| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| October 31, 2001 CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERROR: FOREIGN MEDIA WAITING FOR 'RESULTS' |
The following is a global round-up of the most
recent media commentary gauging the status of anti-terrorism effort and the
military campaign in Afghanistan, with many looking for results through the
prism of their own regional interests.
EUROPE: In major NATO media outlets [UK, France, Germany, Italy], the state of the military campaign, and how it is playing in the court of Western public opinion, were dominant themes. Several editorials reflected impatience that "after three weeks of bombing, the coalition seems no nearer to either of its objectives--capturing [UBL] or toppling the Taliban." Some pointed to "slippage" of support in "polls on both sides of the Atlantic" in arguing that politicians and military leaders must do a better job of laying out "the precise means and objectives of the campaign" for Western audiences. French media of all political stripes were the most skeptical of the U.S. strategy, holding that Washington is "floundering" on both the military and PR fronts, although only a communist daily called for an end to airstrikes. While acknowledging that recent news reports from the Afghan front are "hardly destined to boost confidence," leading conservative/centrist dailies in the UK, Germany and Italy counseled patience and underscored the justification for a "vigorous military response." Some argued further against a pause in the bombing, for religious or humanitarian reasons, saying that it would only "prolong the war."
Commentary from other NATO/non-NATO European outlets also registered doubts about the campaign's results but reiterated that, after three weeks it was too soon to "admit defeat," and advised patience--echoing the Bush administration's reminder that this was to be a "long and complicated war." From conservative to left-leaning outlets in Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Turkey and Sweden, writers stressed that the "war was necessary" despite the "uncertain" progress, and predicted that the U.S. will "eventually overcome." Observers in Greece, Hungary, Norway, Portugal and Slovenia were more pessimistic and suggested that the U.S. had reached an "impasse." These critics largely agreed that the U.S. was selling an "unpersuasive image" and that U.S. propaganda was "not effective in the Arab world."
From Russia, some mainstream dailies mirrored W. European frustration with lack of progress on the military front. They drew on Russia's own history to outline the difficulties confronting the U.S. in Afghanistan, a land that "can absorb any amount of foreign hard currency, weapons and troops," but "hardly ever changes" and a people who "won't stand for anyone interfering in their affairs." A handful of more esoteric publications, including an army daily, featured pieces sharply critical of the U.S.' "waging war" on Afghanistan.
SOUTH ASIA: Nuclear rumblings in Pakistan was the prevailing theme fueling the Indo-Pak press. Reacting to a New Yorker piece positing the U.S. seizure/destruction of Pakistan's atomic arsenal in the event of a radical takeover, Pakistani editorialists asserted that the U.S. would contemplate such an act only because a "nuclear Islamic state is a problem for America." Writers were relieved that Islamabad had refuted Indian press reports of Gen. Musharraf's handing over Pak nuclear experts to the CIA. The security of Pakistan's nuclear assets received a vote of confidence from the Indian defense minister in remarks to the Indian press. Other Indian writers, however, warned against downplaying the wild card posed by the "fanatics" with alleged "links to al-Qaida" and questioned whether Musharraf had "full control" over the situation in Kashmir.
MIDEAST: Also, sparked by the New Yorker article, Arab dailies in the West Bank, Egypt and Tunisia scrutinized alleged U.S. strategic maneuvers to keep the "Islamic" bomb out of Taliban hands should Musharraf be toppled. Some lectured that the Pakistani leader's plight should serve as a warning to other Arab/Muslim countries not to follow U.S. plans blindly, given the U.S.' history of "abandoning" its friends. Others returned to the theme of the "Great Game," stressing the "potential" strategic and economic reasons behind the war. Meanwhile in Israel, a mainstream paper reported that the joint U.S.-Israeli "Leakage Committee," established to track nuclear technology leaking from the former Soviet Union to countries like Iran, met last week in Washington and that PM Sharon is convening a high-level ministerial committee to review Israel's strategic capabilities against threats to the state's existence.
EAST ASIA: The overwhelming sentiment was that the war on terrorism was bogging down and in danger of failing. In Australia, this theme took the form of a lament. Elsewhere, strident criticism was the order of the day. Chinese dailies derided the U.S.' so-called "smart bombs," while others in Indonesia and Malaysia accused the U.S. of perpetrating "overt terror" on Afghan civilians by its "cowardly" bombing campaign. Writers in Thailand and South Korea judged that waging war would not solve the problem of terrorism. One of the few voices in support of the U.S. campaign was that of former Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, who insisted that "we are [all] victims of terrorism.... [The U.S. action] is not, and should not be interpreted as a war of the West against Islam...[or] against the Afghan people."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE: Amid the diverse opinions emanating from Ottawa to Santiago, a general consensus emerged that the military operation in Afghanistan had "accomplished little" to date and the U.S. was facing difficulties "greater than it expected." Although a common refrain in some quarters dismissed the war as "useless and counterproductive," a majority was prepared for "a long and dirty war." The Canadian press, which had been perhaps the most understanding U.S. voice in the region since September 11, shifted to a more critical tone. A conservative daily accused the U.S. of "charging" into Afghanistan with "no plan of action" and "no exit strategy." Most Latin American observers--especially Colombia, Argentina and Ecuador--were preoccupied with the apparent anti-terrorism fallout on their own domestic concerns. Many reflected on how the U.S. was "defining terrorism" and reformulating its international alliances. The Colombian press perceived that the U.S. had "erased the distinction between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency," and worried that the "harsher position" would threaten the precarious peace process. Mexican papers continued to vent cynicism, asserting that the Taliban's "main weapon" was "the damage the U.S. was causing in Afghanistan." Others agreed the Taliban was winning the propaganda war and that more bombing will only "fuel hatred" against the U.S.
AFRICA: A government-run Ugandan paper deemed an alleged CIA plan to resume clandestine assassinations "misguided," arguing that any juridical and human rights excesses by the world's most powerful country would translate into more destabilization across the globe.
EDITORS: Irene Marr, Kathleen Brahney, Gail
Hamer Burke, Katherine Starr, Stephen Thibeault
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 126
editorials from 45 countries, October 28-31.
Editorial excerpts from each country are listed
from the most recent date.
NATO EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Blair Rallies The Doubters"
An editorial in the independent Financial Times held (10/31): "With the Afghan winter approaching, civilian casualties rising, the grim possibility of mass starvation and little progress against Taliban ground forces, it is not surprising that anxieties about the U.S. bombing campaign have increased.... In a well advertised speech yesterday, Tony Blair was wise to acknowledge these doubts and dangers.... He was right also to return to the horror of the September 11 suicide attacks that created a global consensus for action against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists. Nothing has happened since then to change the need for a vigorous military response and nothing should now be done to reduce its effectiveness. Calls for a pause in the bombing for humanitarian or religious reasons are therefore misguided. The best hope for the people of Afghanistan is speedy removal of the heartless bigots that subjugated them. A regime that obstructs food convoys and shelters those who attacked the country's biggest donor must bear all the blame for the consequences. The West's task is to reduce suffering by redoubling efforts to supply aid--as much as is possible while keeping up the military pressure.... Next week, Bush will lead a renewed diplomatic effort to find a consensus among Afghanistan's neighbors, including Pakistan. The U.S. president faces a formidable task--and an urgent one. For until the shape of future government in Afghanistan is clearer, the military campaign may not be prosecuted with full force. These difficulties should be frankly acknowledged. But they must not be made the excuse for a wavering in support for joint military action. Indecisiveness now would be dangerous, for the people of Afghanistan as much as for the democratic West."
"Blair Plays It Cooler"
An editorial in the liberal Guardian read (10/31): "Yesterday, in his speech in Cardiff, Mr. Blair was compelled to address a bubbling culture of growing doubts about the military campaign, reflected in recent press and parliamentary comment, in polls on both sides of the Atlantic, and in a rudderless few days which have seen politicians and military leaders struggling to achieve some kind of consistency and credibility as they come to grips with the realities of the campaign against al-Qaida and Afghanistan. The manner in which he went about his task in Cardiff showed that Mr. Blair remains confident about his tactics and, in spite of some real slippage in the polls, sure about his public support too.... Mr. Blair's decision to ease up on the rhetoric and to lower the expectations was an intelligent one. It fits better with where we actually are in this conflict, and especially with the limited role Britain plays in it, then the apocalyptic tone Mr. Blair sometimes adopts (mirrored by some of his critics and by some of his cheerleaders) and the simplistic 'good v evil' style that George Bush prefers. Mr. Blair was respectful, as he should be, towards the doubts and concerns. But, going back to the basics of the crisis, he was also unbending about the need to fight and win."
"Call Reinforcements"
An editorial in the conservative Times argued (10/31): "There is real fear in Downing Street that the electorate is slipping away from them. Much of that concern is misplaced. One opinion poll published yesterday purported to indicate a significant slide in support for the war and that a majority backed a 'pause' in the bombing campaign to allow convoys of aid to enter Afghanistan. These numbers have been cited, by those who think that terrorism can be defeated by a mixture of empathy and therapy, to prove that the tide has turned in their favor. This is nonsense. The latest opinion poll was conducted over the past weekend, a period which coincided with the capture in shambolic circumstances of Abdul Haq, the accidental bombing of the Red Cross headquarters in Kabul, and a retreat by the Northern Alliance from the outskirts of the key town of Mazar-iSharif. This was a series of developments hardly destined to boost confidence.... There is no compelling evidence that the public is suffering from any form of amnesia or that voters do not appreciate the risks of failing to act.... At no stage since September 11 has the British public expressed the view that the current conflict might be concluded in a short period of time with few casualties. If there is any sense of 'wobble' at present it is not that voters have belatedly realized what they are being led into. The problems are rather that the military campaign appears, with uneasy echoes of Kosovo, to depend so much on air power, and that the official messages that have emerged in the past week have not so much lowered expectations as strangled them."
"The Long Haul"
From an editorial in the daily conservative Daily Telegraph (10/31): "Addressing the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, the Prime Minister rightly reiterated why Britain is standing alongside the United States: the enemy has killed on a vast scale and will do so again unless stopped; it is not open to negotiation and refused to yield to justice.... Persuading domestic opinion that September 11 was an attack not just on America but also on the civilized world as a whole; striving to keep the Arabs onside as Israeli-Palestinian relations worsen: these have been the twin tracks of Mr. Blair's endeavor.... Differences also emerged in Washington yesterday between the Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon over the scope of the Afghan campaign and the desirability of maintaining the bombing during Ramadan. Despite these disappointments, the justness of the allied goal remains as strong as ever and military action in its pursuit has made demonstrable progress."
"The Media Should Keep Asking Questions Until It Gets Some Straight Answers"
The centrist Independent commented (10/30): "After three weeks of bombing, the coalition seems no nearer to either of its objectives--capturing Osama bin Laden or toppling the Taliban--and it is hard to see what more is envisaged than continued strikes on a country and a people that had little enough to destroy at the start. It is true that officials on both sides of the Atlantic insisted from the outset that the campaign would be long and hard, although the estimates have grown from mere months to years; it may even take as long as the Cold War. And we in the media may be too impatient for drama. But it is also true that both Americans and Britons have enough experience of official versions of military conflict to discount much of what officials say.... There will always be friction between governments and the media at times of military conflict: the imperatives of the two are too different to make for coziness--and thank goodness for that. But in this campaign the messages from officials have been especially blurred and contradictory. This has raised justified questions about precise means and objectives of the campaign."
FRANCE: Media Treatment
A number of headlines, front-page stories and editorials (10/31) continued to address the concern in France about U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Left-of-center Le Monde's headline read, "War Causes Alarm In Europe." Catholic La Croix bannered "The Strikes: French Are Dubious." Right-of-center France Soir was more critical and ran a lead story titled "History Of A Flop."
"Hatred And Violence"
In Catholic La Croix, Dominique Gerbaud stressed (10/31): "The loss of confidence in the U.S. military has come about much more quickly than during the Gulf War, or at the time of the bombings in Kosovo.... This means that Washington must renew its efforts to explain its strategy. The U.S. must be able to convince the rest of the world that its response to the violence of terrorists is not limited to military action and goes hand in hand with diplomatic action. The post-September 11 sense of solidarity is fragile. It has more to do with an emotional bond than with political cohesion. If the U.S. sinks deeper into war it will fall into the trap that has been set out by the terrorists."
"European Impatience"
Economy-oriented Les Echos said in its editorial (10/31): "For the time being we are careful not to be too openly critical of America which is still healing its wounds after September 11 and is again today in a state of threat.but to what point is legitimate defense justifiable?. Hubert Vedrine questions the solidity of the anti-terrorist coalition. And from London to Paris the same question comes up again and again: Is the U.S. stuck in a high-tech war...necessarily ineffective in one of the poorest countries in the world?. But, despite the differences in opinion, Europe is not yet ready to turn its back on the U.S."
"With Back Against The Wall: The U.S. Is Forced To Change"
Jacques Almaric wrote in left-of-center Liberation (10/31): "From the start it appeared that the riddle of establishing a post-Taliban government could not be solved; today the U.S. seems resigned to getting closer to the ground in Afghanistan so that the special forces and other highly trained commando units can continue the manhunt. This is a solution that may be costly in terms of American lives, but it is no doubt the only solution if there is to be a chance to achieve tangible results and reduce collateral damages. When one is convinced that extremists must be eliminated before they commit new massacres, such a change in strategy is to be hoped for."
"We Wonder About The Results"
In her radio editorial on privately funded Europe One, Catherine Nay judged (10/30): "Twenty-three days after the start of the strikes, we must wonder about the results. One thing we can observe is that the French media is much more critical than its British or German counterparts. This French exception goes hand in hand with the curious absence (from the scene) of our executive branch. Unlike Blair and Schroeder, our politicians are quietly absent."
"The Public Opinion Front"
Gerard Dupuy held in left-of-center Liberation (10/30): "The imbalance between Washington's communications means and those of its adversaries is as great as that of their respective military arsenals. Yet, here as on the military front, the U.S. is floundering. The public opinion front can in no way be considered a secondary stake in this war. And we must acknowledge that the right of America to act carries little weight when compared to the pictures of civilians fallen under U.S. bombs. Impatience is gaining in Muslim countries...where anti-Americanism still dominates and continues to grow as the bombing phase lasts.... But the monopoly held by Al-Jazeera cannot explain all. The down-to-earth talent of the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan is as effective as the work of hundreds of communications experts working for Washington. This is not due to the strength of the Taliban's arguments, but rather to the weakness of Washington's explanations. A clear idea should be easy enough to explain, even when tinged with a Texan accent. But the fact is that we do not understand exactly what the U.S. wants or what its war objectives are. Secretary Rumsfeld's frank statements themselves about Bin Laden are adding to the confusion. What we are probably dealing with here is not so much stalled communications as a lack of clear ideas. The post-Taliban situation wanted by the Americans remains a mystery because they have become the prisoners of the alliance's contradictions."
"Before It Is Too Late"
Pierre Laurent held in communist L'Humanite (10/30): "Yesterday's headlines clearly expressed the anxiety gripping the world as the fiasco of the military involvement in Afghanistan gets into a rut. All the alarm signals are on red alert. The list of casualties is growing. The humanitarian tragedy is no longer threatening, it is upon us... When asked what worries him the most, Lakhdar Brahimi, the Afghan representative at the UN has only one word: 'Everything...' The U.S. strikes must cease and the war against terrorism, which concerns everyone, must be led by the UN."
GERMANY: "No Quick Fix"
Guenther Nonnenmacher noted in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/31): "If there is no high-profile victory in the Afghan war in the near future, if the conflict drags on, and if more and more civilians fall victim to it, then Bin Laden's message will gain more and more converts. Washington knows all this too well. But Western leaders reject calls for an interruption of the bombing, and rightly so. Not only would that prolong the war by preventing a military breakthrough, it would also be a psychological-political debacle with consequences far beyond Afghanistan. The United States will have to increase its military operations to topple the Taliban regime. But above all, and despite some dissenters, it will have to massively bolster military support for the Northern Alliance. A military victory would create new political conditions. For instance, by getting Afghan exiles to rally around the former king, enough diplomatic pressure could be brought to bear to create a broad base for a new government. And with enough humanitarian aid from the West -- for Pakistan as well as Afghanistan -- the images of war would fade. The caveat remains, however, that there is no quick fix. Peace requires far more patience than war."
"Not According To Plan"
Hubert Wetzel and Yvonne Esterhazy judged in an editorial in business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg (10/30): "There is a growing impression that the U.S. strategy is not sound. In the arena of public perception, Washington is beginning to lose control both at home and in faraway Afghanistan.. There is a considerable gap between upbeat government statements and the much less encouraging reality.. Neither is the Taliban regime on the brink of collapse nor has the United States been able to build up a country-wide opposition. In addition, the Northern Alliance has not made any substantial territorial gains, and the United States has not made any progress with respect to its original goal--smoking out Bin Laden and his Al Qaida network. The difficulties of the military campaign are already having a political impact: In Washington, the call for the deployment of ground forces is getting louder, and the international allies are increasingly urging the United States to replace the air strikes with political concepts."
"High-Risk Mission"
Centrist Tagesspiegel of Berlin observed (10/30): "Now that the toppling of the Taliban regime has become a more important priority, it is clear that the deployment of ground forces is inevitable. The Northern Alliance is too weak by itself. How helpless the Americans are on the ground became obvious when they were unable to prevent the killing of their most important ally, Abdul Haq, even though he had desperately requested assistance. Nobody is talking anymore about ending the mission before Ramadan. Now, the Pentagon would be glad if military success arrived before Ramadan 2002. However, the Americans are not equipped for a trench war during the Afghan winter. In addition, it is not of primary importance how one deploys troops in a target area, but how one gets them out again. All in all, these are sobering prospects."
"A Question Of Patience"
Jochim Stoltenberg maintained in an editorial in right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost (10/30): "Ending the air strikes would be an admission on the part of the United States of being incapable of leading a counter attack as a superpower. Such a signal cannot be sent.... Patience and the willingness to accept sacrifice are necessary for such a victory.... It is a question of time.when the U.S. strategy will be successful.. The greatest opponent in this fight is no longer Osama Bin Laden and his protectors, but the impatience of those watching in all parts of the world. Such impatience is understandable, but it cannot prevent future attacks of the kind leveled against New York and Washington."
ITALY: "That Haste To Win"
A front-page editorial by Franco Venturini in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera read (10/31): "The leaders of the Afghan campaign, the military or, even more, the political leaders must face a new dilemma: how far away might victory still be?... Will the consensus on the war be able to be as 'patient' as President George Bush has asked? Lately, all major U.S. media voiced a number of worrying opinions. Military operations against the Taliban regime are proceeding too slowly. The trail of Usama bin Laden and his associates is (practically) lost.... And target mistakes.don't help.. A political agreement on the future Afghan government, along with an attack on Kabul by the Northern Alliance.is being delayed. The unity of the coalition remains fragile with regard to its Islamic components, and Richard Holbrooke's warning that America is losing the crucial battle on communication is creating concern.... However, our haste is wrong, and the American [media] are wrong, too. In fact, without our constant tenacity, built from awareness and courage, the defensive war against terrorism will not succeed."
"Lost Efficiency Between War And Fear"
Mario Platero opined in leading business Il Sole 24 Ore (10/30): "In this war made of attacks, spores and spies, the quick and efficient America is taken over by the 'black disease' of slowness. More and more the enemy is a ghost, not only on the external front, where Usama bin Laden seems unseizable, but also on the domestic front. Not only at the military level, but also at the economic. As for anthrax, they are following the Iraqi trail, but the American one, as well.. In other words, the fallout of the psychological war is the lack of efficiency.. A weak economy really needs a push. It needs news that reassures public opinion that at least shows some results for the price paid in terms of the slow pace. But, so far, only the enemy has shown results."
BELGIUM: "Doubts About Riyadh"
Middle East affairs writer Manu Tassier in independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard held (10/30): "The American and Saudi authorities are doing their utmost to deny reports about (U.S.-Saudi) disagreements in the war against terrorism. Allegedly, Riyadh is reacting too softly to U.S. requests.... Reportedly, the United States has problems with the lack of cooperation in the investigation.... The Saudi authorities...do not seem eager to cooperate in the investigation and, to date, no bank accounts have been blocked.... How could these possible Saudi hesitations be explained? Some sources say that former Saudi Osama bin Laden--who has lost his Saudi citizenship--can count on support from part of the population and the religious leaders. It is true that the regime has arrested dozens of individuals who showed sympathy for bin Laden, but the authorities emphasize that there is no direct link with September 11. Or, are the Saudis refusing to admit that there is organized resistance to the regime's policy? That would be admitting that the mighty Gulf state is not as stable as it seems."
"Too Early To Call It A Failure"
Chief editor Pierre Lefevre opined in independent Le Soir (10/30): "Is the American anti-terrorist strategy in Afghanistan effective? Is it failing? Doubt is gradually surfacing, not without reason.... Yet, it is too early to call it a failure.... Stopping today, for lack of results, would present an easy victory to the terrorists and to those who harbor them. Above all, it would compromise all the political solutions for an alternative to the...regime in Kabul. Leaving the September 11 attacks unpunished would also encourage new editions.... A serious and transparent evaluation is required. This offensive must not be carried beyond the point where it becomes counter-productive.... Washington must reconsider and continuously clarify both its strategy and tactics. Still more caution and precision are required; undoubtedly more presence on the ground is needed, and more attention for the humanitarian dimension is essential. The military intervention must prepare a political solution--with a clearer role for the UN. It must remain part of a broader strategy in which diplomacy, judicial investigations, intelligence and international cooperation prevail."
"After Three Weeks Of Bombing"
Foreign affairs writer Frans De Smet in independent Christian-Democrat Het Nieuwsblad commented (10/30): "After three weeks of bombings on Afghanistan things are going wrong. The bombs do not hit their targets. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leaders continue to defy Washington.... It resembles a new edition of the bombings in Kosovo, two years ago. The hawks in Washington once more corroborate the Islamic world's fallacy that it is a modern crusade. Nobody can win from such a disastrous confrontation. We have already come to the astonishing conclusion that Osama's European network...is not composed of imported terrorists, but of second and third generation immigrants. These are youngsters who opt for fundamentalism because they can no longer stand the racism around them. Are they completely wrong?... For reasons of self-interest we call for peace. If we cannot capture bin Laden or his fellow terrorists, let's please help the Afghan people in peace. In other words, it would be a hopeful development if more gifts were collected for that suffering people than for our heiress to the throne Elisabeth."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Three Weeks"
David Shorf opined in the right-of-center Lidove Noviny (10/31): "Only three weeks have passed since the beginning of U.S. retaliation against the Taliban, but some already say that the war is lost.... Are three weeks long enough to defeat terrorism? What can be done within 21 days? ... People start to be skeptical as they see no progress but only everyday routine bombing. Polls in the U.S. and Great Britain show that people are starting to doubt a victory over terrorism. ... It is understandable. The results achieved so far seem to be better for the Taliban and terrorists. Winter, which means a failure for the U.S. operation in Afghanistan, is drawing near, bin Laden is still free and the Taliban shows no signs of a breakdown. ... But it was clear from the beginning that it will be difficult to present a victory. And all of us said: yes, we will be patient. We should not forget about this."
"Anglo-American Terrorist Pilots?!"
Pavel Bobek wrote in right-center MF Dnes (10/31): "American bombs probably hit a hospital in Afghanistan, my most favorite papers informed on the front page. Probably. The Taliban says definitely. Our media...buy information from the Taliban, because the Allies for obvious reasons do not inform much. ... The war against Taliban is our war. I therefore do not understand why [our media] pick up hostile Taliban's propaganda and evoke anti-American feelings in our uninformed fellow citizens. Let us not awake at the time when some other Atta--and a lot of guys like him feel very comfortable in Prague--hit the Wenceslas Square in Prague."
DENMARK: "Removing The Threat"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende commented (10/31): "Support for the action in Afghanistan remains solid in the West, but questions will continue be raised regarding its effectiveness as the campaigns draws out. Already calls for a break in the bombing are being heard more frequently.... [But, it must be remembered] that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are at war against anyone who does not share their fanatical world view.... Western ideals were attacked on September 11. The allied response will not be halted until we are sure that the threat [of similar attacks] has been removed."
"Unsuccessful Campaign"
Sensationalist tabloid BT asserted (10/31): "The is nothing to suggest that we are any nearer to capturing bin Laden than four weeks ago. The Taliban regime also appears to have been unaffected by the [U.S.-led] strikes, while the numbers of civilian casualties are growing.... It looks like President Bush was right when he said that this could be a long, drawn out affair.... But despite the fact that the results so far have been disappointing, Bush could not really have acted differently as the American people were calling for a powerful response."
"Civil Rights Must Be Protected"
Center-left Politiken (10/31): "After September 11, it is crucial that we pay more attention to the defense of our values and our way of life. The terrorists that we will attempt to defend ourselves against are not normal citizens, but the new methods that may be implemented must not subject to misuse."
"War Is A Dirty Business"
Left-wing Information editorialized (10/30): "War is a dirty business. The longer the conflict in Afghanistan continues, the more photographs we are going to see of dead children.... But the war against terrorism is necessary and it is backed by the UNSC.... The E.U. must stand firm regarding the extradition of suspected terrorists to the United States. They must not be transferred to the U.S. if they risk receiving a death sentence.... The war against terrorism being waged to protect democracy and the rule of the law. We must guard against undermining the things we are fighting for."
GREECE: "Faced With Impasse"
Writing in independent influential Kathimerini commentator Stavros Lygeros said (10/30): "After four weeks of operations in Afghanistan the results are rather poor.... Americans run the risk of entering a political impasse. Washington is faced with a serious strategic dilemma. Should it continue and escalate ground operations, it risks destabilizing Islamic countries, mainly Pakistan, that have difficulty standing on its side. Should it go ahead with a ceasefire, winter will come and operations will be postponed until next spring. The White House has no room for backing out. Unless the Taleban regime falls, President Bush will be in a difficult position and U.S. prestige will suffer a serious blow. At present, Washington hopes to achieve its objective formulating an alternative scheme of power around the former Afghan king with the participation of tribal leaders. Its efforts however, have not yet produced tangible results.... Should an agreement be succeeded, there will be need for strong military forces to overthrow the Taliban and support the new regime. This may involve the Americans in a guerrilla war that will cost them a high price on all levels."
"License To Kill And Propaganda"
The lead editorial in popular, influential and anti-American Eleftherotypia judged (10/30): "Three weeks after operations started in Afghanistan the impasse of this war has been confirmed. Military operations have practically failed because they brought about the opposite results from those expected.... Other evidence proving the embarrassment of the protagonists of the war --American and British--is their attacks on media, to which they attribute their own failure to convince public opinion about the legality of their operation against Afghanistan. As the NYT wrote, U.S. propaganda is not effective among the Arab world because images of injured children from Afghanistan and Israeli tanks in Palestinian territories have innundated their TV screens.... No propaganda can convince anyone that this war is not irrational and pointless. This war is not about self-defense, but an end in itself."
"U.S. Counting Seconds"
Writing in leftist pro-government Ethnos chief editor Giorghos Harvalias said (10/30): "23 days into operations in Afghanistan the strategy of the superpower against a poorly defined enemy appears trying to balance on tight rope. The fact that a substantial amount of time passed until the U.S. responded...created the impression that the more sober voices in President Bush's staff had prevailed and prevented impulsive moves of 'communicational distraction.' Many even thought that this time the Americans were designing a strategy to deal with terrorists taking into account clearly military criteria that would help achieve political objectives as well. It is proven that there is no strategy to effectively deal with the Bin Laden phenomenon.... In light of a prolonged military impasse, the Americans are realizing that they are being trapped in a complex front with unspecified political consequences. The only certain thing is that it is the Americans who 'count the seconds' unable to deal with an upcoming unprecedented international crisis."
HUNGARY: "Sum"
Former Washington correspondent Oszkar Fuzes editorialized in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (10/31): "The question is what sense does it make to continue the bombing of Afghanistan if Osama bin Laden has indeed fled the country? Also, if the international anti-terrorist coalition generates further problems (instead of solutions) in other crisis zones (the Mideast, Kashmir and the Caucasus), then why maintain it? Only for the sake of the U.S.' war in Afghanistan?"
"The Other War"
Foreign affairs writer Eva Elekes indicated in independent Nepszava (10/30): "As was foreseen the longer the military conflict lasts in Afghanistan, the more difficult it becomes for America to win the support of the public abroad, at home, and, in particular, in the Islamic world. If the bombing doesn't stop soon, when Ramadan comes, bin Laden (and those who harbor him) score additional points in the propaganda game. It is doubtful that the anti-terrorist coalition can be held together and thesupport of the moderate Muslim world can be maintained. Washington is trying to find the way to win the 'other war' for the public's support."
"Lasting War"
Foreign editor Gabor Stier editorialized in conservative Magyar Nemzet (10/30): " The reasonable good theory that the Northern Alliance would provide on-the-ground support for coalition bombing has yet to be substantiated. The opposition forces (Northern Alliance) to the Taliban are morally and militarily too weak. The fact that there have been civilian casualties already weakens the international alliance's political cohesion. It also helps Osama bin Laden. It is therefore no surprise that George W. Bush repeats more often that it is going to be a lasting and complicated war. He already knows that the fight will be more complex and will last longer than was expected by the more moderate strategists in Washington .
NORWAY: A Bombing War Off The track"
In the social democratic Dagsavisen (10/31) editor of foreign affairs Erik Sagflaat commented: "What was supposed to be a targeted action for tracking down, catching or removing Osama bin Laden, his terror network and his closest allies, has so far ended up as a more than three week-long bombing war... Airplanes and bombs are not made to fight individual people... Therefore the danger is imminent that what started as a targeted action to damage a criminal network, will still end up as a traditional war about power over a territory. In a war such as the one going on at the moment, it is understandable that not everything that happens can be shown in public. That would only benefit the enemy. But in a situation where public opinion's support is so decisive for the alliances that are built, one must at least manage to focus on why one is fighting, and on what the goal is... In addition, it is not on the battlefield that the decisive battle against terrorism is now taking place. That battle is going on through intelligence, with judicial, political, and economic tools, and in completely different places than the poor and bombed-out Afghanistan."
"The Bombs"
The Christian democratic newspaper Vaart Land (10/31) commented: "It is also clear that the fight against terrorism must be a long-term operation, and that the military actions in Afghanistan are only a small part of this fight. We understand that bishops and others do not like the bombs, and we totally agree that other tools should be used in the fight against this threat. But military use of power also has its place... Memory can easily fail us all, but shouldn't we try to remember September 11 a few more weeks?"
POLAND: "All The Heads Of The Hydra"
Krzysztof Darewicz opined in centrist Rzeczpospolita (10/30): "Three weeks of military operations in Afghanistan have proven that in this war, as President Bush warned, there will not be an expeditious victory.... Although a victory in military categories appears to be, sooner or later, real, the question whether a political victory is possible in...Afghanistan remains unanswered. Will it be possible in the foreseeable future, despite negative experience in Somalia, to establish peace and stability in Afghanistan? In such cases for the past few hundred years the Western world has employed a very efficient solution called colonialism. In the post-colonial era the solution should be the United Nations, World Bank and Red Cross. But the truth is that these institutions are helpless in situations when they are not supported by military forces.... A similar situation is with terrorists. Can we talk about victory even after Osama bin Laden is killed and his Al-Qaeda dispersed? What about hamas, Jihad, Iraq, Syria, North Korea and Libya? We do not even know how many heads the hydra has. Thus far, only Heracles has managed to defeat it. And only in mythology."
PORTUGAL: "Judges or 'Rambos'?"
Editorial by deputy editor-in-chief Nuno Pacheco in influential center-left Público (10/31): "The subject of political assassinations ordered by the state, touched on in this space yesterday, has not been exhausted.... The logic of the United States (which, let us not forget, has still not ratified the International Criminal Court)....is to combine the conventional war in course (where killing and dying are part of the rules of the 'game') with another war, one with secret 'avengers', counterposing it -- invoking 'legitimate defense' -- against faceless terror. Bad choice. If we have a way of life to defend, as is being insistently said, it would be good not to let ourselves be fooled by a 'way of death' that is totally alien to it. And that leaves to the illegitimate action of Rambos on the loose what ought to be the task -- exclusive, determined, effective and above all legitimate -- of the police and the courts, whether international or not."
"War With An End"
Daily "Straight Lines" column by senior journalist Lufs Delgado in respected moderate-left Diário de Notfcias (10/31): "[...I]t is most useful for us, for all the democracies, to assume that against terrorism we are facing an incurable cancer,....particularly when this new kind of terror is based on fanatical beliefs that have nothing religious or political in them. On the other hand, however, I am among those who believe that this war against the Taliban will be very short, rapid and effective.... This war has an end, and it is in sight. As much to the contrary as it might seem."
"Legitimacy"
Associate editor-in-chief Francisco Azevedo e Silva noted inrespected moderate-left Diário de Notfcias (10/30): "The war against terrorism has entered its most difficult phase.... It helps little to remember that from the very beginning it was emphasized...that this would be a different and prolonged battle; fatigue corrodes and leads many to question the effectiveness of the response, and to remind that there is a premise on the international scene according to which retaliation must be proportional to the attack suffered.... Waging war is not applying justice but, unfortunately, it could be the only way to block further injustices.... The legitimacy of the U.S. response flows not only from the attack that targeted it, but also from the objectives upon which its military actions combating terrorism are based.... The more time it takes for military action to achieve its objectives, the less will be its ability to convince that they are achievable.... That is why time is the great enemy of the military operation under way."
"Asymmetries"
Column by Público On-Line editor JosT Vitor Malheiros in center-left Público (10/30): "The war in Afghanistan is not going as well for the U.S. and its allies as had been hoped, and threatens to grow too long.... The Taliban and al-Qaeda are, for now, winning the propaganda battle.... No one promised us a quick or easy or pretty war. But the truth is that everyone ingenuously expected it. After three weeks impatience and worry took hold among the most committed, and yawns among the most indifferent (the people don't yawn, but the public does).... It's possible that American casualties will be the price to pay to keep Muslim countries within an antiterrorist coalition.... Which could be yet another new characteristic of the 'asymmetry' of these new conflicts, played out on the field of propaganda: the absurd requirement that the most powerful forces adopt tactics that hurt themselves."
SPAIN: "50 Days That Have Begun To Change Face Of World"
Independent El Mundo commented (10/31): "While some already take refuge in the pacifist mantra according to which 'anything is better than war,' the operations against Afghanistan, that barely appear effective and have many civilian victims, are shaking part of Western public opinion.... And although its progress is relatively uncertain and the prospects for capturing Bin Laden doubtful, the West simply has no other alternative... The battle for public opinion may even be lost, and that would be grave. The attitude of the media...is one of the delicate components of the situation."
"The Ramadan Controversy"
Centrist La Vanguardia noted (10/30) "International public opinion is starting to form a less optimistic idea of the future of the U.S.-lead campaign.... [We are seeing] the first images of Afghan children killed by the inevitable military errors inherent in all war, and we now have a pessimistic mood in the West, not so much i n respect to the moral justification of the campaign, as to its course. Ramadan can only make things worse, as it is going to be very complicated, not to say impossible, to satisfy the wishes of the allied Arab countries regarding an already complicated military campaign.. This mood, however, should not reduce European support for the anti-terrorist cause led by the United States."
"Vertigo In Pakistan"
Left-of-center El Pais underlined (10/30): "As the anti-Taliban war spreads, Pakistan is becoming the main stage.... In some Muslim countries, the boast of Bin Laden, that the U.S. is a fictitious superpower that won't take the risk of endangering its own soldiers' lives, is beginning to make headway. Afghan fundamentalists are resisting more than had been expected.... Pakistan is paying the price for having used Islam to support the creation of a friendly government in Afghanistan.... Bush is to meet Musharraf in New York, November 10,(...) Washington should make good on all its promises, especially on the economic front, made to its critical Asiatic ally. There are a number of factors hanging over Pakistan that can lead to its destabilization."
TURKEY: "This Will Not End Soon"
Sami Kohen averred in mass-appeal Milliyet (10/31): "This is a fight against terrorism. The war against Afghanistan is the first step in a process that will take a long time. Some difficulties or failures in this long struggle should be considered normal. . The war in which the U.S. is involved is a very risky and complex thing, and it might continue for a very long time. Therefore, the 'hurry up, finish it up' type of message being sent to Washington does not make much sense. Even if the U.S. hurries, the problem will not be resolved quickly. This is the dilemma that both the U.S. and the coalition are facing right now."
"Civilians Hurt in Afghanistan"
Necdet Sivasli wrote in nationalist Ortadogu (10/30): "The rising civilian death toll in the U.S.-led operations against Afghanistan has begun to create uneasiness in Islamic countries.. Turkey should support Washington's policies of struggle against terrorism, but at the same time it should consider the fact that the Arab world might set up a front against Turkey if Turkey decides to join ground operations in Afghanistan."
"Bombs Fall Onto Babies"
Derya Sazak wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (10/30): "There is a growing reaction to the U.S. killing civilians in the air strikes on Afghanistan. If the civilian bombardment continues as is now, President Bush will lose public support. . The countries that supported the United States in the beginning of the operation will also begin to react against Washington because the media have begun to show that children died during the U.S. air strikes."
"As The Bombardment Drags On"
Haluk Ulman opined in economics/politics Dunya (10/30): "The most difficult part is the forming of a new administration for Afghanistan. It is easy to say 'Afghanistan is for Afghans' but implementing this is very difficult because there is no national consciousness in that country.... The United States faces a tough task in creating a unified national government where a national consciousness does not exist. The U.S., with the help of its powerful military, will eventually overcome the military problems of this conflict, but overcoming political problems will not be that easy."
"Question Marks and Civilian Casualties Rather Than a Solution"
Semih Idiz argued in tabloid Star (10/30): "Countries supporting the U.S. strikes against Afghanistan are very keen to see a tangible operation plan, a detailed and well-targeted one, if they are to be convinced of the validity of the U.S. approach. But there are increasing signs which prove otherwise.... One of the failures is the formation of an anti-Taliban alliance.... The Northern Alliance consists of ethnic tribes with constant disputes with each other. Making it work as a regular united army requires a serious training, and there is simply no time for that."
"Which One is the Roaring Mouse: Bin Laden Or U.S."
Erol Manisali commented in intellectual/opinionmaker Cumhuriyet (10/29): "The September 11 attack gave the U.S. and UK a chance to open a new front in Asia. This front is the extension of an already-existing line from the Gulf, the Balkans, and the Caucasus to Northern Iraq. The U.S. is currently fighting with its former 'guy' Bin Laden.... The joint operation against Afghanistan aims at establishing a short sea route for Central Asian oil and gas via Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the partners (U.S. and U.K.) want to impose their world order on Asia just as they did before. As for Bin Laden: he is like the character in a Peter Sellers movie. Bin Laden was brought up by the U.S. and U.K."
NON-NATO EUROPE
RUSSIA: "Taliban Won't Be Swayed"
Pavel Felgengauer noted in reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (10/31): "The Americans have been massing fire on the Talibs, and the Russians have been pumping arms into the North Alliance. All to no avail. Taliban is standing its ground, refusing to give up Bin Laden.... Afghanistan, while it can absorb any amount of foreign hard currency, weapons and troops, hardly ever changes, except in that its people increasingly revert to the lifestyle of the early medieval times, their total impoverishment a spawning ground for terrorism and savagery. The last thing you want now is for some Pakistani scientist or army officer, acting out of sympathy for Islamic radicals, to sell the Talibs or Bin Laden an atomic bomb or weapons-grade uranium."
"Discontent in U.S. Mounts"
Yuriy Sigov reported from Washington for reformist Noviye Izvestya (10/31): "It is utterly wrong to think that all Americans support President George Bush and his military action against the Talibs. Discontent over the senseless air war on Afghanistan has been growing."
"Afghanistan Is Special"
Sergey Sumbayev stated in centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (10/31): "Afghanistan is special.... Air raids, far from resolving problems, make them even worse. Destroying peaceful towns and villages is no help and will eventually undo all efforts of the international community."
"What Comes After Taliban"
Oleg Moroz mused in reformist weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (## 44-45, 10/31): "The hardest part of the job is not to form a coalition government but to stop terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base. A new government can do that, but it may need some kind of international control. This is where problems will arise. Iraq has resisted international control for many years. Afghanistan may prove even more difficult, as its people won't stand for anyone interfering in their affairs."
"Brinkmanship"
Under this headline, reformist Vremya Novostey (10/30) carried a page-one comment by Yevgeniy Antonov: "After three weeks of fighting, even Washington is beginning to acknowledge that none of the objectives have really been achieved. Instead, the political consequences of the campaign have given the world a bad headache. Failing to destroy Taliban in poverty-stricken Afghanistan, the Allies may face the rise of a new Taliban across the border, in 'nuclear-powered' Pakistan. The burning question is whether Islamabad is in charge and whether it can keep the Islamists from getting hold of nuclear weapons.... While there is no immediate nuclear threat, the extremists, were they to come to power, would turn the 140-million-strong nation into a source of instability in South Asia. To sum up, rather than seeing the operation wrapped up soon, with Osama Bin Laden captured and Taliban split and vanquished, we have ended up with a dragged-out war, no information about Bin Laden's whereabouts, and a consolidated Taliban, with the key leaders of the anti-Talib opposition killed and Pakistan in turmoil."
"Fighting Terrorism Is Just An Excuse"
Nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (10/30) ran this piece by Vasiliy Safronchuk: "Clearly, in Afghanistan, the Americans have run into something they have never seen before --a lack of political and ethnic support strong enough to help build an obedient puppet regime. As Washington speaks of 'moderate Talibs' it should know that there is no such a thing as a 'moderate Talib'.... The stated goal of the military operation--combating terrorism--is just an excuse. What Washington is really after is a group of dependent states in Central and South Asia to help America control the huge fuel reserves in that region and routes to deliver them to the world market. Putin is wrong if he believes that the Americans will leave after they destroy the Talibs and capture Bin Laden."
"Wars Need To Be Declared"
Vladimir Surin mused in centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (10/30): "To fight a war against another country, you have to declare it officially. What the United States is doing is not war but carnage.... Fanatics, claiming the right to terror, attack high-rises in New York. Three weeks later an 'armada' of U.S warplanes, coming in, wave after wave, bomb dusty poverty-stricken Afghanistan, without having declared war. Why? And why Afghanistan? Why bomb a country instead of hunting down Bin Laden? By bombing Afghanistan and sending green berets to its territory, the United States, in effect, is waging an undeclared war against a sovereign country... which is a violation of international law."
BULGARIA: "The End Of the War Doesn't Mark the Beginning of the Peace Yet"
Former Bulgarian Ambassador to Afghanistan Ivan Mateev wrote in the largest circulation Trud (10/30): "Even after the Taliban are brought down, the anti-American sentiment will long linger and determine the actions of the Afghan politicians and leaders. These sentiments will develop unpredictably especially if the Western allies decide to launch a ground operation. I dare say that the U.S. and NATO efforts to raise a regime to their liking in Kabul are doomed. An international conference under the auspices of the UN would stand a better chance. In it, the U.S., Russia and the interested western European countries as well as the neighboring countries like Pakistan, India, Iran and China can and must participate."
"Afghanistan Heads for a Balkanization"
Financial Pari (10/30) commented: "The end of the Taliban regime is taken for granted. If the states, comprising the antiterrorist coalition reach an agreement and if the main ethnic groups in Afghanistan do the same, the talks on the balance in the Afghan future government should be led in a very delicate way . Yet, such a solution is almost impossible.... There can't be a lasting peace in Afghanistan without a UN plan for disarming of the military factions there.... At the moment this seems as incredible as the fulfillment of another mandatory condition for peace in the country, torn by civil war for 22 years. This leads many observers to believe that Afghanistan is firmly on its way to Balkanization."
IRELAND: "Blair Re-States The War Aims"
The liberal Irish Times observed (10/31): "Despite growing public disquiet about the military campaign and its objectives there has not as yet been a significant drop in public support in the UK or the U.S., but rather a perfectly legitimate questioning of its effectiveness."
"Afghanistan Bombing Still Not Justified"
Vincent Browne opined in the liberal Irish Times (10/31): "But how can we divert our horrified gaze from the awfulness of what is going on in Afghanistan?... We know now they have twice bombed the warehouse of the International Red Cross, they have bombed a mosque, a hospital, a village, wiped out a family: that's what is admitted. The Taliban says there were more than 1,000 civilians killed in the first week. We can discount that but are we to believe that only a handful have been killed by these 'surgical strikes,' when we know the strikes are not 'surgica.'... I am referring particularly to the thousands of 'cluster bombs' that are being dropped every day.... Wwhat is going on in Afghanistan is worse than just the killing and the maiming caused by the bombing. There is also the vast humanitarian crisis."
"Who Is In Charge Of This Far-Off War?"
Col. E.D. Doyle looks at the question of field command and explains how the cluster bomb works and its history in his article for the liberal Irish Times (10/30): "What comes to our mind's eye about the Gulf War? From beginning to end, the great, bear-like confident figure of Gen. Schwarzkopf, the allied commander, will be remembered by most people. But where is his equivalent now? We see the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, and retired Gen. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, back in Washington. They provide the very necessary civil control. But where is the commander of operation Enduring Freedom? Should he not be visible on the ground, as Schwarzkopf was?... The Arab states have not yet felt the HQ of a commander whose job it will be to direct a war on other Arabs."
"War Must Not Become Conflict Between Religions"
In the words of the centrist Irish Examiner (10/30):"The risk of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan spiraling into a conflict between Christianity and Islam has been heightened by the slaughter of worshippers in Pakistan. Though recognized as a drive against terrorism, the longer the U.S. offensive goes on the more likely it is to be hyped as a sectarian."
KAZAKHSTAN: Media Treatment (10/30)
While strident criticism among independent media has leveled off over the past few days, some of the more sensationalist outlets continue to question the motives behind and wisdom of the U.S.-led military operations in Afghanistan. Government-owned sources remain largely muted on the issue.
"Powerless Superpower"
The independent Internet weekly Navigator commented (10/30): "It is now clear that the continuing military campaign in Afghanistan has little to do with retribution or the notorious struggle against terrorism. What do they want us to believe? That a superpower has supersensitive devices capable of tracking thousands of electronic signals...[but] can't find one terrorist, and bombs an entire country in order to eliminate him..? It's obvious that Bush's military campaign...conceals the United States' new geopolitical plans."
SLOVENIA: "The World Of Power And Injustice"
Left-of-center Delo ran a commmentary by Avgust Pudgar (10/30): "In the propaganda-psychological war which is accompanying America's shelling of Afghanistan, the politicians in the United States, Great Britain, and elsewhere are not supportive of delving into wider dimensions and background of the events which took place on Sep. 11 and afterwards. America and its allies in the anti-terrorist coalition have been selling to the world an unpersuasive image of a battle between the Good and the Evil, between the civilized world and barbarians... There might have been hopes that the superpower and its European allies would use the horrible terrorist attack...for a thorough deliberation about international relations... But rational considerations and analyses are pushed to the side.... The United States and its developed allies have forgotten that civil wars, regional crises, hungers and diseases are also consequences of the policy carried out by the colonial powers; particularly in Africa and Asia. Negative effects of economic globalization...add to this.... Osama bin Laden and his followers do not act in the name of the third world; nevertheless, in many places...the terrorist attack against the United States was regarded as the punishment inflicted upon the rich by the poor and the people having no rights. Of course, such a view of crises...simplified, but it is only as simplified as America's and the West's portrayal of the conflict between the Good and the Evil in Afghanistan."
SWEDEN: "America Never Got The Chance to Choose"
Independent, liberal Stockholm morning Dagens Nyheter's editorial by editorial Peter Wolodarski said (10/31): "It is about time to remind of what Usama bin Laden's network al-Qaeda wants. On its wish list there are demands that include the obliteration of the state of Israel, the killing of every Jew, and the establishment of fundamentalist states all over the Arab world.... Of course, one must have the right to criticize the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and certainly there are many relevant questions to ask, on tactics as well as strategy.... But it is something else to maintain that one can remain neutral between the war and terrorism. The Americans never had the chance to choose. They were the ones who were attacked on 11 September.... Tony Blair explained this well in an address at the Welsh Parliament. 'We are not at war with Islam, al-Qeada and the Taliban are at war with each of us, of any faith, who do not share their fanatic black and white picture of the world,' he said. So explicit, so refreshingly clear can a Social Democratic leader in Europe be today. In honesty one must say that also Sweden's Prime Minister Goran Persson has showed clear-sightedness and courage. However, it remains to be seen if he can manage to be as honest over next week's Social Democratic Party Congress."
"No To The Rule Of Fear"
The conservative Stockholm morning Svenska Dagbladet editorialized (10/31): "The terrorist attacks against the U.S. united the international community in a massive defensive operation, of which the military action in Afghanistan is only a part. President Bush's skilful handling of the threat from Usama bin Laden makes the world seem less insecure.... After September 11, there is a new situation, also with regards to the balance between freedom and state constraints. As a part of the defense against terrorism we perhaps must accept negative effects with regards to the protection of the integrity of the individual. But this does not mean that one should agree to every proposal. A closure of the open society would be the greatest victory for terrorism, and the most serious loss to the rest of us. What ultimately separates them from us--that unites terrorists of all countries--is the opposition against democracy and freedom."
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "'Leakage Committee' Meeting"
Independent Ha'aretz reported (10/31) that Sharon will convene a high-level ministerial committee today to review Israel's strategic capabilities against threats to the state's existence. The newspaper reported that the "Leakage Committee," a joint U.S.-Israeli committee established in the 1990s to keep track of nuclear technology leaking from the former Soviet Union to countries like Iran, met last week in Washington. U/S John Bolton (Arms Control and International Security) led the U.S. team, while the Israeli side was headed by Cabinet Minister Dan Meridor and included Israel's National Security Council head Uzi Dayan and Israel's Atomic Energy Commission head Gideon Frank. Ha'aretz cited U.S. administration hopes that the rapprochement with Russia will avoid such leakage.
EGYPT: "Banned"
Moderate opposition Al Wafd's editor-in-chief Magdy Mehanna held (10/31): "The former Pakistani military intelligence chief accused Israel of plotting the September 11 attack on the United States and the American administration of planning to remain in Afghanistan.... This information reveals certain facts. The United States expects the fall of the Pakistani regime due to its pressures on Musharraf..... Israel's participation with the United States in taking over the Pakistani nuclear weapon explains Israel's earlier fears of the threat of this weapon on its national security.... The United States is ready to abandon its friends at any time, such as its experience with the Shah's rule in Iran and Soeharto's rule in Indonesia, who were agents for the United States.... What is then to be expected from Washington when some regimes seek to have their independent national positions? As an Arab and Islamic world, we should not be dragged behind American wishes. We should make our own calculations while the United States is leading us to its war against terrorism. We should differentiate between our own and American interests and objectives. We should learn the lessons of others, such as the Pakistani president."
"Rumsfeld Does Not Rule Out Use Of Nuclear Weapons"
All pro-government front pages (10/30) quoted Rumsfeld's denial that the Taliban holds any American military hostages. Small circulation, pro-government Al Gomhouriya quoted Rumsfeld as not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. Several papers reported that American-Israeli commandos are being trained to take possession of Pakistani nuclear warheads in case of a coup against the Pakistani president.
TUNISIA: "What Goes On Behind The Scenes Of The Campaign Against Terrorism"
Referring to a New Yorker article, Editor Lotfi Touati in independent French-language Le Quotidien held (10/31): "To further demonize bin Laden, Americans accuse him of possessing nuclear weapons. These accusations, ridiculous as they might appear, are not formulated arbitrarily. They follow a logic that permits establishing a connection with the Pakistani atomic bomb. There are already claims that 'Pakistan has recently recognized that two of its former scientists seem to have had relations with the Taliban.' These claims were qualified by American officials as 'the dangerous tip of an iceberg.' The U.S. government publicly expressed its concerns of the potential taking of power in Pakistan by pro-Taliban factions. In this respect, we have just been informed that American and Israeli commando units are being trained with the help of the CIA to sabotage Pakistan's nuclear arsenals. Are the Islamic countries not allowed to have their atomic bomb after all?.... Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads and develops, in an excessive manner, its nuclear capacities with the endorsement of the West.... In fact, controlling the region's natural resources are the real reasons behind this campaign against terrorism. The implementation of this strategy will allow the United States to have a better control of this region, including China, Russia and India."
"New Yorker: U.S. Plan To Use 'Nuclear Capacities'?"
Some dailies (10/30) picked up on The New Yorker report, and examine U.S. plans to protect Pakistan's "nuclear capacities" from fundamentalists in case Musharraf's government is toppled. Taliban accusations of U.S. use of chemical and uranium weapons are reported.
WEST BANK: "New Yorker Report On Use Of Nukes"
Independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam reported (10/30) that The New Yorker magazine quoted American officials as saying that an American special unit is training to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons in case the government of President Pervez Musharraf is toppled. This special unit is conducting this training with an Israeli group of commandos.
EAST ASIA
AUSTRALIA: "Time Is Not On Our Side"
An op-ed from David Costello, foreign editor for the conservative Brisbane Courier Mail asserted (10/30): "It may be an unpalatable truth, but the Anglo-American war on terrorism is bogged down and in danger of failing. Worse, it is playing into the hands of the murderous Usama bin Laden and his protectors, the Taliban regime which is digging in to the bombed ruins of Afghanistan. The strain is showing in Washington and London.... With the hopes of early success fading, the U.S. strategy has been to resort to overwhelming force. The weekend raids on Kabul and the front lines north of the city were the heaviest yet. However, the tide of the war, both on the ground and in propaganda stakes, is running against the Allies. The Taliban is proving hard to shift while the ramshackle Northern Alliance is not advancing as expected."
CHINA: "Drive In Afghanistan Shows Limits Of Military Power"
A Xinhua News Agency article in the official, English-language China Daily remarked (10/31): "Bombs drop, civilians die, frontlines stagnate and Usama Bin Laden remains at large. If this scenario drags on for weeks and months, the United States and its allies risk seeing an erosion of public support for their military assault on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. 'The Americans could lose the propaganda war,' said William Hopkinson, a British writer on international security."
"Iraq Claims It Will Suffer American Military Attacks Next Month"
A Xinhua News Agency piece in official Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao_ claimed (10/31): "Since the September 11 incident, the United States has, on the one hand, failed to provide any evidence that the terrorist attacks relate to Iraq, and on the other hand hinted at possible strikes against Iraq in the second or third round of military assaults. This has generated worry in Iraq and among many other Arab nations."
CHINA/HONG KONG S.A.R.: "'Accurate' Vs. Frequent 'Mistaken Bombings'"
Correspondent Shi Junyu said in pro-PRC Ta Kung Pao (10/31): "In large-scale air strikes, 'mistaken bombings' and 'accidents' are indeed inevitable. The United States has always boasted about its 'smart' bombs and 'accurately guided' bombs. However, in such 'high-tech bombing' against Afghanistan, the United States has frequently made many serious mistakes....[and] should blush with shame.... The thing that the Bush administration is most worried about is that the formerly-united U.S. government and American public, as well as the military, have begun to question the strategy and military tactics employed against Afghanistan. They see that there is no obvious result from more than twenty days of war. And the frequent 'mistaken bombings' have created an impression that the U.S. is a 'high-tech rogue.'... The short-tempered Americans seem to be unable to stand it any longer. If the war continues, produces no results and the 'mistaken bombings' don't diminish, not only will the American people lose their 'patience,' but the countries that support the United States--even the whole world--will gradually lose their 'patience,' too."
INDONESIA: "Independency from U.S. Hegemony"
Independent Media Indonesia in an article by M.S. Iman and Adi J.M., activists in the Limited Circle for Techno-Politic and Social Studies in Tokyo, commented (10/31): "Whoever would know that each military campaign, especially air strikes, would bring about casualties of human victims and facilities. It is quite deplorable, however, that the United States still carries out such predictable acts. Perhaps, this might stem from a U.S. posture that does not very much heed lives in non-Western nations. Human rights cannot be built on the basis of discrimination. Hopefully, by fostering independency, at the same time avoiding a hegemonic power, Muslims would be able to play a meaningful role for the development of better human civilization."
"Behind The Anti-U.S. Drive"
Leading, independent Kompas, in a byliner by Agus Muhammad, researcher at the Association for the Development of Islamic Boarding Schools and Community in Jakarta, commented (10/31): "U.S. strikes on Afghanistan have increasingly prolonged this irony of the superpower. On the pretext of combating terrorism, the United States has been exercising extremely overt terror. The country claiming to be one that maintains and secures the civil rights is precisely the one that insults the civil rights of other countries. The United States should have, in the first place, produced strong evidence of Usama's involvement in the WTC and Pentagon attacks prior to its strikes on Afghanistan. President Bush declined to do it on the grounds that to do so could jeopardize the work of U.S. intelligence."
"As Predicted Initially, War Drags On, Victims Mount"
Leading independent Kompas asked (10/30): "What would happen if Usama is never caught...[and] the Taliban is never defeated?... These also entail horrible consequences...in the sense that the military campaign is going to increasingly escalate and be prolonged, causing [the number of] civilian victims to grow."
"Common Stance Needed to Fight Terrorism"
The leading, English-language Jakarta Post published this op-ed page interview with former Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas (10/30), who held: I think the government must explain much more intensively to our own people about terrorism: First, on our very firm and principled stance on terrorism and why. Because we are certainly victims of terrorism. There are moral and political reasons why we have to deal with terrorism. Because it is against the principles of our religion, our morals, because it kills innocent people indiscriminately. But then we must also explain that this is not, and should not be interpreted as a war of the West against Islam because it is not...and [it is] not against the Afghan people.... I just read a very clear statement by the new U.S. Ambassador Boyce that the United States understands Indonesia's position and appreciates Indonesia's position. Because we are not regressing. We will also continue efforts to prevent terrorism across the board."
MALAYSIA: "Stop The Bombing"
Government-influenced, Malay-language Utusan Malaysia's editorial stated (10/29): "The bombing of Afghanistan by the U.S. airforce is the most cowardly way of dealing with the enemies, and also the most inhuman approach since many innocent people are being killed.... What are United States' strategic objectives? Is Usama bin Laden captured? Do the bombs dismantle the network of Al-Qaeda, who is believed to have sheltered the so-called terrorists? Despite the incessant bombings, the Taliban militia still rules Kabul. On the other hand, thousands of civilian Afghans, including children, women and old men are killed, or injured, and become hungry and suffer from the war trauma. It is together with the whole world [that we] side with humanity and peace in calling for a halt in bombing Afghanistan. There should be other ways to address terrorism. Bombing is definitely not the way. Prolonging the suffering of the Afghan women and children will intensify hatred, which in the long run does not benefit humanity."
"Rubble Into Finer Dust"
The government-influenced, English language New Straits Times ran this commentary by its former editor-in-chief, Dato Munir Majid (10/28): "The longer Afghanistan is bombed and pulverized, the more difficult it is to achieve peace, because most American talk is of war.... This, in military and human terms, is what the doctrine of total and complete retaliation so beloved of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz means to the rest of the world. The longer the Pentagon remains in charge the more likely the war without end scenario is going to be with us. Those in charge are not eminently suited to the task of peace for they are men of war.... Who is going to keep the Afghan government together and the factions not at each other's throats? I am not saying it is an impossible task, but it will take many years of confidence building.... Will the United States not tire of the peace process as it once did after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989? And...will the Americans have the patience and diplomatic finesse to play impartial umpire without favoring U.S. interests alone?... This all seems rather remote from the war against terrorism, doesn't it? But there is a nexus, American and British policy makers are now saying, between failed states and terrorism. Over Afghanistan, over the Palestine-Israeli conflict, over Kashmir, the world is waiting for American leadership to secure peace, which is much more difficult than putting high-tech weaponry to pointless use. Peace and justice are the best weapons against terrorism, if it is terrorism we're really fighting."
"U.S. Action Brings More Harm Than Good"
Government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian asserted in its editorial (10/30): "Given all their technology, the Americans are still hitting the wrong targets, and these mistakes are causing people to shift their support, including those who are opposing the Taliban government. Four weeks should be enough time for Washington to realize that the bombings have caused greater harm to the civilian population. The stubborn attitude of America will only bring more protests from Islamic countries, as well as invite more threats to the security and safety of Americans."
"Waging War Will Not Resolve Terrorism"
Government-influenced, Chinese-language Nanyang Press stressed (10/30): "Basically, anti-war sentiment today is not so much Anti-Americanism or support for...Usama bin Laden.... The consensus is simply...that we cannot resolve to terrorist threats by attacking Afghanistan. Prolonging the war can only create more social instability, vengeance and uneasiness. When can this war be ended? This is the answer...the Afghan people want to know; this is also the question the international communities want to ponder on."
SOUTH KOREA: "Will U.S. Be Isolated?"
Kim Young-hie opined in independent Joong Ang Ilbo (10/31): "Conditions for ending the ongoing attacks on Afghanistan are crystal clear: the elimination of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network, and the establishment of a pro-U.S. and pro-West regime in Afghanistan.... However, the current military campaign is progressing without any visible results and negotiations about forming a post-Taliban regime are making no headway.... Given the current situation--with the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden still unknown, Ramadan drawing near, fears of anthrax spreading further, and criticism of the U.S. campaign against Afghanistan mounting in the U.K. -- there is concern that the trend might change in November and that the United States might become more isolated internationally.... The Bush administration needs to resist the impulse to expand the war to Iraq...[and] the U.S. administration should try to implement balanced anti-terror policies...while providing a framework for international cooperation to normalize Afghanistan."
"Two-Year-Long War And Thereafter"
Pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun's foreign news editor judged (10/31): In the ongoing retaliatory attacks on Afghanistan, the United States does not seem to have...a grand strategy. The U.S. objective of punishing terrorists and their state sponsors runs counter to efforts to find the root cause of the terror attacks and work out countermeasures. In addition, there is no clear evidence linking the prime suspect, Usama bin Laden, to the terror attacks. Consequently, the U.S. attacks on bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan are being viewed as a U.S. attempt to establish a pro-U.S. regime even at the risk of harsh reactions from the Islamic world. Given that the anti-Western sentiment prevalent in the Islamic world resulted from one-sided and coercive U.S. involvement in the region, the ongoing U.S. attacks on Afghanistan are tantamount to sowing the seeds of new conflict."
THAILAND:"War Continues Into Future"
Trairat Soontornprapat commented in mass-appeal, Thai-language Daily News (10/30): "Even with the installation of a new Afghanistan government, a civil war can be expected to break out and...continue for years to come. The terrorists will move their bases into some other country and hole up still deeper underground. Bin Laden's al Qaeda network will remain the core fighting force. Even with bin Laden killed, the struggle will not end there since he has already handpicked his heir apparent. The war will not be limited to the Middle East, but also spread to America and Western nations."
SOUTH ASIA
PAKISTAN: "U.S. Concern Over Pakistan's Military Capabilities"
Karachi-based, pro-Taliban Islam (10/31): "Despite cooperating with the U.S., our nuclear capabilities and installations are under constant threat. Why is this so? Pakistan is the first Islamic and the seventh country in the world to have acquired a nuclear capability. This is a constant source of concern to the U.S. The infidels never want to see Muslims progress and want to keep them away from latest developments by hatching various conspiracies."
"Plan Of Nuclear Dacoity [Banditry]"
Karachi-based, right-wing, pro-Islamic Jasarat (10/31): "The U.S. is also concerned about the demonstrations being held against President Musharraf's military government. On their part, American and other western leaders are visiting Pakistan to express their support and cooperation to the military government. But they do feel in their heart of hearts that the Musharraf government could be toppled at any time because they do not trust the Pakistan establishment. There is no denying the fact that Pakistan's nuclear capability is not at all acceptable to the U.S. and it would not miss an opportunity to destroy it."
"American Plan to Posses Pakistani Nuclear Weapons"
an editorial in the second largest Urdu daily, Nawa-e-Waqt (10/31): "The New Yorker has disclosed in a special report that America and Israel have planned a takeover of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.... In fact, a stable nuclear Islamic state is a problem for America as it is for India.... The Jihad in Kashmir is being described as terrorism while the American magazine has revealed a U.S.-Israel plan against Pakistan's nuclear weapons.... So now General Musharraf should talk frankly with America. He should admit the weakness of his policies and put his strategy before the nation, so that the country's nuclear program, the guarantee for its security, be protected with the nation's practical cooperation."
"Mr. President! Don't Ever Do This"
Pro-Muslim League Pakistan editorialized (10/31): "News is making the rounds that Pakistan's eminent nuclear scientist Sultan Bashirud Din Mehmud and some of his co-workers are being handed over to America for investigation.... We still don't believe that the government of a daring commando like Pervez Musharraf could do such a deed. We pray that the news is proven wrong and Sultan Bashir and his co-workers are released by the time this goes to print. But if that does not happen, then remember Mr. President, the people of Pakistan will not tolerate such an action.... Mr. President, don't let it happen!"
"President Pervez, Nuclear Installations And America"
Pro-Muslim League Pakistan (10/31): "Be it America or anyone else, they should remember that countries depend on their systems and institutions, people at the helm of affairs come and go. Pakistan's politicians protected the country's nuclear program very responsibly and none of the political parties demonstrated any carelessness in this respect. If people like Vajpayee and Advani can fulfill nuclear program responsibilities, how could the sin of doubting Pakistan's political and defense institutions be committed?"
"Alarm Bell"
Ataur Rehman wrote in pro-Muslim League Pakistan (10/31): "The report (published in the New Yorker) has wrung the alarm bell. Keeping the report in perspective, will we be asked tomorrow to make a choice between Pakistan and its nuclear program? And once again we will raise the slogan, "Sub Say Pahley Pakistan" (Pakistan First)."
"Terrorism Cannot Be Eliminated Through Terrorism"
Tauseef Ahmad Khan argued popular Din (10/31): "Thousands of Afghan children are certain to die in the coming winter. The UN is being urged to provide blankets, tents and food to the refugees on an emergency basis before the winter starts. However, the number of refugees is so large that it is very difficult to meet their requirements. We are stating all this because we do not support the terrorist act that took place in the U.S. last month in which thousands of nationals from 80 countries were killed. But at the same time, one has to ask the U.S. and Britain if the blind bombardment they are doing just to capture one individual--and killing thousands of Afghan men women and children in the process--does not constitute terrorism as well? Terrorism cannot be eliminated by committing more terrorism."
"General Franks' Visit"
The center-right, national Nation (10/31): "For Islamabad, the longer the attacks persist, with unavoidable 'collateral damage', the greater the outrage the people of Pakistan would feel, carrying pernicious consequences for law and order and the economy. It is time for the U.S. to taper its onslaught and utilize Ramadan as a cooling off period to rethink its strategy with a view to formulating a political solution as well as delving deep into its conscience to find out the real causes--so evident to the outsiders--of hatred, and sincerely work to remove them."
INDIA: Media Treatment Of Pakistan's Nukes
According to Indian dailies Pakistan could not have hoped for a better certificate about the safety of its nuclear arsenal than from India's Defense Minister George Fernandes. "Their nuclear assets are in safe hands. Politics apart, I would like to give them credit for being responsible," Fernandes told journalists after addressing a seminar on terrorism Tuesday. His defense of arch rival Pakistan comes in the wake of reports in the Western media of the possibility of the country's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists should President Pervez Musharraf's government be overthrown. Also Islamabad-datelined stories said three retired nuclear scientists who used to work for the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission have been handed over to U.S. authorities who will investigate their alleged links with Usama bin Laden and the Taliban.
"Perils Of Dithering"
The centrist Indian Express stated (10/31): "Is (the United States) really, as (Seymour) Hersh would have us believe, still busy training Israeli commandos (wonder how that is being digested on the Arab street) to take away Pakistan's nuclear weapons in case renegades try to seize them?.... For every day that the American alliance dithers and postpones decisive strikes on the Taliban, instead mistargeting its ammunition at innocent civilians, provides more nutrition to the ''Talibanised'' sections in Pakistan--in its army, in the ISI, or in Islamist groups."
"Nuclear Buttons And Fanatics"
The nationalist Hindustan Times declared (10/31): "For the first time, the world is dealing with fanatics whose thinking is beyond the comprehension of normal human beings. The safety of the Pakistani (nuclear) arsenal, therefore, is of concern to the entire international community.... The U.S. is trying its best to keep Pervez Musharraf in good humor by doling out dollars. But what of the fanatics in the ISI, whose links with the Al-Qaeda in the training of the jehadis operating in Kashmir have now come to light? Is it fully under General Musharraf's control?... The stakes are high for India also because the American success in the war against terrorism is bound to lessen the menace faced by India. But it is the unforeseen complications caused by a prolongation of the conflict which is a cause for deep unease."
"America Looks Inward"
The centrist Times Of India (10/31): "September 11 changed the way Americans looked at the world, if indeed they looked at the world before that day ... Today, for the first time, the average American has begun to comprehend realities that always eluded him, in particular that there is something about the U.S. that provokes strong anger outside. The dominant opinion has, of course, portrayed the conflict as one between modernity and obscurantism, with the targets being American multi-culturalism and a lifestyle that stresses consumerism and liberalism. Put this way, September 11 becomes an attack, not so much on the physical might of the U.S., as on its core beliefs. This perhaps explains why the American sense of patriotism, always quite overbearing, has acquired a shrill, jingoistic tone today.
"Air-Borne Disaster"
The centrist Pioneer stated (10/31): "Operation 'Enduring Freedom' is into its fourth week and...Both bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar are still alive and operating; the only people dead are innocent civilians-men, women and children per-force living under the Taliban regime.... Afghan Mujahideens are vastly different from the Vietcong who became battle-hardened only after years of fighting the U.S.... The Mujahideens have war in their blood; they fought and drove out the mighty Soviets a decade ago.... The Americans have no experience of fighting a war on terrain like the one that obtains in Afghanistan...and the U.S.' reliance on Pakistan for intelligence support is questionable.... The Bush Administration should now be ready to accept that Operation Enduring Freedom has failed."
BANGLADESH: Media Treatment
Newspapers (10/31) reported on fear of another round of terrorist attacks on the U.S., the threat of using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, and the remarks of U.S. Secretary of Defense that the campaign would be long and drawn out. Conservative Ittefaq quoted a Dawn report, which said that the Pakistani regime has handed over three nuclear scientists to the CIA and FBI for interrogation. The scientists have been accused of having links with bin laden's network.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Bush Team Has Lots To Learn About World"
Columnist Richard Gwyn noted in the liberal Toronto Star (10/31): "At the start [of the War against Terrorism], everyone from Bush down said this would be a war unlike any other war. Increasingly, it's becoming clear that while they knew this intellectually, they didn't know it in their bones. A greater familiarity with history would have helped. Except that to most Americans, history is bunk. But history is part of our present. Thus, the war in Northern Ireland is apparently - that word apparently should be underlined - now coming to an end with the IRA's agreement to decommission its weapons or, at any rate, to sort of get rid of them.... The terrorism against Israel has gone on longer. Terrorist wars are still going on in Sri Lanka, in Colombia, in Spain's Basque country. And, unlike in Afghanistan, none of these conflicts - that in Palestine as a partial exception - is being conducted by an opponent who is not only prepared to die for the cause but eager to do so. That doesn't mean the war against the Taliban and bin Laden is being lost. There is, though, precious little evidence that it's yet being won. Indeed, the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance seems to have actually lost some ground since the conflict began. It means, instead, that the much praised team around Bush has an awful lot of learning ahead of them. And the key to that learning process will be an understanding that they - and the rest of us - are going to have an awful lot of time in which to learn about how to fight terrorism."
"What Comes After Bombing Afghanistan?"
The leading Globe and Mail wrote (10/30): "What seems clear is that as the bombing continues, the law of diminishing returns has set in.... The civilian deaths, meanwhile, are fuelling anti-U.S. sentiment across the region. So what next? A massive U.S. ground invasion? A long series of clandestine, highly specialized commando operations? A lengthy pause in the bombing to accommodate winter and the dire needs of Afghanistan's several million displaced people? All these options pose tremendous difficulties. But so does the highly uncertain status quo. No one expects Washington to show all its cards. But some better indication of where it believes this all leads, and by what means, is becoming increasingly necessary."
"Operation Ultimate Hubris"
Contributing foreign editor Eric Margolis wrote in the conservative Ottawa Sun (10/29): "Pentagon brass and George Bush should have read a book about Afghanistan before launching a war against a fierce nation about which few in Washington knew anything. Blinded by rage and the need to avenge the frightful crimes committed on Sept. 11, the U.S. charged into Afghanistan with no plan of action, and no exit strategy. Washington has every right to bring terrorists to justice through police and intelligence operations. But not to launch a general war against Afghans who had nothing to do with attacks on America.... As it becomes increasingly evident the Sept. 11 attacks may well have been planned in Egypt and Germany, and delivered by Saudis, America's laying of fire and sword on Afghanistan makes less and less sense. The U.S. should declare victory and decamp from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia before it gets stuck in an aimless, endless war."
ARGENTINA: "U.S. Visa Waiver Program In Danger (For Argentina)"
Maria O'Donnell, Washington-based correspondent for daily-of-record La Nacion, wrote (10/31) "The US Visa Waiver Program -- that saves Argentines from making a line at the US Embassy to get a tourist visa -- is in danger. Yesterday the US State Department announced that six countries that now have that benefit -- among them, Argentina -- will be subject to review which could result in cancellation of the Visa Waiver Program..... One of the most vulnerable points for Argentina is the situation on the Triple Border..., an area having Islamic fundamentalist groups -- which is an old reason for concern for the US State Department that was reinforced after the September 11 attacks. After the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Bush administration decided to apply laws tightening immigration in a more rigorous way.... According to a diplomatic source consulted by 'La Nacion,' Argentina has another problem, in addition to the Triple Border, that better explains its inclusion in the list of countries to be reviewed: the economic crisis. It is one of the variables analyzed by the U.S. State Department when weighing the likelihood that those entering without a visa decide to stay in the US as illegal residents.... Although there are no official figures about it, some suspect in Washington that the Visa Waiver Program could have facilitated the election of the U.S. by those who felt that Ezeiza airport was their only way out of the severe economic crisis Argentina is going through."
"Now, The End Game"
Dan Krishock, liberal, English-language Buenos Aires Herald's managing editor, wrote (10/31): "Move over, Osama bin Laden, here comes Argentina. Though the Saudi millionaire terrorist holed up in Afghanistan remains the world's number one bogey, Argentina has emerged as a clear, if distant, second. Fortunately, no one is going to start bombing the country. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that scores of peoples in cities around the world will take to the street in support of Argentina. The reason the country is causing so much consternation, of course, is the fear that it is about to default on its 132 billion dollar foreign debt.... Unless the IMF or US has a sudden change of heart.... Osama bin Laden brought a hailstorm of destruction down on his own head after his hench-men crashed those planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Now Argentina is on the verge of bringing a hailstorm of hardship down on itself."
"Pro-Taliban Militia Urge To Corner Islamabad"
Maria Laura Avignolo filed fromPakistan for leading Clarin (10/30): "Islamic Fundamentalists managed to obtain support from the Afghan people thanks to the U.S. bombing, but now fear the consequences of a political solution which could seduce tribal chiefs--with their private armies within Afghanistan -- to eventually refuse facing the allies.... Another paradoxical aspect of this conflict is that Osama Bin Laden is winning the propaganda war in the Western world and is the new Che or new Islamic prophet of thousands of Muslim youngsters in Asia and the Gulf, but he and his Arab Mujhaideen lost all support from the Afghan people that are suffering the bombing in their country, and are accusing him of being responsible for their misery...."
"Intrigues In Washington"
Claudio Uriarte, left-of-center Pagina 12's international analyst, opined (10/29): "Colin Powell...said that he expects the campaign against Afghanistan to be brief, and that everything would be over before Ramadan... which starts in November.... Now, saying this and declaring that he wishes no war is more or less the same because there are a few remaining days before Ramadan and the coalition among the United States, Russia and the Northern Alliance not only has not invaded...the strategic city of Mawaz-I-Sharif and capital city Kabul but it will have to face an imminent and formidable General Winter that will turn the search and destruction of Al-Qaeda's terrorist bases...a task that will take months, if not years. This is why super-VP Cheney has appeared to calm down U.S. public opinion by warning that 'the capture of Osama bin Laden, dead or alive,' as promised in a cowboyish style by president Bush at the beginning of the retaliatory action, would be probably impossible.... It is hard to know what will happen now, but it is sure that Powell's hesitations refer to his obsession to maintain the largest possible level of Arab support. But he will lose because the US will always choose Israel as its strategic partner amid a patchwork of States that are unstable and non-representative spitfires."
"The Other War For Oil In The Caspian Sea"
Claudio Mario Aliscioni, leading Clarin's international columnist, wrote (10/28): "Evidence is enough to say that a more comprehensive scenario of the U.S. attack on the Taliban would be a 'back room' battle over the control of the huge wealth in gas and oil of Central Asia in the region of the Caspian Sea. It was the same George Bush who gave a clue of this looming geopolitical poker game.... Osama bin Laden demanded Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia and he said that the US military presence 'threatens the largest oil reserves in the world'.... What is at stake in this hidden war is not only oil fields. The problem oil companies must solve is how to forward energy resources toward world markets. It is precisely the network of interests of the countries in the region and those of the powers which has delayed the solution for a decade. Experts assure there are four possible vias: Turkey, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan towards Pakistan and India."
BRAZIL: "Age Of Challenges"
Rio de Janeiro's conservative O Globo editorialized (10/31): "The first reaction of the U.S. to the September 11 attacks couldn't have been anything other than military. Let's grant President Bush that there wasn't haste or improvisation. He himself had the common sense of preparing public opinion to a long, hardly conventional war. Since the beginning he warned that Osama bin Laden's destruction wouldn't be enough to restore the kind of world order where it's possible to leave home without fear. But, difficulties have been proved greater than the expected.... It's clear that we don't yet know how to face a bio-terrorist threat.... Nothing better illustrates the complexity of current disorder and the order being outlined than the case of Saudi Arabia. One of the main links of the alliance made by the U.S. against terror, this unfailing oil source is a well of ambiguities. Besides financing the Taliban, Saudi Arabia allowed fund raising for Bin Laden, provided the money wouldn't be used to attack the Saudi regime. Another symptom of current times are the millions of Muslem poor youths, without foreseeable horizons in a globalized world. They act as a reserve army at the disposal of radicalism. The answers given so far are not yet up to the new reality."
"The Uncertain U.S. Friend"
An editorial in center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo stated (10/29): "Saudi Arabia, the U.S.'s major ally in the Arab world, is its main problem in the region.... Saudi Arabia not only tolerates, but nourishes some of the most virulent focuses of hatred against the U.S. in the Middle East... Saudi Arabia gives the U.S., its major oil client, a treatment marked by hypocrisy and ambiguity.... Saudi Arabia is the U.S.'s most uncertain friend... Given the U.S. dependence on Saudi oil, it is not expected, however, that the White House will take any initiative of harming Saudi feelings.... The Bush Administration's posture vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia is limited to never expose publicly any possible discontent with Ryiad leaders and to maintain any source of friction far from the bilateral agenda, especially on the Palestinian question. Washington knows very little about what is going on inside Ryiad's closed circles of power, while King Fahd's disease only increases the uncertainties on the course of the regime."
"Old Anarchist Attacks"
Conservative O Globo's article by Marxist philosopher Leonard Condor held (10/29): "Perhaps today, in light of what is happening with Islam in our Western society, we would do well to remember -- in spite of the enormous differences! -- that which happened with the anarchists nearly a century ago. We need to be alert to prevent repression against with Moslems, so we don't do what we did you past anarchist sympathizers like Joe Hill and Sacco and Vanzetti. The past, as we must say, cannot be allowed to be repeated. With freedom of action to fight terrorism given to CIA, the dogs of dirty wars, according the Washington Post, are on the loose.
MEXICO: "Nothing Is Going On Here"
Gabriela de la Paz commented in Monterrey's leading El Norte (10/31): "So we are living in a paralysis due to the uncertainty that grows and does not allow us to concretely foresee anything. The crisis is not only due to the surprise and magnitude of the tragedy, but also because it has introduced several economic variants which are affecting other countries. After all, as the main importer of the world, the U.S. depends greatly on the outside world. In this uncertain environment we are forced to remain still, waiting for the end of this rather boring soap opera."
"Holy War "
Sergio Sarmiento wrote in independent Reforma (10/30): "The Taliban know very well that to achieve victory in a war with the most powerful nation in the world they must generate the conditions for a Jihad. Their main weapon is not terrorist actions but the damage that the U.S. bombings is causing in Afghanistan. Every photograph, every videotape of Afghan children killed or injured increases Muslim support. This is why the Taliban has placed anti-aircraft weapons near housing complexes and mosques. The U.S. government faces a tough choice. It would be unthinkable not to respond to the terrorist attacks, and the protection by the Taliban regime of Osama bin Laden is a tremendous insult. However, every bomb falling on Afghan soil brings sympathizers for the Talibans and their holy war.... The death and destruction on their own soil are their only way to bring more sympathizers to their cause."
"Suspicious Warning"
Editorial in left-of-center La Jornada stated (10/30): "The U.S. Attorney General and the FBI Director voiced a peculiar warning about 'credible information' leading to possible terrorist attempts in the U.S. It is hard to understand the logic behind the warning: let's be on the lookout for an unknown, undefined and uncertain danger that is forcing the government to implement additional security measures. Americans who are intelligent should realize that their freedom is at stake. This applies also for foreigners who live in the U.S., and for those who want to enter the U.S. on a temporary or permanent basis. President Bush announced yesterday tougher of visa procedures.... Finally, in the U.S.' absurd war against Afghanistan, where no difference is made between military and civilian targets, the statements by the U.S. Attorney General and the FBI Director are the preamble for violent and unjustifiable actions against the 'enemy' - that could be fundamentalist organizations or miserable huts anywhere in the planet."
"Who Are The Terrorists?"
An editorial in left-of-center La Jornada read (10/28): "U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson said a few days ago that the Colombian guerrilla and paramilitary 'are worse than Osama bin Laden.' This statement indicates the likelihood that the U.S. will increase its military presence in Colombia at a time when the talks between the government and the insurgent groups are on a critical stage."
CHILE: "A Far Away Victory"
Leading-circulation, popular, independent La Tercera editorialized (10/30): "The intense bombing over the last three weeks has accomplished little in dismantling the Taliban regime or destroying the terrorist network headed by Osama Bin laden.... The death of civilians and the murder of an opposition leader have been hard blows for the U.S. and has the specter of a never ending and unpopular debate.... Despair has made its appearance after the unfortunate remarks by Defense secretary Rumsfeld who has considered the legitimate use of nuclear weapons... The idea that the U.S Army is still far from victory and that this war could easily escape its control is going around in the international community. There is practically no doubt that the U.S. and its allies will win this war, but the question is at what price."
"U.S. Risks Destabilizing The Whole Region"
Conservative, Catholic University Television, Channel 13 (10/29) featured international commentator Karin Ebensperger, who characterized: "In the long run, because of its enormous military superiority, it is likely that the United States will overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan ... but at a high cost. The issue of a million refugees and wounded or dead children hits the Islamic public hard. Thus, to the United States the risk of destabilizing the whole region is as big a challenge as overthrowing the regime in Kabul..."
COLOMBIA: "The Big Stick"
The cover story in weekly Semana commented (10/29): "Hard words by U.S. Ambassador against the FARC clearly indicate that the global fight against terror has reached Colombia.... The first concrete effect [of the new U.S. focus on counter terrorism] is that Plan Colombia will be used to combat the guerrillas. In her remarks, the Ambassador erased the distinction that has heretofore been drawn between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency....The second effect [of the new U.S. policy] concerns the demilitarized zone. UNSCR [1373] signed by Colombia, calls on governments 'to deny refuge to those who finance, plan, and commit acts of terrorism, or support those acts and offer refuge.'... Efforts to extradite members of illegally armed groups] is going to be problematic. The Ambassador's remarks...were not well received ... Denominating the FARC as terrorists undermines their political status in peace talks, [thus] contradicting the Pastrana Government's initial peace policy.... An immediate domestic consequence of the international [anti-terrorist consensus] forged since September 11 are efforts to enact a new antiterrorist bill produced by the Ministry of Defense.... Exceptional legislation limiting civil liberties in nations with a well-developed judicial system like the U.S. [is not directly applicable] in Colombia, where human rights violations by government officials are abundant.... The future is unclear. Even in light of the new international environment, peace talks are still viable and probably will be carried on--albeit on Washington's timetable, not the guerrillas'."
"Carte Blanche"
Newsweekly Cambio stated (10/29): "Ambassador Patterson's announcement that the U.S. would seek extradition of guerrilla and paramilitary leaders suggests that Plan Colombia funding may now be used [directly] against [illegally] armed groups."
"The Ambassador Spoke"
The lead editorial in top national El Tiempo stated (10/28): "U.S. Ambassador Patterson's remarks before the FENALCO (National Businessmen's Federation) Conference...announced adjustments in U.S. policy towards Colombia based on new U.S. priorities.... The announcement that the U.S. will request extradition, among others, of guerrilla leaders with whom the Colombian government is carrying on peace talks pours a bucket of cold water on an already faltering peace process.... Now, in the face of the government's clear failure [to combat abductions], Ambassador Patterson has added kidnapping to the list of U.S. concerns, thus exceeding all possibility of fighting this criminal industry.... It's incredible that the FARC hasn't taken to heart drastic [anti-terrorist] messages being sent by the entire world ... The government's limited room for maneuver while maintaining controls on the demilitarized zone, together with the guerrillas' stubbornness, is not encouraging ... The harsh U.S. position threatens to derail a peace process that's quickly running out of steam.... The Ambassador's energetic defense of the Putumayo Counternarcotics Brigade evinces support for the military, responds to the accusations by Human Rights Watch, and reaffirms efforts to cut [military] ties with the AUC, even while [going after] the AUC itself ... Now, more than ever, issues of peace and war in Colombia are affected by U.S. concern about terrorism. Ambassador Patterson unmistakably clarified any doubts one may have had: the U.S.' new global strategy will profoundly affect its relations with Colombia."
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: "World Between Fears And Insanities"
Establishment Listin Diario in an op-ed signed by former DR Drug Czar, Marino Vinicio Castillo, says: "The world looks trapped once again between the fears of its rationale and its insanities, and, sadly, the relationships of death and force could end up being imposed. In this case, in the midst of a generalized terrorism, for those who banned it as a shameful action during World War I, the chemical and bacteriological war becomes a macabre entertainment of the most feared disappointments and resentments."
ECUADOR: "Don't Depend On One Single Man"
According to an opinion column by Jaime Damerval in Guayaquil's (and Ecuador's) El Universo (10/28): "The war in which the U.S. is involved is not the war announced by President Bush -- different from a typical war, and of long term. The new war, aimed at a gang, not at a state, should use different methods.... Afghanistan's war has become a vulgar war and it is also useless and counterproductive. There are two objectives: one, to thwart another urban attack; and another, to punish the authors of that attack. The bombing of Afghanistan...will fan the flames of hatred and inspire new attacks within the U.S.... The war is also useless in hoping to locate, within 731,000 square kilometers, the body of one single man....The main thing is to eliminate the motive of hatred, creating a Palestinian state, without further delays within the upcoming month of Ramadan as the first step. It is foolish and a crime to have the destiny of all of mankind dependant on the body of one single man on the run. It is understandable, on the other hand, that the world could depend on the creation of a new state and the democratization of others."
"Ecuador Against Terrorism, Pure Fiction"
An opinion column by Marco Arauz in El Comercio (10/28): "In the last few days, U.S. diplomacy in Colombia moved from a cautious position of recognizing the diverse status of guerrillas that participate in the peace process with the government, to a hardened discourse. Anne Patterson appeared last Thursday as the appropriate successor of the polemic Myles Frechette upon comparing the Colombian armed groups to bin Laden, because of their moral hypocrisy, their cynicism and lack of ideas. The day before, Patterson had already shocked Colombians by relaying the U.S. request to extradite guerrillas and paramilitaries.... No one denies that drug trafficking is one of the sources that sustain guerrilla activities in Colombia. Now if that is considered an objective of the U.S. and Colombian government, in that they have been identified as terrorists, the implications within the country are easy to foresee. We would have to be blind not to see it, or at least naive not to warn about the risks, and...the precautions that should be taken.... Has Ecuador options? And if not, to what extent is it obliged to go in this new fight that involves it geographically and politically, but that places it on the brink of a precipice that may turn out to be fatal?"
EL SALVADOR: "A More Difficult War"
Moderate La Prensa Grafica editorialized (10/30): "Although appearances can be confusing in this respect, this is not a war between the West and Islam, although it is Islamic fundamentalism, embodied in extremely aggressive minority groups (that are) the promoters of these savage forms of fighting.... It is clear that the extremists always try to provoke an atmosphere of terror, and that there are many ways to do it.... Aside from military operations that have to be successful so that the crisis does not become even worse, these forms of terrorism must also be responded to with psychological shields. If the terrorists, whatever their origin or their goals, manage to win over the morale of the world, actions taken to find, control and eradicate them will serve little purpose.... The Afghanistan campaign, more complex than one could have thought in the beginning, will go on for a long time. The United States can't leave there with empty hands. But this is only one chapter of this war, very noticeable but not necessarily the most important. The real and verifiable dismantling of the terrorists' networks which has taken much time to organize and supply, will not happen in a few weeks. Terrorism has to be surrounded and deactivated on all sides, everywhere. We can't forget that as a world-wide network it has ties and support in zones and countries we haven't yet thought about.
PARAGUAY: "News From The Front"
Marycruz Najle opined in centrist, pro-business Noticias (10/28): "International TV networks, independent media and officials of international organizations...are now not only expressing their concerns about the winter that will soon arrive in the inhospitable mountains of the mysterious Afghan territory, nor about the necessity to bring what little food and assistance has arrived to the thousands of poor unfortunate inhabitants. Now, they have begun to complain about the imprecision of the destructive, very expensive bombs used by the United States.... No one doubts the efficacy of the military force of the most powerful world power, nor do they think that the United States government has plans to eliminate all the Afghan people from the face of the earth. There are doubts about the efficacy of a war in which only civilian victims have been accounted for up to this point. These doubts must be taken into account so that the same acts do not keep occurring which call into question the ability of those who, in addition to ordering attacks, have a great responsibility to all humanity. A humanity that has too many memories of innocent bloodshed and which fears that terror in every form will be the sign of the new century that many dreamed would be one of justice and enduring peace."
AFRICA
UGANDA: "Avoid Assassination"
The government-owned New Vision carried this editorial (10/31) on CIA operations: "The Central Intelligence Agency is planning to resume clandestine missions targeted at killing certain individuals. Since the mid-1970s, executive orders signed by three United States presidents have outlawed clandestine assassination. Previously the USA had directly or indirectly orchestrated various political killings in developing countries during the Cold War. It is understandable that the CIA wants to revisit the prohibition on selective assassination but it is ultimately misguided. The United States is by far the most powerful country in the world. Who can discipline it? It would be very dangerous for it to start eliminating its political enemies. The CIA might start with genuine sinners but eventually it would inevitably start getting rid of legitimate but irritating critics. And if they were killed, that could lead to conflagration."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
