January 21, 2003	Tuesday	Ziqa’ad 17, 1423

BRUSSELS: War clouds over Baghdad cast dark shadows over Brussels as it dawns on Europe’s finest — and not just the thousands demonstrating across the continent at the weekend — just how little influence they have over the looming conflict.

The disconcerting sense of distance from this global preoccupation was diminished slightly last Thursday when Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, passed through on his way to Paris and London. But like other visitors, the Swedish diplomat had to negotiate the complexities of EU HQ. First he briefed Javier Solana, the union’s foreign policy chief, then Chris Patten, the external relations commissioner, and ambassadors to the political and security committee, anxious to “manage” a crisis in which Europe can speak with one voice. Iraq is unlikely to be their big moment.

It is not a matter of whether Belgian paratroops, Austrian tanks or French legionnaires help take out Tikrit with the US rangers and the SAS, but of the EU, so keen to be a player on the international stage, acting coherently.

Much is being made of the fact that while Britain and France occupy two of the five permanent seats on the UN security council, Spain and Germany - and candidate country Bulgaria — hold three of the rotating ones. This is grasping at straws: the only ones who count on the world’s top table are the permanent members, there thanks to their second world war victory and nuclear weapons. The European members’ duty is to “ensure the defence of the position and interests of the union”, but that won’t stop either from going to war — whatever the Finns or Portuguese think.

Germany has been fighting for its place in the UN sun since reunification, but the only way it is likely to get one is if Paris (and London) surrender theirs for a common European seat. Now that would be a grand gesture worthy of this week’s glittering Versailles celebration of Franco-German reconciliation — and far more useful and comprehensible than their messy compromise proposal for two presidents for the union.

Back in the real world, meanwhile, unease is mounting. Patten, desperate for leverage, suggested Europeans might prove unwilling to pick up the tab for post-Saddam Iraq as they have to the tune of several billion Euros for apres-Taliban Afghanistan if war went ahead without UN authorisation. It was a smart reference to the argument about European “wimps” clearing up once America’s “warriors” have done their unilateral best. But is it serious? I doubt it.

Even after a decade of sanctions, oil-producing Iraq is a far wealthier country than basket-case Afghanistan. And it is hard to see the EU, champion of “soft power” and nation-building — working well in its Balkan backyard — not jumping on to the Iraqi reconstruction bandwagon.

Patten’s wider point is about multilateralism — the need for America and Europe to work together. “Axis of evil” spats have faded recently and the US has belatedly realised the need for engagement with North Korea. But it will be interesting to watch when the EU starts talks with Iran.

Fingers crossed, British officials have been arguing that doubters from Athens to Berlin will look foolish if a short, sharp war does reveal Iraq’s hidden chemical and biological arsenal. Viewed from Brussels and other capitals, that sounds dangerously like wishful thinking. And it also ignores the strong feeling, across Europe, that without determined US action on other fronts, a brave new Middle East minus the Ba’ath will still be a very unstable place. “If we deal with Saddam but at the end of the day there are still Palestinians looking into the gun barrels of Israeli tanks,” warns Patten, “then opinion in Islamic countries is going to be pretty ghastly.”—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.