BY DOUG LORIMER
As the United States makes final preparations to launch its military conquest of Iraq, the long-simmering diplomatic dispute over the future of Iraq between Washington and Paris broke into the open.
On February 9, German officials revealed that Berlin had agreed to back a French proposal to increase the number of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq as an alternative to US plans to get UN Security Council endorsement for a war against Iraq.
On February 10, France, Germany and Russia issued a joint declaration calling for intensified UN weapons inspections in Iraq before they would endorse any authorisation by the UN Security Council of a war against Iraq. France's President Jacques Chirac presented the declaration in Paris after talks with Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
The joint declaration came the same day as France, Germany and Belgium blocked NATO from starting military planning to enable Turkey to counter possible Iraqi missile attacks once Turkish troops invade northern Iraq as part of the US-led invasion.
Announcing the declaration to the media, Chirac said that all three governments favoured a substantial strengthening of the "human and technical capacity" of inspections within the limits of UN Security Council resolution 1441. He said that France would circulate a proposal to Security Council members for a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors and for increased surveillance flights over Iraq.
Chirac denied earlier media reports that the French proposal envisaged sending "UN peacekeepers" to Iraq, since this was not explicitly authorised under resolution 1441. He went on to state that "nothing today justifies a war", adding that, "in my view, there's no indisputable proof" that Iraq still possesses biological or chemical weapons.
Reporting on the Franco-German-Russian declaration, the February 10 New York Times observed that it "appeared to be a veiled warning to the United States that the three [European governments] could block any attempt to pass a second Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq".
On February 11, China's President Jiang Zemin told Chirac by telephone that China supported the joint declaration, the official Xinhua news agency reported. Jiang said the UN inspections were "effective" and said they should continue and be strengthened.
France, Russia and China are permanent members of the Security Council, with veto power, while Germany currently holds the position of Security Council president.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell immediately dismissed the French proposal: "I don't think the next step should be 'Let's send in more inspectors to be stiffed'. Tripling the number of inspectors doesn't deal with the issue. This idea of more inspectors ... or whatever else may be in this proposal that is being developed is a diversion, not a solution."
British foreign secretary Jack Straw, whose Labour government is in alliance with Washington in pushing for a UN endorsement of a US-led war against Iraq, called the French proposal for strengthened UN inspections "a recipe for procrastination and delay".
The French proposal is clearly aimed at delaying a US invasion of Iraq by denying immediate UN authorisation for the use of military force against Iraq, and thus giving Paris more time to negotiate a deal with Washington that it hopes will protect French interests in Iraq.
Hussein's government has offered France's state-owned TotalElfFina oil company exclusive rights to the largest of Iraq's oil fields, the Majnun, which would more than double the company's entire output at a stroke. Paris wants to ensure that this deal is not abrogated by a US takeover of Iraq.
Similarly, both Russia and China have various deals on the giant West Kurna and Rumaila oil fields respectively, which might be abrogated by a new US-controlled regime in Baghdad.
Former CIA director James Woolsey remarked in September: "It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq... if they are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult, to the point of impossible, to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
An article in the February 9 British Observer magazine by Jason Burke, Gaby Hinsliff and Ed Vulliamy on "The Iraq Bush will build" described Washington's plans for a post-Saddam Iraq and the haggling that has been going on between the US and other UN Security Council members over these plans:
"The US military governor of Iraq is likely to be Tommy Franks, the general due to head the attack on Iraq... The first phase, US-led military rule, would last between six and 18 months after the war. It would be policed by armies from the 'coalition of the willing'...
"The second phase is seen as being a kind of international administration, backed by a diminishing military presence. Here, the inspiration being worked on is the [UN-administered] protectorate of Kosovo."
According to the Observer correspondents, "There is bitter argument over who should be the prospective [UN] governor, or 'High Representative', to rule alongside an American [military governor] during the second phase".
US President George Bush's administration "favours Norman Schwarzkopf, who led coalition forces in the first Gulf war and is now, as a civilian, a vigorous campaigner for the Bush family. But most Security Council members would prefer an appointment from a European Union country to counter American influence."
For the leaders of the capitalist governments in Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Beijing, refusal to endorse a UN Security Council resolution that authorises a war on Iraq at this time is aimed at trying to exert some form of control over Washington's plans for a post-war Iraq, which are crucial to its drive to place the entire Middle East under its domination.
As New York Times columnist Serge Schmemann noted in a February 2 article, entitled "America's War Train is Leaving the Station": "Most world leaders are thinking less about how to deal with Mr. Hussein than how best to deal with an unstoppable superpower."
While US officials claim they are prepared to order a US invasion of Iraq without UN approval, they are also aware of their need to be seen to be acting as part of a coalition.
The most recent US public opinion surveys show that solid support for military action against Iraq depends on Washington having some other countries, particularly Britain, on side. Without British involvement, US public support for an invasion of Iraq drops to 37%, with 59% opposed to military action.
For Britain's capitalist rulers, participation in a US-led invasion of Iraq is a guarantee that Washington will not cut it out of a share in the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves. Two of the world's three biggest oil companies are British and Anglo-Dutch — BP and Shell. The British economy is also more tied to the US than any other European country; the British capitalists therefore have more interests in common with the US capitalist rulers than their French, German, Russian and Chinese counterparts.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, British Prime Minister Tony Blair highlighted the economic interests that underpin London's close military partnership with Washington: "US GDP remains close to $10 trillion, making it by far the largest market in the world... The UK is the biggest foreign investor in the United States, and the USA is the biggest direct investor here."
However, Blair faces massive domestic opposition to British involvement in a war against Iraq. A poll published in the February 11 London Times showed that 57% of British voters are not persuaded that Washington and London have made a convincing case for military action, 86% believe the UN weapons inspectors need more time and 51% regard Blair as "George Bush's poodle".
A Channel 4 News poll conducted on February 12 revealed that 32% of Britain's voters regard the US as the main threat to world peace. At the same time, 62% said they would back military action if a majority of the UN Security Council supported it.
Securing a UN mandate for war against Iraq is thus crucial to the Blair government's ability to win majority support for British participation in a US-led invasion of Iraq, and to politically marginalise the rapidly growing mass anti-war movement.
From Green Left Weekly, February 19, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.