If the US goes to war, the division between the West and Muslims will become the most fanatical of all conflicts, writes Max Kohnstamm
Europe's division over what to do about Saddam's Iraq is deeply saddening and worrying. It prevents the European Union from being able, if not to convince, at least to seriously warn the United States against making a huge historical mistake.
The least one can do is expose as clearly as possible the reasons to oppose any invasion of Iraq for as long as the United Nations inspectors deem it necessary and possible to continue their work.
At the same time, we also have a duty to warn Israel that, long term, its existence is threatened and with it the rich intellectual history of the Jewish people. This is what is at stake if the United States unleashes a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
If Europe were to remain silent this would mean for me, a friend of the United States and the son of a father of Jewish extraction, quite simply the betrayal of both America and Israel.
The United States has failed to learn the lesson of the 9/11 terror attacks: Nations no longer have a monopoly on the international use and abuse of destructive force. This privatisation of power and the consequent ability to destroy thousands of human beings is akin to a revolution. It signals the end of an era, in which a kind of order could be enforced using gunboat diplomacy or war.
We live in a world in which anyone with sufficient criminal intent or desire for a martyr's death can, using information available on the Internet and simple materials, cause mass destruction. National security measures are powerless against such attacks even if Washington believes that, as the world's last hegemony, it could put a stop to such actions. A US march on Iraq appears to me to be a last desperate attempt to restore the old order. But it would be the wrong war at the wrong time.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who does not shy from murder, presumably possesses weapons of mass destruction and could be willing to allow these to be used by others. The United Nations weapons inspectors will not have an easy job finding these weapons. But it would be inestimably cheaper and more intelligent to keep Saddam under constant observation and the weapons inspectors 25 years in Iraq than send in the army for 25 days.
If Saddam Hussein threw the inspectors out, then the world community could revise their decision. If the US goes to war, then the dangerous division between the "West" and the "Muslims" will become a religious war - the most fanatical of all conflicts.
A war against Iraq would have the opposite effect of what had been intended. Instead of stabilising the Middle East, we would see a radicalisation of the Islamic world. Any terrorist killing in the name of Allah would attract massive support. In the slums of Gaza or West Jordan there are far too many people who would be prepared to resort to violence to escape what they perceive as Western slavery. This reaction would make the long-term existence of the state of Israel untenable. Without peace with the Palestinians, Israel will be unable to survive.
During the second World War and the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, I spent three months in a concentration camp. The most horrifying aspect of this was that one was no longer treated as a human being but as a sub-human. What is happening today to the Palestinians reminds me of this time - and we risk doing this with the whole of the Muslim world. The West cannot credibly insist on maintaining UN resolutions concerning Iraq, while at the same time ignoring all the UN decisions aimed at a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Any attempt to stabilise the Middle East has therefore to begin with an international peace initiative that brings Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table. This is the real priority and that would also weaken Saddam's position in the Arab world. The Europeans, above all, could make use of their post-1945 experiences.
To remind you: the foundation of European unity that began with the Treaty on the Coal and Steel Community was to ensure that the French and Germans felt themselves to be on an equal level.
It is right that the French President and the German Chancellor together warn against a war on Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld's scorn for the actions of "old Europe" merely demonstrates that the message has been heard. Germans and French are united in their disagreement with Washington. Nevertheless, the EU must dare to do more: the continual state of crisis in the Middle East demands a substantial European answer.
What is needed is a sort of Middle Eastern Marshall Plan. Over 50 years ago, France and Germany experienced how this generous American action for the rebuilding of a continent forced erstwhile enemies to work together. Without this benign external pressure, a united Europe would hardly have been possible. Just as Europe was helped, so it must now be prepared to help.
At the same time such a European initiative for the Middle East would be the right signal in the war against terrorism. For it is the despair and misery in the Palestinian camps that provides the breeding ground for ever more violence. Today, those living in Gaza are without hope. Giving human beings human prospects would be one step on the road to peace. In contrast a war against Iraq, pursued outside international law and without the full agreement of the Security Council, will only make the world more dangerous than it already is. "New Europe" found the way to peace. Now we must open up this possibility to others.
• Max Kohnstamm is honorary president of the European Policy Centre. He was a close collaborator of Jean Monnet - the "Founding Father" of the European Community - and the first secretary-general of the European Coal and Steel Community