Le Figaro, Paris, Sept. 23
There’s so much anti-French resentment in the United States that the mere announcement that Paris won’t veto an American resolution on Iraq was seen as big news.

To believe the press on the other side of the Atlantic, the Americans now have just as hard a time imagining that France isn’t their enemy as they did this spring in admitting that we could disagree on the war they were preparing in Iraq. …

Reconciliation between France and the United States can only come if (U.S. President George W.) Bush recognizes that the resolution he’s putting before the Security Council will have more weight in the world if France votes yes rather than abstaining. We’re not there yet.
Tale of two speeches
The Guardian, London, Sept. 24
It was a tale of two speeches, a contrast in styles and personalities that vividly illustrated the gulf dividing the modern world. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York, George Bush was uncompromising, aggressive, a shade defensive and at times threatening.

At another level, his speech conveyed a deep sense of self-righteousness, based on what he defined as “moral clarity” and “moral law.” This was the U.S. president’s first appearance before the U.N. since he usurped the Security Council, split the international community and launched into his war against Iraq.

If anybody was hoping for contrition or gestures of conciliation, they will have been largely disappointed. Olive branches were in short supply as Mr. Bush, eschewing any genuine effort at consensus-building, resurrected his old black and white view of a planet devoid of neutral ground and divided between civilized and uncivilized. …

Some Americans may find reassurance in this robustly simplistic analysis. But the rest of the world will look on uneasily, as before. Mr. Bush had an opportunity to build bridges – and chose instead to burnish his self-image as the square-jawed, undaunted Captain Marvel of the fight against evil. It was thus an opportunity lost. …
Staying the course
The Times, London, Sept. 24
… To skeptics in the General Assembly, Mr. Bush insisted that there was no disagreement about the essentials. America, too, was dedicated to the defense of collective security and the advance of human rights. He called on them to “move forward.”

The call was skillfully picked up by Mr. Annan with his insistence that the U.N. was prepared to play its “full part” in working for a satisfactory outcome in Iraq. And Washington’s forbearance over his previous criticisms was repaid by his call to the whole international community to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

It is this realism that will, eventually, triumph in New York. No country wants the instability in Iraq to continue. Even radical governments understand that a lawless land attracting every manner of terrorist with a grudge will become the source of indiscriminate violence. Stability can be underpinned only by a rapid return to normality, law and order and economic growth.

For that, the U.N. specialist agencies can be useful. That is why the U.N. itself has become a target for Baathist militants and al-Qaida sympathizers. That is why more troops from other nations are needed on the ground. Mr. Bush was therefore speaking from strength.

America has not yet tabled the resolution giving U.N. blessing to an international force. But France has already conceded that it will cast no veto, even if it offers no support. Passage of the resolution is only a matter of time. …

His administration may find itself hurried by the electoral timetable, the rising cost and domestic concerns. But it has so far shown considerable resolution to stay the course. Mr. Bush faced his critics yesterday with a judicious mix of determination, diplomacy and defiance. The U.N. would be wise to heed his call to arms and join battle to rescue Iraq.
Worst is over?
The Daily Telegraph, London, Sept. 24
Far from coming cap in hand to the General Assembly, Mr. Bush was as confident as he was when he last addressed that body a year ago.

Then, he warned it that it would become irrelevant if it failed to meet Saddam’s defiance of its resolutions. He did not admonish, but left his listeners in no doubt of his determination to prevail in Iraq and of his conviction that all nations of good will should contribute to this endeavor. His speech reached beyond the differences between Security Council members over Iraq to what he listed as the scourges of our age terrorism, weapons proliferation, HIV/Aids, famine and the slavery of child prostitution.

How persuasive it proves will emerge over the next few months. Mr. Bush first wants a resolution authorizing an expanded but not determining U.N. role in Iraq. Then he would like troop contributions from countries such as Pakistan and Turkey, and increased financial commitments from a donors’ conference in Madrid next month.

He may yet be disappointed in some of these ambitions. But the tone of his speech suggested he thought the worst of U.N. obstructiveness was over.