BRITAIN

BRITAIN
The Guardian, London, Sept. 10: It is not necessary to be a rocket scientist to understand that George Bush and Tony Blair are in trouble over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The problem is not military, not yet at least; it is political. Every time the two men pronounce that Saddam Hussein poses an urgent threat, they are asked for their proof. And every time, as again at the weekend at Camp David, they fall back on assertions and claims, suspicions and half-baked half-truths.
The International Atomic Energy Authority, for example, has not issued a "new report" (Mr. Bush's words) on revived Iraqi efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. It has merely published some commercial satellite photos of new construction at WMD-linked sites that were dismantled during previous U.N. inspections. "We have no idea whether it means anything," says an IAEA spokeswoman. The worrying thought is that neither, in all probability, does Mr. Bush.
Chemical weapons stockpile
And yesterday's report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, like similar independent and official compendiums before it, is not much help. That Iraq retains elements, possibly deployable, of its pre-1991 biological and chemical weapons stockpile is not in dispute. That it has a few, not very impressive short-range missiles is generally agreed. But that it is any closer to joining the nuclear club than it was in 1998, when the UN pulled out, is unsupported by a shred of new evidence. Indeed, the IISS study suggests Saddam may be further away from this goal than he was before the Gulf war began.
There are many "ifs," of course, particularly the fear that if Iraq obtains fissile material from abroad, it has the expertise to fast-forward thwarted nuclear ambitions. The way to prevent such scenarios is a big push, parallel with resumed UN inspections in Iraq, to promulgate and enforce the moribund fissile material cut-off treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, and the biological and chemical weapons conventions, all of which anti-WMD pacts Mr. Bush has at times ignored, scorned or undermined.
Greater urgency should also be afforded last June's G8 anti-proliferation plan and international cooperative threat reduction programs on the Nunn-Lugar model. This is the best, multilateral way to halt WMD proliferation, not just in Iraq but across the globe. This, not Iraq alone, is the real threat and the real challenge.
SWITZERLAND
Tages-Anzeiger Zurich, Sept. 10: Finally. The fact that Switzerland is joining the United Nations today is naturally a very minor event for the world. But for Switzerland it's a big step.
For it will be taking a seat in the General Assembly that -- as an important financial contributor and active-passive member -- it has long deserved. The step from observer to member corrects a mistake that was made in 1945. Back then, neutral Switzerland was not welcome in the United Nations. It was seen as a nation that benefited from the war and a suspected Nazi collaborator.
Swiss foreign policy
Now Switzerland is in the United Nations, but it has not yet reached its goal. Having a seat and having a voice are not an end in themselves. The new possibilities offered by full membership must be used to work toward the goals of Swiss foreign policy. To make Swiss entry work toward a peaceful and just world in the United Nations requires additional measures and laws in Switzerland. It requires an increase in development assistance, the expansion of support for peace and a concerted effort to promote human rights and humanitarian law.
Switzerland has experience and proposals to bring the United Nations in these fields. But it must not be continually glancing nervously at its neutrality. It must forge alliances with other countries of good will and made its voice heard clearly -- especially now, when world peace is in acute danger and a friendly power wants to rise above the law.
BRAZIL
Folha de Sao Paulo, Sept. 10: From the way U.S. authorities talk about it, it seems the only pending question before launching some kind of military action to topple Saddam Hussein is the timetable and the scope of the attack.
President George W. Bush has made it clear that he is ready to act even without the support of the United Nations.
Arms inspectors
Now comes the proposal of French President Jacques Chirac to implement a two-stage plan. First, the U.N. Security Council would demand Saddam to accept the return of arms inspectors with no restrictions. If Saddam refused to meet that demand in three weeks, the Council would authorize the use of force. The Chirac formula represents a new diplomatic development, (but) there is doubt about its execution, since Bush has already said that his purpose is not the return of arms inspectors but to remove Saddam. The French proposal, while opening the possibility of legitimatizing an anti-Iraq action, offers Saddam a chance to allow inspectors back and in theory to prevent the attack. It is unlikely the US would want to give him him this way out.
But since the US seem ready to topple Saddam at any cost, the Chirac formula represents the last small hope to avoid a triumph of unilateralism.