History: War in Iraq скачать в хорошем качестве

History: War in Iraq

It was very scary. Great frustration. Great shame. Started on 20 March 2003, the war in Iraq marked a deep caesura in EU history. Between the collapse of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 and the enlargement of the EU to 10 new Members on 1 May 2004, the entry of the Marines into Baghdad confirmed the Europeans' inability to adopt a coherent position in relation to the 'War on Terror' declared by the Bush administration. Was Europe also on the verge of imploding? These responses are from two MEPs who had ringside seats. First of all, the Parliament had a broad majority against the war in Iraq. For sure, divisions were also seen in the Parliament, but we were more on the French side in the argument than on any other side on this question. I think that was the right approach. In Germany, the position was used for election purposes without any attempt to influence the Americans on this question. I believe that dealing with peace or war in election terms is wrong. I think that this issue had very serious consequences. And we're still paying the price for these divisions. The American plan for military intervention in Iraq was based on the supposed risks posed by the weapons, possibly nuclear, held by Saddam Hussein, in a region destabilised by the activity of al-Qaeda, the globally-feared organisation led by Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein, despite all his terrible deeds, had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist. It was very clear he had no connection to al-Qaeda and there was also never any proof of weapons of mass destruction. President Bush used the situation to have a war which had nothing to do with September 11, which was a tragedy and is still a tragedy. The argument over UN weapons inspections in Iraq was above all the chance to show the deep disagreements between Europeans. The use of force would have such serious consequences for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisaged as a final resort. On 30 January, eight European government heads signed a letter supporting the plan for US military intervention in Iraq. They were joined by 10 others on 5 February. Nine days later, the French Foreign Minister dramatically opposed it in New York, with German and Russian support. 24 February, a UN resolution proposal by the USA, the UK and Spain in favour of intervention. More opposition from France, Germany and Russia before the final go-ahead in the Azores by the US, the UK, Spain and Portugal. On 20 March, the Greek Presidency admitted the failure of its attempts to maintain an appearance of cohesion in the EU leadership. I think it was very bad that the Council of Foreign Ministers did not deal with the matter early enough. They did it for the first time in February 2003 and then it was too late. Chancellor Schröder made a statement in one direction, Tony Blair in another, and both had no influence in the end. We should have joined forces, then we could have influenced the Americans. The United Kingdom played a harmful, negative role under the leadership of Tony Blair, George Bush's 'poodle'. And that created great distrust between governments and public opinion. In the end, the controversy over the Iraq War did more damage to NATO than to the EU. Due to the divisions on the Old Continent, the Atlantic Alliance was excluded from the intervention in Iraq. It was only after the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that it started to emerge from a period of profound self-doubt. EuroparlTV video ID: 56d2b656-e720-433f-9f21-9fc100b797c8