17 December 1998
WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP: AIR STRIKES AGAINST IRAQ
(Foreign press supports military action) (1290) Early reports from the foreign press indicate editorial support for the December 16 U.S. air strikes against Iraq. BRITAIN "Grim Necessity" The conservative Times had this lead editorial (12/17): "The air campaign launched over Iraq early today was unavoidable. Baghdad has not only continued to obstruct UNSCOM, but has imposed new restrictions on its work....There was no legal necessity to refer back to the UN. Saddam deliberately forced this grim conclusion. The response had to be swift and decisive." "Finish The Job" The conservative tabloid Daily Mail's editorial judged (12/17): "There can be no question that Saddam deserves all he is getting. But this time the retribution against him must be decisive." FRANCE "Military Strikes, Not Diversionary Measures" Aime Jezequel argued in regional Le Journal du Centre (12/17): "Will this new crisis with Iraq help Clinton gain some time? The international community certainly did not need the uncertainty which hovers over the president of the world's most powerful nation. Thankfully, President Clinton has sufficiently proven his capabilities as a statesman in order for the strikes not to be interpreted as a diversionary measure." "Saddam Fully Responsible" Didier Eugene opined in regional Ouest France (12/17): "(Clinton) expects at least two things from these strikes. An international affirmation of U.S. leadership (and) a domestic reprieve on the impeachment procedure. The coincidence of these two events leads one to doubt the basis for the U.S. decision to strike....Still, Saddam is the one and only person who is fully responsible for what is happening to his people." GERMANY "Harsh Response" Centrist Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung carried this commentary (12/17): "The U.S. air strikes came more swiftly than even many in Washington had expected. But Bill Clinton had no choice if he wanted to maintain credibility in the conflict with Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator had provoked the U.S. president and the international community in an unacceptable fashion. And now he has been dealt a harsh response. But doubts remain. Was Clinton's decision really based on the facts, or did the pending decision on impeachment...play a role? The Lewinsky affair throws a shadow that Clinton cannot shake off, a shadow that leaves him open to criticism vis-a-vis the Iraq crisis....But there is absolutely no doubt that the affair and its implications do not detract in any way from the fundamental U.S. right to attack Baghdad in defense of the international community." "Bombs On Baghdad" Centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn commented (12/17): "The situation for the UN and the United States was not just unsatisfactory, it was humiliating. The United States sent in the missiles. The strikes were to be expected, but they came more quickly than had been expected. If deceitful and fraudulent Saddam had been allowed to get off with another rotten compromise, then all credibility would have been lost." ITALY "U.S. Risks" Franco Venturini's commented in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (12/17): "Punishment, announced and suspended so many times, could no longer be delayed....But the trouble is...that military intervention could turn into a boomerang, definitively sinking UN inspections and giving a free hand to Iraq's war ambitions....Attacking this quickly...may create new problems in Washington's relations with the UN...a majority of European allies...with Russia (and) with at least some of the Arab world....We don't believe that Clinton has decided to attack Iraq in order to slow down the impeachment proceedings." "The President's Many Lives" Carlo Rossella observed in centrist, influential La Stampa (12/17): "Many will say that Clinton decided to strike Iraq in order to slow down the inexorable impeachment proceedings....But that is not true. After the withdrawal of UN inspectors from Baghdad, America had to follow up to the threats issued a month ago....After the failure of his 'peace mission' to the Middle East, Clinton could not afford another defeat, something which would have had serious domestic repercussions....Vis-a-vis a Congress of dwarves, Clinton, an able politician and very able at self-defense, appears like a smart and, most of all, lucky giant." DENMARK "Clinton's Convincing Explanation" Mass-circulation tabloid Ekstra Bladet editorialized (12/17): "Last night President Clinton gave a comprehensive and convincing explanation of (the motivation behind) the action. Today, he will, of course, face accusations that he initiated the attack to take the spotlight away from the impeachment case. But these accusations are unreasonable....The tyrannical Hussein is a...brutal cynic who represents a lethal danger to the Middle East peace process. He has shown before that he is not frightened of using weapons of mass destruction, and there is no doubt that he will use them again if he can gain an advantage from it....Therefore Ekstra Bladet supports the Anglo-American attack." SWEDEN "Saddam Is Threat To Peace" Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter opined (12/17): The air strikes...were unavoidable. Once again it has been confirmed that Iraqi promises are valid only until they are broken....The Iraqi weapons of mass destruction must be found and eliminated...and Saddam's regime is an obvious threat to peace that must be neutralized....The use of military force is not desirable....But the fundamental problem for the international community is how to handle a ruthless dictator. The main responsibility rests with the UNSC, and the question is what to do when the council fails to shoulder it." TURKEY "The Expected Happened" Sami Kohen commented in the mass-appeal Milliyet (12/17): "The goal of the U.S. strike is to punish Saddam for not obeying UN resolutions and undermining his military power. The attack, a U.S.-U.K. joint operation, will likely fulfill its military objectives. It is still, however, uncertain whether this strike can demolish the chemical and biological weapons Iraq supposedly possesses. It is also questionable whether this operation will weaken Saddam's regime." ISRAEL "Bringing Down Saddam" The independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (12/17): "Unless and until the West adopts a serious strategy designed to rid the world of Saddam once and for all, it can expect the nonsensical game of lies, demands, crises, and bluster to continue. With every passing round, Saddam further bolsters his store of illegal weapons, while unscrupulous economic interests, salivating over the money to be made in rebuilding the Iraqi oil industry, press for an easing of the sanctions imposed on Iraq -- which are in any case slowly collapsing." QATAR "Dark Fog" Semi-independent Al-Rayah's editorial (12/17) held the United States and Iraq "equally and entirely responsible" for the latest crisis and military attack. The paper added: "Iraq has not learned necessary lessons from past crisis, and Baghdad must have known for at least several days that an attack was imminent as a result of its actions....Of course, it is the Iraqi people who pay the highest price...and they remain in a dark, dismal fog." JAPAN "Japan Swiftly Expresses Support for Air Strikes" Liberal Mainichi observed (12/17): "Compared with its less enthusiastic 'understanding' on the American retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan over terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Japan swiftly expressed its positive support for Thursday morning's air strikes against Iraq. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs source said it was only natural that Japan give swift support to the U.S.-British military strikes. This was because (1) the strikes were based on UN resolutions; (2) the United States and Japan are close allies; and (3) the two allies need to work closely together in dealing with North Korea."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
