press review" "
The threats of war continue to monopolize the attention of the main international dailies, at a time when Vatican diplomacy is stepping up its efforts to avert a possible armed intervention in Iraq. The “old Europe” against the “new America”: that’s the formula used by Le Monde (11/2) to suggest the opposition between the Franco-German axis, contrary to any armed attack on Iraq, and the position of the USA, which seems increasingly impatient to begin hostilities against Iraq. The Franco-German plan, explains the French daily, “has a tactical aspect. Jacques Chirac and Gerard Schroeder are not satisfied just to oppose the military ardour of George W. Bush and his entourage. They are also making concrete proposals to achieve the goal officially shared by everyone: the disarmament of Iraq (…) Denounced by Washington as a delaying manoeuvre, the Franco-German plan aims in effect at slowing down the clock of war. Or rather, at preventing it from ringing”. “Old Europe or old America?”, is the rhetorical question posed by the Herald Tribune of 12/2. The adjective “old” for Europe today, according to Graham E. Fuller, is inappropriate, seeing that the European Union is “the first experiment in history” of an “empire” built “on consensus and on common desire rather than on power and conquest”. The adjective “old” fits America better: the USA explains the author of the article now sees itself as the “policeman” of the world, but “the Pax Americana”, precisely because it is founded “on the monopoly of power rather than on consensus”, is the “old order”. “Francophobia”: that’s the term chosen, again by Le Monde (12/2), to sum up the attitude with which, according to the French daily, the Americans now regard France, and in particular its clear opposition to any armed conflict in Iraq. “We French says the editorial, with heavy irony, commenting on a recent article published by the Washington Post are profoundly cowardly, ‘cloistered’ in spirit, singularly venal, fairly anti-semitic and, it goes without saying, obdurately anti-American. We forgot: also ‘old’ (…). And all this for what crime? Paris refuses to support the Iraqi policy of the Bush administration”. On the contrary, in the view of Le Monde, at least “two of the key elements of the position of Paris deserve to be debated: 1.Iraq does not present a danger such as to merit a war; 2. A war against an Arab country is exactly what Osama Bin Laden is hoping for”. The imminence of a military strike on Iraq and its repercussions on Western allies are also at the centre of comments in the German press. “ America has not furnished a convincing motivation for the war, neither at the political level, nor at the level of international law“, writes Stefan Kornelius in the Süddeutsche Zeitung of 8/2. “ American policy remains devoid of content, contradictory. This shortcoming explains the international resistance to the threatened war on Iraq, and the tensions in the Alliance to which it has given rise“. Writing in Die Welt, Dietrich Alexander comments: “ The US administration would like a second resolution on Iraq, but only if it contains a legitimization of a military attack. But for that there is no majority in the Security Council and hence there will be no resolution. The UNO will become a mere spectator“. On the Franco-German proposal to reinforce the action of the weapons inspectors with a UN contingent, an editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Faz) of 10/2 comments: “ Robust inspections deserve further consideration. But the way in which they are pulled out of a hat as an “idea” is not serious. And reveals some panic. This too is the result of the determination of the chancellor and of an electoral strategy with disastrous consequences“. Writing from Spain, Juan Manuel de Prada recalls the immorality of a war, even if preventive in aim, ABC ( 10/2): “ The Catholic doctrine, inspired by the right of the person, considers morally licit only the use of military force to repel an aggression, but never to prevent it. It also lays down very stringent conditions which delimit the concept of legitimate defence, including the condition that the use of weapons should not cause evils and disorders more serious than the evil that the war is supposed to eliminate“.
