International reactions to the prelude to the Iraq War
This article describes the positions of world governments before the actual initiation of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and not their current positions as they may have changed since then.
Background
In 2002, the United States began to campaign for the overthrow of Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein. The United States, under the administration of George W. Bush, argued that Saddam Hussein was a threat to global peace, a vicious tyrant, and a sponsor of international terrorism.
Opinion on the war was greatly divided between nations. Some countries felt that the United States failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein had an active weapons program. Others saw the war as an act of imperialism, and charged that the United States just wanted Iraq's oil.
On the other side, supporting countries argued that Saddam Hussein was one of the 20th Century's worst despots, and that free countries should be obliged to remove brutal dictators from power. Others[
Scott Ritter points out in his October 19, 2005 interview with
MR. HERSH: One of the things about your book that's amazing is that it's not only about the Bush Administration, and if there are any villains in this book, they include Sandy Berger, who was Clinton's national security advisor, and Madeleine Albright.
Another thing that's breathtaking about this book is the amount of new stories and new information. Scott describes in detail and with named sources, basically, a two or three-year run of the American government undercutting the inspection process. In your view, during those years, '91 to'98, particularly the last three years, was the United States interested in disarming Iraq?
MR. RITTER: Well, the fact of the matter is the United States was never interested in disarming Iraq. The whole Security Council resolution that created the UN weapons inspections and called upon Iraq to disarm was focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is a vehicle for the maintenance of economic sanctions that were imposed in August 1990 linked to the liberation of Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait, I participated in that conflict. And one would think, therefore, the sanctions should be lifted.
The United States needed to find a vehicle to continue to contain Saddam because the CIA said all we have to do is wait six months and Saddam is going to collapse on his own volition. That vehicle is sanctions. They needed a justification; the justification was disarmament. They drafted a Chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council calling for the disarmament of Iraq and saying in Paragraph 14 that if Iraq complies, sanctions will be lifted. Within months of this resolution being passed—and the United States drafted and voted in favor of this resolution—within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly, not privately, publicly that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power.
That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained through the maintenance of sanctions and facilitated regime change. It was never about disarmament, it was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush, and it was a policy continued through eight years of the Clinton presidency, and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush Administration.[1]
Varying levels of support
Analysis of the count reveals the complexities in world diplomacy. Some national governments publicly denounced the invasion plan while at the same time accepting U.S. aid earmarked for the war, or providing to the war effort troops, fueling stations, military support, and/or airspace. Some national governments provided only a semblance of support.
Some nations originally on the White House list disavowed membership in the "coalition". Furthermore, significant opposition to the war exists in segments of the populations and Parliaments in many of the supporting nations. Adding to the complications, the Bush administration claimed to have the support of some 15 nations that wished to remain anonymous. This bloc has been dubbed by some "the shadow coalition" or, sardonically, "the coalition of the unwilling to be named".
Support can be so different in nature, from armed troops to use of airspace and bases, logistic support, political support, to participation in reconstruction efforts, that it appears to some to be difficult to exclude most countries from the official list, except Iraq for obvious reasons (although some might claim some movements inside Iraq will probably also help reconstructing their own country).
Israel
Israel did not officially support or take part in the Iraq War. According to former State Department official
According to former US
At Washington's behest, Israel did not provide vocal support for the war, as the US government was concerned that Israeli support for or participation in the war would potentially alienate the Arab world. In January 2007, the Forward reported that sometime before March 2003, Israeli Prime Minister
Israel has also assisted the US military by sharing its expertise on counterinsurgency methods, such as utilizing drones and operating checkpoints.[10] In 2003 the Israeli news magazine, the Ha'aretz, in its published story "White Man's Burden" reported that belief in the war against Iraq was disseminated by "a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish".[11]
Countries supporting the U.S. position
Shortly before the Iraq War began, the US government announced that 49 countries were joined in a "coalition of the willing" in favor of forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, with some number of other countries expressing their support in private. Of the 49 countries, the following countries had an active or participant role, by providing either significant troops or political support: Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom and (United States).
Four of these countries supplied combat forces directly participating in the invasion of Iraq: the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. Other countries have provided logistical and intelligence support, chemical and biological response teams, overflight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, and political support.
Europe
In late January 2003, a statement released to various newspapers and signed by the leaders of Britain, saying that Saddam should not be allowed to violate U.N. resolutions.
Later, the Eastern European "
In the Netherlands the first Balkenende cabinet supported the USA. After that government fell in October 2002, there were new elections in January, which were won by the Second Balkenende cabinet who chose to continue their predecessors' policy. Dutch soldiers were sent to Iraq, and remained until March 2005. Two Dutch soldiers died in Iraq.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro expressed regret that the settlement of the Iraqi crisis could not be accomplished in the United Nations and accused the Iraqi regime of "making its citizens the victims of an irresponsible policy". Serbia and Montenegro decided not to take part in Iraq invasion though.[12]
United Kingdom
Throughout the conflict, the
Before the invasion, the then UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, advised that the war would be in breach of international law for six reasons, ranging from the lack of a second United Nations resolution to UN inspector Hans Blix's continuing search for weapons.[13] Ten days later on 7 March 2003, as UK troops were massing in Kuwait, Lord Goldsmith changed his mind, saying:
I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force.... Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.[14]
He concluded his revised analysis by saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."
The United Kingdom has sent 45,000 personnel from the
Before the war, public opinion polls showed that the majority of British people would have supported the war with a clear UN mandate for war, but were strongly opposed to war without another resolution in addition to
Poland
In March 2003, the Polish government announced that it would participate in a U.S.-led Iraq invasion and sent about 200 personnel. Poland also sent 54 soldiers in an elite
Asia
Kuwait
Perhaps the only major regional ally that supported the US' action was Kuwait, whose hostility towards Saddam's Iraq stemmed from the events surrounding the first Persian Gulf War. The public appeared to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat in 2003 as he was in the past, and were particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who had disappeared during the Gulf War, and were presumably languishing in Iraqi jails up until Saddam's fall from power.[15]
Japan
On March 17, 2003,
On March 26, 2003, Japan's
Japan sent 5,500 troops under the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group to Iraq.[18]
At home, the prime minister was strongly opposed in this decision both by the opposition and parts of his own coalition government. Most Japanese believe that it was motivated purely to improve Japan's relations to the US government, which had been improving since the beginning of the Bush administration.
Furthermore, article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (in place after the end of World War II) forbids any Japanese military involvement overseas. Therefore, Japan did not take part in the invasion itself, but did provide logistical support to the US Navy, which the government considered a non-combat operation, a position that many Japanese disagree with.[citation needed]
Other Asian States
The
Australia
The
Opposing U.S. Position
Some nations that were allies of the United States during the Gulf War were either opposed to the second Iraq War or were reluctant to help with it. Before the war, several countries called on the US to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their investigations. However, the US and its allies maintained that reasonable patience had been given to Saddam and that it was clear that he was not willing to cooperate with the inspectors, as he beat around the bush whenever the weapons of mass destruction issue came up. This, if not the fact that the inspectors had previously been kicked out of Iraq in 1998 alone, was, according to the war's supporters, sufficient violation of UN mandates to justify more severe action. Scott Ritter, chief UN weapons inspector at the time, says that the inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam Hussein, but were withdrawn by Bill Clinton:[21]
Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, "Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq." So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it 'sensitive,' we go in with four people.
In 1998, the inspection team went to a site. It was the Baath Party headquarters, like going to Republican Party headquarters or Democratic Party headquarters. The Iraqis said, "You can't come in – you can come in. Come on in." The inspectors said, "The modalities no longer apply." The Iraqis said, "If you don't agree to the modalities, we can't support letting you in," and the Iraqis wouldn't allow the inspections to take place.
Bill Clinton said, "This proves the Iraqis are not cooperating," and he ordered the inspectors out. But you know the United States government ordered the inspectors to withdraw from the modalities without conferring with the Security Council. It took Iraqis by surprise. Iraqis were saying, "We're playing by the rules, why aren't you? If you're not going play by the rules, then it's a game that we don't want to participate in." Bill Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn't kick them out.
Many argued that, since Iraq had no connection to the
Europe
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".[22]
On March 17, 2003, the US and Britain stated that they would not submit a resolution to the Security Council, admitting they did not have enough votes to force France or Russia to use a veto. In fact, only Bulgaria and Spain (in addition to the US and UK) declared outright that they wanted to vote for the U.S./UK resolution, while a few more nations, such as Chile and Guinea, had only said they would consider supporting it.
Belgium,[23] Switzerland,[24] Sweden,[25][23] Norway,[26] Greece,[27] Austria and Liechtenstein also condemned the war. The Czech Republic, Croatia, and Slovenia[28] were already mentioned above.
France
Though Bush and Blair were optimistic that the 9 out of 15 votes of approval necessary to pass a UN resolution would have been reached, France's threatened veto would have immediately quashed the resolution, as any one of the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, China, and France, had (and has) the unilateral power to veto any resolution, even if the vote is 11–1 in favor. Russia and China expressed that they likely would have supported the UN resolution if some more diplomatic channels had been exercised first, but Bush and Blair stopped trying to persuade those two nations once France voiced its opposition to the resolution. Amid US government anger at what it claimed was France's reckless use of its veto power, the French government pointed to numerous examples of times when the USA had vetoed such resolutions that otherwise had an 11–1 margin.
Germany
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder made his opposition to the invasion an issue in his electoral campaign. Some analysts credited Schröder's come-from-behind victory on September 22 to tapping a broad anti-war sentiment among the German people. His critics and the proponents of the Iraq War suggested that he was using the controversy of the war and appealing to the anti-American sentiment felt by the German public for the sole purpose of gaining popularity and winning. This notion deeply offended the American administration and led to a straining of relations between the two nations. However, Schröder met Colin Powell and a rapprochement was established after the Iraqi regime was overturned.[29] At present the governments of the two nations have agreed to put the Iraq issue behind them and move forward.
Greece
Greek Prime Minister
Turkey
Turkey originally showed reservations, fearing that a power vacuum after Saddam's defeat might have given rise to a Kurdish state [31] On 1 March 2003 the Turkish parliament failed narrowly to approve a government motion to permit the deployment in Turkey for six months of 62,000 US troops, 255 jet aircraft, and 65 helicopters.[32]
In December 2002, Turkey moved approximately 15,000 soldiers to its border with Iraq.
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. The group urged neighboring Iraq to continue cooperating with the UN inspections, and publicly stated that "military strikes on Iraq might further destabilize the Middle East region".
In the end, Turkey did not grant access to its land and harbours as asked for by U.S. officials because the Grand National Assembly of Turkey voted against this proposal.[34] Nonetheless, Turkey was named by the Bush Administration as a part of the "Coalition of the Willing."
Russia
Belarus
President Alexander Lukashenko said Belarus unanimously denounced US "aggression" in Iraq. [1]
Finland
In
The Finnish government stated that they took a stronger stand on the Iraq question at a meeting chaired by President Tarja Halonen. The meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy issued a statement according to which the use of force against Iraq would not be acceptable without the authority of the UN Security Council. [2] [3]
Vatican City
The
Demonstrations against the war
Millions demonstrated on the streets of
Americas
Canada
While Canada participated in the Gulf War of 1991, it refused to engage in a war on Iraq without UN approval. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said on October 10, 2002, that Canada would be part of any military coalition sanctioned by the United Nations to invade Iraq. With the subsequent withdrawal of American and British diplomatic efforts to gain UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in Parliament on March 17, 2003, that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion, though he offered the US and its soldiers his moral support. Two days earlier, a quarter million in Montreal marched against the pending war. Major anti-war demonstrations took place in several other Canadian cities.
About a hundred Canadian
On October 9, 2008, the CBC published this statement about 2003:[35]
in their book, The Unexpected War,
Janice Gross Stein and public policy consultant Eugene Lang write that the Liberalgovernment would actually boast of that contribution to Washington. "In an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateral-ism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department or the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq — three ships and 100 exchange officers — exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."[35][36]
Latin America
After Costa Rica's Constitutional Court ruled that the war broke international law and that the country's support for the war contradicted its constitution, the government declared its withdrawal of support, which was merely moral anyway as Costa Rica has no army. Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic retreated their troops.
Africa
The
).Arab League
The
Anti-war demonstrations took place in
Asia
India
As the Iraqi crisis unfolded, India had taken the consistent position that Iraq must fully comply with UN Security Council Resolutions for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from its territory. The counsel has been against war and in favour of peace. It has emphasised that all decisions on Iraq must be taken under the authority of the United Nations.The counsel stated that any move for change in regime in Iraq should come from within and not be imposed from outside. The counsel has also been drawing attention to the precarious humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people which war would only aggravate.
The counsel was deeply disappointed by the inability of the UN Security Council to act collectively, specially the failure of the Permanent Members to harmonise their positions on Iraq.
The counsel stressed that "As long as the peaceful disarmament of Iraq has the slightest chance, we would continue to urge caution, self-restraint and high sense of responsibility on the part of concerned parties".[40]
Saudi Arabia
Pre-war, Saudi Arabia's public position had been one of neutrality in the conflict; worldwide media reported that, despite numerous American attempts, Saudi Arabia would not offer the American military any use of its land as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[41] It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[42] As the US invasion of Iraq became inevitable, the question of whether Saudi Arabia wanted the Baath regime replaced by a pro-Western government "pumping oil in greater quantities than Saudi Arabia" posed a dilemma for the Saudi government.[43] Furthermore, Saudi Arabia worried about the possibility of an Iraqi Shia pro-Iranian government installed at its doorstep, following the demise of Saddam's Sunni regime. On 4 November 2002, Faysal told CNN that Saudi Arabia would not allow US use of Saudi facilities to invade Iraq. Moreover, in the same month, during a televised address on Saudi television, Crown Prince Abdullah insisted that "our armed forces will not, under no circumstances, step one foot into Iraqi territory".
Syria
Syria opposed the war and refused to submit to Washington's demand for co-operation.[44] It acted in concert with Russia, France, and Germany in the Security Council, even voting in support of Resolution 1441, mandating the renewal of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. Syria's UN ambassador, Makhail Wehbe, said he believed that the evidence presented by the United States to the Security Council on Iraq's weapons had been fabricated.[45] Syrian commentators explained that none of Iraq's neighbors felt it was a threat, and that weapons of mass destruction were a mere pretext for a war motivated by the interests of Israel and the US companies that hoped to profit from post-war reconstruction contracts.[46]
Jordan
King Abdullah II of Jordan advised Washington against the Iraq War but later gave the invading coalition covert and tacit support, in defiance of the overwhelming opinion of his own public.[47] The Jordanian government publicly opposed the war against Iraq. The King stressed to the United States and European Union that a diplomatic solution, in accordance with UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 1284 (1999) and 1409 (2002), was the only appropriate model for resolving the conflict between Iraq and the UN.[48] In August 2002 he told the Washington Post that an attempt to invade Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake" and that it could "throw the whole area into turmoil".[49]
China
China pressed for continued U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq after two arms inspectors told the Security Council they had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.[50] Beijing insisted on staking out a “principled” and independent position on U.S. intervention in Iraq. Although it stated its wish that the situation be resolved peacefully, China did not threaten to exercise its Security Council veto and had abstained in many previous decisions on Iraq.
During the Iraq war of 2003, China vehemently demanded Iraq to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 but opposed the use of force to secure Iraqi compliance. However, when the war broke out, China's Middle East policy reflected the traditional policy of seeking to maximize its economic interests without becoming entangled in political controversies.
Pakistan
Major anti-war demonstrations took place in the cities of Peshawar, Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, and Quetta. General Pervez Musharraf faced already fierce opposition from his mostly Muslim population for his support of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. Pakistan also had a seat on the UN Security Council during the pre-war period, though would not have likely voted in favour of the resolution at the time Bush had planned to present it, in an attempt to quell civilian dissent.
Other Asian states
, Thailand.New Zealand
The New Zealand government disagreed with its neighbour, Australia, and did not support the war in principle. However, New Zealand did send a group of non-combatant engineers to help rebuild Iraq. There were major anti-war demonstrations in the New Zealand cities Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland.
Neutral, unclear
Ireland
The
Despite large-scale protests, including many at Shannon Airport itself, opinion polls showed that many people broadly supported official policy on the use of the Airport. While a large majority of the public did oppose the war, there was a fifty–fifty split on the use of Shannon. Keeping US investment in Ireland safe was the principal reason for allowing US stopovers. Ultimately anti-war allies were appeased by the government's not condoning the war while the situation with Shannon kept Irish-U.S. relations cordial.
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Despite public protests in front of the
Solomon Islands
As Croatia and Slovenia, the Solomon Islands were claimed to be members of the coalition but wished "to disassociate itself from the report".[54] The Solomon Islands do not have a globally or regionally deployable military.
Iran
Iran's official view of US policy in Iraq since 2002 has been characterized by considerable ambivalence. On the one hand, lingering mistrust of Saddam Hussein (as a result of 1980–1988 war with Iraq) both created and reinforced an attitude that accepted the US containment of Iraq as being in Iran's interests. On the other hand, the US since 1993 had proclaimed the containment of Iran to be of equal importance to that of Iraq, and therefore, Iranian leaders felt encircled by the arrival of thousands of US troops in Iraq together with those in Afghanistan since the end of 2001. Indeed, Bush's 2002 inclusion of Iran in his "axis of evil" meant a US military presence in Iraq could constitute an existential threat for the government of the Islamic Republic. As circumstances in Iraq evolved from early 2003 to mid-2005, Iranian policy makers faced the challenge of crafting strategies to take advantage of new opportunities while simultaneously remaining out of the crosshairs of a triumphal and hostile United States.[55]
See also
- Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq
- At the Center of the Storm, a 2007 memoir co-written by former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet with Bill Harlow, former CIA Director of Public Affairs
- 2001–2003
- Iraq disarmament crisis
- 2003 invasion of Iraq
- Public opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq
- Opposition to the Iraq War
- Protests against the Iraq War
- United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War
- International community
- Peace movement
References
- ^ "Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh: Iraq Confidential". Archived from the original on 2007-04-02. Retrieved 2007-05-11.
- ^ "POLITICS: Israel Warned US Not to Invade Iraq after 9/11 – Inter Press Service". www.ipsnews.net. 28 August 2007. Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2015-08-31.
- ^ "terror and tehran". www.pbs.org. 2 May 2002. Archived from the original on 4 June 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
- ^ "Interview" (PDF). fletcher.tufts.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-01-25.
- ^ Rosenberg, MJ. "CIA veteran: Israel to attack Iran in fall". www.aljazeera.com. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-08-31.
- ^ Kayer, J (16 August 2002). "Israel urges U.S. to attack". The Washington Post.
- ^ Alon, Gideon (13 August 2002). "Sharon Panel: Iraq is our biggest danger". Haaretz.
- ^ "Doug Feith: Israel didn't push for Iraq War". Ynetnews. 13 May 2008. Archived from the original on 30 September 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
- ^ "Sharon Warned Bush". 13 January 2007. Archived from the original on 2009-05-25. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
- ^ "MSN – Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos". NBC News. 13 December 2003. Retrieved 2009-06-18.
- ^ Shavit, Ari (2003-04-03). "White Man's Burden". Haaretz. Retrieved 2019-05-11.
- ^ "AML - support.gale". www.accessmylibrary.com. Archived from the original on 2011-05-23. Retrieved 2008-12-10.
- ^ Hinsliff, Gaby (2005-04-24). "Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2007-10-25.
- ^ "Declassified opinion of the UK Attorney General on Iraq Resolution 1441 to the Prime Minister" (PDF). Archived from the original on April 28, 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-26.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24537-2003Jan21.html. Retrieved 2017-08-29.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ "The Japan Times Online". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2003-04-04. Retrieved 2003-03-23.
- ^ http://www.mainichi.co.jp/news/selection/archive/200303/27/20030327k0000e010031000c.html. Retrieved 2003-03-28.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)[dead link] - ^ "SDF logs cast doubt over legality of Japan's Iraq mission".
- ^ "Majority want Australians troops out of Iraq: poll". Theage.com.au. 2006-03-21. Archived from the original on 2017-01-18. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "CNN.com – Australia pulls troops out of Iraq – Apr. 16, 2003". Edition.cnn.com. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Democracy Now! | Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on 2005-10-23. Retrieved 2005-10-23.
- ^ "Situation in Iraq". Europarl.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ a b "CNN.com – Iraq: Europe enters summit split – Feb. 16, 2003". Archived from the original on 2004-04-05. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Switzerland aims for bigger role on world stage – SWI swissinfo.ch". Swissinfo.org. 2003-12-18. Archived from the original on 2004-12-04. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ ""War with Iraq is not inevitable", questions to Anna Lindh| Ministry for Foreign Affairs | Government Offices". Archived from the original on 2004-03-02. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ Aftenposten Norway, News in English. "Aftenposten Norway, Norwegian news in English". Archived from the original on 2004-09-04. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Europe | Greece plans Iraq emergency summit". BBC News. 2003-02-10. Archived from the original on 2004-07-17. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Iraq War: Slovenia Regrets the Beginning of War, PM Says". Archived from the original on 2004-06-18. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Home | Deutsche Welle". Archived from the original on 2009-02-09. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ a b "Greece and Gulf War II'" (PDF). lse.ac.uk. Retrieved 2008-08-23. Author:George Tzogopoulos, PhD researcher on U.S. foreign policy and the media, Loughborough University.
- ^ "Turkey fears Iraq invasion would fuel Kurdish nationalists" Archived 2006-10-29 at the Wayback Machine, AP at Kurdistan Observer, December 3, 2002.
- ^ Turkish Probe, 2 March 2003
- ^ "Categories". abc.net.au. Archived from the original on 2004-12-16. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
- ^ "Turkey upsets US military plans". BBC News. 2003-03-01. Archived from the original on 2014-03-04. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
- ^ a b c Gollom, Mark (2008-10-09). "Our own voice on Iraq?". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2009-03-07. Retrieved 2009-01-12.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-670-06722-0.
- ^ "Venezuela's Chavez Says Iraq War Creates Uncertainty". China.org.cn. 2003-11-28. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Africans back France on Iraq – Feb. 21, 2003". CNN.com. 2003-02-21. Archived from the original on 2016-03-03. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Home Page | Voice of America - English". Archived from the original on 2020-08-12. Retrieved 2004-03-26.
- ^ Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (March 18, 2003). "Statement on the current situation related to Iraq".
- ^ Interview with Saud al-Faysal, Iraq Watch, 11 August 2002
- ^ Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (USA, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006)
- ^ Simon Henderson, Weekly Standard, 13 May 2002.
- ^ Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War USA, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 129
- ^ Oxford Business Group, online briefing, 2 October 2003, http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com Archived 2019-04-01 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Steven S. and Eli C. "The Syrian Government and Media on the War in Iraq," Middle East Research Institute, Inquiry and Analysis Series no. 134, 12 April 2003, http://memri.org Archived 2019-03-20 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (USA, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 143)
- ^ Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (USA, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 144)
- ^ G. Kessler and P. Slevin, "Abdullah: Foreign Oppose Attack; Jordanian King to Urge Bush to FOcus on Peace in Mideast, Not Invasion of Iraq," Washington Post, 1 August 2002
- ^ "More inspections enjoy broad U.N. support – Feb. 14, 2003". CNN.com. Archived from the original on 2017-06-06. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2004-04-07. Retrieved 2004-03-24.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Moved Links Page: IMDiversity.com". 29 May 2004. Archived from the original on 2004-05-29.
- ^ "Page not found – Taipei Times". www.taipeitimes.com. 20 March 2003. Archived from the original on 2003-06-22. Retrieved 2003-05-31.
{{cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (help) - ^ "NZ Herald: New Zealand's Latest News, Business, Sport, Weather, Entertainment, Politics". NZ Herald.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Rick Fawn and Raymond Hinnebusch The Iraq Causes and Consequences War (USA, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers:2006, p. 173)
External links
- State Department officials about the "coalition of the willing" (March 2003)
- Blix attacks 'shaky' intelligence on weapons
- Cook's resignation speech
- More inspections enjoy broad U.N. support
- Turkey: Arab States urging Iraq to cooperate, caution U.S. against unilateral move
- Arab leagues against Iraq War
- Translations of Chirac's interventions around the possible French veto