17 November 1997
UN CONFRONTATION WITH IRAQ: 'A WAY OUT OF THE IMPASSE?'
The foreign media, concerned that the U.S. and Iraq were headed towards a military confrontation, eagerly seized on signs that both Baghdad and Washington are willing to reach for a conciliatory, diplomatic solution. Writers portrayed the Clinton administration as unable to muster support for a military solution from its allies in the Gulf War coalition--not only from some European governments, but from Arab regimes which, over the weekend, made their distaste for an armed showdown with Baghdad clear to Secretary of State Albright. Analysts stressed that U.S. failure to revive the Middle East process was to blame for the lack of support for U.S. policy toward Saddam Hussein. Though commentators deplored Saddam's tactics, labeling him a "bully" and a madman, sympathy for Iraq and its people remained evident in much of the commentary--particularly from the Middle East. Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian columnists charged that the U.S. is out to destroy Iraq so as to reassert U.S. hegemony and protect Israeli interests. The exceptions were an Israeli piece and two Saudi editorials, which argued that it was time the international community performed "comprehensive surgery to get rid of the cancer" from Iraq. DIPLOMACY, NOT FORCE--Journalists continued to register overwhelming opposition to the use of force against Iraq, judging this option a "risky" one that may entail casualties and "unpredictable" outcomes. Instanbul's mass-appeal Hurriyet, for example, argued that "military strikes just help Saddam" stir nationalistic sentiment and garner international sympathy. U.S. AND UN CREDIBILITY--Commentators opined that both America's "prestige" as the world's only superpower and the UN's "fairness" in arbitrating disputes is "at stake." Many railed against the U.S. sanctions policy and the U.S.' perceived bias in favor of Israel. Some worried that the current crisis revealed that "all the American saber-rattling cannot conceal that the Middle East is on the verge of exploding." There was some advice for the Security Council to speak and act in unity. There were many suggestions as to Washington's best approach to the crisis--including making it plain that if Iraq complies with UN resolutions, then sanctions would be lifted; considering an alternative government-in-exile to Saddam; and setting a time limit for diplomatic contacts with Baghdad to resolve the crisis. London's independent Financial Times suggested, "What is needed now is clarity: explicit goals, explicit carrots, explicit sticks." This survey is based on 53 reports from 37 countries, November 11-17. EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below MIDDLE EAST EGYPT: "A Battle To Prove U.S. Hegemony Over Iraq And Middle East" Columnist Salama Ahmed Salama wrote in pro-government Al Ahram(11/16): "The Iraqi crisis cannot seriously threaten international peace or regional security.... Objectively, this is nothing more than a battle to prove U.S. hegemony over Iraq, the Gulf and the Middle East, and a cover up for the noticeable American retraction in the peace process." "U.S. Serious About Military Strike" In the opinion of opposition Al Wafd (11/14): "Even if Saddam is mistaken, does that mean a military strike should be launched against the Iraqi people? Calling for the U.S. National Security Council to meet...means that the United States is serious in responding to the Iraqi position by launching a military strike. This is completely unacceptable, by both international law and by the [principle of national] sovereignty." ISRAEL: "Finish The Job!" Under the headline above, top-circulation, pluralist Yediot's editorial declared (11/16): "As long as Saddam Hussein's regime endures, there won't be political quiet in the Persian Gulf or in the whole Middle East. With his great stupidity, Saddam Hussein has himself created the conditions that will enable the United States to engage in a rapid, determined operation that will bring about the elimination of his murderous regime. He doesn't have the means to stop the U.S. blow. The time has come to free the world from Saddam." "Israel Must Not To Be Drawn Into The Whirlpool" Independent Haaretz's editorial stated (11/17): "Israel should have a great interest in seeing Clinton succeed in leading a world alliance and defeating Saddam. As a corollary of this interest, the government of Israel would be well-advised to regard itself as a passive member of the U.S.-led alliance, in the same way as the Shamir government had wisely restrained itself and adopted more balanced positions than Defense Minister Moshe Arens' and IDF generals'.... Israel is not required at the moment to act politically, certainly not by other means." JORDAN: "We Stand Alongside Our Iraqi Brothers" Centrist, influential, Arabic-language Al-Dustur (11/16) said in an editorial: "It seems that after seven years, U.S. President Bill Clinton couldn't escape admitting frankly that the underlying objective of imposing a siege on Iraq and starving around 10 million Iraqis is to change the regime ruling Baghdad.... We stand alongside our Iraqi brothers and we announce our deep anger at the United States for returning to harass the Iraqi people and for its rude attempt to dictate a change that would suit its interests in the region. We fear that the motive behind this U.S. malice towards Iraq is connected to Israeli interests, which often top the U.S. global agenda." OMAN: "Why Just Iraq?" Said bin Muhammad Al-Shaqsi insisted in semi-independent. Arabic- language Al-Watan (11/16): "The UNSC has never issued so many strict resolutions to punish a UN member state as it has Iraq. Nor has it shown such zeal to...Implement its resolutions by force.... Naturally, we have not forgotten Iraq's unjustified assault against a brotherly country and people.... However...it is neither logical nor acceptable for Iraq to continue paying for that mistake ad infinitum, regardless of how grievous it was.... The UNSC has also...abdicated its role and responsibility to apply international legitimacy and law concerning the Palestinian nation and the Arab-Israeli conflict, now referred to as the 'peace process.'... What is being done against Iraq today is not so much in defense of justice, fairness of legitimacy, nor to protect the security, stability and sovereignty of the countries of the region, as much as it is (an expression) of hatred and malice toward the Arabs in general and Iraq in particular." QATAR: "Tactical Victory For Saddam" According to the semi-independent Gulf Times (11/15), "In an apparent response to Arab concerns over the plight of the Iraqi people, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the United States had no quarrel with them, only with the leadership, and was considering ways to help the people who have been hard hit by sanctions. That statement suggests a degree of confusion among U.S. policy-makers. The main victims of any military action would be the people, not the leadership; so why strengthen the American military presence in the Gulf? And the most punishing weapon currently deployed against Baghdad is the oil-sales embargo. "So far, the crisis has been a tactical triumph for Baghdad. It has shown the extreme reluctance of a majority of Security Council permanent members to sanction further use of force, it has resulted in the suspension of the weapons inspection program and it has united Arab public opinion behind Iraq." "What Does America Want From Iraq?" Semiofficial, second-largest circulation Al-Rayah columnist Fawaz Al- ajami wrote (11/11): "The Arab saying, 'Don't play with fire, it might burn your fingers' is obsolete because you can play with fire without burning yourself...as the United States did in Operation Desert Storm. It (the United States) also waged a fire between Arab brothers. They are all falling in it and burning in their concessions to the Zionist entity in Oslo, Taba, Washington, Sharm al-Sheikh, Wadi Araba, and Maryland. It also put the brotherly Iraqi people on fire for seven long years by imposing unjust sanctions.... And today, after all of that, what does America want from brotherly Iraq?" SAUDI ARABIA: "Get Serious" Jeddah's widely-read Okaz said (11/16): "if the international community wants to put an end to this crisis, they should be serious in stopping this comical farce that is practiced by the Iraqi regime on the stability, security and peace of the region. If they are serious, the only choice should be getting rid of its main cause." "Comprehensive Surgery To Get Rid Of Iraqi Cancer" An editorial in Jeddah's religiously conservative Al-Madina concluded (11/15), "It is now time for the international community to seriously consider performing comprehensive surgery to get rid of the cancer from our brotherland Iraq." TUNISIA: "Military Action Unjustifiable" Editorial director Mustapha Khammari judged in independent, French- language Le Temps (11/16): "Laws should apply to everyone--Iraq, Israel, and the United States.... The Iraqi leaders are making their people take useless risks by refusing to comply with the UN resolutions. President Clinton, for his part, impulsively calls for American force, and confirms that the law of the new world order is still that might makes right.... Is Washington pursuing as its objective the complete disarmament of Iraq, as it did in 1945 for Japan and Germany? If so, why not announce it openly and ask, at the UN, for an amendment to the embargo resolutions?... The military option must be purely and simply refused by the international community.... Instead of fanning the flames, London, in concert with other European, Asian and Arab countries, could act to defuse the crisis. Under no circumstances should London furnish a pretext for American military action." UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Arab Countries Should Stand Up To U.S." Sharjah's influential, internationally circulated, pan-Arab Al-Khaleejeditorialized (11/11): "The United States is waging the dirtiest and most deceptive means to eliminate the Iraqi people under the pretext of international resolutions.... The Arabs must stand and say that there are many UN resolutions that were not implemented by Israel due to American backing. Therefore, we strongly believe that Arabs can put things in order by not implementing UN sanctions on Iraq, Libya and Sudan until other UN resolutions are implemented by Israel." "Iraq Has Right To Bar Inspectors" Dubai's government-owned, financial Al-Bayan insisted (11/11): "Iraq has the right to bar American inspectors and the UN has to accept this an as establishment of peace and stability, and not a means to create problems and justifications for wars." WEST BANK: "U.S. Wants To Destroy Iraq, Not Just Saddam" Editor Hafez Barghouti observed in semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda(11/17), "It was not a slip of the tongue when President Clinton stated that sanctions will remain in place as long as Saddam is in power. However, this is half of the truth: The sanctions will continue even after the current regime is gone. Many experts affirmed this. The issue is not whether or not Saddam remains in power. The United States wants to destroy Iraq as a people, a land and in history. They want to transform it into a desert. Toppling Saddam will not be enough; its [goal] is toppling the Iraqi people, dissolving them and putting them back to the Stone Age." "You, Too" Under the above headline, semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda's Hafez Barghouti sharply criticized what he termed "U.S. war posturing against Iraq" (11/12): "American U-2 planes are flying over Iraq. What these planes are really saying to other Arab capitals: 'You, Too' will have to deal with us. Other Arab capitals will not be safe from American punishment, even if they conform to America's wishes. The current crisis offers an opportunity to the Arab countries to rebel against American policies which 'filled the Arab body with depredation and humiliation.' It is an opportunity to save some dignity. The target now is not Iraq, but the entire Arab people." EUROPE TURKEY: "Political Situation Not Ripe For U.S. To Hit Saddam" Ergun Balci commented in liberal Cumhuriyet (11/17): "The political situation is not ripe for the United States to hit Iraq. And the United States is faced with a paradox: A limited strike might not do any harm to Saddam, and a full-fledged strike might cause unwanted consequences. In the second option, Saddam might be toppled; however, Iran might be the new leader in the oil-rich region. It will not even be an unlikely scenario for the United States to see Iran taking control in the oil region, if Saddam goes and Iraq gets divided. As a matter of fact, Iran is more dangerous than Iraq, especially with its population of 65 million, and because of its nuclear arsenal and missile production capabilities." "Saddam Thinks Himself Capable Of Defying U.S." Mithat Baydur lamented in pro-Islamic Zaman (11/17): "The Iraqi administration has been continuing to defy international law and regulations for the past six years. It is notable that the leader of Iraq still thinks himself capable of defying the United States, despite all kinds of wrongdoings, and despite being a source for the Iraqi people's agony and poverty." "Military Strikes Just Help Saddam" Readers of mass-appeal Hurriyet saw this by Ferai Tinc (11/17): "I do not believe that (Saddam) can be forced to leave by conducting military strikes. I do not see that the embargo and other punitive actions will produce any results. This time, it is even worse than before for Washington. President Clinton does not have the same scale of support that Bush used to have. Especially the Arab world is against a military strike. And military strikes just help Saddam." RUSSIA: "Wily Saddam" Reformist Segodnya (11/17) published an article by Pavel Felgenhauer: "In 1991 the allies had a great preponderance in strength, but there is practically no way they can muster it today. Of course, the United States could go it alone by mounting several missile attacks or carrying out an air raid, but using violent methods like these would conflict with the UN Charter. Besides, American pilots might fall into Iraqi hands. In either case, Bill Clinton would have serious political troubles. Therefore, instead of fighting a real war, Washington has been fighting a war of words, and doing pretty badly at that. Up against omnipotent America, Saddam doesn't have a chance, whether or not he submits to the UN. But people always sympathize with an underdog. After seven years of useless sanctions, the situation in the Gulf has changed dramatically: A former villain now looks like a victim and former (Desert) Storm heroes look like wicked imperialists. Having lost a battle ignominiously, the wily Saddam seems to have drawn the war." BRITAIN: "Prospect Of Face-Saving Escape For Both Sides" BBC Radio (11/17) aired this, "Out of the blue there is now the prospect of a face-saving escape for both sides. Saddam Hussein says he would be happy to see the matter settled through dialogue. France and Russia are reported to have played an important part in persuading Iraq to adopt a more conciliatory tone. And Tariq Aziz says Iraq will readmit American weapons inspectors provided they were matched by inspectors from Britain, France, Russia and China in equal representation. That offers Britain and the United States a ladder to climb down after Secretary Albright's spectacular failure to win the support of a single Arab state for the threat of force against Iraq." "Show Saddam He Can't Win" An editorial in the independent Financial Times held (11/17): "What is needed now is clarity: explicit goals, explicit carrots, explicit sticks. First, the United States should make absolutely clear that if Iraq complies with UN resolutions, sanctions will be lifted. It is likely Saddam Hussein will never comply. But only a clear statement of rewards and punishments can win broad backing. Second, the United States and its allies should start thinking about an alternative government-in-exile to Saddam, and design a program to reconstruct Iraq around it.... Third, any diplomatic contacts with Baghdad to resolve the crisis should have a time limit. Time is needed to rebuilds allied cohesion around clearly defined goals. But the limit is needed to make clear to Mr. Saddam that he cannot win. Demonstrating the latter proposition is the difficult part." FRANCE: "Clinton's Failure In The Middle East" Left-of-center Le Monde judged in its editorial (11/17): "This new crisis with Iraq should not be considered as one more routine crisis in a series.... Whether it is resolved through force or otherwise, it is serious for many reasons.... For one, it proves that Saddam has not given up on rebuilding Iraq's potential for mass destruction.... But mainly the crisis reveals to what extent the Clinton administration's Middle East policy has failed. Just when Washington is most in need of Arab allies, it finds itself isolated.... The Arab coalition brilliantly put together by George Bush and James Baker in 1991 has gone to pieces.... The boycott of the Doha conference proves it.... If Washington finds itself alone in the Middle East in its conflict with Iraq, and in Doha, it is because the Clinton administration has let the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians deteriorate. It has lost the trust earned as an honest mediator: America's credibility in the Middle East has lost ground because of systematic pro-Israeli positions or, at best, indifference to Netanyahu's policy.... A military intervention will not solve the UNSCOM problem, but it will isolate the United States in the region even more. This gives the measure of Bill Clinton's failure in the Middle East." GERMANY: "Two Issues: Weapons, Embargo" Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/17) said, "Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Albright tried to build up a coalition against the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The outcome was rather slim. Not only the important Western countries in the Gulf War alliances, but also the former Arabic partners are not easy to win for another military strike against Iraq.... On the other hand, one should not allow Saddam Hussein to act the way he does. The question whether Iraq still has mass destruction weapons, chemical or biological ones, must interest the world community. On this issue the UN has to be firm if it does not want to lose its credibility. But the embargo is a different issue.... The lifting of the embargo, combined with forcefulness on the issue of mass destruction weapons, would be a more rational behavior towards the dictator then sticking to an embargo which is morally questionable and in reality not too well observed." ITALY: "Armed Intervention Less Likely?" New York correspondent Stefano Trincia filed for Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (11/17): "The Iraqi dictator last night launched signals of detente and indicated his willingness to compromise.... The aircraft carrier George Washington continues to sail towards the Persian Gulf and will join the Nimitz within 36 hours.... Given Saddam's more conciliatory tone, however, an armed intervention seems less likely. Also in part because Clinton is not finding support along that road. The U.S. president received words of solidarity during his telephone conversations with other leaders, but only regarding a diplomatic solution of the crisis, not military action. A similar message was sent to Secretary Albright from Kuwait, a sworn enemy of Saddam Hussein." BELGIUM: "Israel More Embarrassing For U.S. Than Iraq" Foreign affairs writer Jorn De Cock stressed in independent Catholic Het Nieuwsblad (11/15): "Today, the party is over. All the American saber rattling cannot conceal that the Middle East is on the verge of exploding.... If Saddam Hussein's most recent game of chess ultimately makes Washington take responsibility vis-a-vis Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iraqi dictator could sleep in peace with the knowledge that, for once in his lifetime, he has done something sensible. And, as far as Netanyahu is concerned, at his election, he promised Israel 'peace with security.' What country is safe if it only breeds enemies?" "Washington As 'Weak Superpower'" Under the above headline, readers of independent De Standaard (11/15) saw this comment by foreign editor Axel Buyse: "The most recent crisis is the umpteenth test of the (Gulf War) coalition by Saddam.... The United States not only possesses the world's strongest economy but it is also the only one to possess a military apparatus capable of intervening anywhere in the world.... In the eyes of the outside world, the United States is gradually expressing endless arrogance in a number of dossiers: the land mine issue; the fight against the greenhouse effect; unilateral trade impediments with countries like Cuba, etc.... The adverse winds the United States has faced in recent days in the UNSC relate only partly to disputes around the core of the matter. Equally strong are the reactions against the embarrassing, and even 'dangerous' dominance, of a single country." CANADA: "Spoiling For A Rematch" The conservative Ottawa Sun observed (11/16), "For weeks, Saddam has been spoiling for a rematch with Uncle Sam.... Perhaps he smells weakness in Bill Clinton, a lame duck president whose presidency is soon to be consumed by the Paula Jones sex fiasco.... By expelling U.S. weapons inspectors from his country...Iraq is testing the West's resolve. The spineless admonishments of the UN Security Council probably proved his point.... Yet much of the world cowers at the prospect of the United States once again training its firepower on Saddam. If the United States can be criticized at all, it's for failing to finish the job last time round." DENMARK: "We Must Support Any U.S. Strike Against Iraq" An op-ed piece (11/16) by center-right Berlingske Tidende's foreign editor, Michael Ehrenreich stated, "It is incomprehensible that France, Russia and China have not chosen to fight fire with fire, but have preferred to follow narrow political and economic interests. The UN must maintain its sanctions. And we must support the United States if it decides to launch an attack to bring an end to Saddam." "America's Dilemma" The left-wing Information opined (11/15), "How can we get Iraq to behave? A number of plans have been tried throughout the years, but neither sanctions nor military actions have worked. It is tempting to suggest that a softening of the sanctions might be a shrewd move as it would lessen the impact of Saddam's anti-American arguments. Nonetheless, punitive military action by the United States and Great Britain looks unavoidable. Washington has given Israel's right-wing nationalist government free-rein in relation to the Palestinians without taking the reaction of the Arab world into consideration. Not enough has been done to help Turkey and the Arab countries in connection with lost revenues resulting from losing Iraq as a trading partner. As a result of this, none of the Arab countries would support a U.S. attack on Iraq. America is not alone, but the current crisis clearly demonstrates how difficult it is for a superpower to find a middle way between the UN and its own strategic interests. But in the final analysis, it is America's reputation which is at stake. Saddam's actions are unacceptable and Clinton cannot afford to let him off cheaply." "Diplomatic Solution" Center-left Aktuelt (11/16) called for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis: "A diplomatic solution, which involves the reinstatement of the UN inspectors is, in the final analysis, more important than the desire of the United States to flex its muscles." THE NETHERLANDS: "A Way Our Of The Impasse?" Calvinist, left Trouw front-paged this editorial comment (11/17): "Baghdad indicated that it is willing to talk about the return of the inspectors if it can also talk about ways to ease the embargo against Iraq. This will be a bitter pill to swallow, particularly for the United States.... It is true that the international community would lose face and that Baghdad will react triumphantly. But if this would be a way for the weapon inspectors to return to Iraq, and if this would be a way to prevent war, then the loss of face will be worth it." POLAND: "Why Are Russia, France So Fond Of Saddam?" Centrist Rzeczpospolita (11/15-16) said in a piece by Kazimierz Dziewanowski, former Polish ambassador to the United States, "What may surprise the unfamiliar reader is not so much Hussein, but the fact that anytime the Iraqi dictator takes a step that causes resentment in the world and in the UN, there are countries which somehow take his side--Russia and France.... Why are Russia and France so fond of Saddam Hussein and his poisons? Can't they see the hazards beyond it? Is it only oil, trade, dollars, and weapons deliveries that are at stake?... The Iraqi dictator is preparing his poisons and germs not against Russia, Europe, or even America--but mainly against Iran (and his own people)." SPAIN: "Enemy On The Payroll" Liberal El Pais ran this editorial-page comment (11/16) by M. A. Bastenier: "Saddam is the one that Washington loves so much to hate.... The tyrant of Baghdad knows that only his overthrow will fully satisfy Washington, but he also knows that, since this would only happen under conditions almost impossible to achieve, he has obtained a license to continue being the enemy on Washington's payroll. It could be a lifelong job." "Iraqi Machinations" Centrist Barcelona daily La Vanguardia noted (11/15): "The reasons, be they economic or other, with which the countries that initially came out against military action have justified their positions may be understandable. But when the chips are down, it cannot escape any member of the multinational coalition confronting Saddam that the UN resolutions were passed so that Baghdad would comply with them.... Pressure, beginning with diplomacy, should now be increased to ensure that he does comply." SWEDEN: "UNSC Must Put Up United Front" Stockholm's independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter told its readers (11/14),"It is vital that the UN Security Council puts up a united front against Iraq.... Should the United States, with the support of, for example, the United Kingdom, finally be compelled to resort to military means, criticism should not primarily be aimed at Washington or London. The collective Security Council then should be put to shame, since it has not after seven years managed to eliminate the threat which Iraq constitutes against international peace and security." SOUTH ASIA BANGLADESH: "Give Diplomacy A Chance" The independent, English-language Daily Star (11/14) pointed out, "The world waits with bated breath for an early solution to the diplomatic row between Washington and Baghdad over the latter's refusal to let American experts work on the UN team for weapons inspection in Iraq. The war of words coupled with the retaliatory punches have all but raised the specter of the Gulf War. The limited 'food for oil' bargain with the UN has not helped Iraq much. The Western goal appears to be to force Saddam into amenability by the nationalist surge of a people feeling aggrieved. The heavy cost of another war will not only be borne by Iraq, but also, most likely, by the whole region. Add to all this the likely tremors across in the Western world. Let diplomacy under the UN aegis be given a chance." INDIA: "Saddam Has A Laugh" According to the right-of-center Indian Express (11/17): "The real message of this crisis is already for the future. For America, it is that being the sole superpower is not a sufficient condition for legitimacy. It has followed a palpably wrong line on Iraq, and it is now paying the price. If it had shown greater flexibility on the sanctions issue, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it could have procured greater cooperation from the relevant quarters in this crisis." "Upping The Ante" An editorial in the centrist Pioneer pointed out (11/14): "The net import of the (UN resolution) is an extension of the sanctions until the Iraqi leader relents and accepts the American diktat.... Hussein, of course, has certain legitimate grievances insofar as the balance of nationalities in the UN inspection team is concerned.... The United States would do well to include more countries in the inspection team and thereby allay genuine Iraqi apprehensions on this score.... The U.S. strategy of imposing sanctions against Iraq to dislodge Hussein from power is flawed as it is willy-nilly producing the opposite result.... Hussein may well trigger another catastrophe for his citizens by shooting down the U-2 reconnaissance planes that are violating Iraqi air space.... Both the United States and Hussein should desist from actions that will further jeopardize peace in the region, and instead try and arrive at a negotiated settlement of the problem." SRI LANKA: "Should U.S. Be Allowed To Act In Dictatorial Manner?" In the view of Mohan Samaranayake in Sinhala-language, independent Sunday Lankadeepa (11/16), "The international community is responsible for preventing an outbreak of hostilities between Iraq and the United States because its end result is the loss of life. It is also a crucial to decide whether the United States should be allowed to act in a dictatorial manner." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "U.S. Arm Twisting In Gulf Region Meets Little Response" By Xue Fukang wrote in intellectually-oriented Guangming Daily(Guangming Ribao), 11/17): "Once again, Saddam is 'plucking out hairs of a tiger's mouth' by expelling U.S. members of the UN weapons inspection team. Though irritated to the end of its forbearance, the United States must rethink its position since only Britain sides with the U.S. in the proposal of military attack against Iraq. Although there is still possibility for the U.S. to take military action, repeated consideration is necessary." HONG KONG: "Caution In The Air" The independent, English-language South China Morning Post stated (11/15), "The White House has been careful to play down any prospect of an immediate military response. It is well aware that, apart from Israel and Britain, scarcely a country in the world would readily support such action.... Much of that is due to Arab anger over Israel's hard-line attitude towards the Palestinians, and perceived U.S. support for this. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would do well to reflect on how he has not only torpedoed the peace process but also hurt the prospect of effective action against Iraq." PHILIPPINES: "U.S. Image In Tatters" Former Philippine envoy to Europe and Libya J.V. Cruz wrote in the independent Manila Chronicle (11/17): "The United States' image all around the world is in tatters.... Saddam Hussein of Iraq has thrown out six American United Nations 'inspectors' from his country and has dared the United States to do its worst. But Clinton cannot get his former allies (from) the...Gulf War of 1991...to support a military strike against Baghdad.... The only American ally left that is gung- ho about U.S. itchiness to nuke Iraq is...Great Britain.... Arab nations which had joined in the war against Iraq are now solid in backing it in...demanding that UN sanctions against that country, initiated and maintained under U.S. pressure, be lifted. Their view is that the sanctions are a sadistic weapon that has inflicted untold suffering on the Iraqi people." SOUTH KOREA: "Military Options Are So Risky" According to anti-establishment Hankyoreh Shinmun (11/17), "The trouble is that the military options are so risky from many perspectives. If the United States decides to go ahead with military action this time.... This time, the United States will have to keep pounding Iraq until Saddam Hussein backs down and agrees to UN weapons inspections. And nobody knows at this point what kind of military action will be required to bring down the Iraqi leader.... Unless the United States is careful, it will get itself mired in a swamp. Should that happen, it will be an enormous burden for the Clinton administration. So the question is really this: Is the controversy over weapons inspections worth this kind of a military and political gamble for the United States?... The administration is trying hard to resolve the situation diplomatically." THAILAND: "Isolate The Whining Bully" The lead editorial of the largest circulation, moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok Post commented (11/17), "There are the usual and familiar options, all of which have their logical climax in the United States and allies hitting Iraq with bombs and missiles. Apart from the satisfaction derived, there is a problem with this approach. No amount of bombing will destroy Iraq's programs to produce weapons of mass destruction or its ability to hide the missiles to deliver such weapons. Military attacks are justified, but may not be useful. Iraq feels it should be a member of the world community. The fact is that Iraq is a rogue nation. It is unwilling to follow the most important, unwritten rules of international relations.... Iraq's rulers have proved to be liars because they are unwilling even to follow their own solemn pledge to stop making and storing the most terrible weapons on earth. Until Iraq is willing to follow such rules and pledges, it must be treated as the pariah it is. Leaders around the world--particularly Arab leaders--should know that Saddam Hussein's dishonor will stain them if they deal with Iraq. They should know, too, that the world will be a better place only when Iraq gives up its destructive weapons. The treatment of Iraq should be the same as for any whining bully: Isolate it until it reforms, punish any attempt to hurt others, and be ready to accept a real change in attitude from Baghdad." AFRICA BURKINA FASO: "USA-Iraq: Leave Saddam In Peace!" Independent L'Observateur Paalga maintained in journalist Ousseni Ilboudo's "Eye on the News" column (11/14), "The elements of an explosive cocktail are starting to gather little by little in this part of the world...all parts made by the Westerners who should not now take pride in their turpitude. Let's be serious! After having supported and armed the terrible child of Baghdad in the 80s in order to counter the Iranian mullahs, Westerners, notably the Americans, find themselves since the beginning of the 90s, in the position of Frankenstein, victim of the monster he made with his own hands.... Okay. Iraq should not be allowed to build a massive stock of weapons, especially not atomic weapons when it is known that its leaders are not the least bit reasonable. All the same, the persecutions they are subject to by the United States are not fully justified.... Saddam needs to be left in peace!... If today many people have a certain sympathy for the mustachioed general of Baghdad, it is not because they ignore that he is not to be associated with and not commendable, it is because they have the feeling that the United States exaggerates and especially that its foreign policy is a changeable geometry. And that is how a villain like Saddam Hussein can be made into a martyr." LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA: "The Iraqi Crisis" The main editorial in pro-government La Prensa expressed this view (11/14), " It is likely that...no power, not even the United States, is interested in the removal of the Iraqi president, unless his replacement is well known and can guarantee reasonable treatment with the international community. In his own category, Saddam is predictable and, even more important still, has been tamed by bombings and sanctions. Like the Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, the Iraqi president is an unpleasant interlocutor, but one with whom negotiations are possible --in a very 'sui generis' way for sure--even if it is by force. It would be difficult for a democrat to maintain Iraq's unity, which would generate deep regional tensions, while another military dictator could even be worse than Saddam. Nevertheless, the world's nightmare is that a fundamentalistic regime replaces the present one. In that case, there would practically be no bridges of communication between the main producers and exporters of oil in the world and the West. We'll just have to wait and see." BRAZIL" "Lost Neutrality" An editorial in Correio Braziliense stated (11/15), "Regardless of how justified the conflict is, it can be seen--and this is something that has been happening for a long time--that the UNSC abandoned its indispensable neutrality and has been reflecting, to a greater degree, the interests and influence of the U.S. government. This has made [the UN] an inadequate mediator.... Since UNSCOM personnel and leadership are made up mostly by Americans, neutrality is a concern and espionage suspicions are unavoidable, hence the current situation. Just as it happened to the old League of Nations...the UN is loosing its ability to fulfill its geopolitical mandate. One must also remember that, just as the draconian terms imposed on Germany after the First World War [resulted in WWII], Iraq's situation likewise warrants a detached and calm appraisal. More than ever, efficient mediation is needed to avert the use of force." CHILE: "Washington Should Have Finished The Job In 1991" An op-ed piece in Santiago's influential, conservative El Mercuriosaid (11/13), "Washington's relationship with Saddam Hussein has not been easy. Perhaps the United States is paying a costly price today for not having finished the job it began, under the UN's protection, to defend Kuwait." "World Does Not Deserve This Conflict" Santiago's popular Las Ultimas Noticias opined (11/14), "The world does not deserve this conflict. Peace... must have the possibility of taking root in the 21st century, so that humanity can grow and develop united and in harmony. The UN must be vigilant so that this happens. There must not be any blandishments or compliance with someone who has proven to be a permanent menace to the strong desires for well-being which free people share." JAMAICA: "Iraqi Stand-off" Regular columnist John Rapley wrote (11/14) in the moderate, influential Daily Gleaner, "It appears that the Americans have resigned themselves to being in the Persian Gulf to monitor and periodically attack Iraq for the next ten to fifteen years. Equally, the UN will not just give up...and go home.... It may be that Saddam Hussein is looking for victory of a different sort. In much of the Middle East, particularly among the poor, the USA is regarded as an imperialist bully.... Each time Saddam stands up to the United States...his stock on the 'street' rises. He may still see himself as one day leading a pan-Arab crusade. But the cost of his glory to his people has been a painful one indeed." PANAMA: "As Long As Saddam Is In Power" Leading independent La Prensa (11/13) carried this front page editorial: "There is once again the possibility of a new military conflict between the United Nations and Iraq.... Hussein is engaged in making a fool of the UN and other countries that formed the military alliance which obligated Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and unless the Security Council is determined to adopt as many measures as necessary...to let Hussein get away with murder is a precedent that will endanger peace in the Middle East... As long as Hussein governs Iraq, it will be a permanent threat with unpredictable consequences for peace and international security." NICARAGUA: "Hell In Paradise" An editorial in independent, center-right La Prensa stated (11/17),"The United States and England...have now an opportunity to remove once and for all the delinquent state that Sadam Hussein leads. It is very important to show tyrants like (Hussein) that it is no longer possible to continue to tolerate such grotesque violations of international law and disrespect for human rights.... But now, unlike 1991, the United States does not have the unconditional support of the international community.... It seems that (nations like Russia, France, and China) are more afraid of U.S. hegemony in the Near and Middle East than they are of the problems produced by Hussein's dictatorial regime through its international provocations and its fantasy of making Iraq the hegemonic power in the region." For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 11/17/97 # # #Europe Middle East East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Africa Latin America and the Caribbean
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
