On Iraq, it's time to call Europe

By DANIEL KORSKI AND RICHARD GOWAN - 29 May 08

Condoleeza Rice is in Stockholm today for a UN-sponsored gathering of international luminaries to discuss Iraq's reconstruction. It's not easy to get excited about one more conference on the topic.

But the Secretary of State should pay close attention to her European counterparts. For the first time since 2003, a consensus is emerging in the EU on the need to do more for Iraq. There is a risk that the United States will not take advantage of this opportunity.

Previous European efforts to help Iraq have been fragmented and flawed. The 27 EU members combined have offered less aid than Japan alone.

While the Administration initially trumpeted European troop commitments to Iraq, these have faded away or become of marginal utility, like the British troops in Basra.

NATO, once tipped to play a significant role, has confined itself to a 160-strong training mission in Baghdad. The European Commission - the EU's secretariat - has pledged $1 billion in aid, but its actual presence is limited to a handful of officials, borrowing space in the British embassy. Many European nations have no diplomats in the country at all.

US officials nod to the need for better co-operation with the Europeans. But in contrast to the Administration's strenuous efforts to get more support from its NATO allies in Afghanistan, there has been little sustained effort to chart a common course on Iraq.

For many EU leaders, discounting Iraq as a domestic liability, that has been just fine. But there is growing awareness that it may not be sustainable. As Joschka Fischer, the former German foreign minister and war critic, has written, Iraq "has helped give rise to a new Middle East, one which threatens to be more volatile than its predecessor."

European diplomats have privately admitted for some time that they could not ignore Iraq forever. But in recent weeks, private talk has given way to public statements. A visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to Brussels in April proved a catalyst: the European Commission trumpeted its desire for "an energy security partnership" with Baghdad.

Even in those countries that most virulently opposed the war, the mood is changing. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has repeatedly stated his desire to do more in Iraq (he is one of the few foreign ministers who has been there).

Getting from private to public statements is a step forward. Shifting from rhetoric to real engagement in Iraq will be an even bigger one.

What such engagement will look like is uncertain but parts of it are clear. More, better-targeted aid? Yes. Assisting UN mediation? Yes. Support for what Barack Obama calls a "diplomatic surge" across the Middle East? Absolutely. New troops? Not a chance.

The challenge for the Europeans is how to align with US policy. They will not follow Washington blindly, but their strategy for Iraq has to fit in with US commitments.

But who on earth can say what these will be a year from now?

Not the current Administration, of course. And with the McCain and Obama camps so far apart on Iraq policy, European leaders don't know what to base their assumptions on. The momentum for new policies could therefore dissipate before next January as a result.

To avoid wasting the current opportunity, the presidential candidates should agree to set up an entirely independent team to canvass European views and share ideas for what do next in Iraq. It should be charged to report this winter, once the elections are done.

Their findings - a sort of transatlantic Iraq Study Group Report - could prove important part not only to Iraq's future, but to revitalizing the battered US-European relationship.

10 Comments

Rubish, America and lackies (UK) need to carry Iraq on their own, as they bear complete responsibility for it’s situation. Europe should stay out of the middle east and concentrate on further reform in Europe (economic,military, political etc) as well as deepening relations with Latin America and Asia.

dpac | australia | 31 May 08, 31 May 08 EST

This piece is very controversial, hence stimulating. But this time, I regret to read that, probably, the willingness to see Europe as a key actor in international politics might produce bad outcomes. In particular, looking at Iraq as an opportunity to revitalize the US/UE relationship is simply out of logic. If there is a field where Europe should maintain its marginality, it is just Iraq. For scholars, Iraq has become a very case study to exactly show what not to do in international relations, law, politics, strategy, and finally morality. Unfortunately, Iraq is, and probably will be for a long time, associated to negative perceptions. And perception in International Relations is extremely important. When people think of Iraq they have in mind the US, the UK and some other marginal contributors. Not Europe as a whole. And this is good, for Europe. Why should Europe be associated to these negative perceptions?
Iraq has also raised questions on the suitability of a political EU (a goal all of us aspire). It is a lesson to learn yet. And now, if we hope that the Iraq issue can change its nature and even become an opportunity for us, we are doomed to fail again. Iraq is something like a virus. Please, let Europe away from it. Therefore, a sort of ?transatlantic? Iraq Study Group Report might be a bad idea. This huge problem has now an only solution, to be found inside the United Nations. It is this body, and only this, that can attempt to solve the situation and put its face ahead.
Pay attention Sirs, sometime the best action in IR is just to not act, if not marginally. I regret to have to object the title of your article. In Iraq, simply, it?s not time to call Europe. And probably, there will never be time for this. As far as the US/EU relationship is concerned, be trusting, there are a number of other fields for that.

Alan Vincenzo Gendusa | Milan, Italy | 31 May 08, 31 May 08 EST

Dear Alan, thank you for your thoughtful comment. You won’t be surprised to learn that I respectfully disagree with your ultimate conclusions, although you are absolutely right that there will be a stigma associated with engagement in Iraq for some time.

That said, I absolutely agree that the UN must take a political lead in Iraq (it has been much more active in 2008 than before). If you look down the comments on the ECFR front page, you’ll see that I’m strongly in favor of EU-UN cooperation in peace operations and that goes for Iraq too!

If you’d like to explore the case for greater EU engagement in Iraq, take a look at this blog-post:

http://www.globaldashboard.org/cooperation-and-coherence/europeans-who-care-about-iraq-we-now-number-at-least-six/

I don’t expect to convert you, but I hope that this sort of exchange can continue to stimulate informed debate, Richard

Richard Gowan | New York | 02 Jun 08, 02 Jun 08 EST

Thanks for this interesting article. I learned a lot since I did not know that NATO and the EU commission were in Iraq at all. I am also glad to read some good news about the emerging EU consensus on the need to do more in Iraq. It took our European leaders a long time

Joerg - Atlantic Community | Berlin, Germany | 02 Jun 08, 02 Jun 08 EST | www

@ dpac

“Rubish, America and lackies (UK) need to carry Iraq on their own, as they bear complete responsibility for it?s situation.”

Imagine the Americans had followed that logic after WWII and left us to deal with the Soviet threat alone.

@ Alan

“Why should Europe be associated to these negative perceptions?”

Because stability and development in Iraq is important for Europe.

You seem to think primarily in terms of perceptions and what is good for our image. Will we still win global popularity contests, if we get more involved in Iraq etc…

No, Iraq is a matter of national security for Europe. We are much closer to it than the Americans are. We could suffer much more

The Atlantic Community asked fourteen European experts what would happen if US troops were completely withdrawn from Iraq by summer 2009. European terrorism, state collapse, higher oil prices and increased American isolationism were just some of the likely scenarios:
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Premature_US_Withdrawal_Could_Threaten_Europe

Joerg - Atlantic Community | Berlin, Germany | 02 Jun 08, 02 Jun 08 EST | www

@Joerg: I agree with your analysis that Iraq is a matter of national security for Europe as much as it is for the USA. Or better: the Middle East as a whole, with Iraq being one of the most crucial issues, is a matter of national security for us. And staying morally aloof or trying to “punish” the US and UK for being in Iraq at all is not only childish but will in the long run have dire consequences.
I would also like to pick up the idea of setting up a transatlantic study group on the issue. I don’t see the candidates pursuing such a goal as foreign policy will not be one of the main issues of the campaign.
However, it should be the Europeans setting up such a group - in order to not always only react to US policy but to finally shape international and transatlantic affairs on their own. This could be the restart transatlantic relations are in need of.

Annette | Berlin | 03 Jun 08, 03 Jun 08 EST

Dear Richard,

Many thanks for your link and your answer. Yes, I too believe in this sort of debates, where positions may be a bit different one another. This should help readers to focus more on the logic of argumentations, rather than on political or ideological views.

Dear Joerg,

Thanks for your link. I absolutely agree that the future of Iraq is important for European security. And my argumentation is that Europe should be care about it. But, maintaining its low profile and, above all, leaving leadership and responsibility to the UNSC. Concerning security and perceptions, when you decide to have an external projection you must take into consideration perceptions/misperceptions, yours and of the others. This is a basic rule for scholars in IR. I would suggest the works of Robert Jervis, e.g. (1988) War and Misperception, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18(4), pp. 675-700. That is to say that it?s not only a matter of how to achieve global popularity. But it is indeed a matter of costs and benefits of actions.
Would a more active role by Europe in Iraq produce more security for Europe? I believe this might be risky, if we decided to not maintain our low profile. It might be more risky again, if we decided to create a Western US/EU leading partnership to settle the situation. I suggest Europe should concentrate aid and intellectual contributions exclusively within the UN framework.

Alan Vincenzo Gendusa | Milan, Italy | 03 Jun 08, 03 Jun 08 EST

@ Alan

Thanks. Now I see your point and I agree. A small footprint is always best when helping other nations with state-building. The Iraqis should get all credit for all potential progress, even if in reality it has been the West that rebuilds and fosters a diplomatic solution. Perception is key. And Iraqi moderates shall not be seen as Western marionettes.

@ Annette

I agree with all your saying on the transatlantic Iraq study group.

Joerg Wolf - Atlantic Community | Berlin, Germany | 03 Jun 08, 03 Jun 08 EST | www

Dear Annette,

I agree with you that this is not a matter of whether or not to punish the US and the UK for their presence in Iraq. Absolutely. Yet you would probably agree that the Iraq war has raised a host of questions we still need to give answer. This is an aspect that needs to be taken into consideration too, along with ?what to do next?. It is not a moral issue (even if it might help politicians rediscover an enlightened moral attitude). I guess that security in the long run is what all of us are concerned. And in this perspective, going on, without clarifying many aspects of politics and international law, might be not a good thing for the stability of the international system as a whole. I actually hope the next US President will be more willing to deal with that.

Alan Vincenzo Gendusa | Milan, Italy | 03 Jun 08, 03 Jun 08 EST

#10

America must continue in Iraq, as a wise General once stated ” you break it, you own it”. The rehabilation of this country if such a position can be reached is the moral obligation of the US. Comments that refer to terror threats to Europe if Europe is not involved miss the mark. Europe faces terror threats not due to lack of participation in Iraq, but due to irresponsible imigration policies.

p hussey | brisbane | 05 Jun 08, 05 Jun 08 EST

Regards Citoyens
03 Feb 12

Regards Citoyens cover our Scorecard 2012

News.am
03 Feb 12

Armenia's News.am discusses the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute's appearance in the Scorecard

El Pais
03 Feb 12

El Pais has written a blog on the Scorecard

Global Dashboard
02 Feb 12

Global Dashboard discusses the Foreign Policu Scorecard

Read more press >

The European Council on Foreign Relations