What do you think the chances are Europe will step up to the plate and lead in Iran? My guess is close to zero. That's the problem with much of Europe, quick to criticize, slow to do anything constructive.
Iran: Time for Europe to Lead
By Robert M. Kimmitt
Thursday, September 4, 2003; Page A21
washingtonpost.com
As the second anniversary of Sept. 11 draws near, Europe and the United States remain at odds on a common approach toward Iraq, both because Europe has not developed a unified position and because the United States insists on a position of continuing primacy. By contrast, with regard to nearby Iran, there is already a common and urgent objective both within Europe and between Europe and the United States to halt Tehran's effort to acquire a nuclear capability. To achieve that objective, Europe should now step forward, and the United States should step back, even though neither side is instinctively inclined to do so.
While there is debate between Europe and the United States about the nature of Iran's leadership and its brutal repression of its own people, there is no debate about the fact that Iran is embarked on a path toward obtaining nuclear weapons. In contrast to its efforts in Iraq, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been widely viewed as effective in detailing Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear capability. Just recently IAEA inspectors reported finding evidence of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear facility south of Tehran. This finding prompted Iran's foreign minister to declare that Iran was prepared to "enter negotiations on the additional protocol," which would permit broader IAEA access to Iranian facilities, though it would also buy time for Iran to accelerate its clandestine program.
Though its interests are directly implicated, the ability of the United States to influence events in Iran is more limited than ever. Not only has the United States had little contact with Iran in nearly a quarter-century, it is also still the "Great Satan," opposition to which provides the radical theocracy with both a major element of its claimed legitimacy and a major weapon to use against any true reformer who would suggest an opening to the United States.
Europe, on the other hand, has had diplomatic relations with the leadership in Tehran for over two decades, and there is a growing trade relationship of importance to both sides, but especially to Iran. For some European countries, especially Germany, ties with Iran and, earlier, Persia go back centuries, especially in the area of academic exchange.
To the surprise of many of its detractors in the United States, Europe's policy of "critical dialogue" with Iran has recently become more keenly focused on the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear activities and aspirations. This sharpening of approach has been hastened by Europe's growing concern about the parallel acceleration of Iran's missile development program.
Led by Germany, and on its own initiative rather than in response to U.S. pressure, Europe should publicly announce a policy under which it will not allow its companies to trade with a nuclear Iran, will not provide other than humanitarian financial support to a nuclear Iran and, in the World Bank and other international financial institutions, will vote against all but basic-needs projects for a nuclear Iran.
If Europe goes this route, it should also take the lead in securing consensus for a similar G-8 statement, thus bringing Japan and Russia, both important trading partners for Iran, into the fold. Given his country's unique ties to both Israel and Iran, this initiative presents a special opportunity for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder when he speaks at the United Nations later this month on the occasion of Germany's 30th anniversary as a U.N. member.
Visible American support for this European leadership initiative could also help encourage Europe to respond more positively to current U.S. requests regarding Iraq and on blacklisting Hamas. Politically, it is always easier to respond positively in one area if one's initiative in another area is taken seriously.
Regarding Hamas and Mideast peace, the United States and Europe should move beyond yet another disagreement on the merits of Israeli and Palestinian positions and agree instead that there is no real chance for peace without strong actions against supporters of regional terrorism. Europe could play a decisive role in making clear to Iran (and Syria) that Europe cannot have normal relations with countries that sponsor and harbor groups dedicated to undermining the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In return for this public declaration and subsequent actions by Europe, the United States should consider a closer consultative relationship with Europe on its road map and other plans and activities in the Mideast.
This series of steps on both sides could help ease transatlantic frictions, reinvigorate the common war against terrorism, and produce Europe's first comprehensive (Levant to Gulf) Mideast initiative, including more active support of the peace process, expanded participation in Iraq and a strong, proactive role on Iran. Most important, the initiative would be based on European leadership, which is an essential -- yet now missing -- element of a healthy transatlantic relationship.
The writer was undersecretary of state and ambassador to Germany in the first Bush administration. He will answer questions about this column during a Live Online discussion at 11 a.m. today at www.washingtonpost.com. |
