Iraq

Leading Article: Why is the West so divided over this war? Perhaps because it's wrong

February 10, 2003
The lndependent

OH, WHAT a divisive war. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, seemed pleased with the swashbuckling performance he gave at a conference in Munich over the weekend. France, Germany and Belgium were ticked off for their "inexcusable" undermining of Nato unity.

The three had opposed plans to deploy Patriot missiles and surveillance aircraft in Turkey against the threat from Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld was contemptuous. "Turkey will not be hurt," he declared. The United States and other Nato countries would "go right ahead and do it" anyway. The only effect of "old" Europe's veto would be that it would not formally be done under Nato's badge. This would weaken Nato, he said, just as "old" Europe's squeamishness risked the United Nations' credibility.

His very abrasiveness makes Mr Rumsfeld the best ambassador for the anti- war case. If any war-doubters were unsettled by Colin Powell's properly dispassionate exposition of the evidence of Saddam Hussein's continued duplicity, they only had to wait for Mr Rumsfeld's contribution.

Just to make it clear that we are not prejudiced against Mr Rumsfeld because he is a right-wing Republican, let us concede parts of his case. Certainly, the French and Germans have behaved badly. It is no use making alternative policies in secret. When challenged by Mr Rumsfeld about the plan for more UN inspectors backed up by troops, Peter Struck, the German Defence Minister, should not have behaved like a guilty schoolboy found out by the school sneak.

Instead of saying "We're not ready to talk yet", he should have said "We believe this is the best way forward - let's discuss it". Germany and France are, after all, justified in seeking any way they can of putting extra pressure on President Saddam short of war.

Certainly, too, Mr Rumsfeld is right that the credibility of the UN and of Nato is on the line. It would be better if they could have a common position on Iraq; or, if that is not possible, a consensus held by a clear majority.

But does the threat to international unity come from a US administration that barely conceals its contempt for the UN, and that has made it quite clear that it will go to war in Iraq whatever the UN does; or from France, Germany, Russia - and Hans Blix, the arms inspector - still looking for alternatives to war?

What the US Defence Secretary's finger-wagging in Munich made clear was that Secretary of State Powell's slideshow at the UN was a failure. It did not change many hearts and minds, except possibly in America.

And that is a grave problem, not for the UN or for Nato, but for the Bush administration. Disunity at the level of nation states does not simply hobble bodies such as the UN and undermine the idea of international law; it reflects profound divisions in public opinion across the world. Even in America, public opinion is not as solid for war as Mr Bush would like it to be - and surprisingly sensitive to the dangers of the US "going it alone".

It is unwise for modern democracies to go to war without the broad support of their populations. The US, above all, should know that. The effect on troop morale of popular opposition to war in Vietnam was debilitating. Mr Blair knows how dangerous it would be for him to go to war with British opinion in its present alignment.

That world opinion is so divided should not be a cue for the US government to chastise those who disagree with it. It should be a warning that the case for war has not yet been made.