.png)
.jpg)
The three largest economies in the European Union -- Germany, France and the United Kingdom -- are either buying time to decide whether to participate in a U.S.-led intervention in Syria or are looking for other ways to maintain their relationship with the United States after U.S. President Barack Obama announced that he would seek congressional support for a military response to a Syrian chemical weapons attack. The White House announcement enables French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to delay taking concrete measures regarding the conflict in Syria at a time when military intervention is unpopular in most European countries and EU governments are focused on economic problems at home.
Berlin, Paris and London have political reasons to delay taking a concrete position on a military response in Syria.
Political Crisis in the United Kingdom
The British Parliament's refusal to authorize military action against Syria on Aug. 29 spawned political chaos in the United Kingdom, and British lawmakers have accused Cameron of being reckless in his pursuit of an intervention. Cameron had decided to consult the House of Commons on the course of action in Syria, seeking to provide the intervention with an air of democratic legitimacy, but he did not expect members of his own party to vote against his plans. The issue is hurting the popularity of the Conservative Party, which is in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats; recent opinion polls reveal that popular support for the opposition Labor Party has risen since the vote in the British Parliament.
Over the weekend there were rumblings that Cameron could seek a new vote, particularly if new evidence of the use of chemical weapons emerged. Some lawmakers who voted against intervention were not specifically opposed to military action but believed that more evidence was needed and that Parliament needed more time to debate. However, Cameron must first heal the wounds within his own government, and a new vote seems unlikely in the short term. For now, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom will be a key player in actions against Syria, despite the fact that it is the only NATO member aside from the United States with the ability to strike with land attack cruise missiles from the sea beyond the range of Syrian anti-ship missile defenses.
German Calculations
Political considerations also were a factor in Germany, where Merkel is in the final stretch of the campaign for her re-election as chancellor. (General elections will take place Sept. 22.) Merkel does not want a debate over intervention in Syria, which is unpopular among German voters, to interfere with her campaign, which is based mainly on domestic affairs and the crisis in the eurozone. According to a recent poll, almost two-thirds of Germans said they oppose a German military intervention in Syria even if there was a U.N. mandate.
Berlin is in an awkward position. On one hand, the German government needs to take a hard stance against the use of chemical weapons against civilians and does not want Washington to see if as too soft on Damascus and too close to Moscow. This is why in late August the German Foreign Ministry issued a statement that said, "Germany will be among those calling for action to be taken" against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
But over time Berlin softened its stance, and during a televised pre-electoral debate Sept. 1, Merkel said that any action against Syria should be channeled through the U.N. Security Council and that Germany would not participate in a military intervention. Berlin is also trying to work as a liaison between the White House and the Kremlin to reach a political solution to the conflict. This is occurring as the Syrian conflict is generating tensions between the United States and Russia, something that puts Berlin in an tough spot because Germany needs to find a strategic balance between its key partners in the East and the West.
Frictions in France
French President Francois Hollande is considerably more committed to military intervention than Merkel, but Paris is also delaying a final decision. Since early this year the Elysee has been one of the leading critics of the Syrian regime and pushed for the European Union to lift its arms embargo to help the Syrian opposition. Hollande said several times that the al Assad regime should be "punished" and that Paris was willing to act even without the approval of the United Nations. However, the political problems in the United Kingdom and indecision in the United States led Hollande to take a more cautious position.
The French president does not need parliamentary approval to initiate military action against Syria, but Hollande knows that the intervention is unpopular among the French electorate. This is why Paris announced in late August that the French Parliament would debate the situation in Syria on Sept. 4. After Obama's announcement, Paris changed its strategy again, saying the Parliament would debate but not vote on Syria. The French government has been decidedly ambiguous on this issue, and various officials have said that while Hollande reserves the right to make the decision independently of the debate in Parliament, France will not act without the participation of the United States, something that suggests that Hollande will wait for the debate in the U.S. Congress. On Sept. 3, Alain Vidalies, Minister of Relations with the Parliament, said that Hollande has not ruled out eventually submitting an intervention in Syria to a vote in Parliament.
The Syria situation is generating frictions within the French government and the opposition. Some sectors of Hollande's government, particularly those in the left, reject the use of military action against the Arab country. Most politicians in the center-right, on the other hand, support an intervention but believe that the Parliament should have a greater say on the issue. Like Cameron, Hollande wants any intervention in Syria to have some degree of democratic support, but unlike his British counterpart, the French president would not rush any decision that could eventually come back to hurt him. This comes at a time when Hollande's popularity is at a record low because of economic stagnation at home and when the Elysee is trying to build a consensus for controversial economic reforms, including pension reform. In this context, Paris does not want an unpopular military intervention in Syria to create additional political problems at home.
Ten years after the military intervention in Iraq, the shadow of the political consequences of an unpopular military action in the Middle East still lingers over Europe. Most EU members have decided to either remain silent on the issue or to propose more diplomatic pressure. The lingering economic, social and political crisis in the Continent is also limiting most governments' room for action, making it increasingly difficult for EU members to get involved in military activities abroad.
This is forcing Europe's largest economic and military powers to strike a difficult balance between giving political support to the United States in order to preserve their relationship with the White House and avoiding direct involvement so that they do not have to pay the price at home. As a result, EU members are likely to support the United States by offering intelligence reports, negotiating with Russia and providing diplomatic pressure on Syria, but the assistance is likely to be more political than military. Without a prospect that the European crisis will end in the short to medium term, this dilemma will become increasingly difficult to solve for European governments. It also means that Washington will find it increasingly difficult to rely on EU members to build international coalitions to deal with military actions in the future.
Courtesy : Stratfor (www.stratfor.com)