to Iraq. The Commission has been the prime donor of the elections in 2005, and European countries and the Union pay for the biggest share of the International Donors conference by far (731 million dollars of 1.3 billion). (IRFFI)

The Bush government, meanwhile, is pulling out of its aid responsibilities. For 2006, USAid has a budget of 360 million dollars for Iraq, down from 2,2 billions in 2004 and 660 millions in 2005. (USAid)

Shared Burden
As seen in Afghanistan, the Iraq war is far from being a US game with no European players on the field. Despite huge criticism from both the European population and many governments, Europe has undoubtedly taken a more than fair share of responsibilities in Iraq.

Europe has played along with the US both in its security objectives (terrorism as the major international threat, immigration, energy supply) and the means (war in Afghanistan and Iraq, containment of Hamas, the torture system). Those myriads of “trans-atlanticists” who demand that Europe shall live up more to America’s expectations may find out: that is exactly what Europe has already been doing in the past few years.

But: has this done the Union any good? Did the means of the past – especially the Iraq war - help achieve the Union’s objectives?

Javier Solana, the Unions top foreign policy official, named the following as the Union’s most pressing issues: Energy security, terrorism, human rights, failed states, non-proliferation (Javier Solana, Sound of Europe, 1/27/06, Salzburg). This set of objectives may be a problem in itself as it partly follows a “we-against-all” (or realist) foreign policy paradigm. But aside from this criticism, I think I’m on the safe side saying that the means supported by the Union have not made the world a safer place. Quite the contrary is true: the handling of post-war Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and the following strategic mistakes and the outrageous US/UK torture system are threatening both international and the Union’s internal security in the most blatant way imaginable. And, sad to add, predictably so.

What’s on your list, Javier?
The UN has to clean up the mess in Iraq. That’s how it was done in Afghanistan, with very disappointing results, but there’s no other way. Solving the Iraq problem will need not only loads of money, troops and infrastructure support from the Union, but also heavy support for the African, Iranian and Middle-Eastern UN troops who should be the core of a UN peace force. If we don’t want to administrate another pile of debris like in Afghanistan, this will take years and billions.

Be a partner. The Union’s best time always is when it treats countries like partners, not subordinates. Meaning: Turkey and most of the Arab Mediterranean states are already woven into a network of contracts and agreements with the Union, both politically and economically. They are a huge opportunity. The current process towards those countries needs to be restarted on a fair basis. Plus: strong signals towards a membership of Turkey are needed.