21 November 1997
IRAQ ALLOWS RETURN OF UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS; 'WHO WON?'
The majority of the foreign media judged that the arrival in Baghdad this morning of the UN inspectors after Saddam Hussein agreed to their return entailed a victory for the Iraqi dictator, a setback for the U.S. and a success for Russian diplomacy. Writers said that Iraq scored because it succeeded in "nearly" isolating the U.S. on the international stage (by highlighting the disintegration of the Gulf War coalition) and because the crisis raised Saddam's standing in the Arab world and gave him time, many feared, to conceal his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Rome's left-leaning, influential La Repubblica held that the way the crisis was handled exposed the "contradictions and weaknesses in Clinton's diplomacy." In Britain, the ally that stood most steadfastly behind the U.S. during the crisis, the press' reaction ranged from very critical of Washington's handling of the confrontation to relief--coupled with suspicions about Saddam's future behavior--that it had been settled peacefully. The liberal Guardian warned, "Now the task is to ensure that (the deal with Iraq) does not become a verbal fudge." Everyone agreed with Beijing's official Municipal Beijing Daily that Moscow's intervention had "elevated its...prestige among Middle Eastern countries" and "clarified Russia's ability and influence in international affairs since the end of the Cold War." Available commentary from Moscow endorsed this assessment but had few strong notes of triumphalism. Rather, a couple of observers cautioned, as did writers in other regions that "some day, we all may pay the price" for the failure of most nations to stand firmly against Iraq. EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS LINKED--Several analysts, especially in the Middle East, judged that the lack of support for an armed retaliation against Iraq and the disappointing turnout for the Arab- Israeli economic conference held earlier this month in Doha, Qatar, was a direct result of Arab disillusionment with the Middle East peace talks. Pundits emphasized the need for the U.S. to "correct" its Middle East policies--rethinking both its approach towards anti-Iraq sanctions and its traditional close relationship with the Israeli government. IT AIN'T OVER TILL IT'S OVER--Most analysts, adopting the philosophy of baseball great Yogi Berra, judged that the world community and Saddam Hussein will see yet another day of confrontation. European writers stressed that the crisis demonstrated that even Washington "needs its allies" to help regulate world affairs. Arab journalists touted the rediscovery of "Arab unity" which they predicted will be in full regalia during the Islamic summit in Iran next month. A few writers pondered how the crisis, now resolved for the moment, would play out in terms of global politics. One such piece, in Budapest's top circulation Nepszabadsag, stated, "Washington has done nothing less than increase by threefold its military presence around Iraq. France has stayed where it was originally: a bit aside of the U.S. and Russia. Britain...spoke American and acted British, as usual. China was doing the world organization's paperwork as a fine civil servant just to avoid the responsibility of making a decision. Nothing has happened then? On the contrary...the leading powers...have 'only' learned how to avoid a war." This survey is based on 67 reports from 44 countries, November 6-21. EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below MIDDLE EAST IRAQ: "UNSCOM Experts Arrive Today" Baghdad's official news agency, INA, offered this terse note (11/21): "Experts of the UN Special Commission [UNSCOM] arrived in Iraq today." BAHRAIN: "Gulf Rejects Military Action, Opts For Peaceful Solution" Leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam's commentary (11/18) by Omran Salman held: "The Gulf countries' position toward the crisis between Iraq and the United States, is wise and farsighted...rejecting any military action against Iraq and calling for the crisis to be solved peacefully. We say it is very wise because the region will not benefit from tension and instability.... Perhaps the experience of the last seven years leads us to find a common ground for creating an understanding between the Gulf countries and Iraq.... It is neither correct nor logical that the people of the Gulf should allow Iraq policy to be dealt with through intermediaries...particularly if those intermediaries are not trustworthy." EGYPT: "U.S., Saddam Have Not Changed Their Objectives" Pro-government Al-Ahram's columnist Moursi Attallah wrote (11/20), "Saddam's bet was that the crisis would lead to open dialogue with Washington--this would be a political victory for Baghdad--or that the crisis would lead to limited military confrontation in which Israel could get involved. This too would be a political victory for Baghdad, since it would open the gates of the Arab countries for Saddam, especially with the increasing Arab anger toward from Netanyahu's policies, which are supported by the United States. On the other side, Washington's bet was that escalating the situation with Iraq would give it a new chance to exhibit its force--not with the purpose of teaching Iraq a lesson but with the aim of sending a message to Iran. Didn't I say from the very beginning that neither Saddam has changed nor the United States?" ISRAEL: "Inspectors' Short Ouster May Have Given Iraq Time To Hide Weapons" Middle East affairs commentator Zvi Bar-El wrote in independent Haaretz (11/21): "Richard Butler, the head of the UNSCOM supervisors in Iraq, has no doubts: 'The latest crisis broke out because the team got too close to uncovering Iraq's biological capability,' he certified in an interview with CNN. 'Saddam needed a time-out to conceal the stockpiles. As a matter of fact he obtained the time he needed.... The Biological Weapons Convention is powerless against this danger.... Iraq apparently had enough of the threat that it would be totally deprived of its deterrent weapons: This is the reason why it initiated the latest crisis. A lack of supervision for two or three weeks would suffice to transfer several thousand liters of biological materials to new sites." "A Compromise Could Bring Havoc In The Long Term" Former chief IDF negotiator with the Palestinian Authority Oren Shahor said in mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv (11/20): "It can be assessed that the chances for a compromise are greater than those for a new war in the Gulf. At this stage Europe, does not seem enthusiastic about joining the U.S. struggle against Saddam and to send expeditionary forces.... Saddam can also be trusted to walk a tightrope that will allow him to squeeze everything he can out of the Western world's muddled response. A compromise...could have the following implications: Saddam will get stronger both within Iraq and in the Arab world.... The monitoring...could get weaker.... Significant rifts could pierce Iraq's isolation...especially in the Arab countries. Saddam's influence on terrorism will grow.... Saddam's influence among the Palestinians as the keeper of Arab...honor will grow.... As to the West's will to oust him, Saddam does not appear to be leaving this world, neither by way of a generals' coup nor by foreign intervention.... For those to whom a new peaceful Middle East is dear, this is a grim picture." WEST BANK: "An Iraqi Success; A Lesson For U.S." Moderate, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Quds's editorial said (11/21), "There is no doubt that the diplomatic resolution of the Iraqi-U.S. crisis is an Iraqi success in attempting to attract the world's attention to the need for ending the sanctions imposed on Iraq--and also to stop U.S. domination of the UN Security Council and world politics. Iraq proved that it could gain Arab and world sympathy and support in confronting the United States, the only super power, which backed down in front of the wide opposition to any military action against Iraq. "The United States' lack of interest in having Israel comply with UN resolutions caused a serious setback to American credibility. The firm stand of the world community and Arab countries can make a change that causes the United States to reconsider its positions. The diplomatic resolution of the crisis shows that the international community is able to forgo the use of power and aggression in favor of political and diplomatic resolutions. This should constitute a good lesson to the United States in tackling future crises." JORDAN: "Toward An Emergency Summit That Would Establish A New Arab Order" Centrist, influential Al Dustur editorialized (11/19): "The events of the past 20 days since the outbreak of the renewed crisis between Iraq and the United States have provided some hope and a light at the end of the tunnel. For the first time in the 1990s, there hovers in the Arab skies signs of a joint Arab stand against U.S. haughtiness. For the first time, there has been a breakthrough in Syrian-Iraqi relations that have been dysfunctional for almost two decades. And for the first time, the Arab League has actively moved to address the Iraqi file, which had been off its agenda.... In light of all these facts, we hope that the Arab countries would move actively and seriously toward holding an emergency summit to formulate a joint strategy to confront the dangers and challenges that are threatening the nation's pan-Arab security and sovereignty, as well as the Palestinian issue, the Arab nation's first and central issue." KUWAIT: "When Will This Bad Century End?" A front-page editorial by Charles Ayoub in the anti-Hariri, sensationalist Ad-Diyar (11/15), "From the start of this century, we have been living one crisis after the other. First the Sykes-Pico agreement, then the Balfour declaration, the division of Palestine, and the establishment of the Zionist entity. Today we are living in an American prison and the key is in Zionist hands! In Iraq, the Americans want to send spies to every house in Baghdad in order to implement international resolutions, but when it comes to Israel they allow Netanyahu to trample freely upon every international resolution and challenge the international will through his sordid policies. "America considers it legitimate to fly its planes over Baghdad; opposition from the Iraqi people is unacceptable. Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the shelling of the south by Israeli-piloted American planes is considered 'self defense,' while actions by the resistance are labelled 'terrorism'! The Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Palestine are minor issues in Washington's opinion. But Iraq's refusal to accept continued degradation is a big challenge to American security and the international will." LEBANON: "American Strike Against Arab-Iranian Reconciliation" A front-page editorial by Talal Salman stated (11/17) in Arab nationalist As-Safir, "The Baghdad reqime is the best guarantee for a continued American presence in the Gulf, and Doha was already a failure. No, the drums of war started pounding because the upcominq Islamic conference in Tehran is expected to vitally transform the politics of the region. This great clatter is nothing less than a pre-emptive American strike against Arab-Iranian reconciliation." SAUDI ARABIA: "U.S. Has To Learn" London-based, pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat's commentary by Muhammad Al- Hassan Ahmad concluded (11/18): "The United States has to review its policy toward the Middle East and to learn from the failed lessons of the Doha conference and the refusal for its support to strike Iraq, which indicates that the Arabs will no longer be patient and that they will find alternatives." TUNISIA: "Arabs Should Take Opportunity To Stage Comeback" In an editorial, Abdelhamid Riahi observed in independent, Arabic- language Ash-Shourouq (11/19): "The Gulf crisis separated the Arabs...while its consequences have united them.... For the first time in years Arabs agree.... Now, they must translate this agreement into action...and they must hold a summit meeting to try to find a way out of their differences, to re-establish stability in the Gulf, to restore international law, and to end the suffering of the Iraqi people.... Will the Arabs take this opportunity to solve their differences and to stage a powerful comeback on the regional and international field of events?" "How To Cool Down Confrontation" In an editorial, government-owned, French-language La Presse noted (11/18): "Baghdad must scrupulously adhere to the UN resolutions. But the great powers...must also be willing to encourage Iraq to make progress in abiding by these resolutions by softening the sanctions. In other words, by giving Iraq some proof that each time it (takes a positive step), the international community will respond in kind." EUROPE RUSSIA: "Yeltsin Helps U.S. Save Face" Reformist Segodnya ran this comment by Igor Sedykh and Valeria Sycheva (11/21): "Thanks to the Yeltsin plan, the United States has saved face and the UN Security Council, remaining united, has received the moral satisfaction that the Iraqis were not allowed to violate its resolutions. Moscow has proven its worth without using force, through high-class diplomacy. Hussein has benefitted most from that row, especially at home, even though his agreement to the return of the UN weapons mission looks like capitulation. And one more thing--if Baghdad really had a stock of chemical and bacteriological weapons, and the UN inspectors were close to uncovering it, recalling them from Iraq in protest over the expulsion of U.S. experts gave the Iraqis a good chance to rehide the stuff." "U.S. Settles For Supporting Role" Dmitry Gornostayev stated on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta(11/21): "This time Russia has been acting not as a country upholding its rights--it has had to do so recently for a multitude of reasons-- but as a world power which has averted a seemingly inevitable war in the Persian Gulf. On the other side, the Americans have had to be content with a supporting role in what was supposed to be a play of their own making. The U.S. scriptwriter, failing to come up with anything new, other than banal threats of the use of force, was booed off the stage by the crowd. The Americans were virtually left alone. Not even Britain's support could change that." "West Praises Moscow, Not Its Plan" Aleksandr Shumilin said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (11/21): "The cool attitude toward the Russian plan is only natural. As world powers have time and again had to deal with Iraq- provoked crises in the past seven years, they have developed a set of clear-cut rules for handling them." "Chance To See Light At End Of Tunnel" Reformist Izvestia (11/20) front-paged an article by Konstantin Eggert: "Saddam Hussein will have a chance to see the light at the end of a tunnel if he accepts Moscow's proposals. It was clear that the Iraqis, generally, were willing to do so even before Tareq Aziz arrived in Moscow.... Moscow's initiative has met with support in the White House. The Americans want out of the standoff without having to use force." "UN Sanctions Useless" Dmitry Zelenin judged in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (# 46, 11/20): "Obviously, using UN sanctions to squeeze Saddam Hussein out won't work. If the CIA is really set on doing away with the Iraqi president, it should probably try something else, something different from conspiracies and starving the Iraqi population. Iraq should be given the alternative of free economic development. Then changes in Baghdad's upper echelons may come about by themselves." "Saddam Boosts Russia's Status As A Great Power" Aleksandr Shumilin held in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (11/20): "The Iraq crisis has offered Russia a chance to demonstrate her status as a great power. With Washington and Baghdad in a deadlock, the former is clearly not interested in using force. Russia may help the antagonists get out of the crisis with a minimal damage to their images." "Make Control Over Iraq Less American" Aleksei Kartsev explained in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (11/20): "The idea behind the sensational proposals which may give an answer to the historic question 'to bomb or not to bomb?' is simple: Make control over Iraq less American and more 'international.' Primakov's proposals are likely to cause a sigh of relief among the Arabs. Washington, too, will probably have to listen, even though most Americans favor the use of force." BRITAIN: "Bill Clinton 0, Saddam Hussein 1. So What Is The U.S.' Strategy?" An editorial in the centrist Independent said under the headline above (11/21): "The real import of what has happened is that Saddam Hussein called the United States' bluff by expelling the UN weapons inspectors. Moreover, he seems to have lost nothing by it.... The message from Washington is clear. But it has to be spelled out because, earlier this week, the White House strategy of bluffing Iraq into submission by uncompromising talk and a massive show of strength came badly unstuck. In an error of the administration's own making, a State Department official disclosed that the United States might countenance a more flexible sanctions regime. That told Iraq that it could treat the war-mongering pictures being beamed in on CNN (which functions at times like these like a virtual back channel for U.S. diplomacy) as mere saber-rattling.... "The trouble is that, for a nation that prides itself on its 'can-do' attitude, America's sense of the possible has been conspicuously lacking during the current crisis.... Meanwhile, the Pentagon was distracted by a trip to the Far East and China, which was cancelled because of the Iraqi crisis. And the secretary of state, on the other hand, went ahead with what was intended as a major flag-waving tour of the Indian subcontinent. Two major drives of U.S. diplomacy were thus derailed. This left the way clear for Russian-French diplomacy.... Now, as the world waits to find out...what the UN has given away in the small print.... Washington has left its allies facing an uncomfortable questions: What is the real aim of U.S. policy? Does it really want only to resume inspections, with Americans back in the teams?... Or is Washington's prime objective to prolong Iraq's pariah status until someone more congenial is in power than Saddam Hussein? That is what Iraq suspects, and Washington's handling of the current conflict will have done little to disabuse it." "Edging Forward In Iraq" The liberal Guardian's editorial concluded (11/21): "The deal which was no deal has resolved, at least for now, the crisis in Iraq. It was in everyone's interests that such a settlement should take this peaceful route. Short of military action for which the United States itself had no taste, this was always going to depend on creative diplomacy. Now the task is to ensure that it does not become a verbal fudge." "Saddam Has Not Done Badly" Christopher Lockwood commented in the conservative Daily Telegraph(11/21): "On paper, it does indeed look as though Saddam has climbed down.... But Saddam is unlikely to see things this way, and nor will much of the Arab world, where his defiance of America makes him enduringly popular.... His greatest 'victory' may yet be that he has rid himself of UN weapon inspections for the past three weeks.... Saddam has also dramatically displayed the weakness of the American position and the effective disintegration of (the) coalition...in the 1991 Gulf War.... The crisis has also allowed Saddam, in the most public possible way, to enlist the support of Russia in getting sanctions lifted. It has exposed as untenable, as top British officials admit, the words in March of Madeleine Albright...when she declared that, even if Saddam destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction, the sanctions would remain in force. In all, Saddam has not done badly." "White House Fending Off Charges It Has Caved In To Saddam" Hugo Gurdon observed in the conservative Daily Telegraph (11/20): "Britain and America were wary last night that a 'deal' with Saddam Hussein brokered by Russia would fall short of full Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.... There are clear signs that America and Britain have re-thought their position and now urgently want the inspections to resume.... They are more alarmed that Saddam, free of international scrutiny, 'could produce within a matter of months a small number of chemical and biological weapons, including missile warheads,' according to a memo circulating among alliance diplomats.... The White House, which on Monday signaled its willingness to see the number of American inspectors in Iraq reduced, is trying to fend off accusations that it has effectively caved in to Saddam.... American efforts to appear tough while seeking a peaceful solution were dealt a blow by former President Jimmy Carter, who said Mr. Clinton would be making a 'serious mistake' if he ordered a unilateral military strike." FRANCE: "A Significant U.S. Concession" Pierre Haski interviewed French Foreign Affairs Minister Hubert Vedrine in left-of-center Liberation (11/21): "Paragraph four of the communique represents a significant U.S. concession, because until now Washington had never accepted discussing the commission's role.... France has its own vision on how to get out of this crisis.... As to the lifting of sanctions, we must not lie. We will reach that point when Iraq has complied with its obligations.... The United States has accepted the idea of reviewing the 'oil for food' resolution, and that is also a important concession. There is a significant change in the U.S. position and we must encourage it.... The United States sees that (its) sanctions policies are not well regarded throughout the world. The United States is also in a difficult position with the Arab world because of the stalled peace process. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy realized that in case of a military intervention, things would be worse than before. There would be less control over Iraq and a violent regional reaction against the United States. The United States has intelligently looked for a solution to avoid such an outcome." "A Comeback For Russian Diplomacy" Under the headline above, left-of-center Le Monde's editorial judged (11/21): "The outcome of the Iraqi crisis is a major success for Russian diplomacy.... Since the signing of the Founding Act, the Kremlin feels much more free to act. Yeltsin openly defends the idea of a multipolar world, dear also to President Chirac, in which Russia will be one of the poles.... Presumably, Russia no longer has the means of the former Soviet Union, but its weakness is in itself an asset in a sensitive region where the merest imbalance can be a source of instability.... Unless Saddam Hussein makes a sudden turn- around, Russian diplomacy has clearly scored twice: It returns to the Middle East 'en force' and, through its 'solidarity with the international community,' proves its sense of responsibility." "An Attempt To Save Face For All" Alain Duhamel judged on Europe One Radio (11/20): "Today's diplomatic option appears more credible while still not fully believable.... What is certain is that it seeks to save face for all.... In this crisis France has distanced itself from the U.S. position, and while it was right to do so, it didn't necessarily go about it in the right way." "U.S. Isolation" Jean Daniel remarked in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur(11/20): "While oil conglomerates and strategy specialists are in favor of war, the United States must face the fact that in 1997, unlike in 1991, the United States stands practically alone when it speaks of military intervention.... The reason has been clearly stated by Madeleine Albright to Netanyahu: 'The stalled peace process is very bad for U.S. interests in the region.'... Netanyahu's strategic blindness is in part responsible.... Regional anti-Western and anti-American Islamic movements share in the responsibility.... But the United States is beginning to understand to what extent the stalled peace process is affecting its Arab allies at home.... The United States is no longer in a position to regulate world affairs, either politically or morally. Washington needs its allies.... Hence a round of calls, including to France, which appears as the best placed nation to intervene with the Arab world.... A compromise with Iraq must be accompanied by resumption of the peace process." GERMANY: "Think Highly Of Clinton And Albright" Peter Klaeuser of Norddeutsche Rundfunk radio station (11/20) pointed out, "Some conservative 'world policemen' in America do not like the fact that, of all people, it is Russia that is returning to the arena of world politics through its good connections with Baghdad. One has to think highly of Clinton and Albright who did not snub Yeltsin and Primakov in order to be first. This behavior gives the UN inspectors much more political clout than if the returning inspectors had had to stumble over the rubble of a hasty military strike. If Saddam proceeds in a reasonable manner and Clinton continues with his surprisingly balanced foreign policy, there could be, for the first time, a real chance for a peaceful solution in the Gulf." "Saddam Won" National radio Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (11/20) broadcast this comment by Juergen Philip (11/20): "Basically Saddam Hussein is the winner in this conflict.... The position of the United States in this crisis was weakened. The position of those states that favor the lifting of the sanctions since they do not hit Saddam but the innocent Iraqi people was strengthened. Now Saddam knows that next time around it will be even easier to stand up to the United States and that this behavior will get him recognition in certain parts of the Arab world." "Why Iraq Won" National radio Deutschlandfunk's reporter Ulf Thies commented (11/20): "(Except for the United States and Britain), the United States pulled together a military force in the Persian Gulf which would have been able to force Iraq to stick to the UN resolution. The rest of the Western states, including Germany, which would love to become a permanent member of the Security Council, did not feel concerned and only thought about business. In the long run that is exactly why Iraq has won, and some day we all may pay the price for this." "Rethink Policy Towards Saddam" In centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (11/20), Wolf Bell observed, "The ideas for a new order in the region, which came out of the Gulf War, are gone. The Middle East peace process is threatened by failure. The old Gulf War alliance only shares a joint opinion on the lowest common denominator.... It is about time to think about an effective policy towards Saddam.... A possible new approach would be the step- by-step loosening of the UN embargo in exchange for internationally binding renunciation of weapons of mass destruction.... The question whether Baghdad would be willing to pay the price to enter these treaties can only be answered in real negotiations." ITALY: "Geneva Solution Left Deep Scars In U.S. Foreign Policy" New York correspondent Arturo Zampaglione filed for left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (11/21): "Verbally, everybody seems to be happy about the outcome of the Russian initiative.... But the solution achieved in Geneva has left deep scars in U.S. foreign policy. Even though nobody is willing to admit it in Washington, the way the crisis with Iraq was handled has emphasized the contradictions and weaknesses in Clinton's diplomacy. First of all, the United States found itself isolated in considering a military intervention.... Second, while continuing to be the only military superpower, America was too hasty in flexing its muscles, ending up by putting itself in a box.... Third, the Americans let a long-time pro-Arab diplomat like Primakov `steal' the initiative from them. The Russian foreign minister exploited the `lack of leadership' (as USA Today called it) and the misunderstandings among three of Clinton's main collaborators--Secretary Albright, National Security Adviser Berger and UN Ambassador Richardson." "Moscow Is A Protagonist Again" A commentary by Ugo Tramballi ran in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore(11/20): "Russian Foreign Minister Primakov's curriculum is so full of (Cold War) memories that his mediation in the Iraqi crisis could be misinterpreted, seen as aimed at dividing the Western front and putting the Arab world against the U.S.-Israel axis as in the past: i.e., at making Russia count again so that it can again consider itself a superpower. There is certainly some of the above in Primakov's mission, since the (Russian) bear never gives up its bad habits and since, in any case, Russia is destined to again become in any case a major protagonist. But there is most of all something new in Primakov's mission. Russia is not trying this mediation against, but with the United States.... And this will affect world peace much more than Saddam Hussein or what China intends to do.... It is important for all protagonists, mediators and international observers involved in the present crisis to remember that...in all previous crises with Iraq, the Western-Russian-Arab-Chinese front succeeded in maintaining its unity. Unfortunately it is not yet the time to dismantle that front." AUSTRIA: "Until Next Time" Peter Krotky wrote in prestigious, conservative Die Presse (11/21): "At the last minute, the United States succeeded in rallying the four permanent Security Council members behind it.... Saddam Hussein, again, can claim that he succeeded in reducing the number of Americans in the inspection teams. The de-escalation also benefits Russia, which, through the activities of Foreign Minister Primakov, once again entered the global political stage. This is balm to the wounded soul of a decrepit former superpower.... The United States still has to make one thing clear, though: Its request to retain the sanctions until Saddam is removed from his office is not in line with the valid UN resolutions.... Only one thing is certain: The next Iraq crisis will come." BELGIUM: "Who Gains From The Agreement On Iraq?" Foreign affairs writer Manu Tassier wrote (11/21) in independent Catholic De Standaard, "In the long term, Baghdad's main gain is probably the fact that Moscow will make efforts to cancel the economic sanctions--provided that Baghdad fully implements the UNSC resolutions regarding the destruction of mass destruction weapons.... The United States has shown its muscles during this crisis. In the Gulf area, the U.S. military presence--which was already impressive--has even been expanded. The coalition, led by the United States, unanimously condemned Iraq's behavior and increased diplomatic pressure but, aside from Great Britain, no one appeared to be willing to use force to keep a tight rein on Iraq. Although the United States applauded the return of its inspectors (to Iraq), a spokesman underscored yesterday that Washington does not feel bound by the agreement between Russia and Iraq. However, if the agreement really leads to a resumption of the UN arms inspections, it will be a feather in Moscow's cap. With this diplomatic success the Kremlin would strengthen its position in the area substantially." "Balance Between Two Evils" Jos De Greef wrote (11/20) in liberal weekly Knack magazine, " The industrialized world will refuse to maintain that (embargo) forever. Consequently, the time has come for alternative strategies. If one wants to eliminate Iraq's mass destruction weapons in the short term, that country should be given--aside from a threat--positive encouragement also. For instance, the perspective of a gradual lifting of the embargo in stages -- in exchange for more active cooperation. Opponents claim that this will provide a second breath to the regime. But, supporters say that Baghdad will opt for the benefits. Moreover, the embargo did not get Saddam out of the way and, neither, did it spark new tensions. No matter what, it looks as if the U.S. fleet will have to play the role of policeman in the Gulf for a long time to come." "Russia's Bid To Recapture Some Of Its Prestige" Independent Le Soir held (11/20) in an article by Pol Mathil, "If the Iraqi crisis did not exist, Russia should have invented it. Since the end of the USSR, Russia could not enjoy a better opportunity, as formidable as it is unexpected, to recapture some of its lost international prestige." BULGARIA: "Russia Saved The Peace" Center-left 24 Hours (11/21) observed, "Russia reminded us of its role in the world with a clever move. It succeeded in calming Saddam and suspending the war in the Persian Gulf. They have started to rattle the sabers there. Both the West and the East have written off Russia's diplomacy for years. However, it reminded us. If Primakov manages to persuade the UN to lift the sanctions against Iraq, as he has promised Saddam, it will be a big hit. The question is whether the United States will agree." CANADA: "Lethal Cravenness" Writing in the conservative Ottawa Sun (11/20), Peter Worthington, the paper's editor emeritus, stated, "Dealing with Iraq shows how inept and flaccid the 'civilized' world is, and how hopeless and craven the UN is, especially the Security Council. It's mind-boggling that Saddam Hussein virtually does whatever he like with impunity.... However, if something isn't done about tyrant regimes that have the will and wherewithal for mass destruction, someday the world is going to experience a catastrophe the likes of which hasn't been seen since Hiroshima.... Saddam Hussein is symbolic. If he isn't brought to heel, his successors will be more lethal." "Threat Of Force Is Losing Its Punch" In the liberal Montreal Gazette, contributing columnist Gwynne Dyer wrote (11/20), "The political usefulness of force has been in decline for a long time.... Only once in the past 40 years has the international community recognized a border change accomplished by force: the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia.... The non-violent character of [Saddam's] present strategy makes it very hard to respond with force--so U.S. air strikes, if they happen, will not be big enough to shift Saddam. Sanctions are a better bet, though they are painfully slow. But the world's apparent impotence in the face of a defiant but clever tyrant is the price we must pay for the steep decline in the usefulness of force, and that is in general a good thing. It means fewer invasions, fewer military adventures--and fewer dead." CZECH REPUBLIC: "Mother Of All Victories" A commentary in right-of-center Mlada Fronta DNES stated (11/21), "In the end, Saddam won both: the Russian promise to lift the blockade and the temporary suspension of inspections... But his biggest victory is that he demonstrated how dead the former coalition of his enemies is. Arabs don't wish another humiliation of their cousin. The West anticipates good business the moment sanctions are lifted. The United States has no support.... Saddam will start to raise his head and will want to be dealt with as an equal partner. But that cannot be allowed because controversies are usually dealt with through compromises or, in other words, through concessions. And to those Iraq has no claim. In Iraq's case, it's the UN resolutions that Baghdad must observed." FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: "In Search Of New Friends" Opposition-leaning Dnevnik's editorial held (11/20): "The impression is that the United States somehow forgot about the Middle East after Clinton's re-election. Secretary Albright took 10 months after taking office to go to her first official visit to this troubled area, unlike her predecessor Christopher, who would do this five times a year. The latest U.S. 'Iraqi show' is also motivated by reinvigorated Russian and French activities for greater influence in the Middle East. Although Moscow and Paris undoubtedly supported the intervention in Iraq in 1991, now one cannot expect that the French and the Russians would approve the use of force against Iraq. However, the United States should not allow itself to undertake unilateral military action in Iraq, without the approval of countries that are permanent Security Council members. That action would be qualified as aggression. That is exactly why Washington started consultations with Russia and France to find a peaceful solution to the latest Iraqi crisis. That gives hope that 'Nimitz' and 'George Washington' will have nothing but another 'ammunition-free' military exercise in the Gulf. On the other hand, the United States will make even greater 'friends' with Russia and France, while searching for 'enemies.'" HUNGARY: "Classic Coded" According to an op-ed piece in top-circulation Nepszabadsag (11/21), " Iraq has become a model of what the mechanism of global politics is going to look like in the next century, when 19th century elements will have their revival in form of digital codes. Saddam has not achieved anything of value, UN inspectors will return to their post this Friday, as if nothing had happened at all. But he has not lost a thing either. Washington has done nothing less than increase by threefold its military presence around Iraq. France has stayed where it was originally: a bit aside of the U.S. and Russia. Britain has not moved too much; it spoke American and acted British, as usual. China was doing the world organization's paperwork as a fine civil servant just to avoid the responsibility of making a decision. Everybody could be happy for something. Nothing has happened then? On the contrary. In Metternich's words: Nothing else has happened but the leading powers of the world have 'only' learnt how to avoid a war. But quoting another classic figure, Yogi Berra: 'It ain't over till it's over.'" ICELAND: "U.S. Has Become Isolated" Independent, second largest DV maintained (11/20), "Saddam Hussein won yet another half round in his prolonged intransigence against the attempts of the UN to enforce the armistice agreement at the end of the Gulf War.... There is no use in endless sanctions which clearly do not loosen Saddam Hussein's grip on power, but instead cause innocent people to suffer excessively." LITHUANIA: "With Moscow's Help, Iraq Achieved What It Was Seeking" Violeta Mickeviciute commented in liberal Respublika (11/20), "For 23 days, which might have led to another Gulf war, the United States demonstrated that it is no longer the leader of diplomacy. The game of 'cat and mouse' with Sadam Hussein has proven that it is helpless in the Middle East and does not possess authority in the Muslim world. Why? First of all, the Department of State, under the direction today of Madeleine Albright, in contrast to Warren Christopher's times, devotes more attention to the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This results in failed diplomacy in the Gulf.... Second, tensions in the Gulf are useful for Washington itself. The conflict with Iraq allows the United States to keep military forces in the region, the more so, since Iraq is considered a buffer between Washington's other enemy--Iran.... With Moscow's assistance, Iraq has achieved what it was seeking from the beginning of the crisis." MALTA: "Apparent Isolation For U.S." Maltese-language, Catholic Church weekly Il-Gens held (11/21): "Contrary to what happened six years ago during the Gulf War, when the international community joined forces against Iraq, now the United States appeared to be both weak and short of choices in the diplomatic field, as well as isolated in substance.... The situation deteriorated following the U.S.' failure to pay its debts to the UN owing to internal political bickering.... Iraq unfailingly exploited this situation. How can the United States call for unity within the international community...when the United States itself is undermining the community's organization?" THE NETHERLANDS: "A Happy Ending" In the view of influential, liberal De Volkskrant's editorial (11/21), "The crisis has a happy ending: Saddam Hussein dropped his plans to get into a military confrontation with the United States.... It was a wise thing of the UNSC members, particularly the United States and Russia, to give Saddam an option for a graceful way out.... Without the American preparedness to use force, Russian mediation would not have been successful.... Lifting the sanctions is linked to Iraqi cooperation with the UN inspection. This link should definitely be maintained. It is up to Saddam Hussein to decide if he is prepared to pay that price." POLAND: "An Opening For Russia" A commentary by Leopold Unger ran in center-left Gazeta Wyborcza(11/20), "If there had not been an Iraqi crisis, Moscow would have created it. From the point of view of the Kremlin, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has never had such a favorable opportunity to spread the rusted wings of its diplomacy." SERBIA-MONTENEGRO: U.S.: No Change In UN Mandate" Belgrade's centrist Nasa Borba stated (11/19), "The bottom line (of the crisis) is the undisputed fact that the United States--in its contacts (which Clinton and Albright had in the last few days) with their partners in Paris and Moscow--retained its old well-known position that Saddam Hussein simply cannot be allowed to decide on the members of the international commission tasked to discover and destroy Iraq's forbidden weapons of mass destruction." "Compromise" Pro-government Politika stated (11/19), "Russia is making efforts to take the leading diplomatic role in the UN attempt to solve politically the crisis in Iraq--created by the U.S. determination to hit Iraq once again, regardless of the majority opinion (in the rest of the world). Hardly anyone can expect a spectacular or easy way out of the crisis. The fact remains, however that both sides...in the meantime have changed their earlier positions tin the conflict." SPAIN: "What Saddam Says Is One Thing, But What He Does Is Another" Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia said in an editorial (11/21): "If Saddam has now backed down, as the UN has requested, why does the United States continue its military build-up? Because the Americans clearly seem to realize that what Saddam says is one thing, but what he does is another.... Has Saddam backed down...because Moscow [which holds big economic IOUs from Iraq] has perhaps promised him to press for a lifting of the sanctions as soon as possible? The United States...has announced that it will veto any change in the sanctions...[although this] does not [necessarily] detract from the Russo-Iraqi accord. But let's not fool ourselves; the agreement is based on Saddam's word alone, which he now needs to convert into deeds. The crisis appears to be headed for a solution, but the swords, as the continuing U. S. military activity indicates, are still out." SWEDEN: "Don't Lift Sanctions Until Iraq Complies" An editorial in liberal Dagens Nyheter (11/21) stated, "To Russia the deal is a diplomatic success. Where Washington--having an increasingly weaker position in the region--got stuck, Russia seems to have managed to break the deadlock. However, it is difficult to get rid of the feeling that Iraq believes that it has got some promises; which Russia has no possibility to redeem on behalf of the UN.... It is now essential that the Security Council in the future have a united approach against Iraq. Its recent behavior has not served to uphold the authority of the council.... Sanctions cannot be lifted until Iraq complies with the resolutions of the Security Council." SWITZERLAND: "'Last Resort' Meeting Prodices Results" Pierre Hazan maintained in center-left Le Nouveau Quotidien (11/21): "The meeting (of the five permanent representatives of the UNSC)-- known as 'the last resort'--managed to defuse the crisis between Iraq and the United States. That's the prevailing impression, at least for the time being.... Everything seems to indicate that new deadlines have been established--for the Iraqis to prove that their disarmament program is on the right path, and for the Security Council to set about reducing the sanctions. While waiting, Washington has no intention of relaxing military pressure on Iraq. Albright reaffirmed that any modification of U.S. military presence would be 'completely premature.'" TURKEY: "Russia Increases Its Influence" Ergun Balci observed in liberal Cumhuriyet (11/21): "The most interesting part of the Iraq/UNSCOM crisis is that the United States found itself alone in the diplomatic arena, with the exception of Britain, and Russia emerged as a winner in terms of diplomacy by managing to solve the crisis. As a matter of fact, it was the United States which asked for Moscow's role as a mediator. However, the success of Russian diplomacy can be described as a forward move in terms of the influence struggle going on from the Mediterranean to the Middle East between the United States and Russia. With the help of its success in the Iraq crisis, Russia will have more influence with the Middle East countries. And Arab countries, which are disappointed by American's pro-Israel policies, will now open their doors to Moscow." SOUTH ASIA INDIA: "Iraq Backs Down" Washington correspondent Ramesh Chandran penned this for the centrist Times of India (11/21): "At first glance, it looks like the Russian intervention has proved decisive.... The Iraqi decision to allow the weapons inspectors back into the country could be interpreted in different ways. For Iraqi officials, it is a vindication of their stance: refocusing the world's attention on the sanctions and their complaints about the way the INSCOM team was working and its composition.... From the Clinton administration's point of view, its tough and uncompromising stance...coupled with the military build-up, has ensured the Baghdad backdown from an armed confrontation.... One immediate fallout of Thursday's rapid-fire developments is the prevailing sentiment that the Russians are back in the Middle East." "War Drums Sound In The Gulf" An editorial in Calcutta's independent Ananda Bazar Patrika (11/18) said, "It is gradually becoming clear that the end of the Cold War did not banish warfare and arms race for good. The geo-political consequences of only one superpower remaining in the world is also apparent. This time...the pretext is the expulsion of the American members of the UN arms inspection team from Iraq.... If teaching Saddam Hussein a 'lesson' is the motive of the U.S. administration, then America got that opportunity in '91. Is the United States desperate now because of its failure to utilize... that opportunity? The United States, however, did not take a similarly rigid stance in cases of...Mobutu,...Marcos, or Radovan Karadzic, the 'crimes' of none of whom are any less than those of Saddam.... That is why many feel that Saddam's Iraq is gradually becoming what once Vietnam was to America. Perhaps it will not be correct to judge this as an implementation of American foreign policy's nuclear non-proliferation priority. It will only boost America's image also if the United States can persuade Iraq to open its armory for inspection by some peaceful means, in place of military expeditions." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "Who Won? Iraq, Russia" Ge Xiangwen told readers of the official Beijing Municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 11/21), "The United States has lost the game to Iraq. The United States wants to retain long-term sanctions on Iraq in attempt to kill several birds with one stone. By keeping Iraq in difficulty, Iran is contained at the same time. The United States is incapable of overthrowing Iraq for the time being. Analysts believe that the reason Iraq dared to confront the U.S. and finally won the game lies primarily in the Iraqis' correct evaluation of the situation. Iraq concluded that most Middle Eastern countries would not follow the United States. Additionally, as more people show sympathy to the Iraqis, and believe that Iraq's requests are reasonable, the United States will become more isolated.... "Apart from Iraq, Russia is also a winner in the crisis. Through diplomatic channels, Russia has successfully dissolved the likely U.S.-Iraqi armed conflict, elevating its own prestige among Middle Eastern countries. Russia's success also clarified Russia's ability and influence in international affairs since the end of the Cold War." INDONESIA: "Time For Developing Countries To Support Iraq" Pro-government newsweekly Gatra stressed in column by Riza Sihbudi (11/21): "It is clear that the United States is trying hard to conceal its disgrace by manipulating the [facts] to make it appear as if Saddam refused to adhere to the UN resolution.... The United States may believe other nations are filled with people who can be easily fooled.... The UN...has become a device of U.S. current political interests.... It is time for developing countries to support the struggles of Iraq (as well as Libya, Sudan, and Iran), against what the late Khomeini termed the 'Big Satan.' The strong statement by Indonesian Foreign Minister Alatas [of 11/12] demonstrated our rejection of despotic acts.... Sometime in the future, what is now happening to Iraq may happen to others including Indonesia." PHILIPPINES: "Second Aircraft Carrier To The Persian Gulf" Publisher Max Soliven of the conservative and third highest- circulation Philippine Star (11/19): "America has sent a second aircraft carrier...to the Persian Gulf.... This is equivalent to using a baseball bat to swat a flea, but, it must be admitted, Saddam is an extremely irritating flea.... It's their fault that Saddam can still threaten to unleash biological weapons, as well as missiles, on the Middle East. When their victorious 'Operation Desert Storm' coalition was battering its away into Iraq...George Bush told 'Storming Norman' and allied Generals to stop.... He [Saddam] now threatens America's pets, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, anew. But why worry? Israel should be left to fend for itself, and, perhaps, will at last find it necessary to truly 'make peace' with the Palestinians and the Arab world.... Saddam's bite, for all the media hype, is tiny and his reach short. It's Jerusalem which should worry, not faraway D.C." SOUTH KOREA: "A Military Clash Avoided" The pro-business Joong-Ang Ilbo commented (11/21), "The reason Iraq has decided to allow the return of the UN weapons inspection team to the country is because it now feels that it successfully showed the world the harshness of U.S.-led economic sanctions and the partiality of the UN inspection team. Thanks to its special friend, Russia, Iraq is now able to come out of isolation into the international community.... Although we do not know for sure how the United States will respond to Iraq's changed stance, it is obvious that the United States no longer has a reason to push for military action.... If Saddam Hussein behaves provocatively again, the United States may try to further tighten precautionary measures and to exert other pressures against Iraq. Whether the United States will agree to ease economic sanctions is not yet certain." AFRICA BURKINA FASO: "Omnipresent U.S.?" Traore Alain Edouard penned this for independent L'Observateur Paalga(11/20), "U.S. foreign policy is omnipresent at the center of the resolution of the Iraqi problem. It intervenes without care and seems to confuse and to compromise an objective UN move. The resolutions of the Security Council are almost dictated by American policy. If the United states does not stop using the UN institutions for its own foreign policy goals, the international organization risks losing its credit." UGANDA: ''Iraq Should Cooperate" The leading New Vision opined (11/6) that "recently the Democratic Republic of the Congo set a precedent, rejecting some members of a human rights investigation team questioning its credibility. The UN bowed and made some changes. Since it did this for the Congo, it can consider Iraq.... Force should be avoided in this standoff. All possible peaceful means should be used to compel Iraq to submit to UNSCOM.... The UN should ensure that its operations succeed on the principles of peaceful negotiations and not force, and that countries that disobey are isolated." ZIMBABWE: "Quest For World Stability" An editorial in the government-controlled Chronicle stated (11/19), "Nobody says Iraq is right by barring UN weapons inspectors from carrying out their duty.... A world of double standards is one seething with explosive tensions, as that in the Gulf today. If world order is to be maintained and tensions lessened with regards to armaments, the UN should be seen to be the boss by ordering military action against offending member states, instead of one member of the UN. Literally declaring or preparing to declare war on another member while hiding behind the UN flag. An organization of unequal members does not augur well for world stability." LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN ARGENTINA: "An Uncomfortable Way Out For The U.S." Marcelo Falak, international analyst for business-financial Ambito Financiero, asked (11/21), "How will the United States be able to prevent an essential questioning of the sanctions, in the medium-term, precisely now when Baghdad managed to instal the issue in the heart of the Security Council and when countries such as Russia and France have decided to make their trade interests in Iraq clear? And, in addition to this, during the three weeks the crisis lasted Saddam even had time to move away the arsenals of chemical and bacteriological weapons he wanted to hide from UNSCOM inspectors' eyes." BARBADOS: "Excuse For U.S. To Flex Muscles" The pro-government Bridgetown Nation (11/18) commented: "[Iraq's] neighbors welcome any opportunity to annex a piece of Iraq. But it is known that for all his shortcomings Saddam Hussein has stood between some semblance of order and chaos in that part of the world. The Americans, meanwhile, have not been treating the UN as one of their favored organizations. They still owe it lots of money. But the United States is quite prepared to wage war under its banner when it suits U.S. interests." "Hide And Seek" The populist Barbados Advocate held (11/21), "Despite its hide-and- seek tact of excluding, then agreeing to readmit U.S. inspectors (presumably after changing weapons sites), we know Iraq's arsenal is real; so too is the stock of micro-organisms that Saddam's highly quesionable morals and devilish instincts can justify using even against his own people." BRAZIL: "Outcome Of The Gulf Crisis" Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo's editorial pointed out (11/21): "The crisis served to emphasize, once again, the dilemma faced by the Western powers in the Gulf region. There is a clear desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein, whose power, however, seems to be fostered by confrontations with the West.... Essentially, the conditions imposed on Iraq by the UN Security Council were accomplished. The country does not represent a threat to its neighbors anymore. What is necessary to appease the West is Saddam's fall. While he is in power, this paranoid dictator will continue to play tricks, if not with conventional military actions, at least with terrorism, even resorting to the use of chemical and biological weapons." "They Deserve Each Other" Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo opined (11/20), "Tired of being shocked and indignant, we attempt to turn our backs: Those that want to die, should. It is enough to mix religion with politics and the result is a stupid massacre moved by blind revenge: The important thing is to retaliate, although nobody knows who started it and why.... In the Arab countries and in Israel there is always a contingent willing to avoid that and sensible leadership take this mild pleasure away from them. From this starts the iron circle: impasse, negotiation, terror, impasse. The United States does well in confining religion to their homes and temples, where the possibility of causing damage is restricted to the personal life of the people involved." CHILE: "Iran Also Has Nuclear Weapons" Television Channel 13 prime-time news international commentator Karin Ebensperger commented (11/20), "It is a significant diplomatic triumph for Russia, but we must also consider the fact that word has spread that neighboring Iran has nuclear weapons. It is more and more evident that the United States and the United Nations have to find a balance...ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have powerful mass destruction weapons, but without weakening him too much before Iran. A regional imbalance could mean serious problems in the future." ## For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 11/21/97 # # #Europe Middle East East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Africa Latin America and the Caribbean
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
