EU: NATO and EU countries are divided into hawks and doves over how to deal with Iraq. Denis Staunton in Brussels examines where these countriesstand and what impact the row may have on Europe's future
The dispute within NATO over helping Turkey to defend itself against a possible attack from Iraq is, on the face of it, a relatively minor one. Turkey's foreign minister, Mr Yasar Yakis, acknowledged yesterday that there was no question of Ankara's NATO allies failing to help in the event of an attack.
"There was no veto on defending Turkey. There is disagreement over the timing," he said.
Yet the dispute could have important consequences for NATO's future because it comes as many United States officials are questioning the alliance's usefulness. And the heat the row has generated can only heighten transatlantic tension over Iraq and make Europe's own divisions on the issue more difficult to resolve.
The US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, has warned that NATO, rather than Turkey, will suffer as a result of the refusal of France, Belgium and Germany to back a plan to send Patriot missiles, AWACS surveillance aircraft and other equipment to Turkey.
US officials point out that Washington's European allies complained when NATO was ignored during preparations for the invasion of Afghanistan. From a US point of view, the foot-dragging over helping a NATO ally to defend itself against possible attack calls into question the very purpose of the western alliance.
Some voices within the US administration have long argued that the end of the Cold War made NATO obsolete and that Washington can best pursue its foreign policy goals by forming ad-hoc "coalitions of the willing" to fight specific military campaigns. The wrangling at NATO headquarters over Turkey has made that argument more persuasive and has convinced some US officials that some European governments are using NATO as a political platform to undermine US policy.
For their part, France, Belgium and Germany insist that they will come to Turkey's aid if it is threatened. But they argue that promising to strengthen Turkey's defences now would make war against Iraq appear inevitable when diplomatic alternatives still stood a chance of success.
"It would signify that we have already entered into the logic of war, that any chance, any initiative to still resolve the conflict in a peaceful way was gone," according to Belgium's Foreign Minister, Mr Louis Michel.
France's Defence Minister, Ms Michele Alliott-Marie, has promised that Paris would be among the first to come to Turkey's aid in the event of a real threat to that country. And Germany points out that it has already pledged to send Patriot missiles to Turkey without a NATO decision.
The NATO split over Turkey reflects a sharp division within the EU over Iraq, with France and Germany leading opposition to US policy. Germany has ruled out any involvement in an attack on Iraq, even if it is backed by a new UN Security Council resolution. At a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Germany's Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, said bluntly that he could not ask Germans to support a war he did not himself believe in.
"In Afghanistan, we haven't finished the first job; we can't even see the end of it. Why this policy now? Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, but we've known that for years," he said.
At the same conference, Ms Alliott-Marie accused Washington of trying to bully its European allies into supporting a war against Iraq. "Being allies means consulting with each other to find a solution. It does' not mean saying: my solution is the best and I don't want to listen to yours," she said.
Speaking on Belgian television on Sunday, Mr Michel went further, questioning the motives behind Washington's policy towards Iraq.
"They did not succeed in catching bin Laden and now they have to find an enemy they can beat. I think it has to do with power, probably also very likely with oil and the humiliation they suffered," he said.
Washington's most vocal supporters in Europe are Britain, Spain and Italy, the leaders of which signed a letter last month distancing themselves from France and Germany. The letter, which was also signed by leaders from Denmark, Portugal, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, has poisoned the debate on Iraq among EU leaders.
Greece, which holds the EU Presidency and which has been struggling to find a common policy on Iraq, was upset about not being told in advance about the letter. Others felt that the letter had unhelpfully highlighted European divisions on the issue and made finding an agreed position more difficult.
The President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, Mr Valery Giscard d'Estaing, last week accused EU leaders of falling short of their commitment under the Maastricht Treaty to seek agreement on foreign policy issues. Mr Giscard also suggested that many EU leaders are out of touch with European public opinion on Iraq.
"Europe's people, I think, do have a common position. Whatever position has been adopted by their leaders, the people want peace," he said.
Mr Giscard wants a new EU treaty to beef up the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and to ensure that EU leaders are obliged to work more closely together on foreign policy.
If history is any guide, European disagreement over Iraq could provide the spur for further integration of EU foreign policy. At the time of the Gulf War in 1991, EU divisions were equally stark, with Britain and France taking part in the attack on Iraq while Germany was constitutionally restrained from sending troops.
Belgian refused to sell ammunition to Britain while Spain and Portugal - both today firmly in the bellicose camp - refused to send naval vessels to take part in any aggressive action.
The disarray prompted then Belgian's foreign minister, Mr Mark Eyksen, to describe the EU as "an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military worm". The worm turned later in 1991, however, when EU leaders agreed at Maastricht to establish the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Mr Rumsfeld may be right when he predicts that NATO will be the big loser from the latest European split but in the longer term, Europe's common foreign policy could be the beneficiary.