09 February 1998
U.S.-IRAQ: WEIGHING DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY OPTIONS
In voluminous commentary from around the world, the foreign media continued to weigh the merits of diplomacy vs. the use of military force to secure Iraq's full compliance with the UN- mandated weapons inspections. Among those judging that there have been insufficient diplomatic efforts made thus far were a string of commentators in Iran, Jordan, Syria, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, China--including a pro-PRC paper in Hong Kong--Japan, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Chile and Nigeria. While these writers feared the danger that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world, most questioned, whether a military strike will solve the problem of eliminating Iraq's weaponry or ending President Saddam Hussein's provocations. Several writers lamented the elusiveness of a solution that would allow all to save face. These were major highlights in the commentary: RETHINKING DUAL CONTAINMENT--A few writers suggested that the prospect of military action against Iraq has forced the Clinton administration to rethink its plans for putting pressure on European companies dealing with Iran. "One of the pillars of the U.S. strategy in the area, the 'dual containment' strategy towards Iran and Iraq, has fallen apart," Milan's leading business Il Sole-24 Oredeclared, noting that now Washington "resists only...Baghdad." Another Italian paper proffered this "hypothesis": "In the end, America will be forced to choose the lesser evil: to coexist with an Iraq more or less armed, using its formidable nuclear deterrent in order to prevent Baghdad from even being tempted to use such weapons." Journalists in Egypt and Thailand suggested linking the removal of sanctions against Iraq to Saddam Hussein's providing UN inspectors with unfettered access to suspected weapons sites. SUPPORT FROM ALLIES--Istanbul's mass-appeal Sabah outlined the "pain" that Turkey had "absorbed" in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War but resolved, "Nobody can be impartial when the choice is between law and lawlessness." Israeli media reported Secretary Cohen's talks with Israeli Defense Minister Mordechai in Munich on the "when" and "how" of an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iraq--talks that Israel TV characterized as a "quantum leap" in bilateral cooperation. In editorials last week, nationalist Hatzofe and mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv discussed the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein. "For the Americans, this would be a nightmare," Maarivallowed. PAX AMERICANA?--Some writers noted that since Washington announced the possibility of resorting to force, the developments of the crisis indicate a redefinition of Washington's relations with the other permanent members of the Security Council, as well as a change of nature of the Americans' traditional alliances in the Middle East. Rabat's independent, French-language weekly La Gazette du Maroc intoned, "Pax Americana is not the 'peace of the brave.' It is the achievement of a Greater Israel by any means." Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin worried that "there is the great danger that the UN Security Council is now dividing into two camps, something which could have disastrous consequences for future crises." This survey is based on 80 reports from 46 countries, February 2- 9. EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Kathleen J. BrahneyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below MIDDLE EAST IRAQ: "Albright Failed In Realizing Objective Of Her Tour" Baghdad's official agency, INA, reported that Arab socialist Baath Party paper Al-Thawrah (2/5) asserted, "The Arab, regional and international position that rejects the U.S. aggression is a demonstration of the world's understanding of, and belief in the justice and legitimacy of the Iraqi cause.... The world began to declare this rejection in the face of U.S. officials and is no more frightened by the U.S. administration in spite of its arrogance.... Albright failed in realizing the objective of her tour of Europe and the Arab countries. That objective was to obtain their support for launching a new military aggression against Iraq. The ambiguous and general terms she used before leaving Cairo for Washington did not help her in hiding her failure." EGYPT: "This Is The Destruction Of A Whole Generation" Columnist Nabil Zaki wrote in pro-government Al Akhbar (2/8): "In Iraq, one can buy a kidney to be transplanted from another person for $100. Certainly, the rulers have no problem, while the layman has nothing to eat. An international official says that 30 percent of both adults and infants suffer acute malnutrition. This is the destruction of a whole generation. Those who are well-prepared to destroy Iraq should have rather proposed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iraq's allowing the inspection team in all sites. Unless, of course, hitting Iraq is a target in itself or to cover for other issues." "U.S. Moving Madly Toward Use Of Force" In the view of Salama Ahmed Salama, columnist for pro-government daily Al Ahram (2/5): "The United States is moving madly forward using, all means of pressure and deceit to declare war against Iraq, claiming that it obtained international and Gulf support, although most Arab and European countries expressed reservation about using force.... The U.S. defense secretary himself said that the attack will not uproot Saddam's regime and will not secure the elimination of all weapon stores.... The serious thing is that the American strike may well extend to a comprehensive, regional war, the losses of which American troops would not escape." "Support Reserved For Iraqi People Only" Emad Omar, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar, pointed out (2/5): "The only positive thing Saddam did among his follies is that he revived the Arab spirit.... Saddam must understand that Arab support is for the Iraqi people only, and for closing the gaps in Arab ranks, which Israel craves to exploit." ISRAEL: "U.S. No Longer Objects To Israeli Response" Several defense analysts speculated that the Cohen-Mordechai meeting in Munich focused on the "when" and "how" of an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iraq. Israel TV stated that the meeting indicated a "quantum leap" in bilateral cooperation and coordination. Under the headline above, military analyst Alex Fishman stated in top-circulation, pluralist Yediot (2/9): "Israeli retaliation requires a great deal of complex coordination. Even if the United States does what it promised to do, i.e., tell Israel beforehand of its attack plans, Israel is not likely to get real time information or, for that matter, precise data concerning Iraqi plans to attack Israel. That is why, once Israel feels it is time to retaliate, both Israel and the United States ought to be in agreement about the extent of Israel's freedom of action, channels of battle coordination, etc." "Israel's Third Option" Diplomatic correspondent Ben Kaspit wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (2/6): "(Almost) nobody talks about it in public, but Israel has another option besides refraining or retaliating.... It is called a pre-emptive strike.... When both capability and intelligence are present, only the decision is missing.... The latter will have to be made by the prime minister and the defense minister. The question is as to the U.S. reaction. For the Americans, this would be a nightmare. They oppose an Israeli retaliation...and naturally vehemently disapprove the possibility of a pre-emptive strike." "Coordinated Preventive Steps" Nationalist Hatzofe maintained (2/6): "One must remember that there is no similarity between the (Gulf War) period and the current Iraqi provocation. Then, the United States feared that, if Israel attacked Iraq, the anti-Iraqi coalition that comprised an important part of the Arab countries, headed by Egypt and Syria would crumble.... There is no justification to prevent Israel from taking preventive steps.... This is not only its right, but its duty towards its citizens. This must be unequivocally repeated to the United States.... But, at the same time...political and military moves must be coordinated with the United States." "How Israel Can Help U.S." Senior analyst Dan Margalit commented in Netanyahu-critic Haaretz(2/5): "It is in Israel's interest to have the United States attack Saddam Hussein, although this may precipitate an Iraqi missile strike on Israel.... Israel can help the U.S. drive in the Gulf by easing its stand on the West Bank withdrawal issue. By living up to its commitments to pull back in the territories, Israel would facilitate President Clinton's bid to draw the Arabs into an anti-Saddam coalition." IRAN: "'No Justification' For U.S. Military Attack Against Iraq" Tehran's official news agency, IRNA, reported that the English- language Tehran Times stated (2/6), "As far as the Iraqi demand for the exclusion of U.S. inspectors from UNSCOM is concerned, it seems that the demand is absolutely rational.... The United Nations must step in at this stage and prevent the situation from growing out proportion. That is, the UN must not allow the United States to take international law into its hands.... The United States should keep in mind that thus far it has been left alone in its policies against Iraq. For instance, Russian President Boris Yeltsin has even warned that 'Clinton's actions could lead to a world war. The U.S. administration is acting too brazenly there. One must be more careful with such weapons and not make threats to lob over planes and bombs.'... The United States has no justification for launching a military attack against a country which has been subjected to harsh international sanctions for half a decade." JORDAN: "We Need Miracle Diplomacy" Chief editor Taher Udwan opined in independent, mass-appeal, Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (2/8): "President Clinton may very well see Iraq from the Zionists' viewpoint as a hot foreign affairs issue that can divert the attention of Americans away from his sex scandals. But Iraq is a cornerstone in the Middle East that can preserve the stability of a huge expanse of this region. An error in Iraq's balanced status quo, as a result of a possible collapse of the central authority, will take the region into a state of chaos, the beginning of disaster.... If the American-British decision to destroy Iraq is final, the current diplomatic efforts might be employed just to secure a military strike. We do not rule out the fact that Washington may say at the end of the day that efforts have failed because of Saddam Hussein and that punishment is inevitable. We need a miracle to convince the Americans to forego their decision to strike Iraq. Political miracles...are the outcome of stubborn diplomatic efforts. Such a miracle is expected from the Arab countries." "We Support Iraq, Not Saddam" Columnist Sultan Hattab opined in pro-government, influential, Arabic-language Al-Ray (2/5), "The Jordanians and most of the Arabs would not be upset to see the downfall of any Arab regime, but they would get really angry if a military jet bombs Iraq and harms innocent civilians. We are not going to defend Saddam, since the Iraqis, the Jordanians and the Arabs have already paid dearly for supporting him in the past. This doesn't mean, however, that we don't support Iraq, itself, and that we are going to let Iraq down and stab it in the back.... We say no to bombing Iraq." MOROCCO: "Powerlessness And The Abuse Of Authority" Tahar Bahbouhi commented on the front page of opposition, French-language L'Opinion (2/9): "The United States, which once embodied a system that fought against dictatorship, wants now to impose its own dictatorial order.... The UN lacks power, and its position towards the Iraq issue is obvious. The UN remains silent because it is not convinced.... The United States has decided to humiliate the UN through enslavement, with no sense of decency. This is how one governs when one is in a position of such power. Killing Saddam is the U.S. goal now, but killing Saddam is easy and will change nothing. The Iraqi leader has achieved his role in history, as the leader of a country that said 'no!'" "Pax Americana" Jamal Berraoui penned this front-page analysis for independent, French-language weekly La Gazette du Maroc (2/4-10): "The U.S. cowboy is readying his machine gun with no respect to the UN or to the people of the area.... The United States does not run the world on the basis of values, but implements its hegemony for the benefit of its own interests and those of the racist and belligerent state of Israel. Pax Americana is not the 'peace of the brave.' It is the achievement of a Greater Israel by any means." QATAR: "The U.S. Will Not Wait" Semi-independent Al-Rayah editorialized (2/9): "It is clear now that the United States will not wait for Iraq to accept its conditions and that Washington has its own vision and goals in Iraq and the area. These goals go beyond punishing Iraq for not complying with UN resolutions. Uncle Sam refuses to allow a 'chicken' next to him when he looks at himself in the mirror, though he sees himself in Israel. (Ed.: 'Chicken' probably refers to France, Russia, et al.) The United States no longer seeks anyone's permission to send its warships to the area...which will witness dangerous changes and divisions. The United States is still coming and has no intention of leaving. It is now America's and Israel's time. The other great powers do not want to believe that they are no longer great in Uncle Sam's eyes. In spite of this, we should not give in." SAUDI ARABIA: "Remove The Iraqi Regime And Its Leader" Riyadh's influential, conservative Al-Riyadh concluded (2/9): "A strike might take place even if those states rejecting (the use of force) reach a compromise solution with the United States. This is because the intent (of the United States and the UK) is to deprive Iraq of its political and military weapons and...they cannot trust Saddam Hussein that he will not repeat the same scenario a year or two later. Therefore, we must take advantage of this available opportunity and remove the regime and its leaders even if this requires the displacement of half of the Iraqi people and the imposition of an international mandate under the protection of international troops and the UN umbrella." "Arabs Frustrated With Both Saddam And U.S." In the view of London-based, internationally-circulated Al-Hayat(2/9): "Even the staunchest Iraqi opposition feels that a great part of what is going on is a humiliation to Iraq, the country to which they belong, and most Arabs share this feeling.... (These Arabs) do not have any admiration or passion or support for Saddam Hussein, and are frustrated with both Saddam and the United States.... The most dangerous aspect of this is that no one in the Arab world is convinced any longer that there is an Arab interest in any U.S. policy, including the removal of Saddam Hussein.... No one forgets that the Middle East peace process was an outcome of Desert Storm, and it is well-known what the United States has done to this peace process." "Our Sympathy Is With The Iraqi People, Not Saddam" Riyadh's moderate Al-Jazira's editorial stressed (2/5): "Baghdad should not interpret the international, Arab and Gulf positions as endorsements for its actions. The ultimate purpose of these positions is to save the Iraqi people and Iraq from destruction and division." SYRIA: "An Attempt To Cancel The Arab Mind" Under the above headline, Amid Khouli judged in government-owned Al-Thawra (2/7): "America is endeavoring to mobilize the Arabs behind her for Israel's benefit. The United States is diverting attention from the Palestinian cause to allow Israel to swallow up the rest of Jerusalem and other Palestinian lands.... America seems to be retaliating against Arabs who let her down at the Doha summit and at the Tehran Islamic summit. The United States is not reconsidering its policy and evoking a logical balance, but rather, provoking the Arabs with its double standard." "Military Strike Against Iraq Cannot Be Justified" Turki Saqr said in government-owned Al-Baath (2/5), "The American insistence on launching a military strike against Iraq cannot be justified and there is widespread disagreement with the military option. Most European countries prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis. America's contradictory policies on enforcing UN resolutions has deepened worldwide anger and disgust for such hypocrisy.... U.S. officials are victims of Israeli blackmail (and) are forced to adopt double standards.... Any military action in Iraq will have grave consequences and will aggravate tensions in the region. Playing with fire is extremely dangerous and might burn the hands of the players, too. A political and diplomatic solution is much safer." UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Hoping For A Peaceful Breakthrough" Semi-official Al-Ittihad editorialized (2/8): "The tripartite Arab-Russian-French coordination revives our hopes to reach a peaceful breakthrough to the current impasse between Iraq and the UN, and avoid a new catastrophe the iraqi people are expected to pay for. The current coordination represents a positive development not only on Iraq but also on other crises in the Middle East. The United States always led special efforts support a number of small countries to achieve their interests that are far from justice or international norms." WEST BANK: "Deep Rooted Aggression" In an editorial, semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda observed (2/9): "What the Americans and Britons are planning is a comprehensive [policy of] aggression that aims to destroy Iraq, its people, infrastructure, army and leaders. What is planned is the division of Iraq. Iraq's collapse will certainly spill over to its neighbors." "American Politics And The Other Side" Semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda called (2/6) for a counterbalance to "American domination." It said, "The double standard policies of the United States will only increase the animosity of the people of the world towards the United States. The countries that are supported by the United States will surely become unstable. Nobody buys the disgusting and pathetic slogans under which Washington tries to sell its malicious campaign against Iraq anymore. This underscores the need for a strong deterrent against the United States, like the Soviet Union used to be, to act as a gatekeeper for the smaller oppressed nations. The people of the world need a strong counterbalance to America's domination at a time when America's support grows for an arrogant state like Israel, which is armed to teeth with mass destruction weapons." EUROPE RUSSIA: "Saddam Winning?" Sergei Guly said in reformist Noviye Izvestia (2/7): "It looks like Saddam may win again. Russia would never be able to stop a blow against the Iraqi dictator, were it not for letup from U.S. President Bill Clinton, the only man in the world with power to give or recall consent to a strike against targets in Iraq. The opinion among observers is that something has gone wrong with the blitzkrieg plan. While Clinton hesitates and wastes time, Baghdad leaks more details about Hussein's compromise initiatives." "Yeltsin: It's Not Like Clinton" Sergei Guly commented in reformist Noviye Izvestia (2/5) on President Yeltsin's statement on the danger of a "third world war" in the Iraq crisis: "One might think the statement was meant for internal consumption, a kind of show done in Yeltsin's characteristic, patronizing tone he never uses when he talks with world leaders.... It, clearly, was not his idea to talk about a world war. It is a sample of familiar, none too subtle, rhetoric common among 'the patriots' in the Duma. They certainly do not form Yeltsin's opinion, but their views, at least on Iraq, evidently coincide with presidential aides' almost literally." "Moscow Should Step Aside" Stanislav Kondrashov commented in reformist Izvestia (2/5), "Here in Russia, we are very impatient, obsessed with our rather frantic search for a diplomatic settlement. Maybe we shouldn't hurry and fuss so much. Maybe we should step aside. Especially as Miss Albright prefers a diplomatic solution, but somehow doesn't seem enthusiastic about her Russian counterpart's efforts.... Mediating in Baghdad, Russia does not look like an impartial go-between. It fully supports the United Nations' anti-Saddam resolutions. Obviously, this is an unrewarding job, with the Americans looking down on you, with suspicion, and the Iraqi ruler willing to take advantage of your lack of diplomatic and real authority. Why not get rid of that burden, step aside, and let American diplomats strain themselves, and in the process, find out whether the U.S. armada in the Persian Gulf is a bluff or the real thing?" BRITAIN: "Crisis Forces U.S. Rethink On Iran Sanctions" The independent Financial Times noted from Washington (2/9): "The prospect of military action against Iraq has forced the Clinton administration to rethink its plans for putting pressure on European companies dealing with Iran.... The United States wants to minimize damage to its relations with France and Russia, both of which have serious reservations about American action against Baghdad, and to avoid embarrassing its close ally Britain.... As an intermediate option, Washington could waive sanctions on the French Total deal while insisting that no precedent had been set." "If It's War, What Is The End Game?" In editorial comment (2/9), the conservative Daily Mail said: "It is very much to be hoped that Tony Blair knows what he is doing by committing British forces so unreservedly to this Clinton-led military venture against so evil an exponent of the art of dictatorial survival.... But the real worry must be that, despite all their mutual back-slapping and stern war talk, Clinton and Blair are not prepared to see this thing through to the bitter end. If it has to be war, then when the smart bombs have fallen and the aerial photographs been analyzed, Saddam must not be seen yet again popping up devil-like from his bunker to toy with the UN weapons inspectors and restock his horrific arsenals." "The Man Himself" The conservative Daily Telegraph had this editorail (2/6): "By thwarting weapons inspectors trying to destroy its biological germs and chemical agents, Iraq is undermining the authority of the UN and encouraging similar defiance by other rogue states. The determination of Britain and the United States to punish him is admirable. They must now prepare to make his removal from power a primary aim of policy if a bombing campaign fails to secure unlimited, unconditional access for the inspectors." GERMANY: "Kohl On His Knees" Right-of-center Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung (2/9) groused, "A few rebuffs directed at the Europeans and a remark that the United States might reduce its engagement in NATO a bit were enough to make the German chancellor fall on his knees. This unconditional loyalty to the United States, which the chancellor demonstrated in Munich...again made clear: Helmut Kohl is not willing or able to raise critical questions regarding Washington's policy nor to formulate an independent German position. And this is even true when the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are in danger." "U.S. Makes Some Headway" Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin maintained (2/6): "The pressure President Clinton is exerting on Iraq seems to have had an effect. Obviously, Saddam's palaces are no longer a taboo (for weapons inspections teams). It is likely that the U.S. attitude also made an impression on Moscow.... Boris Yeltsin has now also tried to exert pressure by talking about the danger of a world war. This is a strong statement, but it is hardly as convincing as President Clinton's policy. Nevertheless, it cannot leave the United States indifferent that, with the exception of Great Britain, it has no more allies in the controversy with Saddam.... There is the great danger that the UN Security Council is now dividing into two camps, something which could have disastrous consequences for future crises. All five veto powers should be fully aware of this danger." "Yeltsin's Goals" According to right-of-center Frankfurter Neue Presse (2/6): "What is prompting the supreme commander of these lousy armed forces to say that the Kremlin would not 'allow' a U.S. punitive action against Iraq? This question cannot be answered by simply referring to certain human weaknesses of Boris Yeltsin. Nobody should underestimate Yeltsin.... His abstruse remarks have a clear political agenda.... It continues to remain Yeltsin's tactical aim to prevent U.S. bombings on Iraq. If he succeeds, he can present himself as the great savior in the Arab world. With respect to strategic aims, Yeltsin--stirred up by Paris--is planning the formation of an anti-American alliance, a kind of league of frustrated major powers." FRANCE: "Europe Divided Over Iraq" Jean-Paul Picapier judged in right-of-center Le Figaro (2/9): "Without a thought for France and the risk of isolating it, Kohl added insult to injury when he said that Germany held a majority position in the West. Chancellor Kohl cut short any possibility for debate when he insisted on Germany's 'special responsibility toward Israel.'... Paris contends that Germany's decision is rather more linked to its desire for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.... To date, the EU has not taken a common stand on the Iraqi crisis...and Germany's support for a military strike bears witness to growing skepticism about diplomacy and its chances." "Clarifications On France's Iraqi Stand" According to Jacques Malmassari in right-of-center France-Soir(2/7): "There is no doubt that France is a friend of the United States and that it has not forgotten the sacrifices made twice in this century to save France from foreign occupation. But we must be clearer on the Iraqi crisis. We cannot allow our request for a more appropriate response to Iraq to be considered as support for the Iraqi regime." "Impact Of Declarations Against Use Of Force" Dominique Bromberger said on government-run France Inter radio (2/5): "A diplomatic solution can succeed only if the military option stays alive, as a credible and unavoidable option in case diplomacy fails.... This is why those who are saying that military force must not be used are leading Saddam Hussein to resist and the U.S. to strike." "Madeleine Albright's Failed Tour" Right-of-center Les Echos judged (2/5): "Madeleine Albright returned to Washington [from the Middle East] with her hands practically empty.... Until Washington defines a clear, non partisan U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, the United States will continue to suffer from a lack of credibility." ITALY: "European Disunion Encourages Saddam Hussein" Centrist, influential La Stampa front-paged this commentary by Aldo Rizzo (2/9): "The new fact (concerning the Iraqi crisis) is Germany's decision to side with the United States and offer the possibility of using its bases.... This is no minor accomplishment for Clinton, who is facing appeals and pressures for peace at all costs.... Germany's decision is an important one from a political point of view. Thus, vis-a-vis a very serious international crisis, the European Union has once again split in two like an apple (and has become the) European Disunion.... What is at stake is the ability of an irresponsible dictator to provide his country with weapons of mass destruction...by which to upset the already frail equilibrium of a really crucial region which includes Israel.... America should be careful not to indulge in a sense of omnipotence, Saddam should be cautious in making his calculations, and Europe should reflect upon this umpteenth, disconcerting demonstration of division and, therefore, of weakness." "United States Isolated" An editorial in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (2/6): "Clinton and Blair cannot continue to brandish the club for too long: At this point, they either attack, or they withdraw.... In sum, this seems like a no way out situation. One possible hypothesis is that, in the end, America will be forced to choose the lesser evil: to coexist with an Iraq more or less armed, using its formidable nuclear deterrent in order to prevent Baghdad from even being tempted to use such weapons. If that was enough to curb the USSR during the Cold War, the U.S. arsenal should be enough to curb Saddam as well. The alternative hypothesis involves the risk of turning the Persian Gulf into a new Vietnam." "Yeltsin's Tempest In A Teapot" A commentary from Moscow by Galled Chiesa in centrist, influential La Stampa queried (2/5): "It is not clear if the Russian mission succeeded, or America's threats were more effective. But, Baghdad sent a positive signal yesterday. In fact, Saddam is said to have offered access to eight 'presidential sites.' Yeltsin's move has also a strong domestic connotation.... The Russian president wants to defend himself from critics in the Duma." "An Attack To Resolve The 'Cold War' In The Gulf" A commentary by Alberto Negri in leading business daily Il Sole- 24 Ore made this point (2/6): "One of the pillars of the U.S. strategy in the area, the 'dual containment' strategy towards Iran and Iraq, has fallen apart: It still resists only towards Baghdad, but in order to maintain it, Washington needs to resort to the gun each time.... Irritated by Moscow's return on the international scene, the Americans need to punish Saddam and to reaffirm their role as guardians and leaders in the Gulf, the most sensitive area in the world from a strategic point of view. The military instruments at their disposal at the present time are more powerful than the diplomatic instruments, but the use of force does not guarantee a result and leaves ample margins of uncertainty about the consequences of an intervention." BELGIUM: "Clumsy West Gives Saddam Wrong Signal Again" Foreign affairs writer Joost Loncin wrote in labor Catholic Het Volk (2/9): "The West's attitude toward Saddam is clumsy, to say the least. The French and the Russians give the impression that they want to do business with Saddam. U.S. diplomats hit out at Saddam as if he were a new Hitler. Secretly, however, they find dumb Saddam their best pawn. As long as he occupies his peacock throne, Iraq will remain powerless and a bit stable. Therefore, the Americans will not target Saddam's bunker when they launch their so precise, guided missiles.... Alas, when the Americans start to bomb, everybody will applaud again. Probably-- hopefully--Saddam will give in and allow the inspectors again to do their job. Perhaps not. Perhaps, the American officers will blunder again by incidentally destroying a shelter.... Who will receive the blows?... The average Iraqi will be the victim, of course. Therefore, only one attitude is possible in this entanglement: the attitude which this newspaper--as virtually the only Belgian newspaper--already supported in 1990 before the Gulf war, namely, no violence, no war!" BULGARIA: "Russia's Bid For Role As Arbiter" In the opinion of business/financial Pari (2/9), "Tomorrow William Cohen is expected to visit Moscow.... It's clear that he will find it difficult to persuade the Russian party that striking Iraqi's strategic sites is the only possible way to make Saddam obey the international will for peace.... Boris Yeltsin's recent statements are regarded as a bid for Russia's role as an arbiter. In this way, Russia will be able to retain important positions in the Gulf--both political and economic." CANADA: "Explosive Situation" Montreal's liberal La Presse opined (2/9): "There are two major crises in the Middle-East: one that pits Iraq against the United States on disarmament, and another between the Israelis and the Palestinians on peace negotiations which is in an inextricable dead end. If the two crisis were to combine, either intentionally or accidentally, the Middle-East would become really explosive." "Using Air Power In Iraq" The leading Globe and Mail (2/9) editorialized "If diplomacy fails and Iraq doesn't back down in its standoff with the United States over weapons of mass destruction, a U.S.-led coalition should take military action.... If at the end of the bombing campaign Saddam Hussein is not compelled to hand over the keys to his weapons program, he should face the imminent threat of bombing again. The threat of a sustained, recurrent campaign is the only way to use the blunt instrument of air power to achieve the coalition's aim." THE NETHERLANDS: "Iraq Has No More Room To Maneuver" Centrist Het Parool opined (2/5): "The main problem in the Iraqi crisis is that dictator Saddam Hussein can no longer be offered any more room to maneuver. He has been fooling the UN inspection team for six years.... As usual, he could count on sympathy from some permanent members of the UNSC, Russia, France, and China.... The only thing that these three want is to affect the U.S. position as the only superpower left. The United States (and the U.K.) are fully right in wanting to execute the UN resolutions.... There is no room for compromises.... Every time, and here again, Saddam Hussein manages to gain sympathy with his so-called 'concessions' and puts the United States on the defensive.... Fortunately not everyone has lost his mind. Secretary Albright has managed to gain sufficient support for possible military actions.... If the Americans and the Brits keep a cool head, they could further increase the pressure on the Iraqi regime and gain some more time for a diplomatic solution.... But a repetition of what has been going on during the last six years is no longer acceptable.... A large majority of the U.S. Congress has made this very clear." DENMARK: "Patience Is Best Way Of Dealing With Saddam" The lead editorial in left-wing Information (2/9) wondered, "What country is Saddam threatening with his weapons of mass- destruction? What is the purpose of an attack? A war against Iraq which takes the form of an air-strike could end in a stalemate and thus prove disastrous for the U.S.' already fragile position as a superpower in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. It could also undermine the UN's credibility and create deep transatlantic divisions.... Of course, Saddam represents a danger to the region. He has been a threat since his unprovoked attack on Iran. But does anyone believe that he really will use his weapons against Israel or Saudi Arabia?... In the long term, patience is the best way of dealing with Saddam. We ought to disappoint him by hanging onto our bombs." NORWAY: "U.S. Power And Glory" Two researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs published this commentary in independent tabloid Dagbladet (2/4), "An American decision to bomb Iraq is guided more by diplomatic codes of honor than of real politics. By rejecting any discussion of the composition of the UN inspection corps and economic sanctions, Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright are about to forget the most important issue: preventing Iraq from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, Norway should encourage the United States to ease up on its demand for American participation in the UN's inspections corps, and to use sanctions as a negotiating card against Iraq." PORTUGAL: "A Concession That Would Pay Off" Columnist Benjamim Formigo held in business-oriented Di rio Econ¢mico (2/9): "The possibility of imposing on Saddam a humiliating defeat that could lead to his fall from power is out of the question.... The solution probably lies in the restructuring of the UN commission in charge of destroying Iraq's chemical weapons. A concession to Saddam, without a doubt, but a concession that would pay off. For two reasons: First, because this commission has done more to Saddam's chemical capacity than the Gulf War in 1991, and its efficiency is not dependent upon its actual composition (contested by Iraq). Second, because it would remove, on both the international and domestic fronts, Saddam's rationale for impeding its actions. [The West] needs to recall an Arab saying: "If you wait patiently by your door, you will see your enemy's funeral pass by." "Taking Us For Idiots" Weekly columnist Lu¡s Delgado wrote in center-left Di rio de Not¡cias (2/6): "Clinton, thanks to Monica, cannot resist the temptation to attack Saddam, but it would be nice if he could explain two or three things first: 1) What is it that the inspectors have been doing for seven years? Didn't they go there in order to verify, disarm and destroy the offensive capability of Iraq? 2) What is an air offensive going to resolve? To destroy chemical and bacteriological weapons sites? If these still exist, this would be the height of insanity. To damage more bridges, military bases and governmental buildings? To execute Saddam with a lethal injection? It would be better if the Americans didn't take us for idiots." POLAND: "Who Will Win The Second Gulf War?" Center-left Gazeta Wyborcza's Robert Stefanicki wrote (2/9): "Who will win the war? Militarily, the United States. The question arises, however, whether ultimately it will not be Saddam who wins confrontation?... Even in the event of a limited 'humanitarian' operation, civilian casualties will be unavoidable. Millions of viewers will see it through CNN. Washington will be under fire from the whole world, with Russia in the lead.... Geopolitical consequences of a second Gulf war will depend on its outcome. And the former will depend on whether the United Staets manages to set clear goals of attack and does not hesitate to implement them. Should the Iraqi dictator weather another strike, the United States will lose most of its influence in the Middle East and Russia will have the initiative.... But if Americans succeeded in depriving Saddam Hussein of his 'teeth,' nobody will ask about the legal grounds for the attack. The United States will thus consolidate its regional position. As a matter of fact, the Arab leaders would happily get rid of their irresponsible neighbor waving a loaded gun. The hesitant [always] take the winner's side." SPAIN: "On The Eve Of War" Independent El Mundo scolded (2/9): "Saudi Arabia has made it clear to the United States that it will support military intervention only if its objective is to do away with Saddam Hussein. Washington's Arab allies are frankly fed up with the long-running game of cat-and-mouse that the Americans have been playing with Saddam: they harass him, but do nothing to end his dictatorship once and for all. This has become a tedious distraction that has had a cruel effect on the Iraqi population, which adversely influences public opinion in the Arab world.... Peace-loving people the world over have become convinced that U.S. leaders have been taking advantage of this situation for some time now for a variety of reasons--economic, foreign policy, or to divert attention from internal crises--for which reason, instead of seeking closure, they periodically stir it up." SWEDEN: "A Crucial Question On Iraq" Stockholm's conservative Svenska Dagbladet stated (2/9), "The question which is now being raised more and more often is, where will a military attack lead? Assumptions are that Saddam Hussein will not give in to air raids and that the United States will not be prepared to engage ground forces.... To those who at all cost oppose means of coercion against Saddam Hussein, the question remains: What to do instead?... The crucial question is not what will happen, should the United States resort to forcible means against Iraq. The question rather is what will happen if the UN allows Saddam Hussein to ignore the UN resolutions and let him have his way." "Yeltsin Undermines UN" Stockholm's conservative Svenska Dagbladet held (2/5), "Yeltsin's warning to President Clinton resulted in speculations whether he issued them to calm domestic opposition, i.e. the demands of the ultra nationalists and the Communists to side with Saddam Hussein, or whether his statement was aimed at supporting the ongoing Russian attempts to find a 'diplomatic' solution to the Iraq-UN crisis...and the alternatives do not necessary exclude each other.... "Yeltsin gives a clear signal--if we can take him seriously--that Russia will block British/American attempts to, within the Security Council, forward a resolution stating that Saddam Hussein's violations are regarded as a major breach.... Should this happen, the UN will be left in the lurch by one of its most important members, and transformed into an organization that no one wants, a place only for high-flown phrases.... "Saddam Hussein does not bother about the prestige of the UN. He rather regards it as an enemy. But the fact that Moscow would be prepared to see the loss of prestige of the UN is more difficult to understand. Russia, being a gelded superpower, will have a greater international influence within an effective UN than within a paralyzed one." TURKEY: "Reasons U.S. Wants To Hit Iraq" Ambassador Sukru Elekdag wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (2/9): "There are three reasons for Washington's determination to hit Iraq. First...the United States does not want the embargo lifted and plans to use it as a political tool.... Secondly, the United States does not want to see oil prices go down.... The third reason is zippergate. A crisis in the Gulf is the best possible way to make the American people forget about zippergate. Saying this does not acquit Saddam. Saddam Hussein is an unforgivable sinner in the mounting crisis. He should comply with the UN resolutions and step down in this crisis. On the other hand, the United States should...work on the diplomatic option because the United States sets an example to the international community due to its global status." "How Turkey Should Approach This Crisis" Ergun Balci told readers of intellectual/opinion-maker Cumhuriyet(2/9): "It is clear that Turkey wants the diplomatic option worked on. In the case of U.S. military strike against Iraq, it will be Turkey who suffers most. We do not need anti-Saddam fanatics nor obsessed pro-Americans. We need to be rational. Turkey's geo-strategic position requires rational policies rather than sentimental approaches." "Taking Saddam's Side" Hasan Cemal wrote this front-page editorial in mass-appeal Sabah(2/6): "Would Turkey be in a better position today if had taken Saddam's side during the invasion of Kuwait? And would it be better if Turkey had not permitted the use of Incirlik airbase at that time? The answer is no, and today we are faced with a similar situation. After the Gulf crisis, Turkey absorbed its share of pain. Our trade with Iraq ended, our economic relations with Baghdad were frozen. Turkey's annual loss reached $30 billion. In addition to these, Turkey had to cope with growing terrorism due to the power vacuum in northern Iraq and huge unemployment in the southeast. But why did all this happen? There is one answer to this question: because of Saddam's dictatorship.... Anyone with sense would not desire war. But nobody can be impartial when the choice is between law and lawlessness." SOUTH ASIA INDIA: "Yeltsin Seizes Chance" The centrist Pioneer opined (2/6), "Arguably, not all UN resolutions demanding compliance from countries in that volatile region are given the same sense of emphasis as is being done against Iraq. In that sense, the intervention by Yeltsin is really an attempt to weave arbitration into the framework of the Security Council mechanism. The Russian president may have hyped the issue by suggesting that events could lead to a possible global conflict. However, his remarks should be construed to be only a warning and predicated on the less than enthusiastic support Secretary of State Madeleine Albright received in the region.... It is a signal that international matters cannot be adjudicated unilaterally and that the principle of consensus must eventually prevail. By taking time off from his various reported ailments, Yeltsin has taken the risk of appearing to be more presidential than ever before. The question is: Can he actually restore Moscow's lost status in international affairs?" "The Gulf Widens" According to a 'Global Watch' column in the pro-economic-reforms Economic Times by pundit K. Subrahmanyam (2/6): "While the United States has gone through the motions of consulting the Arab states, it is obvious that the United States will decide on its action against Iraq without bothering too much about Arab sensitivities.... "The plight of the Arab states is pitiable. Many spent money in financially supporting Saddam Hussein during his aggression against Iran. They were encouraged to do so at that stage. Then they paid Saddam Hussein when he demanded money to rebuild the Iraqi economy after the ceasefire with Iran.... The interaction between Saddam Hussein and the United States--first cosy and then hostile--has cost the Arab states heavily and has deprived them of their surpluses. The United States has been able to divest them of their extra oil revenues through the sale of arms and bills for the Gulf War. The U.S. military presence in the Gulf region has been legitimized, and now U.S. forces are stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. These countries will be coerced into accommodating U.S. strikes on Iraq using their facilities and even their air space. They are totally helpless. The United States thereby exposes the divisiveness in the Arab world and the impotence of the Arabs." PAKISTAN: "U.S. Brinkmanship" The centrist, national News editorialized (2/9): "The U.S. administration may have been under pressure from the Republican- dominated Congress to topple Saddam Hussein, but it is a short- sighted prescription to pursue a domestically-driven agenda by arbitrary intervention in other parts of the world." "U.S. Jingoism Over Iraq" Karachi's national Dawn editorialized (2/6): "What exactly is President Clinton up to? In utter disregard for world opinion and saner counsels, he has been breathing fire and brimstone against Iraq for its supposed obstruction to weapons inspection work. As a result, war hysteria is building up in the region.... America's unilateral military action... would herald the return of the age of colonialism when might used to be right.... After having moved towards a consensus-based, participatory style of international relations, a reversal will be difficult to swallow. With tact and persuasion, Iraq can still be made to fully conform to the requirements of weapons inspection." NEPAL: "World Opinion Against Use Of Force Understandable" The independent Kathmandu Post (e/d, 2/5) commented, "Thankfully so far, despite the American saber rattling, actual military action has not begun. There are skeptics on both sides of the Atlantic even among U.S. allies regarding how effective military action, specially bombing, will be.... The present crisis will no doubt fade away, but until and unless a time frame is given to UN weapons inspectors, similar situations will crop up again. Will weapons inspection never end and the killing sanctions never be lifted? There is little doubt that President Saddam has given little room for alternate voices within his own country but that does not in any way justify military action. "The Iraqi situation has also prompted the question as to whether a unipolar world dictated by a single country is better than a multipolar world. The latter will, of course, take time to emerge but considering the present world situation, it looks almost inevitable that sometime in the next millennium we will be living in a multipolar world. But the present crisis can only be solved through diplomatic means and the more effort put in this direction, the better will it be for the world." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "Difficulties In Mediation And War Clouds Gathering Over Gulf" Gu Qi wrote in Shanghai municipal Communist party-controlled Jiefang Ribao (2/9): "Americans see this Iraqi crisis as a perfect excuse to overthrow Saddam's regime and have a more obedient Iraqi government. The American stance maintains that Iraq completely surrender its sovereignty and dignity...none of the Iraqi concessions will be acceptable. The international community should rethink its position. Should it tolerate American recklessness? The international community should also blame Iraq for neither responding to diplomatic mediations nor softening its stance." "Envoys Lobby In Baghdad" Li Qingyi wrote in official Chinese Youth Party China Youth Daily(Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (2/9): "France and Russia have already signed oil development contracts. Therefore, those two nations will benefit from the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. The United States did not enter the Iraqi oil negotiations in time. Now, it wants to threaten Iraq with force in order to get a share of the 'meat'." HONG KONG: "Military Action Cannot Solve The Gulf Crisis" Pro-PRC Ta Kung Pao editorialized (2/6): "The United States does not have just grounds to take military action against Iraq. If the United States takes military action simply because Iraq does not comply with the Security Council resolutions, then what actions should the United States take against that other Middle East country--Israel--which still occupies a stretch of Arab land and which [also] refuses to carry out Security Council resolutions? Not only did the United States not condemn Israel, it also vetoed a resolution to condemn Israel. How could the United States, having such a 'double standard' toward Security Council resolutions, convince others to follow it? If Iraq's powerful weapons must be destroyed, how should one deal with Israel, which is developing nuclear weapons?" INDONESIA: "Attack On Iraq Must Be Thwarted" Pro-government, Islamic-oriented Harian Pelita held (2/5): "Actually, military power can only be used when diplomacy no longer works, and only if the situation requires it--when the concerned country poses a threat to others. In the case of Iraq and UNSCOM, there is not such a situation. What troubles us is not only that military action remains unreasonable, but also that the target is very inappropriate: a country in poverty and with a food shortage.... Therefore, whatever the reason, a military attack on Iraq must be thwarted. Military punishment would not be appropriate, if Iraq is considered guilty in this conflict. If a military attack occurs, it will certainly suggest that some group wishes to remove Iraq from the world map." JAPAN: "The Dangers Of A Tough U.S. Stance Toward Iraq" Liberal Asahi editorialized (2/6): "The ongoing U.S. military buildup against Iraq appears rash. There have not been sufficient diplomatic efforts, including reviewing UN resolutions against Baghdad, before the United States considered using of force. In the meantime, the U.S. stance toward Iraq seems to harden day by day. For many years, the international community has been preoccupied with suspicions that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Serious UN-led efforts are necessary to deal with this issue. Needless to say, Iraq's lack of credibility is at the heart of the problem in this latest standoff. Baghdad is obligated to accept UN inspections of arms of mass destruction unconditionally. Any attempts to sabotage such UN inspections cannot be permitted. Nevertheless, it is still too early to try to settle the issue by force." SOUTH KOREA: "President Yeltsin's Remark Shakes Up Washington" Independent Dong-A Ilbo commented (2/6) that "while the international community is increasingly opposed to U.S. military action, the United States nevertheless seems to have made up its mind that it is inevitable if Iraq continues to refuse to comply with the UN inspections.... Newt Gingrich insists that U.S. military action should focus on getting Saddam Hussein out of office in addition to wiping out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. While he emphasizes that Hussein must go this time, the White House is carefully limiting the aim of the would-be U.S. attack to destroying Iraq's weapons." THAILAND: "Bombing Saddam Will Not Force Compliance" The lead editorial of the independent, English-language Nationcommented (2/6), "The policy of eliminating Saddam was flawed from the day the United States backed the dictator, economically and militarily, in the bid to contain Iran. But Clinton does have other options. In the short term, the United States should specifically link compliance to UN resolutions on weapons inspection to the lifting of sanctions. This means stipulating a specific time line for an end to sanctions.... The United States will need to junk its hard line on ousting Saddam. Overthrowing Saddam is not the U.S.' business. That is the business of the Iraqi people. "In the long term, the United States must support the people in the Middle East in their struggle for peace, justice and democracy. This will mean renouncing its long-standing policy that has nurtured dictators like Saddam and a string of Arab absolute monarchies such as the al-Sabah family's personal fiefdom of Kuwait, which the allies had so gallantly defended. It also means finding a just peace for the Palestinians and to lean more on the Israelis to stick to the Oslo peace accord. And it means the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the region, including Israel, whose stockpile of 200 nuclear warheads is the major impetus for the proliferation of other diabolical weapons.... Of course, this would require the United States, putting the interests of the people in the Middle East above its own national interests. That would be asking the impossible from the Americans. Which brings us back to the only option which the United States has. So, the missiles will be making their way to Baghdad. What then?" AFRICA BENIN: "U.S.-Iraq Crisis: Captured By The UN" Independent Les Echos du Jour (2/4) published an article under the headline above. It severely criticized any eventual U.S. air strike against Iraq to resolve the crisis. The author says that the population of iraq has suffered enough and that diplomatic solutions in similar cases have been used in the past. The article was accompanied by a picture of Koffi Annan, with a caption asking whether he is a U.S. missionary or a UN secretary general. NIGERIA: "Explore Diplomatic Alternative" The respected Guardian (2/5) ran this editorial: "Quite suddenly, the prospect of another military action looms in the Gulf region. But it would be most unfortunate if the current saber-rattling over Iraq's refusal to further cooperate with the UNSCOM were to lead to full-scale punitive action against Baghdad.... The mood of the world is rightly not in favor of any war now and it is noteworthy that a great majority of the permanent members of the UNSC as well as the Arab League do not, for now, consider the military option most viable. Just how far apart the United States and Russia are on this was demonstrated on Wednesday when Russian President Boris Yeltsin accused President Bill Clinton of acting too carelessly in the impasse.... France, Russia and the Arab League are all exploring the diplomatic alternative. This should be encouraged." SOUTH AFRICA: "Time For A Strong Message" The independent Business Day (2/8) commented: "There can be little doubt that the time has come for a strong message from the international community to Saddam Hussein about complying with United Nations resolutions.... But...it is worth remembering that things in the Middle East are rarely as simple as they may appear.... The Iraqi situation cannot be divorced from the faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process, nor from the balance of power between Iraq and Iran." LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN BARBADOS: "Brinksmanship" The populist Barbados Advocate (2/5) commented: "The apparent unanimity of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on the importance of Iraq obeying all of the Council's resolutions was another watershed in the contemporary history of international relations and augurs well for the future of multilateral diplomacy and the UN." BOLIVIA: "How Legitimate Can A New War To Defeat Saddam Be?" La Paz's pro-business La Razon (2/6) asked in an editorial, "How legitimate can a new war to defeat Saddam be? Since, in the first Gulf War, they could have done it but they [stopped] at the doors of Baghdad?... As a Newsweek reader said: 'Smash Sadam or leave Iraq in peace.' In sum, very few will sympathize with the secretary of state of the almost almighty United States in her efforts to find allies to make a rebellious and disagreeable country of the Third World behave." BRAZIL: "Brazil's Uncomfortably Ambiguous Position" The lead editorial in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo stressed (2/9): "Brazil has apparently taken an uncomfortably ambiguous position vis-a-vis a possible military action against Iraq. It has neither aligned with China, Russia and France--which are permanent members of the UN Security Council--in the firm opposition to a bellicose solution to the crisis, nor has it...supported the United States.... By stating, however, that 'Brazil is ready to support a military option' against Iraq in case a peaceful solution is not found, the foreign minister has left the door open for the U.S. request. This is an attitude to be deplored, since it is contrary to the position of more independence and neutrality that Brazil has maintained over the past governments regarding international conflicts." "The Iraqi Challenge" Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo maintained (2/6) that Boris Yeltsin's warning that U.S. military actions against Iraq may lead to a world war 'cannot be taken literally.' Russia is a nuclear power but would not be willing to face the United States because of Iraq.... Russia acts as a counterbalance to U.S. leadership...but retreats at the last minute.... There is only one way for the United States to dismantle [the Iraqi] organization: Get rid of Saddam Hussein. The problem is that it is not possible to remove him from the political power other than through his physical elimination." COSTA RICA: "The Validity Of The International Order Is At Stake" Fernando Berrocal Soto, Costa Rican ambassador to the UN, wrote in an op-ed piece in conservative La Nacion (2/4), "This is not about a unilateral position of the United States toward Iraq. What is at stake is the validity of the international order, and the principles outlined in the UN Charter.... For Costa Rica, it is about being consistent with a legal position, with principles recognized and accepted by international law, while at the same time, being politically consistent with our natural and historical ally, the United States. "My position is that Costa Rica will have to be consistent with the principles on which the international order is founded, and with its obligations under the UN Charter. There is no other possible position for our country, and I have expressed this with total frankness to the Foreign Ministry and to President Jose Maria Figueres." CHILE: "Preventing A New War In The Gulf" Government-owned, but editorially independent La Nacion stated (2/4), "The world hasn't forgotten how devastating the Gulf War was seven years ago. Much less the Iraqi people who personally suffered from its terrible effects. One has to stop at any cost the logic of using force and opt instead for dialogue and negotiation. This is the UN's primary obligation." COLOMBIA: "Foreseeable Problem" The lead editorial in leading, national, liberal-oriented El Tiempo stated (2/4), "Once again, North Americans seem not to know what to do with their powerful army. There are no threatened invasions of countries in South, North, or Central America. It hurts to realize that just when the world is in a period of apparent calm, and when pacific solutions are increasingly sought, the United States is showing Iraq its teeth, eager to devour it. "In that region everything is possible. (The possibility of armed) confrontation is worsened by the fall of the former Soviet Union and the freedom that the world's most powerful country now has to act with more independence, released from any fears about satisfying its longing for force and control. Therefore, this is the foreseeable origin of an international problem." TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: "Iraq Crisis On The Brink" The Express opined (2/2), "An Iraqi government minister emphatically denied that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction.... But U.S. President Bill Clinton is equally adamant that those weapons do exist in Iraq.... Last Friday, Mr. Clinton had a half hour phone conversation with French President Jacques Chirac in which Mr. Clinton declared that the time for a diplomatic solution was quickly running out.... That aside, though, the stand-off between Iraq and the United States is getting to the point where, unless Iraq has a sudden change of heart--or there is some diplomatic breakthrough--the military option is almost certainly going to be employed." or more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 2/9/98 # # #Middle East Europe East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Africa Latin America and the Caribbean
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
