| |
ANALYSIS
Old alliances, new
risks
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON
- With the Bush administration in a seemingly headlong
rush to war, the current international crisis over
Iraq's disarmament appears to be threatening the global
system of alliances Washington built in the post-World
War II era.
The latest example is the growing
transatlantic divide between the United States on the
one hand and France, Germany and Belgium - the very core
of Western Europe - on the other.
And already
administration hawks are arguing that the French-Belgian
veto of Turkey's request for NATO arms to defend against
itself against a possible Iraqi attack has put the
Atlantic alliance's very survival into question. "If
this is what the US gets from NATO, maybe it's time
America considered leaving this Cold War institution and
reforming an alliance of nations that understand the new
threats to world order," said an editorial in the Wall
Street Journal, reiterating Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld's reaction to the veto as "truly shameful".
But the strains brought on by the Bush
administration's increasingly irrepressible eagerness to
invade Iraq are also raising serious questions about
other historical alliances around the world. This
weekend, for example, it was reported that Saudi Crown
Prince Abdullah and his closest advisers have decided to
prepare to disengage militarily from the United States
as part of a series of measures to shore up the ruling
family's political support in the kingdom.
First
rumored but strongly denied in late 2001, Abdullah's
plans are to be implemented after the current crisis in
Iraq is resolved one way or another, according to the
reports, which cited Saudi sources as saying that a US
withdrawal from the kingdom would give its rulers more
room to implement reforms without appearing to be doing
so at Washington's behest.
And in yet another
unexpected development more related to the current
crisis in North Korea than Iraq, Rumsfeld has reportedly
informed South Korea that it is prepared to gradually
withdraw the 37,000 US troops who are based there, first
to the southern part of the country from current
positions close to the demilitarized zone where they are
intended to act as a "tripwire" in the event of a North
Korean invasion, and then off the peninsula altogether.
While the administration indicated the offer
derives from the perception that South Koreans are
increasingly angry with Washington for failing to
promote detente with the North and, in the words of one
official, "we don't go where we're not wanted", others
noted the move was designed to "raise the stakes" for
incoming President Roh Moo-hyun, whose softer line
toward Pyongyang has irritated some in the
administration.
"It's a no-lose proposition,"
noted one conservative congressional staffer. "If we get
our troops out of range of the North's guns, our freedom
of action for acting against the North is greater. And
if Roh gets worried about being left to the tender
mercies of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il, that gives
us more influence."
The latest flurry of
diplomatic moves and counter-moves by Washington and its
long-time allies is prompting growing concern here about
the current crisis' long-term strategic consequences,
especially for the NATO alliance and the United Nations
Security Council, where Washington is expected to seek a
second resolution authorizing or at least condoning a
US-led invasion of Iraq after the next report by lead
inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday.
Russian leaders, who met with French President
Jacques Chirac on Monday, appear to be rallying behind a
Franco-German proposal to double or triple the number of
UN inspectors in Iraq and to possibly constitute a
1,000-member UN peacekeeping force to back them up on
the ground. China, which like Russia and France has a
veto on the Security Council, is also expected to back
the proposal if it is put forward Friday after the
inspectors' report.
In television talk-show
appearances Sunday, top US officials, including
Secretary of State Colin Powell, dismissed the
initiative as "useless" and suggested that the Security
Council should be ready to authorize force unless Iraq
suddenly has a change of heart and volunteers
information to the inspectors that Washington believes
it so far has withheld.
Powell's remarks, as
well as Rumsfeld's sharp comments last weekend when he
complained bitterly about the French-Belgian veto and
the refusal of his German counterpart to share details
of the Franco-German proposal - which was disclosed by
Der Spiegel magazine - to beef up the inspection teams,
appeared to confirm the notion that relations between
the West Europeans and Washington had reached their
lowest point in a very long time.
That they were
already headed in that direction was clear even before
the Munich conference last weekend. Rumsfeld's
observations about Germany and France being the "old
Europe", clearly irritated the continent's two most
important powers.
"The road to Iraqi disarmament
has produced the gravest crisis in the Atlantic alliance
since its creation five decades ago," wrote former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the Washington
Post on Monday.
"I think what's going on in NATO
is a reflection of the deeper rift that is taking place
between mainstream Europe and the US," said Charles
Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Bush
administration believes that it can simply ram its
designs on Iraq down the throats of its smaller European
allies, and it's finding out that that's simply not the
case."
The administration appears to believe
that "as long as we assert our primacy without
hesitation, others will eventually get in line, but
they're finding out that if they in fact do so, others
will lock arms to resist a wayward America," added
Kupchan, whose recent book, The End of the American
Era, predicted a split between the United States and
Europe.
"What I am amazed about is the speed
with which these events are taking place," he said,
adding that "the Bush administration has put history
into fast forward".
The deeper forces that have
come to the surface in the current crisis, according to
Kupchan, include Europe's success and growing
self-confidence, Washington's shifting strategic
priorities away from Europe and toward the Gulf and East
Asia, "and a unilateralist bent in the United States
that is alienating Europe and most other countries in
the world".
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
