And preparations are being stepped up for its act of "overthrowing Saddam Houssein", its difference with European countries over this issue is augmenting. At the same time, it is noticeable that the European Union (EU) which has scored some success in the aspect of "common diplomacy" in recent years currently fail to speak in one voice on this issue.

Europe Says "No" with Stronger Voice

PD reporter Ren Yujun in USA: On August 15, US national security affairs C. Rice, assistant to US President, said that Iraqi President Saddam is an "evil person", Bush has set his mind on "toppling Saddam", and military actions against Iraq will soon begin. His remarks have triggered controversy within the US Republican Party and have disturbed America's EU allies.

After the occurrence of the "September 11" incident, Europe once shared the common hatred for the enemy with the United States. However, in less than one year's time, change has taken place in the sentiment of the people on both shores of the Atlantic Ocean, the distance in US-European foreign policies is widening. On August 5, a leading French newspaper published an editorial on the front page, saying: "indifference to and distrust of France and Europe have spread among persons around Bush." The difference between the United States and Europe over the Iraq issue is related to their divergence on the Palestine question. The traditional view of Europe is that if the Palestinian people do not have their own country, there will never be stability in the Middle East, attacks launched against Iraq before the solution of the Palestine-Israel issue will mean risking the danger of igniting the flames of war in the entire Middle East. US hawks hold that it is exactly Iraq that leads to the instability of the Middle East, and it is Iraq that is inciting the war-like sentiment of Palestine.

Since it came to power, the Bush administration has been going its own way and has indulged in pushing its "unilateral diplomacy", the rift between Europe and the United States on political, economic, security and environmental questions is deepening, their difference over the Iraq issue and Israel-Palestine conflicts is increasingly surfaced. After the United States put forward the so-called theory of "axis of evil" and the theory of "preemptive strike", in particular, the European countries have further realized that the US-initiated anti-terrorism war has actually become a pretext for the United States to get rid of hostile forces and seek world hegemony. The voice with which they say "No" to the United States is becoming louder and louder. A recent survey reveals that when asked about whether the present anti-terrorism war is launched mainly out of the consideration of US interests, 85 percent Germans, 80 percent Frenchmen and 73 percent British gave the positive answer "Yes". Clearly, more and more Europeans have come to see the essence of US diplomatic unilateralism and egoism.

Germany: Clearly Indicates Its Stance of Not Dispatching Troops

PD reporter Jiang Jianguo stationed in Germany: Since the beginning of August, senior German officials have indicated one after another that under no circumstance will Germany participate in US military actions designed to overthrow the Saddam regime. Chancellor G. Schroeder said: Under the circumstance of no consideration given to consequences and without any political plan for the entire Middle East region, I can only warn against immediate discussion on war to be launched against Iraq." German public opinion unanimously holds that Schroeder reacted to this with an unprecedented, unusual, clear-cut attitude.

There are several backgrounds against which the German government expressed its attitude in advance under the circumstance of not yet receiving any inquiries from the American side.

Firstly, the ruling Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Green Party both have a long-standing pacifist tradition, in principle they oppose the solution of international conflicts by means of war. In fact, this is the postwar basic stand of previous West German governments. In the 1991 Gulf War, Germany contributed money instead of manpower, in fact, it reluctantly indicated to the United States that it perform its supporting obligation in the capacity as an America's ally. Although Germany has broken through the taboo of dispatching troops overseas in recent years, whether it was for the Kosovo war, or the Afghanistan warfare and the peace-keeping action in Macedonia, all were authorized by either NATO or the United Nations and had the internationally acknowledged juridical basis for such affair as fighting terrorism, whereas the US attempt to overthrow by force a government it dislikes is untenable in international law. This is the main reason why Germany cannot follow the United States.

Secondly, Germany holds that once war is started, it is hard to foretell the consequence. SDP general secretary said a war against Iraq would bring negative effect on the world economy and would also mean a blow to Germany which will, therefore, try its best to obstruct the outbreak of the war. There is also the view holding that the United States should first promote Mid-East peace, instead of provoking a new crisis, otherwise, it will completely ruin the Middle-East peace process. In addition, Germany will see the general election in the latter half of September, in this pre-election sensitive period, the current government especially disfavors war against Iraq. For quite while, America's unilateralist acts in its foreign policy have evoked strong resentment from the Germans, so Schroeder has to consider the public's sentiment.

France: Military Action Has to Be Authorized by UN

PD reporter Zhang Zhuji stationed in France: Recently, international news reports of various French media regard the Iraq issue as one of the main contents. Someone holds that "the Saddam government is a dictatorial regime which is as incompatible with democracy as water with fire, and so should be overthrown"; but there are more people holding a different view. A poll published on August 11 shows even if a UN decision on launching military attack on Iraq is made, 75 percent of the French will oppose French participation; as regards American use of force against Iraq, only 18 percent people expressed support, while 76 percent expressed opposition.

What are the reasons for the different stands taken by the United States and Europe on the question of Iraq? Analysts say after the end of the Cold War, American strategy changed from "deterrence" to "prevention", when it feels you are a kind of threat, it will launch a preemptive strike at you. Iraq precisely belongs to such a case. Additionally, the geographical strategies of Europe and America are not the same. The United States has three strategic targets in the Middle East, first, it cannot tolerate the existence of weapons of mass destruction and will start first strike at countries which produce such weapons; second, it wants to guarantee the security of petroleum supply; third, it protects Israel. The United States asserts that Iraq violates two items of which, and so it takes advantage of this opportunity to assault Iraq. Furthermore, Europe and America are also divided in their experiences and views about the "September 11" incident. The United States regards getting rid of Saddam as the continuation of the counter-terrorism war begun in Afghanistan, while Europe does not feel this war as so urgent as does the United States.

Some Frenchmen guess that the United States of America will possibly launch a "down with Saddam" war in the first quarter of next year. Public opinion in France reminds Bush of the fact that in 1991 when his father launched the Gulf War, the price of oil soared to US$35 per barrel, resulting in hastening US economic recession and leading to failure in his lobby for re-election. One must be cautious about the prospect of another Gulf War. Last month when US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited France, the host country indicated that if the United States unilaterally takes actions against Iraq, France will reserve its opinion, all related military actions should have the approval of the Security Council and the authorization of the United Nations.

Italy: Hope for Avoidance of Armed Conflict

PD correspondent Shi Kedong stationed in Italy: Italy adopts an ambiguous attitude on the question of US military attacks on Iraq. Generally speaking, its basic attitude is it hopes that the United States will join the European Union (EU) countries to put diplomatic pressure on Iraq and conduct all necessary negotiations, trying to avoid armed conflicts as far as possible. Only under the circumstance wherein a series of efforts have proved fail, can the adoption of military actions be considered after authorization is received from the United Nations. Some Italian cabinet members think that the question of Iraq is more complicated than the Kosovo issue. Therefore, military actions against Iraq must have the authorization of the UN. the participation of Italy requires that decision is made by the parliament on the basis of extensive debate, and then concrete plans are drawn up by the government in accordance with the parliament decision.

Britain: The Blair Administration Becomes More Flexible

PD correspondent Shi Zongxing stationed in Britain: There are two different kinds of viewpoints in Britain over the question of war against Iraq. The first views Iraq as a "serious threat", declaring it is "vitally important" to remove this threat; the other kind holding a dissenting attitude, especially opposing Britain's participating in military actions against Iraq, saying that under the circumstance of the absence of any evidence and without UN authorization, it is illegal and immoral to launch a "pre-emptive" war.

Tony Blair gave a rapid echo to Bush's theory of the "axis of evil" as soon as it appeared, supporting US "pre-emptive " military actions against Iraq. His attitude evoked extensive worries and strong anti-war sentiments in Britain. More than 100 parliament members jointly signed a motion expressing their "deep concern", some members within the Labor Party even plotted to take action to "overthrow Blair". In the face of this situation, Blair spoke in a "low-key" for a while, saying that the wage of war against Iraq was not "imminent". In clarifying this "rumor", a spokesman for the Prime Minister Office recently indicated: It is wrong to think that the Prime Minister has not made up his mind on (the question of Iraq), the Prime Minister will not waver. This shows that Blair has not changed his original intention, if the United States really wages war against Iraq, Britain will definitely dispatch troops in close coordination with the Americans.

However, due to the intense domestic anti-war sentiments and the exacerbated internal disputes within the Labor Party, there seemed to be some sort of change in the attitude of the Blair administration which recently became more flexible. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated on August 22: Taking military actions against Iraq remains a choice, however, if Saddam allows UN weapon inspectors to unconditionally and unrestrainedly return to Iraq, and ensures that they can work normally, the situation will change. He said that if Saddam no more administers Iraq, Britain will, of course, feel happy, but Britain's main concern is the threat that might be brought about by Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction.

Britain-US relationship has always had a certain "particularity", but the case of Blair following the United States so closely is rare in all previous British Prime Ministers. The slogan of the Blair administration is "New Labor Party, New Britain", its meaning is rich, its manifestation in diplomacy is pursuit of Britain's "global rule". Britain of today is, after all, not the British Empire in those years, to achieve this goal, Britain has to rely on the strength of the United States. In the earlier stage of the counter-terrorism struggle, Blair got some scores in his close coordination with Bush. But Iraq is unlike Afghanistan then under the rule of Taliban, once Britain joins the war against Iraq, it has to pay a price, that will produce unpredictable negative effect on the prospect of the administration of the Labor Party and Blair himself and on Britain's relations with other EU countries.

EU: Worry behind Silence

PD correspondent Wu Yun stationed in Brussels: In regard to the matter about the intention of the United States on the other shore of the Atlantic to use force against Iraq, the EU has always kept silence and has so far refrained from publishing any statement. However, issuing no statement doesn't imply they have no inclination. On July 23, in the press communique published by Denmark, the rotating presidency, after its foreign secretary meeting with the newly appointed secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Committee, declared that both sides agreed on the leading role played by the UN Security Council on the Iraq issue. Currently, the stand of EU remains as this: it tries every possible means to make Iraq agree to allowing UN weapon inspectors to return to Iraq, conduct comprehensive cooperation with the UN and unconditionally implement the Security Council resolutions. It is the view of EU that the American war propaganda has stunted possibility for solving the Iraq issue.

The silence of EU reflects the different policy emphases of EU and the United States on the issue of the Middle East. The United States advocates that action should be taken to punish Iraq first and then solve the Arab-Israel conflicts. EU maintains that Arab-Israel conflicts should be solved first, or at least the Iraq issue should not be allowed to affect the solution of Arab-Israel conflicts. Behind the silence of EU is hidden the worries of the Europeans.

(People's Daily August 26, 2002)