Only “old Europe” opposed the war against Iraq, snapped Donald Rumsfeld acrimoniously. “New Europe,” i.e. Eastern Europe, became America’s ally willingly, grateful for America’s help during the Second World War and feeling reliant on the US for its defense.

Rumsfeld’s statement increased anti-American feeling in “old Europe” - France and Germany - but their relations with America had been poisonous for some time. Huge crowds protested against the war across Europe, even in Spain and Italy, which became allies of the United States in the war.

France, feeling threatened by the dominant American culture and power, now regarded the United States as a “hyper-power,” a huge power that could impose its will over the world. One German politician contemptuously compared President Bush with Hitler, later apologized. Even books arguing that the American government caused the September 11 attacks became best-sellers in France and Germany. A poll showed that one in three Germans under 30 thought that the US government had something to do with 9/11.

Dr. Jens van Scherpenberg, the head of the Americas project at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin is quoted in an article by Michael Moran - Europe, America and the split over Iraq - as saying, “The Iraq debate was the first time it became clear to Europeans that America, or at least this American administration, wants Europe to remain weak and to keep quiet. That was a terrible, terrible shock.”

Although many Americans opposed the war, others were, to say the least, unhappy with the French and German opposition to their country’s policy in the Security Council. The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg called the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” French fries were re-named “Freedom fries.” Many boycotted French and German goods and hundreds of anti-Europe websites proliferated on the Web.

Part of the reason for the differences between the “old” European governments, i.e. French, German and Russian, and the Bush administration was suspicion of each other’s motives. These governments wanted to adopt a more cautious approach and give Hussein another chance to comply with UN inspections. They opposed the Americans’ decision to take unilateral action when UN approval wasn’t granted. The French foreign minister stated that he thought that military intervention in Iraq “would be the worst possible solution.”

Many Europeans regarded oil as the primary motive for the war. The Americans use more than 22 million barrels of oil per day. More than half of this oil comes from overseas. Vice-President Dick Cheney once argued that Hussein wanted to dominate the Middle East and control its oil fields. Many Americans saw this argument as hypocritical, arguing that Hussein owed France, Germany and Russia huge debts and that all of these countries had oil interests in Iraq. The Bush administration was suspicious that this was their real reason for opposing any war with Iraq.

There was also the question of weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in September last year, “I’m certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991. The more time that has passed, the more I think it’s unlikely that anything will be found.”

Now that no WMD have been found, anti-war British journalists old European governments may feel vindicated in their view that Hussein did not present an imminent threat.

More holes in the WMD argument appear every day.

The Bush administration and many Americans, however, believe that even if the war was illegal and weapons of mass destruction are not found, Hussein was an evil tyrant whose oppression of the Iraqi people needed to be stopped. Pentagon hawk Richard Perle admitted in the Guardian, that, in his view, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Mr. Perle told the London audience of the Institute of Contemporary Arts at the Old Vic Theatre, “I think in this case international law stood in the way of Iraq doing the right thing.” He stated that “international law… would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” and this would have been morally unacceptable.

Many Europeans would not share this view.

Relations between the Europeans and Americans are now in the slow process of recovery. Dr Ron Huisken, a Visiting Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, states that:

For many countries, including several traditional allies in Europe, the Iraq crisis confirmed that Washington now had a vision for the governance of international affairs that they could not share. This was probably the most serious breach in relations in half a century but it has become increasingly clear since mid-2003 that all sides are seeking to come to a new understanding. It is a difficult and awkward process but the outlook for a workable compromise - unipolarity with democratic characteristics - seems to me to be positive.

Lisa Sanderson is an Australian freelance writer who holds a BA in English Literature and a BA in Law. Her articles have been published in many magazines and websites, including Alive Magazine, Internet.au, Writing Australia, Crescent Blues and Suite101. You can reach her at starshine@ozemail.com.au