17 February 1998
IRAQ: WHAT IS THE U.S.'S STRATEGY?
Media observers around the world this weekend and today continued to prefer diplomacy over military action to bring Iraqi compliance with mandatory UN weapons inspections. Some analysts focused on reports of a last-minute diplomatic initiative by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and on the Clinton administration's plans to explain its Iraq policy to the American public. But most of those who commented on the possibility of Mr. Annan's traveling to Baghdad judged that although it was a good idea, its success was in great doubt. Analysts, however, stressed again and again what they see as the futility of bombing Iraq. In particular, pundits dwelled on what they fear is Washington's failure to spell out goals and assess the fallout of the current U.S. approach to the standoff with Iraq. Istanbul's conservative/religious Turkiye asked, "What is the U.S.' expectation from this strike? There is currently a blurry picture in this respect." A German daily judged that "a clear definition of the (U.S.) political strategy is overdue." These were other themes expressed in regions around the world: MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA--Middle Eastern papers warned that U.S. airstrikes will further upset the regional balance and would "cost" the U.S. diplomatically. A Jordanian paper complained that the U.S. had not shown the same "zeal" in supporting UN decisions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict as those requiring Iraq's disarmament. A Pakistani paper declared that Saddam Hussein "has already broken free of his diplomatic isolation" and "won a moral victory" by dividing the UN Security Council. EUROPE--European writers posited that just as Arab alliances were strained during the Gulf War provoked by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a return to the Gulf now would exacerbate stresses in European "unity." Pundits judged that many of their parliaments feel compelled to back U.S. policy on Iraq because of the leadership the U.S. has shown on such issues as Bosnia and NATO in the face of European indecisiveness. EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC--While supporting U.S. military might against Iraq, Asian papers complained that the U.S. approach is not only trampling on "the national sovereignty and dignity of Iraq" but also on Asian sensibilities. Japanese and Hong Kong writers voiced resentment that Washington had not properly consulted the Japanese and Chinese governments about its plans. AFRICA--Papers from Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia voiced a fair amount of resentment over the U.S. role as "world policeman," charging that the "hegemony of the White House over the glass tower" has reduced the UN to the role of "errand boy of the U.S." LATIN AMERICA--Papers in Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago worried that should the U.S. exercise a military option without broad international support and "clear-cut goals," this could prove to be "counter- productive." A Costa Rican pundit warned that with "bloody images" broadcast on television around the world "very quickly, the villain could become the martyr." This survey is based on 100 reports from 67 countries, February 5-17. EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below MIDDLE EAST IRAQ: "Leaked Story Aimed At Thwarting Russia's Efforts" Baghdad's Iraq Television Network broadcast this in Arabic (2/12): "The U.S. newspaper, the Washington Post today alleged that (UNSCOM) inspectors...have found documents showing that Russia has supplied Iraq with equipment to manufacture biological materials in violation of the sanctions system imposed on Iraq. An official spokesman for the Culture and Information Ministry today made the following statement to the Iraqi News Agency: 'By leaking this news to the Washington Post, the U.S. administration wants to harm the persistent efforts Russia has been exerting within the framework of international endeavors to reach a diplomatic solution to the current problem between Iraq on the one hand, and UNSCOM and the United States on the other.... Leaking this news at this particular time is also aimed at covering up the espionage and political services the U.S. inspectors and officials in UNSCOM and its operating teams in Iraq are providing for the U.S. administration.'" "U.S.' Hysterical Behavior" The pro-government Baghdad Observer ran this Iraqi New Agency piece in English (2/10): "The issue of Iraq...is harnessing all (the United States') diplomatic, media and intelligence capabilities in order to put pressure on Iraq and inflict as much harm to it with a long-awaited aim of weakening its national policy in favor of the aggressive scheme of the Zionist entity.... American policy makers have exaggerated and amplified Iraq's military might. They were even so silly and ridiculous (as to)...label this might the 'Iraqi threat,' while they know that Iraqi armaments (are) pure(ly) defensive. They, moreover, were aware that the military industries in Iraq were based on a vast scientific foundation.... The U.S. administration, following it(s) failure to obstruct Iraq's scientific project and obliterate it totally, started behaving in a hysterical way once again. It is now preparing for a fresh military aggression, despite the political fiasco it encountered worldwide." ISRAEL: "U.S. Attack Will Kill Iraqis, But Not Bring Saddam Down" Pro-Palestinian analyst Gideon Levy wrote in Netanyahu critic Haaretz (2/15): "An American attack on Iraq will again sow death and destruction among the wretched Iraqi people without bringing Saddam down.... An attack will drag the region into a whirlpool of tension and violence and, consequently, hurt the Israeli-Arab peace process. Netanyahu may like this, but why doesn't the 'Peace Camp' make itself heard?" "U.S. Strike Could Make Palestinian Issue Worse" An editorial in mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv held (2/15), "If there is no movement in the peace process we would have riots and terror on our hands. The anticipated American strike against Iraq only made things worse on the Palestinian street. The powder keg can go off any minute." "Clarify Israel's Determination To Retaliate If Attacked" Independent Haaretz's editorial maintained (2/12): "As it is facing the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction, Israel can adopt only one position: the clarification of its determination to retaliate. The other side must know that using chemical or biological weapons against Israel, even in the most limited scope, will bring about a response with one or more of the special means at Israel's disposal for such circumstances; and that the response will be immediate, not contingent upon a third party, and destructive." "Netanyahu's Finger On The Nuclear Button" Analyst Ron Maiberg wrote in mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv(2/10): "Prime Minister Netanyahu is no Yitzhak Shamir. The man who headed the Israeli government in 1991 was a seasoned, cautious, veteran leader. Netanyahu is young, high-strung and impulsive, and his government is more fragile than Shamir's ever was. This may explain why, during Desert Storm, Israel's nuclear option was a matter for private debates, whereas now it is being flaunted for everybody to see.... Even if Iraq drops one or two biological-tipped missiles on Tel Aviv and causes a considerable number of victims, Israel must not bomb Baghdad back to the Stone Age." BAHRAIN: "Saddam Must Comply With UN For Sake Of The Iraqi People" Although criticism of U.S. warnings of possible military action against Iraq continues apace in Bahrain's press, this unusual comment in leading Akhbar Al-Khaleej (2/5) called on Saddam Hussein to spare his people continued suffering: "It seems that the Iraqi regime really needs a U.S. military strike against it sooner or later.... It (Iraq) shows no concern for the results such a strike would have on its people, and it is sacrificing them to achieve one of two goals...to impose its will on the international community, including the United States and all Arab countries...or make martyrs out of the Iraqi people stationed at the presidential palaces in the event of a strike.... Such a game amounts to irresponsible gambling.... The only option left for the best interests of the Iraqi people is to comply with UN resolutions even if they look unfair, rather than continue the suffering of the Iraqi people." EGYPT: "Annan Mission Also To Save UN" Samia Al Guindi held in pro-government Al-Ahram (2/16): "UNGA Annan's current moves are not unimportant, despite all the obstacles the United States is laying in his way. The most important aspect of Annan's mission is that he is carrying an authorization from Russia, China, France and Germany (sic), the powers which have realized that the United States' solitary action means eliminating the legitimacy and credibility of the UN. However, we should not be highly optimistic about Annan's mission, because it is not a mission to save the Iraqi people and Arab humiliation alone, but to save the independence of the UN as well. He has not forgotten that this particular mission has cost his predecessor, Dr. Ghali, his post." "More Afraid Of U.S. Than Of Saddam" Anis Mansour contended in pro-government Al-Ahram (2/16): "If Arabs were divided in the first American strike [in 1991], this time they completely agree on striking Saddam. They secretly want to get rid of him, while they pretend to oppose the United States for the sake of Iraqi women and children. Arabs were more bold in the first time. This time they are more afraid of the United States than of Saddam." "U.S. Conspiracy" According to opposition Al-Wafd (2/17): "The conspiracy has become clear and the United States has revealed its ugly face. It has shown that the aim is not to overthrow Saddam or destroy the weapons. Obviously, the U.S. plans to turn Iraq into small entities. A united Iraq is a blow to American ambitions. Unfortunately, Saddam's mistakes allowed the United States to plot to divide Iraqi. If the crime of dividing Iraq is implemented, the United States may think of repeating its plot in other countries, such as Algeria, Libya or the Sudan, in addition to the role the United States plays concerning minorities in Egypt. Will Arabs pay attention to this plot?" LEBANON: "Military Srike To Choke France, Russia, Iran And Syria" An editorial by Ady Daher in conservative Christian 'Al-Anwar' stated (2/12): "Political readers believe that the us will definitely strike Iraq to accomplish the following: (a) To stop French and Russian interference and reinforce the American presence in the region; (b) To change the impaired 'Clintonian' image and depict him as the hero that strikes 'bad regimes that want to lead humanity to destruction' (furthermore, it takes eyes off his domestic scandals); (c) To affirm American control over oil in the region; (d) To put Israel at ease and reinforce its hardening stances against Lebanon and Syria; (e) To send a serious warning to Iran and Syria and convey that the way towards peace in the region is in America and Israeli hands. Whoever objects will be eliminated." JORDAN: "The Last Chance" Senior editor Saleh Qallab wrote on the back page of independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (2/17): "The UN Secretary General's intervention in the Iraqi crisis is an appropriate way out for both the Iraqis and the Americans from their current standoff.... The best or most dignified end to this crisis is if the Iraqi leadership shows the UN secretary general that what the United States is asking Iraq to do is shameful and demeaning. It is an opportunity that should not be lost, even if Kofi Annan is coming to Iraq with the only proposal of having the presidential sites inspected." "What About UN Resolutions Pertaining To Arab-Israeli Conflict?" An editorial in the centrist, influential among the elite, English-language Jordan Times pointed out (2/11), "At a time when the United States and the United Kingdom are demanding that the Arab world side with them for the purpose of implementing Security Council resolutions on Iraq, both powers have yet to demonstrate equal or parallel zeal in favor of UN decisions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict." "What Does Uncle Sam Want From Iraq?" Communist party member Yaqoub Zayadeen wrote on the back page of independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawn (2/10): "Whoever thinks that the American forces are here to strike against Iraq alone is wrong. These forces constitute a threat to the entire region and to every Arab ruler who dares say 'no' to American hegemony." KUWAIT: "Destroying What's Left Of Iraq?" According to independent Al-Watan's Fuad Al-Hashem (2/10): "The upcoming military strike against Iraq won't be as powerful as Desert Storm. So why all this panic? We want to express our happiness for Iraq's demise. There is no need to be afraid, because the American and the British troops are about to go on a 'pleasure picnic' that will destroy what is left of Iraq." "Saddam Is A Dictator Who Has To Be Removed" Faisal Al-Qenai observed in independent Al-Seyassah (2/8): "There is no doubt that the Iraqi people will be the happiest nation on earth if Saddam was overthrown.... Whether the Arabs reject or allow a military strike, the matter is out of their hands: Saddam is a dictator who has to be removed.... And those who reject the strike, support Saddam's remaining in power." "Is There A Clear, Official U.S. Policy Toward Iraq?" Independent Al-Rai Al-Aam (2/8) ran this by Ahmed Al-Dayyin: "Despite the pressure exerted by some Republicans to target Saddam's regime with a military strike, it is difficult to say that there exists a clear, official American policy toward Iraq.... We notice that political [measures] to target Saddam haven't been laid down. Until now, it hasn't been announced that Saddam must be treated as a prisoner of war. Also, there is no move to freeze Iraq's membership in the UN." MOROCCO: "Grapes Of Wrath Or Desert Thunder" A front-page commentary signed by Najib Mikou in opposition, French-language L'Opinion made this point (2/17): "Let us be clear: The U.S. is the unquestioned master of the world as the century nears a close, and persists in pressuring Iraq to comply with its will or perish under the thunder of American aircraft.... We have already seen Russia brandish the threat of a third world war.... Very timid steps characterize France and Italy, who are are unable to match their economic power with political power. China takes one step forward, then two steps back, always favoring its immediate economic interests.... The world knows that U.S. military and economic supremacy is a reality and that no other regional or local power can make the U.S. worry, let alone change its policy... It is certain that primitive military strikes and maneuvers to destabilize the region are reserved as the sole means with which the U.S. chooses to communicate with the Arab and Islamic world." OMAN: "Diplomatic Solutions And Washington's Objectives" Egyptian national Sami Hamid wrote in semi-independent Al-Watan(2/14): "The whole world supports a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis. The whole world, including the United States itself, supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. But what we actually see happening is the complete opposite.... Washington's rejection of all initiatives and proposals indicates that it has another objective beyond this crisis. What is that goal? Is it teaching Baghdad a lesson, or projecting power? Testing new arms, or concluding new contracts for weapons? Or is it sending a message to Russia and France, or drawing a new map for the region so Israel can live in peace? Iraq's recent initiative...should at least have opened the door to a dialogue with Baghdad for resolving the crisis by diplomatic means, as Washington says. However, an important question remains: Has the crisis between Iraq and the United States ended? The answer to this question will reveal the American objectives beyond this crisis." QATAR: "Sandstorm Of Misinformation" According to an editorial in semi-independent Al-Rayah (2/10): "It is important to notice the thick sandstorm that the U.S. administration--and behind it, Britain--is keen on creating, in order to hide the facts concerning the Iraqi crisis and misinform Arab public opinion primarily, as well as international public opinion. This is a basic American strategy in exercising the worst type of state terrorism. The phrase 'Saddam Hussein alone is responsible (for the current crisis)' is a silly excuse that convinces no one, including children.... As the secretary general of the Arab League announced yesterday that 'UN inspectors were neither objective nor neutral' and that Iraq is (willing to) open 68 sites for inspection, including 8 presidential palaces...it seems that this positive development on Iraq's side--though conditioned--is immediately met with the drums of war." SAUDI ARABIA: "Reinforcing Views Of U.S. As Enemy State" In the view of conservative Al-Riyadh's editorial (2/17): "The United States, which blesses the Israeli-Turkish alliance, imposes sanctions against the Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran and views Syria as a state that encourages terrorism, has no balanced policy towards friendly states. Meanwhile, (the United States) handles the peace process between Arabs and Israel in a negative manner and surrounds Iraq with an enormous force capable of destroying a state larger than Iraq...in order to satisfy the desires of the hawks in the Pentagon and Congress.... For this reason, we find support to strike Iraq is less than minimal among Arabs as well as internationally, especially among member states of the UN Security Council and some European allies (of the United States).... (The) official and popular viewpoint understands that the consequences of a military operation may multiply regional extremist tendencies that consider the United States as an enemy state." "Be Sensible, In Order Not To Lose Arabs Forever" Jeddah's moderate Al-Bilad wondered editorially (2/10): "How can we justify to an ordinary Arab Israel's continuous and flagrant violations of all agreements it has concluded with different Arab parties, in addition to its daily violations of international resolutions and principles of peaceful coexistence? Meanwhile, we see the U.S. administration, with the backing of the U.S. Congress, standing up to save the world from the dangers of Iraq and its weapons. (We say to the United States:) 'Please, be sensible in order not to lose the Arabs forever.'" SYRIA: "Legitimacy Must Be Honored, Applicable To All" Riad Zein wrote in government-owned Syria Times (2/15): "Washington's flagrant persistence in using force against Iraq over alleged violations of UN resolutions is widely denounced and seen to be adventurous and grave, and will bring the entire Middle East region on the verge of explosion." "Saber-Rattling: The Law Of The Jungle" M. Agha said in government-owned Syria Times (2/11): "We reject the current Turkish military thrust into Northern Iraq as well as any change in the geo-demographic make up of Iraq. The Turkish- Israeli alliance is in line with U.S.-British joint efforts. The United Stares should listen to the voice of reason and diplomacy. Sabre-rattling remains the law of jungle." WEST BANK: "U.S.' Political Defeat" Pro-Palestinian Authority semiofficial Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedacolumnist Hasan Al-Kashef declared (2/17), "The United States...can destroy vital targets in Iraq but will not achieve its political goals after seven years of causing destruction and hunger." "U.S. Will Lose If It Attacks Iraq" Columnist Azmi Al-Kawaja said in Al-Ayyam (2/17), "The United States is preparing itself for a war which would destroy Iraq's infrastructure and force its people to their knees. It is also humiliating the entire Arab countries in defiance to international will. This reflects the American administration's disregard for people's lives, without any shred of respect for human and moral values. It resembles an empire intoxicated with self-conceit and arrogance. If America attacks Iraq, it will lose politically and economically." YEMEN: "War Does Not Accomplish Peace" The armed forces weekly September 26 carried this relatively mild editorial (2/5) considering the intense public debate on Iraq: "Despite Iraq's fulfilment of all commitments of the UN resolutions and despite Iraq's yielding to all inspection measures, the United States does not want to forgive. The American argument is like pouring oil into a fire which it originally created. This situation is unacceptable. The call for peace has been heard from most world capitals confirming that the international community wants more facts and will not support false allegations. Peace concerns the entire world and no one country, not even the United States, has been given the mandate to act as the wold guardian. All nations of the world should peserve peace not war." EUROPE BRITAIN: "Target Saddam" In an editorial, the conservative Daily Telegraph declared (2/11): "The cautiously calibrated strikes of the kind envisaged by the American and British governments are enough to turn even 'Bomber' Harris into a skeptic of air power.... In our view this incremental approach risks much more than bold unilateral action.... How long will it take our leaders to conclude that our differences with this dictatorship are not circumstantial, but existential? That is why President Clinton's rejection of the option of removing Saddam is ethically flawed--as well as being poor realpolitik.... The West does not need a continuation of the mechanistic approach to Iraqi hardware; instead, what it needs is a political strategy. That is why we endorse Richard Perle's call in this newspaper yesterday that the West should recognize and arm a provisional Iraqi government to overthrow the Baath regime." "Majority Say Bomb Iraq" The liberal Guardian front-paged this (2/10): "A clear majority of the public backs British involvement in military action-- including bomb raids--against Iraq, according to a poll published today. The poll's main finding of clear support for British involvement in military action--by 56 percent to 32 percent overall--is backed up by a majority of the public agreeing that Tony Blair was right last week to give 'unconditional support' to President Clinton's strategy." FRANCE: "France's Diplomatic Initiative" Jean-Jacques Mevel concluded in right-of-center Le Figaro (2/17): "Today, in the Iraqi standoff, everyone will have their eyes on Paris. France will make a last attempt to avoid a military intervention with the hope that Baghdad's envoy will agree to new concessions. President Chirac, who will meet with Iraq's foreign affairs minister, said that 'an acceptable solution respectful of all UN resolutions was possible.... Technically we are close.... We must make a decisive effort.' President Chirac also invited Kofi Annan to go to Baghdad 'as soon as possible.'" "European Cacophony" Left-of-center Le Monde said in its editorial (2/11): "Optimists will say that between Blair's gung-ho attitude and France's diplomatic initiatives, there is a (European) sharing of roles.... This is one more example which proves that a joint European foreign policy is still a dream, and that the only reality is the euro." "U.S. Far From Isolated" Dominique Bromberger observed on government-run France-Inter Radio (2/10): "It is often presumptuous to say that in an international crisis the United States is isolated.... One after another members of the Alliance are lining up behind Washington.... Why? Because our (European) partners are frightened by the thought that the United States might revert to isolationism.... William Cohen and Madeleine Albright sent a very clear message: 'Europe must give us a hand in Iraq, otherwise U.S. public opinion will not understand why we stay in Europe.' France, which invented what little there is of European foreign policy, stands alone with Russia and Turkey, two countries rejected by the EU." RUSSIA: "Iraq Leadership Split, Undecided" Vadim Markushin said in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (2/12): "Though the United States is looking for more allies, it is clearly determined to force Baghdad into capitulation by itself, eager to show who is the boss in this world. As the 'H' hour comes nearer, the Iraqi leadership, it seems, only precipitates its arrival by being unclear on what to permit the UN special commission. Its indecision may be due to a lack of unity and does not make for a peaceful solution." "Russia's Policy With Zhirinovsky Accent" Konstantin Eggert commented in reformist Izvestia (2/12) on the Zhirinovsky mission to Iraq: "That the government cannot or does not want to put an end to Zhirinovsky's antics, or at least to stop pandering to them is stunning, indeed. The Foreign Ministry cannot but see that the scandal does not help the talks and gives Moscow a bad image in the West. The so-called national consensus on Iraq which can briefly be described as 'About Baghdad, speak either good things or nothing at all,' is a bonanza for political scandal-mongers." "Crisis Is Good For Everyone" Georgy Bovt and Aleksandr Chudodeyev mused in reformist Segodnya(2/11): "What's important about the Saddam crisis is not the outcome, but the process itself. No matter how often Yevgeny Primakov denies latent anti-Americanism in Russia's Iraq policy, the actions and statements by Russian officials speak differently. Apparently, Moscow assumes that an American air strike against Iraq is considerably less likely today than in 1991 and that Saddam will be spared a blow at the last minute. If it assumes right, it has a chance to celebrate its first major diplomatic victory over Washington. If Saddam had not existed, he would have had to have been invented for Clinton to show off his manly character, for the Pentagon to test its new military ideas, for the Russian military to find out about flaws in American weapons, for Yeltsin to demonstrate his presidential resolve, for Zhirinovsky to put on another public act, and for Primakov to have a chance to outplay Albright." GERMANY: "What Is U.S.' Political Strategy?" Right-of-center Schwaebische Zeitung (2/16) stressed, "In view of the international military front against a military strike, a clear definition of the (U.S.) political strategy is overdue. The fact that President Clinton has so far dodged the presentation of such a strategy could also be a clear indication of one fact: He, (just like the military), have doubts that an air strike will indeed reach the planned goals, whatever they may be." "Clinton's Assessment" Guenter Nonnenmacher pointed out on the front page of right-of- center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/17), "President Clinton must weigh whether a mission which is likely to hit Iraq's military potential but which would probably only have a limited effect on the regime, is worth the price. There would be many victims among the Iraqi population, and there would probably also be some casualties among U.S. soldiers, but Saddam would present the bodies in a cynical manner as an accusation of Western imperialism. Radical Islamists would get new propaganda material against the West and for their terrorist activities. Almost all Arab countries would protest--not because of Saddam but because they are angry at the United States since it is punishing an Arab, while it spares Israel's Premier Netanyahu (from criticism). As stupid as this comparison is because its compares a democratically elected premier with a dictator, its propaganda effect in the Arab world is certain.... "President Clinton cannot simply give up his threat to punish Iraq militarily if Saddam continues to sabotage UN inspectors.... The tyrant from Baghdad knows this, too, but he is willing to accept the greatest possible damage for his country as long as U.S. policy will be damaged, too--either because a military strike would result in an outrage in the Arab world or because Clinton would be presented as a paper tiger if he did not order a military strike." "This Will Be The Last Time" P. Clement commented on national radio Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (2/11): "Broad unease is surfacing because the United States is conjuring up a political situation and then expecting its friends to toe the line. But such a situation can no longer continue in the current stage of global politics. The United States should be better at consulting and informing its allies.... (If the United States does not do so), it will, in the long run, forfeit its influence in the world." ITALY: "Negotiating Over And Over" Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (2/17) carried a commentary by Antonio Gambino: "The only positive outcome for President Clinton (of an attack on Iraq) would be managing to kill, with a lucky shot, the Iraqi dictator. But if that does not happen, Clinton will find himself again, after a few days, vis-a-vis the dilemma of leaving Saddam in power with all the weapons he has managed to hide or continuing to bomb indefinitely, thus risking the overthrow of all the political and psychological balances in the Middle East. (This is) a prospect which no government can ignore when the time comes to give, in whatever form, its support for such an initiative." "Choosing In-Between Position" A front-page commentary by leading foreign affairs commentator Franco Venturini in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Serasaid (2/11): "For those who view us from Washington, it is evident that friendly Italy has signed a 'joint declaration' on the Iraqi crisis along with the leader of the front (very large indeed) which is accusing America of incurable bellicosity. From the few lines of the declaration emerges the embarrassment of a government which, like everyone else, prefers peace but does not seem capable of defining a line of conduct in the case that peace does not last.... At the same time that Blair is proposing coordination among European leftist forces, the latter are splitting over Iraq. But they are at least taking sides and admitting that when we talk about dictators, the UN, bacteriological weapons and missiles, it is not possible to beat about the bush.... If Saddam fails to receive the passionate appeal in the Rome declaration, it will be necessary to define an Italian strategy in the case of a war. It will be necessary to make a decision, any decision, on the (use of) military bases.... Perhaps Italian Foreign Minister Dini will be able to be more clear when he stops in Washington on Monday en route to Argentina. Perhaps the Italian government will realize that, in a world without blocs, those who stay in the middle end up sinking." AUSTRIA: "Powerful Petitioner" Eric Frey wrote in independent Der Standard (2/10), "The recent crises also make it clear once again how far the European Union still has to go to play its own role in world politics. Where America does not show any interest (yet), Europe confines itself to polite diplomatic visits--take Algeria, for instance. When it gets really serious, a cry for the United States rings out. Unlike the Americans, Europe needs the support from its transatlantic allies urgently in times of crisis." BELGIUM: "Wrong Strategy" Paul De Bruyn wrote in conservative Catholic Gazet van Antwerpen(2/17): "Of course, Saddam must not be allowed to act as he pleases. He must give up his biological and chemical weapons. But the pressure (to achieve that) must come from the United Nations--not from the Americans alone. By playing the game the hard way, Washington is running the risk that Saddam might win even more sympathy as a man who dares to react against American dictates--and no one will gain anything from that." "Agitated Diplomatic Activity Around Iraq" In a front-page article foreign affairs writer Manu Tassier wrote (2/10) in independent Catholic De Standaard, "The crisis has also caused unexpected worries for NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, who is to visit Washington this week. Several influential U.S. senators have expressed their resentment over the lukewarm support in NATO for the U.S. position vis-a-vis Iraq. If Europe abandons us, the United States has the right to question its contribution to the peace force in Bosnia, they say." BULGARIA: "Bulgaria Should Strike Saddam First!" Center-left weekly 168 Hours (2/13) commented sarcastically, "Let's strike Saddam first. It's the right moment and we'll have lots of advantages. First, if we win we'll get rich with reparations.... Secondly, we 'll do a very important favor to the United States. The Americans admitted that they were hesitant to attack Iraq during the Olympics. However, this delay may prove to be fatal. If we strike first this will sort the strategists' matters out. Thirdly, we'll do President Clinton a personal favor. No one will accuse him of attacking Iraq in order to take attention away from his sex scandals." CANADA: "The Case For Striking Iraq" The nationalist Montreal Gazette (2/12) commented that, "The United States and its small circle of allies have not demonstrated clearly that military action will be effective in ending the current standoff with Iraq.... It is highly unlikely that a bombing campaign could knock out a weapons program capable of begin hidden in suitcases and shuffled from one secret site to the next.... With no easy answers in sight, what must the allies do? First, diplomacy should be given one more chance. A genuine incentive should be offered to Saddam Hussein to comply with UN inspections: the complete lifting of sanctions and the full restoration of Iraq's right to sell its oil in world markets. If the Iraqi leader fails to grasp this honourable way out for his suffering people, he will have only himself to blame for the consequences. Military action of some kind will then be inevitable.... There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them. The world cannot simply let him continue down a destructive path." "Duty" In the words of the conservative Ottawa Sun (2/11), "Canada's role is to fly the flag alongside the Stars and Stripes as part of a broader international show of support in the confrontation with Iraq. The alternative is to do nothing but wring our hands and thereby send a dangerous signal to Saddam that he can thwart UN resolutions without consequence." "Poised On The Brink" The conservative Calgary Sun (2/8) commented, "Ever since the UN pulled off its attack [in 1991], Saddam has been scoffing at the Western democracies and assiduously rebuilding his war machine.... So we are on the brink of another Gulf War. Or at least an air war over Iraq's military installation.... It looks like its's now going to be Clinton the military hero. And that's what he should be.... If Clinton can't show leadership, who can?" "Canada At War" Montreal's francophone liberal Le Devoir argued (2/10), "After Germany, Canada is getting ready to give its blessing to military action.... One could ask what Canada is doing in this business. After all, the country has gained an international reputation for its efforts in the promotion of peace and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Its constant and substantial participation in 'blue helmet' (UN peacekeeping) forces make it a moderate power with whom one must sometimes contend.... The day after a military action against Iraq, nothing could prevent Canada from joining other nations to insist that the U.S. progressively lift the sanctions that are crippling the Iraqi people." CZECH REPUBLIC: "He Who Wants Peace, Prepares For War" Middle East specialist Milan Slezak in a commentary in the respected weekly news magazine Tyden stated (2/11), "The policy of stick (the United States and Britain), carrot (UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) and sweet biscuits (France and especially Russia), which has been recently pursued towards Baghdad, has brought results. Baghdad starts giving in, although it continues setting unacceptable conditions.... In relation to Iraq, one has to keep in mind an Old Roman principle: He who wants peace, prepares war. Experience shows that this thesis will hold true as long as Iraq is headed by Saddam Hussein." DENMARK: "Only Saddam's Unconditional Retreat Can Stop Miltary Action" Center-right Berlingske Tidende (2/12) stressed, "After weeks of unseemly indecision, the Danish government has announced its support for the U.S. position on Iraq. At this stage the Danish support is moral, but the government appears prepared to show that moral support can be developed to included sending troops and supplies. The foreign minister sensibly continues to indicate that a diplomatic solution is to be preferred, despite the fact it is difficult to imagine that many possibilities exist within the framework of diplomacy.... The long and the short of the situation is Saddam Hussein refuses to destroy his WMDs as he is obliged to according to the Gulf War Peace Treaty.... Everything is pointing to the fact that Saddam Hussein, in his usual cynical manner, is prepared to let his people suffer in the hope that, as the result of military action, he will be able to attract international sympathy for his position as an innocent victim of capitalist imperialism. Therefore, it is essential that clear aims are established before an attack is initiated, and that the action continues until those aims are accomplished." HUNGARY: "Coalition Of Values" Centrist conservative Magyar Nemzet carried this op-ed piece by Washington correspondent Gabor Lamberth (2/12): "It is important to the Clinton administration to have the support of as many countries as possible, of the traditional allies and the countries in the region first of all, because it would be the justification of one major fact: The full destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal is not solely a U.S. affair. Therefore it is not surprising at all that the Central Eastern European foreign ministers, currently holding talks on NATO expansion in Washington, have also been requested to grant support to possible actions against Iraq.... At present it seems that 12 hesitating law-makers need to be convinced for the ratification in March, since the senators are voting on many issues in connection with the enlargement. The most still can be heard about the costs and about the equal issemination of burdens. According to an official, who is said to be an insider, the administration was neglecting the congress too long , which is now taking a revenge, not by fully rejecting the ratification but by putting the blame of the costs of it on the president." IRELAND: "Saddam's Stockpile May Include 'Horrifying' Agent 15" The conservative, populist Irish Independent carried these headlines (2/10): "U.S. Troops For Kuwait--Fears Of An Invasion Rise As Peaceful Options Fade" and "Saddam's Stockpile May Include 'Horrifying' Agent 15." KAZAKHSTAN: "Kazakhstan Is At An Impasse On Iraq" Berik Kenesov wrote in independent weekly business Delovaya Nedelya (2/13): "Kazakhstani official leadership already can't sit silent (in this conflict). They (Iraq and the US) demand self-reliant activity and support from Kazakhstan. But in any case Kazakhstan will come to an impasse. Why are we not with Iraq? We always tried to have a strategic partnership with the U.S. and it was achieved last November. The fact of (our relationship with the) United States excluded automatically Baghdad's appearance on our diplomatic 'radar screen.' Why are we not against Iraq? A lengthy conflict in the Persian Gulf will nullify all the Kazakhstani plans to go to the gulf's oil terminals. Also, if Saddam is nullified, Iraq may turn into a situation like Vietnam, with no countries on its side but Islamic countries." LATVIA: "Peace-Loving And Aggressive Schizophrenia" Guntis Kokars wrote in Jauna Avize (2/17): "Bombing Iraq will not destroy anything (a fact that Cohen indirectly admits to), and may actually cause greater global dangers, because only one 'devil' can stand up to 'Beelzebub' (biological weapons)--and that is the nuclear bomb. More than likely there will be another attempt to get rid of the smaller 'devil'--Hussein. And most likely without results." LITHUANIA: "Political Echo" Liberal Respublika (2/11) said in an editorial: "The United States obviously lacks allies among the Arab nations, contrary to the situation seven years ago. However the only one superpower in the world does not seem to be concerned about this.... The last time, the United States at least pretended to carry out the will of the United Nations and found many supporters even in the Islamic world. Today, the United States does not observe any formalities, and openly states that the world should be as the United States needs it to be.... Seven years ago, the crisis in the Gulf allowed the collapsing Soviet Union to flood Vilnius's streets with tanks. This time, a direct tank attack does not seem likely, however, indirect attacks have started already. This is a sort of rule of the political echo." THE NETHERLANDS: "Too Risky" Influential, liberal De Volkskrant held (2/12), "The Netherlands is considering making a contribution to a possible U.S./British military action against Iraq. Decision making on such an important issue should be well-considered and made by the Cabinet and the Second Chamber. State Secretary Gmelich Meijling has acted very prematurely.... It is unclear whether air strikes will have any effect on Saddam and it is unclear how heavy and how intense these air strikes should be. Air strikes are not the best way to eliminate biological and chemical weapons. The air strikes have an indirect goal: forcing Saddam to cooperate with the inspections. There is a good chance that this will require an enormous number of bombs bringing along enormous risks for the people. If the situation really gets this far, then the current lack of understanding in the Arab world will turn into anger.... The differences of opinion within UNSC but also within NATO and the EU will only become sharper. It is, of course, not certain whether concentrated air strikes will have such counter political effects but this is a real risk.... The United States deserves full support in finding a way to allow the weapon inspectors to do their job. This also includes Dutch support. However, this is different from unconditional cooperation in a large-scale military action. Given the current circumstances, the use of military action is much too risky." POLAND: "Do Not Underestimate Dictators" Center-left Zycie Warszawy published this piece (2/11) by Kazimierz Pytko: "Americans have just begun preparations for another war with Iraq. In the beginning, they hit a cable car in Italy. Other achievements are the loss of two fighters in an air collision, anti-American demonstrations in Palestine, exacerbation of relations with Russia and China, divergences between Washington and Paris, and reluctance of such faithful allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to participate in the struggle against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has accomplished all this without even moving a toe in his military boot.... It has become a cliche that contemporary dictators are morons who don't even know what they are doing.... But it is hard not to see that it is Saddam Hussein who sets the rules and forces Americans into a conflict." PORTUGAL: "The High Price Of Not Having A Common Policy" International editor and former NATO tour participant Teresa de Sousa writes in center-left P£blico (2/11): "The new crisis in the Gulf has once again provided dramatic evidence of the high price Europe is paying for not having a common external [security] policy. What is happening is a classic situation. Faced with a grave international crisis, Europe is limited to reacting to North American positions in a random fashion and without any overall strategic sense; the European cacophony is audible to the whole world, discrediting even further its capability for action outside its borders and reducing to zero its negotiating power with the United States. "What is Europe doing when faced with this situation? The same as always. London is aligning itself with Washington, proving once again not only the solidity of this alliance--regardless of who lives on Downing Street--but also [proving] that [the UK] is one of the few countries in Europe with [both] military power and the political will to use it.... At the end of the day, there is little doubt that France will [also] align itself with America, as it did seven years ago.... This incapacity to define its strategic interests and to act with uniformity is at the root of Europe's enormous frailty, whether in its current relations with the United States, whose politics it is unable to influence, or in terms of its own future vulnerability." ROMANIA: "What America Will Lose?" Bogdan Chirieac wrote in independent Adevarul (2/12), "Washington has neglected one element, the political one.... Everybody knows that it had all started as a war of nerves with Iraq. Now, this has been pushed to the point of absurdity.... The situation has escalated to such extent that anybody who might back away would lose face internationally. After all the bother, the United States will simply have to launch a missile or two against Saddam. It's hard to say what the international reaction will be, and how much America will lose in the process." SLOVENIA: "Did Richardson Twist Drnovsek's Arm In Davos? Left-of-center Delo (2/13) wrote: "It would be interesting to know if--and how much--Ambassador Richardson 'twisted Drnovsek's arm' in Davos, since Slovenia is a member of the Security Council, which has to give its consent for a military action against Iraq.... To a higher degree than his predecessor Bush, Clinton needs--for domestic and international reasons--a victory over an external enemy to conceal the lack of success in the Middle Eastern peace negotiations. Saddam needs an outside enemy even more. (This activity)--with another Gulf War or without it-- is obscuring from the public much more fatal things. Instead of a new world order, the world has been flooded by globalization which is but a dictatorship of the strong over the weak, re- distribution of the world's wealth...and an uncontrollable reign by international corporations and the capital market." SPAIN: "Alliance Commitment" Conservative ABC contended (2/12): "The arguments put forward by certain opposition groups in the past few days against the Spanish government's decision to authorize use of the air base at Moron by the United States for refueling operations in a military intervention against Iraq resemble naive anti-war chants.... What Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar made clear yesterday was Spanish support, not for arrogant or capricious war-mongering, but for an authorization that will be forthcoming, when needed, once the diplomatic option has been exhausted." "U.S., Iraq And Aznar's Error" Independent El Mundo railed (2/12): "Aznar is very wrong not to have understood that Spain has good reason not to be among those promoting military action of doubtful justification and problematic efficacy. Learning that a base located in Spain had been used to rain death on Iraq during the Gulf War without achieving anything substantial in furtherance of world peace was hard to swallow. To now give the United States an OK to make free use of the same base, with similar expectations, and without even the support of the United Nations, should have merited, at a minimum, a serious and thoughtful debate." SWEDEN: "Saddam In The Swedish Parliament" The regional South Sweden daily Sydsvenska Dagbladet opined ( 2/12), "As a member of the Security Council Sweden must be clear when taking foreign policy stands...and during yesterday's foreign policy parliamentary debate the Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wall,n made it quite clear that military force cannot be excluded to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. The UN 'cannot be endlessly humiliated,' she said, putting the blame of the sufferings of the Iraqi people on Saddam Hussein.... It is a good thing that the foreign minister speaks plain language on Iraq...and in the foreign policy declaration many refreshing clarifications were included. The Swedish Foreign Minister stated that 'it is important that the American engagement in Europe be maintained,' and she also left openings for a dialogue on Sweden's future security policy. This, like the clarification on Iraq, is an indication of an open mind and an understanding that also Sweden will be affected by a changing international reality." TURKEY: "Risks For U.S." According to Gun Kut in intellectual Yeni Yuzyil (2/17): "If Saddam counts on differences in the UNSC and does not step down, the United States will have to strike. There is a risk involved here: Conducting military strikes against Iraq will not provide concrete results for the United States, and the situation will return to the status prior to the crisis. If the United States changes its plan and decides not to conduct a military strike, Saddam will gain enormous prestige vis-a-vis the Arab world." "What Is U.S. Expectation From This Strike?" Sebahattin Onkibar wrote this front-page editorial in conservative/religious Turkiye (2/11): "Deputy Prime Minister Ecevit voiced his concerns over the possibility of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. In response to that, the American ambassador spoke for his country, and he assured that such a thing will not happen. Ecevit's sensitivity deserves appreciation, however, whether or not his concerns match with reality, that's another argument.... From one perspective, Ecevit is right, because the United States has failed to put forward a convincing argument for conducting a military strike. President Clinton puts the target as weapons of mass destruction, not Saddam himself. However, who knows that all of these weapons are hidden in Saddam's palaces? Who can be sure that an air strike is capable of eliminating all of them? What is the U.S. expectation from this strike? There is currently a blurry picture in this respect." "Quite Difficult To Understand Ecevit" Hakki Devrim concluded in intellectual Radikal (2/10): "I do not think that the U.S. administration plans to establish a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. As pointed out by the former Turkish Ambassador Elekdag, why would the United States, instead of maintaining its relations with big and solid Turkey, desire a so- called state circled by Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey? What kind of benefits might the United States expect by creating a new Israel and asking for more trouble? Mr. Ecevit is a senior statesman, but it is difficult to understand him." SOUTH ASIA BANGLADESH: "Saudi Arabia's Opposition" Pro-Iraq Inqilab said (2/10), "The Saudi Defense Minister made his encouraging remarks (Saudi opposition to military action against Iraq) at a time when the leader of the imperialist world, America, has been publicly preparing to launch a military attack on Iraq.... Iraq respected the United Nations resolutions, and even agreed to allow the UN team to inspect Saddam Hussein's palace. Still, the United States has been continuing its war preparations. This proves that America wants to destroy Iraq under any pretext. The peace-loving people of the world wonder where and how the United States received the responsibility to protect mankind from the Iraqi threat. There has been, however, the desire among the peace-loving people to resist imperialist aggression. Russia, France and China have opposed military action and stressed resolution through diplomatic negotiations." INDIA: "Saddam's Survival Serves Clinton's Purpose" V. Sudarshan wrote in the centrist Pioneer (2/17): "The long- term assessments of the scope and ramifications of the UNSCOM instrumentality that has been put in place shows that it has worked better than any disciplinary bombing. There is no better alternative in sight. And certainly, Iraq's periodic attempts to break out of UNSCOM's control mechanisms can be handled through means other than bombing.... This would bring us back to the riddle of the Middle East pace process.... On the one hand, we are witnessing a dubious progress in terms of resolution of the Iraq conflict and on the other a peace process in the grip of an enduring paralysis. Movement on one serves to distract attention from the lack of movement on the other. Which is why it is arguable that Saddam will continue to prove useful to the United States.... In that sense, the worst longterm nightmare for the American president is the accidental death of Saddam Hussein." "Iraq And The Arrogance Of U.S. Power" Siddarth Varadarajan wrote in the centrist Times of India (2/7): "Washington would be foolish to underestimate the depth of Russian and world sentiment.... Though the Clinton administration blames Baghdad, the present crisis is due to Washington's refusal to countenance any modification of the weapons inspection program run by the UN in Iraq.... The fact of the matter is that UNSCOM is functioning as both prosecutor and judge.... The United States is spoiling for a fight and is willing to subvert every principle of international law in the bargain.... If Washington knows the precise locations of these alleged stockpiles, why does it not call Iraq's bluff and ask for those sites to be inspected by neutral experts?... The international community must stand firm in its opposition to the United States going berserk; the consequences are too fearsome to contemplate." NEPAL: "The U.S. Is The Threat To World Peace" Pro-China/North Korea Arpan (v/w, 2/6) remarked,"It is natural for Iraq to feel apprehensive of the wicked designs of the USA. It has become obvious from the past war that the U.S. alone is not capable of defeating Iraq, China, India. The Gulf countries have already voiced their opposition to the imperialist designs of the USA.... The main aim of the United States is to foment a cold war among Gulf countries and grab their oil-fields. The United States will earn a bad name for the terror that it is now spreading in Iraq by using Kuwait as a tool. The United States has already rendered the former Soviet Union powerless and helpless on the pretext of maintaining world peace. It is also implementing its strategy to destroy the arsenal of powerful Russian weapons in Iraq. The United States aims at spreading its domination on all weak nations by turning the Arab countries into deserts.... The United States is the only country now which is posing a threat to world peace. Disturbances and unrest will spread in different parts of the world until the United States is rendered powerless in the UN Security Council." PAKISTAN: "Hope U.S. Will Not Preempt Any UN Peace Moves" The centrist News opined (2/16): "Notwithstanding the U.S. military might, the envisaged 'Operation Desert Thunder' is a reckless pursuit, likely to incur more losses than gains in terms of long-terms U.S. interests in the entire region. " "The Demerits Of A Military Option" An editorial in the Peshawar-based, independent Frontier Postdeclared (2/12), "Viewed from a higher plane, Saddam Hussein has already won a moral victory by gaining support of three of the five permanent Security Council members. He has also broken free of the diplomatic isolation that had enveloped him following his 1990 misadventure. An invasion of Iraq in such circumstances would exacerbate the existing strains in the Western alliance. The United States can win a military victory over Iraq but the diplomatic cost of such an act would be too great." "The Possibility Of A U.S. Attack On Iraq" An op-ed column by Nusrat Mirza in the second largest, Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt made this point (2/12), "When an attack on Iraq seems all but confirmed, Pakistan should be cautious and should view the matter with an eye to its own interests. First and foremost, Pakistan must free itself of its debts. Sooner or later, the United States will be in a position to offer Pakistan debt forgiveness as it once did Egypt. This is a time for Pakistan to think very long and hard about its options." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC AUSTRALIA: "The Right Choice To Make" Melbourne's liberal Age (2/12) editorialized, "Some critics of the government's decision argue that there is no Australian national interest at stake in the Gulf, and that participation in the new alliance will only fuel perceptions that Australia is too pliable an ally of the United States. The truth is rather that such critics have too narrow a perception of what constitutes national interest. It is in the interest of all nations that maverick regimes such as Saddam Hussein's should be compelled to observe the standards that make civilized conduct between states possible." CHINA: "MFA Spokesman On U.S. President's Special Envoy's Visit To China" This Xinhua news service article appeared in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao) (2/17): "MFA spokesman Zhu Bangzao stated that during Ambassador Bill Richardson's visit to China, the United States and China reached a consensus on three points: 1) the current situation in Iraq is very grave; 2) the relevant UN Security Council resolutions should be implemented; and 3) China and the United States agree to support all diplomatic efforts, including supporting Secretary-General Kofi Annan's mediation efforts in accordance with the related UN Security Council resolutions." "'Killing The Chicken To Frighten The Monkey'" Li Zhengxin wrote in official Chinese Youth Party China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (2/14): "Indications show that if Iraq does not make enough concessions to satisfy the United States Clinton will definitely begin an attack; the Americans have already made up their minds to strike Iraq. By using force against Iraq, the U.S. will be `killing the chicken to frighten the monkey,' warning others whom the United States dislikes while dealing a blow to Iraq." HONG KONG: "The China Dimension" The independent, English-language South China Morning Post editorialized (2/11): "China has never been enthusiastic about U.S. military action in the Middle East. This time, not only is Beijing firmly opposed to military action, but yesterday's China Daily accused Washington of manipulating the UN over the issues.... Washington hopes that the coming visit by its ambassador to the UN, Bill Richardson, will persuade Beijing to revert to reluctant acquiescence. But that seems unlikely, if only because of the loss of face involved.... Whatever the outcome, this crisis stands out as the first in which China has adopted such a high-profile stance.... Never before has Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen taken the initiative to protest publicly to the United States over an issue not directly related to Beijing's internal affairs, but it is unlikely to be the last. As China's economic prowess propels it towards superpower status, Beijing will want to make its voice heard more forcefully on international issue.... Sometimes interests will coincide with those of Washington--as in defusing the nuclear threat on the Korean peninsula. On other occasions, interests will diverge. But China's views are a factor which will have to be taken increasingly seriously. Washington appears not to have taken the China dimension into proper account over Iraq: it is unlikely to be able to do the same in the future." INDONESIA: "Blair Visit Provides Personal and Political Support for Clinton" Leading independent Kompas pointed out (2/10): "What the world expects from...strong nations such as the United States and Britain is the wisdom to lead the world to a more decent, secure order, instead of arrogantly displaying power and exercising a policy of unfairness." "U.S. Military Action, For The Sake Of Whose Interest?" Ruling Golkar Party's Suara Karya observed (2/10): "Since the Arab states no longer view Iraq as a danger, the main reason underlying U.S. military action has collapsed.... Arab states agree that the U.S. has trampled on the national sovereignty and dignity of Iraq. In addition, they think United States military action will undermine the attempt to press Israel to fulfil its commitment to the peace agreement." JAPAN: "Pressure Must Be Applied Continuously On Iraq" Conservative Sankei editorialized (2/15): "The U.S. call for unconditional UN inspection is justifiable. We support the American position.... Following his meeting last week with Ambassador Richardson, Foreign Minister Obuchi issued a joint statement that Japan would accept the U.S.-proposed military action--as a last resort--against Iraq. We welcome the government's decision that 'has moved a step further away from' Japan's traditional principle of 'safety first.'" "U.S.-Japan Rift Growing Over Olympic Truce" Moderate Tokyo Shimbun noted (2/11), "The gap between the United States and Japan over the Iraq standoff appears deepening. Ambassador Richardson is arriving in Tokyo on Friday to seek Japan's understanding of a possible U.S.-led military action against Baghdad. But...it will be difficult to close the difference with Japan, which prefers a diplomatic settlement--to the last moment--of the crisis. The rift between the two countries surfaced after Japan was excluded from a list of European, Middle East and Gulf nations, as well as UNSC non- permanent member countries, where Secretary of State Albright, Defense Secretary Cohen and Ambassador Richardson visited to secure support for a possible U.S. military action against Baghdad. Richardson's visit to Tokyo was decided belatedly following a strong request from Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, who feared discontent would grow in Japan over the absence of the United States' prior consultation with Japan over the Iraq crisis. Another source of friction is that Prime Minister Hashimoto requested repeatedly in personal letters to President Clinton that the United States not launch military strikes during the Nagano Olympics. The United States reportedly conveyed its displeasure over the requests through diplomatic channels to Japan." SINGAPORE: "No Alternative to Military Strike, He Respects Only Force" Ramesh Thakur, head of the Peace Research Center at the Australian National University, editorialized in the pro- government Straits Times (2/17): There is no real alternative to a painful military strike. But this should be followed by an early lifting of the sanctions. The present crisis is of his [Saddam's] making, it is not the result of a devious plot by the United States.... Much as we might decry Uncle Sam's propensity to be the world's policeman, when the world does need a policeman, guess which cop on the beat gets the call? If there has to be only one superpower, I can think of no other great power that could better fill that role than the U.S. Not one. In sum, strike now, and again if necessary, until Mr. Saddam Hussein abandons all thoughts of acquiring nasty weapons. The certainty of swift retaliation will surely deter him and make future military action unnecessary. But temper force with justice: lift the sanctions which punish the weak because we dare not attack the strongman, and show equal resolve in dealing with intransigence in the Middle East peace process." SOUTH KOREA: "The World Divided Over Iraq" The moderate Hankook Ilbo (2/12) commented that "the world is divided over Iraq, a very different situation from 1991 when the Gulf War broke out. The most obvious difference is the Arabs' opposition to U.S. military action this time. That there is no invasion involved this time explains the reason for the difference between back then and now. What we have now instead is a 'technical' conflict involving weapons inspections. Islamic fundamentalism, which has picked up more support since the 90's, has become a decisive factor determining the course of these Arab countries.... Israel remains neutral, fearing that its siding with the U.S. would force the situation into a greater confrontation between the Arabs and the West.... Russia and China are the ones opposed most adamantly to U.S. military action. They are opposed because of the prospects of economic benefits through improved relations with the Arab countries. They also consider the current situation to be a chance to hold the United States in check." THAILAND: "New Supporters Of The U.S." Charnnarish Boonpharod commented in elite Naew Na (2/12), "Support for U.S. military action against Iraq has gained greater momentum.... Opponents of the U.S. move against Iraq--France, Russia, China and the UN--will have to speed up and succeed in their diplomatic efforts within the next week or so, otherwise the United States' impending attacks against Iraq will become a certainty." AFRICA BURKINA FASO: "Iraq: Europe Broken Down" Independent Le Pays carried an article in its rubric "Internal Dialogue" (2/10), "For the other states, notably the African states, the embargo imposed on Iraq for eight years is doing nothing but aggravating the situation of the poor, small Iraqi people without leading to the expected result: the fall of Saddam Hussein, whose power is strengthening more each day. In the African capitals, everybody is convinced that it is not to the credit of the so-called biggest democracy in the world to resort to economic blackmail...to make Iraq give up. These African capitals remain convinced that this sinister scenario that already hits Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Iran and Sudan could also eventually be applied to them." CAMEROON: "U.S.-Iraq: Small Steps Towards War" Douala-based opposition, French-language Le Messager's analyst Tientcheu Kameni in an article stated (2/9), "The international community heavily supported the Gulf War in 1991 because Iraq had invaded Kuwait.... In this possible second war, (many) states don't understand (the U.S.) harassment against a country which is under embargo. Washington wants to control the Iraqi military potential.... Finally the ultimate goal of the current (crusade) is to complete the action that the Gulf War began in 1991." KENYA: "The World Is Watching Events Unfolding In Iraq" The nationalistic Kenya Times said (2/9): "America is making a monumental mistake.... This effort will boomerang badly on Americans as Saddam is bound not to succumb. And if the assumed world policeman goes ahead and lives up to its word of air striking Baghdad, it will result in mass killings of innocent Iraqis who have in the past been used as a human shield whenever Washington strikes.... The United States' interest in Iraq betrays its appetite for the oil resources in the region. It has...little to do with the UN resolutions, which Saddam is being accused of defying by blocking inspection of certain sites in the country for the suspected doomsday weapons." NIGER: "Security One Way" Michel Boluvi asked (2/9) in independent weekly Le Democrate, "What is this law that gives one side the 'responsibility' to watch over a troublemaker and to reduce the destructive capacity of someone else when he himself is over-armed? Where do we find the UN with respect to this hatred between the United States and Iraq? The hegemony of the White House over the glass tower has reduced this international organization to the errand boy of the United States, above all in the service of the United States rather than international law which law is in fact dictated by Washington.... It is as if the rights of one nation has more value than those of anyone else." NIGERIA: "Door Of Diplomacy Remains Open" Kaduna-based federal government-owned New Nigerian opined (2/12), "We join those who believe in diplomacy as an alternative to war in the subsisting matter. Despite Iraq's refusal to let the UN team get on with the job it has been carrying out for years, the time for diplomacy...has not passed. The international community can still save the situation if the key players in the on-going face-off are persuaded to come to a round table and agree on specific terms of averting war." SENEGAL: "A Respite In The Escalation" Government-owned daily Le Soleil held (2/6), "As days go by in the new Gulf crisis, the military option envisaged by the United States against Saddam Hussein is getting decreasing acceptance among countries whose support, or at least their indifference, would determine the use of force.... Nevertheless, one must not neglect the American will to take the military solution if significant diplomatic progress is not achieved shortly." SOUTH AFRICA: "Is President Mandela Being Naive?" According to Afrikaans, centrist Die Burger (2/10), "The reaction by President Nelson Mandela on the crisis in Iraq is in part understandable and appropriate, but it also indicates naivete.... The president [Mandela] is naive when he says that America should not interfere in issues that could inflame conflict in the region.... To request America, which is the only surviving superpower, to fold its hands and wait while Iraq presents a serious threat to its neighbors and the rest of the world, is not realistic.... Can Iraq now develop unhindered its chemical and biological weapons? And threaten and attack other countries such as Israel? "Where does Mandela stand on the issue of Iraq?" ZAMBIA: "Morally Wrong To Gloss Over Civilian Casualties" The government-owned Times of Zambia editorialized (2/11): "It is undeniable that Saddam is not only infamous but a virtual pariah even in his own backyard. But this fact notwithstanding, we feel it is morally wrong to gloss over civilian casualties if force were to be used to ensure compliance with UN weapons inspections. We hope reason and level-headedness will prevail this time round to avoid the use of excessive force against innocent people while the eccentric Saddam and his cronies wine and dine in their bomb- proof underground bunkers." LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN ARGENTINA: "The Two Devils" Julio Barboza, international analyst for pro-government La Prensa, held (2/12), "Iraq is a nightmare for the United States. Saddam lies, contradicts himself, starts again... he claims to be the victor when he lost, he does not care about the suffering of his people.... Obviously, the United States can attempt an operation either alone or supported by the United Kingdom and Kuwait.... but that has several drawbacks: Without international support, the United States would be acting against the law and would bear the weight of the war: and on that point it would come up against domestic opposition, a much more difficult thing than Iraq. "What is left? A definite attack with clear-cut goals, in supporting diplomatic efforts. Not a continual attack looking for Saddam's downfall. Because if he resists he will create difficulties for his powerful enemy. The United States is fighting against the clock and that is the reason why the decision of getting into such a jumble is so difficult. Almost as difficult as not doing anything." BRAZIL: "Servile Brazil" A byliner in liberal Folha de Sao. Paulo (2/12) expressed this viewpoint: "The visit of...Bill Richardson was enough for Brazil to support the cause repudiated by most parts of the world. If China, France and Russia maintain their opposition to the use of force, even so, it is probable that the United States will become aggressive, even without the UN Security Council's approval. It is a useless, cowardly, counter-productive, immoral and illegal gesture. The cowardice is in the conscience, taken up by the Western information services that affirm that Iraq has no defense. Its war arsenal is old, and after years of embargo, impotent. The aggressors, on the contrary, have arms of great efficacy.... The Brazilian president's decision means the end of a supposedly 'clarified' conduct of our diplomacy. We are back to the practices of the beginning of the military regime, such as the sending of troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965." "Saddam's Hour" Rio de Janeiro's liberal national Jornal do Brasil ( 2/11) lauded Brazil's support for U.S. initiatives and cited Secretary Albright's increasingly firm stand, saying, "Failing a political alternative, and with no trustworthy democratic opposition to the Baghdad regime, the military option seems inevitable. It's not clear how many bombs will be needed to knock out the dictator, but no one of sound mind can doubt that the time has come to eliminate the number one enemy of world peace." COSTA RICA: "Bomb, And Then What?" Jaime Daremblum, a leading political scientist and foreign policy adviser to Costa Rican president-elect Miguel Angel Rodriguez, wrote this op-ed piece (2/10) in San Jose's conservative La Nacion: "The vigorous and sustained actions predicted by the Pentagon, if diplomacy fails, could generate destruction and a mass of civilian victims. The television would broadcast bloody images likely to tax the sensibilities. Very quickly, the villain could become the martyr. Over the last seven years, despite the prohibitions in force and the professionalism of the inspectors, Iraq has successfully carried on the development of weapons of mass destruction. With that background, one can understand the skepticism of important allies in NATO and the Middle East about the military results that Washington hopes for." HONDURAS: "World War" According to pro-government, liberal La Tribuna (2/10), "With regard to us in Honduras, a confrontation between the United States and Iraq will have little negative effect. A sharp rise in energy prices is unlikely since Iraq is almost completely out of the market." MEXICO: "Third World War" Nationalist El Porvenir of Monterrey stated (2/12), "Iraq has become the U.S. target, and it can be the third world war's trigger.... Even though few people take Yeltsin's words seriously, the Russian leader is right. Not necessarily because he will take Iraq's side if the conflict takes place, but because of his awareness--or maybe unawareness--on the type of weapons each contender has." NICARAGUA: "Getting Rid Of The Problem Child" Opinion in center-left weekly El Semanario said (2/12): "It seems that one of the best ways to win elections in the United States is to promote a war. While Europeans are crossing their fingers to avoid a war that seems inevitable, in the White House, fingers are being crossed in the hope that Saddam Husein remains stubborn so the problem can be resolved once and for all... Not long ago Hussein was an unconditional ally of the Western world in the struggle against the danger that Iran represented. The million dollar question is who created the problem child that they now want to get rid of." TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: "Clinton Must Weigh His Options" According to the Trinidad Express (2/9), "The Russians appear determined to head off any further military conflict with Iraq and they seem to be putting a lot of their prestige on it.... The kind of support that the United States was able to muster during the Gulf War is simply no longer there today. The United States keeps insisting that if it has to take unilateral military action against Iraq it will, and it is no doubt being encouraged in this by firm support from Britain. But Mr. Clinton, beset as he is by domestic troubles, should really weigh his options before he plunges into something that could turn out to be much more dangerous than it appears on the surface." or more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 2/17/98 # # #Europe Middle East East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Africa Latin America and the Caribbean
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
