What the papers have to say about the transatlantic split on Iraq war

The growing transatlantic rift over Iraq yesterday generated powerful comment on both sides of the Atlantic. The Washington Post headlined its lead editorial "Standing with Saddam", to make its point that France and Germany were isolating themselves and undermining international institutions with plans to pour more weapons inspectors into Iraq, and their blocking – along with Belgium – of Nato plans to defend Turkey in a war with Iraq.

"Berlin and Paris say their purpose is to offer a peaceful way out of the Iraq crisis. But their exclusion of the Bush administration from their planning suggests the real aim is to obstruct council endorsement of the military intervention that the United States is preparing. One result will be the enfeebling of Nato and the United Nations, the very disaster Germany and France once feared the United States would cause. That their slogans are being mimicked by Baghdad's thugs ought to trouble French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder."

The Detroit News said: "Turkey's request for defensive assistance is perfectly in line with Nato's mission. For France and Germany to block a defensive request from a member nation calls into question the validity of an alliance that has maintained relative stability in Europe for nearly 60 years. It is a bully tactic designed to drive a wedge between the United States and those European allies like Turkey that have promised assistance with Iraq."

The New York Times said Turkey should get what it needs. But it pointed out that there were deeper issues. "This has become a charged debate because it is a proxy for another more fundamental argument; whether our allies should be expected merely to accede to US policy. The question of war in Iraq has turned into far too personal a dispute over American leadership. The French, who are leading the rebellion, are showing poor judgement."

The Houston Chronicle took a moderate stance. "Predictions of Nato's eminent demise are wildly premature. This is all part of the larger diplomatic loggerheads over Bush's press for war with Iraq. The administration can't get everyone to go along with that, so it has concocted its 'coalition of the willing' scenario in which nations are free to take military action with the US outside the constraints of existing alliances. It seems a little disingenuous, then, to scold the unwilling for having ruined the relationship."

In Europe some sections of the press were fiercely critical of their leaders, especially Germany. Berliner Zeitung described the Franco-German initiative seeking reinforced inspections as "completely unfinished and totally uncoordinated". Germany's leading daily Frankfurter Allgemeine said similar ideas were debated by experts in America last year, but the German government showed no interest then. "Robust inspections are worth more than a thought, but the way in which they have now been conjured up as an 'idea' is frivolous," the paper said.

France's left-leaning Liberation said German officials had leaked the secret plan to break the growing isolation of Berlin. This, the paper said, made Paris furious. But Liberation believed the US was over-dramatising the "crisis" in Nato.

The Spanish daily ABC criticised Jacques Chirac. "The French President, instead of moving towards positions of agreement, to try to bridge the gap with the States, has brought discussions to a stalemate with increasingly radical arguments. Some of Nato's oldest partners have not yet got over its identity crisis. And its credibility is being weakened." But Spain's El Periodico de Catalunya supported the Franco-German plan which it said "offers a real opportunity to avoid war".

In Russia, Izvestiya said yesterday's Franco-German moves against Nato was what the US was most afraid of. "The European coalition of opponents of war in Iraq, headed by France and Germany, has moved from words to concrete deeds."