Military

March 25, 2005

'NUCLEAR WEAPONS STATES' FOMENT WORLD-WIDE 'DISQUIET'

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

**  Commentators cite "international hand-wringing" over "nuclear ambitions."

**  Concerns exist that Iran may "follow the North Korean model" in "covertly...going nuclear."

**  The NPT and EU-3 are influentially presiding over the "vexed issue of nuclear ambitions."

**  Writers ponder Pakistani nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Khan's "proliferation network's" role.

 

MAJOR THEMES

 

'North Korea has nuclear weapons,' but 'it is anybody's guess what Iran is up to'--  Uniformly, worldwide media cited N. Korea's claims of having nuclear weapons while a Russian analyst advised that, lacking "direct evidence," this may merely reflect "blackmail, Korean style."  Global media also pondered Iran's "nuclear ambitions" and Iran's vow that "it would never give up the enrichment of uranium" to denote international concerns. Alarmingly, the liberal Sydney Morning Herald concluded that "international hand-wringing" aside, "the larger issue"--globally, was that "nuclear non-proliferation strategies are on the brink of collapse."

 

'Iran...is pinning its hope on gaining time'--  Germany's center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung warned that "month after month" Iran moves closer to developing "technology for the construction of the bomb," while Israel's left-leaning Ha'aretz mulled "how to deter" Iran.  Euro outlets noted that Iran's "shrill" reaction to U.S. offers in moderation of its hardline stance still leaves unanswered: "Why then did Iran pursue a secret program for years if it was really only interested in a nuclear program and not in the nuclear bomb?"  Italy's centrist La Stampa found historical precedent in the North Korean model, "which managed to produce atomic weapons by exploiting for a decade the cover guaranteed by signing the non-proliferation Treaty while it covertly carried out a military nuclear program."

 

'Trans-Altlantic unity...will [it] work' on these difficult nuclear cases?--  Although "there is clearly no guarantee," EU-3 partners Britain, France and Germany planned to confront "whether the IAEA, EU, U.S. and UN can trust Iran to confine its nuclear ambitions to exclusively peaceful ends."  The EU-3 countries are "negotiating to halt the enrichment of uranium there," an Irish writer noted, adding that the IAEA said, "Iran failed to declare its nuclear activities for two decades, but is now complying with the treaty."  India's centrist Hindustan Times asserted "India and Pakistan should have a critical national interest in promoting universal adherence to the Fissile Material Control Treaty," as well as an interest in May's upcoming NPT conference.

 

'Pakistani nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Khan's...clandestine assistance'--  "He reputedly assisted the North Koreans to realize their ambitions to develop a viable nuclear weapon," said the center-left Irish Times, adding he may have "sold secrets and equipment to the Iranians."  Indian outlets assailed Khan's actions, labeling them "a crime...so serious," he "has put the entire world at risk."  Pakistani writers penned, "the nuclear issue continues to cast its shadow over Pakistan because of our own machinations."  They accused  Islamabad of creating a "nuclear dilemma" and "credibility gap," making us "our own worst enemy," undermining Pakistan's "boast of ensuring foolproof security of its nuclear assets."

 

Prepared by Media Reaction Branch (202) 203-7888, rmrmail@state.gov

 

EDITOR:  Rupert D. Vaughan

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Media Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment.  Posts select commentary to provide a representative picture of local editorial opinion.  Some commentary is taken directly from the Internet.  This report summarizes and interprets foreign editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government.  This analysis was based on 87 reports from 26 countries over March 8-25, 2005.  Editorial excerpts are listed by the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Condoleezza In Asia"

 

An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph observed (3/21):  "Miss Rice's tour has not produced dramatic progress towards solutions of intractable problems.  For instance, despite its impatience with the North Koreans, it is not clear whether Washington has any plans beyond the six-party talks for curbing their nuclear ambitions.  But it has confirmed a pattern of warm praise for allies such as Japan and blunt talking to those, such as China, which could as well prove a strategic competitor as a partner.  And in all this, Miss Rice's interlocutors can be sure that, unlike her predecessor, Colin Powell, she speaks for George W. Bush."

 

"China Must Do More To Control Pyongyang" 

 

An editorial in the independent Financial Times read (3/16):  "The real obstacle to progress is not China's lack of influence but its lack of will.  Beijing, fearful of the creation of a unified Korea friendly to the U.S., is content to maintain the status quo in the North and to draw out the nuclear negotiations indefinitely.  Even the Bush administration, preoccupied by the Middle East and other disputes with China, has quietly accepted very slow progress in the Korean talks."

 

"United Against Tehran"

 

The left-of-center Guardian editorialized (3/14):  "It is good news that the U.S. and its biggest EU partners, Britain, France and Germany, have now agreed on a common approach to the vexed issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions....  George Bush began to shift towards a compromise on his recent visit to Europe despite having long insisted he would never 'reward' Teheran, in his eyes a sponsor of terrorism, for doing the right thing.  Part of his carrots and sticks bargain with the EU three is that the U.S. will play down its 'outpost of tyranny' rhetoric, which tends to boost Iran's hardliners.  Transatlantic unity cannot solve all problems--and there is clearly no guarantee that it will work in this very difficult case.  But it is a sensible basis on which to start."

 

"A U.S. Shift That Could Tame Iran's Nuclear Ambition"

 

The left-of-center Independent opined (3/14):   "The offer was this: if Iran abandoned its uranium enrichment programme, the U.S. would lift its long-standing objections to Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation and remove its block on Teheran obtaining parts for commercial aircraft....  By yesterday, the tone of Iran's response...had become more conciliatory....  U.S. officials stressed that stronger action would be needed if Iran still refused to meet its international obligations.  But the atmosphere has changed.  We may not be watching the endgame in this dangerous dispute, but this may be the skirmishing that heralds the beginning of the end."

 

FRANCE:  "After Europe, Rice To Charm Asia"

 

Philippe Gelie remarked in right-of-center Le Figaro (3/16):  "The trip Rice began yesterday is meant as the equivalent of her trip to Europe, with a similar policy speech to be delivered in Japan....  Secretary Rice may announce the sale of F-16 aircraft to both India and Pakistan, thus implicitly acknowledging their status as nuclear powers....  More generally, the trip gives Washington an opportunity to define its relationship with China...whose recent law on the use of force against Taiwan re-enforces America's concerns."

 

GERMANY:   "From Words To Deeds"

 

Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich commented (3/24):  "The Europeans have all the ingredients for a successful foreign policy in the conflict over Iran's nuclear program: they agree, they have a common goal.and they even have a concept.and of late, they even enjoy U.S. support.  Nevertheless, the talks of the EU troika with Iran are turning around in circles, and the result could be a failure, since Iranian concessions...are not in sight.  We could rather get the impression that the Iranians are out for proving the Americans right....  A failure of the talks would come at the right time for the Americans, since they would then determine the tone in the Iran debate and the consequence would be that the conflict lands at the UN Security Council.  Iran, in turn, is pinning its hope on gaining time.  Month after month, Iran has gotten closer to its goal of controlling the technology for the construction of the bomb.  If they have managed this, they will be safe from western attacks.  North Korea is an example.  The Europeans have only one choice.  They must make clear to the mullahs that deeds will follow words.  If the talks fail, the EU will follow the tough U.S. course.  This need not mean war, but a transatlantic alliance in the Security Council could be able to impose painful sanctions on the regime in Teheran."

 

"New And Old Emotive Terms"

 

Washington correspondent Michael Backfisch filed this editorial for business daily Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf (3/16):  "For weeks, both sides of the Atlantic celebrated a kind of rapprochement euphoria.  Following President Bush and Secretary Rice's visit to Europe, many celebrated the new cotton candy policy of the Americans.  And the tone was that Washington again listens to the allies..  But this is wrong.  It is true that Bush gave up his policy of total isolation of the mullahs, but there is only a tactical move behind it that does not cost much politically.  For Bush, it is more important that he was able to wrest from the Europeans the concession to call the UN Security Council if the EU-3-Iran talks fail.  For the Americans, it is totally clear that there is no way around this, since Iran made unmistakably clear that it would never give up the enrichment of uranium....  It may be doubted that the EU has understood on which course it is...since it has not yet presented a scenario on what would happen if its policy failed.  But this is necessary since the Americans will demand the Europeans to stick to their position once point x has been reached....  Following 9/11, it has been a U.S. 'raison d'etat' to ban the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists--and in the case of Iran to Hizballah.  That is why President Bush is also thinking about rewriting the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty....  With respect to China, the United States also steers an uncompromising course...and the view that weapons of the European allies could be used against U.S. soldiers is a horror vision for U.S. politicians.  That is why the EU argument that a strict code of conduct could rein in arms export, does not count in the United States.  In Congress a mood is developing that could explode in a new transatlantic thunder.  Republicans and Democrats are disappointed.  If the embargo on China is lifted, both chambers have threatened to end European-American arms cooperation.  The EU must blame itself for the new dispute, since it acted with the same pattern of which it again and again accuses the United States.  It rushed forward with its plan without prior consultations with its partner."

 

"Shrill Words From Teheran"

 

Wolfgang Koydl noted in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (3/14):  "The mullahs in Tehran have rejected the most recent offer, thus having done the tough neo-conservatives a great service.  The hawks in Washington can now tell their critics, the ones in Europe in particular:  'We have always known it. We can't trust Teheran.'   Indeed, the Iranian reaction to the U.S. offer was shrill...and, according to Teheran, only the Europeans had understood that Iran would not strive for the bomb but that Iran only needed enriched uranium as fuel for a reactor.  But not even the Europeans are so naïve to believe this.  Why then did Iran pursue a secret program for years if it was really only interested in a nuclear program and not in the nuclear bomb?  Iran's leader Khatami was more honest.  During his visit to Venezuela, at the front door to the United States, he said:  'We must be strong in order to strike back and to be able to defend ourselves.'  Those who want to strike back, need a weapon, but Khatami does certainly not want to defend himself with energy from a nuclear power plant."

 

"The New Bush"

 

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg judged (3/14):  "The notion that the mullah regime in Teheran could soon sit in front of the red button of the bomb is worrying Americans and Europeans.....  With her latest demand, the U.S. secretary of state is opening a new chapter in relations with Iran but also in relations with Europe.  President Bush's offered evidence that his charm offensive during his visit to Germany three weeks ago could be the beginning of a new policy....  His turn will set in motion the stalled talks again.  It is true that President Khatami said on Sunday that Iran will not allow anyone to force the country to give up the enrichment of uranium, but the regime can now hope that it will get rewards if it shows a greater willingness for compromise...for Europe will be unable to meet promises like an accession to the WTO on its own.  At the same time, Iran will be confronted with a uniform front, since Russia, too, welcomed the American step.  But this does not guarantee that the mullahs can be prevented from getting the bomb, but the chances for such a move have now improved a bit.  And this is much."

 

"Iran"

 

Michael Stürmer argued in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (3/11):   "It is a good signal that the United States has now brought its negotiating position in line with the one of Britain, France, and Germany.  As of now, Iran will have difficulty driving a wedge between Europe and America.  If 'good cop' and 'bad cop' pursue the same policy and coordinate their options, the mullahs must take the talks much more seriously than in the past.  Since 1979...U.S.-Iranian relations have been burdened not only strategically but also psychologically.  Secretary Rice is now showing negotiating art by overcoming the American trauma and is now bringing into line Atlantic positions.  The government in Berlin disproves the extreme position her president has indicated but in Paris and London, the governments have understood it."

 

"New Tones, Old Game"

 

Business daily Handelsblatt of Duesseldorf stated (3/14):  "Secretary of State Rice's offer to Teheran...certainly deserves attention....  The fact that the secretary has now brought back diplomacy into the play has resulted in international applause.  But the U.S. offer that is in line with the EU and Russia's policy towards Iran, has thus far only been a declaration of intent.  And it will remain so as long as Teheran does not clearly move.  Below this level, Washington's position remains as hard as rock....  All this does not allow the conclusion that Washington has fundamentally changed its strategy.  On the contrary, the United States continues to keep all options open in the 'great game' in the Mideast.  And the more progress occurs in other regions in the Middle East, the more the United States could feel strengthened in its view to exert again greater diplomatic pressure on Iran."

 

"U.S. And EU Joining Forces"

 

Centrist Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung of Hanover opined (3/14):  "If the mullahs really aimed at a military showdown with the United States, then this would be ominous--in the end for themselves.  Unlike in the Iraq conflict, the United States and the EU have joined forces.  No one wants the Middle East conflict to turn into a nuclear conflict.  The United States has now fallen in line with the EU and offers trade advantages in favor of Iran if it renounces its nuclear plans.  At the same time, the Europeans, too, have backed the U.S. plan and are now threatening to bring the case before the UN Security Council.  Iran could soon become under such strong political pressure from the outside as it has never happened before.  This could also question the predominance of the hardliners in the country.  The wind of change is blowing across the Middle East--and could also drive the mullahs out of their office."

 

"Falling In Line With The EU"

 

Right-of-center Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten argued (3/14):  "Thus far, Washington has pinned its hopes on military pressure to urge Iran to give up its nuclear program.  But now it is falling in line with the EU course to offer economic incentives, too.  But in return, President Bush called upon Germany, France, and Britain to bring the case to the UN Security Council if the talks fail.  This could be possible because Teheran has flatly rejected this carrot the EU offered.  It will at best be a beginning if only two of several co-players agree.  The negotiations with the Mullah regime have not yet been lost, but they will become tough and require patience from all sides involved.  All the circumstances turn the conflicts about Iran's nuclear plans into one of the most dangerous ones in the world.  In this context, we should not forget Russia, which is building a nuclear power plant in Bushehr.  Many sides are involved and pull the wires."

 

ITALY:  "Bush Does Not Want A New Cold War"

 

Giampaolo Pioli stated in conservative, top-circulation syndicate Il Resto del Carlino/La Nazione/Il Giorno (3/15):  "The White House expressed 'regret' but it's much more.  It fears that China's new anti-secession law  'will not help peace and stability in the Taiwan district.' In other words, it fears a strong confrontation with Beijing.  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to China next month is becoming ever more urgent as it changes the perspective of her Asian trip entirely.  President Bush is due to arrive in Beijing in November. But Washington would like to prevent the trip from creating a 'cold war' with the East....  Rice's task has now become particularly sensitive.  On one side Japan has strongly criticized the anti-secession vote, on the other, Russia (a partner in North Korean nuclear negotiations) stated that it 'understands' Beijing, even if hopes that every 'diplomatic effort will be made' to reach full peace with the rebel island. The new geopolitical equilibria do not depend solely on the Middle Eastern region.  Washington is perhaps now paying for China's silent but not neutral behavior regarding the war in Iraq."

 

"Teheran: Dollars And Threats Won't Stop Us On The Nuclear Issue"

 

Maurizio Molinari wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (3/13):  "Iran rejects the American offer of economic incentives and reiterates that it does not intend to definitively give up its uranium enrichment program....  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced on Friday that Washington had accepted the European proposal offering economic incentives to Teheran....  Washington's move on the incentives was applauded by the Kremlin, whose Foreign Minister emphasized the convergence between the two countries....  Russia's consent, together with that of EU countries, was the objective of the White House in order to get the international community to 'speak with a single voice,' as underscored by President George W. Bush himself, on Teheran.... The aim of the American diplomatic offensive is to create the conditions to reach a vast understanding at the IAEA on the necessity to refer Teheran to the UN Security Council, in order to adopt sanctions that will prevent Iran from following the North Korean model, which managed to produce atomic weapons by exploiting for a decade the cover guaranteed by signing the non-proliferation Treaty while it covertly carried out a military nuclear program."

 

"Iran, Now Bush Will Try Negotiating"

 

Arturo Zampaglione wrote from New York in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (3/12):  "After having included Iran in the 'axis of evil,' along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Kim Jong II's North Korea, following years of tough confrontations on Iran's nuclear programs...George W. Bush decided to change course. The isolation strategy will be replaced by one of dialogue and coordination with the Europeans....  Bush's shift developed last month, during his tour in the old continent, when he understood the Europeans' determination in putting an end to Teheran's nuclear ambitions."

 

"Nuclear Crisis With Iran: U.S. Agrees To European Incentives"

 

Mariuccia Chiantaretto stated in pro-government, leading center-right daily Il Giornale (3/12):  "The carrot before the stick. In a clear change in course, the Bush Administration yesterday announced its approval of European incentives if Teheran agrees to stop building facilities with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. The new approach is the result of arduous negotiations during President George Bush's trip to Europe."

 

RUSSIA:  "Re-Dividing The World's Energy Resources"

 

Artur Blinov said in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (3/21):  "Modern diplomacy increasingly serves business, of which the Rice tour is just an example.   Fuel and energy dominated the negotiations.  As oil and natural gas prices go up, the world's interest in sources of energy, including sources of nuclear energy, grows, too.  With diplomacy focusing on energy, many political slogans lose their initial meaning.  Calls for democracy and a war on 'tyranny' are used in fighting competition, and curses against 'tyranny' and references to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are mouthed in the same breath as proposals to buy from Westinghouse.  The struggle for access to mineral resources causes blurry eyes, with an acclaim of 'democratic development' becoming a reward for trade and military concessions, a kind of advance payment.  Countries like Libya and Burma, forgotten and forsaken, suddenly snap out of oblivion, attracting an endless chain of high-ranking delegations. That is characteristic of the current state of international relations, which looks more like re-dividing the world's energy resources."

 

"Blackmail Korean Style"

 

Mekhman Gafarly said in reformist Novyye Izvestiya (3/16):  "Yesterday North Korea's Foreign Minister Pak Nam-sung stated that the DPRK can build up its nuclear arsenal to deter a U.S. attack....  Such statements are nothing other than blackmail unless there is direct evidence to prove that North Korea has nuclear weapons.  Even so, Pyongyang, for all its animosity toward Washington, has not given up hope for a peaceful solution, looking to Beijing for help."

 

"Rice Takes On Asia"

 

Boris Volkhonskiy commented in business-oriented Kommersant (3/15):  "As she discusses a variety of topics in each country during her tour, the U.S. Secretary of State will clearly focus on working out a concerted stand on key strategic issues, primarily nuclear disarmament....  The Americans' desire for higher-level political relations with India is due not only to wider economic ties with that country, but also to their far-reaching plans in Asia.   Over the past few years, especially since the start of the antiterrorist campaign, India has become a major ally in fighting terror.  It is not fortuitous, therefore, that the next stopovers on the Rice tour will be Islamabad and Kabul.   The problems of security and nuclear non-proliferation will dominate the agenda in the second half of the tour, which includes Japan, South Korea and China."

 

"What Is Iran Up To?"

 

Konstantin Volkov said in reformist Itogi (3/10):  "For several years now the world's analysts have been wrecking their brains over what exactly Iran is after, peaceful use of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.  The visit to Iran by the head of Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, Aleksandr Rumyantsev, in late February provided more food for thought....   While Russia is honest to the IAEA, it is anybody's guess what Iran is up to."

 

AUSTRIA:  "With One Voice"

 

Senior columnist for mass circulation tabloid Neue Kronenzeitung Ernst Trost commented (3/14):  "The Europeans first have to clean their ears to be able to take in the new tones from Washington.  According to George W. Bush, 'the Americans and their European friends speak with one voice'--thanks to Iran's nuclear ambitions....  The divided partners seem to have discovered some common interests after all during Bush's European tour.  And in contrast to her predecessor Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice appears to have succeeded in convincing the President that foreign policy successes can be obtained not only through pugnacious behavior but also through negotiations.  She really enjoys his full confidence."

 

"Open Nuclear Game"

 

Foreign affairs editor for independent daily Der Standard Gudrun Harrer editorialized (3/14):  "The outcome of the nuclear game with Iran remains an open matter.  Before the parliamentary elections in May it is hardly to be expected that the mullahs will yield--concessions with regard to national security do not go down well in Iran where elections are not a mere sham as they are in other countries in the region.  After the elections it will become clear whether the assessment holds water that conservative change in Iran is being softened by pragmatism dictated by the economic needs of the Iranian population.  However, the game is not only between Iran and the West, but also between the U.S. and Europe.  Especially France is making use of the Iranian case--as it is of the Syrian one--to improve its relations with the U.S.  In exchange for being allowed to participate in the game, the French support the option of possibly turning the Iranian case over to the UN Security Council. However, the U.S.' yielding is also interesting:  It could reflect a certain concern that the Europeans will get everything in a peaceful agreement with Iran and nothing will be left for the U.S.  As usual, it is all at least to some extent about business."

 

"Alliance Against The Bomb"

 

Senior editor for independent daily Salzburger Nachrichten Helmut L. Mueller noted (3/14):  "If the mullahs in Iran are to bend at all in the matter of their nuclear program, it will only be when they sense that Americans and Europeans stick to a common strategy to prevent Iran's rise to becoming a nuclear power.  All too long did the differences between the U.S. and the EU regarding the nuclear issue offer the mullahs the option of playing the members of the Atlantic Alliance off against each other.  The transatlantic agreement is therefore a big step forward.  Whether this will turn into a viable 'alliance against the bomb' remains to be seen....   At any rate, differences with regard to method remain:  The U.S. does not want the nuclear poker game to drag on for too long--the Americans finally want clarity with regard to the Iranian intentions. The Europeans want to make full use of diplomatic means to avert the Damocles sword of a military strike."

 

DENMARK:  "Fear Of The U.S. Is Driving Iran's Nuclear Program"

 

Center-left Politiken carried the following analysis by its chief Middle East correspondent, Herbert Pundik (3/20):  "American politics is suffering from tunnel vision.  Washington is so absorbed in its own self-righteousness that it appears unable to understand the motives and interests of its opponents.  Iran is a case in hand.  Bush has gone on the record as stating that it is his Administration's aim to forces a regime change in Iran.  But U.S. attempts to isolate Iran and prevent it from attaining nuclear weapons, is an important reason why the religiously dominated country is surviving....   Unless the U.S. realizes that it is the very fear of America that is driving Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is little prospect of meaningful negotiations with Teheran in the future."

 

IRELAND:  "Europe Again Tries To Break Impasse On Iranian Nuclear Program" 

 

Lara Marlowe remaked in the center-left Irish Times (3/23):  "Iranian, French, British and German officials will meet today at the foreign ministry on Paris in the hope of breaking the impasse on the future of the Iranian civil nuclear energy program...If the talks break down, Teheran will resume enrichment as it is entitled to do having signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and additional protocols.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran failed to declare its nuclear activities for two decades, but is now complying with the treaty. Washington has made clear its intention to seek sanctions in the United Nations Security Council if Teheran resumes enrichment....  To Washington's consternation, Teheran and Moscow last month agreed that Russia will provide fuel for the reactor, then repatriate spent rods.  At a joint press conference on March 18th, the leaders of Russia, Germany and France said there was 'no contradiction' between Russia's policy towards Iran and the E3 countries who are negotiating to halt the enrichment of uranium there....  Negotiations have stalled, with Iran saying: 'We have the right...', to which Washington retorts: 'But we don't trust you.'"

 

"Argument For Engaging Iran Makes Good Sense"

 

Paul Gillespie asserted in the center-left Irish Times (3/19):  "This week the United States agreed to go along with the three European states which have been negotiating with Iran on its nuclear power program in an effort to reach agreement that it should cease enriching uranium and plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.  It is a significant gesture following George Bush's fence-mending trip to Europe.  But it is hedged with ambiguity about how far Washington is prepared to go in providing economic carrots for good behavior and eventual security guarantees to convince Iran it does not need to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a U.S. or Israeli attack. Talks next week will determine whether it is possible to make progress along these lines by the summer.  The Iranians deny they intend to make nuclear weapons and say enrichment is to provide them with more resources for nuclear fuel....  Student movements have come out in support of the nuclear program, which they see as coming under attack from Israeli and U.S. interests who want to see a regime change in the country.  This strain of nationalism cannot be underestimated in Washington by those who contemplate a military strike.  They also need to understand Iran's sense of strategic encirclement, which might encourage it to take the lurch towards nuclear weapons.... There is certainly a debate among the leadership on whether to go for nuclear weapons as the best way to defend sovereignty.... Those who know Iran say it is a vibrant society with a lively culture which resists absorption by the West but is open to influence from abroad on its own terms.  Only a small minority would welcome regime change or democracy imposed externally by the Americans.  Those who advocate such change have little understanding of how deeply unpopular the U.S. is in the region, where it seen as an agent of Israel.  It is much too soon to say this will change radically, even if there is a wave of democracy and progress towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.  The argument for conditionally engaging Iran makes good sense, given these cleavages over economic and social policy."

 

"U.S. And Israel Willing To Attack Iran In Nuclear Row"

 

Tom Clonan commented in the center-left Irish Times  (3/15):   "Having given diplomatic warnings to Iran on its nuclear program, the U,S. is preparing for possible military action.  Iran has been given until June of this year to suspend all activities which might lead to the manufacture of fissile material suitable for use in nuclear warheads....  The question remains as to whether the IAEA, EU, U.S. and UN can trust Iran to confine its nuclear ambitions to exclusively peaceful ends.  Last week Pakistani information minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed admitted that rogue Pakistani nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Khan had secretly sold Pakistani nuclear secrets and equipment to the Iranians.  Dr. Khan's clandestine assistance to Iran is uncomfortably reminiscent of the way that he reputedly assisted the North Koreans to realize their ambitions to develop a viable nuclear weapon....  Iran has also of late begun obstructing the work of IAEA inspectors by refusing them entry to suspected nuclear facilities....  Israel has been eyeing these developments uneasily....  Israel has a reputation for pre-emptive air strikes.  Bearing this in mind, in light of recent weapons and aircraft procurement deals secured with the U.S., Israel, if so inclined, could shortly be in a position to destroy Iran's subterranean nuclear facilities at will.  In June last year, the Israelis closed a deal with the U.S. government to buy up to 5,000 joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) conversion kits including guided bomb units for use with specially designed one-ton 'bunker-buster' bombs....  The Israeli and U.S. military have begun major joint air defense exercises in Israel....  The timing of such joint endeavors sends a clear message to Teheran.  If diplomacy fails and Iran fails to comply with international demands, the U.S. and Israel are signaling their willingness and ability to use missiles and air strikes to achieve disarmament."

 

"EU, U.S. Agree Iran Incentive Policy On Nuclear Activities"

 

Denis Staunton remarked from Brussels in the center-left Irish Times (3/12):  "The EU and the United States have agreed a joint approach to persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapons, offering economic incentives but holding out the threat of sanctions if Teheran does not co-operate....  The EU statement was part of an agreement with Washington, which has until now opposed offering any incentives to Iran, arguing that Teheran should not be rewarded simply for fulfilling its obligations as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.  U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last night said Washington's support for economic incentives was meant as an endorsement of European diplomacy rather than as a reward for Iran. The EU-U.S. agreement follows president George Bush's visit to Europe last month, when he said he would consider European ideas on how best to resolve the dispute.  The U.S. will not join the European talks with Iran, but Washington's agreement to back economic incentives represents a dramatic shift in policy."

 

LUXEMBOURG:  "Important Alliance"

 

Marcel Kieffer commented in conservative Luxemburger Wort (3/13):  "The new statutory transatlantic unity, solemnly celebrated in Brussels, makes its way forward.  The announcement stating that the U.S.A. and the EU agreed upon a common strategy towards Iran was, in many ways, positive news.  On the one hand, it meant that a common transatlantic position would have much more effect in Teheran than if America and Europe wouldn't agree on the question of how to address best a nuclear threat by the Mullah Regime.  To prove once more that the new agreement was a compromise, one should quote the willingness of the heretofore menacing Bush Administration's turn to the 'carrot and the stick.'  In the meantime, the EU accepted that if negotiations failed, the affair would be transferred to the UN Security Council without delay.  This reinforces simultaneously Washington's view to strengthen pressure on Teheran, which obviously is not much interested in working out an agreement.  The most important aspect from a European point of view is that no new Middle East conflict could occur without the EU being included in the dialogue and decisions. An appeasing factor, no doubt.  Moreover, it proves to be a success for Luxembourg's ongoing efforts towards a transatlantic reconciliation since it took over the presidency of the EU."

 

SPAIN:  "Israel And The Iranian Bombs"

 

Independent El Mundo wrote (3/15):  "The threat of an Iranian bomb is dangerous, but a possible Israeli reprisal could set fire to all of the Near and Middle East, destroying the current and difficult efforts towards pacification.  For that reason is necessary that this threat is banished....  The U.S., after sending severe warnings to Teheran, has joined with the EU position, offering important economic, technological, and political incentives to the Iranians for them to, in turn abandon all of their nuclear military program.  It is a good path.  But...what would happen if Iran doesn't give up its attempt, maybe continuing it in secret?"

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL: "The Americans Should Be Worried, Too"

 

Aviation affairs correspondent Arye Egozi wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (3/20):  "Israel has every reason to be worried about the Iranian-Ukrainian missile deal: this is an upgrade of delivery systems in advance of the day Iran will have nuclear capability.... The U.S. administration is no less worried than Israel regarding Iran's Cruise missiles.... The Iranian cruise missiles change the map of regional threats. The Iranians can use them to strike the U.S. forces deployed in the Middle East."

 

"How To Deter Iran"

 

Senior columnist and chief defense commentator Zeev Schiff wrote in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (3/10):  "Israel's deterrence must include several layers of protection.  It must try not to stand alone against Iran, but to be part of a large organization.  In light of the nuclear developments in Iran, Israel must give top priority to achieving a defense alliance with the U. S....  From Israel's point of view, the political solution to the Iranian nuclear problem is preferable.  But Israel must prepare the military option for itself, as well.  Such an option should be developed quietly, and not with belligerent statements and a show of strength, as is customary here from time to time.  In the military option, we have to build the appropriate force, prepare the plans, and examine methods of clandestine activity inside Iran, as well.  At the same time, we must not evade questions such as: What can Israel gain from employing a military option, and what will the Iranian response be."

 

"Don't Wobble, Mr. President"

 

Extreme right-wing columnist Caroline B. Glick wrote in the conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (3/10):  "This week saw Pakistan admit that the father of its nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, sold nuclear centrifuges to Iran.  It saw thousands of Pakistani women demonstrating against tribal rapes.  It saw thousands of Kuwaiti women demonstrating for the right to vote.  And it saw Bush nominate John Bolton, one of the strongest voices for moral clarity and firm action against terrorists and their state sponsors in the world, as U.S. ambassador to the UN.  All of these events are indicators of the power of presidential resolve to change the world for the better while successfully routing terrorists and the regimes that sponsor them.  Yet all of this will mean little if, when tested on the frontlines of the battle between the forces of terror and the forces of democracy in the PA and Lebanon, the Bush administration allows the European obstructionists and their terror allies to take the lead."

 

SYRIA:  "Targeting Teheran To Cover Tel Aviv"

 

Maha Nahas, a commentator in government-owned Syria Times, wrote (3/15):  "The U.S. campaign against the Iranian nuclear file aims to perpetuate Israeli nuclear installations and to ignite the 'ideological' difference between Washington and Teheran so that Americans feel that Iran has become as an enemy to them.  Of course such feelings are magnified, exaggerated and incorrect.  There is no justification for American escalations against Iranian nuclear facilities.  This can be understood if it came within the framework of a campaign to make the region free of mass-destruction weapons including Israel.  But the American administration does not believe in this comprehensive and objective vision.  It has a strong obsession in keeping Israel out of and above international law.  The neo-conservatives are working to make Israel the master of the region's states by all means and illegitimate policies.  In order to avoid an American-Iranian confrontation on Iraqi-Iranian borders, observers do not rule out that Sharon would direct a blitz on Iranian reactors on behalf of Washington."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "The Real Nuclear Crisis"

 

An editorial in the liberal Sydney Morning Herald stated (3/16):  "The international hand wringing over Iran's nuclear ambitions risks obscuring the larger issue.  Globally, nuclear non-proliferation strategies are on the brink of collapse.  Nuclear policing now lies mainly in the hands of a self-appointed crisis response team, led by the United States but recently joined by the European Union....  Washington's recent policy shift to back the EU on Iran, having previously rejected the notion of rewarding rogue regimes for dismantling illegal nuclear programs, is certainly a significant step forward in harmonizing the West's approach.  But this does not alter the fact that there is no workable global non-proliferation strategy in place. And until there is, the world is fighting spot fires, not the real blaze....  The inadequacy of enforcement under the outdated structures of the treaty is clear.  But the treaty has also been greatly weakened by the nuclear five, which have made no meaningful moves towards disarming.   Instead, the Bush Administration has proposed moving so-called "mini-nukes" into America's first strike armory, and continues to turn a blind eye to Israel's undeclared nuclear capacity, a constant source of friction with the Arab world.   Such inconsistencies can only continue to erode the moral authority of the very governments seeking to rid the world of the perils of illegal nuclear weapons."

 

CHINA:  "Why Doesn't The U.S. Hold Direct Talks With DPRK?"

 

Quan Yuhong commented in China Radio International-sponsored World News Journal (3/8):  "The reasons that the Bush administration refuses to have direct talks with DPRK are as follows: first, they did not want to walk on the old road of the first DPRK nuclear crisis; second, they believe that the DPRK won't give up its nuclear weapons, but rather will continue to hold on to them as a means of blackmail against the U.S.  Though the Bush administration reiterated that the U.S. has no intention of making war against the DPRK, the White House has refused to give up its hostile policy against the DPRK.  Meanwhile, other international and regional issues facing the Bush administration warrant that it not hold direct talks with DPRK....  The U.S. still insists that the Six-Party Talks are the best way to resolve the crisis.  Of course, there is still a possibility that the U.S. and DPRK will have direct talks once the Six-Party Talks are resumed."

 

JAPAN:  "North Korea's Disarmament Imperative"

 

Liberal Tokyo Shimbun editorialized (3/13):  "There is no magic formula to a quick resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. Pyongyang itself appears to be in a difficult domestic situation.  Neighboring countries have no choice but to negotiate patiently with the reclusive state.  No dictatorship is eternal.  Neither can nations survive forever in international isolation.  Considering the harsh conditions in North Korea, it is unlikely that Pyongyang can overcome economic difficulties by itself.  Judging from past experience, a significant degree of tension and pressure are imperative in order to seek concessions from the resistant nation."

 

"Anti-Secession Law Aimed at Curbing Taiwanese Independence Moves" 

 

Liberal Asahi's correspondent report from Beijing said (3/9): "Beijing's frustration and fear over Taiwanese President Chen's independence ambitions appears to have prompted the drafting of the Chinese Anti-Secession Law, which calls for 'non-peaceful means' to be used as a last resort when stopping secession.  The legislation would provide the Chinese government with legal grounds to use force against Taiwan.  However, checking Chen's move toward independence seems to be the real aim of Beijing's new legislation.  The Bush administration appears to be increasingly concerned over escalating China-Taiwan tension amid other international challenges, including Iraq's reconstruction, Middle East peace talks, repairing relations with Europe and the nuclear standoff with North Korea and Iran.  During her planned tour to Beijing later this month, Secretary of State Rice is expected to urge PRC officials to exercise restraint."

 

TAIWAN:  "Why Is Secretary Rice Coming To China?"

 

Niu Xinchun, Liu Aicheng and Ren Yan commented in the official Communist Party international news publication Global Times (3/16):   "Secretary Rice is visiting China a little bit 'late.' Although the China-U.S. relationship is a major focal point of the current administration, currently China matters are not urgent matters.  The most pressing issue for the U.S. in Asia right now, of course, is the North Korea nuclear issue.  From the recent tough attitude of Rice, analysts think the U.S. does not plan to make concessions anytime soon.  Experts indicate two things will compel Rice to talk tough during the trip.  First, the U.S. senior military officials perceive China as one of their most important threats.  Second, in view of China's rise, Rice stressed to improve U.S. relations with its Asian allies.  It shows the U.S. concerns about China's increasing influence in Asia.  Powell laid a good foundation for the stable development of U.S.-China relations during his term.  Now Rice will try to continue along Powell's path.  Therefore, U.S. China policy under Rice won't change much.  Rice's trip also lays the groundwork for a presumed visit to China this year by George Bush.  The atmosphere will be good."

 

INDONESIA:  "Self-Criticism Of OIC Countries"

 

Muslim intellectual Republika commented (3/16):  "Israel reportedly will attack and destroy Iran's nuclear facility...under the codename of Osirak II.  It is not clear yet whether Israel will carry out its plan or whether it will only serve as a warning to Iran that it should not continue its nuclear ambition. But let us assume that attack will really happen.  What will happen then?  Would the countries grouped under the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) be able to stop the crazy plan of the Zionist country to attack one OIC member?  Throughout its history since its inception in 1969, OIC has not been able to do much when it has confronted Israel or the U.S.  Just look what happened when Israel destroyed Baghdad's ambition to possess nuclear weapons....  As usual, the organization condemned Israel but failed to make any real decisions or launch any real actions such as retaliation by destroying Israel's nuclear facilities, or sanctions on countries that supported  Israel.  The attitude of only 'condemning and  condemning' has apparently become a standard response that OIC likes to take.  Just look when Israel has many times brutally massacred dozens or even hundreds of Palestinians, and also when the U.S. massacred civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Once again, there is nothing that the OIC countries can do except condemning."

 

"Iran Not Discouraged By U.S.-EU Strong Pressure"

 

Leading independent daily Kompas commented (3/14):  "The U.S. and the European Union again launched strong pressure against Iran on its nuclear program, but the Persian Gulf country did not show any fear whatsoever.  On the contrary, it demonstrated a defiant stance by saying it would continue its nuclear program.  The efforts to pressure Iran have been increasing since last week after the U.S. and the EU finally agreed to take a common approach toward Iran.  They agreed to combine the economic aid approach with strong sanctions, including a military attack.  The U.S. and EU will provide an economic incentive if Iran ends its nuclear program.  Should the economic offer be rejected, they would bring the nuclear issue to the UN and Iran could face difficult sanctions, including a military strike under a UN mandate. It seems likely that the issue will be brought to the UNSC given Iran's reaction and stance.  Iran shows no sign of stepping back despite increasing U.S. and EU pressure.  The Iran nuclear issue i s sensitive because it involves ideological and political bias, terrorism and dignity.  Iran would not let its dignity be trampled upon in this nuclear issue."

 

SOUTH KOREA:  "The Message of U.S. Secretary Of State Rice's Three-Nation Trip"

 

Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo editorialized (3/23):  "The core message of Secretary Rice's recent trip to Japan, the ROK, and China is that the North Korean nuclear standoff cannot go on forever.  We don't know whether she had a certain deadline in mind. However, her words cannot be ignored because she is the chief of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.  North Korea must not see Ms. Rice's warning as a mere bluff.  It must pay attention to the fact that the USG and the public have been consistently saying that the North has no choice but to return to the Six-Party Talks.  Pyongyang must imagine the consequences if the Bush Administration does not accept its nuclear brinkmanship.  Until now, Seoul has been saying that it will never tolerate a nuclear North Korea and that it will play a leading role in resolving the crisis.  The problem is how to apply such principles.  Seoul must find out what approaches it will employ to achieve its goals with North Korea, which has been refusing to return to the multilateral talks, and the U.S., which has warned that time is running out."

 

"Rice's Views on North Korea's Nuclear Programs, USFK and Tokdo Islets"

 

Conservative Chosun Ilbo editorialized (3/21):  "Secretary Condoleezza Rice's statements on the three pending issues appear to be a reflection of the fact that the U.S. has been seriously reconsidering the meaning of its alliance with the ROK over the mid-and-long term from at least the time when differences over a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue and USFK role were first exposed, and possibly since the start of the Roh Moo-hyun administration.  The changes in the way the ROK is being viewed are palpable above all in the fact that Secretary Rice has made explicit comments on certain matters that, considering the sensitive juncture, might have called for diplomatic vagueness.  Recently, of America's two strategic pillars in East Asia, the U.S.-ROK and U.S.-Japan Alliances, Washington has been placing much more importance on its relationship with Japan, and the remarks made by Ms. Rice during this visit confirmed the fact.  In the Six-Party Talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, the U.S. has been more in tune with Japan than with the ROK, with some in the U.S. believing that the ROK stands alongside China in North Korea's corner.  Seoul wanted to reorganize its relationship with Washington, and these new developments are what many predicted would happen if it did.  The ROKG made its choice, and the ROK-U.S. relationship has changed.  Now is the time for the ROKG to present strategic alternatives that can guarantee the security of the ROK."

 

"We Pay Attention To Rice's Remarks That Have Become Soft"

 

Independent Joong-Ang Ilbo editorialized (3/21):  "Ms. Rice's remarks during her Seoul visit seems to be somewhat different from the overall atmosphere in which we saw Washington employing pressure on the North since the beginning of the second Bush Administration. .  There are views that Ms. Rice's remarks are some sort of signal that U.S. policy is now focusing on dialogue instead of pressure.  Some even go as far as saying that the remarks are an indirect U.S. acknowledgement of North Korea's regime and its system.  We still have to see what it really means but let's hope that the remarks by Ms. Rice are a reflection by the U.S. indicating its willingness to be flexible.  Furthermore, we hope that her remarks will act as a catalyst, creating some momentum for the stalled Six-Party Talks."

 

"ROK And U.S. Have Agreed To Resolve The North Korean Nuclear Issue Peacefully"

 

Independent Dong-a Ilbo editorialized (3/21):  "While stressing the need for the resumption of the Six-Party Talks, the ROKG has given the impression that it puts more focus on persuading the U.S. in consideration of North Korea's demands, rather than urging the North to return to the multilateral talks without preconditions.  On the other hand, the U.S. has made clear that there is no reward to present to the North before the talks resume, and that the current standoff cannot go on forever.  There are views that this visit to Seoul by Secretary Rice represents Washington's patience threshold for the nuclear issue.  In other words, if Pyongyang refuses to return to the Six-Party Talks by June, the U.S. would take the issue to the UN Security Council to impose sanctions against the North.  It seems that time is not on North Korea's side.  Now is the time for the ROKG to demand flexibility from the North to prevent the situation from heading towards disaster."

 

"Rice Calls North Korea A 'Sovereign State'"

 

Moderate Hankook Ilbo editorialized (3/21):  "It is meaningful that Secretary Rice acknowledged North Korea as a 'sovereign state' and emphasized that the U.S. has no intention to attack the North.  It is because this could be the U.S.'s roundabout answer to North Korea's demand for the withdrawal of Washington's hostile policy toward the North and the U.S. promise of coexistence with North Korea, because acknowledging a country as a sovereign state means recognizing the country's sovereign rights.  This kind of remark by Secretary Rice may not be easily satisfactory for the North Korean leadership, which has been demanding an apology from Secretary Rice for labeling the country an 'outpost of tyranny.'  However, it is truly exceptional for a high-ranking USG official to call North Korea a 'sovereign state.'  Rather than making an issue out of a basic principle of U.S. foreign policy, it is much more beneficial for North Korea to gain more benefits through negotiations in the Six-Party Talks.  Until now, we have repeatedly urged the U.S. to express its sincerity to create a breakthrough to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.  Now, we ask the North to show a flexible response."

 

"An Opportunity to Find A Practical Solution To North Korea's Nuclear Problem"

 

Nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (3/21):  "The analysis is that, although Secretary Rice cannot retract her 'outpost of tyranny' statement as Pyongyang demanded, she mentioned 'sovereign state' as a diplomatic counterpoint to foster an atmosphere for resuming the Six-Party Talks.  We have repeatedly urged Pyongyang to return to the multilateral talks and the U.S. to secure conditions that would lead the North to return to the table.  In other words, the U.S. should give the North clear confidence, not only just words, that there will be real progress.  From that perspective, Secretary Rice's comments during this visit were insufficient and simply theoretical, having no progress in content.  We will continue to watch Secretary Rice's actions and words as she visits China, and hope that her visit to this region will be an opportunity to seriously consider the North Korean nuclear problem and to look for a practical solution."

 

"If ROK-U.S. Discord Increases Amid Tensions Between U.S., China, And Taiwan"

 

Independent Dong-a Ilbo editorialized (3/16):  "If the confrontation between the U.S., Japan, and China does escalate following Beijing's passage of an anti-secession law against Taiwan, it would be difficult to expect a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue through the