Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War: Encyclopedia II - Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War - Opposition in European countries

Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War - Opposition in European countries

Around the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq, opposition to military action against Iraq was widespread in Europe [1].

Some have speculated that European countries were against a war because of widespread "anti-American" sentiment, though many anti-war activists would say they are against the American administration rather then America in general. This sentiment was fueled by the fact that many positions taken by the George W. Bush administration on international issues (for example, American policies on global warming and environmental protection, on the International Criminal Court, on pre-emptive attack) went against European popular opinion.[2]

The reasons commonly articulated for European opposition to the war included: a belief that the UN process (including Hans Blix's inspections) should be allowed to reach its natural conclusion, an aversion to America's neo-con bellicosity, a belief that the threat posed by Iraq was being exaggerated, a preference for multilateralism, a belief that war might just "serve as a recruiting sergeant for Al-Qaida", and fear of the "fog of war" i.e. the uncertain and unpredictable consequences of invading another country.

Between 9/11 and late 2002 the enormous goodwill and support of the immediate 9/11 period was significantly eroded. Changes in the Republic of Ireland are an example of this. In the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, Ireland declared an unprecedented full national day of mourning for the victims. The reaction was two-fold: horror at the deaths but also a strong degree of sympathy for the United States, whom Ireland saw as a friend, particularly after US President Bill Clinton's welcome interventions during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. By February 2003, the public reaction to the Bush administration actions over Iraq had changed America's image utterly. Instead of being seen in a positive light, the United States under Bush was seen as a 'bully' determined to war against Iraq, without the international community in the United Nations, if necessary. Hence, an estimated 100,000 people took part in an anti-war march in Dublin (the organisers had expected 20,000) with demands being made that the United States be refused permission to use Shannon Airport as a stop over point when flying their soldiers from the United States to countries bordering Iraq.

Such 'anti-Bush' and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, generally with the populace less sympathetic to the U.S. stance even when politicians in a given country (e.g. the UK and Spain) aligned themselves with the U.S. position. The general populations of France and Germany were opposed to the war and it would have been difficult for their governments had they failed to reflect those sentiments in policy, which in most cases they seemed quite happy to do in any case. After the first UN resolution, The U.S. and the UK pushed for a second resolution which was required under Operational Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1441. The French government amongst others took the position that the UN inspection process should be allowed to be completed.

Some observers, unimpressed with US claims that Iraq's secular government had any links to Al-Qaida, the terrorist group that allegedly attacked the U.S., expressed puzzlement that the U.S. would consider military action against Iraq and not against North Korea, which had claimed it already had nuclear weapons and had announced that it was willing to contemplate war with the U.S.

Many critics of the American War on Terror, including the UK's foreign intelligence services, did not believe that American actions would help to end terror, and believed that they would actually increase the ranks and capabilities of terrorist groups; some believed that during the war and immediate post-war period there would be a greatly increased risk that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the wrong hands (including Al-Qaida).

America's presence in Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia has been one source of discontent that has served as an excuse to Islamic fundamentalists to commit acts of violence. Even as the U.S. downscales its presence and existing bases (e.g. Saudi Arabia), it is not clear that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be anything but de-stabilising because many in the Muslim world resent the "infidel" presence in the Middle East, using this as a means of inciting the disenfranchised in their populations to violence. On the other hand, a stable democracy in Iraq could have a stabilising influence. Clearly, there was a gamble there, and only the post-war period will prove which viewpoint was correct.

Perhaps the most commonly heard criticism, at least outside of the U.S., was that the Bush Administration's reason for going to war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (i.e. petroleum). Though few doubt that nuclear and WMD proliferation is a serious threat to stability and well-being, many felt that a war in Iraq would not aid in eliminating this threat and that the real reason was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields (at a time when arguably links with Saudi Arabia were at risk). "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Opposition in European countries", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki