The 'War on Terror' declared by the Bush administration created deep divisions among the countries of the European Union. Was Europe on the verge of implosion?

History: War in Iraq

Started on 20 March 2003, the war in Iraq  marked a deep caesura in EU history.

Between the collapse of the World  Trade Center on 11 September 2001

and the enlargement of the EU  to 10 new Members on 1 May 2004,

confirmed the Europeans' inability  to adopt a coherent position

in relation to the 'War on Terror'  declared by the Bush administration.

Was Europe also  on the verge of imploding?

These responses are from two MEPs  who had ringside seats.

First of all, the Parliament had  a broad majority against the war in Iraq.

For sure, divisions were also seen  in the Parliament,

but we were more  on the French side in the argument

than on any other side on this question.  I think that was the right approach.

In Germany, the position  was used for election purposes

without any attempt to influence  the Americans on this question.

I believe that dealing with peace or war  in election terms is wrong.

I think that this issue  had very serious consequences.

And we're still paying the price  for these divisions.

The American plan  for military intervention in Iraq

was based on the supposed risks  posed by the weapons,

possibly nuclear,  held by Saddam Hussein,

in a region destabilised  by the activity of al-Qaeda,

the globally-feared organisation  led by Osama bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein, despite all his terrible  deeds, had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

It was very clear  he had no connection to al-Qaeda

and there was also never any proof  of weapons of mass destruction.

to have a war which had  nothing to do with September 11,

which was a tragedy  and is still a tragedy.

The argument over  UN weapons inspections in Iraq

was above all the chance to show the deep  disagreements between Europeans.

The use of force would have  such serious consequences

for people, for the region  and for international stability

that it should only be envisaged  as a final resort.

On 30 January,  eight European government heads

signed a letter supporting the plan  for US military intervention in Iraq.

They were joined by 10 others  on 5 February.

Nine days later, the French Foreign Minister  dramatically opposed it in New York,

by the USA, the UK and Spain  in favour of intervention.

More opposition  from France, Germany and Russia

before the final go-ahead in the Azores  by the US, the UK, Spain and Portugal.

On 20 March, the Greek Presidency  admitted the failure of its attempts

to maintain an appearance of cohesion  in the EU leadership.

I think it was very bad  that the Council of Foreign Ministers

did not deal with the matter early enough.

They did it for the first time  in February 2003

Chancellor Schröder made a statement  in one direction, Tony Blair in another,

We should have joined forces, then  we could have influenced the Americans.

The United Kingdom  played a harmful, negative role

under the leadership of Tony Blair,  George Bush's 'poodle'.

And that created great distrust  between governments and public opinion.

In the end, the controversy  over the Iraq War

did more damage to NATO  than to the EU.

Due to the divisions on the Old Continent,

the Atlantic Alliance was excluded  from the intervention in Iraq.

It was only after  the Bucharest Summit in 2008

that it started to emerge  from a period of profound self-doubt.