The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
News, 05-12/02/03 (2) EUROPES, OLD AND NEW * Pope gives audience to Iraqi minister * New Allies Back U.S. Iraq Policy * French history: Appease & surrender * Nato challenge to protect Turkey * Russia Opposes New U.N. Iraq Resolution * Turkey insists on NATO protection * Rumsfeld Faces Tense Greeting and Antiwar Rallies in Munich * France and China Rebuff Bush on Support for Early Iraq War * NATO Allies Trade Barbs Over Iraq * Belgium to block US Nato request * Germany in bid to block war on Iraq * Pope Takes Issue with America's 'Just War' * NATO members muddle U.S. plans for war * NATO unity threatened at bad time * Pentagon plans NATO blitz on Germany by pulling out * Bush team united by European 'treachery' * Schröder faces calls to quit over peace plan * As Cold War Link Itself Grows Cold, Europe Seems to Lose Value for Bush EUROPES, OLD AND NEW http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747700.html * POPE GIVES AUDIENCE TO IRAQI MINISTER Ananova, 6th February Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is to meet the pope in the Vatican next week. A Vatican spokesman says Aziz, a Christian, has requested the meeting with John Paul. The Vatican has been outspoken in its opposition to a new war against Iraq, with top officials saying a preventive strike would have no legal or moral justification. It has warned it could unleash anti-Christian sentiment in the Muslim world. John Paul himself has said a war against Baghdad would be a "defeat for humanity." He says military action must only be used as a last resort, and then under strict conditions. The pope has also been a long-time critic of UN sanctions against Iraq imposed after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/international/europe/06BRUS.html * NEW ALLIES BACK U.S. IRAQ POLICY New York Times, 7th February BRUSSELS, Feb. 5 ‹ Ten Eastern European countries ‹ all aspirants to NATO membership ‹ have united behind a strongly worded statement of support for the United States in a further sign of the increasingly polarized positions in Europe toward a possible war in Iraq. The gesture highlighted the division between newer allies of the former Soviet bloc who are staunchly pro-American and the more traditional allies of the United States, notably Germany and France, who are skeptical of the American position on Iraq. "Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values," the statement said. "The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction." The statement was much firmer toward Iraq than a letter last week from nine European countries ‹ including Britain, Spain and Italy, but not France or Germany ‹ urging support for the United States. The signers of today's statement included five countries set to join the European Union next year ‹ Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia ‹ and two countries scheduled to join in 2007 ‹ Bulgaria and Romania. The other signers were Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/57763p-54104c.html * FRENCH HISTORY: APPEASE & SURRENDER by Seymour Yusem New York Daily News, 6th February As France proposes a policy toward Iraq of just more inspections - a stance made possible only by the American threat of war - it's pertinent to examine the record of French decisions during the last century. The modern era of warlike dictatorships threatening to make massive, destructive use of science and technology started with Hitler's violation of the Versailles treaty in 1936 by reoccupying the Rhineland area adjacent to France. Many historians agree that had France taken action to oppose this violation, Hitler would have withdrawn and World War II might have been averted. Instead, France did nothing. This was followed quickly by French participation in the Munich pact that handed over the Czech border areas to Hitler - without agreement by the Czechs - for the sake of "peace in our time." This French agreement to the final destruction of Czechoslovakia - in violation of a defense treaty with France - led to the so-called phony war in defense of Poland, during which French troops spent their evenings watching movies on the Maginot line while Poles were being slaughtered and Warsaw was being obliterated by dive bombers. It's not a stretch to say the French track record of constant betrayal of its allies and appeasement of its enemies, despite having what was at the time the largest and best trained army in the world, led directly to the loss of millions of lives. The 20th century will further remember France as the only nation that failed to fire a shot in defense of its capital, that while under occupation rounded up its Jews for the Nazis without being ordered to do so, that scuttled its navy rather than flee to the Allies to continue the struggle, that produced films and sang in nightclubs for the Nazis so as to live happily ever after as a Vichy ally of the Germans while millions of others fought for liberation (after the war, we were told that all Frenchmen were in the Resistance), that tried to build a nuclear reactor (read nuclear bomb) for Iraq, that is so filled with self-doubt that the use of a couple of foreign words like "telephone" and "drugstore" causes a national stroke, that threatens to use a UN Security Council veto against the very nation that granted it that right as a sop, that is so obsessed with its international impotence that it openly wishes death and destruction upon a stronger ally in the guise of a higher morality. French President Jacques Chirac recently declared that "war is total failure." Luckily for him and France, the Allies felt differently in his own lifetime or there would not be a nation called France today. With a century of abysmal decisions for which tens of thousands of Americans lie dead in that country, France should have the decency to keep quiet. And the U.S. should have the good sense not to listen. Yusem is a former electronics engineer for a major television network. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-568799,00.html * NATO CHALLENGE TO PROTECT TURKEY The Times, 7th February Brussels: Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Secretary-General of Nato, gave France, Germany and Belgium a Monday deadline to accept measures to protect Turkey in the event of war with Iraq, or face isolation. Bringing to a head three weeks of transatlantic wrangling, Lord Robertson used his perogative as chairman of the North Atlantic Council to put the proposals under a so-called "silence procedure" ‹ effectively daring any ally to risk vetoing them. If none does, the decision to begin military planning will take effect at 9am on Monday. "All that Nato is considering for the moment are prudent deterrent and defensive measures with regard to one nation which happens to have a common border with Iraq," Lord Robertson said. http://cgi.wn.com/?action=display&article=18480335&template=worldnews/index. txt&index=recent * RUSSIA OPPOSES NEW U.N. IRAQ RESOLUTION Associated Press, 7th February MOSCOW (AP) ‹ Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday that Russia opposes passing a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. "We do not see today any grounds for passing a U.N. resolution that would envisage or sanction the use of force against Iraq. We always underlined that the use of force is an extreme measure, which involves grave consequences for the country and grave international consequences and it should only be applied in extreme situations," he said. Russia says international weapons inspectors should be given more time and that there is still time to find a political solution to the crisis over allegations that Iraq has a weapons of mass destruction program. "The problems of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq can be solved by political means. There are all opportunities for that," Ivanov said. http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=displaynews&doc_id=NR20030207670.2 _847b001ca003d9c9 * TURKEY INSISTS ON NATO PROTECTION Hoover's (Financial Times), 7th February Source: Turkish Daily News Buluc says, "Turkey wants a quick decision from its allies. We hope that this hesitation will be overcome rapidly. Turkey attaches importance to the fact that the issue is not delayed any longer'. While Turkey, the only NATO ally that borders Iraq is insisting on NATO protection, warning France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg not to block the NATO decision, NATO decided to hold a special meeting on Iraq and discuss Turkey's demands. Turkey had invited German, French, Belgian and Luxembourg ambassadors in Ankara to the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday and wanted them not to block NATO protection to be provided to Turkey. The U.S. has formerly started a process in NATO for providing AWACS early warning airplanes and Patriot missile systems to Turkey. NATO has not yet come to a conclusion about the issue. NATO called a special meeting to discuss the Iraq crisis as pressure grew Wednesday on France and Germany to drop their veto on the alliance starting military planning for a support role in a possible war. NATO's policy-making North Atlantic Council will meet today afternoon to discuss U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations, where he was expected to lay out new evidence of Iraqi weapons programs and alleged links to international terrorists. Diplomats at NATO headquarters said Powell's address could persuade France, Germany and Belgium to end their three-week refusal to authorize preparations for support should fighting break out, notably by helping protect NATO-member Turkey from any Iraqi counterstrike. France and Germany have argued launching the military preparations is premature and could undermine U.N. efforts to secure Iraq's disarmament without a war. But increased pressure from Turkey appeared to be having some effect already. Luxembourg, which also had been holding out, looked set to drop its opposition after the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara called the four ambassadors for consultations Tuesday. Luxembourg government spokesman Guy Schuller said his country would now back an appeal from Turkey for military help from NATO. Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Yusuf Buluc said Turkey wants a quick decision from its allies. "We hope that this hesitation will be overcome rapidly," Buluc told reporters in Ankara. "Turkey attaches importance to the fact that the issue is not delayed any longer." Under consideration are proposals to send to Turkey AWACS surveillance planes to monitor air traffic, including any hostile flights, and Patriot defense systems that can shoot down incoming missiles. Those proposals were included in a package put forward by the United States three weeks ago. It also comprised plans for NATO to intensify naval patrols in the eastern Mediterranean Sea; guard U.S. bases in Europe; replace American troops sent from the Balkans to the Gulf and an eventual peacekeeping role for the alliance in a postwar Iraq. As the likelihood of war has heightened however, Turkey has become increasingly vocal in asking its allies to back measures to protect it. The only NATO member that borders Iraq, Turkey is a likely springboard for U.S. troops opening up a northern front against Iraq. With many Turks fearful of Iraqi missile strikes, Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis warned over the weekend the alliance had to be prepared to help his country if it is attacked. "If the response is not given, then the credibility of the military alliance will collapse," Yakis said in Ankara. "If this is not done, then the credibility and deterrence of the military alliance will come to zero." All NATO decisions need unanimous support from the 19 allies. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/international/europe/08RUMS.html * RUMSFELD FACES TENSE GREETING AND ANTIWAR RALLIES IN MUNICH by Thom Shanker New York Times, 8th February MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 7 ‹ Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld arrived tonight in the heart of what he has dismissed as "old Europe," facing antiwar street rallies and a tense reception from his hosts even as he declared that debate among allies is healthy. In advance of his speech on Saturday to an annual security conference, Mr. Rumsfeld was the object today of hostile headlines for his comments that Germany was on par with Cuba and Libya, at least when measured by support for American efforts to disarm Iraq. These latest comments to irk Germany came during an otherwise uneventful budget hearing on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. When asked by Rep. Robert E. Andrews, a New Jersey Democrat, to identify nations that have committed troops, offered bases, pledged overflight rights and other assistance should the United States attack Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld ticked off a few different categories of countries and their participation. He then added: "Then there are three or four countries that have said they won't do anything. I believe Libya, Cuba and Germany are ones that have indicated they won't help in any respect." Quizzed by reporters today, Mr. Rumsfeld tried to put his comments in context but in no way sought to soften his argument. "There are obviously enormous differences" between Germany, a thriving democracy, and the dictatorships of Cuba and Libya, Mr. Rumsfeld said. And, responding to a reporter's question, he said with a grin that it would be "mischievous" to construe his comments as an attempt to draw a direct comparison between Fidel Castro of Cuba and Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor. But Mr. Rumsfeld pointed out that Mr. Schröder's campaign platform included a pledge that German forces would not join an American-led attack on Iraq. By so doing, Mr. Rumsfeld said, Germans "had nominated themselves" for the list that included Cuba and Libya. Mr. Rumsfeld, a former American ambassador to NATO, said the alliance had been roiled by internal dissent throughout its history, and he said such debate was "healthy and desirable and part of a process." Germany cannot prevent the United States from deploying American troops stationed here to join an offensive against Iraq, under the status of forces agreement between the two nations. Mr. Rumsfeld hinted to correspondents traveling aboard his plane that the Defense Department might review the constellation of American bases in Germany, but he stressed that this would be a natural part of a continuing study of possible realignment and closings of installations in the United States and elsewhere. Mr. Rumsfeld is scheduled to meet with his German counterpart, Peter Struck, on Saturday, although Iraq is expected to play less of a role in their talks than military cooperation to maintain security in Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said. During his speech, Mr. Rumsfeld is expected to repeat that time is short for disarming Iraq. Conference officials said they anticipated large protests on Saturday, including one endorsed by Christian Ude, the mayor of Munich. An estimated 3,500 police were called to duty. "These comments of Rumsfeld should help bring more people out onto the street," Raied Naieem, a member of the antiglobalization group Attac, which is organizing the protests, told local reporters. Mr. Rumsfeld's comments, which came just days after he angered officials in France and Germany by describing them as "old Europe," compared with new and vibrant members of NATO and the European Union who support American policy toward Iraq. Although Italy is a historic European power, it is one that supports the American stance on Iraq. Before Munich, Mr. Rumsfeld was in Rome to meet with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Defense Minister Antonio Martino. Mr. Rumsfeld praised Italy for its "strong friendship and staunch support." Mr. Martino said the Italian government was in step with the American position on Iraq. "It would be a terrible, terrible blow to the credibility of the United Nations" if Saddam Hussein continued defying United Nations resolutions on disarmament, he said. Mr. Rumsfeld ended his day in Italy with a visit to an air base in Aviano for a town hall style meeting. "You are what stands between freedom and fear," he told the troops. While Mr. Rumsfeld was in Rome, the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, went to Vatican City and met with Pope John Paul II. A Vatican spokesman said the meeting gave the Vatican an opportunity to reiterate its preference for a peaceful resolution with Iraq. At a news conference in Vatican City, Mr. Fischer said of his meeting with the pope this morning, "I'm not the spokesperson for the Holy Father," but added, "With our deep worries and our deep skepticism, we are very close." That referred to the justification and wisdom of going to war with Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/international/middleeast/08IRAQ.html * FRANCE AND CHINA REBUFF BUSH ON SUPPORT FOR EARLY IRAQ WAR by Richard W. Stevenson New York Times, 8th February WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 ‹ The leaders of France and China rebuffed efforts by President Bush today to line up support for the use of force against Iraq within the next month or two. Their continuing resistance made clear the difficulty the White House faces in its attempt to win explicit new authorization from the United Nations Security Council for military action. A day after he said he was open to pursuing a new Council resolution, Mr. Bush said that the 15-member Security Council would have to decide soon and that he was confident it would uphold "to the fullest" its previous demands that Saddam Hussein's government disarm. But after phone conversations with Mr. Bush today, President Jacques Chirac of France and President Jiang Zemin of China both signaled that they wanted United Nations weapons inspections to continue for some time before they would support war. The French ambassador to the United States, Jean-David Levitte, told reporters here that by his nation's count, there were 10 or 11 Security Council members in favor of giving the inspectors more time. The administration showed no signs of deviating from its timetable of forcing a showdown within "weeks, not months," as Mr. Bush put it last week. But British and American diplomats began considering language and options for a new United Nations resolution, while the military buildup in the region continued, with the Pentagon sending a fifth aircraft carrier, the Kitty Hawk, to the Persian Gulf. [.....] After Mr. Jiang's 20-minute phone call with Mr. Bush this morning, the official Chinese news agency said Mr. Jiang had pointed out "that the two U.N. weapons inspections organizations in Iraq had made some progress" and that "support should be given to the two U.N. organizations in the strengthening of the weapons inspections." Mr. Jiang had spoken earlier in the day to Mr. Chirac, pledging support for continued weapons inspections and telling the French leader that all efforts should be made to avoid a war, Chinese news agencies said. Even before Mr. Bush spoke to Mr. Chirac, French officials made clear that they would resist Mr. Bush's pressure. A day after Mr. Bush said, "the game is over," Prime Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin told reporters during a trip to New Delhi: "It's not a game. It's not over." Speaking in Paris today, Mr. Chirac said, "France considers that in between the inspection arrangements as they exist now and war, there are many, many ways to disarm Iraq. We have still not gone to the end ‹ far from it." After the call between Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac, a French official said it was an "excellent conversation" that nonetheless did not produce a meeting of minds. Both leaders said they would agree to disagree, this official said, adding that Mr. Chirac said, "We respect the American position." According to the official, Mr. Chirac spent part of the call simply explaining the French position to Mr. Bush, saying it was best that each side understood the other's position. France's position continued today to be that it would not rule out backing a resolution authorizing force against Iraq, but only when it became clear that the inspections process would no longer work. "Let's wait for the report of the inspectors," Ambassador Levitte said, referring to the report next Friday. He said that if they said they were at a "dead end," a decision on using force would be discussed. Mr. Levitte said the French view on this was supported by 10 or 11 members of the Security Council, enough to block a resolution. But American diplomats said they thought that they had a good chance of getting the nine votes necessary to adopt a resolution, with the possibility that France, Russia and China might go along or at least not exercise their veto. Mr. Fleischer said the administration's goal was not necessarily another unanimous Council vote. "Nobody has said that that is a standard that must be set," he said, noting that Germany, a Council member, is strongly opposed to a war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45677-2003Feb8.html * NATO ALLIES TRADE BARBS OVER IRAQ by Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post, 9th February MUNICH, Feb. 8 -- NATO allies traded blunt words over Iraq today, with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld saying that opposition to war was undermining the alliance, and French and German officials criticizing the U.S. approach as risky. Rumsfeld told a largely European audience at a conference on international security that "diplomacy has been exhausted, almost." "A large number of nations have already said they will be with us in a coalition of the willing, and more are stepping up each day. . . . Clearly, momentum is building," he said. Rumsfeld also warned that the United Nations is on "a path of ridicule" and that NATO could be in danger of heading the same way. He said France and Germany face diplomatic isolation with their opposition to an attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, whose speech immediately followed Rumsfeld's, seemed taken aback by the relentlessness of the U.S. defense secretary's criticism. On the question of attacking Iraq, Fischer asked several times: "Why now? . . . Are we in a situation where we should resort to violence now?" At one point Fischer faced the U.S. delegation to the conference and, switching from German to English, pointedly said, "Excuse me, I am not convinced." Fischer also warned the United States against biting off more than it can chew in Afghanistan and the Middle East. "You're going to have to occupy Iraq for years and years," he said. "Are Americans ready for this?" If the U.S. public balks at the costs of a long-term military presence in Iraq, he said, then the U.S. military might withdraw from Iraq prematurely, further destabilizing the Middle East. The French defense minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, joined the counterattack, raising her eyebrows at the "combative tone" of Rumsfeld's comments. "Ad hoc coalitions" are a precarious approach that can't replace the alliance, she cautioned. The day exposed extraordinary tension between the United States and two of its main European allies, and also among European officials themselves. While all sides condemned the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, they clashed repeatedly on how to deal with him. A few blocks from the conference site, thousands of German antiwar demonstrators gathered despite a heavy snowstorm in support of their government's position. With hundreds of police officers nearby, the protesters rallied in a square in downtown Munich under signs such as "Remember Vietnam," "Christian Bombs for Muslim Oil" and "Rummy Go Home." Another banner said, "Welcome to Cuba," an allusion to Rumsfeld's remark at a congressional hearing last week that the only nations determined not to help the U.S. attack Iraq are Cuba, Germany and Libya. The rhetoric inside the conference was almost as heated. At one point, Portuguese Defense Minister Paulo Portas reminded Fischer of the failures of European pacifism, beginning with its inability to counter the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. Fischer responded brusquely, "You don't need to talk to me about that" and noted that he had supported the use of force in the Serbian province of Kosovo and in Afghanistan. But the biggest divide was between the United States and the Europeans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that "Iraq is the test" of both the U.N. and NATO. He charged that the alliance is failing the test because of the "flawed calculations" and "vacuous posturing" of Germany and France. McCain and Rumsfeld both said that recent French and German foot-dragging over even discussing the possible deployment of NATO assets, such as Patriot anti-missile batteries, to Turkey also threatened to damage the alliance. But it was Rumsfeld's vintage performance, which focused almost entirely on Iraq and the consequences of positions being taken by various nations on how to deal with it, that set the tone for the day. Rumsfeld emphasized that war with Iraq is "the last choice" but essentially argued that it is the only choice left. Diplomacy and economic sanctions have been "tried extensively" and failed to lead to Iraq's disarmament, he said. Asked if he thought Germany and France were simply trying to check the unrestrained exercise of power by the United States, Rumsfeld responded that if that were so, "the likely effect would be that Germany and France would isolate themselves." Rumsfeld also slammed the United Nations for recently making Libya the chair of a human rights commission and giving a similar position on a disarmament panel to Iraq. "That these acts of irresponsibility could happen now, at this moment of history, is breathtaking," he said. Rumsfeld called on the United Nations to move "from a path of ridicule to a path of responsibility." If the United Nations doesn't change course, it runs the danger of repeating the failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, Rumsfeld warned. "When the League failed to act after the invasion of Abyssinia [by Italy in 1935], it was discredited as an instrument of peace and security." NATO Secretary General George Robertson sought to tone down the rhetoric, saying that strains in the alliance come and go. But he also conceded that it is part of his job to minimize cross-Atlantic tensions. "As secretary general of NATO, I am paid to be an optimist," he said. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) also sought to calm tempers but said: "It seems to me that the current division we have over policy toward Iraq is the most substantial challenge the alliance has faced since the end of the Cold War." Meanwhile, the German news magazine Der Spiegel reported that Germany and France are working on a disarmament plan for Iraq that would include the deployment of U.N. soldiers throughout the country, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors, news services reported. A German government spokesman confirmed that the two countries were collaborating on a plan but would not provide any details. Rumsfeld said he had not received official word about the proposal. "I heard about it from the press. No official word. I have no knowledge of it." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2743185.stm * BELGIUM TO BLOCK US NATO REQUEST BBC, 9th February Belgium says it will block an American request for Nato to start preparing a deployment of forces designed to protect Turkey in the event of a US-led war with Iraq. Members states have until Monday to state formal objections to the US appeal. France has also indicated it will oppose the request and wield its veto, despite pressure from the US The rift between Washington and what US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld termed "old Europe" threatens to do lasting damage to NATO solidarity, according to the BBC's Stephen Sackur in Brussels. "We are going to block it between now and Monday - it is settled," Belgium's Foreign Minister Louis Michel said. "When one has to take a slap in the face such as the insulting remarks... by Mr Rumsfeld, who comes to teach a thing or two to 'old Europe', the Europe of democratic values, humanist Europe, the Europe of the Age of Enlightenment, personally I find that this hurts." Officials in Paris have repeatedly warned that a Nato deployment at this time would send the wrong signal - namely that war was inevitable. But Turkey is nervous about possible Iraqi counterattacks on its southern flank. Nato's article IV says: "Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence of security of any of the parties is threatened." The stage is set for a furious behind-the-scenes row at Nato headquarters, our correspondent says. On Sunday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he found the moves to block his government's request "inexcusable". "I hope they will think differently by the time that they have to make a judgment tomorrow." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/10/wirq10.xml&s Sheet=/portal/2003/02/10/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1549 86 * GERMANY IN BID TO BLOCK WAR ON IRAQ by Kate Connolly, David Rennie and David Blair in Baghdad Daily Telegraph, 10th February Germany was trying last night to build a coalition to prevent America and Britain from going to war with Iraq, threatening one of the biggest transatlantic rifts for decades. The plan, hatched in secret by Germany and France, is expected to be presented to the United Nations Security Council this week at about the same time as a crucial report by inspectors on attempts to disarm Saddam Hussein. It is widely expected that the report, due on Friday, will be seen by America and Britain as providing the grounds for war. Inspectors said last night that there had been no breakthrough in spite of two days of talks with Baghdad. Washington and London responded with anger to the German-led scheme. US officials described it as "dangerous", "ineffective" and "naive". The Americans were particularly incensed by the secrecy. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, speaking during a conference in Munich marked by heated exchanges with France and Germany, said: "I heard about it from the press - no official word. I have no knowledge of it." Germany claimed French support and involvement in the planning behind Project Mirage, which would authorise the UN effectively to take over the running of Iraq. It would then triple the weapons inspection teams to 300, allow the deployment of UN troops and allow reconnaissance flights over the entire country. Saddam would be allowed to remain in office, albeit as a figurehead. France claimed that the plan was not secret but acknowledged the bare bones of the proposals. In a meeting last night, President Vladimir Putin of Russia also offered carefully phrased backing. He said: "All those who are closely following the situation in Iraq can see that the positions of Russia, Germany and France are almost the same in this question." http://commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-03.htm * POPE TAKES ISSUE WITH AMERICA'S 'JUST WAR' by Richard Owen in Rome >From The Times, 10th February THE POPE launched an eleventh-hour crusade yesterday to avert a war against Iraq, for which he believes there is no justification. The ageing pontiff rebuffed attempts by the Bush Administration to persuade him that impending military action against Baghdad amounted to a Christian "just war". Today he will dispatch a personal peace envoy to Baghdad to urge President Saddam Hussein to co-operate fully with United Nations weapons inspectors. At the end of the week he will meet Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister and an Arab Christian, in Rome, and will also meet Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General. Diplomats said that Mr Aziz might remain in Rome to meet Mr Annan under the auspices of the Vatican. Looking and sounding like a man rejuvenated by the urgent need to avert the imminent conflict, the Pope, 82, also gave his backing to the new Franco-German plan to resolve the Iraq crisis through beefed-up weapons inspections and the deployment of UN troops. The plan was disclosed to the Pope on Friday by Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister. Diplomats said that the Pope had been "the first world figure to be told of the plan". Yesterday the Pope made a dramatic and impassioned appeal for world prayers, declaring that only God could stop the conflict now. "At this hour of international worry we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace," he told pilgrims and visitors in St Peter's Square. Only "an act from on high" could offer hope of altering what appeared to be a bleak future. The Pope is sending Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, his diplomatic troubleshooter, to Baghdad. Cardinal Etchegaray, a French Basque, has undertaken sensitive diplomatic missions for the Pope in the past. Last year he helped to negotiate an end to the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where Palestinian gunmen had taken refuge. At the weekend the Pope said that efforts to stave off war must be multiplied. "One cannot do nothing in the face of terrorist attacks, but equally one cannot be idle in the face of the threats now on the horizon," he said. "War is not inevitable." The case for a "just war" was made at the weekend by Michael Novak, a conservative Roman Catholic theologian and a close ally of President Bush, in talks with senior Vatican officials, including Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the Pope's Foreign Secretary. Under the principles of "just war", as formulated by St Augustine of Hippo and later by St Thomas Aquinas, war can be waged only as a last resort and by a "legitimate authority". It must be fought with "right intentions", for example in self-defense or to redress a wrong, and with a reasonable chance of success to avoid excessive death and injury. The theory of just war also holds that civilian casualties must be avoided, that the means used must be proportionate and that the ultimate goal should be to establish a peace "preferable to what would have prevailed if the war had not been fought". Mr Novak, who today will address a conference in Rome on just war organized by James Nicholson, the US Ambassador to the Holy See, insisted that war against Iraq amounted to self-defense He told Archbishop Tauran that Saddam was using Iraqi scientists "to breed huge destruction in the US and Europe". He said that those who opposed war would have a lot on their consciences if the United States failed to act and Americans were later killed by Saddam's weapons. The Catholic catechism also justified the use of force provided that it was sanctioned by those responsible for the common good, Mr Novak said. But the Archbishop, speaking for the Pope, said that US arguments were insufficient and that there was no imminent threat from Baghdad that could justify a war. Civiltà Cattolica (Catholic Civilisation), a Jesuit journal that reflects Vatican views, said that "the Islamic masses, which already harbor a deep hatred of the West, will see it as an act of war against Islam". The journal said that the real US motive was economic and that the concept of "preventive war" was highly dangerous. "If every country which feels threatened attacks first, there will be war without end on the entire planet," it said. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1773083 * NATO MEMBERS MUDDLE U.S. PLANS FOR WAR by Craig S. Smith and Richard Bernstein Houston Chronicle, from New York Times, 10th February PARIS -- France and Germany closed ranks against the United States on Monday, blocking attempts at NATO to begin military planning for a conflict with Iraq and issuing a joint declaration with Russia calling for intensified weapons inspections as an alternative to war. In a statement issued in Paris, Russia, Germany and France called for a "substantial strengthening" of the "human and technical capabilities" of the weapons inspectors in Iraq, arguing that the inspections should continue in more vigorous form before war is contemplated. At the same time, in Brussels, France, Germany and Belgium blocked an effort by other NATO members led by the United States to begin military planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of war with Iraq. In response, Turkey took the highly unusual step of invoking Article IV of the NATO treaty, which requires the entire alliance to consult if any member feels its security is threatened. A further NATO meeting was called for today. The move by the three NATO members most reluctant to use military force against Iraq marked one of the most serious cleavages in the history of the alliance and was sharply criticized by some members as a blow to the strength and credibility of the organization at the core of trans-Atlantic cooperation. "I am disappointed that France would block NATO from helping a country like Turkey prepare," President Bush said. "I think it affects the alliance in a negative way." Bush spoke after a White House meeting with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who strongly supports what he called Bush's "strong leadership" to disarm Iraq. In unspoken but clear contrast to his feelings about French President Jacques Chirac, Bush described Howard as a "man of clear vision who sees the threats the free world faces." Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, said the organization now faced a "crisis of credibility." Ever since the United States began serious preparations for a possible war to oust Saddam Hussein, tensions with several European states have sharpened. But the developments Monday -- defiance of the United States at NATO and criticism of U.S. plans from Moscow to Paris -- appeared to crystallize the differences. At the United Nations on Monday, Iraq delivered a letter to the chief U.N. weapons inspectors agreeing to allow flights over the country of photographic surveillance aircraft, according to Mohamed Al-Douri, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations. Iraq also promised to move swiftly to adopt national legislation banning all weapons of mass destruction, Al-Douri said. The statement issued in Paris following a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin said: "Russia, Germany and France note that the position they express coincides with that of a large number of countries, within the Security Council in particular." The declaration appeared to be a veiled warning to the United States that the three could block any U.S. attempt to pass a second Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The unusual stand against the United States by two of America's closest allies, France and Germany, together with Russia, suggested the extent of the uneasiness that Bush's war plans have stirred. All three countries are current Security Council members. France and Russia are permanent members with the power to veto resolutions. The Iraqi concessions came after the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, held two days of talks in Baghdad over the weekend with top Iraqi officials. The gestures appeared to represent a further effort to head off war by demonstrating a cooperative attitude. At the NATO meeting, France, Belgium and Germany, in effect, held to the position that preparing for the defense of Turkey would amount to accepting the inevitability of war. Their stance outraged several NATO member states, including the Czech Republic. "This is a matter of solidarity with a member country," said Karel Kovanda, the Czech ambassador to NATO. "Once you realize what Iraq might do in Turkey, you realize that Turkey has a reason to be worried. And not to take Turkey's worries very seriously raises important questions about the fundamental purpose of the alliance." At issue is an American proposal, first presented in December, that would allow the alliance's military commanders to begin making arrangements to dispatch Patriot antimissile batteries and other materiel to Turkey to help it defend against possible attack from Iraq in the event that war begins there. "Welcome to the end of the Atlantic alliance," said Francois Heisbourg, director of France's Foundation for Strategic Research, after Putin and Chirac met Monday. Heisbourg argued that the rupture between Europe and the United States, however fleeting it may prove, is the inevitable consequence of Washington's increasingly unilateral decision making as the world's only superpower. NATO lost its original raison d'etre with the disappearance of the Soviet threat at the end of the Cold War. The alliance has expanded to embrace former Soviet bloc countries and has intervened twice in the Balkans in the name of European stability and Western values. But imbalances have grown. While Europe has relaxed and let its defense spending slip, the United States' military power has continued to grow to the point that even some of its longstanding allies have grown alarmed. The 260-word Russian-German-French declaration reaffirmed their commitment to the disarmament of Iraq "within the shortest possible period" of time but called for the U.N. weapons inspections to continue with "the substantial strengthening of their human and technical capabilities by all possible means." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/world/1773100 * NATO UNITY THREATENED AT BAD TIME by Steven R. Weisman Houston Chronicle, from New York Times, 10th February WASHINGTON -- The disagreement that split the United States and three European allies Monday was provoked by the issue of disarming Iraq. But the rift now threatens to undermine the unity of NATO itself at a time of widespread questions about the alliance's future after the Cold War. How serious or permanent the potential breach at NATO turns out to be was an open question Monday. Despite the current tensions, Europe and the United States remain closely tied by culture, politics and economics, and the alliance has weathered similar strains before. Officials agreed that Monday's action had more political significance than military. "In terms of what we need to do militarily in Iraq, this fight is of almost no consequence," said a senior administration official of the NATO split. "We will be able to get 16 of 19 countries with us. But the symbolism is important. Just as we wanted the U.N. to step up to the plate, we needed NATO to send a signal to Iraq that we are serious." The current crisis, as the U.S. ambassador to NATO called it, resulted from the rejection by France, Germany and Belgium of an American request for defensive equipment for Turkey in anticipation of a possible war against Iraq. Coupled with Germany, Russia, and France on Monday demanding more time for inspections, the rebuff fractured long-time allies on the eve of a conflict in the Persian Gulf. Moreover, as Russia has become an associate member of NATO, the prospect of Moscow, Berlin and Paris collectively opposing Washington seemed to hold ominous implications. The NATO alliance -- founded in 1949 to oppose the threat of the Soviet Union -- has undertaken post-Cold War cooperative ventures in the Balkans and Afghanistan and could still play a role in Iraq, particularly in peacekeeping after Saddam Hussein is ousted. Diplomats and analysts say that the division over aid to Turkey betrays deep feelings of unease on both sides of the Atlantic driven by many factors, not simply Iraq. Not least among them is the longtime French tendency dating from the era of Charles de Gaulle to chart a course independently of Washington, especially when Britain lined up with the United States. Now there is a French-German alliance on many European issues in opposition to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Europe's biggest supporter of America's war plans. These factors have created a level of distrust across the Atlantic that unsettles many longtime alliance veterans, who have seen crises come and go over the decades. "What we have is a messy situation but not a crisis, because it is still fixable," said Richard Holbrooke, former ambassador to the United Nations and to Germany in the Clinton administration. "But to fix it, Americans and Europeans will have to reach a new understanding that NATO has a vital role to play in the world today." As the possibility of a war in Iraq comes ever closer, French and German leaders appear increasingly uneasy with President Bush's bullying, unilateralist approach to international affairs. In this instance, they felt that the administration was, in effect, forcing NATO to vote for or against war in Iraq -- precisely the vote they have worked hard to delay in the U.N. Security Council. "Our position is coherent," said a French official. "If we are not yet deciding to go to war in the Security Council, we cannot decide to go to war at NATO. Once the Security Council authorizes force against Iraq, it will be very easy to send material to Turkey right away." Over the decades, NATO has been plagued with divisions, all of which ultimately proved ephemeral. Monday, however, U.S. officials were not inclined to view the problem philosophically. "There is no logic to the French position," said a senior administration official. "To say you can't agree to this quite limited military move is unacceptable. There is a pattern of behavior here by the French that undercuts NATO's effectiveness." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/1044927598982.html * PENTAGON PLANS NATO BLITZ ON GERMANY BY PULLING OUT by David Rennie in Washington Sydney Morning Herald, 12th February The Pentagon is drawing up plans to pull thousands of American troops out of bases in Germany, replacing Cold War-era garrisons with lightly manned bases scattered across eastern Europe. The plans predate the row over Iraq, but their leaking to the media on Monday will be taken as another signal to the German Government that American attitudes towards Europe are changing. Although no decision has been taken, the plan to scale down the United States military presence in Germany, the mainstay of US forces in Europe since World War II, marks a strategic shift welcomed by the insecure post-communist countries of central Europe. The plans were outlined to senators by the new NATO supreme commander, General James Jones. In the words of one US diplomat, the policy discussion is not punishment for German obstructionism, but its timing is "certainly opportune", wrote William Safire, a commentator for The New York Times. General Jones told senators attending a security conference in Munich that the 70,000 US troops garrisoned in Germany, with 70,000 dependants, were an unwieldy, expensive relic of the past. The momentum for moving out of Germany is being increased by the US-German estrangement. Last month, the Pentagon ordered all non-essential investment in the sprawling US bases in Germany to be frozen, according to the German Christian Democrat MP Michael Billen, whose constituency in south-west Germany includes US air bases that over the past 50 years have grown into large American communities. Polish newspapers reported recently from Washington that the US was to shift bases from Germany to Poland, the biggest and most important new NATO member, the most pro American, and one of the key countries in what Mr Rumsfeld calls "new Europe". The Polish reports were denied in Washington, but when he was asked about the issue in Rome last week, Mr Rumsfeld said: "We are reviewing our bases ... the centre of gravity is shifting in the [NATO] alliance. The interest and the enthusiasm that the countries that had lived under repressive regimes previously is a good thing for NATO." General Jones told senior US congressmen and senators in Brussels last Friday that the large US garrisons in Germany could be radically transformed by the need for more flexible and mobile rapid response structures that may halve the number of US troops required in Germany and lead to new bases being opened from Poland to Romania, according to US press reports on Sunday. In contrast to those of western Europe, the governments of eastern Europe are queuing up to offer military assets, resources and staff for the US war effort against Iraq. Romania and Bulgaria are the latest governments to make bases available to the US air force. The first US aircraft are expected in Bulgaria on Monday. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/11/wirq211.xml * BUSH TEAM UNITED BY EUROPEAN 'TREACHERY' by Toby Harnden in Washington Daily Telegraph, 11th February The two wings of the Bush administration united yesterday in vigorous criticism of "European pusillanimity" or even "treachery" over Iraq. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said France, Germany and Belgium had an "obligation" to protect Turkey from Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said the three countries' stance had left them in "stark disagreement" with the rest of Nato, which would proceed without them if necessary. Mr Rumsfeld made his statement standing alongside John Howard, the Australian prime minister and a supporter of US policy over Iraq, who subsequently met Mr Bush. The symbolism of this, and recent visits by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian premier, and Tony Blair, is clear - America has enough friends to ignore France and Germany, their places on the United Nations Security Council notwithstanding. British diplomats have capitalised on the discomfort being experienced by their European counterparts. Sir Christopher Meyer, the outgoing British ambassador to Washington, has taken to referring to Mr Blair and other leaders supportive of overthrowing Saddam as the voices of "real Europe". White House aides have signalled that they will push for a second UN resolution over the next week and will not tolerate any diplomatic foot-dragging. Behind the words of Mr Powell and Mr Rumsfeld was a shared anger linked to a growing antipathy towards France and Germany that is spreading across the political spectrum and throughout Middle America. Criticising France has long been the surest and safest way to strike up a rapport with an American, whether Republican or Democrat, in Washington. But the hostility has been underscored by what is seen as a refusal to follow through on the obligations contained in UN Resolution 1441, which was so painstakingly negotiated by Mr Powell last autumn. As the rhetoric has become sharper and more personal in recent weeks, US officials increasingly view Europe - a term in America normally taken to exclude Britain - as not just misguided but morally bankrupt and irrelevant. One senior administration official shook his head with dismay during an interview with The Daily Telegraph when the question of Continental European policy towards Iraq was raised. "I won't talk about the 20th century but it seems to me that the Germans owe it to us to at least keep quiet," he said. Despite the almost universal praise for his UN speech last week, the transatlantic tumult has left Mr Powell in a very difficult position. Some more hawkish officials are now questioning the value of Resolution 1441. "We seem to be no further forward than we were in November," said one White House source. "Maybe we should have just pressed forward and done it when the momentum was there." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F12%2Fwn ato112.xml * SCHRÖDER FACES CALLS TO QUIT OVER PEACE PLAN by Kate Connolly in Berlin Daily Telegraph, 12th February Chancellor Gerhard Schröder faced heated calls to resign yesterday after being exposed as the source behind a secret Franco-German peace plan for Iraq. The usually deferential German press rounded on him after the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel disclosed that he invited a group of journalists to discuss the plans over red wine last Thursday. The disclosure is hugely embarrassing for Mr Schröder as the leak sparked outrage in Washington and fuelled the crisis in Nato. Coming after a dire few weeks on the domestic political and economic fronts, his embarrassment was compounded as reports showed a growing rift between Mr Schröder and Joschka Fischer, his foreign minister. Two papers, one from the Left and the other from the Right, called for his resignation in a demonstration of anger not seen since the political demise of Willy Brandt almost 30 years ago. "Never in the history of the federal republic has such a right and important position been represented so badly as the German No to the Iraq war," the Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote. The Berliner Zeitung called the chancellor "a hot-blooded amateur" and Die Welt accused the government of destroying decades of diplomatic effort to create an international profile for Germany. "No chancellor has ever done such damage to this country. Germany can no longer afford Schröder," it said. The Tagesspiegel also suggested that he might step down. "Will Schröder resign?" it asked. "[His] problem is not just the Iraq war [and] the economic lull, the problem is Schröder himself, that is, orientating policy towards oneself and one's self-portrayal." In an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Edmund Stoiber, Mr Schröder's defeated conservative opponent in last year's elections, compared his "unprofessional action" to the disastrous foreign policy mistakes made by Kaiser Wilhelm II who was instrumental in sparking the First World War. He said it would take years for Germany to regain the trust of its allies. The existence of the plan, Project Mirage, caused a row between Berlin and Paris when it was published in Spiegel magazine on Saturday. The French Defence Ministry issued an angry denial which was swiftly followed by one from the German Chancellery, which added to the confusion yesterday by confirming the plan's existence. The original report outlined Project Mirage as a plan to disarm Iraq without recourse to war. An increasing number of reports are pointing to an "ice age" that has developed between Mr Schröder and Mr Fischer, his erstwhile close friend. Mr Fischer is reported to be furious that the chancellor has painted Germany into a corner over Iraq with his dogged insistence that it will not get involved in or support a war. While Mr Fischer was said to be behind Mr Schröder's ploy to use the anti-war position to secure victory in last autumn's elections, he is said to be appalled at the public relations fiasco of the past week or so. Mr Fischer is showing signs of frustration at failing to persuade Mr Schröder to be more flexible. A survey carried out by the polling institute Emnid and published yesterday indicated that 71 per cent of Germans count on their government to stick to its opposition to war against Iraq. Only 28 per cent thought Mr Schröder should become more involved in Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/international/europe/12ALLI.html * AS COLD WAR LINK ITSELF GROWS COLD, EUROPE SEEMS TO LOSE VALUE FOR BUSH by Patrick E. Tyler New York Times, 12th February WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 ‹ Faced by a sharp trans-Atlantic rift that has split NATO, many officials here are wondering why the Bush administration has not tried harder to preserve what Senator John McCain last week described as "the greatest political military alliance in the history of mankind." That question, senior administration officials said today, has not been answered within the circle of President Bush and his advisers, in part because there are divisions between them over how important old cold war allies like France and Germany are to the new war against terror. One Bush administration official, obviously appalled by the growing vitriol between Paris and Washington, said, "We are just hoping that the whole edifice" of the Western alliance "does not come crashing down." But in several comments, including one referring to France and Germany as the "old Europe" and another comparing Germany to Libya and Cuba, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has suggested that these countries now matter much less to America's plans. Indeed, it has been striking that the current German-American rift has not been regarded as critical or important enough to resolve for several months now. The White House today heaped scorn on France, Germany and Belgium for abandoning "our good and worthy ally in Turkey," as the White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher, termed it, and Mr. Bush's advisers advertised that the president was hunting for support, with a telephone call to Angola, for a strong position against Iraq in the United Nations Security Council. The three European countries have refused an American request in NATO to plan for the defense of Turkey as Turkey prepares its territory to be the launching ground for a war on Iraq. The dispute has reflected and intensified what is widely regarded as the worst crisis within the Western alliance since the end of the cold war. Sympathy for the United States over the Sept. 11 attacks has largely evaporated in a Europe troubled by the American drive to oust Saddam Hussein. But there was little talk of compromise today, and more rancor. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities." Some analysts said the crisis in the alliance has arisen because Mr. Bush and the neoconservative aides who have become the most prominent influence on his foreign policy have convinced him that Europe simply does not count anymore, or at least a Europe conceived as having its power centers in Berlin and Paris. In the place of Germany and France, Mr. Bush has reached out to countries like Poland and Spain. In so doing, he has only enraged President Jacques Chirac of France still further. As one analyst commented of the current crisis, "Can you imagine Mr. Chirac now bowing to the Polish position?" What is certain is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell have spent less time in Europe than any of their predecessors. Often it seems that the shared values of the cold war struggle have been replaced by other pressures and convictions that are pulling the alliance apart. This is as true in Europe as in the United States. In Germany, the departure of Soviet tanks and the constant threat of war have meant that it has found the voice to say no to war in Iraq. Such a direct challenge to the United States would have been unthinkable during the cold war. An aide to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany said by telephone from Berlin today: "It would be risky to say that this is the only time that this is going to happen. It can happen that there are serious problems where we agree on substance, but disagree on how to achieve our aims, but we should not let it get out of proportion." The Germans see Mr. Powell as the one member of Mr. Bush's team who takes into account the views of allies, something essential to the maintenance of any alliance. But in the last year, Mr. Powell has made few trips to Europe, though he logs prodigious time on the telephone to Europeans. In France, Mr. Chirac has shown a keen interest in putting constraints on the unilateral use of American power and elevating the Security Council. The consolidation of international institutions has been a chief thrust of countries like France and Germany that have abandoned much of their sovereignty to the construction of one such international institution, the European Union. Russia has hovered near the European position, but with options open to preserve relations with Washington. But today, President Vladimir V. Putin leaned strongly toward Europe by going on French television and saying, "I am convinced that it would be a grave error to be drawn into unilateral action" by the United States in Iraq, which he said would be "outside of international law." Harold Brown, whose NATO experience extends from Pentagon posts under Lyndon Johnson to his service as Jimmy Carter's secretary of defense, said that profound changes under way in Europe and the United States after the cold war and the absence of leaders deeply invested in maintaining the Atlantic bridge could lead to the collapse of trans Atlantic bonds. "France and Germany are the core of continental Europe and they cannot be dismissed," he said. "But the Bush administration has got to engage the Europeans in a dialogue on what the relationships between them are going to be." One problem, he said, is that France and Germany are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that they no longer command a Continent where newer states from the Soviet bloc are filling out the ranks of NATO and the European Union. These states, like Poland and Hungary, bring not only a greater diversity, but an innate bias toward Washington because they still feel grateful to the United States for their freedom. They also see Washington as a hedge against the re-emergence of a hostile Russia. The Bush administration has exploited the new fissures in Europe to play off the new and emerging post-Soviet states against France and Germany. Mr. Bush seems uninterested in French-German strategies to avoid war, and is now intensely focused on defeating the European powers that stand in the way of a Security Council resolution that would set the stage for war. Mr. Bush started his day on the phone to Angola's president, José Eduardo dos Santos, to discuss "their shared view that Saddam Hussein must disarm and comply" fully with United Nations resolutions, according Mr. Fleisher. Angola is one of the 10 nonpermanent members of the Security Council this month. There was no presidential call to Berlin or Paris and a senior administration official said the prevailing White House view was that France and Germany "deserve to be embarrassed because their NATO position is untenable." _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk