(2 of 6)
Many Europeans aren't convinced that Saddam Hussein really poses a graver threat now than the one they have learned to live with since the Gulf War. They feel Bush's indictment of Saddam's brutal character and sins is old news and want to know: What's so dangerous about Iraq today that only war can save us from? Most don't share Bush's obsessive conviction that he already "knows" Saddam Hussein is hiding stockpiles of illicit biological and chemical weapons and is close to obtaining a nuclear one. Of course, many Europeans suspect Saddam has dangerous stuff; they understand the arguments that he is a bad guy who may do worse things some day. Yet the forbidden weaponry turned up so far is pretty tame: 16 undeclared chemical warheads, illegal importation of 200 missile engines and the disappearance of some high explosives that could be used for nuclear warheads. Also uncovered were documents that describe a technique used to enrich uranium.
So most Europeans want to be shown a fresh, momentous piece of evidence before they'll back a war. When they hear Bush make accusation after accusation, when they hear repeated avowals that the U.S. has "very convincing evidence," they wonder why the Administration has not offered that proof in public. They aren't satisfied with the explanation that it would harm America's intelligence-gathering capability if the classified info is revealed. "For me it's simple," says Eric Platel, 34, a French computer-systems manager who describes himself as conservative. "If Bush has evidence Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, he presents it. When the Americans say they have proof of something but refuse to show you, they make a lot of people suspicious." A startling number of Europeans (75% of the French and 54% of the Germans) suspect Bush of crasser motives: he wants U.S. control of Iraq's oil; he wants a quick war to enhance his re-election prospects in 2004; he wants to avenge his dad. Saddam may be menacing, but if his capability to make trouble isn't visible, conclude Europeans, the Bush Administration hasn't made a persuasive case for military action.
2 INSPECTIONS SHOULD LAST LONGER
many europeans recoiled last week when Bush declared that his patience had run out and judged the inspections a failure, even before the U.N. received its first formal report. "This business about more time, how much time do we need," said the President, "to see clearly that [Saddam's] not disarming?" Yet the French contend the simple presence of inspectors has effectively frozen Saddam's programs and that kind of containment is better than war.
The U.N. search has been going on for only two months, and Europeans across the continent say: Give it more time. France, Germany, Russia and China have all publicly and privately urged Bush to slow down. With the exception of the U.S., every one of the 15 members of the Security Council wants inspections to continue beyond this week's report, says a Council diplomat. Even the staunchly supportive British are not eager to fight soon. While dutifully repeating Washington's "weeks, not months" mantra about the end of inspections, a British official admits "we need to give [chief inspector Hans] Blix the time he needs."