The discussion between Paris and Washington on a proposed resolution against Iraq that might be submitted to the Security Council hardened on Wednesday, October 9. While negotions at the UN remained at an impasse, George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac spoke on the telephone. The two presidents stuck to their positions and finally turned the dossier over to their foreign ministers "in order to try to integrate the respective concerns of France and the United States," the Élysée said.
Annoyed by France's refusal to allow an automatic recourse to force to be written into the resolution if the Baghdad regime should fail to live up to the resolution, President Bush repeated to his French counterpart Washington's resolve. "Our position is still that this resolution must include a declaration on the consequences of failing to respect it [on the modalities of inspection]" on the part of Baghdad, said a White House spokesperson. "The stronger the resolution, the greater the chances of resolving the question peacefully," asserted President Bush, according to this spokesperson.
REJECTED PROPOSITIONS
According to Élysée spokesperson Catherine Colonna, Jacques Chirac, on the other hand, reaffirmed that he wishes "on the one hand the adoption of a clear and reinforced mandate for inspectors, and on the other hand the reaffirmation of the Council's jurisdiction so as to make clear, at a later time, the consequences of a possible violation by Iraq of what it agrees to." Dominique de Villepin, Minister for Foreign Affairs, also clearly signaled on Wednesday that "France will not agree to a formula that delivers a blank check for action in the event of Iraq's failure to comply."
Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, thought it best to say that "discussions are continuing" at the UN, but in fact they seem to be getting nowhere. In referring to work toward a basis "in concepts" rather than toward a precise version of a text, Richard Boucher was commenting on the tough to-and-fro taking place among the five permanent members of the Security Council.
On Wednesday the French were said to have presented new proposals adapting an earlier "non-text." These were said to have been rejected out of hand by the American ambassador at the UN, who considered the strengthening of the disarmament inspection regime that France says it is ready to accept to be insufficient. From the other side, the new American propositions – also informal ones – were seen, upon examination, to be scarcely different from the preceding ones, and thus unacceptable. These disagreements were said to have caused Mr. Bush and Mr. Chirac to consult directly.
Iraq, for its part, warned again against a new resolution, reproaching France sharply for aligning itself with the American position. In Syria, on a tour of Arab nations, Tarik Aziz, the Iraqi vice prime minister, accused the United States of wanting "to destroy Iraq and then carve up the Middle East." On Wednesday, American and British planes bombarded Iraqi military installations in the north of the country, killing four and wounding ten.
Here's a French article on Sharon's visit. Curiously, none of the US news reports I've looked refer to Salam Fayyad's visit in this context.
________________________________
Translated from Le Figaro, Oct. 15, 2002:
BUSH DOES NOT WANT TO BE HAMPERED BY ISRAEL IN HIS CONFLICT WITH IRAQ
Jerusalem: from our correspondent Pierre Prier (Oct. 15, 2002)
"George Bush is waiting for Ariel Sharon with a fire extinguisher in hand." Shimon Shiffer, the editorialist for the daily Yediot Aharonot, thus summarizes Israeli fears on the eve of the prime minister's seventh trip to Washington. The interview should not last more than an hour and should center on one theme. "The Americans are going to ask us not to hamper them in their war preparations against Iraq," sums up an Israeli official.
The United States wants Israel to observe the same restraint as in 1991 when faced with an Iraqi attack. Nervous about the erosion of their power of dissuasion, the Israelis are balking, at least in public. "Israel is ready to confront all possible scenarios," Ariel Sharon repeated yesterday before the Knesset.
Washington is not enthusiastic either about the latest actions of the Israeli army in the occupied territories. The US ambassador in Tel Aviv, Dan Kurtzer, expressed his alarm in writing about the daily deaths of Palestinian civilians, including women and children. He also said that Israel is not keeping its promises to alleviate the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians. The US is also worried that the recent building of "outposts" on the West Bank, which seem destined to extend the territory of the settlements. Finally, George Bush is expected to ask Ariel Sharon to release the 2 billion shekels (about $430 million) that Israel owes to the Palestinian Authority. This sum comes from taxes and customs duties that the Jewish State collects in the name of the Authority.
Recently, three installments of 70 million shekels ($15 million) have been deposited; Israel accepted yesterday to deposit the rest under European and American supervision. But the "coordinator of governmental activities in the territories," General Amos Gilad, nevertheless accused the Palestinians of having used a part of this money to "finance terrorist operations." The Israelis are asking for the establishment of a surveillance mechanism. The United States thinks that the money should be paid without delay.
Ariel Sharon was preceded in Washington by the Palestinian finance minister Salam Fayyad, the darling of the Americans. Fayyad pleaded the impossibility of the Authority's putting in place reforms demanded by the United States in the absence of resources. Even if the minister only the official part of Palestinian revenues, the Americans want to help him.
On the military front, Ariel Sharon seems to be looking for answers in trying to see "just how much too far he can go." On Sunday night in Bethlehem a Fatah militant, Mohammed Abayat, member of a clan implicated in many armed actions, was killed in an explosion near a hospital where he regularly visited his mother. Palestinian sources affirm that he was a low-ranking figure, and that the real target was one of his brothers. But this death risks setting off violence in the fragile picture window erected by the two parties in the middle of August.
Israeli troops then withdrew from the center of the city, and also from the Beit Jala and Beit Sahour neighborhoods. In exchange, the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, Yasser Arafat's movement, ordered those committing armed actions to be arrested. Since then, scarcely a shot has been fired in Bethlehem. Ariel Sharon may have authorized the liquidation of Mohammed Abayat in order to respond to American remonstrances, some observers think. Israel may be signaling its intention proceed with actions which do not endanger civilians. The choice of Bethlehem also illustrates how unimportant the prime minister considers efforts to settle the conflict on the ground.
At bottom, his point of view is unchanged. "We have to change this murderous regime," he repeated yesterday before the Knesset. On this point, Ariel Sharon is certain to find himself in sync with George Bush. Israeli-American divergences over the Palestinian dossier seem more superficial than strategic. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian finance minister, came to Washington with a well-documented dossier showing that the creation of a Palestinian state would soon be physically impossible if Israel continues its construction of roads and security barriers. On this point, the minister is not sure that he convinced his interlocutors.
Here are two things: (1) my translation of an article on diplomatic activity in the Iraq crisis from today's Le Monde (Oct. 16), and (2) a link to an analysis of the "high tensions" between France and the US in the Christian Science Monitor.
Of interest in the Le Monde article: the assertion that Colin Powell told the French foreign minister on Wednesday that it was up to France to find a way around the diplomatic disagreement, which has not been reported in the US press, though it has been reported by the Arab News (Saudia Arabia).
Also: what are always called "weapons inspectors" in the US media are called "disarmament inspectors" here.
____________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Oct. 16):
FRENCH-US DIFFERENCES WORSEN OVER IRAQ
On Wednesday, October 16, George W. Bush reaffirmed at the White House his determination to settle the Iraqi question. "I hope that the use of force will not be necessary, but we must confront the menace posed by Iraq by every means possible," declared the American president to Democrats and Republicans from Congress who had come to attend the ceremony of the signing of the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to "use United States Armed Forces if he determines that it is necessary and appropriate" in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing danger posed by Iraq. "The Iraqi regime should abandon its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead an international coalition to disarm this regime," insisted the president.
Mr. Bush also issued a new appeal to the United Nations to vote a strong resolution to oblige Iraq to disarm. "The United Nations should show that it can live up to the reason why it was created, namely to defend our security," said the American president. "If Iraq acquires an even greater destructive power, the countries of the Middle East would be confronted with blackmail, intimidation, or attacks. The chaos in the region would be felt in Europe and beyond," he added, in an apparent effort to convince the international community to follow him in his initiative.
JACQUES CHIRAC, during an appearance in Alexandria, Egypt, on the other hand, chose to show his independence on the Iraqi question, reaffirming that "France as a permanent member of the Security Council would live up to its responsibilities," and asserting that the "region does not need another war if we can avoid it." He said he was "open" to the Security Council voting a resolution improving "working conditions of UN disarmament inspectors, in conformity with the requests of the head of the inspectors, Hans Blix, in whom France has confidence." "Our American friends would like this same resolution to authorize the international community, if we judge that the Iraqi authorities have not done what is required, to intervene militarily," explained the French president. "I have always thought that war was the worst of solutions. Everything must be done to avoid it," he said.
France is in favor of a two-step process, with a new meeting of the Security Council in the event of "the Iraqi authorities' blocking" the inspectors' work. In such a case, the decision of the Security Council "does not exclude any option but the Council must be free to deliberate." Jacques Chirac's position was judged "acceptable and logical" by the Egyptian head of state, Hosni Mubarak.
AMERICAN IRRITATION has grown following these new French stands. The United States wants henceforth "to demonstrate the greatest firmness" toward France, American officials said Wednesday. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had a telephone conversation on Wednesday with his French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin, according to these sources, and is said to be planning to bring up the subject again with the French Defense Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, who is visiting the American capital. Mr. Powell was said to have told M. de Villepin "that it was time now for France to act," a State Department official said on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Powell had indicated on Tuesday that he had received new "French ideas" on the matter, and promised to respond to them, without indicating their content. A high American official indicated that Washington thought it was up to France to come up with proposals to "fill the gap" between American and French visions. "France should find the formula to get over the problem between our desire for automatism and their demand that there be two resolutions," one on inspections in Iraq, and another one later on the recourse to force, he declared.
IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL, a public debate on Iraq began Wednesday. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, asked that a "last chance" be given to the Iraqi regime. "Nothing should hinder the (disarmament) inspectors, the Council expects nothing less and can decide to adopt a new resolution strengthening the inspectors' room for maneuver so that there be no ambiguity or weak point," Mr. Annan, currently in Asia, declared, his pronouncement being read by the Vice-Secretary General, Louise Fréchette. "The new measures must be firm, effective, credible, and reasonable," the Secretary General continues. "If Iraq does not make use of this last chance and persists in its defiance, the Council should then face up to its responsibilities," Mr. Annan concluded.
IN LONDON, during the first question-and-answer session of the new parliamentary session of the House of Commons, the British prime minister, Tony Blair, declared himself optimistic about the prospect of an international "consensus" for a new UN resolution for inspectors in Iraq. "Most people understand that the world is not sure if we are permitting Saddam Hussein to possess chemical, biological, and, potentially, nuclear arms," he added. "Let the United Nations show clearly to Saddam Hussein that he must rid himself of his weapons of mass destruction, and cooperate fully with the disarmament inspectors. If he does that and if the disarmament takes place peacefully, then a conflict will be avoided," emphasized the Labor Party leader. "But if he refuses to cooperate or permit the inspectors to work, then the international community will be confronted with a choice." The United Nations, Mr. Blair said again, "must allow for answering a question, not for ignoring it."
RUSSIA repeated on Wednesday its opposition to an armed intervention against Baghdad, but President Putin confirmed that Moscow would support a UN resolution supporting the disarmament inspectors' work. Russia "is ready to study and if necessary to vote for, along with its partners on the UN Security Council, a supplementary resolution that would guarantee the international inspectors' work in Iraq," declared Mr. Putin at the end of a Kremlin meeting with the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Italy supports a military intervention against Baghdad, but only under the aegis of the UN.
AS FOR ARIEL SHARON, visiting Washington, he was expected to be asked by George W. Bush for more flexibility with respect to the Palestinians. Criticized in Arab countries for its support for Mr. Sharon, the United States has already addressed several appeals following Israeli military operations, some of which have cost the lives of Palestinian civilians. In return for these Israeli gestures, the United States was said to be willing to give the Jewish state 72 hours advance notice of an attack against Baghdad. Washington was also said to have promised to give the Israelis access to a satellite alert system, which would permit the Jewish state to know if Scud missiles were fired in its direction, as was the case in 1991, during the Gulf War: Iraq then fired 39 Scud missiles toward Israeli territory. If Ariel Sharon proclaims Israel's right to "legitimate defense" in the case of a Scud attack, one of his collaborators affirmed that there would not be "automatic Israeli replies," except, according to the Israeli media, if the Scuds were armed with chemical or bacteriological warheads.
With the assistance of Agence France Press and Reuters.
________________________________________
An analysis of the US-France rift in today's Christian
Science Monitor:
This article from Le Monde offers some details about diplomatic activity at
the UN. --Mark.
______________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Oct. 18):
BUSH RENOUNCES AUTOMATIC RECOURSE TO FORCE AGAINST IRAQ
United Nations - from our correspondent
Even if there's no reason to say that it has won the battle against the war, France can at least claim to have won the battle of paragraph 10, which is something. On Thursday, October 17, a Franco-American agreement was reached on Iraq. The United States proposed to its French partners a compromise formula on that article stipulating what the UN expects to do in case a problem arises in the process of disarming Iraq.
Drawing conclusions from four weeks of deadlock over a proposed resolution and two days of public debate in the Security Council, during which only Great Britain and Israel declared their full support, Washington gave up on obtaining from the UN a green light to reply at the occurrence of the first incident. "The Gordian knot has been cut," one diplomat commented.
The new resolution unabashedly embraces a position contrary to the one defended until now by the Bush administration -- even as late as Thursday afternoon by the US representative to the UN. There is no longer any question of authorizing member states to use "all means necessary" to restore order. There is no longer any mention of "serious" or "severe" consequences (a diplomatic euphemism for bombing) that are waiting for Baghdad if it tries any ruses on the inspectors. Washington is now proposing, if something happens, to call a meeting of the Security Council, which will "consider the situation."
The compromise offer was offered by John Negroponte to his French counterpart, Jean-David Levitte, in the form of two paragraphs. The famous OP-10 [operative paragraph] has thus been cut in two (OP-9 and OP-10), as though to satisfy Jacques Chirac's claim that two steps were necessary. Unable to get two resolutions, France obtained two paragraphs, but these are satisfactory on the essential point: in the event of Iraq's refusal to submit, the chief of the UN inspectors, Hans Blix, makes a report to the Council, which meets immediately and "considers" the situation.
NO PUBLICITY
The fact that the Council, in this proposal, is only charged with "considering" events, instead of "deciding" on the appropriate response - a term that was refused by the American delegation - pained more than one analyst. And Colin Powell, who arrived suddenly in New York, a few hours ahead of a long-planned event, did not disguise the relative importance that he gives to the UN resolution. "The United States is now acting by virtue of the authority given last week by Congress," he emphasized. Having reached a compromise, the Americans did not organize any publicity about it -- "We have not yet published our proposed resolution!" said an exasperated spokesperson.
They stressed that the American Congress has in any case given the president the freedom to engage the armed forces if necessary without consulting the UN. "Any resolution that emerges from discussions among members of the Security Council will leave the American president, if the United Nations does not decide to act, the right to act in self-defense alongside other nations that think like us," insisted the secretary of state who, upon his arrival, spoke to Hans Blix, the head of the disarmament inspectors. After many calls between Paris, Moscow, London, and even Beijing, France decided that the new American proposal represented an "important step." The French ambassador thus went on Thursday to bring this news to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, where his American counterpart resides. Then the two ambassadors came back to read their already prepared speeches in the Council chamber.
John Negroponte read with a determined voice a text which repeated the American demands as though nothing had happened: "one" resolution both "firm, unambiguous" and making Iraq understand that "there will be consequences." As for the French, they have still not seen the entire text. "After OP-10, there are still articles 1 through 9," said someone specializing in the matter, ironically. But a reliable source indicates that the French would accept certain objectionable terms, the compromise lying in the confidence that nothing in it can be "interpreted as a green light for a military action."
INSISTENCE
The most significant example is the expression "material breach," which was translated as "violation patente." It figures in just about every speech given by American officials. In diplomatic language, it corresponds to a suspension of an earlier agreement. In the case of Iraq, it suspends the cease-fire agreement of April 1991. The Americans were particularly attached to it, because it permits them to argue against needing new authorization since the cease-fire is suspended as soon as Iraq is in patent violation of its obligation. "Material breach" appears in the very first paragraph of the Anglo-American draft resolution. It was said to appear in the compromise text, but France has chosen to tolerate it.
The modalities of the inspection regime still remain to be studied. Hans Blix not being in favor of the militarization of the inspectors, the proposal to provide them with troops on the ground, ought to disappear. On the question of the interrogation of Iraqi scientists, which Mr. Bush wanted to see take place outside Iraq, the Swedish diplomat was said to have proposed studying this formula on a case-by-case basis. The primary obstacle having been lifted, the Americans were expected to submit the final text to the five permanent members of the council, probably on Friday. Optimistic, some diplomats foresaw that a resolution might be voted on by the entire Security Council before the end of next week.
1. Summary of mainstream reports on UN diplomacy as of Tuesday night, Oct. 22 (500 words)
2. Translation from Le Monde of an Oct. 22 article on UN diplomacy and inspectors (700 words)
3. Translation from Le Figaro of an Oct. 22 article on US "double talk" (900 words)
____________________________________________
1. UN DIPLOMACY THROUGH TUESDAY NIGHT
To judge by news reports on this evening, Tuesday, October 22, the diplomatic situation at the UN is confused. Mainstream US media are quite diverse in what they choose to emphasize in their articles at the end of the day. Some are optimistic about the possibility of a resolution that could make it through the UN Security Council; others are openly sceptical and speak of certain issues as "deal-breakers." Some emphasize hopefulness, others doubt. Pentagon sources expressing concerns about contemplated compromises are quoted by some, others quote European diplomats expressing grave reservations about the sort of the resolution the US was seeking. Some speak of "one and a half resolutions," with the dubious one-half referring to the doubtful significance of any return to the Security Council in the event of Iraqi non-compliance with the putative resolution. None of the US media reports states the obvious point that the Bush Administrationseems to be deliberately "causing doubt and sowing confusion," to quote an article from Le Figaro (Paris), translated below.
Unreported in the US press, but reported by the Taipei Times as well as in the article from Le Figaro, is a complaint from Turkey's prime minister that the US is sending conflicting messages: "On one hand they [the Bush administration] are continuously giving an impression of a military action. On the other hand they are saying, 'An intervention may not happen, we have not yet made a decision.' President Bush and the US administration should make their decision immediately and this uncertainty should be eliminated." (It has long been reported by a number of sources that Turkish forces are already in northern Iraq, working in conjunction with US special forces there. This could explain the Turkish government's impatience with the current situation.)
UPI reports that the US representative to the UN, John Negroponte, said after Tuesday's meetings: "We all agreed that we wouldn't get into the substance of our discussions." Russian and French diplomats did, however, comment on their disappointment with the draft resolution offered by the US, and their remarks are widely reported. Several reports cite their fear of a "hidden trigger" in the draft resolution which could justify unilateral US action in the event of an Iraqi breach, given the US's unwillingness to commit to a second Security Council vote before military action.
A curious aspect of the day's reporting is the fact that only the International Herald Tribune called attention to Ari Fleischer's effort on Tuesday to downplay President Bush's remark on Monday that Iraqi disarmament would itself constitute "regime change." Fleischer made light of the remark, calling it "the mother of all hypotheticals."
Below are two articles, both with many details that appear in none of the twenty or so reports I've examined in the mainstream English-language press. The first is from Le Monde and focuses on the inspectors; the second is from Le Figaro and focuses on disappointment in the Security Council with the text the US presented on Monday. Neither article speaks of Tuesday's events - for some reason I couldn't find one this evening in the French-language press. But these articles are still worth reading, since each makes important points that have gone mostly unnoticed here.
___________________________________________
2. ON UN DIPLOMACY AND THE INSPECTORS
Translated from Le Monde (October 22) :
WASHINGTON HAS COMMUNICATED A DRAFT RESOLUTION TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL
The Five must agree on the text before submitting it to a vote -- The policy to be applied to UN inspections said to be the most contested point
New York (United Nations), from our correspondent Corine Lesnes
In the life of UN inspectors, there are ups and downs. "Every day I change my mind," explains one of them. "Sometimes, I tell myself that the chances we'll leave for Iraq are 70%. The next day, 30%..." The inspectors were supposed to have been on the ground on October 19. But on Tuesday, October 22, it was to Moscow, rather than to Baghdad, that Hans Blix, the head of the inspecton commission, went. The diplomat is to participate in a disarmament conference at the Academy of Sciences. He will take advantage of his visit to discuss Iraq with the minister of foreign affairs, Igor Ivanov. Then he will swing by Sweden, his native country, taking his time before returning to New York next week.
Since September 17, the UN inspectors have been waiting. They are waiting for a resolution redefining their mission to Iraq. Monday, October 21, could have brought them closer to that goal. At least it didn't distance them from it. Interpretations vary on this subject, as do current analyses of the confrontation over Iraq. The other day, two experts, in the same office, disagreed in their reading of a speech by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan: one had seen in it support for the French view in favor of a two-step approach, the other had understood the opposite.
A new American text was, in any case, presented on Monday, exclusively to the five permanent members of the Security Council during a meeting at the American delegation's office (where some antiwar demonstrators appeared). For the first time since the end of September, a complete text was circulated.
Officially, the text is not yet a draft resolution: it has only been presented to the five countries with a veto and not to the Council as a whole. The State Department in Washington affirmed that it would be soon. "It's time to wrap up" this matter, affirmed its spokesperson, Richard Boucher. But on the other hand the Americans have no interest in seeking a vote of the fifteen members of the Security Council so long as they are not sure of having the nine votes needed for its adoption.
First observation: the two paragraphs that the French and the international community snatched away from the Americans are still there. The text has not been made public, but, according to multiple sources, Washington's concessions accepting a return to the Security Council in case of a problem with Baghdad instead of an automatic intervention remained. But paragraphs 9 and 10 were now numbered 11 and 12.
Many possible points of controversy among the Five are to be found in the rest of the text, even if the formulas may allow for a certain margin of interpretation. The word "consequences," promised in each of the speeches by American officials, is in the draft. But it appears in a phrase written in the past tense [au passé composé] that recalls that the Council has already warned Iraq many times that it would confront "serious consequences" if it refused to comply. Washington's partners will have to choose the grammatical interpretation they mean to privilege. On Monday night, no official reaction was forthcoming. Diplomats limited themselves to indicating that they had transmitted the text to their capital for examination.
The principal subject of the new round of discussions that is beginning, no longer just between France and the United States but with five participants, is likely to be the inspections policy. According to several sources, the Americans had not completely given up their wish to see diplomats supervising the inspectors. "There are requirements that have been withdrawn but they have come back in a hidden form," one expert said. They still demand the possibility of interrogating Iraqi scientists outside their country. These views raise fears of the Russians, who repeated on Monday, in Moscow, their opposition to a resolution containing "unrealistic" requirements.
__________________________________
3. ON US DOUBLE TALK AT THE UN
Translated from Le Figaro (Oct. 22):
UN EXAMINES THE AMERICAN DRAFT
The United States expressed its annoyance, yesterday, at French and Russian reservations about the new American draft resolution on Irak presented by Washington to the four other members of the United Nations Security Council. The American efforts to bring to a vote a new resolution at the UN are coming to a head, warned Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesperson, adding that the patience of the United States had limits. "We are continuing to work with the United Nations," declared Ari Fleischer. "We are getting near the end. . . . The United Nations can't wait forever." France, Russia, China, Great Britain, and the United States, each possessing a veto in the Council, were expected to continue their examination of the American text on Tuesday on the conditions for a return of UN inspectors to Iraq.
New York: from our correspondent Jean-Louis Turlin
Two weeks away from partial American legislative elections, Washington is exerting pressure to wrap up the diplomatic part of the Iraqi file: "We're getting near the end . . . the United Nations doesn't have forever" to approve a new resolution on the return and the work of the inspectors charged with disarming Saddam Hussein, warned the White House spokesperson, Ari Fleisher, yesterday. But the reworked version of the draft presented on Monday by the United States to the four other permanent members of the Security Council was far from satisfactory to France and Russia.
A meeting of the P5 (the five permanent members with a veto) yesterday morning at the Russian delegation did not succeed in removing the obstacles that up till now have caused the Americans to delay laying their text on the Security Council's table. "Progress is still necessary and a great deal of work remains to be done," commented Dominique de Villepin in Luxemburg, where he was participating in a meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of the European Union. His Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, was even more reserved, judging that the American draft "does not respond to the criteria" that his country "had defined and maintains." To the point of justifying a telephone call from American Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday.
On the face of it, Washington has removed the rough edges. The two-step approach required by Paris was retained and the UN is to study once more the response to eventual (or "probable") Iraqi violations. The idea of opening visits of sensitive sites (including presidential palaces) to teams of experts from the P5 member countries seems to have been abandonned, as has the idea of an armed presence for the surveillance and protection of buildings used by the inspectors. The Americans want to organize taking Iraqi weapons specialists outside of Iraq to guarantee their and their families' safety. The tight calendar imposed on Iraq to conform to the new UN resolution and furnish a precise catalog of weapons of mass destruction is still in the draft, as expected. But by pushing the cork in too far, the American text is still seen as contesting the agreement negotiated with the Iraqis in Vienna by Hans Blix, the chief of the inspectors, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El-Baradei.
On a visit to Moscow, Hans Blix said he thought "that there will not be a war if the Iraqis cooperate." If the opposite occurs, the American text provides that the application of UN resolutions would no longer take place "by all means necessary," the use of force included, but rather that Baghdad would expose itself to "grave consequences," according to the revised version. But is this not a way of reintroducing through the back door the notion of the automatism of military action that led to Paris's and Moscow's resistance? The new text takes up in two distinct paragraphs (11 and 12) the two-step sequence: a report from the chief of the inspectors on Iraqi non-compliance, then the convocation of the Security Council to examine the means for imposing "full respect" of the resolutions and "the reestablishment of international peace." From then on, it all depends on knowing whether the "grave consequences" would confer juridical legitimacy on a unilateral military action, whatever the position taken by the Security Council.
In public, the contradictory American declarations are causing doubt and sowing confusion: "If Iraq is not disarmed peacefully, the clear consequences are that Iraq will be disarmed by force," said the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, on Monday in Washington. The same day, President Bush had declared that if Saddam Hussein "worked with the United Nations . . . , we could consider that his regime had changed," implying that for the United States as for the UN the goal of the operation was disarmament, not regime change. But the White House shortly thereafter repeated that its objective remained regime change...
Turkey, a firm ally in the event of a military intervention, criticized yesterday the double talk from Washington, who ought to eliminate "this uncertainty," said the prime minister, Bulent Ecevit. First of all by clarifying the language of the draft resolution.
Below is a French report on UN diplomacy as of late Thursday, emphasizing the refusal of the US to give up automatic recourse to war in the event of Iraqi non-compliance, and -- something missing from every English-language report I've examined -- the apparent goal of the Bush administration: to have a resolution before the Nov. 5 elections.
___________________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Oct. 25):
THE UNITED STATES STARTS THE COUNTDOWN TOWARD A RESOLUTION AT THE UN
New York (UN)-- from our correspondent, Corine Lesnes
In diplomatic terms, it's probably what's called a big step forward. On October 23, for the first time, a draft resolution on Iraq was officially fed into the UN machine. Six weeks after George W. Bush's speech, the Americans decided the time had come to go into action and present to the 15 members of the Council their "revised" draft resolution, the fruit of internal negotiations and the confrontation with Paris. But so as not to close the door to possible amendments, the United States has not given it a "final wash." It can still be modified before being presented for a vote. Except for the English, no one was happy about this initiative. As Alain Juppé said as he left a meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, "the optimism" that reigned 48 hours ago over a UN agreement has "weakened." The Americans have only slightly modified the text that they presented Monday despite the forceful remarks of their partners. Only the idea that armed UN forces might accompany the inspectors in Iraq -- "an invasion before the invasion," one diplomat called it -- has disappeared from the draft presented Wednesday.
Not without bitterness, the French and the Russians were able to note that even if the Americans gave in to the French idea of a two-step approach, they only accorded it a limited importance and a restricted range of application. The return to the Security Council only concerns a case in which an incident occurs while the inspectors are in Iraq and are trying to carry out their mission. But even before the departure of the inspectors, Iraq has to fulfill a certain number of conditions (such as declaring the number of its weapons of mass destruction) that call in the event of non-compliance for "grave" consequences that the Council is not even asked to "consider."
"A REVOLVER IN A PREAMBLE"
The Russian ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, denounced this return to "automaticity of a recourse to force" and repeated that the modes of inspection envisioned in the text were "unworkable." Evoking the hostage-taking in Moscow, he said that the Council would do better to work on "the real type of dangers" that face the world. The French ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, was concerned that he preceived "a revolver slightly hidden in the preamble," one moreover that would "fire automatically." Going around the table did not seem generate any enthusiasm for the American text (nine votes in favor are needed to adopt a text). Several speakers evoked the "French ideas" proposed several weeks ago in the form of a discreetly distributed counter-proposal. Ireland was pleased that the two-step approach was accepted by Washington but wanted to be sure that "everything in the text led to this procedure."
In any case, putting out the Anglo-American draft has started the countdown for Iraq. The Americans aren't down to the day yet, they said, but it is clear that they wish to obtain a resolution before the November 5 elections.
The Security Council foresaw new consultations on Friday. On that day the Chinese leader will be the guest of President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Iraq will probably be discussed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin in Mexico (another member of the Security Council) on Saturday and Sunday, on the occasion of the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) Forum. On Monday, the Security Council wants to hear from the directors of the two inspection commissions, Hans Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei, to have their views on the practical modalities of the inspection plans.
The American text could thus be voted on sometime in the middle of next week. If it is adopted, Iraq would have seven days to accept the terms of the resolution.
There continues to be little consensus about what is happening at the UN. Here's a translation of an article from Monday's Libération (Paris).
Translated from Libération (Oct. 28):
IRAQ: PARIS YIELDS NOTHING TO WASHINGTON
France is threatening to present its own resolution if no agreement is
reached.
By Fabrice ROUSSELOT
Monday, October 28, 2002
New York, from our correspondent
Impatience on one side, on the other, a counterattack. The confrontation between France and the United States over Iraq ratcheted up another notch this weekend. For the first time officially, the French minister of foreign affairs, Dominique de Villepin, declared Saturday that Paris would present its own resolution to the UN if no agreement is reached on the American text presented last week. At the same time, at the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Conference) summit in Mexico, George W. Bush reaffirmed that he is ready to intervene in Iraq at any time, with or without the agreement of the UN. "If the UN does not act, if Saddam does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," said the American president, visibly frustrated. A little earlier, he said he opposed any resolution that would forbid his intervening in Iraq.
THE POINT. The American warning expresses Washington's inability to impose its "tough resolution" on Iraq after six weeks of negotiations. France and Russia are staunchly opposed to the American document, which would permit, without consulting the Security Council, automatic recourse to force in the event of Saddam Hussein's non-cooperation with the UN disarmament inspectors. On Friday, despite new negotiations in the Security Council, no progress was reported. And on Saturday, also showing his exasperation, American Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "we have reached the point where we must make some basic decisions at the beginning of the week in order to proceed. It is time to gather together the questions being discussed in a single resolution, if possible. And if one resolution is not possible, we should admit it," added Powell, suggesting, apparently, that the United States was ready to do without a UN text.
The French declaration complicated things for Washington, however. "Now that Paris wants to propose a text, it's hard to see the Americans abandoning theirs. That would be a stinging defeat," one diplomat said. The French resolution, a draft of which was circulating at the UN at the end of last week, thus is committed to eliminating most of the terms that would allow the Bush administration to intervene in Iraq. The Americans had accepted Paris's request to return to the Security Council if Iraq violates a disarmament agreement with the UN, presenting an apparent solution to the impasse. But immediately thereafter, they presented a text in which the term "material breach" appears in practically every paragraph -- diplomatic language that would authorize an armed attack. And France would like the one week limit accorded to Iraq to accept the resolution suppressed. It would also change the place of the paragraph on "serious consequences" faced by Iraq in the event of non-compliance, putting it in the context of a meeting of the Security Council.
ANIMATION. In these conditions, the discussions expected to begin today promise to be animated. On Friday, in an initiative that annoyed France and Russia, Washington decided to submit its text "in blue" at the UN, a procedure that signifies that the Americans are ready to submit it to a vote. Moscow immediately let it be known that it might also present its own text. As of now, no party seems to command the nine-vote majority needed to pass its proposals. France, through the intermediary of Dominique de Villepin, offered a reminder that it was hoping for a "unanimous vote" in order to "send a clear and firm message to Iraq." Everyone is waiting for a meeting today with Hans Blix, the chief of the disarmament inspectors, who ought to let it be known whether the new conditions for the inspection missions defined by the Americans were satisfactory to him or if they are too restrictive. "There are only a few days left to reach an agreement. The Americans want to settle the Iraqi problem before the November 5 elections," confided one diplomat.
(Oct. 29) Here's a translation of a French report on diplomatic activity at the UN. Its conclusions are very different from those in articles appearing in the mainstream U.S. press. The New York Times, for example, reports today that Hans Blix asked for "an aggressive new mandate," and ABC reports that Blix gave "key support" to the U.S. on Monday. Le Monde reports, rather, that Blix "refused to take a position in the debate on the American resolution."
_____________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Oct. 29):
HANS BLIX SEEKS UNITY, WASHINGTON GROWS IMPATIENT
While Washington was showing signs of growing impatience in the face of delay in voting on an Iraqi disarmament resolution, the chief of the UN disarmament inspectors, Hans Blix, asked on Monday at the Security Council for the UN's "help" in warning Iraq that a failure to cooperate would result in "reactions." "If Iraq is aware that a lack of cooperation will result in reactions from the Council, that will help us," declared Hans Blix at the end of a working session before the Council, judged to be crucial in view of the vote on a resolution fixing the modalities of new inspections of Iraqi armaments.
Before the hearing, headcounts at the UN made it appear that four to six non-permanent members of the Council might vote in favor of the resolution submitted by the United States and supported by Great Britain, which threatens Iraq with "grave consequences." Nine votes are necessary in order for the 15-member Security Council to pass a resolution, provided that none of the five permanent members veto it.
"We think we're making progress. We think that we've reduced the number of points of disagreements to a few key problems," declared the State Department spokesperson, Richard Boucher. Then he added: "Everyone ones wants a strong resolution."
Mr. Blix, who was heard along with Mohammed El-Baradei, the general director of the Interantional Agency for Atomic Energy, refused to take a position in the debate on the American resolution, only calling from "unity" from the Security Council. The secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, also called for unity, expressing the wish that the Council adopt "a resolution which all, or the great majority of members, will be able to support."
For its part, the White House showed signs of impatience. "It is time for people to raise their hands and vote," declared the presidential spokesperson, Ari Fleischer. "If the United Nations does not have the will or the courage to disarm Saddam Hussein, and if Saddam Hussein does not disarm . . . the United States will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein," said George Bush, even more forcefully. But the United States continued discussions with the other members of the United Nations Security Council in an effort to overcome divergences. "We are soliciting their point of view to see if there is a way to arrive at the same goal in a better way, and we are going to continue to do that," declared the number two person in the American UN delegation, James Cunningham. Great Britain, the close ally of the United States, also emphasized the necessity of acting quickly, asking that the debate be decided this week.
On his side, the Iraqi vice president, Taha Yassine Ramadan, called on Monday for the international media to come to Baghdad to watch the work of the inspectors once they return to Iraq. "Media and well-known personalities must watch how the inspectors go about their work," declared M. Ramadan.
The French minister of foreign affairs, Dominique de Villepin, criticized the pressure exerted on the Council. "There can't be at one and the same time a collective action and a unilateral action. One has to choose." France, which like Russia, has the power of blocking any draft resolution, proposed that the ministers of foreign affairs of the 15 member nations of the Security Council meet and discuss the draft resolution. Paris wants especially to avoid referring to Iraq's "material breaches" of the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War in 1991, believing that this would leave the door open to unleashing an intervention without a new meeting of the Council. The French president, Jacques Chirac, had a telephone call with the crown prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia bearing on the situation in the Near and Middle East.
In the context of anti-American sentiments stirred up in the Arab and Muslim worlds by threats of an American strike in Iraq, as well as by George W. Bush's and his administration's reputation for being pro-Israeli, an American diplomat was killed on Friday in Amman. The White House has expressed satisfaction with cooperation with Jordanian authories, and has "not ruled out" that the death of Laurence Foley, riddled with balls, was an assassination.
The Pentagon, for its part, has indicated that reservists will no doubt be called up if President George W. Bush decides on action in Iraq. There will be "an appropriate number," declared spokesperson Victoria Clarke, reacting to a report in the New York Times according to which as many reservists as in 1991 (around 260,000) would be mobilized.
The general secretary of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, announced on Monday that he would work together with Arab countries on the emergency meeting of a group of ministers of foreign affairs -- a meeting that would be attended by Iraqis and Palestinians, and devoted to the Iraqi and Palestinian agendas, which would be organized "in one or two weeks."
Elsewhere, the absence of a decision on Iraq from the international community caused oil prices to close slightly lower on Monday, bringing them to their lowest level in one and one-half months.
Here's most of an article on diplomatic activity at the UN translated from the
French press :
___________________________________________
Translated from Le Figaro (Paris), Oct. 24:
IRAQ: WASHINGTON DOESN'T BUDGE
New York: from our correspondent Jean-Louis Turlin
Under time pressure for reasons internal (legislative elections in early November) and military (the launching of a possible attack before the end of the winter), the United States accelerated movement on consultations by submitting for the first time to the whole of the Security Council its draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. This is not putting it to a vote, but rather a maneuver permitting the Americans to add up their supporters (they need nine votes out of fifteen with no veto), after three meetings in two days of the five permanent members (who have a veto), with no concrete result.
Yesterday morning, they had brought only minor modifications, far from the changes to their text sought by the French and Russian. If the five could agree adoption would be no problem. But Washington apparently left too narrow margin for negotiations: France's latest proposals, which could have had taken as their goal to work on the American proposal rather than offer a new proposal, did not find the welcome the Americans had hoped for, and it's with the fifteen members of the Council that yesterday evening's discussion continued.
Has the United States made the decision to use force? A declaration by the White House spokesman made it sound like it: "The end is in view," Ari Fleischer said yesterday. "In the end, either there's an agreement, or a failure to reach agreement. At the moment, it could be either one." If it is unable to improve the American text, should France produce its own resolution? Everything depends no doubt on the interpretation by the ten non-permanent members of an American formula that, according to Paris and Moscow, does not explicitly authorize the resort to force but seems implicitly to confer upon Washington the right to decide on its own if necessary.
The two first paragraphs refer to the "patent violations" of which Iraq has been guilty since 1991 and to those that would characterize any non-compliance with its obligations under the new resolution. The third paragraph recalls that "the Security Council has warned Iraq many times that it would face grave consequences" in case of "continued violations." It is true that the original formula, authorizing recourse "to all means necessary," has disappeared, but the new one has the flaw of being ambiguous.
France and Russia, supported by China, think that "grave consequences" may be hiding the "trigger" that Paris thought it had blocked by getting Washington reconsider its text and introduce into it the notion of a two-step process: infractions are noted first, followed by adoption of a new and appropriate decision. It is true that the next-to-last paragraph foresees that the Security Council "will meet immediately to study the situation" after the report of the inspectors on their difficulties. But as it stands the text does not exclude a reading according to which the Bush government would not be obliged to wait for a UN decision in order to act.
1. Survey of diplomatic news on Thursday night, Oct. 31. 2. Oil companies jockeying for access to Iraqi oil: Le Monde (Paris) article, Oct. 31.
--
1. Survey of diplomatic news Thursday night.
Surveying the mainstream media Thursday night, one can find support for any expectation.
According to the LA Times, the US, with assurances of support from Ireland and Mauritius, now has the votes to pass its resolution on Iraq : "'We're done,' a US official said." The Globe & Mail reports that oil prices rose yesterday on war fears. The NY Times reports that the Security Council has "moved toward the US and British draft proposal," that the US has the votes, and that it is preparing to put its resolution to a vote next week. The Hindustan Times notes that on Thursday the US renewed its warning to US citizens not to travel to Iraq.
Other reports take a skeptical tone. An AP story titled "UN Session Hits Snag" reports resistance to the US resolution and doubts whether it can pass. The Western Mail (Wales) quotes Jack Straw saying it could take "a couple of weeks" to reach an agreement. Al-Bawaba's headline reads: "Due to French, Russian opposition, US to revise Iraq resolution."
And a third group of reports admits befuddlement. The BBC reports conflicting evidence and admits it can't tell which direction events are headed. (It is alone in reporting that Colin Powell's long-planned Nov. 10 visit to Seoul "seems to have become the unofficial deadline for a deal"; the BBC is also the only source reporting that "journalists have been invited [by the Pentagon] to undergo military style training later in November.") Haaretz, the Jerusalem, and a different AP report follow Russian foreign minister Ivanov's metaphor in speaking of a "convergence" of views at the UN, without deciding whether the US or the Franco-Russian preferences are prevailing.
2. Here's an article from Le Monde (Paris), Oct. 31, on that motivating factor never mentioned in the articles on UN diplomacy, oil:
_________________________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Paris), Oct. 31:
IRAQ IS AT THE HEART OF THE BLACK GOLD STRATEGY OF THE "MAJORS" -- The big international companies are looking for new fields to cover the expected increase in demand in every country. Baghdad, which ranks second in the world reserves, far behind Saudi Arabia, is coveted by all.
LONDON, from our correspondent
Always think about it, never talk about it: this is the motto of the big petroleum groups with respect to Iraqi oil, which is exciting the lust of the majors in the US and elsewhere.
PSA (production sharing agreement) : in oil jargon, this acronym is the open sesame that increases the price of oil stocks. An agreement to share production between a country and a company allows the latter to count the reserves it controls as assets in its financial reporting. Accounting practices consider these rights to prospecting and drilling as tangible assets. It goes without saying that such an increase in the exploitation account attracts investors. And the other type of contract, for services, being less profitable, does not have the same positive effect on stock prices. Countries which refuse to share sovereignty over their energy wealth, like Iran and Kuwait, for example, refuse to grant PSAs. On the other hand, exploration-exploitation agreements recently signed by Saddam Hussein with certain companies (including TotalFinaElf) are PSAs. The breakdown of the petroleum infrastructure and the sanctions regime have, it is true, greatly limited Iraqi leaders' margin of maneuver in negotiations.
In Washington as in London, the officials of the Iraqi National Congress, a federation of domestic opposition movements in exile, are discreetly courted. ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco cuddle up to Ahmed Chalabi, one of the principal opponents of the Baghdad regime, who is particularly close to the American vice president, Dick Cheney.
POST-SADDAM HUSSEIN
The British, too, intend to take up this challenge. Royal Dutch/Shell has reactivated its networks, woven during its abortive charm offensive toward Baghdad in 1998. Kicked out of Iraq in the 1960s, BP has updated its old geological charts. BP general director John Browne could not have been more explicit on Tuesday about the post-Saddam Hussein era, saying: "We would like to be sure that we will all be on an equal footing and that there will be not be pre-arrangements." This intensive lobbying corresponds to the high stakes.
Interviewed by Le Monde, a INC spokesperson insisted on the fact that in the event of the dictator's overthrow the new team will maintain the principle of the production sharing agreements. Faced with a stock market decline, oil stocks are attractive because of their solidity and the strength of the price per barrel. So it is not surprising that financial circles are closely following the inevitable reshuffling of the deck of Iraqi petroleum cards in the event of a conflict. "For publicly listed companies, growth prospects definitely make the difference. At present, there is no oil region more promising than Iraq and its 112 billion barrels of proven reserves. World production is stagnating due to a lack of significant discoveries": as this City specialist indicates, all the majors are looking for new fields to cover the expected increase in world demand.
The interest in the Iraqi manna is also a part of a concern about geographic diversification. ExxonMobil and Chevron Texaco remain too centered on the American continent. BP is very much present in every zone (Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, Alaska) where climatic conditions and the depth of the fields require significant investments. For its part, Royal Dutch/Shell is penalized by the size of its holdings on the African continent (Nigeria, Angola), considered unstable. In addition, the high return on exploration-exploitation, superior by far to downstream activities, encourages the oil barons. Refining is suffering from overcapacities. Gasoline at the pump is suffering from supermarket competition. Petrochemicals are undermined by the industrial slowdown.
One last trump favoring Iraqi oil: an exploitation cost less than half of that for deep-sea wells. Despite agreed-to efforts by the majors to reduce their general expenses (massive layoffs, financial restructuring), these remain too high, according to analysts.
There remains one great unknown: will a new stable pro-western government in Baghdad honor the large contracts signed with a dozen non-American companies? These licenses are not yet operational because of the sanctions against Baghdad. There is no doubt that if Saddam Hussein were overthrown these agreements would be revised in favor of the American groups. But French, Russian, and Chinese oil producers will not hesitate to vigorously oppose such an upheaval. In the end, the needs of the Iraqi productive apparatus are enormous. This titanic worksite certainly requires not only means, but also time. These considerations make one black gold trader based in Geneva say: "To become a world player, the Iraqi industry needs all the big companies, not just the Americans. Chances are that we're heading toward a compromise."
Le Monde (Paris) Report on Buildup of US Forces in the Gulf Region (Nov 1)
_______________________________________________
Translated from Le Monde (Paris), Nov. 1, 2002:
IRAQ: AMERICAN ARMS GETTING CLOSER
The United States is continuing to intensify a military threat to Iraq that is based on the accumulation of new weapons deployed or about to be deployed in the Gulf region.
So General Tommy Franks, who is commanding possible operations in Iraq at the same time as he directs those in Afghanistan from his headquarters in Tampa, Florida, has decided to supervise personally the transfer to Al-Udeid, in Qatar, of a part of his command post. There, beginning in December, some 600 of his staff will be the advance element of his headquarters.
An expeditionary corps of Ameican marines, amounting to 2200 combatants, has just crossed the Suez canal aboard amphibious vessels to reach Kuwait. It will reinforce the American deployment in that emirate, where there are already 2700 GIs in Kuwait City, the location of the headquarters of American forces there, and 6000 others who are encamped in the desert, near the Iraq border. The expeditionary corps of marines will be reinforced in November by the arrival in Kuwait of two squadrons of Apache attack helicopters, with a force of about 1000, arriving from Germany.
At the end of this week the aircraft carrier Constellation, with its escort vessels, will leave the port of San Diego, California, arriving in the northern Gulf in December to replace the George Washington, which has been cruising there for six months but which could remain in the sector for another month. Two aircraft carriers, the Harry Truman, based in Norfolk, Virginia, and the Kitty Hawk, based in Japan, are expected to join the Constellation in December. So that the American navy should, by the end of the year, have an imposing air-and-sea force deployed facing Baghdad.
Moreover, the Pentagon has secretly sent to two British bases -- Fairford, 60 miles west of London, and Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean -- the logistical means necessary for the arrival of five heavy intercontinental B-2 bombers, designed to dismantle enemy defenses thanks to their stealth.
B-2s -- the United States has built 21 in all at a cost of $2.5 billion each [Trans. note: the figure usually seen is $2.2 billion] -- have already been used in Kosovo in 1999 and above Afghanistan. But they were taking off from their base in Whiteman, Missouri, returning there after their missions. This is the first time, except for earlier training exercises, that the United States has prepared to deploy B-2s outside its national territory.
"We will move this to a forward location so we can cycle the aircraft as rapidly as possible and provide our commander the firepower and the flexibility he needs," explained Col. Doug Raaberg, who commands the B-2 squadron at Whiteman.
The B-2s are specially adapted to strike command and communication centers and air defenses.
Washington has resorted to new means for attacking Iraqi defenses in the north and south of the country. On October 24, General Richard Myers, chairman of the American joint chiefs of staff, revealed that the United States is using armed drones (small pilotless reconnaissance aircraft) against Iraqi targets. These bombings have been conducted by Predators. They began a month and a half ago without the Iraqis identifying the attacker. Conceived by the group General Atomics, the Predator exists in two versions, depending on how it's equipped and the altitude at which it flies (25,000 feet or 39,000 feet) on its missions. It can fly for 24 to 40 hours non-stop and fire Hellfire air-to-surface missiles.
At present drones are accompanying combat planes above Iraq to spot targets for them or -- what is new -- to observe the reaction of Iraqi defenses when American craft loaded with munitions pass over so as to then launch their own missiles. This enables them to respond to a developing threat without losing a pilot.
Reviews by
Mark K. Jensen
Associate Professor of French
Chair, Department of Languages and Literatures
Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma WA
email: jensenmk@plu.edu
WebMaster: Chris Pringer, Fall '02 via PolyPsyArt@iinet.com (incl. "permit2chris" in body of email, incl. quote marks)
COPYRIGHT REGULATIONS/POLICY & DISCLAIMER:
Mark Jensen's writing/artwork may not be reproduced or copied in hardcopy form, except for personal use. It may be distributed throughout the internet list services and forums provided that it is in it's original and complete form, and the author's name is included with it. It may be made available via website or an internet retrieval system in same complete form with author's permission only (mostly because I want to know where it's been put). Further, any distribution of my writings must be w/o charge unless with prior agreement with the author.
Christopher Pringer Reiki Master, Ordained Minister
Chalice Bridging Ministries Body-Mind-Soul Integration for a Healthy Planet
Bridging Theology, Consciousness,
and Practical Emotional Intelligence
Site Map & Organization Chart
REPRODUCTION: I welcome my writing/artwork being reproduced, provided that it is in it's original and complete form (or an editing or excerpt by agreement with the author), and contact info are intact and readable ("Chris Pringer, Chris.pringer@chalicebridge.com, www.chalicebridge.com"), and so long as the following conditions are applied:
a) Hardcopy reproduction is ok so long as it is for personal or non-profit organizational use only; b) Distribution and posting on web pages, blogs, and forums with my permission (mostly because I want to know where it's been put, and I'd be most honored to be asked). c) Any distribution of my writings or artwork must be w/o charge unless with prior agreement in writing with the author. d) The only exception to that regards the World Healing Prayers, which I encourage people to make all the copies they think will be used effectively without obligation to get my permission or even contact me. By the way, I have yet to ever sell -or give permission for anyone else to sell- any of my artwork on E-Bay or anywhere else. [noted 12/27/07]
DISCLAIMER: None of my writing, chalice art, or PolyPsyArt is intended to be, to replace, or discourage the appropriate use of, medical attention and/or treatment, but as educationally informative for the purpose of overall health enhancement and preventative maintenance. So far as I know, I have not quoted any other person without saying so. I have emulated a number of writers and teachers, so I wouldn't be surprised if many of my statements have very similar words and meanings as they. In any case, I have always tried to say what I believed. If you find that I have plagiarized anyone to any degree, please let me know -- by noting the complete published reference, and including the full quote and a few sentences of text before and after). This given, I will duly correct the writing.
ABOUT THE ART: The symbols for the "Chalice" - or Holy Grail - that I often use are drawn essentially from ancient archetypes. Here, the Chalice is essentially a "cauldron" for the balancing and integrating of Humanity with the Divine - individually and communally. And just to forestall any hasty categorization, I should say that these archetypes pre-date the Jewish faith by many centuries. They have their own rich meanings as related to the spiritual dilemma or paradox, balancing or synthesis of qualities (such as Yin & Yang), and healing transformation. The "Chalice-Star" over the three traveling magi is used in my Solstice or Christmas Card design to represent our quest - in this earthly dimension of body, mind, and spirit - for the inner-most Source of one's spirit and faith -- whether that would be the Inner Christ, Inner Buddha, Inner Mohammed, or the Divine Mother's Spirit connecting All Life, etc.
That disclaimer said, you may find out the actual origens of my relationship with these archetypes at Home Page for Body-Mind-Chalice Integration (and related artwork). If you feel well served by what you found here, I would certainly appreciate your support. Although there is virtually 3 large books (and probably over a thousand hours) worth of written material and artwork here, nothing has ever been sold at this site (although I do promote my therapy practice and desktop publishing skills).
In any case, IF YOU FEEL SO INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS WORK (there are also ways besides donating money), please check out the Chalice Bridging Ministries / PolyPsyArts Support System.
COMMENTARY/Feedback is MOST APPRECIATED via the Guest Book or directly via Chaliser@iinet.com. I Hope you have found this page useful. Please let me know if it (or any parts of it, or other pages here) do not make sense to you, or don't seem consistent, etc. Extra points given for being specific. <grin> It's nice to hear from visitors in any case. I will probably reply. Here is to your continuing to recieve the benefits of your drive to discover you. --Chris
Click here to see the Organization Chart / Site Map (New 9'08), as well as "How and Why this Site Is Different - A study in Cross-Discipline Knowledge Sharing and Utilization." About the critical challenge of, and our potential for, optimal integration of diverse perspectives, talents, and capabilities. And how that relates to *Chalice-Bridging* - and to personal, community, and planetary healing. (And the full-size graphic!)
Professional Bio & Quotes
Chris, 1984
Chris, 2008
I began my studies in multi-level self-healing when in the service, in Thailand in the Winter of '73. The focus then was on self-help psychology, consciousness, and eastern and western mystical perspectives. This continued through my university studies in Norman, OK '74-'79. 1980 took me into naturopathic studies, primarily nutrition and herbology when I lived in Oklahoma City. Not seeing the naturopathic doctor route as affordable at the time, I found direction via a five-evening massage course, Fall '83. That led to a six month professional practice, followed up with the training in Sante Fe, NM, '84-'85 (described in the next paragraph).
Since then I have practiced massage and/or healing facilitation for others, initially in Santa Fe, NM (during/after my training), then San Louis Obispo, CA, and Seattle, WA. This includes exploring personal challenges and self-healing methodology. A session may include various energy work modalities, Body/Energy-Awareness based Preventative Health Maintenance Instruction, or only Reiki or relaxation work in total silence. A client chooses based on whatever stress, pain, or concerns are present at that session. A client may request a "Body Pattern Reading," as well as various massage/bodywork therapies, all of which techniques are listed & described in my brochure. Individual, program, and 3-6 week interval-based rates are available.
My interests have primarily centered in three areas:
1) Body-Centered Psycho-Spiritual Process (as in "Hakomi" style of) counseling and bodywork, including as assessing an individual for the most efficient means of addressing connective tissue injury, short and long term, and the most efficient application of the results of that assessment (on physical and/or emotional levels);
2) in The Basic How's And Why's Of Psycho-Emotional Storage In The Body-Mind, and in the related fascia memory storage dynamics - referring to the technical aspects of neuro-physical interface between connective tissue, emotion, and the brain);
3) "Chalice-Bridging" style chakra balancing - based in the perspective that the chalice, far more than just a cup in this interpretation, is about the human embodiment of Spirit into the three "lower bodies" (mental, emotional, and physical) which compose the "Body-Mind". Which is also a "cauldron" for the balancing and integrating of Humanity with the Divine - individually and communally.
My training includes over 1370 hours of classes and practicum, including with the New Mexico Academy of Massage and Advanced Healing Arts in Santa Fe, NM (1984-85), and with various accredited bodywork and therapy workshops (`86-present), as well as 100 hours training with the Alchemical Hypnotherapy Institute (1989), over 100+ hrs apprenticeship with healing practitioner Robert "Mitra" (`85-`86), and 150 hours apprenticeship with Silena Heron in Herbal Studies (`83-`84). For the detailed version my training, you may go to the latter half of my Reiki Therapy Practice Brochure. Which also includes (and relates context for) links to essays elaborating on aspects of imbalance and injury, assessment, and healing.
Personal Quotes on Body-Mind Awareness [ cp, 12'07 ]
BODY-MIND AWARENESS, at the core of preventive health awareness, is one of the most simple, efficacious, & cost-effective forms of HEALTH INSURANCE there can be. Hence, massage is far from just "a luxury item," and bodywork therapies can be indispensable for the healing of certain conditions.
MUSCLES RELATE TO ATTACHMENTS - to what we use to take our stance, to hold our place, to perceive and respond to our environment, and to extend who we are and/or want to be. Or used to be (in too many cases, perhaps). That speaks not only to the body's condition and function, but to how it communicates awareness of where one is along one's path (of becoming who one truly is).
THE BODY IS . . . among other amazing things, a unique communications system -- intimately linked with one's TOTALITY.
Establishing rapport with one's body can be a PATH to self realization.
ONE OF MY DREAMS is a society where/in all children are taught how to feel/see/read their own body-mind communications such that preventive health maintenance eventually becomes second nature. And actually, for the most part, they would be encouraged to re-awaken and build upon what I believe to be a NATURAL INCLINATION - conscious self-healing and continuous expansion of awareness.
And the above goes FOR ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, to the degree that one utilizes them to improve such awareness and causative/pro-active connection with one's body-mind, and to employ the most effective tools for maintaining/improving one's health under any given condition or circumstance.
of PAGE
(there are also ways besides donating money), please check out the 
