March 12, 2007
Brussels’ view of the world
I was in Brussels last week and talked to some of the European Union’s top foreign policy officials. The EU, of course, does not make policy for the Union on its own. But the Brussels foreign policy types do play an important role in framing and co-ordinating policy - and often serve as the public face of Europe. They are also have a unique vantage point. All European leaders spend a lot of time in Brussels. And everybody of importance - from President Bush to President Putin and the leaders of the Middle East - passes through at some point. One of the people I saw made a point of telling me how many important people had sat in the very chair in which I was now reclining. I was honoured, of course.
Anyway, here is my composite summary of the views of the officials I met:
Kosovo:
This is probably the most urgent problem in the EU’s in-tray – both because it is in Europe’s backyard and because the issue will have to be resolved in the next few months. There is a feeling that Kosovar independence is basically inevitable. But EU officials are worried by three things. First – maintaining EU unity because it is an open secret that some countries – led by Greece – are very sceptical of the notion of an independent Kosovo. Second, trying to ensure that Russia does not use its veto to block a UN resolution setting up an independent Kosovo. Third, trying to ensure that the UN process is not so dragged out that people on the ground get nervous, and violence breaks out again. All three points are connected. If the EU can maintain its unity, then it is less likely that Russia will dig its heels in – “it will just be a question of the price they extract”, says one top EU official. And if Russia agrees to a deal quickly (say, by the end of May), the situation on the ground is less likely to get out of control.
Iran and the Middle East:
There is dwindling faith that diplomatic negotiations can persuade the Iranians away from the path to nuclear weapons. But EU officials think that tougher sanctions – if they can be agreed at the UN – might be helpful. The Iranian economy is already hurting and there is growing dissent against President Ahmadi-Nejad.
The EU people remain convinced that military action would be a mistake. Ultimately, if the Iranians do succeed in getting the bomb, the Brussels elite would place their faith in nuclear deterrence. The Iranians would have to be left in no doubt that a nuclear attack on Israel would lead to a nuclear strike on Tehran – by Israel’s allies, if not by Israel itself. But the Brussels line is that a pre-emptive (conventional) attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would lead to a huge escalation in terrorism and would probably provoke a counter-attack on Israel. The EU people do not think that Israel is capable of taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. And they think that America is now leaning against an attack.
EU officials have been startled by the vehemence of anti-Iranian feeling among the Saudis and the Egyptians. They are “spitting poison against the Persians”. But – according to the EU types – their Arab interlocutors also do not favour military strikes on Iran. They prefer to pursue a political strategy aimed at weakening Iranian proxies in the region – Hizbollah and Hamas. This could have a positive spin-off, because it means the Saudis are getting much more engaged in trying to promote Middle East peace and a stable political settlement in Lebanon. The fact that Lebanon has not imploded is cited as a rare piece of good news coming out of the Middle East.
Iraq:
There is little prospect of an immediate improvement in the situation. The best that can be hoped for is that the situation staggers on more or less as it is, and eventually people get sick of killing each other. The bleaker scenario is that the country effectively splits, with the Kurds dominating the north, the Shia the south and the centre of the country dominated by Sunni insurgents. Early American withdrawal would make this more likely. Therefore, it seemed to me, EU officials tacitly support President Bush’s “surge”.
Dear Mr. Rachman,
1-) Are you, in your first paragraph of the “Iran and the Middle East” section, suggesting that the EU’s top foreign policy officials seriously believe that Iran is on “the path to nuclear weapons”?
Is this perchance your own lazy shorthand for alluding to the Iranian nuclear industry? If not, whatever happened to those old-fashioned things like evidence? The IAEA did not find any evidence of weaponisation of the Iranian nuclear effort and the illegal resolutions against Iran have been obtained by US coercion and deception.
See an example in respect of India:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/1545
2-) When they refer to the vehemence of Saudi and Egyptian governments against Iranians, do the top EU officials ever reflect on the absence of legitimacy and popular support for these two tyrannies? Do they reflect on where the origins of the 9/11 bombers were (18 out of 19 were Saudis or Egyptians.) Do they recognise that the salafist terrorism being directed at the West and Iran is almost entirely financed, nurtured and peopled from within those supposed friends of the West, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and Pakistan?
Isn’t the real way to achieve democracy and stability in the Middle East trusting the people and withdrawal of support for the corrupt, illegitimate and cruel “friends of the West”?
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentGideon, now that you sat in that chair you must let go of your Buddhist attempts at maintaining celestial impartiality since the imperfections of those that set there before you cling to your aura like a bad tune that you can’t get out of your head.
Like any other place, Kosovar independence is merely a question of referendum; the Muslim Albanian majority will vote for independence and, given the proper safeguards for the Serbian minority, independence is inevitable. Let’s see who will protest against the will of the majority; only the Kremlin will complain because they have yet to appreciate the rights of minority populations on their own turf or realize that people could genuinely and independently aspite to self-rule.
As opposed to my nemesis the Orwellian Pacifist, the Europeans you met have had to witness four years of Iranian obfuscation, three years after which the Iranians left feeling “not taken seriously” after we Europeans offered them their own safe and independent civilian nuclear program. That Iran is seeking nuclear weapons is obvious and nobody knows what world we will live in once they achieve their objective. Hopefully they will have matured to embrace the ideology of people like Iranian Grand Ayatollah Montazeri by that time. Hopefully.
For the people in Iraq the optimal solution continues to be unification of the entire Arab world into a federal, liberal democracy that respects the rights of all constituent peoples and religions. No progress towards finding such respect since Versailles.
Posted by: jvd70 | March 13th, 2007 at 3:52 am | Report this commentHi jvd70.
The physicist and Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman said:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart
you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
It doesn’t matter how many US Think Tanks (financed by what Wesley Clarke calls “the New York money people” claim that Iran is building nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter how much the US bullies and coerces other nations to vote against the Iranians.
All that matters is that nobody has found evidence of weaponisation of the Iranian programme, despite extensive and intrusive search by the IAEA.
Contrarywise, there is a huge body of evidence, in the shape of the lies told about the existence of the Iraqi WMD’s, about the bias and malice of the Zionist-NeoCon-Tony Blair axis of evil.
Up with Eric Blair / Down with Tony Blair!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am | Report this commentPacifist, I doubt you honestly believe that Iran’s nuclear program is civilian. The IAEA couldn’t find its ass with both hands, even if it had been given access to the sites it wanted to enter – which it was not.
The Iranian regime has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. It is not going to stop now. A nuclear armed Iran would represent the greatest threat to the West, I include Israel, India and other non-Muslim democracies around the world, in spite of the compass.
Rant all you like about the Jews and neo-cons. The fact of the matter is that it is Muslims that are murdering Muslims in Iraq. Not the Americans and not the British. The US has toppled a brutal dictator who gassed and tortured his way through 40 years of rule, given the Iraqis the chance to write their own constitution, create a government, hold democratic elections and take control of their own destinies.
If Bush and Blair had been an axis of evil as you allege they would simply have destroyed Iraq’s puny military, with no regard for civilian life, and then left the country to burn. They did not, they believed right or wrongly that democracy could set the Iraqis free and they have expended many billions and many soldiers lives attempting to stop Iraqis murdering each other.
I suggest you re-evaluate the situation and look at the real source of evil in the region. It ain’t the UK, the UK, Israel or any of your other bugbears.
Posted by: tired and emotional | March 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentDear Tired and Emotional,
Your alias is indeed apt as something is clearly affecting your judgement!
- You doubt my honesty but don’t offer any reasonable evidence to deny that Iran’s nuclear weapons are to be found in the same place as the Iraqi WMD’s were, i.e., in the imagination of those warmongers who want to send the US elephant to trample the innocent people of the Middle East.
- In your world view the Iraqis are better off now than they were this time 4 years ago despite something like 650,000 of them lying slain and several millions becoming refugees (probably the lucky ones) and the rest facing a very bleak life of war and devastation indeed.
- You blame the Iraqis for killing each other. You ignore the prevailing view that the civil war is being deliberately fomented by USrael-UK because they want to break up Iraq Don’t forget that the Sunnis and Shi’ites gave been living in Iraq for 13 centuries under various administrations (including BritiSh and Ottoman and nothing, and I mean NOTHING, like this killing happened in all that time).
- You ignore the fact that “Friends of America” (Saudi, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan to name but 4) are the main providers of personnel and finance to the Jihadi Salafist criminals.
- You ignore the fact that Saddam’s Ba’ath party was unleashed on the Iraqis with the support of the CIA in the first place and Saddam was long supported in his war against Iran (The US even tried to blame the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja on Iran and Rumsfeld went to Baghdad and was pictured shaking Saddam’s hand about a week later), but you seek to claim credit for overthrowing Saddam when he outlived his usefulness.
Yeah, you ignore facts because they are such inconvenient things and because being rational and factual militate against your prejudices.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 13th, 2007 at 5:12 pm | Report this commentI doubt your honesty because you are not being honest about your motivation and your hatred.
The fact that the IAEA was denied access to the most important and controversial sites in Iran I regard as evidence of a nuclear program. The fact that Iran has rejected offers of civilian nuclear partnership with various countries including Russia – no friend of Israel or the West – is also evidence of military intent.
Regardless of this, Iran has been instructed to stop enrichment by the Security Council and to readmit inspectors. It has refused and continues to develop industrial enrichment capability in breach of resolutions.
There is no doubt that Iran has bought nuclear expertise and equipment from the Pakistani renegade AQ Khan, or that she seeks added materiel and know how from any one who will sell it to her. You know this to be true but you ignore it.
To answer your other points:
1. Saddam did have WMDs. He declared 3 tons of sarin gas to the UN WMD team, amongst other things, before the coalition went in. This has not yet been discovered. Saddam had a proven history of attempting to procure WMDs and of using them against his own people – you yourself reference Halabja (though only to blame it on the US).
2. I never said the Iraqis were better off now than they were before. I do however reject your ridiculous figure of 650,000 dead. The UN itself believes the figure is more like 50,000. Far too many to be sure but most of those have been killed by their fellow Iraqis or their fellow Muslims. The US can only be held responsible for underestimating the bloodlust of sectarian Islam, not for the killings themselves which it has largely tried to prevent, at great cost to itself.
3. There is no prevailing view that the civil war is being fomented by the US or the UK. Not in countries that have a free press at any rate. Given that the partition option was rejected by the US and the Iraqis themselves at the constitutional stage the idea is simply fanciful. Why you mention Israel in this context is beyond me, perhaps you would enlighten me as to why and how Israel is involved in supporting an offshoot of the former Syrian national socialist Baath party, or the Al Quaeda cowards and apostates, or the revolting Mahdi army et al?
4. The US supported both sides in the Iran/Iraq war, selling weapons to both. As someone once remarked, “It’s a shame they both can’t lose”. Furthermore if the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians etc are arming and supporting the various murderous Islamic groups that is hardly the fault of the US. You can’t have it both ways, it can’t all be the US’s fault and yet also the fault of the Sunnis. If the Wahabhis are arming the militias then it is because they are also terrified of Iranian aggression and the madness of the current regime – not because they are particularly friendly with the US.
5. Over throwing Saddam was the right thing to do. The West should not have supported him, even it was only done to contain the mad mullahs of the Iranian revolution.
Please try and do more than throw insults and actually argue a position other than “the US, UK and Israel are responsible for everything bad in the world ever”.
Posted by: tired and emotional | March 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Report this comment