Mar 10, 2003 5 min read

The diplomatic tug-of-war over a second U.N. resolution on Iraq is turning into a charade. Three times in the past five days, George Bush has made plain his intention to overthrow the Iraqi regime, whatever the U.N. says. His aim, he said last week, was “a liberated Iraq. … America’s interest in security and America’s belief in liberty both lead in the same direction.” At the weekend, Mr. Bush again sketched out plans for a bright new future entirely predicated on Saddam Hussein’s downfall. The U.S. president’s candid although still very blurry focus on a post-Saddam settlement, rather than on disarmament, makes it clear that nothing less than physical as opposed to behavioral regime change will now suffice. U.S. determination to impose its will by force renders the U.N. debate redundant in terms of practical outcomes. It makes a mockery of the Security Council. …The Guardian, London On the North Korean challenge:

Iraq masks a second emerging crisis, no less dangerous, perhaps even more: North Korea. The recent interception of an American spy plane in international airspace by four North Korean fighter jets over the Sea of Japan, Sunday March 2, … gives the impression that the Korean Peninsula is skidding.

Wrong or right, North Korea feels it is the next target of Washington after Iraq; it intends to show it is not intimidated by the United States. … Washington insists it does not want war with North Korea and is favorable to negotiating a solution to the crisis started by the nuclear ambitions of Pyongyang. But the more the Americans delay restarting dialogue with Pyongyang, the more the process of reactivating a (nuclear) reprocessing facility in Yongbyon, capable of producing plutonium, becomes inescapable.Le Monde, Paris

On prospects for a U.S. attack on Iraq:

It may be weeks, if not days, before the U.S. goes to war with or without U.N. endorsement. Of course, it would be useful for Washington in political and financial terms if it wrested UN blessing.

With their massive troops and firepower already in place in the Gulf, the U.S. and its unswerving ally Britain are fighting tooth and nail to win a diplomatic battle now raging at the U.N. Security Council. The diplomatic battle may be harder than the war the U.S. is poised to wage against Iraq.

A decisive victory at the U.N. will dispel lingering doubts about the U.S. as an unchallenged diplomatic, economic and military power of the world. A vociferous opposition by France, Germany and Russia against U.S. rush into war against Iraq underlines their own frown about the American plan to be the policeman of the world. All opponents agree with the U.S. that Iraq must comply with U.N. resolutions about disarmament. However, they realize that what makes the U.S. tack is not Iraq’s purported possession of proscribed weaponry, but a consuming desire to foist its agenda on the rest of the world in this unipolar era.Egyptian Gazette, Cairo

On U.S. and Iraq:

When the Baghdad regime is brought up for discussion, the sensitivity and delicacy that the Bush administration showed after Sept. 11, has turned into war drums and ultimatums.The members of the U.N. Security Council belong to those who have been presented with a fait accompli: either you support us or we act on our own.We’ve seen the result. The Turkish parliament’s “no” to the stationing of U.S. troops in the country is only the latest example.

There’s much at stake. The day the United States attacks Iraq on its own (or possibly with the support of Great Britain and other states), not only will the already-fragmented coalition that is needed in Iraq fall apart, but there is also the risk that the international coalition against terrorism could do the same. And what that could lead to is best not to even think about.Dagens Nyheter, Stockholm, Sweden

On U.S. and Iraq:

Unless global sentiment changes suddenly within the next few weeks, Washington will be launching its invasion of Iraq with less support than it has ever had in its entire history. Will it matter?

In a word – yes! The problem is not winning the war – that the U.S. can do alone. Turkey’s refusal to cooperate will make things difficult for the U.S., but not impossible. The problem is winning the peace – and that the U.S. cannot do alone.

For one thing, the cost of Iraqi reconstruction is likely to be prohibitively high. With the 2003-2004 U.S. budget deficit already projected to exceed US$300 billion without factoring in the cost of the Iraqi war, Washington will need all the help it can get to put a post-Saddam Iraq back on its feet.

Having raised the stakes so high – nothing less than the transformation of the entire Middle East – how is Mr Bush going to accomplish such a colossal task without the support of his key allies, let alone regional powers like Turkey?

A diplomatic strategy that ignores the doubts of many, that keeps changing the goalposts, that is endlessly flexible in the justification it offers for war – disarmament, terrorism, ‘regime change,’ regional transformation – is not calculated to win the confidence of the global community.

Washington has no more than two weeks to win the legitimacy that only a Security Council resolution can provide it. If it fails in this effort, it will still win the war, but its winning the peace will be in serious doubt.