Diplomatically he is being humiliated, running to Washington or Camp David or wherever Bush summons him, only to receive the most meagre reward. So, having reassured a sceptical country and party that this war would be authorised by a second UN resolution, he broke his back to get one while the US barely broke a sweat. Blair worked the phones; Bush made no secret of his nonchalance whether he got a UN mandate or not.

Rebuffed once, Blair set his sights a little lower. Instead of UN approval before the war, he sought a UN role after it. That promise was enough to keep Clare Short on side, but even that is proving too much for Washington. Blair returned to Britain yesterday with next to nothing from Bush and certainly no firm promise that the US will let the UN administer postwar Iraq. At their joint press conference, Blair was reduced to talking merely of an "appropriate" post- conflict administration, while Bush pointedly did not mention the UN at all.

No topic confirms Blair's humiliation more fully, though, than the Middle East peace process. Blair wants progress here partly because he genuinely believes in it and partly to mollify anti-war anger on both the Arab street and the Labour backbenches. And what does Blair have to show, in this area, for his shoulder-to-shoulder loyalty to Bush? Nada, zip and zilch. All he has managed to extract is a promise to publish a document - the much-vaunted roadmap - which was written last autumn and which, in itself, has no teeth at all.

So how great is the risk for Blair? He has certainly made a massive withdrawal from the electorate's goodwill bank. Even if the war ends well and soon, it's hard to see how he could demand the nation trust him again on, say, a decision to join the euro in June, when the five tests are due.

If the Bush administration embarked on a campaign of strategic regime change beyond Iraq, not sanctioned by the United Nations, it would do so without Britain. The British came to save the United Nations, not to bury it

At a recent meeting at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington - attended by Richard Perle, who is fast emerging as the éminence grise of the Bush administration - influential neoconservative thinkers restated their agenda for American foreign and security policy. Iraq was just the beginning. Thereafter, it was proposed, a series of countries that have incurred Washington's wrath would suffer the same fate.

After "axis of evil" members North Korea and Iran, Syria was added to the list of states that would "benefit" from American-led regime change in a world in which France and Germany would be contained and the United Nations reformed. Implicit in the neoconservative agenda is a belief that America can reserve the right to act when and where it chooses, unshackled by the conventions of international consensus. But for the British such an agenda is a bridge too far.
.

But the neoconservatives seem to think, mistakenly, that the Iraq war is establishing a precedent in international law under which American "might" is automatically endowed with "right.".

For the British a world in which the United Nations had been stripped of all authority would be an infinitely more dangerous place than it is now.

With Saddam, given the nature of the regime and past behavior, there were reasonable grounds for suspicion. But the war on terror must not be used as a blank check for attacking states that fail to live up to America's standards.

L'apaisement n'étonne pas ceux qui connaissent bien ces quartiers. «Pour la plupart des jeunes, aujourd'hui, la France est du bon côté», dit l'éducateur de la Duchère. Parents et adolescents musulmans se sentiraient même «français comme jamais», selon Rami, un animateur des Minguettes, cité de Vénissieux. Et Touffik, un jeune homme de Rillieux-la-Pape, en profite pour glisser : «On est fiers de notre président.» Même tonalité aux Francs-Moisins (Saint-Denis, en banlieue parisienne), où on entend des jeunes beurs se dire «revalorisés» depuis que Chirac a tenu bon face aux Américains. «Franchement, beaucoup de gens pensaient qu'il n'irait pas jusqu'au bout, qu'il retournerait sa veste au dernier moment.»

Au début du conflit, les discussions pouvaient même, dans certains quartiers, rappeler la victoire de la France à la Coupe du monde 1998. Un projet commun. Une fierté partagée. L'impression que, pour une fois, il était plus valorisant d'être d'ici. Le lendemain du déclenchement des hostilités, Rami constatait : «Les adolescents ont l'impression que, cette fois, leurs idées étant défendues, ils ne sont pas à contre-courant, ou à côté.» Et l'éducateur de la Duchère concluait : «C'est calme aussi, parce que, du coup, ceux qui profitent des situations pour foutre la merde n'ont pas d'alibi cette fois pour s'en prendre aux institutions.»

Au-delà du sentiment d'injustice, généralement partagé, beaucoup, en banlieue, se sentent en effet directement agressés en tant que musulmans. «On sait que c'est une guerre contre l'islam, tranche Touffik. Chez les musulmans, cette guerre est vécue comme une humiliation. Depuis que l'Empire ottoman a été battu par les puissances occidentales, nous, les musulmans, on n'a subi que des humiliations.»

Le boycott des produits américains est moins radical. Dans un coin du petit restaurant d'Ahmed, Benjamin et Thomas, élèves en CAP, boivent de l'Oasis, plantés devant le JT de France 3, qui montre des familles américaines pleurant leurs morts. Ahmed Lami dit qu'il n'arrive plus à vendre son Coca-Cola. «Les jeunes boycottent. Français ou Arabes, ils sont tous dégoûtés.» De là à sacrifier quelques-unes de leurs marques fétiches... «On les a achetées avant la guerre», disent les jeunes des Francs-Moisins en désignant leurs chaussures Nike. «On va pas les jeter. Mais l'esprit est là. On mange plus McDo. On a trouvé un dérivé pour le Coca. Et, la prochaine fois, on achètera des Adidas.»

A la différence de l'opinion britannique, ralliée à l'idée de cette guerre après avoir vu l'image de ses soldats en première ligne, les Français, eux, ne pensent toujours pas qu'elle soit justifiée. Et ils n'ont aucune confiance en George W. Bush pour la mener.
 
C'est ce qui ressort d'un sondage de l'Institut CSA pour Libération (1). A la question «Dans la situation de guerre en Irak, faites-vous personnellement confiance ou pas à George W. Bush», 79 % répondent non, et 18 % oui. Quant au jugement sur l'intervention elle-même, il est négatif à 78 % et positif à 17 %. Le rejet est massif. Il se concentre sur l'actuel président des Etats-Unis et sur la façon dont il a imposé la guerre.
 
«Ce n'est pas de l'antiaméricanisme, souligne Stéphane Rozès, directeur des études politiques de CSA, mais de l'antihégémonisme.» Avant l'échec diplomatique américain à l'ONU, les avis étaient plus partagés : en août 2002, 32 % des personnes interrogées étaient favorables à une intervention, contre 58 % d'avis contraire.
 
En fait, ce n'est pas seulement la guerre que les Français rejettent, mais son manque de justification. A ce titre, la comparaison avec les autres crises récentes est édifiante. En avril 1999, toujours selon CSA, 52 % des Français «faisaient confiance» à Bill Clinton pour mener l'intervention de l'Otan au Kosovo (42 % d'avis contraire). George Bush père avait, lui, l'appui de 65 % des Français pour conduire la première guerre du Golfe en janvier 1991 (28 % d'avis contraire). A l'époque, l'opinion, partagée à la veille du conflit (43 % favorables à l'intervention, 45 % défavorables), avait basculé dans un soutien massif à la coalition deux semaines plus tard : 71 % d'avis favorables contre 14 % de défavorables. Cette fois, le déclenchement des opérations n'a pas infléchi les points de vue.
 
Il est vrai qu'il y a douze ans les troupes françaises y participaient. Mais surtout, la coalition agissait dans le cadre d'un mandat de l'ONU. C'est ce qui fait la principale différence dans l'opinion entre Bush père et Bush fils.
 
(1) Réalisé les 26 et 27 mars auprès de 1 000 personnes.

(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-28-03, translated by Freekill)

The Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, the third man on the international stage beside George Bush and Tony Blair in the run-up to war, was staring at political disaster yesterday as anti-war demonstrations spread and opinion polls revealed 91% of Spaniards against the war.  
 
Madrid, Barcelona and other cities resounded to the noise of people beating pots and pans out of their windows on Thursday night in the latest of a series of anti-war demonstrations that have also seen violence between police and protesters.  
 
The Alhambra Palace in Granada, symbol of Spain's Islamic past, switched off its lights during Thursday night's protest and, in Barcelona, firefighters sounded their sirens in support.
 
The scale of opposition to war has forced the People's party government on to the defensive. Mr Aznar has not dared to back his pro-Bush stance before the war with combat troops. Even the sending of 900 troops for "humanitarian work" has provoked the fury of the anti-war camp.
 
The most recently published opinion poll on attitudes to war, by the state's own official pollsters, showed 91% opposition. Recent polls of voting intention show that, over two months, the People's party has gone from running neck-and-neck with the anti-war socialists to trailing them by six points. A clear majority of people now expect the socialists to win next year's election.
 
The government has responded by saying it is thinking "not of future elections but of future generations."
 
Mr Aznar's one-time political mentor, Felix Pastor, a former party president who still sits on its ruling committee, yesterday broke ranks to accuse him of destroying the years of hard work put in to creating a moderate, centre-right party.
 
"The idea of a moderate, humanitarian, Christian People's party has been blown away," he told El Mundo newspaper. "The Spanish people have the right to expect their government to keep them away from all wars ... Bush's policies are so detestable that we should keep well away."
 
His words followed a slow drip-drip of resignations that include a former minister and several lower ranking party members.  
 
Ministers are now shadowed by groups of protesters. People's party offices up and down the country are being vandalised or plastered with anti-war graffiti.  
 
In Italy, the government is facing political repercussions after 1,000 US paratroopers landed in northern Iraq on Wednesday having set off from a US base at Vicenza. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had promised that Italy would not be used as a launching pad for attacks on Iraq. Italy officially supports the allies and has offered its military bases and air space for US military use but not in direct attacks.  
 
Mr Berlusoni has been accused by the opposition of taking an "ambiguous" position, at once assuring the US and Britain of his support and insisting, amid widespread public opposition to the war, that international institutions must be respected.

A final shock scene in the video of AOLTIMEWARNER recording artist Madonna's upcoming release -- is that of the singer throwing a grenade in the lap of President Bush!

In a war where public perceptions are arguably as important as the military strategy, the US army appears to have handed a huge public relations victory to those who believe the conflict in Iraq is all about oil. The 101st Airborne Division has chosen to name two of its main outposts in the desert Forward Operating Base Exxon and Forward Operating Base Shell.

"These are desert refuelling stations, and they're apparently naming them after oil companies simply because that's what reminds them of filling stations back home. It's a normal practice."

"This has absolutely nothing to do with the war being about oil, a notion that we think has been debunked by numerous independent analysts - and even in the newspaper Le Monde," Mr Cirigliano insisted.