23 February 1998
ANNAN SECURES DEAL WITH IRAQ: HOW WILL U.S. REACT?
Reports that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had reached an agreement with Iraq that might settle the dispute over UN inspections topped the news abroad, although deadlines did not give many analysts time to assess the deal's implications. The majority of those who did were relieved that a U.S. strike may have been averted, but remained uncertain about what the U.S. reaction might be once the details are revealed. Observers--particularly in Europe and Saudi Arabia--worried whether Saddam Hussein would keep his word this time around or whether the international community might face another crisis again in a few months. Saudi-owned, internationally circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat insisted, "Annan must convince the entire world that his mission will not be a smokescreen that Iraq can use to continue re-building its war machine." Several underscored that it was the U.S.-British display of military might that actually helped diplomacy to achieve what all hoped would be a workable solution. The press also made these points: -- Some (in the Israeli media, for instance) judged that U.S. prestige and influence had taken a heavy beating in the confrontation. Criticism continued of Washington's failure to "rally the international community." Other observers held that Saddam Hussein "blinked first" and that Mr. Annan had succeeded in reminding everyone that the Iraqi dictator was the one who violated international law. -- The media in Egypt, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates focused on President Clinton's videotaped message to the Arabs. In these instances and in other commentary throughout the Arab world, writers continued to voice suspicions that the U.S. only has its interests in mind and that it follows a double standard in its policies toward Iraq and Israel. -- In Turkey, intellectual/opinion maker Cumhuriyet worried as to "what will happen after a military strike" since "the U.S. has not yet found an alternative to Saddam.... A weak, ready-to-be- divided Iraq is also very dangerous." -- Commentators in the Far East, South Asia, Latin America and Africa continued to support a diplomatic resolution of the crisis, but some were unsure whether the agreement obtained by the secretary general would be acceptable to Washington. Analysts in China, Kenya, Costa Rica and Pakistan were critical of what they saw as the U.S.' willingness to decide unilaterally on a military strike. This survey is based on 64 reports from 49 countries, February 14-23. EDITOR: Mildred Sola NeelyTo Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below MIDDLE EAST IRAQ: "UN Accord Signing Ceremony" According to a FBIS report (2/23), the Iraqi television network in Baghdad carried a video clip of Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan signing the agreement reached between the Iraqi and UN delegations. The voice-over on the program's announcer said: "This agreement came in the wake of lengthy and intensive talks between Iraq and the United Nations and after the victorious President Leader Saddam Hussein received UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Both sides discussed all the issues and problems invented by the U.S. administration to justify its aggression on Iraq. All its attempts to do so, however, have failed." ISRAEL: "Lest We Forget" Israel Radio said (2/23), "Secretary Albright has not forgotten what happened to her homeland Czechoslovakia after Chamberlain signed in Munich what was then called a 'Peace on Earth' agreement." Already summing up the Iraq crisis, the press tended to agreed that the United States and Israel lost while Iraq won the contest. Mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv named Saddam Hussein and Kofi Annan the winners, President Clinton and Premier Netanyahu the losers. Top-circulation Yediot wrote, "Saddam won, Israel is the big loser." According to independent Haaretz: "U.S. prestige in the region suffered a nearly fatal blow." The press was even more unanimous and outspoken in blasting Israel's "miserable" handling of the home front. "Saddam Blinked First" Mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv said in its lead editorial (2/23): "Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein stared each other in the eye and Saddam blinked first. He was forced to lift the restrictions he imposed on UNSCOM. In that sense, Clinton got what he wanted. However, the American president was prevented from giving the Iraq dictator a taste of his own medicine.... The most important lesson for Israel is that, with the exception of Iraq itself, it stood to lose most in an American attack on Iraq. It follows that the Americans must consult with us before making any move that could drag us into a war." EGYPT: "President Clinton's Speech To Arabs" Galal Dueidar, editor in chief of pro-government Al Akhbar,stated (2/23): "We thank immensely President Clinton for the trouble he took to say a few words to the Arab world; the goal behind these words was to explain the suspicious planning to destroy Iraq.... But the question to which all Arabs...seek an answer is why the United States, as the strong man of the new world order [allows] Israel to reject implementing UN resolutions for the past 50 years. Can the U.S. administration point to a single UN resolution which Israel has implemented? What is happening now in the Arab world is not taking place because Arabs love Saddam--who is one of the causes of Arab setbacks--but because they hate American bias toward Israel. This is a very serious matter whose negative consequences will affect the interests of the United States and her supporters sooner or later." "Father Clinton" Gamal Badawi, editor in chief of liberal opposition Al Wafd, held (2/23), "President Clinton recorded a message on a video to all the Arab world. The message was televised and was published in the papers. It lasted six minutes.... The message did not have any Arabic translation, so it appeared to me that I was listening to 'father' Clinton because his words were tender, sweet and merciful. I reread the speech with tired Arab eyes, and then I imagined him saying that the Israeli nuclear program must be curbed, because the world cannot enjoy stability when a small country has such a horrible arsenal.... And I imagined that father Clinton ended his humanitarian speech to the Arab world by saying that he regretted the naked bias of his country to Israel.... Then I imagined that he wiped the tears from his eyes and said firmly that he will put his country on the right path and will not give in to Israeli blackmail.... And after father Clinton spoke [in my imagination] there appears on the screen a song by Abdul Halim Hafez in which says 'he is sweet but he lies.'" JORDAN: "Baghdad's Accord A Win For Diplomatic Efforts" Center-left, influential, Arabic-language Al-Dustur's editorial held (2/23), "Iraq or Annan--makes no difference--was successful. The winner is the diplomatic solution as well as all those who have worked hard to prevent a war in this region, including the Jordanian leadership, which spared no effort in resolving the crisis.... The first American reaction to the Baghdad agreement was cold compared to the recent talk of war.... The ball is now in Washington's court. Washington alone can second Annan's diplomatic success, and Washington alone can veto Annan's accomplishment and pull the trigger on war in this region." "Is It About U.S. Interests?" The centrist, influential among the elite, English-language Jordan Times observed (2/23), "The atmosphere of optimism that immediately prevailed in the region upon hearing the news [of Annan's agreement with the Iraqi leadership], however, was tempered by the skepticism that filtered out of Washington.... Albright had reacted to the 'good news' emerging from Baghdad by saying that her country first needed to assess whatever Mr. Annan had agreed on with the Iraqi government in light of 'our national interests'. Her statement thus posed a crucial question. Has the latest crisis in the Gulf been about U.S. interests in the region or over Baghdad's defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions?" KUWAIT: "Strike Against Iraq" In one of several articles encouraging a military strike against Iraq, independent Al-Watan ran this piece (2/14) by Dr. Abdullah Al-Nafisi (independent Islamist/critic of U.S. policy toward the Gulf region): "In the event of an Anglo-Saxon military strike against Iraq, three possibilities will result: that the strike will succeed in removing the current regime; that the strike will succeed in weakening the regime to the degree of [creating] a civil war; that the strike will fail to bring about drastic change thus making the regime more powerful in the event that the third possibility occurs, which will most probably be the case, they (the Americans) will handle the Gulf with 'implosive theory,' whereby they will impose normalization between Iraq and its neighbors, and the current regime in Iraq will be rehabilitated internationally and its past file will be folded." OMAN: "Meaningless Events!'' Egyptian national Sami Hamid wrote in semi-independent, Arabic- language Al-Watan (2/17), "The most dangerous thing in the Iraqi crisis is the effect it will have not only on Iraq, but also on the whole region whether the crisis ends by force or peacefully.... The region is threatened with an environmental catastrophe larger and worse than the Chernobyl reactor disaster if the United States insists on military action. The economies of the countries of the region will also be affected no matter how the crisis plays out, especially with the slump in oil prices. And the crisis could give the 'paralyzed' Middle East peace process a 'heart attack!' who will benefit from all of this? And who is being targeted, Iraq or the whole region? And why?'' QATAR: "Will The U.S. 'Sabotage' The Agreement?" Semi-independent Al-Rayah editorialized (2/23): "President Clinton, with the help of his aides, will spare no effort to look for a loophole in the agreement to find an excuse for Washington to reject it. Will the United States try to 'sabotage' the agreement if Annan succeeds in his mission?... The crisis with Iraq revealed anew that the circumstances of 1990 have gone and that the international consensus the United States had then has also disappeared." SAUDI ARABIA: "Annan Must Convince World Mission Is Not A Smokescreen" According to London-based, internationally circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (2/23): "It seems easier for Baghdad to comply with the UN's orders rather than submit to Washington's mandates. The result, however, is the same in both cases since Iraq cannot maintain its program of producing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.... Annan must convince the entire world that his mission will not be a smokescreen that Iraq can use to continue re-building its war machine." SYRIA: "Faulty Logic" Mohamed Khair Al-Jamali said in government-owned Al-Thawra(2/21): "America does not wish Annan's last-chance mission to succeed because it would mean the crisis would be defused.... And implementation of an American-Israeli scenario foiled.... America has created the crisis and is now pressuring the UN secretary general to carry an American message rather than a world community one--faulty logic that contradicts the democratic system to which America claims (it) adheres.... The U.S. envoy [Ambassador David Newton] said yesterday that Security Council resolutions are binding on Iraq while Israel has the choice. Isn't that proof that America has a policy of double standards?" "The Security Council Should Be Allowed To Work" An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Baath said (2/23), "The optimism about Annan's success restores the image of the UN and highlights the positive and constructive role it can play in solving crises.... What the United States must do now is to give the Security Council the chance to implement the diplomatic solution and to translate it into action.... The crisis according to the official Syrian media: a strategic plot to break up Iraq." "Plan To Divide Iraq" Ibrahim Homeidi said in London-based Al-Hayat (2/22): "All Syrian media agreed that the main objective of the American military plan is to divide Iraq into three parts: one part for the Sunnis, one part for the Kurds, and one part for the Shiites.... The Syrian media also noted that another goal is to strike at Arab solidarity which has become stronger in the wake of Netanyahu's withdrawal from the peace process." TUNISIA: "Difficult For Arabs To Believe Clinton's Message" Senior editor-in-chief Mohsen Zoghlami pointed out in independent, Arabic-language As-Sabah (2/21): "The American president addressed a message to the Arab and Muslim people emphasizing his support for the UN resolution to increase Iraqi oil exports, and his pledge to limit the number of Iraqi victims in any U.S. military strike.... Arab and Muslim public opinion which President Clinton addressed does not need this kind of comfort or any kind of 'clarification' because the 'issue' is very 'clear': On one side, there are preparations that demonstrate a clear [U.S.] desire for a military strike.... On the other side, there is an irresponsible obstinacy and an unconvincing refusal to apply the UN resolutions calling for the destruction of Iraqi weapons. Those two positions are the cause of the 'catastrophe.'... Everything that has happened including what has happened to the peace process...because of Netanyahu's stubbornness...makes it difficult for Arab public opinion to believe what was expressed in Clinton's message, especially when the United States expresses its desire 'to see a secure and prosperous future, with a comprehensive peace in the Middle East region!'" UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Clinton's Message Confirms Double Standards" Influential, internationally-circulated, Sharjah-based Al-Khaleejeditorialized (2/23): "Clinton's statement to the Arab world in which he explained the reason for the military buildup against Iraq seems a certificate to wash his hands from what will happen to the Iraqi people and shouldering it to Saddam Hussein.... His statement carries clear warnings covered with a human gesture towards the children of the region. However, it did not occur to Clinton that children of the entire region have been for the last 50 years subject to massacres and killings by the Israeli destruction machine made in the United States.... Clinton's message confirms double standards towards Israel and is not convincing to anyone in the Arab world." WEST BANK: "Annan's Mission' Moderate, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Quds noted (2/20): 'Iraq and the UN have a golden opportunity to avoid a military confrontation. This will be frustrating to certain parties who are waiting anxiously to see a military strike against Iraq in the name of international legitimacy, which is put on the shelf when it comes to the Palestinian issue. Unfortunately, this is the case for U.S. policy in our region." EUROPE BRITAIN: "U.S. Has Good Reason To Be Wary" BBC Radio noted (2/23): "There is a sense of relief in Baghdad that Kofi Annan has pulled off a diplomatic compromise that will at least avert air strikes. Although this represents a climb- down by Iraq, Iraqi newspapers have described it as a victory for diplomacy. The big question is whether the agreement will satisfy others, in particular the United States.... The Clinton administration has good reason to be wary. Above all, President Clinton does not want to be maneuvered into accepting a UN- brokered agreement only to find that, once more, it's a deal that Saddam Hussein has no intention of holding to." "U.S. Is Losing Battle After Winning War" The conservative Daily Telegraph concluded from Jerusalem (2/23): "No one should be more pleased at the prospect of a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis than Saddam Hussein. He has lost little by challenging America and has generated a new wave of sympathy for his regime in the Arab world.... In the Arab world, the brutality of Saddam's regime or his stocks of anthrax arouse much less horror than Israel's treatment of the Palestinians." "A Breakthrough" In editorial comment, the conservative Daily Telegraph urged (2/23): "Rather than lowering its guard, the Security Council must be more vigilant than before in maintaining unity against any further attempts by Saddam to bend the rules. The lesson of the past few months is that he will seek to exploit any differences of opinion between Council members. For now, allied forces may be stood down. But there will be other crises. The latest has shown how necessary the forces of the allies are, and will continue to be, in curbing Saddam's murderous ambitions." FRANCE: "In The Name Of The Law" Alain Genestar wrote in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche(2/23): "It is crucial to recall a few truths. First, the bad guy in this crisis is Saddam Hussein, not Bill Clinton. Saddam is a dictator of the worst kind.... It is he who is responsible for his people's sufferings. Not Bill Clinton. Second, it is Saddam who threatens peace, not Bill Clinton.... Whatever the outcome, the way the United States has gone about handling the crisis will not play in its favor. Washington failed to rally the international community...and to convince its allies, particularly among Arab nations." "How To Impose International Consensus Against Terror" Gerard Dupuy stated in left-of-center Liberation (2/23): "If war looks like the wrong solution, it is because its outcome remains unclear. And when in doubt, it is best to abstain.... The controversy over 'presidential sites' is a symptom of a very serious problem: how to impose an international consensus against terror. In its unilateral approach, the United States may be considered guilty of being judge and jury. But if war is avoided, military force and its deterrent effect will have proven their capacity to fight against instigators of mass destruction." GERMANY: "Hopes In Baghdad" Washington correspondent Uwe Knuepfer editorialized in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (2/23): "Kofi Annan returns home full of hopes. A new Gulf war seems to have been avoided.... Unlike 1991, the Iraqi regime has learned its lesson this time: The United States is serious about its threats.... Contrary to insinuations in the Arab world and Europe, the United States is not keen on bombing Iraq. It rather prefers to threaten a military strike in order to achieve a diplomatic success. Today, it will be revealed whether this strategy works." RUSSIA: "War To Benefit Clinton, Saddam" Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/21) published this: "Events around Iraq leave almost no doubt that a war is unavoidable, since, for all the diplomatic efforts by Russia, France and China and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the United States and Britain are continuing to build up their military presence in the Persian Gulf. Speaking of who--Saddam Hussein or Bill Clinton-- is more interested in military action, you may say that they equally are. Both would score extra points.... Of course, with Russia's role in the Middle East growing, the United States feels that it must prove its own pre-eminence (even by dint of war). Besides, a war, military experts say, is a chance for America to test its latest in weapons. The United States, unwittingly, is building the Iraqi leader a reputation as a martyr. The Americans have helped him become a hero of the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is hard now to name the winner. But it is easy to see who will lose--the Iraqi people again." "U.S. Reserves Right To Make Its Own Decision" Anatoly Gromyko held in neo-communist Pravda (2/21): "Washington views the UN secretary general as a mere 'messenger,' reserving a right to make its own decision." ITALY: "Annan's Success" Franco Venturini said on the front page of centrist, top- circulation Corriere della Sera (2/23): "With his mission, Kofi Annan has already achieved one result: He has reminded everyone that it is Saddam Hussein who has to choose between peace and war, that it is he who has violated UN resolutions, that it is Iraq that has to respect international law and renounce weapons of mass destruction.... Saddam will win in any case. He will win if Iraq is bombed and he survives, since he will become a martyr and will force America to an escalation without support. And he will win if he surrenders, since he is not paying for his violations and, in the eyes of the Arab masses, his confrontation with Clinton will in any case transform him into a hero." "No Illusions, Crisis Will Return" Prominent foreign affairs commentator Aldo Rizzo concluded in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/23): "Let's not fool ourselves, let's not say that we have taken a step back from the abyss. As long as Saddam remains in power, as long as people like him remain in power, the abyss will open again before us. " "Military Deterrent Succeeded" Renzo Foa commented in PDS (leading government party) L'Unita(2/23): "Diplomacy, when it has to bring back to reason dictators such as Saddam Hussein, can be successful only if it has a valid military deterrent behind it. The military initiative decided by Bill Clinton with the support of Tony Blair and the main Western leaders, has already achieved one result without even firing one shot, i.e. restoring strength and credibility to the United Nations." AUSTRIA: "If Saddam Gives In, He Can Be The Winner" In mass-circulation Kurier (2/23), Otmar Lahodynsky argued, "Like last fall, when (Saddam) suddenly let the UN inspectors enter the country, he would have given in at the last minute, which could be sold as a victory not only to the Arab world.... If Saddam Hussein gives in, the United States will be spared the so far unanswered question of what would happen after days of bombardment: If Saddam survived this attack physically, he would not allow UN controls any more and have more weapons of mass destruction built. If he lost function and/or life, the United States (and thus the world) would have a problem, too: Iraq would be threatened by struggles for succession and decline. Islamic fundamentalism, in any case, would have a new powerful draw." BELGIUM: "Annan Obtains An Agreement" Conservative La Meuse/La Lanterne (2/23) remarked, "What remains to be seen is whether Washington will be satisfied with this agreement in the event of an Iraqi reservation, even about a detail.... Probably not: Military preparations have gone too far and have already cost too much to pack up and go now without having obtained all what was wanted.... It seems clear, after the negotiations conducted by Mr. Annan with the Vice-Premier Tariq Aziz, that the ultimate difficulty lies with Saddam Hussein himself: Will he understand better than before the Gulf War that the Americans only wait for a pretext to hit? And very strongly for that matter.... Washington's thinkers--and above all the star-studded military leaders in the Pentagon--do not yet seem to have understood...that a people of a country small and not very well armed, can have a reaction of pride, even going as far as to 'suicide,' if an all-powerful foreigner wants to impose too much on it...especially, if it no longer has anything to lose!" "Operations Against Iraq And International Law" Independent Le Soir published this op-ed column (2/21) by UCL Assistant Professor Pierre d'Argent: "The Belgian government has just decided to send a frigate to the Persian Gulf.... This move is surprising.... The dispatching of the 'Westdiep' frigate-- although the authorities may say that they reserve the question of the Belgian ship's effective involvement in hostilities-- appears like a support from the Belgian government to U.S. and British military pressures. It is strange to see the government resort to such a concrete measure while it apparently refuses to support verbally the U.S. position. The latter will undoubtedly be satisfied with the very 'Belgian' ambiguity of the move." BULGARIA: "A Broken Iraq: A Nightmare For Its Neighbors" Center-oriented 24 Hours told its readers (2/23): "In every crisis surrounding Iraq, the specter of an eventual break-up fills its neighbors with horror because this would lead to sharp clashes and would destabilize an already dangerously unstable region. The West is also worried because in this region, local historical conflicts are interwoven with geopolitical and petroleum interests in the world's biggest game.... In reality, the key motive for Iraq's existence is not national but petroleum-based. The powers that will decide its fate are more interested in whose hands the rich petroleum reserves of Iraq will land. If the price of control over these is some new territorial grouping or destabilization, the great powers would not hesitate to pay it." CANADA: "Clinton's Iraq Policy And Dissent In U.S." World affairs columnist Stephen Handelman observed in the leading Toronto Star (2/22), "The U.S. administration has been in a dazed damage-control mode ever since that raucous affair [the CNN 'town-hall meeting' on Iraq], televised around the world, displayed the extent of Americans' ambiguity over their government's latest attempts to stare down Saddam Hussein.... An overconfident administration perhaps relying too much on it polls, has opened a Pandora's box of dissent.... This much is clear: Having until recently spent little effort explaining what it wants to do abroad, the administration is now, at the worst possible time, faced with its first sustained debate on foreign policy. It is a debate that also involves a long-overdue examination of America's post-Cold-War identity." DENMARK: "Take Military Action Should UN Negotiations Fail" In the words of center-left Politiken (2/23), "If UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is unable to convince Saddam Hussein that he must give in to the demands of the global community, thereby easing the burdens of his own people, we must take action against him." "Saddam Must Not Be Allowed To Defy UN Mandate" Leftist Information (2/23) seconded: "If Saddam gets away with this we run the risk of others following in his footsteps. That is a most disturbing prospect." FINLAND: "If Kofi Annan Mission Fails, UN Prestige Will Suffer" Independent regional Aamulehti opined (2/20), "According to some estimates, at least six Middle East countries have chemical and biological weapons in stockpile. Israel also has nuclear weapons. But Iraq is different from all others in one respect: During Saddam's presidency it has used chemical weapons against its own citizens, fired missiles against Israel, and occupied its small neighbor, Kuwait.... If Kofi Annan fails in his mission, the UN will suffer a major prestige defeat. If the world organization cannot solve a crisis where it has the backing of international law it will not be able to do much else, either. On the other hand, if cross violations of the peace treaty are left unpunished, the treaty does not count for much." POLAND: "Poland Should Stand Ready To Participate" Centrist Rzeczpospolita ran this analysis (2/21-22) by Kazimierz Dziewanowski: "The Polish government, parliament and president were right in declaring [our] readiness...to participate in the possible military operation (agaist Iraq.) Those who ask why we should care about the Iraqi problem are not correct. Nobody [in Poland] should even think that we could expect and demand a guarantee of security for ourselves and at the same time not want to bear any responsibility or feel any solidarity--especially at the moment when the issue of our membership in NATO is being decided. At issue is our security, the future of Poland and peace in Europe." SPAIN: "A Return To Sense" Liberal El Pais judged in an editorial (2/23): "Even with a diplomatic solution, this crisis is not cost-free. And not just because Saddam Hussein may come out of it looking better, which would be disgraceful given who he is, but because the United States and Europe may have lost face in the Arab world, which has seen the Middle East peace process paralyzed. The crisis should never have been allowed to reach such a pass. But yesterday we saw the triumph of diplomacy, and we should rejoice." SWEDEN: "UNSC Must Remain United" Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter published this editorial response (2/22) to Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wall,n's article of the previous day: "Much is at stake for Sweden. Its government has pursued a policy aimed at reforming the international organization. Its engagement has been quite visible, and it would be ironic should the Security Council lose authority and credibility because of Iraq now, just when Sweden is seated in diplomacy's 'inner sanctum.' "The use of military force has no value in itself. Should it be possible to obtain the necessary goal--the destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction--without the use of force, much would be won. But if the Iraqi dictator refuses to cooperate, if he continues his policy to threaten, challenge, and obstruct, the military threat (against Iraq) must be realized. It is important that the Security Council manages to keep a united policy against the threat to peace in Baghdad. The stance taken by the Swedish government is of importance. Sweden is prepared to take responsibility, even if this might be costly." "Sweden Is Ready To Contribute To A Military Force Against Iraq" Stockholm's independent, liberal morning daily Dagens Nyheterpublished this article on its debate page (2/21) by Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wall,n: "The UN-Iraqi conflict is a very serious one, and it is all about the removal of extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately the matter is to stand up for the code of international behavior, and to protect a strong United Nations. It is not about punishing Iraq or, least of all, the Iraqi people.... "Legal steps must be taken against violators of international law, no matter who they are. Security Council resolutions must be upheld.... I hope that the UN secretary general's mission to Baghdad will result in a solution that will make it possible for the UN weapons inspectors to undisturbedly do their work.... The final decision is in the hands of the Iraqi leadership. Unless Iraq accepts, in accordance with its previous promises, to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspection teams, the Security Council might be forced to take a decision which will mean the use of military force against Iraq. Sweden is prepared to take responsibility as a member of the UN and the Security Council and support and contribute to such measures if, and when, the Council must conclude that all other options are exhausted." TURKEY: "If Annan Cannot Succeed" Ergun Balci wrote in intellectual/opinion maker Cumhuriyet(2/20): "The UN Secretary General is not in a position to bargain with Saddam.... Annan's position is to present once again the proposal for a diplomatic solution, which is a 'slightly softened' version of the U.S. proposal. The United States is determined to conduct a military strike if Saddam does not accept this last chance, the UNSG's initiative.... What will happen after a military strike? The United States has not yet found an alternative to Saddam. The Iraqi opposition...is not united, and all the members are fighting with each other. There is not any Western-oriented general in Baghdad to replace Saddam.... However, a weak, ready-to-be-divided Iraq is also very dangerous." EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC CHINA: "U.S. Wrong In Iraq Issue" Tian Yuzhen wrote for Xinhua news agency in official English- language China Daily (2/21): "As a constructive strategic partner of the United States, China does not want to see the United States play with fire on the Iraq issue.... U.S. President Bill Clinton said he represented the wishes of the international community in calling for an attack on Iraq. How can he represent the international community when Russia, France and China, three out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, advocate seeking a political resolution to the problem?" HONG KONG: "Iraqi Conflict May Break Out At Any Moment" According to an editorial in pro-PRC Wen Wei Po (2/23), "In terms of international affairs, if the United States does not obtain authorization from the UN Security Council, taking military action against another country would certainly put the United States in the position of invading [another country] and overstepping its authority. The United States would be denounced by other countries. However, the United States wants to leave aside the UN Security Council precisely to demonstrate its ability as a world leader. However, who will acknowledge a leadership that acts arbitrarily? Most countries will boycott this hegemonist who tries to override the UN Security Council. Arab countries refuse to provide bases for forces because they know that the bombing will provoke nationalist sentiments. Whoever follows the United States will suffer. If anti-U.S. feeling is aroused in the Middle East, relations between the United States and the Arabs will dive to the lowest point." INDONESIA: "Who Can Justify The U.S. Intention To Attack Iraq?" Muslim intellectual Republika commented (2/23): "What will the Annan-Saddam talks achieve? The leader of the Ali Baba country must find the means to deal with persuasion (read diplomatic pressure) and comply with the UN. Militarily, there is no chance for Iraq to win should it risk confronting the United States and its allies. The traditional technique used by 'Ali Baba' against adversaries is to use his brain and wit, not physical power." JAPAN: "U.S. Says It Is Too Early To Comment" Quasi-governmental NHK-TV commented from Washington (2/23): "The Clinton administration remains cautious about the agreement in Iraq, saying the United States will reserve judgment until the UNSC receives a formal report from Annan.... U.S. government officials remain skeptical of Iraq's real intentions. Secretary of Defense Cohen said the administration continues its 'wait and see' attitude. Will the Iraqis fully and unequivocally accept UNSC resolutions and allow UN inspectors free and full access to presidential sites? In the meantime, the United States has not changed its tough position including the possible use of military force. Secretary Cohen announced another call-up of hundreds of additional reservists." NEW ZEALAND: "Do Nothing But Talk" Or "Trade Iraqi Blood For Oil" Pro and con pieces ran in the leading Dominion (2/20). The editorial said, "Bombing Saddam Hussein is not an easy option, but it is either that or allow him to get away with thumbing his nose at the UN and continue his drive for weapons of mass destruction.... Those who urge 'diplomacy' in the present standoff are really saying 'do nothing but talk.' If this policy has been adopted at the time of the Kuwait invasion, Iraq would still be occupying the country and would probably now re- exercising suzerainty over Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms. As well, Saddam might well have an arsenal of nuclear weapons." PHILIPPINES: "For A Diplomatic Solution" The independent Manila Standard held (2/23): "The United States has been inordinately patient with Baghdad.... If Saddam continues his game, Mr. Clinton says he has no choice but to play the military card. President Ramos was right to insist on a diplomatic solution and to put the national interest ahead of Manila's bonds with Washington. There are approximately 600,000 Filipino workers in the Middle East.... A breakout of armed hostilities puts their lives in great peril." SOUTH KOREA: "Compromise Just Before Military Conflict" Independent Dong-A Ilbo put forth this view (2/23): "With talks between Mr. Annan and Saddam Hussein moving in a positive direction, it looks as if Iraq is no longer facing a military strike.... Iraq must have decided to back down from its earlier stance because it fears that refusing to do so will lead to a massive U.S. strike. Besides, Iraq realizes that it will not win anything diplomatically by refusing to compromise now, especially when the UN secretary-general himself is taking the lead to resolve the situation.... However, tensions in the region will to continue as long as the United States does not accept the final results of the talks." SOUTH ASIA INDIA: "A War In Caricature" The nationalist Hindustan Times ran this analysis by Washington correspondent N.C. Menon (2/23): "As the White House keeps giving diplomatic efforts yet another 'last chance,' it is becoming obvious that the impending strike on Iraq bids fair to be unlike any war known to human history. For a start, no other war has had so much transparency.... Clinton is aware that bombing Iraq could well be the beginning of stepping into a political morass. He will be relieved if Saddam Hussein steps back from the brink. Had there been any certainty that Saddam Hussein would be eliminated, many Arab regimes would have been more receptive to the American agenda. But with the possibility that Saddam will survive a new onslaught and grow in political stature as a result, his neighboring regimes are naturally unwilling to face the wrath of their own peoples.... If the one- sided hostilities are to be avoided, however, it will also be prudent for Saddam Hussein not to act as if he had nothing to lose by constantly confronting the United States.... David might get a lot of sympathy in the unequal face-up, but even Goliath has a need to save face." PAKISTAN: "Giving Diplomacy A Chance" Karachi's independent national Dawn editorialized (2/21): "Mr. Annan is already in Baghdad and it is still too early to be overly optimistic about the outcome. Indeed, these dark indications that the secretary general may not be able to exercise all the flexibility needed to negotiate a settlement with Baghdad because of Washington's relentless bellicosity.... That the Iraqis do not suffer from a similar warlike hysteria is evident from Iraqi Vice-President Yassin Ramadan's solemn undertaking that Iraq would fully cooperate with Mr. Kofi Annan in his efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis over the inspection issue.... President Clinton also appears to be completely oblivious of the fact that his policy on Iraq has further complicated the already badly battered Middle East peace process.... If, in spite of this, America proceeds to attack Iraq, it will earn the odium of an aggressor. NEPAL: "Iraq's Inflexibility May Lead To War" The centrist Himalaya Times observed (2/22): "If no dramatic result comes from Kofi Annan's trip to Baghdad, another Gulf war is inevitable.... Because of Iraq's unwavering attitude in disregarding the UN demands and resolutions, the Gulf region is once again facing a grave warlike situation.... The last Gulf War seemed like the official end of hostilities, but it was actually the beginning of a prolonged confrontation." "Saddam's Behavior Spurs Preparations For War, But..." Rightist Deshantar declared (2/22): "No matter how fruitful and successful Kofi Annan's efforts might be...Saddam Hussein is making himself the main actor in turning the region into a battlefield.... The present war preparations derive from this challenging behavior of Saddam Hussein.... However, just on this basis, the aggressive attitude of the United States and its allies cannot be taken as justifiable and logical... The same nations now bent on destroying Saddam were the contributors to his increasing rashness and power.... The initiative to strike Iraq now...can be...taken as an act to redeem their sinful hands." SRI LANKA: "How Independent Is Annan?" Mervyn de Silva wondered in the English-language, independent Sunday Times (2/22), "But how independent and strong is Secretary General Kofi Annan? So far he has shown quite plainly that he is not prepared to say 'Yes,sir/No,sir' to the number-one United States." LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA: "Washington Does Not Reject Possibility Of Acting On Its Own" Jorge Elias, Washington-based correspondent of daily-of-record La Nacion, declared (2/23), "The virtual agreement reached in Baghdad by...Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein, generated (in Washington) mistrust, caution and an open umbrella that forecasts storms if the situation does not clear up soon. For this reason, (Secretary of State) Albright has not given up the possibility that the United States may act on its own against Saddam in case the deal he is about to seal with Annan does not respond point by point to the requirements of removing the locks on the [inspection areas].... American officials use the right of attacking Iraq in defense of their national interests. Today there is no invasion of Kuwait, nor consensus at the UN Security Council that indicates that Clinton's idea is the best. Neither have Iraq's neighbors, targets of the arsenal hidden by Saddam in his palaces, agreed to become partners in the coalition. Among Arab countries, critical of the American backing of Israel...there is a certain degree of mistrust as a result of [the U.S.] having adopted Venezuela as its main oil supplier instead of Saudi Arabia. In principle, a war would place the weak peace process at risk." BARBADOS: "A Lesson To Learn From" The pro-government Bridgetown Nation argued (2/20): "There is precious little that a small and insignificant a member of the United Nations family as we are can do to resolve or even affect the present impasse between Saddam Hussein and the United States.... Although in theory the impasse is really between Iraq and the United Nations, the issue has become so personalized that most thinking runs towards the conclusion...that the fly in the ointment is Saddam Hussein and, presumably, that it is only necessary to eliminate him and such problems as they are will disappear. But it would be useful if the present situation...could be used by even small nations to bolster the image of the Unitd Nations in the world and not allow that body to be upstaged by any of its ambitious members." BOLIVIA: "A Trip Of Peace" La Paz's Catholic Church-owned Presencia declared (2/20), "If this mission fails, the attack would be a matter of hours.... We face the fact that proves how much more humanity has to go to create an international order of peace, progress and solidarity. If the UN's secretary general succeeds in his efforts to avoid this new war, the world will be thankful." CHILE: "A Strange Calmness" Centrist La Epoca ran this commentary (2/20): "With a strange calmness, the world contemplates the preparations for a new war, whose consequences are unpredictable.... Public opinion...is moving toward accepting the inevitable, without giving up the perverse gratification of watching a true spectacle of war without running any risks .... On the other hand, international analysts have noted that the military objectives against Iraq of the United States and its closest ally, Great Britain, are not clear. There is also no assurance that the massive air and missile attacks will manage to topple the Iraqi regime. A long war on the ground is, of course, undesirable." COSTA RICA: "International Law On The Ropes" Independent La Republica editorialized (2/20): "International law is on the ropes. It is exposed to an overwhelming punch, that it will only be avoided if the Security Council goes outside of its jurisdiction and safeguards the integrity of the mission that was assigned to it by the UN Charter. This means, no more and no less, that to save the sovereignty of its functions and to decide--the Council, as the highest authority--how and to what extent it will carry diplomatic efforts and how and when it will authorize force." EL SALVADOR: "Our Vote" An editorial in very conservative El Mundo (2/18) judged, "An attack against Iraq could cause, on the part of that country, a response against Israel, whose leaders have anticipated that (given the) opportunity they will not remain passive toward the aggressions of Baghdad. If this happened, all the Middle East would be involved in war. In addition, other nuclear powers, with interests in that region, such as Russia, could be involved in the conflict.... We vote for rationality to impose itself in this emergency and for nations learn to respect peoples' rights of self determination, without demanding a political model, nor establishing, through military power, a world order based on interests without scruples." PANAMA: "What Is At Stake: Biological Weapons" Conservative El Panama America (2/20) ran this editorial, "What is really at stake is not to prevent Iraq's attacks of neighboring countries as in the past...but rather the dangerous worldwide possibilities of a surprise attack with biological weapons.... Saddam Hussein is stalling and looking for new excuses to delay the UN Special Commission inspection of the so- called presidential palaces, suspected of concealing armaments." AFRICA BURKINA FASO: "Can War Be Avoided?" Government-owned Sidwaya maintained (2/23): "All is not yet lost, and with a little will and good faith the worst can be avoided.... Otherwise, it will be the shame (for) all humanity.... The Americans have more interest than anyone else because we refuse to believe that their civilization and their culture, (which) exalt individual liberty...can be replaced, at the beginning of the 21th century, by hegemony, even if faced with a dictator like Saddam Hussein." CAMEROON: "Kofi Annan's Last-Chance Mediation" Douala-based center-left, French-language weekly Dikalo carried this viewpoint (2/19) by Lambert Ngouanfo: "London and Washington say they are ready to attack Iraq if the results of Kofi Annan's trip are contrary to their national interests. Israel, Baghdad's worst enemy in the region, has shown great concern if a new war was to be fought.... Day by day, we are getting closer and closer to a new war, and the UNSG's trip to Baghdad can be considered as the last negotiation step before American strikes." GHANA: "Iraq Should Be Accountable, But What About Israel?" R. B. W. Hesse, writing in the government-owned Daily Graphic, stated (2/21), "It is all very well to demand accountability and open-handedness from Iraq. In terms of that country's obligation to maintain the peace and fulfil the conditions upon which sanctions were imposed upon her, that is as it should be.... One may therefore ask, what has happened to Israel's obligation to respect the various UN Resolutions requiring Israel to vacate conquered Arab lands?... If one were to conjecture that Israel has been allowed too much latitude to 'disrespect' her legal obligations, can one assume that Iraq would also see that Israeli recalcitrance as inevitably obliging her to claim similar entitlement to flout UN resolutions with internationally 'accepted' impunity? And, were that outcome to be replicated by all other nations, what hope would the future hold for an orderly and peaceful existence?" KENYA: "Of Clinton's Visit, Kenyan Decline And Uncle Sam's Arrogance" The editor's column said in the liberal Economic Review (2/23): "Clinton's omitting Kenya from his itinerary should send a powerful message to our leaders on the kind of ruinous legacy they are about to bequeath.... And to divert attention during the visit will be the imminent attack on Iraq under the guise of enforcing the weapons inspections mandated by the United Nations. And this is where the arrogance of Uncle Sam comes in.... The United States is indicating that whatever the outcome of the mediation mission, it reserves for itself the sole right to determine whether to launch a military assault on Iraq. Why did we all imagine that the arms inspections and threat of force if Iraq failed to comply were UN rather than U.S. operations?" For more information, please contact: U.S. Information Agency Office of Public Liaison Telephone: (202) 619-4355 2/23/98 # # #Middle East Europe East Asia and the Pacific South Asia Africa Latin America and the Caribbean
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
