see the first half of this article
That, at least, was how things looked until two months ago, when a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis, either through Saddam’s exile or abject surrender, seemed likely. But in January, the best-laid plans of such rational actors as Britain, Russia, Italy and Cameroon, started to fall apart. They fell apart for a very simple reason: four of the key players in the global chess game acted out of conviction instead of national interest. These four rogue nations were Iraq, Germany, France and the US.

Iraq’s fatal error was comprehensible. Saddam should have moved faster to satisfy the UN inspectors, who offered his only hope of staying in power. But at least he was rational in believing that, within a strategy of reluctant acquiescence, his best tactic was to play for time.

Germany’s blunder was also understandable. Germany will suffer grievous damage from the withdrawal of US troops and economic support. But after the 20th century, a militantly pacifist Germany is something the world can welcome. Nobody should complain about its decision to accept global irrelevance in the same way as Japan.

That leaves France and the US. It is their sentimental irrationalism that lies at the root of the present crisis and threatens the future of all international institutions.

France’s failure to pursue its interests is particularly surprising, given the French bureaucracy’s reputation for supreme competence. France will lose the global influence it briefly enjoyed from its veto power if the Security Council is discredited or its legitimacy is linked to majority voting. Its alliance with Germany will isolate it in a Europe of 25 nations. Its defence, aerospace and electronics industries will be doomed to technological obsolescence if they are boycotted by US customers and joint-venture partners.

And to what purpose? To tweak America’s nose? To honour a friendship between Chirac and Saddam that goes back to the early 1970s? To placate Muslim voters, whose real gripes are not about foreign policy but about the racial prejudice they suffer in France? If France uses its veto, this will go down in history as a classic Chirac own goal, even worse than the whimsical misjudgment in 1997, when he imperiously dissolved the French parliament for no good reason (following the advice of Dominique de Villepin), thereby wrecking his first presidential term.

Which brings me, finally, to the most irrational player of all — George W. Bush. The Axis of Evil policy has wrecked the US economy, doubled oil prices, undermined the dollar and decimated the value of American assets at home and abroad. The obsession with Iraq has diverted energy from the War against Terror, has fuelled anti-US feeling and intensified global hatred of Israel, which is seen as the real inspiration of US policy against Iraq. Worst of all, Mr Bush’s pointless belligerence is not even delivering the political dividends that the White House expected after September 11.

If only Mr Bush had rationally calculated America’s self-interest, which mandates lower oil prices, a focus on domestic economic problems and a foreign policy directed against religious fundamentalists (whether sponsored by theocratic despots, as in Saudi Arabia, or democratically supported, as in Pakistan), not against secular dictators such as Saddam. But George Bush fancies himself as an idealist, just like Fischer, Chirac and Short.

If only America could be led by a calculating pragmatist, the world would be a much safer and more prosperous place. Palmerston is not available. What about Bill Clinton?
return to the news page
return to the title page