Military

KEY FINDINGS

--  Arab writers predict that, unlike 1990, the U.S. will not get official Arab approval for a strike against Iraq.

--  While nearly all see Saddam as dangerous, few want him as the anti-terror campaign's next target.

--  The view that Israel's occupation is responsible for Israeli-Palestinian violence has gained currency well  beyond the Arab world.

 

MAJOR THEMES

If the U.S. wants regional support for toppling Saddam Hussein, it must first make a credible push for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  A predominant view--in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and especially in the Arab world--was that the Bush administration is focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict solely in order to gain Arab support for expanding the war against terrorism to Iraq.  U.S. Envoy Zinni's challenge, many said, was to prove to Arabs that his portfolio was more than just an attempt to appease Arab allies and to provide cover for Vice President Cheney's Iraq mission.  Arab writers bristled at the U.S.' perceived disregard for what they articulated as the Arab world's priority:  ending PM Sharon's "aggression" in the occupied territories.  They also served notice that a repeat of what they saw as the unfulfilled 1990 quid pro quo regarding Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would engender more Arab "hatred" toward the U.S

 

The idea of Iraq as the launching point for the "second stage" in the war against terrorism was widely rejected.   Left-leaning dailies in Europe and outlets in Asia, Latin America and Africa were dubious of linking terrorist organizations with states bent on acquiring WMD, namely Iraq.  In their view, the U.S. has yet to "present evidence of the Iraqi government's actively supporting terrorism."   There were, however, a few stalwart supporters--conservative European papers--that stressed that Saddam Hussein is indeed "dangerous" and that Washington's "arguing, furiously and in public, over how to deal with him" should assuage concerns about unilateral U.S. action.

 

While the U.S.' return to "active" peacemaking in the Mideast was hailed, many questioned Washington's role as an impartial mediator.  Against the backdrop of a rising death toll, many judged Israel's occupation of West Bank land, with tacit U.S. support, as "the root" of the violence in the region.  The dispatch of the high-level tandem Cheney-Zinni missions appeared to dampen criticism that U.S. "passivity" has contributed to the region's deterioration.  But many said the true test of U.S. sincerity and commitment will be whether PM Sharon actually enters into negotiations.  In Israel, writers across the political spectrum braced for concessions to the Palestinians, stressing that President Bush will not allow PM Sharon's confrontational tactics to impede Arab participation in the war against terrorism.

 

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke

 

EDITORS' NOTE:  This report is based on 53 reports from 38 countries, March 9 - 12.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

MIDEAST

 

ISRAEL:  "Sanity:  A Cease-Fire"

 

Op-ed writer Rafi Mann commented in a page one article in popular, pluralist Maariv (3/13): "Zinni--the envoy--arrives exactly in these dangerous times as a partner to Sharon's new declared goal: a cease-fire.  In his first round, Zinni learned that the Middle East refuses to dance to America's tune.  The charm of the American envoys is long gone.  After the rivers of blood of these past few weeks, Zinni will find two sides that are mostly nervous and exhausted.  But it is totally unclear whether they are willing to lay down their weapons....  Maybe only Cheney, the 'acting President', can succeed in obtaining...what this region needs more than anything, sanity: a cease-fire."

 

"Waiting For Zinni"

 

Conservative op-ed writer Avraham Tirosh commented in popular, pluralist Maariv (3/13):  "The Prime Minister needed to carry out measures demonstrating moderation...in order to continue the extensive operation in P.A. territory until the arrival of envoy [Anthony Zinni]; [Sharon] indeed won some American support for this action....  But, starting Thursday. The story will be different.  There are substantial disagreements between Israel and the Palestinians concerning the implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell plans, and basic mistrust between the sides.  Any suicide bomber could carry out an attack during the general's mediation effort.  Differences of opinion between Israel and the U.S. are also expected regarding the proposal to station American observers in the territories.  Washington is showing prudent optimism regarding Zinni's mission--Israel's government much less than that."

 

"An Insipid Minuet--Or More?"

 

Liberal columnist Gideon Samet opined in independent Ha'aretz (3/13):  "The moderate wing in Israeli politics may have won a small achievement this week....  The prime minister was finally obliged to understand that force wouldn't get him very far....  But for the move to lead anywhere, Sharon has to conduct genuine negotiations.  Will he, or are we just dreaming?....  There are well-founded reasons for profound skepticism about whether Sharon seriously intends to engage in negotiations for a comprehensive agreement....  So, Zinni here, Zinni there, will be just an insipid minuet if there's no orderly thinking about how to get the sides out of this terrible spiral.  The Bush Administration is chock full of slogans but has yet to prove it has engaged in such thinking."

 

WEST BANK:  "U.S. Silence"

 

Semi-independent Al-Quds editorialized (3/13): "The silence of the U.S. and its position not to pressure its close ally Israel to end its continuous massacres against our unarmed people...can only be explained as a deliberate move aimed at giving the Israeli government a green light to create new facts on the ground before Zinni arrives to the region....  The Arab leaders must tell Vice President Cheney that the U.S. should give priority to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the issue of attacking Iraq, which, illogically, happens to top the Vice President's agenda in his tour around the Arab capitals."

 

"Zinni's Mission:  A Return of American Intervention"

 

Bashar Nassar opined in semi-independent Al-Quds (3/13): "The return of General Zinni to the region will test the American administration's real resolve to get Palestinians and Israelis back to negotiating the Tenet cease-fire plan.  It will also clarify whether the U.S. has changed its negative-approach policy toward the Palestinian issue, which has been embraced by President Bush for the last year, or whether [U.S. involvement] is just a temporary step taken for the sake of the U.S. war on terrorism....  One thing is for sure though:  As the Arab leaders are getting ready to present their proposal, they have to consider that the American reengagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a result of a conclusion reached by Washington that Sharon has failed to achieve calm his own way.  And therefore, the recent escalation in the situation has demanded U.S. intervantion as a mediator, to cool things down."

 

EGYPT:  "Why Is America Worried About Arab Anger?"

 

Leading pro-government Al Ahram's senior weekly columnist Salah El Din Hafez observed (3/13):  "The double standards of democracy in the U.S. still strongly dominate most American officials and thinkers' minds and attitudes in a way that implies a strong political orientation.  It even seems like a complete racist school of thought.  It can be summarized thus: freedom means all freedoms for America and Americans and no freedom for Arabs and Muslims.  This is simply the reason behind the American worry about Arab and Islamic anger.  American bias in favor of Israel...and America's alliance with Arab and Islamic governments to hinder...real democratic development can be cited [are]...the main reasons for the Arab Islamic anger against America."

 

JORDAN:  "Open Letter To Vice President Cheney"

 

Nabil Al-Sharif, chief editor of center-left, influential Al-Dustour wrote (3/13):  "Your administration...has opposed all Arab causes in all its measures and actions.  Supporting Israeli aggression and justifying Israel's crimes have become the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy.  Sharon was given the right to ravage the Palestinians, kill their children, torture their youth, assassinate their men, mutilate their bodies, and to violate their schools, hospitals and ambulances.  Your voice is never heard while F-16s and tanks pound refugee camps, killing women and children....  This is normal in war.  What is bizarre is that the U.S. now goes further than Israel in justifying Israeli behavior.  We know that your objective in this tour is not to bring peace to the Middle East, but to rally support for your forthcoming aggression against Iraq, which serves nothing but Israel's interests.  You will hear from everyone here that this aggression is unacceptable and denounced.  But on behalf of many Arabs, I ask you to take this question back to Washington with you:  'How will U.S. interests be served by aggravating the anger that already rages in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims?'"

 

"Cheney's Wares"

 

Bater Mohammad Ali Wardam opined in center-left, influential Al-Dustour (3/12):  "President Cheney comes to us to market the plan to strike Iraq and overthrow its president, and he offers us incentives that include honeyed promises to contribute to relieving some of the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people.  The problem of the United States is that the Arab official order is too weak to be pressured anymore, and it cannot convince the people [to accept] any pretext to strike Iraq while Israeli crimes in Palestine continue amidst flagrant American bias and complicity.  We are also accustomed to American initiatives, which are nothing but deceit and wordplay and statistics regarding proportions of withdrawal, time schedules, and complex conditions.  The Arab consumer will not buy these American wares, unless they contain elements guaranteed to make a difference, such as 'occupation repellents' or 'settlements cleansers' no matter how brightly they are packaged, even if the advertisements are translated into Arabic."

 

"Putting Out A Fire To Start Another"

 

Jamil Al-Nimri stated in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (3/12):  "Now we have two American envoys, one seeking to put out a fire, and the other to start one.  Zinni's mission coincides with Cheney's tour because he cannot discuss the American project regarding Iraq while the war rages on in Palestine, although this was not a consideration for the U.S. administration until very recently, when it persisted in ignoring Arab appeals to deter Sharon.  Instead it showed a loathsome and completel bias in favor of the barbaric onslaught against the Palestinian people."

 

LEBANON: "What The U.S. Really Wants"

 

Sateh Noureddine commented in Arab nationalist As-Safir said (3/13):  "Contrary to the belief that Cheney's tour aims at paving an American strike against Iraq, his real mission...is to prevent the possibility of an alliance between the al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime.  The U.S. is mobilizing those who oppose the Iraqi regime to start moving against Saddam from within Iraq.  Furthermore, the U.S. really needs Arab assistance in its next phase of its war on terror because the first phase concluded with serious American failure....  The U.S. started to appease the prospective Arab summit in Beirut by freeing Arafat.  Then the U.S. expects some kind of an exchange to take place: normalizing Arab relations with Israel for sparing Iraq and...perhaps getting the Arabs to assist the U.S. in its search for Bin Laden!"

 

MOROCCO:  "Intifada Between Zinni And Cheney"

 

Mohamed Yatim in observed in Islamic Attajdid (3/13):  "U.S. diplomacy is very active these days as Vice President Dick Cheney and General Zinni are both on a shuttle trip which includes many Arab countries to explore the means to end what the U.S. calls increasing violence between Palestinians and Zionists led by the criminal Sharon....  The common ground between the two visits is helping Zionists implement their military and financial hegemony inside and outside the U.S....  The slogan for those visits is to combat terrorism; however, the Palestinian people's intifada which the U.S. has qualified under the category of terrorism, has impeded all U.S. and Zionist schemes.  Zinni's visit has come to quell the Intifada and pave the way for Cheney's efforts to convince the world to support the U.S. in its anti-terrorism campaign."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "U.S.: Friendship, Alliance With Israel; Public Relations With Arabs"

 

Ahmed Hamoroosh wrote in London-based, pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat (3/12):  "It is well known that since his days as Secretary of Defense in the former Bush administration, U.S. Vice President Cheney has been a hawk calling for U.S. military ascendancy and dominance.  His visit to the region is to further U.S. plans, applying pressure on countries that reject U.S. dominance and subjugation." 

 

SYRIA:  "To Achieve Peace And Stability"

 

Government-owned Tishreen opined (3/12):  "Observers are linking Zinni's visit with U.S. Vice President Cheney's tour of the region, a trip believed to promote a possible American war against Iraq.  Even though the U.S. admits that Iraq was not involved in the September 11 events, and the whole region in addition to Europe, China, as well as the Secretary General of the UN opposes such a war.  The U.S.' incapability of understanding Arab issues with the Palestinian problem at the forefront, as well as its adoption of Israeli positions, has led to a deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and has frustrated hopes of the countries in the region that the U.S. will play a balanced and objective role.  Arabs are waiting for the Bush administration to revive the peace process and to intensify efforts to implement international resolutions, and not to add new tragedy in Iraq to that which has been taking place in Palestine for over 50 years.  The suffering of the Iraqi people, as a result of the sanctions has crossed all red lines, and any military strike will have counter-productive results that will drive the whole region towards tension and instability."

 

TUNISIA:  "A World Order In A State Of Drift"

 

Deputy Editor-in-chief Hajer Jeridi wrote in independent French-language Le Temps (3/13):  "The United States, which continues to treat its perpetual ally, Israel, with consideration come hell or high water, could not find a better solution to get out of this crisis than sending its emissary, Mr. Antony Zinni, who does not seem inspired to do what is needed fo rthe sake of peace.  The American administration has also refrained from castigating Sharon after having shown readiness to do so recently.  In fact, we are far removed from President Bush's highly publicized declaration in favor of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.  This call is no longer in keeping with the flavor of the day.  Nowadays, the language of force is the dominant feature.  Hasn't Sharon thundered forth with outrageous cynicism that 'it is important to inflict heavy losses on the  Palestinians'?"

 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:  Toward A Balanced Settlement, Not Just U.S.-Israeli Policies"

 

Abu Dhabi-based pan-Arab Akhbar Al-Arab held (3/12):  "We are all waiting the arrival of Bush's envoy to the region, General Zinni, and everyone is wondering about the dimensions and goals of his mission, which must have been outlined by President Bush....  What was surprising was Sharon's response to Bush's demands.  He stated that he accepts negotiations for a ceasefire without his precondition of a week of quiet...  There is no doubt that the American administration is badly in need of calm in Palestine to focus on its wars, and the Sharon government needs to stop its deterioration and the decline in its popularity.  It is in the interest of both parties to reach such a calm.  However, it is also in the interests of the Arabs that this be the prelude to a fair and balanced settlement, not just a means of facilitating the execution of American-Israeli policies." 

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Reluctant Cavalry"

 

The conservative Times editorialized (3/13):  "If Mr. Zinni can persuade all the key actors in the region that his presence is not a passing phase but a permanent feature of local politics then he will have achieved something.  And if he sets his sights at a suitably modest target...then he could make progress....  Zinni is right to undertake the effort.  The U.S. envoy is not without his own resources.  The decision by Bush to send him back constituted a notable shift in policy....  This White House has displayed extreme reluctance to initiate the sort of diplomatic engagement in the Middle East associated not only with its predecessor but the administration led by the President's father....  This scepticism was legitimate but conditions in and around Israel have deteriorated to the point of undeclared war that threatens not only Israelis and Palestinians but American interests....  The U.S. administration, represented in the area by...Cheney, while rejecting a `linkage' between Iraq and Israel would like to see the temperature lowered in the Middle East before it decides how to deal with Baghdad."

 

"If Saddam Would Fall, Bush Should Push Him"

Columnist Simon Jenkins held in the conservative Times (3/13):  "Many people in Europe, many of them in high places, think Washington has gone mad.  Drunk on bomber power, its leaders are seen as roaming the globe looking for rogue states to 'blow away.'...  Removing Saddam might be considered an act of preventive policing....  Saddam could go crazy with his weapons anywhere, any time.  Is it likely?  Possibly not.  Possibly it is the more likely the more President Bush taunts him the more it pumps up his status in the Arab world.  But I am not the policeman here.  America is....  He is dangerous, and dangerous beyond his borders.  In this respect Saddam is quite different from others in the 'axis of evil.'...  Diplomacy has been exhausted, including the charade of weapons inspection.  There is no security in the region as long as Saddam controls this pivotal state....  Unlike other `terrorist' leaders, in Syria, Libya and Iran, he refuses to mellow or respect the compromises by which he might re-enter the community of nations.  He has rearmed himself with dangerous and illegal weapons.  Removing him is a task which the United Nations should support and law recognize.  I do not think America is mad.  As the only global policeman, it has cornered a dangerous criminal.  That Washington should be arguing, furiously and in public, over how to deal with him is reasonable.  It is also reassuring."

"Wedded To Another War"

 

Columnist Jonathan Freedland commented in the liberal Guardian (3/13):  "Cheney thinks there is a 'potential marriage' between terrorist organisations such as al-Qaida and states bent on developing [WMD], such as Iraq.  He offers no evidence of this 'marriage,' just the possibility....  The vice-president's motive is clear enough.  Washington wants U.S. and world opinion to see the rematch against Baghdad as Phase Two of the war against terrorism, and that means forging a link in the public mind between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.  The trouble is, the facts are proving stubbornly uncooperative; the Iraqi connection just refuses to exist....  So we are left with the 'potential marriage' of Saddam and Bin Laden as justification for going to war on Iraq....  Blair's implicit backing for a new U.S. onslaught on Baghdad..is prompting a rare challenge from within his own ranks....  George W has no such problems....  [So] winning public approval for a new assault on Iraq is not Bush's headache.  It is international backing that is more tricky....  So far the U.S. pursuit of Iraq is making enemies where it needs to make friends.  That's bad news for Bush, but it's not great for his British best buddy either."

 

FRANCE:  "Sisyphus To The Middle East"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos said in its editorial (3/13):  "Zinni will need much talent in order to set the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations back on track....  In the region for the third time, Zinni will have to find his way in the middle of a landmine under fire....  The problem with this umpteenth escalation in violence is that it has sabotaged Anthony Zinni's effort, making his task similar to that of Sisyphus."

 

"Peace Prospects"

 

Bernard Guetta told listeners on government-run France Inter radio (3/13):  "Cheney is also, as he said himself, 'seeking regional cooperation in the fight against international terrorism.'  Clearly the vice president wants to push forward the idea of toppling Saddam.  To embark on this, the U.S. knows it must first open a widow of opportunity for peace between Israel and the Palestinians....  If Sharon accepts an interim agreement, Saddam Hussein's toppling and the destruction of his [WMD] would create a regional climate of dTtente, thus favoring a definitive and global settlement.  The game starts this week."

 

GERMANY:  "The Second Stage"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger wrote on the front page of center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (3/13):  "Six months after the attack on America, the Americans are still firmly behind their president....  Anyone polling current opinion in Europe and elsewhere on President Bush, the war, and a possible widening of the campaign would likely to obtain quite a different picture.  There is clear mistrust of the president, his policies are increasingly thought to lack perspectiveness, predictability, and rationality....  It takes not a  prophet but a realist to recognize that now that President Bush has announced the second stage of the fight against terror, and chosen the link between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism as his theme, the promise of unlimited solidarity is fast approaching its limits.  But America's allies should be aware of one thing:  They will not be able to prevent Bush from considering the spread of [WMD] such a serious threat to U.S. security that it merits considering the use of force.  They should also not deceive themselves with the cheap accusation that the president is trying to finish something in Iraq that his father left behind ten years ago.  Instead, the U.S. partners should make an honest effort to ascertain what it means when states like Iraq try to obtain forbidden weapons.  But even the U.S. president will have to face the question of whether it is wise to dismiss those who expect attacking Iraq to spell disaster for the Middle East, and of whether he can continue to shrug off the already widespread anti-American sentiment as beside the point.  If the roots of terrorism in the Middle East have to do not only with the political corruptness of the rulers allied to Washington and the conflict with Israel, but also with the impression of being disrespected and marginalized, then instead of being greeted as an act of global hygiene, any attempt today to topple by military force Saddam Hussein's regime would provide dangerous fuel for further anti-American outbursts. 

 

"George W. Bush would also be well advised not do conduct his campaign to woo partners and allies purely for the sake of appearances....   He may have understood that unilateralism means the advantage of maximum freedom of action, it has its price--a price that may be measured in mistrust, animosity, and the formation of open or veiled opposition....  The Bush administration should listen to what its partners have to say, instead of instantly dismissing it as idle chatter of weaklings or even cowards....  If there is to be one big project for the coming years then it must have something to do with the region's coming to terms with the modern world, with pluralism, and with something resembling democracy. The removal of the current regime in Baghdad would be one part of this, bringing peace in the region's central conflict would be another.  The U.S. should not be left alone in this task, but neither should it claim exclusive rights."

 

"The War Against Iraq Has Been Approved"

 

Peter de Their editorialized in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (3/13):  Despite a successful war [in Afghanistan], Osama bin Laden has not yet been arrested, but the Americans simply need a troublemaker.  There can be no doubt, the only question is when the U.S. will attack [Iraq].  Cheney's trip to the Middle East is also a clear signal to the rest of the world....  But even though Cheney is convinced that Saddam possesses [WMD], Washington has not yet presented any evidence of the Iraqi government actively supporting terrorism.  Cheney will be in the Middle East to woo moderate Arab leaders to accept the unavoidable.  It will not be easy for him.  In view of revelations on the U.S. willingness to attack seven countries, if necessary, with nuclear weapons, Cheney's mission could be doomed to fail."

 

ITALY:  "Cheney 'Courting' Moderate Arab Countries"

 

New York correspondent Mario Platero noted in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (3/13):  "The very friendly Jordan was the first stop on Vice President Cheney's mission to the Arab world to strengthen the coalition against Iraq....  Yet the first message of caution regarding a possible military intervention against Saddam Hussein came right from Jordan's King Abdullah II, during his meeting with Cheney yesterday....  The U.S. unexpectedly sent Anthony Zinni on a new mission to the Middle East precisely to deal with Arab concerns and to make the strengthening of the alliance against Iraq proceed hand in hand with a demonstration of goodwill towards the Middle East peace process.  But evidently that was not enough."

 

"The Siege Of Saddam Hussein"

 

An editorial in elite, classical liberal Il Foglio argued (3/13):  "If you want peace, prepare for war.  While Europe is busy with the French and German electoral campaigns, and is sinking in the ambiguous clichTs of a diplomacy worn out by pressure groups, the British and the Americans are doing what they have to do.  They are asking that Saddam Hussein abide by the conditions of the armistice signed in '91...by allowing unlimited inspections....  Saddam Hussein's regime is the target of the second phase of the international response to the September 11 terrorist provocation....  If the dictator has not given in, so far, to requests to allow inspectors with full powers of investigation, it is because he can still count on long-time ties of solidarity, variously motivated, in European government circles, especially Paris and Berlin.  Where does Italy stand?...  To participate in the siege on Saddam's palace is perhaps the only way to prevent a new war."

 

AUSTRIA:  "U.S. Pressure"

 

Foreign affairs editor Gudrun Harrer commented in liberal Der Standard (3/12):  "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S. pressure is increasing, but so far it's not strong enough to influence Sharon's terrorism-generating policy.  Meanwhile, U.S. Special Envoy Anthony Zinni is taking his time.  It remains to be seen just how determined his mediation attempts are really going to be.  It's no coincidence either that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is traveling to the region now.  There was no general Islamic outcry when the U.S. moved against the Taliban and Afghanistan, but a military operation against Iraq is virtually unthinkable as long as the Middle East is not stabilized to some degree.  Cynics may say this is the actual reason for the U.S.' renewed interest in the conflict, but it's far better than letting the Israelis and Palestinians continue to bleed."

 

BELGIUM:  "But What Are Sharon's Plans?"

 

Baudouin Loos asserted in left-of-center Le Soir (3/13):  "The mission of President Bush's special envoy, who is expected in the Middle East tomorrow, already seems in jeopardy.  The U.S. president finally decided to do something--after months of diplomatic lethargy--when violence reached an unprecedented level last weekend....  The Americans are the only ones who could reverse the dramatic course of events.  But their motivation first and foremost seems not to appear too unilateral in their support of Israel at the moment when they are getting ready to talk to their Arab allies about the need to support a U.S. attack against Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

 

DENMARK:  "U.S. Must Intervene In The Middle East"

 

Sensationalist tabloid BT commented (3/12): "The cancerous Middle East conflict appears to have spread in the form of international terrorism.  The United States must intervene in the Middle East, by using a mixture of diplomacy and economic methods."

 

HUNGARY:  "Concessions Not without Interest"

 

Respected senior columnist Endre Aczel opined in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (3/12):  "If cracking down on the Saddam regime is indeed first on the Bush to do list, it seems almost impracticable that the United States would start mediating (in the Middle East) when the intifada is still on in Palestine."

 

"Daily Terror, Saudi Bluff"

 

Liberal minded Laszlo Seres made the point in left liberal Magyar Hirlap (3/12):  "If we look at the many regions where there is a daily war against terrorism, we have to see that the main long term threat could be  Iraq.  But at present the main supporter of violence against Israel is still Iran.  Any attacks on al-Qaida and on the Iraqi 'Fuehrer' are in vain while Iran is still able to manipulate every development in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "Moral Bankruptcy"

 

Influential liberal De Volkskrant maintained (3/13):  "We do not need any more casualties to understand that both parties (Israeli and Palestinians) cannot escape from this vicious circle of revenge and retaliation without assistance from outside....  In increasing pressure on Israel to face reality, Europeans cannot hide behind the U.S. even though a joint position would be preferable.  It now seems to be the moment that no one can watch passively how Israel is being corrupted morally.  A democratic state that fights terror only with terror is irrevocably heading for its own moral bankruptcy."

 

"Continue"

 

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad opined (3/12):  "It was not our Twin Towers that were pulverized to ashes.  And yet there is something that doesn't quite fit.  Bush has no other agenda than this war.  Everything has been subsumed by it....  Attention goes more and more to Iraq; diplomacy is in full spate--see Cheney's trip to the Middle East.  Bush rightly pointed to the danger of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and 'rogue states'.  Without naming Iraq, it was clear that he was referring to that country.  An American 'Alleingang'; against Iraq would not be sensible.  Allied support and a UN mandate are indispensable for the future relations in the world.  The struggle against terrorism is not over....  Bush is right to take the war against terrorism seriously and to continue it."

 

NORWAY:  "Peace Or Sharon"

 

Independent Dagbladet (3/13) commented:  "The largest hindrance for a peaceful development is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his political allies in the extreme nationalistic wing of Israeli politics....  That's why it is time for the international community to see the writing on the wall: there won't be peace with Ariel Sharon.  Pressure along with political initiatives, a weapons embargo and trade sanctions must be put on the agenda.  And in the meantime the rest of the world must do what it can to protect Palestinian men, woman and children."

 

POLAND:  "Sharon Wants To Bring The Palestinians To Their Knees"

 

Monika Slowakiewicz wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (3/13):  "Prime Minister Sharon must reckon with the U.S. position.  In recent months Washington supported Sharon's policy line, but the Americans have their own objectives in the Middle East.  Vice President Dick Cheney, who began his trip to the region yesterday, wants to obtain Arab support for an attack on Iraq....  And it is no coincidence that U.S. Envoy Anthony Zinni is returning to Israel and to the Palestinians this Thursday.  A couple of months ago Sharon stated that he did not intend to 'pay for the ousting of Saddam,' i.e. to make concessions toward the Palestinians so as to ensure Arab support for Washington.  But the alliance with the United States is the key to Israel's security...and Sharon is well aware of this."

 

ROMANIA:  "Cheney's Carrot And Stick Approach"

 

Editorialist Eva Galambos wrote in centrist Curierul National (3/12):  "Although apparently the 10 day tour of Vice President Dick Cheney is aimed at evaluating the situation in the Middle East, more and more clues indicate that its real purpose is to try to convince the European and Arab partners of the United States of the necessity to militarily intervene against Iraq.  In order to achieve this, the Americans are using the carrot and stick approach.  On the one hand, Cheney stated that he would present his discussion partners with new evidence proving Iraq's continuing pursuit of WMD, on the other hand, the Americans apply a tiny blackmail, asking the Europeans for a sort of payback on what the U.S. did (for them) during the Cold War."

RUSSIA:  "The U.S. On The Go Again"

 

Aleksandr Shumilin said in reformist Izvestiya (3/13): "The Israelis and Palestinians pin their hopes on the Zinni mission as Washington is returning to active peacemaking in the Middle East.  While the situation 'on the battlefield' remains unchanged, there have been 'positive shifts' on both sides.  This is a chance for the General.  The Saudi initiative, even though it is being modified almost daily, has retained its two basic provisions: one, a promise to recognize Israel's right to exist, and two, the acknowledgment of the U.S.' decisive role in the peace process."

 

"Arafat's Free Again"

 

Leonid Gankin commented in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (3/12):  "No doubt, the (Israeli) Prime Minister has had to make concessions under pressure from the United States.  After a severe outbreak of violence last week, Washington decided to step in, changing from abstract calls for peace to telling both sides in the conflict exactly what they should do....  Ariel Sharon can't talk back to Washington, whose primary concern is to get Arab countries to support an operation against Iraq."

 

"U.S. Passive"

 

Vasiliy Safronchuk held in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (3/12):  "A simple way to stop the bloodshed is for the Israeli army to leave the Palestinian lands it has illegally occupied since 1967, to stop the construction of Israeli settlements there, and to let Palestinian refugees return home.  But the Israeli government does not want to leave the Palestinian territories....  It is commonly known that only the United States can make Israel stop terror against the Palestinians.  But up to now Washington has been downright passive."

 

SPAIN:  "Two Distinct Missions"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia editorialized (3/13): "The two missions [Cheney and Zinni] highlight Washington's two priorities, and they do so in a worrisome way....  The fact that the person who is traveling to the Middle East is Dick Cheney shows the importance Washington gives to the Iraq issue.   Anthony Zinni is not just one more envoy without any sort of power, but if the priority of the United States were to achieve peace in Israel and the occupied territories, the envoy should be Dick Cheney.  Certainly, for many Israelis the trip that they care about most is Cheney's, not Zinni's.  The reason seems clear:  Israel is afraid that the United States will make it compulsory for them to give up on certain issues in order to please the Arab partners in any eventual international coalition against Saddam."

 

TURKEY:   "Waiting For Cheney"

 

Haluk Sahin wrote in liberal-intellectual Radikal (3/13):  "The Cheney visit will make clear what Washington has in mind, especially concerning Iraq.  There are questions about the before and after of a strike on Iraq.  Ankara will listen to what Cheney has to say....  Let's see what's going on.  UBL has not been captured yet, nor have the senders of anthrax-contaminated letters.  President Bush is talking about the possibility of horrible terrorist attacks.  The Middle East is a bloodbath.  Meanwhile, differences between the United States and the EU are deepening.  This is quite an annoying picture as we wait for Cheney."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Bring Sharon To The Table"

 

According to the nationalist Hindustan Times (3/12):  "One can go on and on through the tunnel of cause and effect, but at the root of the Middle East's woes lies Israel's refusal to get out of a land that does not belong to it.  Thankfully, Washington is no longer comfortable looking the other way.  The Americans realize that the only way to bring about peace is through a political solution.  It should surprise no one that the Israeli prime minister prefers to see a political solution in the same way that a vampire views a crucifix.  Sending its envoy Anthony Zinni to the Middle East signals a seriousness on the part of the United States to bring--drag, if necessary--Mr. Sharon to the negotiating table.  Perhaps, it's time that Tel Aviv realizes--if for nothing but tactical reasons--that the best person to sit down with is Mr. Arafat. That's, of course, if Mr. Sharon actually decides to sit down."

 

PAKISTAN:   "Middle East Cauldron"

 

The center-right, national, English langauge Nation commented (3/13):  "The Middle East cauldron continues to boil with ever-greater fury, thanks to the ruthless Israeli bloodletting of the people of Palestine....  Releasing President Arafat from his more than three-month-old captivity is probably a gesture to the forthcoming visit of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East....  The Arabs should be wary of the underlying concern of Cheney's planned tour.  It is designed more to prepare the ground for action against Iraq than to compel Israel to work for a solution to the Palestinian question.  They should remember that as the campaign in Afghanistan started showing results, it put aside the idea of a Palestinian state which President Bush had favored while the coalition was being assembled.  If the Muslims, Arabs as well as non-Arabs, evolve a joint stand for the U.S. Vice-President, acceptable results may ensue."

 

"Plans To Attack Iraq"

 

An editorial in Islamabad's rightist English-language Pakistan Observer declared (3/12):  "Ever since the U.S. started hinting at the strong possibility of attacking Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, the world community (with the exception of tiny island called Britain...) has opposed such plans.  However, the latest indication about American intentions clearly shows that the United States is not interested in listening to saner voices and is bent upon implementing its own vision about different regions of the world on the strength of its mighty military machine.  One fails to understand why Americans want to turn this planet into a virtual hell....  The United States is now preparing to mount a massive attack and at a time when the UN Secretary General himself has termed his talks with Iraqi Foreign Minister on the issue of inspectors as a 'good start' and the negotiations are to resume next month.  The situation calls for a serious response by Arab League, OIC and peace-loving constituents of the United Nations."

 

EAST ASIA

 

JAPAN:  "A Chain Of Reprisals And Counter-Reprisals Must Be Severed"

 

Business-oriented Nihon Keizai observed (3/12):  "Although the Saudi peace initiative, crafted in line with UN Resolution 242, is nothing new, it is still significant in that the initiative stresses the need for Israel and the Palestinians to return to the starting point of peace-making.  The Arab summit opening in Lebanon later this month will be a good chance to develop the Saudi proposal into a full-fledged initiative to bring the stalemated peace process back on track.  The U.S. administration is again launching a diplomatic move for Middle East peace, as seen in the dispatch of Vice President Cheney and Special Middle East peace envoy Gen. Zinni to the region.  Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is reported to be trying to find a path to a negotiated settlement of the situation, while ending Chairman Arafat's three-month confinement.  The U.S. mediation may be successful this time around."

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Pressure The U.S. On Middle East"

 

The national, business-oriented Australian Financial Review (3/13) editorialized:  "The six-month anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States came and went this week, but what remains is what next, a subject in which Australia has a vital interest, since its forces are engaged in Afghanistan and may well become enmeshed in other theatres....  More pressing in the short term is the requirement that Australia, insofar as it is able to exert influence, should be urging Washington to intervene emphatically in the Middle East to try to arrest the spiraling violence that is threatening to spill over into a wider conflict."

 

MALAYSIA:  "Broker Peace Deal With Honesty"

 

The government-influenced Business Times opined (3/12):  "Thus far, Washington has made only half-hearted efforts to pressure both Sharon and Arafat to return to the negotiationg table.  Instead, the administration's principal interest in the region seems more focused on President Saddam Hussein of Iraq than the escalating violence in West Bank and Gaza.  While Zinni is tasked with ensuring both Sharon and Arafat meet at a negotiating table, Zinni is expected to also use his mission to remind other Arab leaders that Washington needs their support to confront Saddam....  It remains doubtful too whether the Bush administration would add any weight to a potential condition for peace that would emerge from an Arab summit later this month.  Zinni must look into the (land for peace) offer seriously, especially to avoid America being seen as entering the Israeli-Palestinian dispute only as a gesture to appease its Arab allies."

 

PHILIPPINES:  "Back-breaking Marathon"

 

In his column in the independent Philippine Star, Max Soliven, publisher, wrote (3/13):  "Does...Vice President Dick Cheney want to kill himself?...   What Cheney is undertaking is Mission Incredible.  He was actually supposed to convince Arab states that steps had to be taken against Saddam Hussein...for old Saddam having accumulated weapons of mass destruction.  If that was his intent, Dick ought to have stayed home.  None of the Muslim states, even Kuwait..., wants to attack Iraq this time around.  They're more concerned, frightened even, by the escalating 'war' between Israel and the...Palestinians....  And Cheney wants to talk about Iraq?  He's heading for heartburn....  I'm afraid Mr. Cheney, already appearing fatigued at the very beginning of his odyssey, may not be able to stay the course--especially after being fobbed off with one polite Arab rebuff after another.  Who's worried about Saddam the Insane?  They're raging against Sharon amok."

 

SOUTH KOREA:  "Worsening Middle East Situation"

 

The pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (3/13):  "The situation in the Middle East is heading for the worst amid a succession of indiscriminate suicide bombing attacks by Palestinian militants and merciless, retaliatory raids by Israeli soldiers.  This worsening situation is due to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's extremely hard-line stance on the Palestinians and President Bush's undisguised pro-Israel policy....  The current Middle East situation illustrates clearly the reckless logic of demonstrated power and consequent harsh countermeasures.  Mr. Bush should take responsibility for the situation and actively mediate between Israel and Palestine in order to break the vicious cycle of violence."

 

 AFRICA

 

UGANDA:  "Middle East Butchery"

 

The government-owned New Vision maintained (3/12):  "Sharon is certainly keeping to his promise of killing more Palestinians than Israelis.  So far at least 958 Palestinians have died in the second intifada compared to at least 313 Israelis.  But Sharon is not protecting his people.  In February 31 Israelis were killed and in March so far around 46 have died.  These are the highest figures since the second intifada began....  Sharon has been asked by many interested parties, including even the United States, to review his strategy, but he appears impervious to their advice.  If Sharon won't listen to friendly countries, he should listen to the statistics of the Israeli death toll.  His hardline policy will not be sustainable domestically if Israeli deaths continue to escalate dramatically.  It is time for Sharon to rethink and cooperate with the Saudi peace initiative to break the spiral of violence.  Otherwise he may end up being remembered as the Butcher of the Second Intifada and not just the Butcher of Sabra and Shatilla."

 

SOUTH AFRICA:  "Not Unilateral"

 

Centrist, Afrikaans-language Die Burger claimed (3/12):  "It seems America plans to get rid of Saddam Hussein once and for all are developing even further....  Whatever the case may be, as in Afghanistan, America will learn that it cannot take a unilateral approach....  Outside of Washington and London, an attack against Iraq is not viewed with much enthusiasm at this stage.  It therefore seems likely that America will have to either display immense persuasive powers or else it will just have to put up with Saddam Hussein--for the time being at least."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

BRAZIL:  "Last Chances"

 

Independent Jornal do Brasil asserted (3/12):  "More than solving the Palestine question, the [Saudi] plan aims high and contemplates the entire Middle East, including Syria....  In exchange for the return of pre-1967 lands, the Arabs, according to the Saudi plan, would recognize the Israeli state, thus putting an end to one of the most contentious conflicts of the post WWII....  Diplomatically, the Saudi offer can be seen in a good light.  This is the right moment to try to correct over half a century of disagreement."

 

CHILE: "Saudi Peace Proposal"

 

Conservative, influential, Santiago newspaper-of-record El Mercurio stated (3/9):  "Saudi Arabia...presented a peace proposal....  The proposal is not new, but the fact that it was presented by an Arab country is.... This diplomatic alternative is timely and positive....  We mustn't forget that this conflict contains many elements that made the September 11 attacks possible and that it could give rise to a clash of civilizations."

 

ECUADOR:   "Kamikaze Diplomacy,"

 

Grace Jaramillo wrote in an opinion column in leading centrist El Comercio  (3/11): "Absurd diplomacy is the fashion in the Middle East.  After months of continuous violence, a state of siege, suicide bombers and attacks, the main mediator in the zone--the United States--has decided to act.  But the scope (of its actions) are so limited that Americans have begun to miss Bill Clinton; he (Bush) will send a middle-profile (or low profile?) mediator, Anthony Zinni, without a defined strategy, whose major objective is to guard Vice President Dick Cheney's back, who next week begins a tour through the Middle East, to negotiate the possibility that the Arab world will support...an attack on Iraq?  The Jewish state is risking its future and stability in this crisis, Palestinians do not have much to lose in this war of stones and kamikazes against rifles and bombers.  The United States may lose support against Iraq.  Being realistic, the only possible change in the short term is that Arafat will be able to negotiate, that Labor wins the elections in Israel and that, finally, George Bush designs a peace plan for the Middle East.  Let's start to pray."

 

PERU:  "War In The Middle East"

 

Center-left La Republica opined (3/10):  "A blood bath [in the Middle East] is increasing alarmingly and causing [the world's] indignation with no foreseeable solution at hand... President George W. Bush has again decided to send his special envoy....  The idea that the solution of the conflict would be a military one...is beginning to exact a political cost for Sharon....  In the end, negotiation is the only possible way out for both parties."

##