Dailies and periodicals” “

The Usa-Iraq crisis continues to monopolize the attention of the main international dailies, especially intent on probing the relation between America and Europe, and the diverging attitudes of the two “blocs” to a possible armed intervention in Iraq. “Iraq: Washington will have to wait”, is the front-page headline in Le Monde (28/1), in which it is noted that, in the course of the last meeting of the UN Security Council, “ the USA let it be known that it was willing to grant a further extension in time to the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq”. But all this – emphasizes the French daily – is in contradiction with the statements coming out of Washington, which continues to repeat that “time has run out”. “We’ll listen to those countries that think that a further extension of time to Iraq is a good idea”, promises Colin Powell, interviewed by Jean-Marie Colombani. As regards the motivations of a possible war on Iraq, the American Secretary of State explains: “To say that we would fight this war for the oil is a stupidity (…). President Bush does not want war. But he also says that there won’t be any solution in Iraq if we don’t demonstrate our will to go to war if that’s what it takes (…). It’s not our preferred solution, but if there are no peaceful solutions, the war will be fought”. “The European ministers renew their appeal for disarmament in Iraq”, is the title of an article signed by John Tagliabue in the Herald Tribune (28/1), in which he comments on the recent agreement signed by EU foreign ministers in Brussels and stresses that they “ continue to be in disarray over the exact road to pursue” to achieve the objective of the disarmament of Baghdad . La Croix (23/1), by contrast, takes its cue from the 40th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles to reflect on the “alliance” between France and Germany, reinforced also by their common position on a possible war on Iraq. Genevieve Jurgensen, writing in the same paper (25-26/1), asks herself: “What’s the future of the two peoples today? Peaceful, of course: we owe that to those who preceded us. Will we know how to draw advantage from that? Is it necessary? I think so. We don’t’ have for these neighbours the dispassionate interest we feel for the Spaniards or the Italians, for the Poles or the Lithuanians. It’s perhaps a little early for the young generations, but the moment will never come if we exploit history in a sterile way”. The German press too focuses on the developments of the Iraqi crisis and on its repercussions on relations between the USA and the European countries. An editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Faz) of 25/1 declares: “It would be a good thing if the Bush camp learned that leadership needs to be reconciled with respect for its allies and that not all the European arguments are impregnated with weakness and pacifism”. Writing in the Franfkurter Rundschau of 28/1, Rolf Paasch comments: “ A dictator who threatens his scientists with death if they dare to give honest answers and who forbids reconnaissance flights to UN weapons inspectors, has undoubtedly something to hide. But behind the scenes of the UN Security Council, for some time now what’s at stake is no longer the onus of proof, but national interests and diplomatic positions“. Günther Nonnenmacher, writing in the Faz of 29/1, comments: “Is it worth fighting a war to enthrone, after the fall of Saddam, a person of his suite, fractionally less undesirable than he? The idea of transforming Iraq into a protectorate, militarily guaranteed by America and administered by Europe, with the end-game of transforming it into a model Arab democracy, is hazardous. Therefore – concludes the commentator – the combination of threats and inspections, economic sanctions and military containment with the aim of obtaining disarmament, seems to be the lesser evil at the present time, in comparison with the unforeseeable outcome of a war”. We conclude with “El Pais” of 28/01 which writes as follows on the USA-Iraq crisis: “The most elementary logic requires that the Security Council has proof before pronouncing on the matter. If Washington thinks it has that proof, as repeatedly asserted, it must present it. However reprehensible the regime of Saddam Hussein is, the international community cannot justify a war on the basis of the information currently available”.