Ciao!

Chiraq's attitude is not helping to secure peace. I agree. I am surprised, though, that anyone would take the repeated postponing of deadlines as a serious attempt to disarm by peaceful means.
I believe that Mr. Bush prolonged peace all this while for two reasons.
1. To finish bringing troops into the region. That is done since about 2 weeks ago.
2. To help his ally Blair with his domestic problems.
The demands that Bush set for Iraq to disarm were either vague or unrealistic. I don't want to say that he is warmongering. That is not my point. He just has made up his mind that - in his opinion - lasting peace and security for the region can only be achieved by regime change and futhermore he thinks that this regime change needs to take place at once with whatever means neccessary. Some agree with that some don't. However, he hasn't explained clearly enough why that is so. So how could he expect support in the United Nations? Of course, economic and strategic interests play into that, too. I think, what makes many people angry about it is that he tries to use the United Nations for these national interests "pretending" his purpose was to liberate Iraq and bring stability to the region.
The British have their very own interests, I am sure. However, they have proposed pretty constructive measures the United Nations could undertake. (To a large extent of course this was due to Blair's domestic pressure, but still.)I kinda missed that from Washington D.C. Then again, the French have dissapointed me here, too. The situation right now can not be solved by the diplomats, it seems. Neither Bush nor Chiraq will move an inch. Tony Blair is fighting for a lost cause. I wonder, if he will survive this politically.
The meeting on the Azores was just for show, about that there is no doubt. If you want to get a majority in the Council you would need to persuade the undecided leaders. And you would need to speak with Chiraq abt measures he could agree with. The Speeches held at the end of the meeting were not a result of that meeting. When should they have been written? Way beforehand, of course.
The only things they can successfully have discussed there were when and how to start the war and strategies to end it successfully.
Therefore a hail-Mary peace plan is not gonna work. The Saudi-QB threw that right into the direction of French CBs and the US FS and SS. (Yes I know the picture doesn't fit completely cos France and US would never play on the same team but if they want to or not they both work for the end of peace)
And not to forget... (here I MUST leave the football analogy) Saddam in the country in one of his palaces but powerless would be a highly unstable situation. He also would never agree to that.
I think, the only two options are containment or war. At least they were. Now, the world has to ask only one question: What will we do about a war we mostly oppose? Will the world find an answer? I think not. Secretly Al Quaeda can be very happy about the current situation. The Western world is split up into factions. And all parties are equally to blame.
The UN in itself is not useless, though. AFter the end of the war the UN will be needed for reconstruction. Then even the US will come back to the international community. It wouldn't want to pay for this all by itself.
And to all hawks out there: Wouldn't it be just a consequent behavior to act unilaterally, too when the war is over?

I also think the Saudi plan is full of holes. My point isn't that I endorse the plan, but rather to wonder why the French haven't proposed it? Or another alternative plan? All they want to do is obstruct the American-UK proposals.

I do agree that Bush has handled this less than perfectly. But I do think he's given clear deadlines and guidelines. He released a statement some months ago on what disarmament means, citing the examples of South Africa, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Those countries achieved disarmament and did it right.

What it comes down to is this: France made it clear that it would not back the use of military force at any time to force Iraqi compliance. That was a stupid move. Once Hussein knows that all threats of "serious consequences" are meaningless, he can flaunt the international community at will. It was always only the real, credible threat of war that pushed Hussein into compliance.

In part, I think Bush and Blair hoped that the mere military presence would eventually force Hussein to give up. But French obstructionism made that threat less than credible. In the end, Chirac made war more, not less, likely.

The trusteeship proposal sounds good. Why hasn't anyone of thousands of bureucrats in the UN thought of this?
But I don't understand why Saddam should be in the country.

If he's committed crimes, like the US has proven, he should be brought to trial. Why the hell should he be given exile or in his palace?

I also wonder why no one has brought up the trusteeship proposal. Maybe, in the end, it's unworkable? Still, I would've liked to've seen it (at least) discussed by France, et al.

I think the idea of keeping Hussein "in-country" would've been merely to ensure the end of any threat of war. If the real goal was to prevent bombing and the inevitable civilian deaths that would mean, it might have been the only solution. I assume, of course, that Hussein would very much like to stay alive. He could've later been brought to trial, but not later, and not in a hail of high explosive ordnance.