US and
European
allies share
a vision of
peace and
stability in
the Persian
Gulf, but
there are...
differences
...on how
to achieve
the goal.

Just weeks before the Total announcement, thirty of those experts met in London for a conference that focused on the different policy approaches toward the Persian Gulf that are advocated on opposite sides of the Atlantic. The meeting, "US-European Policy in the Persian Gulf: Beyond the Friction," was cosponsored by the Stanley Foundation and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. It was held at the Royal Institute's headquarters at Chatham House in London.

Robert Pelletreau, who just last March stepped down from the US State Department's top post on the Near East, co-chaired the meeting with Lord Wright of Richmond, Chairman of the Royal Institute. Current and former officials from Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the US mixed with other Americans and Europeans from the private sector.

The meeting highlighted the fact that the US and European allies share a vision of peace and stability in the Persian Gulf, but that there are significant differences among the allies on how to achieve the goal. In general, the European governments emphasize political measures to counter undesirable behavior from Iran and Iraq. By contrast, the US government has for the past several years pursued a policy of "dual containment," featuring use of economic sanctions and maintaining a potent military presence.

In recent years, the US has strongly suggested that sanctions be maintained to force a change in government; i.e., that they remain in place until Saddam is replaced. Most Europeans contend that the sanctions should be lifted if and when the Iraqi government fulfills its obligations under the respective UN resolutions.

The US maintains that Saddam is a bad actor and that as long as he remains in power Iraq will continue to behave as a rogue state and will continue efforts to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The European view is no more sympathetic to Saddam. But they maintain that the sanctions are imposing a terrible penalty on the Iraqi people while Saddam and his cohorts have found ways to enrich themselves, in some cases by profiting from oil sales meant to raise money for humanitarian purposes. In a less charitable vein, it is also true that European nations, especially France, have had long-standing trade and commercial interests in Iraq interrupted by the sanctions. They are anxious to resume trade and investment activity.

US policy on Iran has centered on containment and features a near total trade embargo. And it goes further. Under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, the US is to impose penalties on foreign companies who do business with Iran. That's why the Total announcement prompted a political spat between the US and France. The Europeans strenuously object to the US law, viewing it as an attempt by Congress to legislate outside its borders.

Furthermore, the Europeans disagree with the general US approach to Iran, which some feel is heavily influenced by US-Israeli relations. They are somewhat less convinced about Iran's military threat and terrorist activities and support a policy of limited and conditional engagements with Iran as the best way to try to influence its behavior.

Another factor influencing policy toward Iran is that the country appears to be moderating its policies. Last spring, a relative moderate, Mohammed Khatami, scored a surprising presidential election victory. Expert observers say he has cautiously liberalized some domestic laws and suggested his country might back off from what has been seen as activities that support terrorists. Many Europeans, and some expert Americans as well, have suggested that the West should be sending coordinated signals to Iran that moderate policies could lead to increased international investment and a possible end to American sanctions.

Some suggested that there should be contact between legislators in different countries, especially since the US Congress has taken an active interest in the Persian Gulf. One participant said resumption of consultations between the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council might be appropriate. Those consultations were held regularly before, during, and immediately after Operation Desert Storm.

Among other points highlighted at the meeting:

• It should be understood that while there are identifiable US and European policies, there is not a single US view or European view. For example, Britain's approach to Iraq is more in line with the US than with many of its European Community partners. Likewise, within the US a number of policy experts are questioning the continuing viability of "dual containment"—especially urging a more subtle approach to managing relations with Iran.
• It has been long understood that the Persian Gulf is important to the West because of the massive oil reserves in the region. But participants noted that its importance is growing even more because of the way the countries there interplay with neighboring regions. In particular, participants noted strong linkage to the Arab-Israeli peace process. That process can be affected by the Persian Gulf countries and likewise can affect them. Similarly, to the north of Iran lies the Caspian Sea region where there are large fossil fuel reserves and some newly independent and unstable countries.

BACK TO COURIER ONLINE