Iraq crisis 2003
The Iraq crisis in 2003 was a rift in the European Union and NATO over the conduct of the planned and ongoing Iraq war of that year. As a result of the unilateral action of the US government under George W. Bush , the European community of states split into participants in the so-called coalition of the willing , which supported the Iraq war because of the stated reasons even without a UN mandate , and states that refused to participate, including the Regarding the Iraq war as a war of aggression and thus a breach of international law .
The negative and non-participating states included Germany and France . Sweden , Austria and other smaller European countries were largely neutral.
Legal and political foundations
With the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, the states of the European Union (EU) have committed themselves to pursue a common foreign, security and defense policy. The preamble to the EU treaty states: “Determined to pursue a common foreign and security policy [...] and thus strengthen Europe's identity and independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world, ... “To this end, the states of the EU want to bundle their national policies into a European standpoint so that they can speak with one voice in the international institutions. But in the run-up to the American-led Iraq war in 2003, the Europeans ignored these resolutions.
Without having previously informed the EU, British Prime Minister Tony Blair went to the side of US President George W. Bush in the spring of 2002 . At the beginning of August, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder promised his constituents his "no" to any military intervention in Iraq, also without consulting the EU .
The two standpoints could not be bridged by a center position, as advocated by French President Jacques Chirac . In the course of the crisis, individual European countries such as Poland and Spain opted for British policy, others for the German and French positions. This left the common foreign and security policy ( CFSP) in front of a diplomatic heap.
Chronicle of the split
The Republican US administration of George W. Bush already regards Iraq as the central terrain of geostrategic decisions when it takes office. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the White House accused the Saddam Hussein government of supporting Islamic terrorism and called on Iraq to disarm its alleged weapons of mass destruction. But first the Taliban in Afghanistan , the search for Osama bin Laden and a new attempt at Middle East politics are on the global and transatlantic agenda. It was not until the spring of 2002 that American politics turned back to Iraq. From then on the Iraq war developed into a stress test for the European states and the CFSP of the EU .
European reactions to the attacks of September 11, 2001
The European heads of state express their shock and solidarity immediately after the attacks. French President Jacques Chirac is the first European head of state to fly to New York to express his horror. British Prime Minister Tony Blair will discuss by telephone with President Bush, the United Nations Security Council UN turn and secure military support in case of war to. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder declares Germany's "unrestricted solidarity" even in the event of an armed conflict . And the first pro-American demonstration since President Kennedy's visit in 1963 is taking place in Berlin . Although it took less than 24 hours after the attacks for all EU foreign ministers to arrive in Brussels for the first briefing , the European statesmen traveled to the USA as national envoys in the following weeks.
In the current global political issue, all of the major European states - Germany, France, Great Britain, Poland and Spain - are taking national paths. And faster than Washington demands, the European NATO states are calling for an alliance under Article V of the Washington Treaty. But NATO will not be involved in planning the Afghanistan military operation in the coming weeks, nor will Washington see it as a European contact point. Instead, the US government receives specific contributions from the individual states for Operation Enduring Freedom .
It was not until early November 2001 that British Prime Minister Blair, Chancellor Schröder, discussed joint actions with French President Chirac at a mini-summit in London. After protests, the French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin , the Prime Ministers of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi , Spain, José María Aznar , and the Netherlands, Wim Kok , also the Prime Minister of Belgium (also acting EU Chairman), Guy Verhofstadt , and the High Representative of the CFSP , Javier Solana . This meeting is sharply criticized by the uninvited members of the EU and referred to as the "Board of Directors". In the first few weeks after the attacks, American action met with broad approval and support from European populations. The exchange of intelligence information and the provision of military bases and overflight rights are particularly popular . Europeans are more critical of military actions. But overall, US policy in this phase received clear approval from Spain, Great Britain, Germany, France and Poland. Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland distance themselves from any acts of war.
Bush's speech to the nation
On 29 January 2002, President Bush declared in his speech to the nation to Iraq , Iran and North Korea an " axis of evil ". This new formula is neither factually nor strategically plausible for Europeans, because the three countries appear to be too different. They consider a confrontational strategy towards North Korea and Iran to be counterproductive. At the 38th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the beginning of February 2002 a dispute between the USA and Europe arises over the question of what to do against terrorism and how the Europeans can be involved. While US Senator John McCain declares that the “next front” is against the “terrorist in Baghdad”, German politicians from all parliamentary groups are warning of the “incalculable risks” of a war in Iraq.
The most important allies of the US government since the attacks on the Pentagon and the twin towers are the Briton Blair, the Spaniard Aznar and the Australian John Howard . Blair in particular is invited to Bush’s most important foreign confidante and by him to his ranch in Crawford in April. That the two were talking about a war against Iraq suggests an interview the following day in which Bush said on the subject of Iraq: “And I have no plans to attack on my desk.” However, Blair's alliance with Bush creates strong resistance among voters and the Labor Party . Since mid-May, the German security services have been suspecting that a war against Iraq could no longer be stopped. But Bush, who is visiting Berlin , Moscow and Paris at the end of May , says there are no war plans and that he wants to consult the partners.
Iraq is not officially on the agenda for the European Council meetings in March and June. The Spanish President of the Council of the European Union made only one statement on Iraq in the first half of 2002, in which she supported UN resolutions 1284 and 1409 on behalf of the EU. The resolutions call on Baghdad to agree to a UNMOVIC inspection regime aimed at controlling sensitive products . The High Representative of the CFSP, Solana, and Foreign Commissioner Chris Patten have made very cautious public statements these weeks. And for the two permanent members of the Security Council, Great Britain and France, it is more important to deal with Iraq in the United Nations rather than in the European institutions. Even though the issue of Iraq is not discussed at the Council meetings, the later fronts are already emerging behind the scenes.
Positions of Europeans in the summer of 2002
Bush's speech in West Point on June 1 at the latest leaves little doubt as to the Americans' resolve to go to war. In this speech, Bush empowers the US to act preventively and unilaterally. At the beginning of July Bush publicly announced that he wanted to force a regime change in Iraq “by all means”.
Chancellor Schröder only took up his position after an internal meeting with Jacques Chirac at the end of July. The two politicians reject US going it alone without a UN mandate. From now on, Chirac sharply criticizes Bush politics as "unilateral". But he does not rule out military strikes against Saddam Hussein. Paris wants to strengthen the authority of the Security Council and insists against Saddam Hussein on the implementation of the resolutions , for which it considers the establishment of a military threat backdrop to be sensible. For Chirac and the liberal conservative government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin , elected in the parliamentary elections in May, military strikes are only legitimate if the Permanent Members of the Security Council so decide by consensus. And for this a second resolution is required. France appeals to the multilateral traditions of the Americans and wants to integrate them into the United Nations.
In this sense, the incumbent EU Council President and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen also plead for a sharper tone on the part of the Europeans towards Iraq. Romano Prodi , President of the EU Commission, and Silvio Berlusconi demand that the US not attack Iraq without a UN mandate. If there was such a mandate, Italy would stand on the side of the US. The French position is also shared by the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, and the Luxembourg Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker .
Schröder first articulated his “German way” at the start of the Bundestag election campaign on August 5th in Hanover: firstly, he was against “playing around with war”, secondly, he demanded a political conception for a post-war order, and thirdly, he was basically in favor of pressure Saddam Hussein. However, his simple no will only become a double no after US Vice President Dick Cheney's speech on August 26th. Schröder says Germany will not take part in a war even if there is a UN mandate. Cheney suggests in Nashville that the US would also wage a campaign past the United Nations, since even new inspections would not offer any protection against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Cheney demands: “The battle must be carried to the enemy.” At the same time, the logistical preparations for the war in the Gulf begin and before the Security Council is consulted, the US air force flies first attacks on Iraqi positions.
Germany is not isolated in the EU until the end of August. After an unofficial meeting of EU foreign ministers in Helsingør, Denmark on 30./31. August, Gunter Pleuger , State Secretary in the Foreign Office, reports that the Europeans agree that military action requires a new mandate from the Security Council. Only the UK is of a different opinion. This is how the Europeans agree on the primacy of diplomacy. Only in an interview with the New York Times on September 5, Schröder rejects a war regardless of a UN mandate. A regime change is neither a legal nor a legitimate goal. With this now double no to a military campaign and to German participation, the German government is opposing the British way of solidarity within Europe.
Blair, who has been at Bush's side for months, assures his American counterpart during a visit to Camp David on September 7th that London will support Washington if a preventive war against Iraq is on the agenda. A mandate from the United Nations should, however, be sought. This means that Great Britain is the first European country behind the USA without further ado. Immediately before the anniversary of the attacks, Spain’s Prime Minister Aznar joins this, who promises to stand by Bush’s side “if it means war”. In the war on terror , by which he also means that of the Basque underground organization ETA , and in the event that Iraq continues to ignore the resolutions, he will stand “resolutely on the side of America”. The fact that Saddam Hussein had contacts with terrorists is undisputed for Madrid. For a military intervention, the support of the UN is "extremely desirable, but not essential". Spain has thus clearly positioned itself alongside the USA and Great Britain.
Similar to the previous policies of Blair and Schröder, the Europeans are now criticizing Aznar's policies. All three would have made their policy unilaterally without consulting the European partners in the CFSP forums and without involving the smaller EU members. In doing so, they would have ignored the contractual self-commitments, which, in the spirit of mutual solidarity, require that any act be refrained from “which is contrary to the interests of the Union or which could damage its effectiveness”. In principle, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland also tend towards a pro-American stance. But they still keep a low profile.
Dispute over Security Council Resolution 1441
On September 12, President Bush announced at the UN General Assembly that he would like to cooperate with the world community. However, his administration leaves no doubt that it will act unilaterally if the Security Council does not comply with American wishes. As evidence of the "overwhelming reasons for disarming Iraq", Blair is submitting a dossier of fresh evidence to the House of Commons in the UK on September 24 while negotiations are taking place in the Security Council . The government receives unreserved support from the conservative opposition. Massive (and - as will later become apparent - justified) criticism of the dossier is voiced by his Labor Party. In addition to the Labor Party, civil organizations are mobilizing. And so on September 28th, several hundred thousand demonstrated in London for the first time against Blair's policies.
The negotiations in the Security Council begin in the second week of September. The veto powers Russia, China and France have not yet spoken out against a military strike in principle. However, they do not believe in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, nor in any significant threat posed by Iraq, and are skeptical of the suspicion that Saddam Hussein supports terrorists.
Security Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, is a classic compromise between the British and French positions. While Washington is striving for a pre-emptive strike even without a mandate from the United Nations, Blair pleads for a UN initiative that calls for the creation of a threatening backdrop and should enable spontaneous military action.
But the resolution is interpreted differently. Washington and London see resolution 1441 as an immediate option for military action should Baghdad misbehave. As long as Iraq cooperates and weapons of mass destruction are not proven, Paris does not consider military action to be lawful. Resolution 1441 initiates a new inspection regime with expanded powers. Russia and China also want to work out a second resolution based on the inspection results for a military strike. From Berlin, the meanwhile re-elected Chancellor Schröder signals his support and thus relativizes his position of the sharp rejection of military actions.
During the negotiations in the Security Council, the USA adopted the ' New National Security Strategy ', the so-called Bush Doctrine, in September . It propagates the pre- emptive strike doctrine against states with weapons of mass destruction, the first use of nuclear weapons and the renunciation of legitimation of military force by the UN . The Senate and House of Representatives will then authorize the President to wage war against Iraq on October 10 and 11.
With the adoption of Resolution 1441, the EU seems to find its way back to a common position. The (apparently) successful embedding of US policy in the multilateral negotiations of the United Nations is of particular importance to Europeans. When Iraq accepted the resolution, the French and the Germans in particular saw the triad of international law, diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions - before the threat of military force - as the formula for forcing Iraq to cooperate and thwarting American war plans . In the External Relations Council, the Europeans unanimously welcomed Resolution 1441 and called on Iraq "to work immediately, unconditionally and actively with the weapons inspectors [and ...] to seize this last opportunity ..."
That Resolution 1441 was built on sand became clear when on December 18 the United States and Great Britain classified Iraq's 12,000-page bundle of weapons programs as inadequate, without the Security Council being able to deal with it beforehand. So Bush (presumably) finally decides to go to war.
Out of consideration for the British people and the Labor Party, Blair's Foreign Minister, Jack Straw , declared a second Security Council resolution to be desirable. In this a serious breach of the law of Resolution 1441 by Iraq should be determined and the consequences should be laid down. While the Americans bring regime change to the fore, the British insist on the primacy of disarmament. You get the two Americans consent to an extension of the inspections.
Under the impression that the USA has already committed itself and that neither the results of UNMOVIC nor the behavior of Iraq can prevent a war, the rifts are opening again in Europe. Despite massive pressure, Paris is not following the American-British line as it was in 1991, and from January 20, 2003 it will not approve any Security Council resolution that legitimizes war. Paris is thus moving towards the German position of the categorical no.
Contrary to popular belief, Berlin and Paris (and Moscow) stick to their policies. Since London and Washington fail to substantiate their allegations against Iraq with evidence, the no-sayers can continue to advance their arguments against war. In addition, Baghdad is preparing to cooperate. So the Europeans react again split on American politics and are unable to find a new common approach. In Europe, two camps are fighting over the right policy: the 'Atlanticists' Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi against Chirac, Schröder and Verhofstadt, who do not want to be dictated to a war.
The old and the new Europe
In January 2003 the disagreement between the EU members escalated into a serious crisis in the CFSP . President Chirac and Foreign Secretary Dominique de Villepin respond to Bush's refusal to extend or intensify inspections with the threat of vetoing any resolution legitimizing war. They are sure of German cooperation and find a third ally in the Russian President Vladimir Putin . As a further veto power in the Security Council, China refuses to intervene, but without threatening to veto it.
To mark the 40th anniversary of the Élysée Treaty on January 22nd, Chirac and Schröder announce new, joint steps in bilateral cooperation and European integration in Paris. Above all, they want to reform the CFSP and, with it, create an institution that creates a “new balance in the world”. During the celebration - especially from the point of view of the Atlantic - the Chancellor and President seem to claim to speak for a Europe that sees itself as a counter-model to a world dominated by America.
In doing so, they especially outraged Aznar, Blair and the Central and Eastern Europeans. On the same day, Donald Rumsfeld , US Secretary of Defense, called the Franco-German cooperation " old Europe " while the "new Europe" was to be found in the east. With this, Rumsfeld states that the inner-European dispute over which national path is right on the Iraq issue has now spread not only to the UN, but also to the transatlantic alliance of NATO.
The Greek Presidency, which has been in office since the beginning of the year, wants the dispute between Europeans to be negotiated in the EU institutions. The Greek Foreign Minister, George A. Papandreou , announced a joint EU position on the disarmament of Iraq at the beginning of January. However, this is blocked by Berlusconi, who, after a telephone conversation with Aznar, declared a special EU meeting at the end of January to be useless. Nevertheless, at the meeting of EU foreign ministers on January 27, the warring camps agreed on a minimum consensus that would give the inspectors more time. However, no agreement is reached on issues relating to the duration of the inspections and the need for a second resolution. That this is not enough to keep America from going to war becomes clear when Bush says the next day: "What we do does not depend on the decisions of others."
Just three days later, on January 30th, eight EU members and candidates publish an 'Open Letter of Eight' as a call for solidarity with America. Under the leadership of Aznar and Blair, a letter of support succeeds which, in addition to the signatures of Blair and Aznar, also contains those of Berlusconi and the heads of government of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Portugal, José Manuel Durão Barroso , and the EU accession countries Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic . President Václav Havel signed the latter three days before the end of his term in office without consulting the government. This gave the impression that the Czech Republic supported the USA as well as the other seven states, while in reality the country was deeply divided and both the government and parliament refused to participate in the war without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Dutch prefer neutrality in this dispute because they do not want to divide Europe any further.
For the American government, the letter "clarified the situation regarding Iraq". When ten states of the so-called Vilnius Group followed up on February 6th, the internal European crisis led to the division of Europe. Now Albania, the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia also officially defended the policies of Blair and Aznar and the course of the Americans in Iraq. Because both declarations, which were secretly drafted and signed, demonstratively oppose the (apparent) attempt by Chirac and Schröder to speak on behalf of Europe. They also reject a CFSP, which is an alternative to NATO and is intended to decouple Europe from America in terms of security policy.
Washington's now official partners, however, are swimming against the current of public opinion in their states. On average, 82 percent of EU citizens think it is not justified for their country to take part in military action without an express UN mandate. In the 13 EU candidate countries, 75 percent of respondents share this view.
The February 5, 2003 Security Council meeting
Even before the Security Council meeting on February 5, the war advocates USA and Great Britain (but also Spain and Bulgaria) are campaigning massively for the votes of the still undecided members. While Germany, France and Syria are known to be opponents, it soon becomes apparent that Russia and China also sympathize with the French position.
The six other states in the Security Council, Angola , Chile , Mexico , Guinea , Cameroon and Pakistan, are exposed to heavy pressure and promises. But not even the heads of state of the heavily dependent on America Chile, Mexico and Pakistan are ready to vote for war. An important reason for their attitude is the 2nd report of the inspectors. He states that there are no signs of a revived Iraqi nuclear program. In response to this diplomatic defeat, the Anglo-American duo declared the Security Council to be irrelevant because it was not doing its job.
The peace demonstrations of February 15, 2003
Two days before a special EU summit in Brussels on February 15, millions of people in all Western European countries demonstrated against the war. The largest rallies are in Great Britain ( London : 2 million), Spain (four million nationwide) and Italy ( Rome : two million). The heterogeneous peace movement is organized by anti-capitalist networks such as Attac , but also by trade unions , peace policy groups, Arab and Palestinian circles, church communities and parties such as the Greens, Liberals, Communists and Social Democrats .
Ultimately, they are borne by large parts of the population who are otherwise not organized politically, ideologically or religiously. Although there are demonstrations around the world, the largest mass rallies are in the OECD world (North America, Western Europe, Australia, Japan). Participation is already falling drastically in Central and Eastern Europe .
20,000 protests in Budapest , 10,000 in Zagreb and 2000 in Warsaw . No figures are available for many other capitals in Central Eastern Europe (CEE). It is also striking that relatively few people take to the streets in Scandinavian and other neutral countries ( Helsinki : 15,000, Oslo : 60,000, Stockholm : 80,000, Copenhagen : 40,000, Vienna : 20,000). Europeans are largely unanimous in rejecting war. 82 percent of EU citizens and 75 percent of people in the EU candidate countries speak out against support for the USA by their countries if there is no UN mandate. The philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida saw the demonstrations as a “signal for the birth of a European public ”.
In New York City , 200,000 to 300,000 people demonstrated near the UN headquarters. There were also demonstrations in Los Angeles (50,000), San Francisco (150,000), Austin (10,000), Colorado Springs (4,000), Seattle (20,000 to 30,000) and Chicago (10,000).
Special EU summit on February 17, 2003
The losers of the Atlantic secret diplomacy, which organized the 'Letter of Eight' and the 'Vilnius Declaration', are less the opponents of the war - Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg - than the Greek Foreign Minister and EU Council President, Papandreou, and the high CFSP representative, Solana.
In order to overcome the intra-European divide and to enable the EU to act on the Iraq issue, the Greeks are launching a final special summit of the European Council on February 17th. The result shows that it is not just about the Iraq crisis, but about a crisis in the Union. At the summit, the heads of government emphasized their common basic understanding (multilateralism, the role of the United Nations as global crisis manager, the need for a regional approach to peace for the Middle East) and emphasized that the war in Iraq was “not inevitable”. Nevertheless, it is not possible to find a common position.
Ultimately, the dissent culminates in Chirac's rhetorical that the acceding countries have "not shown themselves to be particularly well-behaved during the crisis and a little clueless about the dangers of swerving too quickly on the American line". They would have "missed a good opportunity to be silent".
The evidence of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powells , before the Security Council, which is controversial in the UN , and the diplomatic upheavals in this body find a great echo in the American media, mobilize American opinion for a campaign and ultimately create the domestic political conditions for unilateral action.
The War and Resolution 1483
At the beginning of March it became obvious that the war advocates would not get a majority in the Security Council for a resolution legitimizing the war. Washington and London therefore decide to withdraw the draft formulated with Madrid and submitted to the Security Council on February 24 for a second resolution authorizing war. Tony Blair in particular finds himself in a difficult domestic political situation.
The main fighting in Iraq lasted from the night of March 19-20 until May 2, when Bush declared the fighting over. It was striking that there was no “last stand” in Baghdad, that Iraq did not use weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed within a few weeks. During the negotiations on the new Resolution 1483 in April and May, which were supposed to define the post-war order in the occupied territory and the role of the United Nations, the Security Council reverted to the usual fronts as before the war began.
See also
literature
- Kai Behrens: Change of Priorities in German Foreign Policy? Berlin, Paris, Washington - the strategic triangle of German foreign policy after September 11th. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-631-54371-9
- Timothy Garton Ash : Free World. Europe, America and the chance of the crisis. Hanser, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-4462-0546-2
- Stefan Aust and Cordt Schnibben (eds.): Irak. Story of a modern war . Munich 2004
- Timm Beichelt: The European Union after the eastward expansion. Wiesbaden 2004
- Ernst-Otto Czempiel : World politics in upheaval. 4th edition, Bonn 2003
- Matthias Dembinski: A storm in a water glass? German foreign policy under the sign of transatlantic and European upheavals. PRIF report 12/2003, Frankfurt am Main 2003
- Christian Hacke : The Foreign Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. From Konrad Adenauer to Gerhard Schröder. Updated new edition. Frankfurt am Main 2003
- Markus Jachtenfuchs and Beate Kohler-Koch (eds.): European integration. 2nd edition, Opladen 2003
- Britta Joerissen (Ed.): European foreign policy and national identity. Munster 2004
- August Pradetto (Ed.): International reactions to the Iraq policy of the USA 2002. Hamburg 2003
- Robert Kagan : Power and Powerlessness. America and Europe in the new world order. Bonn 2003
- Gert Krell : arrogance of power, arrogance of powerlessness. PRIF report 1/2003. Updated new edition. Frankfurt am Main 2003
- Thomas Meyer : The Identity of Europe. Frankfurt am Main 2004
- Harald Müller : superpower in a dead end? The world order after September 11th. Bonn 2003
- Harald Müller: Democracy, the media and the Iraq war. On the war discourse in Europe and America. PRIF Viewpoints No. 6. Frankfurt am Main 2003
- Jan Reckmann: Foreign policy reactions of the EU to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Berlin 2004
- Peter Schlotter (Ed.): Europe - Power - Peace? Baden-Baden 2003
- Jürgen Schuster: The "old" and the "new" Europe: The reactions of the European countries to the American Iraq policy. A comparison of three explanations. Munster 2004
- Tzvetan Todorov : The prevented world power - reflections of a European. Munich 2003
- Johannes Varwick and Wilhelm Knelangen (eds.): New Europe - old EU? Questions about the European integration process. Munster 2004
- Werner Weidenfeld (ed.): The world of states in Europe. Bonn 2004
- Daria W. Dylla: Poland's decision on Iraq in 2003. An analysis from the perspective of the economic theory of democracy. In: Thomas Jäger, Daria W. Dylla: Germany and Poland. European and international politics. VS-Verlag, 2008, ISBN 978-3-531-15933-1
Web links
- Eurostat survey in Europe (PDF file; 574 kB)
- Attitudes of EU citizens after the Eurostat attacks (PDF file)
- Attitudes in the USA and in the EU to a war in Iraq by the German Marschall Council (PDF file; 406 kB)
Individual evidence
- ↑ "Chci, aby existoval mandát Rady bezpečnosti k Iráku", interview with Prime Minister Vladimír Špidla, in: Právo, February 1, 2003.
- ^ Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas: After the war: The rebirth of Europe , article from May 31, 2003 in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, accessed on the faz.net portal on November 4, 2012
- ↑ Americans demonstrate for, against war CNN, March 23, 2003.
- ^ Christian Marsden: Mass demonstrations inaugurate international antiwar movement World Socialist Web Site, February 17, 2003.
- ↑ San Francisco ends world peace rallies BBC, February 17, 2003.
- ^ Thousands in Austin rally against was Austin American Statesman, February 15, 2003.