Military

DATE=10/08/01

TYPE=WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=TALEBAN/BIN LADEN ATTACKED

NUMBER=6-12493

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

[EDITORS: DUE TO THE COLUMBUS DAY HOLIDAY, OR SECURITY CONCENRS, U-S EMBASSIES DID NOT CABLE IN EDITORIALS. THE STATE DEPT. MEDIA REACTION OFFICE DID N O T PRODUCE A FOREIGN MEDIA SUMMARY TODAY. THIS LIMITED W.O.R. IS FROM THE INTERNET. THE DESK]

INTRO: The weekend's far-reaching attacks by the United States and British forces against the Taleban and Osama bin Laden's terrorist forces in Afghanistan are drawing mixed comments from around the world. We get a limited sampling now from V-O-A's ___________ in this special World Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: Press reaction in many countries has often been aligned with their government's relationship with the United States. Support in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia is strong, while in the Middle East's English-language press, the reaction is much more cautious. We begin our sampling in Europe, where the British, which took part in the attacks with United States forces, are strongly in support. London's Daily Telegraph calls the attacks, "The end of the beginning," suggesting they are:

VOICE: ... not only ... just ... [but] also well planned. ... [Mr. [Prime Minister Tony] Blair did well last night [10-7] to remind the nation that the attacks on the World Trade Center were the worst terrorist assault ever perpetrated against British citizens. ... the full number of British dead ... [will] certainly [run] into three figures. ... This morning Britain may be, as a result of our involvement, a slightly more dangerous place.

TEXT: For its part, The Guardian says somberly:

VOICE: There can be little doubt that last night's attacks were the second stage of possibly the most dangerous international crisis within many people's lifetimes, the most dangerous since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Let us pray...this one ends as peacefully as that one ultimately did.

TEXT: And in The Times, we read:

VOICE: ... it must be said again and again, over tense weeks, months and probably years, that this was not the beginning of the fight back against Islamist terrorism but the opening, as Mr. Bush said yesterday, of "another front." War had already been joined.

TEXT: Turning to the Middle East, we have this more restrained view from the English-language Gulf Daily News in Manama, Bahrain.

VOICE: ...the crudity and barbarity of war sadly only serves to confirm that we live in an uncivilized world. Wars have always epitomized the denial of human principles...In fact, war under any pretext cannot heal wounds - - only inflame them with more casualties. That is why the West's apparent violation of its own ethics puzzles and surprises us.

TEXT: In Israel, The Jerusalem Post is glowing in its praise of President Bush, calling his speech to the nation "masterful," and adding:

VOICE: Choosing his words carefully, [Mr.] Bush laid out the blueprint for the operation's development: targeted strikes ...against Taleban military installations and the terrorist training camps the Kabul regime shelters. Once this phase ... is over, the president continued, the next stage will be to flush the [al-] Qaida terrorists out of their 'caves and other entrenched hiding places." ...[However] ...A war against terror and the countries that sponsor it cannot ignore the war of terrorism that Palestinian groups, backed by a number of Arab states and the Palestinian Authority, have launched against Israel over this past year.

TEXT: Moving eastward, to Tokyo, where the English-language Japan Times laments what it sees as a protracted battle.

VOICE: The U-S... military action against the Taleban and terrorism mastermind Osama bin Laden probably marks the beginning of a long worldwide campaign against a sinister crime ... terrorism. Resorting to military means should have been avoided if ...possible... [However] ...most observers worldwide now cannot but acknowledge the need to use military force...

TEXT: In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald for Tuesday [10-09] comments that while the short range goal of eliminating the Taleban and possibly even Osama bin Laden, may be possible, the longer goal will be far more difficult.

VOICE: As for President George [W.] Bush's greater objective, to end the global threat of terrorism, that is beyond achievement. While fanaticism, be it religious or ideological, remains a constant in human affairs. . . so will terrorism. There is no absolute deterrent to those who are eager to sacrifice their lives in the hope of killing others.

TEXT: Turning to the Western Hemisphere, we read this in Toronto's Globe and Mail.

VOICE: If there is no joy in seeing explosions erupting in the cities of one of the world's most beleaguered countries, it can fairly be said there was no alternative. Reassuring those who once wrote him off as a naive gunslinger ... President George W. Bush, tutored by those around him, has been measured in his response to the mass murder in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

TEXT: At Canada's relatively new national daily, the National Post, there is this epochal pronouncement.

VOICE: Just as the struggle between capitalism and communism defined the second half of the 20th century, so will the struggle between liberal democracy and Islamist terrorism shape the first years of the 21st.

TEXT: For its part, The [Toronto, Ontario] Star says:

VOICE: [Mr.] bin Laden may claim that "America is full of fear," but the U-S and its allies have now taken the offensive. It is the Taleban and the terrorists who are on the run. Canadians were not part of the first strikes, but we won't be on the sidelines for long.

TEXT: To Quebec, now and The [Montreal] Gazette's view of the dangerous road ahead.

VOICE: Necessary as it is, the military action that Washington, London and the allies launched in Afghanistan ... is not without its risks. There is ... the immediate risk to the armed-forces personnel involved. There is also a risk of murderous retaliation against targets in the United States or elsewhere - - but the terrorists have the West in their sights in any case, and not acting against them is probably riskier. As well, there is a risk to the government of Pakistan from the pro-Taleban forces inside that country. In the short term, the biggest risk is probably to Afghan civilians... already prisoners of a repugnant, barbaric, misogynist regime that few had any part in choosing.

TEXT: With that assessment from The Montreal Gazette, we conclude this limited sampling of some global press reaction to the allied attacks on Afghanistan.

NEB/ANG/MAR