Race of the Vassals

This latest NYT article explains, in the words of Elmar Brok of
Germany's Christian Democrats, that "The race of the vassals has begun."
Wish I knew details about the deals they're cutting; what the US will be
giving in return -- certainly more than just an IOU?  But can the US
afford much more?  How much?  What would it take to get France on board?
Perhaps simply three or four more weeks of inspections (given what they
stand to loose if they don't get on board, which now appears to include
the damage to France's role in European leadership in light of the
groveling sycophants "pledging allegiance to the flag.").

January 30, 2003
A Pledge of Assistance for Bush From 8 European Leaders
By ALAN COWELL

LONDON, Jan. 30 — Assuming a somewhat frayed mantle as global diplomat,
Prime Minister Tony Blair set off for the United States tonight to meet
with President Bush, bearing an unusual pledge of support on Iraq from
eight European leaders but leaving behind a continent ever more divided
over the need for war.

The eight European leaders — Prime Ministers Blair, José María Aznar of
Spain, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Jose Durão Barroso of Portugal, Peter
Medgyessy of Hungary, Leszek Miller of Poland, Anders Fogh Rasmussen of
Denmark and President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic — offered their
backing in a letter published today in several newspapers, including The
Wall Street Journal, that urged other Europeans to join in supporting
President Bush against Iraq.

"The trans-Atlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the
current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security,"
the letter said, adding to a sense of deepening crisis since the United
Nation's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, cast doubt on Saddam
Hussein's readiness to shed weapons of mass destruction.

"We must remain united in insisting that his regime de disarmed," the
letter said in an apparent rebuke to President Jacques Chirac of France
and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, who have angered Washington
by opposing American war plans and insisting that United Nations
inspectors in Iraq be given much more time to search for weapons of mass
destruction.

Britain said France and Germany had not been asked to sign the letter,
while Greece, the current holder of the European Union's rotating
presidency, had also been kept out of the loop. The Netherlands said it
knew of the letter, but had refused to sign it. Further support came
from Slovakia on Wednesday, when Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda
announced that he wanted to contribute a small contingent of forces to
an American-led coalition against Iraq and allow allied planes to
overfly Slovakian territory. Parliament must approve his proposal.

Mr. Blair flew to Madrid to meet Mr. Aznar before heading on tonight to
Washington, where Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy met with President
Bush today. The rush of visits to the White House prompted a European
legislator, Elmar Brok of Germany's Christian Democrats, to remark, "The
race of the vassals has begun."

The British leader undertook similar hectic diplomatic journeying after
the Sept. 11 attacks to marshal support for the war in Afghanistan. At
that time, Washington enjoyed far broader sympathy in Europe, and Mr.
Blair faced far fewer challenges from his European partners as he
projected himself as Europe's voice in the White House.

"In those circumstances, it was far easier for Blair to play that role,"
said Steven Everts, an expert in trans-Atlantic relations at the Center
for European Reform, a private research institution. "There's nothing
like the consensus that there was on Afghanistan and that makes Blair's
position more shaky."

Several European governments and some high European officials said they
had not been consulted about the letter. Significantly, though, the
letter's expressions of ringing support for the United States fell short
of explicit backing for Washington's threat of a go-it-alone war with
what it has termed a "coalition of the willing" if other nations
continue to oppose it.

Rather, the letter sought to urge the United Nations Security Council,
on whose decisions France has a veto, not to balk at a military campaign
if Iraq failed to comply with United Nations demands to disclose and
destroy weapons of mass destruction.

"The Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full
compliance with its resolutions," the letter said. "We cannot allow a
dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not
complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world
peace will suffer as a result."

While the letter was couched in the terms of an appeal for unity, its
publication also highlighted a new division in both the European Union
and the NATO alliance cutting across both geographic and generational
frontiers.

The signatories included both established European Union members like
Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Denmark as well as three countries
set to join the union next year — Hungary, the Czech Republic and
Poland.

By another calculation, 10 of the 15 existing European Union members did
not sign the letter, reflecting profound unease from the Aegean Sea to
the Arctic Circle. Germany insisted today that it was not isolated in
Europe and issued a counterappeal for unity along lines agreed on by
foreign ministers only four days ago. "The strength of the union is in
its common position," a government spokesman said.

The published letter, however, drew a distinction between governments
prepared to risk domestic opposition by unreservedly supporting
Washington and those like Germany reluctant to offend powerful pacifist
lobbies or confront a deep resentment of America's global leadership.
"Today more than ever the trans-Atlantic bond is a guarantee of our
freedom," it said.

By arguing that "the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction
represent a clear threat to world security," the letter also distanced
its signatories from governments in France, Germany, Russia and China,
which maintain that the case for war is unproven.

The gap widened further today when the European Parliament voted 287 to
209 in Brussels to urge the United States not to take unilateral
military action against Iraq, because Baghdad's dealings with the
weapons inspectors did not "justify military action."

"A pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law
and the U.N. charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other
countries in the region," the resolution said.

Even as the European legislators made their pronouncement, Britain — the
Bush administration's most committed ally — said it was calling up 6,000
reservists following its decision to provide 26,000 troops and a naval
task force in support of American forces pouring into the Persian Gulf
region. The British deployment represents about one-fourth of its army,
according to Phillip Mitchell, an expert on ground forces at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

Mr. Mitchell said Britain's total contribution of ground, air and naval
forces was close to the 40,000-plus it provided in the 1990-91 gulf War.
British forces are also deployed in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and
a variety of small garrisons, along with what has become the routine
task of standing in for striking firefighters at home. "Overstretch is
going to be a real problem," Mr. Mitchell said.

The antiwar lobby found fresh support today from Mohamed ElBaradei, who
heads of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency and is
leading the organization's hunt for nuclear weapons in Iraq.

"I still hope war is not inevitable," he said in a radio interview here.
"I will do my damned best to ensure that war is not inevitable, and I
will try every possible way to try to see whether we can resolve that
issue through peaceful means. Even if it takes a few more months, this
is an investment in peace."

By contrast, Britain and the United States have both recently insisted
that time is running out.

At a joint news conference with Mr. Aznar in Madrid tonight, Mr. Blair
asserted that if Iraq's disarmament could not be achieved through the
weapons inspections "it should happen with the full consent and
authority of the United Nations by force."

Mr. Aznar said he hoped there would be a second United Nations
resolution if the inspections failed to achieve disarmament. "That would
be a very good sign that there is unity among the international
community," he said.

Mr. Blair said he did not believe that Security Council members would
veto the use of force if the inspectors certified that Iraq was not
complying with demands for its disarmament.

"Force is the only alternative to a failed inspection route," Mr. Blair
said.

Elson Boles
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Sociology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center
Saginaw MI, 48710