Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq:

While Canada participated in the Gulf War of 1991, it has indicated that support might not be offered again, in part due to reluctance to fight without UN approval. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on October 10, 2002 that Canada will be part of any military coalition sanctioned by the United Nations to invade Iraq. Yahoo! news article However, he stated publically on January 23rd that Canada will not support the US without a UN mandate.

In Febuary of that year, Chretien announced that he was sending troops for peacekeeping duty in Afghanistan. This move was seen as an attempt to get the country involved in previous commitments that would preclude participation in a military action in Iraq.

In late January 2003, a statement released to various newspapers and signed by the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic showed support for the US, saying that Saddam should not be allowed to violate U.N. resolutions. The statement went on to say that Saddam was a "clear threat to world security," and urged Europe to unite with the United States to ensure that the Iraqi regime is disarmed.

13 potential future EU members (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and Malta) issued a tough statement on Iraq, in support of the US's position. The statement, which said Iraq had one last chance to disarm, angered French President Jacques Chirac. Chirac scolded the countries, saying it is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet. Chirac even singled out Romania and Bulgaria, who are not yet official EU members, suggesting that they may not be allowed to join because of the statement. Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Lyubomir Ivanov told reporters "it is not the first time that pressure is being exerted upon us in one or another form but in my opinion this is not the productive way to reach unity and consensus in the Security Council." Romanian President Ion Iliescu called Chirac's remarks irrational, such reproaches are totally unjustified, unwise, and undemocratic.

The United Kingdom has remained a supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will continue to support the US in absence of a UN mandate. Prime Minister Tony Blair has frequently expressed support for the United States in this matter. However, public support is very divided. Many Members of Parliament have expressed objections to a war on Iraq, and even members of the government are believed to have reservations. Public support is divided, but increasingly belligerent posturing by the US appears to have tipped it against US actions. This has since spilled into the public, with Tony Blair becoming the target of an increasing number of attacks portraying him as Bush's "lap dog" or "poodle".

They are nevertheless tentatively sending 40,000 men from the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. The ground component will include 100 Challenger tanks. The First Armoured Division's 7th Armoured Brigade and 4th Armoured Brigade will take part in any war.

The Howard government in Australia has been a strong and largely uncritical supporter of United States policy, and has committed a squadron of F/A-18 Hornet fighters, 150 SAS troops, three naval vessels, and Orion patrol aircraft. Australia as a whole, however, is deeply divided on the issue. Polls show that a substantial majority of Australians do not support military action in Iraq without explicit United Nations backing.

There is much less international support for the projected US invasion than there was for the Gulf War. Some nations that were allies of the United States during the Gulf War are either opposed to war this time, or reluctant to help with it. Many argue that Iraq has no connection to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Some of the countries that are the strongest critics of a planned invasion in 2002, like France, also opposed to the Gulf War up until the start of the war. The U.S. government has claimed that some of these countries have showed support in private, asserting that they are afraid to do so in a public way. However, as of late January, the United States had asked 53 countries to join it in a military campaign against Iraq, and only a small number has agreed to do so, with even fewer agreeing to provide troops. [1]

Others opposed to US military action argue that insufficient evidence has been produced of "an immediate threat" and accordingly such action would be contary to international law. On the other hand, proponents of war suggest that United Nations resolutions authorizing the Gulf War remain in effect and justify military action, regardless of concerns over evidence.

Most western European leaders, with the notable exception of Tony Blair, oppose American action against Iraq.

On January 29, 2003, the European Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution opposing unilateral military action against Iraq by the United States. According to the resolution, "a pre-emptive strike would not be in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and would lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region."

France, Germany and Russia are publicly opposed to US plans at all levels. As the US has increased the tone of its message, these countries have become increasingly opposed, and since France and Russia both have US Security Council vetos, it is unlikely that any UN mandate could be passed in the short term. (See The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war.)

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made his opposition to the invasion an issue in his electoral campaign, and some analysts credit Schroeder's come-from-behind victory on September 22 to tapping a broad anti-war sentiment among the German people.

US officials, notably Donald Rumsfeld, responded by dismissing the countries involved as being "Old Europe", further angering all involved. Others have speculated that these countries are against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment, some of it related to stances taken by the administration of George W. Bush on international issues, such as the global warming and environmental protection, and what was perceived before the September 11th attacks as a policy of isolationism practiced by the Bush administration, which alienated much of the world opinion. The scale of the breakdown in trust and respect between Europe and the United States was highlighted in a story published in the Observer newspaper on February 16 2003, in which it was claimed that Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defense Secretary, intended to pull US troops suddenly out of Germany, not for military reasons but as to undermine the German economy, which was already faltering, as 'punishment' for its refusal to support the United States. European leaders and the public did not baulk at the suggestion that the United States was willing to destabilize a major European economy out of spite, because that state had been unwilling to 'do as Washington said.' Instead such was Europe's attitude towards, and impression of, the Bush administration that it perceived such claims as entirely credible.

The scale of the change in attitudes in Europe over the approach is shown in the Republic of Ireland. In the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, Ireland in an unprecedented declared a full national day of mourning for the victims. The reaction was two-fold: horror at the deaths but also a strong degree of sympathy for the United States, whom Ireland saw as a friend, particularly after President Clinton's welcome interventions during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. By February 2003, the public reaction to the Bush administration actions over Iraq had changed America's image utterly. Instead of being seen in a positive light, the United States under Bush was seen as a 'bully' determined to force the international community to accept its demand for a war against Iraq, and if necessary ignore the international community in the United Nations and go to war unilaterally. While the reaction wasn't reflecting 'anti-americanism', it was reflecting a strong 'anti-Bush administration' feeling. Hence an unprecedented 100,000 took part in an anti-war march in Dublin (the organisers had expected 20,000!) with demands being made that the United States be refused permission to use Shannon airport as a stop over point when flying their soldiers from the United States to countries bordering Iraq. Yet opinion polls show that the Irish would support a war if it had United Nations approval. What they would not support is a unilateral war declared in defiance of the UN by the Bus administration.

That 'anti-Bushism' was reflected in many European countries, most of whose leaders and peoples had never been impressed by the new American president, the manner of his election or the policies of his adminstration. Critics of the European reaction have speculated about whether some European states have strong economic ties to Iraq that are influencing their stands; the vast majority of European states, however, have little or no ties with Iraq.

Almost all countries have called on the US to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their investigations, which would occur in the middle of 2003. This places the US in a particularily difficult position; if the inspectors do turn up evidence that would require an invasion, americans would prefer it to avoid taking place during the summer when the temperatures are too high for effective operations. This may be the main reason why the US has recently stepped up calls for an invasion, and the rhetoric about their 'allies' alleged lack of will.

However, it is argued that according to the recently passed Security Council Resolution 1441, it is not up to the U.N. inspectors but to Iraq to prove that the country does not have weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors are in the country only to verify Iraq's claims. Both the US and the UN security council are aware of large quantities of weapons and chemicals which have still been unaccounted for. Security Council Resolution 1441 states that failing to account for all of their weapons materials and programs - even those that have been destroyed - qualifies as a "material breach" which would lead to "severe consequences".

Richard Butler, who led the UN inspection teams in Iraq until 1998, accused the United States of promoting "shocking double standards" in considering unilateral military action against Iraq. He said, "The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret." In pointing out that the United States has not responded in the same way to Syria, which is also suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, and that several US allies, including Pakistan, India, and Israel, have such weapons without having signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, Butler asked why the United States is "permitting the persistence of such shocking double standards".

Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, sharply criticized Bush and his drive for war, saying, "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America." Mandela also said, "One power with a president who has no foresight -- who cannot think properly -- is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

As of August 2002, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who believes U.N. inspections effectively verified the destruction of over 90% of Iraq's weapon capabilities, is actively campaigning against an invasion, and challenging the Bush administration to make public any evidence that Iraq has rebuilt the capabilities which were destroyed under the auspices of UNSCOM. Says Ritter, "If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof." However, critics of Ritter point out that four years earlier he had exactly the opposite view as inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. In 1998, upon leaving Iraq, Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." It is unclear why Ritter's opinion changed so drastically in four years without inspections.

The Vatican has also come out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters last week that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a "just war." The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world. On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable." [2]

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and ex-president of Ireland Mary Robinson was also highly critical, in an article published in The Irish Times.

A number of Iraqi opposition groups have shown support for the potential U.S. led invasion, in spite of the fact that they find little else to agree on. Ahmad Chalabi, of the Iraqi National Congress told a Turkish news agency that they "do not see an operation as a war between Iraq and the United States. This will be a war to liberate Iraq. The opposition will play a great role."

There is also supposedly a good amount of support for a possible invasion inside the country of Iraq itself. In late 2002, The US military announced that it had been receiving emails from members of the Iraqi military that, in their words, were "very encouraging". Saddam Hussein has reportedly made an attempt to cut off email communication between the US and the Iraqi army. In early 2003, NBC news anchorman Tom Brokaw interviewed a number of Iraqi citizens. On camera, the citizens proclaimed that they would fight to the end against the American invaders. Off camera however, Brokaw said many of the citizens said that the Americans were "very welcome".

A U.S. Army psychological warfare group is operating in the region. United States and British aircraft have dropped leaflets on Iraqi cities and military positions, warning Iraqi soldiers not to fire on Coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone and not to support Saddam Hussein. In addition, EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft, equipped with mediumwave, shortwave and FM transmitters, have been broadcasting directly to the Iraqi people. The U.S. Army has reportedly received email from some of the Iraqi soldiers, which it considers to be "very encouraging".

The governments of countries such as Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have shown their support by allowing the U.S. to use their air strips and military bases, however, the level of public support in those countries of military action remains to be seen.

Turkey is beginning to show reservations, fearing that a power vacuum after Saddam's defeat will give rise to a Kurdish state. Turkey, however, has agreed to allow U.S. use of the air base at Incirlik, and to allowing the U.S. to investigate possible use of airports at Gaziantep, Malatya, and Diyabakir, as well as the seaports of Antalya and Mersi.

In December 2002, Turkey moved approximately 15,000 soldiers to the border with Iraq. The Turkish General Staff stated that this move was in light of recent developments and did not indicate an attack was imminent. In January 2003, the Turkish foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, said he was examining documents from the time of the Ottoman Empire to determine whether Turkey had a claim to the oil fields around the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.

In late January 2003, Turkey invited at least five other regional countries to a "'last-chance' meeting to avert a US-led war against Iraq." [3] The group urged neighboring Iraq to continue cooperating with the UN inspections, and agreed that "military strikes on Iraq might further destabilize the Middle East region." [4] Also in attendance were Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

Jordan is another important US ally in the area. Prior to UN sanctions being placed on Iraq, all oil in Jordan was supplied at very low rates from Iraq. When shipments ended the economy suffered terribly, and today the Jordanian economy is completely dependent on US supplies and economic aid. The govornment is attempting to follow a policy of neutrality, but is under increasing pressure by the public to refuse to allow US basing there. In late January, Jordan announced that it would most likely allow US troops to operate out of the country.

Saudi Arabia is in a similar situation, although they are not as dependent on the US economically. Their public remains dead set against US action, regardless of a UN mandate. The government has repeatedly attempted to find a diplomatic solution, going so far as to suggest that Saddam should go into voluntary exile.

Perhaps the only local ally supporting US action is Kuwait, whose hostility towards Iraq stems from the events surrounding the Gulf War. The public appears to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat today as in the past, and are particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who disappeared during the Gulf War, and may be languishing in Iraqi jails to this day. However, even in Kuwait, there is increasing hostility towards the United States. [5]

• Iraq crisis, 2003
• U.S. plan to invade Iraq
• American popular opinion of war on Iraq
• American government position on war on Iraq
• Public relations plans for war on Iraq
• Popular opposition to war on Iraq
• Global protests against war on Iraq
• The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war
• International community
• peace movement