The professor with the Foreign Affairs College in Beijing elaborates, in his article, on the wide differences in the policies of the major powers, as follows:

First, the United States is ready for war.

The US administration of President George W. Bush has pressed for an end to the current Iraqi government. The United States fears that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. It also cannot tolerate the existence of an anti-US regime in such a vital strategic and oil-rich area.

Bush's tough position also reflects the Republican Party's electioneering criticism of the Democratic Party's "weak" foreign policies.

The financial pressure of maintaining the huge deployment of military forces in the Gulf area was also an important factor in a US decision to go to war.

Second, France, Germany and Russia are seeking to protect their interests in the Gulf area.

The three nations have made joint efforts to avoid war due to historic and political reasons and their interests in Iraq.

France helped Iraq to build nuclear reactor, airport, steel enterprises and automobile factories. Russia has invested a lot in the Iraqi oil sector and signed trade agreements worth tens of billions of US dollars. Germany, strengthened after reunification, is seeking to expand its influence in the region.

Third, little choice for Iraq.

Threatened by imminent war, the only choice for Iraq is to pin its hopes on the United Nations to prevent US and Britain military action.

Iraq cannot refuse to destroy its weapons, for the weapons would, as alleged by the United States and Britain, threaten world peace. It also cannot destroy them, for the mere action of disarmament is insufficient to prove its sincerity, the two nations would say.

Iraq enjoys the most favorable natural conditions in the Middle East and used to be a moderately developed country. Its reserves of foreign exchange were US$35 billion when Saddam assumed the reins of government.

However, the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran threw it into debt of US$70 billion as well as exhausting its foreign exchange. The later war against Kuwait led to the entire destruction of the nation's infrastructures. Then ten years of UN sanctions almost crushed its national economy.

Having experienced the Gulf War, Saddam apparently has a more realistic understanding of war. He hopes the United Nations can prevent the United States and Britain from using force against Iraq, but is the United Nations competent enough?

Fourth, the United Nations in a dilemma.

The United Nations is in a dilemma. If it passes the new resolution raised by the United States and Britain, it has to shoulder the responsibility of an apparently unjust war, and its reputation will be harmed seriously. But if it blocks the resolution, the United States and Britain may well take military action without its authorization, and its authority will be profoundly undermined.

Among the 15 representatives of the UN Security Council, three support immediate military action against Iraq and at least six nations would insist on further inspections. So the new resolution could quite possibly be blocked. What the six countries could not prevent is US military action, as the United States used military force in Kosovo without UN authorization.

On the other hand, UN authorization is still valued by the United States and Britain. Without it, action against Iraq would be defined as an invasion under international law. The international anti-war voice is growing ever louder.

In short, the article says, the United States and Britain are determined to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, but could pay a high cost without UN authorization; France, Germany and Russia are attempting to persuade the United States and Britain to forego military action, but may compromise at a crucial point; Iraq can only pin its hopes on the United Nations to stop war; and the United Nations could block a new resolution on the issue, but is not capable of preventing military action by the United States and Britain.

(Xinhua News Agency March 8, 2003)