Allies and The UN:  UK, France, Russia, China
Updated 12/14/2005

1. Did UK Prime Minister Tony Blair favor a U.S. attack on Iraq? 
2. Did British public opinion and churches favor an attack?
3. Had France changed its views? (also see Weapons Inspectors/WMD)
4. Was Russia still supporting Iraq?
5. Was China tempted to join Russia or France in a UN veto?
   

1.  Did UK Prime Minister Tony Blair favor a U.S. attack on Iraq? 
(Also see "PS" FAQ section for Hutton inquiry and see "Was the war inevitable" FAQ section)

As the U.S. top ally in the countdown to war, it is important to understand the strong views and Blair and of British citizens. Reading Blair's April 2002 Texas speech carefully, it seems he would support an attack if it happened, but hopes that other alternatives will make an attack avoidable.

 Commented UK's foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats: "[These comments] place Britain in a quite different position from the hawks in the Bush administration" (Chicago Tribune, 8/23/02). Blair's foreign office responding by claiming that Bush has always wanted the weapons inspectors to return, which is not true (See "Inspectors" section). Unlike Bush, Blair did not see an invasion as the #1 priority.

Return to Top

In general, Blair feels that containment is not working. Bush and Blair met on September 7 and Blair commented, "Inaction is not an option."  Later, he added, "If Sept. 11 teaches us anything, it teaches us that it is wrong to wait until the threat materializes." Also in September of 2002, Blair delivered a major speech (see full text) on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, in which is said, "Because I say to you in all earnestness:  if we do not deal with the threat from this international outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or next; perhaps not even this year or the next.  But it will at some point.  And I do not  want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing."

In early September Liberal Democratic Party leader in the House of Lords was skeptical: "If you are proposing a war which would mean the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, because that is what it does mean, and the destruction of one of the world' oldest civilizations, you must have overwhelming evidence" (The Guardian, 9/2/02). 

His  September dossier (see "dossier excerpts" and see full text of the dossier) was drawn up in March of 2002 but not was finally released released until mid-September. This 55 page dossier was released just hours before Parliament debate began.   Presented on September 24, it shows, according to Blair, that "his [WMD program is active, detailed, and growing...We must face up to the threat."    He also included the allegation that Hussein has tried to acquire "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa (NYTimes/AP, 9/24/03). The report also predicted Iraq would have a nuclear weapons within five years or in 1-2 years if they received outside assistance. 
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf

The dossier met with mixed world reactions. He claimed that Iraq could use WMD with only 45 minutes notice, an accusation he defended but took criticism for before the war. (Also see "Inevitable War" FAQ section.)

Return to Top

A Parliamentary opponent first criticized the dossier as more propaganda than substance, and felt other motivations included oil and distraction from the poor U.S. economy. "There is nothing real new in it," said the editor of Jane's World Armies (Chicago Tribune, 9/23/03).  Blair's goal was disarmament not regime change.  Given the human rights abuses documented in this September dossier, The Guardian argued, Britain's goals should be regime change but they also wondered where that policy stopped and half-seriously suggested regime change in Zimbabwe, China, or Saudi Arabia (12/3/02). 

Parliament debated on September 24 and gave Blair more support than he anticipated. Blair's Labour party continues to send mixed messages. 

In mid-January Blair warned against a "rush to judgment", said inspectors should be given "space and time" beyond Jan. 27 to complete their work and expressed his "strong" preference for a second UN resolution before a war is begun. (New York Times, 1/18/03). The January 3 Chicago Tribune and January 4 New York Times reported that Britain's 20,000 troops will join the war, but wrongly predicted that they probably won't be deployed until as late as March, confusing the timing of Bush's February war. Argued a British International Affairs expert, "The British public opinion is not desperately enthusiastic about the campaign, and if the U.S. wants Britain with it...it will have to take this into consideration." In other words, for political reasons, British troops can't be going to the Gulf before Blix's January 27 report to the UN. As it turned out, by January 20, tens of thousands of troops were on their way to the Gulf. Soon after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw put the chances for war at less than 40%, down from 60%, Blair's hawkish comments of January 7 seemed to return Britain to the original "war in February" timetable as later that day Britain called up 1500 reservists.

On February 10, Tony Blair wrote his own Op-Ed in The Guardian. Three days earlier, Blair was forced to embarrassingly admit that large parts of the UK's February dossier supposedly based on "intelligence information" was a sham and Blair popularity plummeted eve more. This second Blair dossier took criticism for its plagiarism of a California graduate student from years earlier and Jane's Defense Weekly.

The information had been plagiarized from magazines and journals, two from 1997 and from a California post-graduate student's thesis.  Powell had called the dossier "a fine paper" during his UN speech.  The 19-page British report had "cut and paste" passages "sometimes verbatim, from several...articles...Even spelling and punctuation errors in the originals were reproduced."  None of the sources were acknowledged.  Critics said the information is now obsolete.  The Chicago Tribune further reported that another critic "said that in some cases the authors appeared to have changed phrases from the original articles to make the case against Iraq seem more extreme.  "Monitoring" became "spying" and "aiding opposition groups" because "supporting terrorists organizations."  The critic concluded,  "Both governments seems so desperate to create a pretext to attack Iraq that they are willing to say anything...This is the latest example of official dishonesty." 

Concurred the UK's Guardian editorial (Leader), "Plagiarism is not the main issue.  The central issue is that of public trust...If he wants to persuade Britain of the just case for military action as a last resort, and there is a just cause, his Government can hardly afford to shoot itself in the foot again" (2/9).  Blair was further pressured by the record crowd of protestors on Feb. 15.  One placard warned, "Go to Iraq, Tony, but don't come back." 

Blair, sounding hawkish in late-January, has been giving conflicting views for months.  Foreign Minister Jack Straw, and Defense Minister Hoon either disagree or are giving conflicting views.  

Return to Top

Blair met at Camp David with President Bush on January 31 and the Bush-Blair press conference emphasized the "common enemy" but preferring a second resolution, about which the U.S. had not committed. One assumes that they discussed allies and a timetable for the Feb/March war. NSA chief under Jimmy Carter, Brzenzinski complemented Blair for playing "a very smart game, supporting us to the hilt publicly but [warning] us in private."  Blair, along with Powell, had quietly urged Bush back in August and September to the UN to resume inspections. 

Just after Powell's UN speech of February, Jack Straw said one should not turn a blind eye to the November resolution, though it might be easy. "Easy but wrong.  Because in doing so we would be repeating the mistake of the past 12 years and [giving in to] a dictator who believes his diseases and poison gases are essential weapons to suppress his own people and to threaten his neighbors, and that by trickery he can indefinitely hoodwink the world" (The Guardian, 2/6/03, "Iraq has 8 days to comply warns Straw"). In late February Straw predicted "a dribble of concessions" by Hussein leading up to the next SC meeting.  

In mid-March Rumsfeld muddied the waters by saying that Britain's role in both a military attack and in postwar Iraq was still "unclear" (Wash Post, 3/12). Colin Powell sees these Rumsfeld comments and insults at Germany and France as making his diplomatic effort much more difficult, State associates say (NYTimes, 3/14). In response to the "rush to war" critics, Blair countered, "We waited 12 years...and three months since [Hussein's] final opportunity [November UN resolution]" (The Guardian, 2/18/03). 

A plethora of Guardian writers concluded that Blair needed to solve six crucial questions.  
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4623328-103690,00.html
These questions, detailed in four pages of answer, were: 
1.  Can he persuade George Bush to remain flexible and give more time?;
2.  Can he convince the so-called "swing six" wavering countries on the Security Council to back a second resolution?;
3.  How is he going to defuse the threat of a Russia and France veto?;
4.  Opposition is mounting from his own party and public at home.  What must he do the contain it?;
5.  Blair still has a mountain to climb in persuading the British public that war is justified.  What is his media strategy for doing so?; and 
6.  "The big question:  If a second resolution fails, Blair will have to decide whether to go the war in any case.  Would it be legal for Britain to do so?"  Koffi Annan is quoted as saying, "'If the US and others were to go outside the security council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the [UN] charter.'"

Analysts felt a war without UN approval could jeopardize Tony Blair political future.  The resignation of three government ministers on the eve of war gave Blair "the greatest challenge" of his six years in office.  House of Commons leader and cabinet member Robin Cook resigned, stating, "In principle, I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support.  In practice, I believe it is against Britain's interest to create a precedent for unilateral military action. (NYTimes, 3/18) Cook continued, "If we believe in a international community based on binding rules and institution, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us...We cannot [now] pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance...We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a serious threat...It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical; ammunition.  But it has had them since the 1980s when the U.S. sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.  Why is it now so urgent...."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0318-05.htm

Parliament voted 412-149 to back "all necessary means."  Blair spoke of "not retreating now" and "not faltering."  One fellow Labour war opponent (former defense minister) felt the use of force was "illegal, immoral, and illogical" (NYTimes, 3/19). 

After the war, Bob Woodward's book of April 2004 highlighted the pre-war support of Blair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28710-2004Apr20.html

Return to Top

2.  Did British public opinion and churches favor an attack?
Within the UK,  church leaders and public opinion were both consistently against the war. Within the church, the outgoing bishop of Canterbury warned of war and the new Archbishop of Canterbury,  Anglican leader Rowan Williams, has called an attack "immoral and illegal", urging "tackling the root causes of the disputes" (Washington Post/AP, 8/6/02).  In October bishops called war against theological concepts of a just war.  Before the November resolution passed the UN, a church leader warned that an attack "would place the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East at risk and 'could rapidly and uncontrollably spiral down into chaos.'" 

 In December a leading Bishop commented, "I don't doubt for a moment that evil should be confronted but there is a way of confronting evil that doesn't involve even more evil (The Guardian, 12/23/02).  Those who suffer will not be the people who have the most influence and power"  One week later another Bishop added, "the evidence is not there to make such military action morally legitimate" (The Guardian, 12/28/02). 

Return to Top

But Williams admitted in late December that he could support a war if it was sanctioned by a UN resolution. Similarly, in mid-February a senior Bishop broke away and said, "While we pray for peace, we need to recognise, that the Iraqi regime may need to be disarmed by force" (The Guardian, 2/13/03). 

The England and Wales Roman Catholic leadership wanted war prevented:  "It is our moral responsibility to avoid this war, unless, in the face of a grave and imminent threat, there is not other possible means to achieve the just end of disarming Iraq...Grief for those killed and wounded in war will be all the more agonizing if their loss results from an armed conflict that could have been avoided, without compromising to the common good...Sanction have not worked" (The Guardian, 11/15/02).  For more on the Pope's views, see "Should We?" FAQ section.

Other religious groups speaking out in the UK include Baptist, Methodists, and Quakers. 

Political views in the UK included many opposing the countdown to war in Blair's Labour party and opposition parties.  MP George Galloway visited Baghdad and met with Hussein. 157 MPs signed a motion opposing war and sanctions. (Observor, 5/5/02), including Tory leader opposition:  "A true friend warns a comrade who contemplates dangerous adventures of which he appears not sufficiently to have weighed the consequences." A former Ministry of Defense official described the invasion as "unnecessary and precarious gamble"  unless there is new evidence. Another MP critic of unilateral war said in in the fall, ""You can't say you must support the UN and at the same time say we reserve the right to do whatever we want if we don't like what the UN is deciding" (The Guardian, 1/26/02).  Gulf War I foreign secretary Douglas Hurd came out against the was in January, as a war could turn the Middle East into a "inexhaustible recruiting ground for terrorism" and his concern with world public opinion. (Mirror, 1/4/03). 

Back in August, some wondered if Blair was losing influence. partly due to being at odds with his party. In mid-October though his party was reluctant to follow him, he still made convincing arguments.  Views of prominent Britons are highlighted in a mid-January special.

Blair says he is ready to fight alone with the U.S., so others in the UK see the alliance as one-sided and are angry at Bush. Editorialized The Guardian on this issue, "We are a colony of our former colonies, a confused little island tugged helplessly along in the wake of the continental superpower, crossing our fingers and desperately trying to keep our dignity."  On January 8, The Guardian added, "Mr. Blair now seems to recognise that he has failed to persuade the British public to back the Americans over Iraq." 

Return to Top

Labor MP Peter Mandelson, a close friend and ally of Blair, calls a U.S. invasion "a recipe for disaster. We cannot have a system in which one state feels it has the right to change the political system of another." 

The Liberal Democrat party foreign affairs spokesman asks, "Where is the evidence of his intention to use these weapons?"  The Liberal Democratic Partly leader Charles Kennedy, wrote a late-January op-ed in The Observer, on the eve of the Blix report to the UN:  "We all accept the world would be safer without Saddam's baleful dictatorship.  But I see no contradiction between abhorrence of his leadership and the profound anxiety many in this country feel about the way in which the Americans--with Tony Blair's support propose to launch an invasion.  The case has not been made...Public opinion in this country is profoundly opposed to unilateral action by US and British forces without a UN mandate and without clear evidence of the need for war" (1/26/03).

In late-February a vote in Parliament for war passed with significant opposition, 393 in favor and 199 against, including 120 or 410 from Blair Labor.  This "rebellion" was the greatest within his party since 1997.  Those against the war hoped for the amendment, "This house finds the case for military action against Iraq as yet unproven."  They wanted proof of WMD, more time for inspectors, and a sense of immediate threat.  One Labor MP felt the America coalition is being built through the bullying and bribery of smaller countries" (Chicago Tribune, 2/27). 

Another British cabinet member warned, "We can't inflict pain and suffering on the people of Iraq, they are innocents.  Each one of them is an precious as the 3000 people who were in the twin towers," urging that reprisals be limited to Hussein and his ruling regime. In November, frequent critic and liberal MP George Galloway surmised that the "'coalition of the willing' could have a security council endorsement if the threats and bribes are sufficient" (The Guardian, 11/27/02). 

Among British voters, in the fall, the majority opposed an invasion.  58% of UK believed an attack was unjustified (Daily Telegraph as reported in the Chicago Tribune). A huge anti-war protest of about 200,000 occurred on September 28.  For later protests in UK, U.S. and elsewhere, see "Should We Go?" FAQ section. A simple 30-word poem "Causa Belli", by poet laureate Andrew Morton is critical of Blair and Bush.

Return to Top

Even after his September dossier, October approval for war dropped to just 32%, but rose 10% after the Bali bombing. A Guardian/ICM poll in mid-September showed a majority no longer oppose an attack, but in November about 25% are uncertain.  A late-November showed a shift of 7% toward the yes side. 

The mid-January polls showed a majority support only if inspectors run their course and if there is a second UN resolution. A mid-February poll showed 70% strongly oppose war without UN backing, down from between 81% in January and 87% (Post, 1/15/03), but up from 71% in the fall.  By mid-March only 15-19% supported war without a second resolution. As Tony Blair admitted on Jan. 12, "Polls or no polls, my job...is sometimes to say the things that people don't want to hear" (NYTimes).  Blair pushed for a new UN resolution, calling it "highly desirable."   knowing that support jumps f war is endorsed by the UN.

One analyst realizing the US can't "go it alone", proclaimed, "Britain is at least as important as all the other European states put together" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). Former US General and NATO Commander Wesley Powell speaks of the unshacky alliance: "It hasn't penetrated popular understanding in the U.S. that there is some possibility that the UK wouldn't be there with us" (The Guardian, 8/21/02). The Washington Post writes a helpful summary of Blair's developing feelings over the past few months. Also see "What UK Thinks of War" (BBC) and  "War Games".

UK support of the U.S. in general declined from a post-9/11 75% to 48% by March.

One British cartoon depicts Bush as the Long Ranger and Blair as Tonto.  "When Blair expresses doubts about the Iraqi campaign, Bush replies, "Shut up Tonto, and cover by back" (WashPost, 1/25/03). 

Return to Top

3.  Had France changed its views?  Also see "Weapons Inspectors/UN" FAQ section and 
Columnists Will and Krauthammer in "Should We Go To War?/Columnists in Favor

After Powell's February UN speech, France's views seeming little changed, as France called for stronger inspections. "Saddam is in his box and the box is now closed with the inspectors." "Nothing today justifies war" (2/10/03). The French Foreign Minister, at the UN on Feb. 15, said, "We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspection reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections."  In mid-January, opinion polls in France were running up to 77% against the war, as France seemed to be becoming the leader of the coalition of the unwilling. About 75%-85% of France remained unconvinced by Powell's evidence and opposed to military action, as does the public in most of Europe in mid-February.  

In 2001 the French solidarity with the U.S. after 9/11 was evidenced in the Le Monde headline, "We are all Americans."

Into 2002, after much reluctance in the fall, France finally agreed on the November 8  UN resolution. Germany was among those criticizing France at the time. Previously, Charles Krauthammer suggested calling their bluff:  "No more dithering.  Put the question to France.  We are going to present our resolution to the Security Council.  Will you veto it?  This would not be an easy choice for France."  Protests in France are generally against a war. Comments a French expert, "France is an ally of the U.S. and knows it...Most people in France do not understand why this war now." 

Prime Minister Jacque Chirac pushed in September and October for a separate, second, new, tougher resolution to be considered later only if Weapons Inspectors fail. France was said to have five issues which work against an invasion: population, geography, fear of U.S. domination, fear of unilateral action, and economic issues.  President Chirac emphasized a return of weapons inspectors with a strong deadline.

On September 9, he called a pre-emptive attack "extraordinarily dangerous" and added, "As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventative action, other countries will naturally do the same.  If we go down that road, where are we going?" (Chicago Tribune, 9/10/02). January  polls showed that between 66% and 82% of French residents oppose a war with Iraq, up from 58% in August.  NATO member Belgium has generally agreed with France.

France continued to be hesitant about war into 2003 and pledged to veto a new resolution in mid-February. The influential Le Monde  newspaper reacted to Powell's speech:  "We were waiting for the 'day of evidence' but it ended up being the 'day of reiterated suspicions.'  On the argument that he choose, arms, the link with alQaeda--Mr. Powell expressed possibilities, not factual reality.  We remain in doubt.  Are suspicion enough to go to war?" (NYTimes, 2/7/03).  

A Brooking Institute expert on France describes the relationship in mid-February:  "The Americans speak of [The French ideas of not invading] as if it's some...unique, bizarre French point of view, when in fact it's what most of the world thinks" (Philip Gordon in WashPost, 2/11/03). 

The French ambassador to the U.S. seems this overwhelming opposition to war is based on three factors:  lack of threat of alQaeda, lack of imminent threat (unlike North Korea) and negative consequences of war.  "You can't create democracy with bombs" (NYTimes op-ed, 2/14/03, "A Warning on Iraq, From A Friend"). 

Return to Top

France has not vetoed a US-supported resolution since 1956. Their Prime Minister Jacque Chirac remarked, "We remain determined to be opposed to the war" (Washington Post, 1/10/03).  Though Chirac called on French troops to be ready for deployment in early January, he still saw war as a last resort. Prior to Powell's UN speech, Blair was unable to convince Chirac.

Commented Chirac in mid-January, "In the current state of things, time [Jan. 27 UN report] is not an essential element.  Not when the alternative is war.  War, for me is always the worst of solutions.  It bring misery, death, injury.  War creates upheavals that are difficult to manage both in the region affected and internationally.  War has to be a last resort"  (Washington Post, 1/16/03). Urging the UN to give the inspectors more time, Chirac labeled war as "always acknowledgment of failure" and "an abandonment of defeat... and hence everything must be done to avoid it" (NYTimes, 1/23/03).

Warning the US against acting alone, Chirac added, "If one country or another were to [make a decision outside the UNSC] it would put itself purely and simply in contravention of international law" (New York Times, 1/18/03). 

While France threatened to veto a resolution, they also need a powerful UN for their own future.  Chirac doesn't want to be "excluded from the winner's table" and is looking for a way "not to lose face" (NYTimes/AP, 3/2). 

In mid-March de Villepin criticized the U.S., UK, and Spain for ignoring" the will clearly expressed by the international community."  He felt the decision at the Azores "is not justified today" and it "risks serious consequences for the region and the world...France rejects a decision which nothing justifies today" (NYTimes, AP, and Reuters, 3/17). Chirac added on French TV, "Whether it involves the necessary disarmament of Iraq or the desirable change of the regime...there is no justification for a unilateral decision to resort to force...Throwing off the legitimacy of the UN, preferring force over law, means taking on a heavy responsibility" (NYTimes, 3/19). 

Steve Weisman of the New York Times describes "A Long, Winding Road to a Diplomatic Dead End" (3/17) by the summarizing that "with some bitterness, American officials now say France never really intended to support a war with Iraq.  French officials say equally bitterly that the U.S. never intended anything but a war in the spring of 2003."  Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice were upset that Powell had convinced that that France would see failure of inspection and agree to war. 

Responding to a last week French proposal, Cheney said, "It's difficult to take the French seriously."  Powell targeted France by linking its anti-war stance with its long history of "commercial relationships" with Iraq.

On the eve of war, France promised assistance if Iraq used biological and chemical weapons against U.S. troops.  The Times reported that "inside the French government, there is rock-solid agreement that nothing France did or did not do would have changed the mind of America in its march to war."  The UN process was a means to that end.

Also see "WMD/Inspectors" FAQ section.

Much of the  U.S. press and public increasingly enjoyed criticizing and poking fun at France. For instance, in mid-February Thomas Friedman suggested that France should be replaced on the permanent UN by India:  "France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it's become silly."  From Friedman's commentary to the the New York Post's front page photo of Normandy (World War II) graves with the headline, "They died for France but France has forgotten."  

In World War I, the U.S. lost less that 1/2 of 1% of its population killed or wounded, entering the war in 1917.  France, attacked in 1914, lost more than 10% of its population, or 20 times the U.S. (Daily Herald, 3/9). 

In Congress, the French criticism was sometimes harsh.  Ohio Representative Bob Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee, ordered the word "French" stricken from all House menus.  Freedom fries and freedom toast appeared on the menus.  Red, white, and blue "freedom" stickers were placed over the word "French" on the yogurt machine and on dozens of individual packets of French dressing.  A House Rep. from Florida introduced legislation that "would allow the remains of World War II bets buried in France to be brought home" ("Congress's War on France Is Just Starting", 3/16). 

Democratic Representative Barney Frank (MA) responded, "I think self-caricature is a poor substitute for thoughtful discussion." In World War I, when the U.S. was actually fighting a war against Germany, sauerkraut was called liberty cabbage and frankfurters called hot dogs. (NYTimes, 3/12).  Polls on the eve of war showed only 1/3 of American believes the U.S. should withhold support or be less cooperative with France (Wash Post, 3/19),. 

Foreign Minister Dominique deVillepin was outspoken and therefore took much criticism. "Wimps, weasels, and monkeys" takes a look at the U.S. media view of France. Francestinks.com wanted to boycott French wines due to the "axis of weasels."  A state representative from Pennsylvania suggested barring sales of French wines (Time, 3/10).

Other suggested boycotts, such as in the Chicago area, did not make national news. In four major cities the French-owned Hotel Sofitel stopped flying the French flag. A Las Vegas radio station used an armored vehicle to crush photographs of Chirac, bottles of wine, and a baguette (The Guardian).

In early March de Villepin criticized the re-appearance of regime change as policy:  "If we were going to pursue regime change all over the world, there's so many countries that would be included, so many dictators...Where would we begin?  Where would we stop?"

Also see "WMD/Inspectors" FAQ section. and "Should we go to war/editorials" for pro-war opinion.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on Fox News in mid-February, described France as "an aging actress of the 1940s...She's still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't' have the face for it" (Wash Post, 2/16/03).  A Post article describes "Bush's folksy talk, religious piety, and unilateral strands go down in France like nails scratching on a blackboard" (2/10/03). 

4.  Was Russia still supporting Iraq?  Also see UN/WMD FAQ section

In general, Russia felt that they were in the majority of the 15 member UNSC in being against military action (1/22/03). Russia and President Vladimir Putin are understandably concerned with the deadly results of the Chechen rebels who held hostage hundreds of Russians in a theater in Moscow and the December 27 bombing in Chechnya. Russian troops stormed the Moscow theater on October 26 and at least 115  Russian civilians were killed with chemical,  used by Russian security forces.

In October Russia hinted of a compromise on harsh measures for inspectors without an invasion, but were less outspoken than France and Germany.  They see no evidence or proof that Iraq is threatening the U.S. or has ties to al Qaeda. As Putin said to Blair in Russia, in regards to the mid-October CIA report on the Iraqi military, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another."  Since the UN resolution, Russia said that any use of force against Iraq without UN approval would violate international law and by March publicly stated they would veto a new U.S. sponsored UNR (NYTimes, 3/10), with Putin labeling the coming war as "a mistake".  Russian citizens opposed the war by a 9 to 1 margin (Wash Post, 3/18). 

Return to Top

Russia sought "a complete political solution" (Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov), without a second UN vote, which they threatened to veto. In February the U.S. believed that Russia would not veto any tough second resolution. Russia wants "some months" to pass with inspectors to assess Iraqi cooperation. But in September Ivanov predicted that "a few month of work will be quite sufficient to reach a final verdict" (9/25/02, The Guardian). 

In terms of trade, Russia is Iraq's biggest trading partner and is pushing for an end to sanctions partly in hopes of receiving the $7 billion debt Iraq owes to Moscow and "40% of Iraq's oil trade under oil-for-food [UN program] is sold via Russian intermediaries" (NYTimes, 10/8/02). In August, Russia reportedly signed a new $40 billion 5-year economic cooperation agreement with Iraq (Chicago Tribune, 8/18/02). Rumsfeld warned Russia of allying with "terrorists states."   Putin fears a drop in oil prices in the event of war.  One estimate is that a $6 fall in oil (per barrel) "would slash Russia's economic growth in half" and hurt Russian oil companies (Wash Post, 11/21/02). 

On the eve of a possible second UNR in mid-March, the Chicago Tribune reported that the "U.S. admonishes Moscow to keep an eye on the bottom line" in terms of American investment in Russia, space exploration, and fighting terrorism" (3/13). Perhaps Russia was only threatening a veto so the U.S. would not push for an embarrassing vote.

Russia was also helping Iran to develop a missile with a range of over 1250 miles. Russia sought guaranteed that its largest oil company could have a huge stake in U.S. controlled post-Hussein Iraq (NYTimes, 10/3/02). Time magazine (9/16/02) was more blunt on getting debts repaid.  "Shut up and we'll look after you."

After the war, the New York Times  reported that Russia was helping Iraq make missiles as recently as 2001 (early March, 2004)

Was Russia "bought off" at the UN in return for the U.S. remaining quiet about Russia's harsh treatment of Chechen rebels? Comments a Russian Parliamentary leader, "If the U.S. thinks it is possible to conduct military actions against a state because there is suspicion that it is making [WMD], likewise Russia...can bomb Georgia because there are terrorists."

After Russia promised to veto a second UNR in March (see WMD/UN section) experts and politicians felt that the White House "fundamentally misread its ability to pressure the Kremlin into backing a war it fears will be ruinous to its own interests" (NYTimes, 3/7).  On the eve of war, Russia called it "a mistake and illegal" (NYTimes/Reuters, 3/17). 

Return to Top

5.  Was China tempted to join Russia or France in a UN veto?

China does not make long public comments but its Prime Minister said that any attack on Iraq without a UN mandate would "lead to severe consequences." China commented at the end of August, "China does not agree with the practice of using force or threatening to use force to resolve this issue."  The UN's Annan visited China in mid-October and met with Jiang Zemin, who said in typical vague fashion, "Peace is the most valuable thing."  Jiang came through Chicago on his way to visit the President's Texas ranch in late October.

While there the two world leaders urged cooperation in confronting China's neighbor and ally, North Korea.  Following Powell's Feb. 5 UN speech, the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland wrote, "No evidence the Powell could have offered...would have altered China's view."

Return to Top

Return to FAQs