The “no” of the Iraqi parliament to the UN weapons inspections, which left to Saddam Hussein “the last word” on the acceptance or not of the UN resolution, monopolizes the attention of the main international dailies, engaged in analysing the possible scenarios of the unfolding US-Iraq crisis. The scenario of a “new resolution” and “bad timing” are discussed by the Herald Tribune (13/11) which observes: “The USA’s hand is now being forced by the timetable of the inspections. According to the resolution, the inspectors have time up till 23 December to begin their activity and up till 21 February to present their report to the UN Security Council, which will then discuss their conclusions. Any military action would therefore be inadvisable before March”. The Bush administration, explains the American paper in other words , “would have to choose between two disagreeable options: either to begin the military action against Iraq prematurely, before the process of the United Nations has been concluded; or begin a military invasion in the spring, a period in which the temperature soars and the conditions become increasingly hostile. The first option would eliminate most, if not all, of the international support for the military action. The second would be militarily irresponsible”. Saddam Hussein’s possible response to the UN resolution is also analyzed by Philip H. Gordon in Le Monde of 13/11: of the many possible “scenarios”, he writes, “the most probable” is “a semi-acceptance of the inspections, a double-cross” that “would sorely try the international community, whose credibility in substance, that of the UNO has been put on the line by Resolution 1441”. “Whether it’s a question of the premises for a war on Iraq, terrorism or the illegal immigrants that are pouring into Europe and ceaselessly being turned away by her, the same question is posed: on what values does our world rest today?”. A survey conducted by the French Catholic daily “La Croix” (12/11) on the question: “What are our values worth?” takes its cue from the issues that are now dominating the international agenda. “The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 writes Dominique Quinio in the editorial have undermined our certainties: those values that were believed to be valid for the whole of humanity, those values of complex genealogy rooted in Greek philosophy, in Judaism and in Christianity seemed to have constructed a kind of solid foundation for the sound advancement of the planet; but now found themselves to be violently repudiated”. The German press too devotes ample coverage to the UN Resolution on the Iraqi question and the American mid-term elections, which endorsed the policy of George W. Bush and his position on the intervention in Iraq. “The hope that the Iraqi policy of Bush, on which the electorate was called to vote, would arouse in the Americans the same opposition expressed by German electors was dashed”, points out the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Faz) of 8/11. “On the contrary: the deficit of legitimacy caused by his narrow victory in the presidential elections was finally eliminated”. An article in the Faz of 10/11 declares: “At the centre of the discussions and the disputes on the resolution of the Security Council were also questions of status and prestige”, of a “hierarchy in international relations”. “America can achieve its own objectives, modifying them a little; as a player Europe does not exist. The ‘old’ superpowers France and Britain are intent on playing their own solo parts. Russia and China are trying to participate, but above all don’t want to isolate themselves from the circle of the big players. Having failed to learn her part, Germany was unable to play it”. In the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 9/11, Peter Münch comments: “With the planned sending of weapons inspectors to Iraq, war has not become impossible, nor even improbable, but at least it has become less probable. Saddam really has good grounds for congratulating himself : a chance to save his own regime has unexpectedly been offered to him. It will be the last one”. Die Welt of 10/11 published an editorial by Herbert Kremp that points out: “With the resolution of the Security Council, Bush has obtained three results: he has obliged the United Nations to take its own decisions seriously; he has linked the responsibilities for war and peace to the reactions of Baghdad; and he may succeed in achieving his aim without war and its consequences“. On the decision of the Iraqi parliament to reject the Resolution of the Security Council, Dietrich Alexander writes in Die Welt (12/11): “The ‘no’ of the members of parliament gives Saddam the ‘propagandistic’ opportunity to accept the resolution against the ardent desire of the people to save the honour of Iraq, thus emphasizing his willingness to cooperate”.
