I’m going to compare two wars, the Gulf War and the Iraq War caused by the U.S. and Iraq in my thesis because it is necessary for understanding the recent situation in Iraq to reconsider those wars which affected Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and finally overthrew his government. These two wars can involve today’s cruel and unreasonable situation in Iraq.
At the beginning, I’ll describe case studies of these wars. This section is based on the historical facts that are related with them because understanding the correct history is essential for getting our head around the complicated confrontation between the U.S. and Iraq. After that, I try to find some similarities between the Gulf War and the Iraq War. Also I’m going to research the points of difference between the Gulf War and the Iraq one. These processes will help us to comprehend what the Iraq War was.
Finally, I will consider the continuity of these two wars and prove that the result of the Gulf War is the indirect cause of the Iraq war which is also the indirect cause of the recent terrible situation in Iraq where the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is acting so violently.
We are not able to say that the recent situation of Iraq is stable. The Iraqi government and other countries such as the U.S, the U.K, and Turkey are fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which means a civil war is happening in Iraq. If the cause of the civil war was the national administration in Iraq, the Iraq War in 2003 was also the origin of it because the war changed Iraq’s framework with which Saddam Hussein enforced his autocracy. Moreover, the origin of the Iraq war, the trigger of planting a serious threat from Hussein to the United States, was the Gulf War because the U.S. couldn’t overthrow Hussein in the Gulf War and feared that he kept weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So the U.S. tried to justify the attack against Hussein and began that.
On the basis of this course, this time I want to research about “US Involvement in the Gulf War and the Iraq War (2003)”. Checking the shift of the U.S. policy on Iraq to show how the U.S. decided to act against Iraq, the complex situation in Iraq will be made clear. I hope the process linking to the recent situation will be shown through my work.
2. Case study of the Gulf War
One cause of the Gulf War was Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd, 1990. After the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq had a problem of abundant troops. They could not get jobs because of a depression in Iraq. So Hussein was unable to free their military service. In addition, if Iraq invaded Kuwait, Hussein could control the 20% of oil deposits around the world. Eventually, Hussein chose the way of increasing military power.
On August 8th, 1990, the U.S. government announced 200,000 American soldiers were going to Saudi Arabia in order to defend the U.S. against Iraq power. This act was for preventing the producers of oil from being subjected by Iraq, too. If Iraq had got the concession, the U.S. would have had trouble because the balance of power would have been broken in the Middle East if Iraq invaded Kuwait to get plenty of oil. The U.S. had to avoid this situation.
On November 8th, the U.S. decided to increase the troops going to Iraq. President George H. W. Bush said that this increasing military power was needed to ensure the appropriate and aggressive attack option of the multinational force which shared the same goal that Hussein withdraw from Kuwait. We can read the U.S. government’s expectation that it wanted to carry the reprisal quickly to Iraq through military power aimed at that country.
On November 29th, Security Council Resolution (678) was passed by a vote in the United Nations Security Council. This resolution said that if Iraq ignored past Security Council Resolutions and did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15th, 1991, the United Nations Security Council could admit signatories to do all measures against Iraq, including use of military force. Iraq negotiated with America behind closed doors. However, Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by the deadline eventually.
On January 17th, 1991, 530,000 multinational forces composed mainly of American troops began to bomb strategic bases of the Iraqi force. On February 24th, the land war started and the Iraqi force was expelled from Kuwait on February 28th. The multinational force won overwhelmingly in the Gulf War. However, we have to notice subsequent acts by George H.W. Bush. He ordered the stop of fighting against Iraq when it withdrew from Kuwait. It was difficult for the U.S. to overthrow Hussein’s government because Security Council Resolution (678) did not include that purpose. Also, Paul Wolfowitz, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the George H.W. Bush Administration, said that the U.S. had to take responsibility if a new Iraqi government was built which meant the U.S. would occupy that place forever but this action could raise up anger among Iraqi people. In addition, Norman Schwarzkopf, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that he did not know how much damage U.S. soldiers would take if the Gulf War kept going.
George H. W. Bush did not act beyond the justified aim. He followed “Collaborationism” with other countries and the UN.
After the Gulf War, economic sanctions on Iraq were imposed by the United Nations. Long-term sanctions made the Iraqi economy so stagnant, but Hussein’s government could survive. “The UN failed to disarm Hussein and this mistake was due to acts of the Allied Forces which set much too high a value on international agreements,” 71st Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher said.
3. Process from the Gulf War to the Iraq War
After the Gulf War, the U.S. showed off the use of military force against Iraq because Hussein did not obey the UN resolution after the war. This Iraqi attitude made the White House being cautious.
In the government, there were two thoughts of dealing with Iraq. The first one was that Iraq was a potential threat but the U.S. did not have too much fear that Iraq would have huge power which would threaten the U.S. and its allies. So the U.S. and the UN did not use military power but instead imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Simultaneously, the U.S. helped anti-establishment groups in Iraq. These actions made the Hussein Regime weaker. The second opinion was that the U.S. should break off the origin of the potential enemy. This meant the U.S. should use military power against Iraq again because Iraq was “a threat” although it was located far from the U.S. and its allies. The Clinton Administration tried to overthrow Hussein by helping anti-establishment groups behind closed doors but this plan failed because of the internal split among anti groups.
In 1996, the UN removed the economic sanctions against Iraq because the economy of Iraq had become exhausted. This action helped Hussein to recover power. But he did not follow the UN resolution which allowed the UN inspectorate to examine suspected places. Actually, Hussein accepted inspection but did not allow it in important places such as the head office of the Ba’ath Party.
Seeing those actions of Hussein, the Clinton Administration decided on the use of bombing against Iraq. The U.S. attacked the intelligence and missile bases, and factories of chemical weapons. However, the Hussein Administration could still survive and stiffen its attitude against the UN and the U.S.
4. Case study of the U.S. in the Iraq War (2003)
In January, 2001, George W. Bush was inaugurated as President. He came to office thinking that unilateralism was the appropriate way to protect interests of the U.S.
On September 11th, 2001, synchronized terrorist attacks happened in the U.S. The government petitioned Afghanistan’s government to hand over Osama bin Laden to America because it believed he had ordered those attacks. However, Afghanistan refused to do that. Eventually, the U.S. decided to use military force in Afghanistan and tried to capture him through this war. However, the U.S. could not catch him finally.
The U.S. tried to link the Afghanistan War with the Iraq war because the U.S. wanted to shut out Iran, a country which had potential military and economic power in the Middle East, between Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. had already overwhelmed Afghanistan. So the remaining problem was Iraq where Hussein had a dictatorship.
In the fall of 2001, the Pentagon already planned “the Iraq War”. At the beginning of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, conferred with Tommy Franks, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, about the plan of the invasion of Iraq. Actually, the policy of occupying was decided in spring, 2002. The U.S. considered the war against Iraq at an early stage. The reason is that the threat of Hussein increased excessively because of the terrorist attacks on 9.11.
The Cabinet showed three ways of overthrowing Hussein. The first one was invading areas controlled by anti-establishment groups against Hussein in the north and south of Iraq. This way would make those groups attack Hussein and his government could be broken. The second way was causing a coup in Iraq. The U.S. thought it could overturn Hussein. Finally, the third plan was throwing troops into Iraq. The members of Cabinet considered which way was the best to overthrow the Hussein Government. They thought that the first one was not appropriate because this way would take a lot of time and anti-establishment groups did not have enough power to beat Hussein. Members also thought that accordingly the U.S. would intervene in Iraq and save those groups with its military power. So they dismissed this way. Moreover, they also thought that the second way was not good because if the Iraqi force could beat Hussein, the successor would be a military officer who belonged to the inner circle of the Hussein Government. This only meant a “New Hussein” would appear. Thus, the Cabinet members thought there was nothing to do but the third way.
However, there were confrontations about the attack on Iraq among some members of the Cabinet. “Hussein was an expert of trickery and escape and good at rejection and scam. So there was no guarantee that Hussein would follow the UN resolutions if the UN inspectorate went back to Iraq,” Vice-President Dick Cheney said. Through this idea, he tried to justify Unilateralism. On the other hand, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, demurred at Unilateralism. “The U.S. should act with friendly nations and allies which had the same opinions as the U.S,” he said. This difference would occur because of experience of military service. Cheney had no experience in the military but Powell had followed military service. He had experience as a soldier in the Vietnam War.
On January 29th, 2002, President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union Address. In the speech, he called Iraq, Iran, North Korea, “the axis of evil” and criticized these countries for having weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
On September 20th, the National Security Council Text entitled the “National Security Strategy of the United States” was published. This text had main three points. The first point was that the U.S. did not forgive preemptive attacks from the rogue state or terrorists. This meant the U.S. was willing to strike enemies first. The U.S. thought that the effective way of minimizing the use of WMDs by enemies was making it impossible for them to do that. So it said the first attack was important. The second point was holding up “Unilateralism”. The U.S. would act by itself without hesitation if people in the U.S. were endangered by terrorists and the rogue state. The third one is persisting in freedom and democracy. The U.S. emphasized the value of democracy. Also, the U.S. said the ultimate goal of fighting against terrorism was protecting that value. George W. Bush tried to justify the attack against Iraq through this document. But this is just the idea which the U.S. showed by itself. The justification of a fight against Iraq through this document was weaker than a UN Security Council Resolution, like the one used in 1990.
On November 8th, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution (1441). This resolution required that Iraq had to accept unconditional and unlimited inspection from the UN and if Iraq did not follow this decision, “serious results” would be brought through the Security Council. Through this resolution, the UN criticized serious Iraqi violations of past resolutions and warned that more violations would bring about severe consequences.
However, when President George W. Bush emphasized the threat of Iraq in the State of the Union Address on January 29th, 2003, some countries, such as France and Germany, doubted the attitude of the United States because Gerhard Schröder, the 7th Chancellor of Germany, advocated that the Middle East needed not war but peace and the UN should deal with Iraq by making a strict inspection for WMDs. Also, an other reason was that France remembered the attack on Iraq by the U.S. and the U.K without the UN Security Council Resolution in 1998 and Jacques Chirac, the 22nd President of France, criticized the extension of inspections by the UN and that war without approval of the UN Security Council was not legal.
On February 5th, Colin Powell gave a presentation about the danger of Hussein and Iraqi WMDs, but France, Germany, and Russia issued a joint statement saying that there was nothing to justify the war.
On March 17th, President George W. Bush said that the U.S. and other allies would withdraw the new plan of Security Resolution that could allow them to use military power. The U.S. failed to get the stamp of approval from the UN. President George W. Bush urged the relatives of Hussein to go out from Iraq within forty-eight hours. But Hussein ignored that warming.
On March 19th, George W. Bush announced attacks against Iraq. About 300,000 multinational troops composed of U.S, U.K, Australian and Polish soldiers were sent to Iraq. Because of high-tech weapons, the number of troops was lower than that in the Gulf War.
During the first ten days of the month, Baghdad was taken by attacks from the multinational force and Hussein’s government collapsed. On May first, President George W. Bush declared victory and then the Iraq War was finished. At that time, Saddam Hussein was not restrained by force. On December 13th, Saddam Hussein was restrained by the U.S. military. On December 30th, 2006, he was executed by the Iraqi authorities.
5. After the Iraq War
The members of the Cabinet thought that Iraq had to be a model of political release in the Middle East after the Iraq War. However, in Iraq, strong opposition took place against the Coalition of the Willing which was mainly formed by U.S, U.K, Australia, and Poland. Confrontation among different tribes and regions became obvious. Also, one battle between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam happened there. Both confrontations were controlled by Hussein. The U.S. tried to drag in the UN into the normalization of Iraq. But the UN office in Baghdad was blasted by a terrorist attack on August 19th, 2003. Some members of the UN staff died. Thus, the UN decided to discontinue activities in Iraq. The coalition of the Willing had to take responsibility for recovery of public peace and building new government in Iraq.
In December, 2005, George W. Bush agreed that a lot of the information about WMDs in Iraq was mistaken. However, he emphasized that wiping out Hussein in Iraq was “correct”. In May, 2006, the Maliki Cabinet started through the national assembly election after the new Constitution was enacted. However, the situation could not get stable. It showed the difficulty of building new democratic government which could handle complex and unstable affairs.
6. Similarities between the Gulf War and the Iraq War
First, focusing on the two cabinets, a few members occupied important posts in both George H. W. Bush’s and George W. Bush’s governments. For example, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in the George H. W. Bush Administration and was also the Vice President in that of George W. Bush. In addition, Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the George H. W. Bush Administration and Secretary of State in that of George W. Bush. Moreover, Paul Wolfowitz was Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy in the George H.W. Bush Administration and Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush Administration.
Given these facts, George W. Bush appointed skilled members who had worked hard in his father’s administration. One reason was George W. Bush did not have much foreign policy experience. He had just acted as the governor of the state of Texas. Thus, he could not help depending on views and information of aides and members of the Cabinet.
Cheney and Wolfowitz are known as politicians who support Neo-conservatism. According to Koji Murata, a scientist of international politics, Neo-conservatism is the mixed idea of pursuing a universal idea as the diplomatic purpose while also setting a high value on exercising the right of the state to uplift national prestige and also increase military power. Cheney and Wolfowitz might have believed the U.S. could change nations such as Iraq by using huge military power. But this idea failed because the situation of Iraq could not get better than during the Hussein Administration.
The second reason why Cabinet members were the same is because both presidents wanted to beat Hussein who was a potential threat against the U.S. However, George H. W. Bush set a high value on Collaborationism. So he had “the justified purpose” to begin the Gulf War. The details of the different purpose of the two wars are explained in the next chapter.
7. The points of difference between the Gulf War and the Iraq War
First, the purposes of these two wars were a bit different. In the Gulf War, the main purpose was eliminating the Iraqi force from Kuwait. It meant the U.S. joined this war to save Kuwait from Iraq. The UN Security Council Resolution allowed member countries to use force against Iraq to help Kuwait but it did not permit them to destroy Iraq. So George H. W. Bush was not able to go after the Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait. But in the Iraq War, the main goal was wiping out the Hussein Regime and building a democratic government in Iraq. The White House tried to expand the concept of “the War on Terrorism” to justify the acts of the U.S. because George W. Bush couldn’t get UN approval to attack Iraq. However, finally he failed to receive the approval. So the U.S. started attacking Iraq without justification.
Depending on the purpose of each war, the U.S. could or couldn’t get the official permission from the UN. George H.W. Bush was trying to conquer the Middle East because he thought the U.S. had an important role to behave as the most powerful country in the world. The U.S. did not act alone but acted with other countries. This action required efforts of the U.S. but it could get justice through this action. In contrast, what was the purpose of the Iraq War? At first, George W. Bush was trying to gain the approval from other countries, especially the permanent members of the UN Security Council. But there was no positive proof that Iraq had WMDs or a relationship with Osama Bin Laden. Before the Gulf War, the fact that Hussein had invaded Kuwait was obvious. So every country recognized the threat. But before the Iraq War, there was no decisive evidence. So the U.S. pushed the concept, “fight against terrorism” for attacking Hussein. However, France, a member of the UN Security Council, vetoed the plan. So the U.S. had to act without a UN resolution.
The second difference was the number of troops used in the Gulf War and in the Iraq War. In the former, about 530,000 soldiers were sent to Iraq. On the other hand, in the latter, about 300,000 soldiers were sent there. The enemy, Saddam Hussein, was the same in both wars. But the number of soldiers was quite different. One reason for this difference was that the policy of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was projected strongly on it. His idea was that the U.S. should go toward a prompt win with a small number of troops using high technological weapons and special forces. Contrary to his idea, Colin Powell who was the only person with battle experience during past wars in the higher levels of government in the George W. Bush Cabinet thought the U.S. should use overwhelming numbers of military for a sure victory to get the political goal. “In the war, actually, young people would fight against enemies. According to the Government decision, they would die in the war. Top-ranking government officials in the George H. W. Bush Administration did not have many persons with experience of taking part in battles. President George W. Bush had belonged to the Air Force of Texas but did not actually see military action. Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the George H. W. Bush Administration but had no experience in the military. Rumsfeld was a US Navy pilot in the 1950s but did not serve during wartime. Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and George J. Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, had no experience of military service at all,” he also thought.
In the Gulf War, George H. W. Bush held up “Collaborationism”. The U.S. attacked Iraq with the authority of a UN Security Council Resolution. But this resolution limited the U.S. action. George H. W. Bush could not beat Hussein completely.
After the George H. W. Bush Administration, President Clinton paid attention to Hussein. The UN imposed economic sanctions on Iraq at that time. Also, the UN sent the inspectorate to Iraq, but Hussein did not accept it in the important areas. Because of Hussein’s action, the Clinton Administration started bombing against Iraq. However, Hussein could survive.
After the Clinton Administration, George W. Bush took office as President. He began bombing against Iraq but other countries did not agree with his action. On September 11, 2001, the terrorist attack happened in the U.S. This affair was the opportunity for George W. Bush and members of Cabinet to hold up “Unilateralism”. Through this idea, the U.S. expanded the concept, “War on Terrorism”, and attacked Iraq without the definite support of the UN.
Finally, the U.S. could beat Hussein. However, after the Iraq War, the situation in Iraq got worse. Conflict between the U.S. and Iraqi people happened. Also, some groups were opposed to each other because of differences in tribes, regions, and religious denominations. The U.S. had responsibility for building a stable situation but it could not do that.
In these two wars, the results of wars depend on complicated factors such as diplomatic support, people’s minds, accurate military intelligence and strong or weak justification. Politicians must understand these factors. On this point, George H. W. Bush was a little better than his son. He did not break the rule that the UN set up. But, ironically, this good action was the cause of the Iraq War. George W. Bush tried to wipe out Hussein completely, but he could not build a peaceful nation in Iraq.
The result of the Gulf War showed “the limited success” of Collaborationism. This limited success became the origin of the Iraq War. The result of the Iraq War showed the complete failure. “Unilateralism” lost against an unexpected bad situation in Iraq. Hussein was an important person who had huge power in Iraq, but beating only him was not the complete solution for keeping peace there. Behind his autocracy, there was enmity among tribes and denominations of Islam. After the Iraq War, and until now, the violent groups behave violently. This situation happened as a result of the unstable situation in Iraq.
In the 21st century, depending on huge military power is not an appropriate way to solve problems around the world. Understanding regional features and problems is more important. George W. Bush and the members of his Cabinet lacked this perspective. They thought that the U.S. could easily build “the new democratic nation” in Iraq. But it was a failure. During the Cold War, it was easy to divide friends from enemies because there were clear differences of ideas among them. But now, there are no definite differences between friends and enemies. Depending on the details of situations, friends may become enemies or enemies may become friends. Giving the definition of “enemies” is difficult now.
However, recently most countries think that ISIS is the enemy against the world. Why can they easily define ISIS as a world enemy? One reason is that the unreaonable actions of ISIS are obvious through the Internet. People can see and listen to scary situations by themselves. This “obvious evidence” may be enough for nations to see ISIS as the enemy. However, there is a big difference between Hussein and ISIS. ISIS is not one nation but groups who wants to build their own country. For that purpose, ISIS is acting now. This idea is a kind of religious nationalism.
ISIS is acting so violently now. The U.S. is moving warily. There has not been a definite way of building peace in Iraq yet. This situation is caused by past wars in which the U.S. pushed through its purpose and interest. Keeping Hussein’s dictatorship was not the way of building peace in Iraq. Perhaps, there was no way of doing it at that time. Also, there are no suitable ways of building peace there now. Obama’s unclear actions of intervening and bombing limitedly in Iraq may show this difficulty. If the U.S. uses huge military power against ISIS, the same result and situation will be repeated again there. Also, ISIS has influence on extreme Islamic people around the world. Actually, in December, 2014, one man who supported the extreme way of Islam shown by ISIS barricaded himself a cafe in Sydney, Australia, and a few people were killed. If the U.S. and other allies beat ISIS completely, that kind of terrorism will be more escalated, but allowing ISIS to survive is not an appropriate way for peace. This situation is the same as the Iraq War for the U.S. Whether the U.S. beats ISIS or not, this situation will be a threat for the U.S. and the world. It is very complex problem for US politicians and for the rest of us.
Sakai, Keiko. Iraq and the U.S. Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shinsho, 2002, pp.89-90.
Sasaki, Takuya. History of American foreign policy after the Second World War. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Aruma, 2002, p.209.
Same as No.2.
Woodward, Bob. The Commanders. Tokyo, Japan: Bungeishunju, 1991, pp.409-411.
Home Page: United Nations Official Document, Security Council Resolution 678(1990).
[December 24th, 2014.]
Sasaki, Takuya. p.210.
Mann, James. RISE OF THE VULCANS: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. Tokyo: Kyodo News, 2004, p.ⅴ.
Sakai, Keiko. p.121.
Thatcher, Margaret. The Downing Street Years. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai Shibunsha, 1996, p.455.
Sakai, Keiko. pp.184-185.
Sasaki, Takuya. p.231.
Shinoda, Tomohito. Diplomatic Policy of the United States -History, Actor, Mechanism-. Kyoto, Japan: Minerva Shobo, 2010, p.55.
(信田智人『アメリカの外交政策 -歴史・アクター・メカニズム- 』ミネルヴァ書房、2010年、p.55。)
Sakai, Keiko. p.198.
Greenstein, Fred I. The George W. Bush presidency: an early assessment. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, p.101.
Yanagisawa, Eijiro and Kato, Masao and Hosoi, Tamotsu and Hori, Nobuaki and Yoshitome, Kota. History of Critical International Politics from 1873 to 2012. Tokyo, Japan: Aki Shobo, p.327.
Mann, James. RISE OF THE VULCANS: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. Tokyo: Kyodo News, 2004, p.474.
Mann, James. pp.473-475.
Mann, James. p.484.
Home Page: Embassy of the United States, Tokyo, Japan.
http://japan2.usembassy.gov/j/p/tpj-j20030515d1.html [December 23rd, 2014.]
Same as No.19.
Same as No.19.
Murata, Koji. Diplomacy of the United States -Suffering and Hope. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha Gendai Shinsho, 2005, p.223.
Home Page: United Nations Official Document, Security Council Resolution 1441(2002).
[December 24th, 2014.]
Watanabe, Hirotaka. The history of International Relations in Europe (New Edition). Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Aruma, 2008, pp.290-296.
(渡邊啓貴『ヨーロッパ国際関係史 [ 新版 ] 』有斐閣アルマ、2008年、pp.290-296。)
Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 2004, pp.398-408.
Same as No.23, p.472.
Sasaki, Takuya. History of American foreign policy after the Second World War. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Aruma,2009, p.273.
Mann, James. RISE OF THE VULCANS: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. Tokyo: Kyodo News, 2004, p.499.
Yanagisawa, Eijiro and Kato, Masao and Hosoi, Tamotsu and Hori, Nobuaki and Yoshitome, Kota. History of Critical International Politics from 1873 to 2012. Tokyo, Japan: Aki Shobo, p.337.
Same as No.28.
Sasaki, Takuya. History of American foreign policy after the World War Second. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Aruma,2009, p.282.
Same as No.30, pp.282-283.
Mann, James. RISE OF THE VULCANS: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. Tokyo: Kyodo News, 2004,p.15.
Murata, Koji. pp.40-41.
Baker, James A,Ⅲ. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War & Peace, 1989-1992. Tokyo, Japan: Shintyo Bunko, 1997, pp569-570.
Asahi Shinbun (March 11th, 2003) ; “President Chirac said “France will exercise its veto” to adidtipnal Security Council Resolution against Iraq.” p.1
Same as No.26.
Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 2004, p.103.