On February 5, 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell raised the banner
for war at the UN Security Council, but the world remains divided, as
he did not convince all the nations. Using satellite photographs and tapes
recording of telephone conversations between Iraqi officials, he tried
to convince the world that the US is right to wish to invade Iraq that
he describes as the most dangerous nation in the world. He certainly convinced
the American people, and their followers -Doggy Blair and his government,
Italy, Spain and some Eastern European countries. France, China, Russia,
Germany, Belgium, the NATO, etc, are not impressed by his words. However,
he put the US Democrat party in a corner, as they do not know how to react:
if they say that the dossier does not justify going to war, they go against
the majority of the public opinion; if they accept it, they look like
if they had no opinion of their own, which is probably the case. The main
US claims can be summarised as follow:
- Iraq has moved materials from weapons facilities and prevented the inspectors
to interview Iraqi experts.
- Anthrax it admitted having in 1995 was not mentioned, it has used mobile
weapons laboratories and adapted jet planes to spray chemical and biological
agents.
- Front companies have tried to buy nuclear components, and missiles have
been upgraded to a range of 1,200 km.
- Baghdad has links to international terrorism including with a group
linked to a poison plot in London and the killing of DC Stephen Oake in
Manchester (the British intelligence services deny this), and plotted
attacks in France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia (most countries
involved denied the link between Baghdad and al-Qaida).
- Senior members of al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime have met at least
eight times since the early 1980s.
However, except for the photographs and some telephone intercepts -that can be easily faked- Mr Colin Powell did not offer any proof of what he accused the Iraqis of doing. He praised the quality of a British document that tried to show that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, as well as links with al-Qaida. Unfortunately the next day it was shown, to the greatest embarrassment to the British government, that this document was, in part, a copy of old British scientists' articles, some of them 12 years old. There were even some extracts and conclusions taken from a post-PhD thesis written by an American student. And in the scientific world, using somebody else writings without quoting the source is considered scandalous. Perhaps the authors should bring the British government to Court for plagiarism. If this sham constitutes the latest intelligence available, is it worth going to war on these bases, as the USA would like us to believe? The only conclusion is that we should let the USA go alone, if they wish to do it; we should not join them because they only wish to have an international coalition as a kind of moral justification to their evil plans, while deciding everything alone. Colin Powell did not convince all the people even many Americans, and certainly not the Wall Street stock exchange that went down.
On February 9, 2003, France and Germany, soon joined by Russia and China, proposed another way to solve the Iraqi problem. They suggested to triple the number of inspectors (to over 300), send UN troops in Iraq, proclaim a no-fly zone all over the country, and use French reconnaissance Mirage planes as well as pilot-less German ones. The US and British troops would stay where they are now outside Iraq to guarantee the operation. The Americans and their British followers were kept in the dark and, of course, not only rejected the plan, but also mocked it. It is true that it would put them in the shadow but at least if it works, Iraq should be disarmed without war and thousands of victims. For the majority of the Americans, only dead Americans are called victims to be sorry for, the foreign ones are "statistics". The US media, and many Americans, are blaming Germany and France for not supporting them in this war as the US did for Europe in the two world wars. It is true that the Americans were the decisive factors that helped defeat the Germans but, in both cases, they came late, and only when it suited them and their own interests. The same day, France, Germany and Belgium vetoed a US proposal to send missiles and other military weapons to Turkey to help this country defends itself from the consequences and possible Iraqi reaction, if the US attacks Iraq. These three countries say that such a decision would imply that a war on Iraq has already been decided and, for them at least, this is not the case yet. All this is a typical reaction to the Rumsfeld's declaration that, in refusing to agree for a new UN resolution authorising the USA to invade Iraq, France and Germany are "old Europe". The answer of the French people was soon coming. In many towns and villages in France they put the following posting bills on the walls: "President Bush, MM Blair, Berlusconi, and Aznar, la vieille Europe vous enmerde!) Coming from an old man like Rumsfeld the insult was not welcome. Of course, for the USA, the countries that do not agree with their unilateral decisions and wishes are bad, ungrateful, and part of the past. Well, at least now they see that old countries sometimes have a mind of their own. This shows quite clearly what the US calls democracy: democracy, according to the Americans, is what they decide to do, what they like, what they want. And most of the world does not accept that.
On February 10, 2003, the USA and Britain described the French/German plan to solve the Iraqi problem without war as "rubbish". They even said that if the number of inspectors were increased one thousand times, this would not solve the question. They maintain that inspectors, independently of their number, cannot find the weapons of mass destruction and that it is up to Saddam Hussein to disarm. Saddam Hussein goes on repeating that Iraq has no forbidden weapons, so there is a deadlock. This makes Bush happy since he wants to invade Iraq to get hold of its oil reserve. On February 10, there are just over one hundred inspectors; increasing their number a thousand times would bring their number above one hundred thousand, that is more or less the number of operating soldiers that they plan to use in the Iraq's invasion. If one hundred thousand qualified inspectors cannot find the weapons of mass destruction, how come one hundred thousand unqualified soldiers could do it?
The USA and Britain are working on a new resolution to be presented soon to the UN Security Council. It would give an ultimatum to Iraq to disarm or, perhaps, for Saddam Hussein to leave his country. Or both!! The USA would like to present it as soon as possible while Britain, fearful of it public opinion following last weekend march by more that one million people, would like to wait until about the middle of March. This delay would be used to try to persuade France, Russia, China, and others to collaborate with them. At the present time it looks like France is ready to veto any new resolution that does not give enough time to the inspectors to do their job. The real question is: How much time do they need, and how much are the US and Britain ready to give them?
On February 19, 2003, we were told that the US/British project of a second UN resolution will be ready in another week, but it will only be put to a vote in the Security Council early March, after Dr. Blix has delivered his next report on February 28. Anyway both Britain and the USA have already said many times that they will press with war even if their resolution is defeated at the UN. The probability that the new resolution will be defeated increased when the US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that France and Germany were too coward to go to war. Which kind of courage is required for the world most powerful country to go to war with a country of the third or fourth world? The US chooses its adversary very well, they take no risk of being defeated.
On February 21, 2003, the US and Britain are increasing the pressure on the five African and Latin American countries members of the UN Security Council (Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Chile and Mexico) to force them to vote in favour of their resolution. They will probably succeed, as they are ready to pay more or less any price to "buy" their goodwill. And this is what both the USA and Britain call the moral case to invade Iraq. Of course, it will not be that easy with France, Russia and China which, moreover, have the right to veto any decision.
On February 22, 2003, the USA and Britain said that they would present their new resolution to the UN Security Council in a few days. They want a vote at the latest on March 10, 2003. This resolution, agreed by the four new allies -America, Britain, Italy and Spain- will not ask the agreement of the UN to invade Iraq, but it will say clearly that Saddam Hussein is breaching the terms of resolution 1441, and that he has three weeks to do what he is told to do. If not, it will be war, even if it is not said explicitly in the resolution. They added that any country that does not approve this resolution is a coward, responsible for disgracing the UN, and anything else you want to add. China and Russia are not convinced, and France will probably veto it! One must remember that the USA has used their right of veto in the past more times that all the other four countries that have it put together. For them doing it, is OK since they are always right by principle; but if the others are not following their wishes, they are wrong. Many British Labour MPs disagree with Blair on the war with Iraq, and it is possible that they will create him some problems next week in the House of Common as there will be an explanation by Blair followed by a vote.
Richard Pierce, a leading Bush's adviser, launched a ferocious attack on the French President Jacques Chirac for obstructing the American way on Iraq adding that, in any case, the USA is ready to go to war without UN approval. Where does this leave Doggy Blair? In his view, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are not a judicial body, they are not expected to make legal or moral judgments, but only to defend their interests. As this applies also to the USA and Britain, at least it is clear why they are so keen to get an UN approval: to look good, even after destroying Iraq and stealing its oil fields. Of course, France has some commercial interests in Iraq, but the US and Britain have some too and they want to increase them.
On February 24, 2003, the French and the German presented their plan to avoid war and the invasion of Iraq. They received the support of Russia and, up to a point, of China. Belgium is part of the plot together with many other countries on and off the UN Security Council. France and Germany suggest reinforcing the UN weapon inspector team, increasing the aerial surveillance, and imposing a more detailed -project by project- timetable for the inspectors' work that would have to be finished within four months. This goes directly against the US/British draft new resolution presented to the UN Security Council the same day; their project is asking for the backing of the International community to the invasion of Iraq even if it does not say so explicitly. The US/British resolution is a war-enabling text that, if it is approved, will end the inspection process and authorises the USA to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq in March 2003. On the other hand, the German/French proposal will reaffirm Saddam Hussein's obligation to disarm, will impose mandatory tasks and targets to the inspectors, requires three-weekly Blix reports, states that the inspections will last only four more months, and forbid war during this period. If Saddam does not comply, or if the inspectors find some hidden weapons, then the international community would agree to invade Iraq.
At the UN Security Council, the US and Britain are trying to get a new resolution approved at the beginning of March 2003. President Bush, who cannot keep his mouth shut, said publicly at least three times in the last five days that he will invade Iraq with or without UN's approval. His aim varies: "to liberate Iraq", "to defend America's interests in security" or "to bring to Iraq America's belief in Liberty". In other words, the discussions at the UN Security Council and the inspections in Iraq will not change his mind and he will invade Iraq whatever happens. Iraq will never be able to satisfy Washington and war is now inevitable. In other words, invading Iraq has nothing to do with the Iraqi: it is the way to increase Bush's re-election probabilities. Bush's friends will control the Iraqi oil fields, and the US will have one more colony after Afghanistan.
On March 5, 2003, President Chirac recognised that a French veto at the UN Security Council would not stop the Americans to invade Iraq. The British government hopes that this means that France will not veto a second UN Security Council resolution. But it is not clear what France will, or will not do.
On March 6, 2003, we were told once more that Britain is working behind the scene to find a compromise UN resolution that could be acceptable to France, Germany, Russia and China. Britain hopes to convince the USA to accept that compromise giving Iraq a little more time -a few more weeks at the best to comply. Having it approved by the UN Security Council will not be easy; the opponents to war hardened their position these last few days, pledging not to agree to any resolution authorising war. Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, said that Britain could agree to negotiate the wording of the new resolution. It is probable that America would accept limited changes giving Iraq some little more time to fully disarm, if this wins over floating votes at the UN Security Council and prevent a veto from France or Russia. However Bush is only ready to wait no more that a few days before making his final decision to attack Iraq. He also would not accept any new benchmarks, or tests of Iraq compliance.
On March 6, 2003, 16 well-known academic lawyers (six leading international lawyers from Oxford University, three from Cambridge, three from the London School of Economics, one from University College, London, and one from the Sorbonne, Paris) warned Doggy Blair that the White House's doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" had no justification under international law. According to them, none of the previous UN Security Council resolutions -including the resolution 14441- provides such authority. In a meeting with young European students, Blair said that he was prepared to ignore multiple vetoes if "he thought that such vetoes were unreasonable". It is in the records that Britain applied 32 times its veto since the UN was created in 1945. The above experts said "the assertion by Mr Blair that, in certain circumstances, a veto becomes unreasonable, and may be disregarded, has no basis in International law". In fact Blair, like his boss in the USA, cowboy Bush, now believes that they are the only ones to know the TRUTH.
On March 7, 2003, Britain proposed an amendment to the US/British project of resolution in the form of a final, and non-negotiable, ultimatum to Iraq fixing a March 17 deadline to comply with the UN resolutions and disarm, or be invaded. The UN Security Council must still approve it, and it is not certain that it will. The same two countries have already said that they are ready to go to war without such authorisation. At the same time the French proposed a meeting of the UN Security Council at the level of the Heads of State, or Prime Ministers, to find a compromise. The USA refused immediately, Britain was doubtful, but Russia said President Putin would attend. The foreign ministers Straw for Britain and de Villepin for France clashed at the UN, and de Villepin described the ultimatum as a pretext for war. Straw replied that de Villepin's assertion that the progress in disarmament were due to diplomacy, and not from the military build-up in the Persian Gulf, was nonsense. He also described the French/German/Russian memorandum as useless.
On March 10, 2003, the American and British's pressure on Pakistan increased but, at the same time, the Pakistani public opinion against war is hardening. More and more public demonstrations against the war are organised in the country putting a reverse pressure on President Musharraf to oppose the new UN resolution authorising war.
The French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, was on a foreign tour of Africa during the week starting March 10, 2003. He was to visit Angola, Guinea, and Cameroon to try to persuade these countries to vote against the new resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the US and Britain. At the same time, Lady Amos of Brondesbury, a Lord and junior British Foreign minister, is touring the same countries trying to rally them to the US and British position. It is not clear what the results of these visits are, or will be. In a public interview on March 10, 2003, President Chirac said that he would use his veto to stop any UN resolution authorising war, or imposing an ultimatum on Iraq. President Putin of Russia also said more or less the same, but his position is not so firm.
On March 12, 2003, President Chirac is supported by 80% of the French public and by most political parties from the right to the left, communists included, even those that do not like the man. Some French firms are afraid of a possible American backlash. At the same time the American people are becoming impatient with the UN; a majority (55%) is supporting a war without new UN resolution, but a slim majority (52%) would accept giving more time to the inspectors. In Iraq, the people are preparing themselves for war by stocking food and digging shelters, while the soldiers are building defence stations in central Baghdad.
On March 12, 2003, it was becoming clear that the UN Security Council would not adopt the new resolution. France and Russia would veto it, and many of the six small countries in the Council refuse to support it despite the heavy pressure and blackmailing from the USA and Britain. It is certainly not a good example of international cooperation. Blair said that he would do what America wants, even go to war without a new resolution. He is a "lecca culo", isn't it? Now these two countries are saying that they do not need a second resolution, that the previous ones already contain the necessary legal base to invade Iraq. Whom do they think they will convince? Now they are insulting France described as the "baddy" in the whole affair, saying that their veto is "unreasonable". What they really mean is that only the US and the British vetoes, when it suits them, are reasonable and justified. Both used their veto right more than France.
Note: Use of veto since 1946: URSS, 118; USA, 79; UK, 32; France, 18; China, 5, Russia, 3. During the last years when Russia used 3 times its veto right, the USA used it 10 times.
Blair is now proposing six tests that Saddam Hussein should pass within
a very limited period -from 3 days to a week- to avoid war. France and
Russia are against this new proposal because it is, again, a disguised
ultimatum, and not even cleverly disguised. They are:
- Saddam Hussein must admit on public television and radio that he possesses
and is concealing weapons of mass destruction, and that he will destroy
them without delay.
- At least 30 Iraqi scientists and their family, selected by Unmovic (the
inspector body from the UN) and the IAEA, must be allowed to go abroad
for interview by UN inspectors. Moreover Saddam must promise that they
will cooperate with the inspectors.
- Iraq must surrender all the remaining anthrax and other chemical/biological
weapons, or explain and prove that they have been destroyed.
- Iraq must give explanations about the unmanned drone aircraft found
by the inspectors, their number, and their location.
-Saddam Hussein must agree that the so-called mobile laboratory will be
surrendered for destruction.
-Iraq must agree to the destruction of proscribed missiles, including
the remaining al Samoud 2, and possibly others.
These conditions are unacceptable and unrealistic, and the proposal is only a hidden ultimatum and that war is certain to take place. Saddam Hussein has always said that Iraq has no more chemical and biological weapons and no mobile laboratory. Moreover the inspectors did not find any. So how come can he now admit that he has some hidden weapons? They take us for idiots.
Now on March 12, 2003, Britain and the USA could renounce asking for a vote on their project of a second resolution as, at the present time, it will not be approved. In the meantime they insult France and Germany and try to blackmail Russia and the small countries on the UN Security Council by threatening to stop military collaboration and financial aid. They are repugnant!!
And on March 13, 2003, Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, said that France's threat to use its UN veto is making war with Iraq more -not less- likely by preventing the Security Council from enforcing its own decisions. This is a stupid way to present the situation. Is not the presence of 250,000 soldiers, more that 1,000 planes and many warships really make the war inevitable? Calling President Chirac's decision to use his veto, "extraordinary position" is senseless. Is the use of the veto only reserved to the US and Britain? British ministers, and their US counterparts, have lost their senses these days, loosing a diplomatic battle is not at their liking, and this is understandable, but there are limit to imbecility. Adding that the French have decided not to enforce resolution 1441 is also a lie. This resolution was agreed in its form, not as an ultimatum, because even then France did not want to approve war. The compromise was to threaten Iraq and impose the inspections while the authorisation to invade Iraq would eventually decided in a second time. It is possible that the US and Britain cheated the other members of the UN Security Council. But would Syria have approved resolution 1441 if it were an authorisation to go to war we Iraq? The French Foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that France was willing to reach a compromise with Britain and the USA on a new UN resolution on condition that it does not authorise war. This is a non-starter said the American President cowboy. At the same time the British and the US troops in the Persian Gulf are putting the final touch to their preparation and they said they are ready to invade Iraq as soon as president Bush gives the order. And they say that the French are responsible for the war!!
In the middle of March 2003, many people and the media wondered what will be the future of the United Nations. The question has no easy answer. Seen from the British and the US point of view, it has no future. Their opinion is mainly due to the fact that they have failed until now to push a second Iraq resolution through the Security Council. One can understand that they are unhappy -to say the least- for such an important defeat. Until now the USA more or less always got what they wanted from the UN due to their power. This time not only France as we are told to believe, but Germany, Russia and China as well as the small countries Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan had strong reservations and did not follow the line, despite a lot of pressure was put of them as well as straight blackmail (threat of cutting economic aids). On the other hand the USA is well known for not liking international treaties; they discard them when they do not suit them anymore (Kyoto agreement, Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, international court of justice, etc). If only for all this, it is quite probable that the UN will come out of this deep crisis reinforced, as it has become a forum for world opinion, and not a rubber-stamping tool for the USA.
The summit in the Azores on March 15, 2003, went as foreseen with the US, Britain and Spain giving the UN an ultimatum of 24 hours -more precisely until Monday March 17- to agree on a resolution, or these countries, with a few other following them, will give another short term ultimatum (24 hours, three days, who knows?) to Saddam Hussein to go into exile, and if he does not comply it will be war. Now they dare giving an ultimatum to the UN that is to the world. And they say that President Chirac is responsible for the war forgetting that they have already sent more than 200,000 troops, hundred of planes and many ships to the Persian Gulf. I suppose that they will now say that they were sent there on holiday!! The American people will probably believe these non-senses, but they will not convince many Europeans including the British people.
No agreement on a new resolution could be reached at the UN Security
Council on Monday March 17, 2003, and the USA, Britain and Spain retired
their project. France, Russia and China said that they would veto it,
many of the non-permanent members followed them, but France was singled
out as the real bad one. The so-called "good-ones" forgot that
they said that, resolution or non-resolution, they would attack Iraq in
any case. Most members of the Security Council must have asked themselves
"why vote for a resolution that will be vetoed anyway and get problems
at home with our people and, outside with the Arab world." So they
kept quiet, and appeared to be good by not accepting the American money,
because it is true that the USA tried to buy their votes by blackmailing
them. It is a big political defeat for the USA that is used to get its
way in the international organisations. Well, this time France, Russia
and Germany said, "NO, enough is enough!"