Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Indistinct Reasons"

The liberal Guardian commented (12/18): "For us, what matters most is justifying the bombs and the missiles and the inevitable casualties by the higher good of preventing some future outbreak by Saddam. On that score, the Blair government's articulation of reasons for a show of force can so far only be called indistinct."

"In Time Of Danger"

The conservative Times ran this lead editorial (12/18): "Saddam gambled that America and Britain would not do this. He was wrong. Both leaders (Clinton and Blair) have had the political courage to act in the interest of global order.

"Futile, Possibly, But How Else Do We Deal With This Dictator?"

The centrist Independent had this lead editorial (12/18): "Washington and London had no alternative. But, assuming the onslaught is the strong and sustained affair we are promised, it will perforce change how we deal with Saddam.... So once this attack is over...we have a chance to build a new Iraq policy, whose means at last fit their declared end. The sanctions may have to continue. But the explicit aim of the West must henceforth be Saddam's removal from power. The means to this end, including the indictment of Saddam as a war criminal and the encouragement of opposition both inside and outside Iraq, will require diplomacy and patience. However, they offer more hope of long-term success than the heavy crump of cruise missiles exploding around Baghdad."

FRANCE: "What A Waste!"

Alain Peyrefitte opined in right-of-center Le Figaro (12/18): "[The United States] has picked the first opportunity to strike...refusing to let the UN get involved. What is an international operation which does not respect the right of law? Is this justice, revenge or an act triggered by resentment? Will the use of violence be efficient? The United States has the habit of striking. It did not serve them in Vietnam. It has not been useful in Iraq. A victory could only have come through a ground operation. To strike means only to repeat the error.... The situation is not only stalled, but hopeless.... U.S. national dignity has been called upon to save a personal situation which is compromised."

"The Scapegoat"

Serge July held in left-of-center Liberation (12/18): "Our doubts are now confirmed: the U.S. intervention is for the most part founded on pretense.... The Butler report has been manipulated.... War had been decided and...the Butler report was drafted to fit with that decision.... The United States has found in Saddam a scapegoat to be used as needed for international, national, regional or even private reasons.... The U.S. attack, by the fact that it was not necessary, because it was carried out outside international law and because it is a war triggered by private reasons, is creating a major disorder."

GERMANY: "U.S.-UK Had No Other Choice"

National radio station Deutschlandfunk of Cologne commented (12/16): "The American president, with British support, had no other choice but to act if he wanted to maintain his credibility.... The whole world suspected that Saddam Hussein would not bring his cynical cat-and-mouse game to an end. The report of the UN weapons inspectors that Iraq has not kept its promise to cooperate set off a predictable chain of events that should have surprised nobody. The Iraqi dictator alone is responsible for the suffering and the destruction.... The military strikes carry a high political risk. But the consequences of not acting would have been much worse."

"Clinton Turns Victory Into A Defeat"

National Public TV Network ARD commented in the late evening newscast Tagesthemen (12/16): "Saddam must bear the responsibility for each and every bomb. But does his guilt give America the right to unleash the current bombardment? I don't think so. First...it is more than doubtful whether the strikes are covered by a UN resolution. What is the goal of the attacks? To topple Saddam? Experience has shown that this is impossible from the outside. Was the goal to punish Iraq in order not be seen as a paper tiger?... Only one thing will change (because of the strikes): America's image in the Middle East. Clinton has managed to turn a political victory into a political defeat, literally overnight."

ITALY: "The Loneliness Of The United States"

A front-page commentary by Enzo Bettiza in centrist, influential La Stampa held (12/18): "Rarely has America appeared so lonely and isolated in the case of military intervention against an enemy that many condemn verbally, but then end up defending by invoking a 'political solution.'... If America fails to achieve its goals this time around, the dangerous certainty may spread in the Gulf area and in the Europe that crime can go unpunished when the U.S. superpower remains alone in dealing with it. America's loneliness in the world, together with the loneliness of its president under siege, could have serious repercussions for everybody--except for Saddam, Milosevic and company."

"A War In The Name Of Peace"

Livio Caputo writes in leading rightist opposition Il Giornale (12/18): "We cannot understand what political project is being pursued by the European governments that so sensationally distanced themselves from the Anglo-Saxons. Do they perhaps believe that it would have been better to ignore Saddam's arrogance and his mocking of the UN, an organization they consider to be the solution to all problems?... The split among Western nations is perhaps the most serious element of uncertainty hanging over 'Desert Fox.'"

RUSSIA: "It Meets Russia's Interests, Too"

Vladimir Natalyin said on page one of reformist Izvestiya (12/17): "Baghdad's intractability is hardly due only to its being ill-disposed to Butler and his people. Hussein must have something to hide. While America's striving to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states may cause differing assessments, it is clear now that only Washington and London can and want to punish Saddam Hussein. At the moment this meets Russia's interests as well: Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction is not a danger to its neighbors alone, and lifting the UN embargo would push down oil prices disastrously."

"Clinton Needs This Little War"

Aleksandr Reutov suggested in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/17): "The way things are going suits Washington. It is more than Clinton's personal problems--everybody must be fed up with them. After his fiasco in Israel, the U.S. president badly needs a foreign-policy victory, particularly in the Middle East, as a compensation."

AUSTRIA: "Fears Concerning A Weakened Superpower"

Foreign editor Andreas Schwarz opined on the front page of prestigious, conservative Die Presse (12/18): "The mere suspicion that Clinton might be limited in his range of activities by

the pending impeachment is enough to influence politics. Israel's Prime Minister might have been so uncompromising because he thinks he does not need to be afraid of a weakened U.S. president. And Saddam might have believed the president incapable in this situation of really ordering a military strike.... A responsible political leader, and a superpower to boot, should know how to act."

BELGIUM: "Containing Saddam Hussein"

Foreign editor Axel Buyse opined in independent Catholic De Standaard (12/18): "To date, there has been not a single permanent member of the UNSC to dare to ask questions about the principle of 'neutralization' of the Saddam regime. However, neither Russia nor China--not to mention France--have ever obtained...any grip on Saddam. Without the tough perseverance of the Americans there would only have been the well known powerless verbal UN nonsense--and the Gulf region would have wound up in another escalation in the shortest period of time. That conclusion does not exculpate U.S. policy vis-a-vis the UNSC and in the wider area from mistakes. But...the Americans are correct in their analysis in the case of Iraq. The question is how long Washington can sustain that 'damming in' of Saddam Hussein."

BULGARIA: "Sex, Missiles, And No Rock-And-Roll"

Financial news Pari observed (12/18): "It seems that Bulgarian parliamentarians do not care that there lives a dictator somewhere, and that for the sake of his destruction the country which is considered to be the symbol of democracy kills innocent people.... Are we witnessing the end of the myth of a democratic America?"

CROATIA: "Bombs And Impeachment"

Pro-government, mass-circulation Vecernji List held (12/18) in a commentary by its Washington correspondent Vladimir Goss: "Many are warning that impeachment based exclusively on party politics could be fatal for the country. Even the attack on iraq has become a party issue.... However, what can Clinton achieve through the attacks which, as it is believed, will last only four days? What will happen when the planes return? Or when some of them do not return? Iraq is not a ship which can be sunk. It seems that the military attack on Iraq will not strengthen Clinton's position. Bombers do not save Clinton."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "The Attack Was Unavoidable"

A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES (12/17) noted, "The air campaign against Iraq has come at a doubly inappropriate time due to Ramadan and the impeachment process, but it was unavoidable for three reasons: First, Saddam Hussein has violated too many promises he made last November.... Second, the superpowers could not leave this situation unnoticed; they would lose face. In November, the Americans and the Brits made it clear: 'As soon as the Iraqis put up the first obstruction, we'll strike without warning.'... There is yet another, third reason for the fact that the strike was inevitable: Saddam is obstinate in maintaining his destructive potential at any cost."

CYPRUS: "Iraq And The Stain!"

Right-wing, ultra-nationalistic Makhi stressed (12/18): "This thing of which we become witnesses, with the mutilation of dozens of innocent Iraqis by the Anglo-American war machine, undoubtedly demonstrates the sad state to which our planet has been led by the powerful countries. This situation reconfirms the suspicion of small and weak countries that principles and ideas have been thrown once and for all into the garbage. In the final analysis, all these innocent people who are being slaughtered in Iraq, are sacrificed for a stain [on Monica Lewinsky's dress] and a desperate effort of a humiliated leader to hang on to power."

ESTONIA: "Liar Hits Liar"

An editorial in center-right Eesti Paevaleht judged (12/18): "If the Clinton impeachment process were not going on, the strikes against Iraq would seem so right and necessary. But the fact seems to be that if there were not an impeachment process, there would not be any strikes."

DENMARK: "U.S. Chose Right Option"

Center-right Jyllands-Posten editorialized (12/18): "What is currently happening in Baghdad deserves our respect.... The United States faced a choice, and it chose the right option.... Late on Wednesday, the world's greatest democracy lived up to its responsibility.... The U.S. action also gives a warning to Milosevic and other tyrants.... The attacks have set the agenda for the 21st century...(and) the message is clear: The United States is happy to work together with the UN if it is able to act, but if it is not, the United States will go it alone."

FINLAND: "U.S. Shows It Might"

Leading independent Helsingin Sanomat held (12/18): The strikes restore the Western countries' military credibility, but they are not likely to remove the diplomatic problem caused Iraq's defiance."

GREECE: "Bomb...Clear Mess Up...It's Over!

Largest circulation, influential pro-government Ta Nea (12/18) said: "After the air attack against Iraq one cannot say easily which is the state sponsoring terrorism."

"Who Will Try The Planet Ruler?"

Second-largest, pro-government Eleftherotypia said (12/18): "Which is the court that will try the planet ruler-sheriff Clinton for the series of crimes he is conducting invoking American interests?"

HUNGARY: "Bombed-Away Vote"

Top-circulation Nepszabadsag carried this piece by Washington correspondent Gabor Miklos (12/18): "It is hard to find convincing justification for this 'limited military punishing action.' And it is hard to disperse the suspicion [that] Clinton wanted to bomb away the Congress' procedure started against him.... What we see today is that the United States has acted without a general authorization. The crisis is grotesque, because the most global and scary elements are being mixed with the most intimate matters."

MACEDONIA: "Saddam Had It Coming"

Independent, centrist Dnevnik contended (12/18): "Saddam had it coming his way. His endless hide-and-seek game with UNSCOM already had gotten on the nerves of the international community. Secondly, he does have weapons of mass destruction and is willing to use them. Finally, he had to be hit as soon as possible, since he cannot be given any time to rebuild his military yet again. It is necessary to help democratic forces in Iraq, even to create them if they do not exist. After all, Iraq's own people have taken on themselves most of the suffering."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Countering Saddam"

Readers of influential, liberal De Volkskrant saw this editorial (12/18): "Even the use of force is no guarantee for success.. The bombings are...just a gamble and the Americans are aware of this. The United States claims that it can keep Saddam under control through military

intimidation; this containment policy might not be ideal, but given the circumstances, it is still the best option. Those criticizing the attacks should realize that no action would be worse because Saddam has proven that he exploits every extra inch he gets."

NORWAY: "Quite A Woman, But Attack Has Nothing To Do With Monica"

Foreign editor Oyvind Johnsen commented in social democratic Dagsavisen Arbeiderbladet (12/18): "What the Republicans are really asking is for Clinton to allow the presidential office to be paralyzed by Monicagate. If one takes the Monica case into account when making such decisions of war and peace, there has hardly been any appropriate moment for this dramatic security policy decision.... The attack on Baghdad has nothing to do with the Monica case!"

ROMANIA: "Right Or Wrong--No Clearcut Answer"

An editorial in centrist, business-oriented daily Curierul National asked (12/18), "Was Clinton's intention to switch the public's attention from the impeachment procedure? Did Saddam incite him to take action exactly in a moment when he was in a vulnerable position? It is hard to give a 'black or white' answer."

SERBIA-MONTENEGRO: "With A Stick Around The World"

The pro-regime Vecernje Novosti held (12/18), "The U.S. aggression against Iraq, joined by the ever-servile Great Britain, is the first glaring demonstration of the new strategy of NATO, according to which the only military alliance in the world reserves the right to use force anywhere in the world without consulting the United Nations. If this U.S. doctrine becomes the regular practice in the future, then the only thing left for the world to ask is who will be the next on the United States' list for retaliation. These threats still hang over Yugoslavia. From U.S. military centers and the NATO Headquarters one can constantly hear the ominous refrain that Yugoslavia and Serbia will be bombed if the 'situation in Kosovo deteriorates.'"

SLOVENIA: "Bombings Inevitable"

Left-of-center, independent Vecer told its readers (12/18): "Relying too much on Russia, China and France's support...Iraq certainly did not expect that the attacker would go all the way.... The bombing was inevitable because the Iraqi president 'understands no other language.'... Clinton's staff knows that--with such airstrikes--they cannot save the world from Saddam's arbitrariness and cruelty. Like George Bush seven years ago...Bill Clinton is not ready for a final solution of the problem."

SPAIN: "Excessive Punishment"

Liberal El Pais judged (12/18): "Lacking the prior UNSC authorization, Clinton's bombardment of Iraq has dubious legitimacy. [The attack] is disproportionate considering the limited threat that Iraq represents today, and it's of questionable effectiveness in attempting to eliminate Iraq's capability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. That objective is achievable only through on-site inspections, something that Saddam Hussein has obstructed almost to intolerable levels but which will now be even more difficult. For these reasons it is surprising that the Spanish government and other European allies have so quickly concluded that the attack was necessary.... Clinton hasn't said what happens after the beating of Iraq, but unless there is a popular uprising against the dictator, it still isn't clear who is the fox in this Operation Desert Fox."

SWEDEN: "Iraq Went Too Far"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter editorialized (12/18): "It always is a failure when one has to resort to military force. But what would have happened if Saddam, due to the international community's passiveness and inability to act, would have been allowed to continue his defiance (of the UN)?... However, in the long term this military action is worrisome. The international system of sanctions does not work. Iraq is only one sign of this.... New thinking is necessary and there is a need (for the world) to be active; the ones who are obvious threats to peace must not be able to sneak out of the international web."

UZBEKISTAN: "Bombs Hit Civilians, Not Saddam"

Hayrulla Nuriddinov aired this report on National TV's New Youth channel (12/17): "It was Saddam who didn't comply with the UN rules and it was Saddam who angered the United States. But the bombs didn't hit him, instead they hit peaceful civilians.... Kofi Annan promised to resolve the conflict, but will he have enough strength to stop the U.S. and UK bombings?... Clinton is lucky, because the bombing of Iraq distracted the U.S. House from Monicagate."

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Saddam Must Be Brought Down"

Senior analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in independent Haaretz (12/18): "Without toppling Saddam the conflict will not be resolved.... Although the prospects of attaining their objectives through the exclusive use of air strikes are not good, the Americans had no choice but to act.... Failure to move would have encouraged Saddam to be even more defiant and to further intimidate his neighbors."

"Clinton Wants Saddam"

Nationalist Hatzofe editorialized (12/18): "Let's hope the president does not heed his critics. His is the only way to weed out the plague. As long as Saddam rules Iraq he will jeopardize regional and international stability."

WEST BANK: "Another Aggression"

Independent, moderate Al-Quds commented (12/18): "The U.S. and Britain launched another aggression against the brotherly Iraqi people without caring about the position of other members in the UNSC and without showing any respect to the feelings of the Arab and Islamic nation. The Iraqi people have been suffering for the past years from the disasters of siege and economic sanctions.... We now see air strikes using the most developed missiles and bombers to complete the tragedy which is shocking the world conscience."

"Hundreds Of Missiles"

Semi-Official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida opined (12/18): "Our hearts are bleeding as we watch hundreds of missiles going over the heads of the Arabs to their destination to kill the Iraqi children and to destroy the capabilities of an Arab country that has maintained much of the Arab history and civilization."

KUWAIT: "We Want To Get Rid Of Saddam"

Independent Al-Seyassah argued in an editorial (12/18): "As Kuwaitis, we are not responsible for the American-British strike against Iraqi targets. We want to get rid of Saddam and his regime for one good reason, and that is we want to live in peace and security. We also want

our POWs back. These are legal demands. The existence of the current bloodthirsty Iraqi regime is a catastrophe, not only for Kuwait, but also for the Iraqi people who, for the past twenty years, are paying a hard price for Saddam's dictatorship."

EGYPT: "No One Believes American And British Pretexts"

Ahmed Bahgat, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram said (12/18): "While the honorable month of Ramadan is approaching, the United States and Britain hit Iraq. This is the U.S. present to the Arab world and to the starving Iraqi people. The aim of the strike is to oust Saddam--which will not happen; to save the American president from the Monicagate dilemma--this also will not happen; and to increase troops in the Gulf under the pretext of these battles--which has already happened. The fourth aim, which no one mentioned, is depriving the Gulf of its wealth, under the pretext of defending it. The strikes against Iraq eventually become gold thrown in the U.S.' pockets paid by the Gulf, which is suffering now from low oil prices. No one believes American and British pretexts. The world knows that Iraq fails to make bread and feed its children, so how can it succeed in making weapons of mass destruction?"

"Clinton And Saddam"

Samir Ragab, editor-in-chief of pro-government Al Gomhouriya, said (12/18): "It has become clear that Clinton and Saddam are two faces of one coin. They both practice hateful democracy. Clinton brushed Congress aside and insisted on hitting Iraq. Saddam has not learned previous lessons, doing what he likes regardless of the dangers surrounding his people. The bombing of Iraq confirms that justice in the world has ended indefinitely. Unfortunately, Britain will remain a toy in the U.S.' hand. What is the gain? Ousting Saddam? This is doubtful. Eliminating biological and chemical weapons? These were eliminated a long time ago. Returning the inspectors again for Iraqi obedience? By that time, the Iraq people will have nothing to hold to, and terrorism will erupt. Washington will certainly pay for it, as a mother of world terrorism."

JORDAN: "A Tyrannical Anglo-Saxon Aggression"

Center-left, influential Al-Dustur editorialized (12/18): "The U.S. and British military strike against Iraq is nothing but a tyrannical Anglo-Saxon aggression that lacks moral justification and international legitimacy. It is simply a vengeful action against a country that dared at one time to tamper with the oil industry and with Israel, the two most important components of Western interests in this region. No doubt, this aggression against a people besieged for eight years was planned for a long time now. We feel that this tyrannical aggression is meant against each and every individual in the Arab world, who have seen the American president bow low before Netanyahu only twenty-four hours before he became the ferocious lion against Iraq and its people."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Iraqi People's Suffering Falls On Iraqi Leadership"

London-based, internationally circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat said (12/18): "It is very clear that the Iraqi people's suffering falls completely upon the Iraqi leadership.... The Iraqi leadership has long been aware that this cat and mouse game with UNSCOM would ultimately lead to a military confrontation."

"Responsibility Of Iraqi Regime"

Riyadh-based, moderate Al Jazira said (12/18): "Even those who reject the continuous U.S.-UK military strikes against Iraq have not been able to free the Iraqi regime, especially Saddam Hussein, from responsibility for the current escalation.... We hope this confrontation will be the

last and that the Iraqi regime will surrender to international determination and will implement what it (the Iraqi regime) agrees to implement."

SYRIA: "Motives Behind American-British Aggression"

Government-owned Al-Baath (12/18) had this editorial: "This is a new gift for Israel, after the gift which was offered to Israel when the Palestinian authorities, in the presence of President Clinton, revoked the PLO Charter. Hence observers can conclude that the aggression was arranged when Clinton was in Israel, on the hope that the Zionist lobby in America would convince the American Congress not to vote on the impeachment of President Clinton."

"Why Iraq, Not Netanyahu?"

Government-owned Tishrin said (12/18): "If Clinton is concerned about UN resolutions, Israel--not Iraqi civilians--should be the target of the American missiles and airplanes. And if Clinton is only concerned about deferring the U.S. House of Representatives debate on his impeachment, the disaster is much bigger because Israel and Zionism--not the Iraqi people--are behind Monicagate that destroyed President Clinton's reputation. The worst thing is that the American Secretary of Defense Cohen has told Arabs and Muslims that the aggression will continue in Ramadan until the Americans achieve their goals."

BAHRAIN: "Slanderous Use Of Force"

Semiofficial Akhbar Al-Khalij had this by chief editor Dr. Hilal Al-Shaiji (12/18): "Not a single Arab, Muslim or impartial person can accept such slanderous use of force by the Anglo-American alliance against the people of Iraq.... A good and realistic analysis of the relations between Iraq and UNSCOM, which is chaired by Butler, a dishonest agent, surely does not justify the use of force in this fierce way.... The American-British aggression against Iraq also shows the two countries' disrespect for the feelings of the Arabs."

MOROCCO: "Disaster"

A front page editorial in government-coalition Liberation said (12/18): "America, the friend of all dictatorships, does not fool us with its claims at opposing a tyrannical mode of government, since America fights neither for human rights nor for democracy but only for its own interests."

"Aggression Against Iraq Is Aggression Against The Arab Nation"

A front page editorial in government-coalition Al Ittihad Al Ishtiraki said (12/18): "This deceitful aggression has occurred within the framework of a U.S. campaign against Arab peoples' interests and an attempt by the U.S. administration to confront internal crises which threaten the U.S. president with impeachment.... It is a violation against international law and international legitimacy. "

TUNISIA: "For A Peaceful Solution"

Government-owned As-Sahafa had this editorial (12/18): "We view the air strikes against Iraq with preoccupation and intense concern.... They will not lead to a solution to the problem but will cause more suffering for the Iraqi people. Tunisia stands with the Iraqi people and has called on many occasions for the international embargo to be lifted.... The international community should work to stop the air strikes and renew diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue peacefully."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "A Dangerous Precedent"

Commentary in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin Ribao, 12/18) asserted: "Without UN authorization and regardless of generally recognized principles governing international relations, the United States has set a dangerous and very bad precedent by unilaterally using force against a sovereign state.... There is no legal basis for the actions of the United States. It is typical hegemonism and power politics to willfully attack a weak country by relying on powerful military capability, or to topple a legitimate government."

HONG KONG: "The Only Option"

The independent South China Morning Post's editorial maintained (12/18): "The U.S. and British strategy must now be to keep Saddam in a box, using repeated military action to weaken his grip and ensure that Iraq is in no position to threaten its neighbors. That is not a particularly attractive policy to pursue. But it is better than a discredited system of UN weapons inspections that has been repeatedly proved to be such a failure."

"UN Must Have Ultimate Say"

The independent Hong Kong Standard asked (12/18): "What legal right does the United States or anybody else have to wage war against another state without the sanction of the UN, particularly if such action is seen to be taken on behalf of the UN?"

JAPAN: "Iraq Invites Air Strikes"

An editorial in top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri observed (12/18): "Allowing Iraq to maintain the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction would be a serious threat to peace and stability in the Gulf region and the rest of the world. Iraq's repeated violations of UN resolutions alone are responsible for triggering the military action."

AUSTRALIA: "Standing Up To Saddam"

Sydney's national, business-oriented Australian Financial Review declared (12/18): "Contrary to the skepticism generated by the close proximity to the vote on his impeachment in the U.S. Congress, and some lack of clarity about the ultimate strategic objectives, the decision yesterday by President Bill Clinton to launch air strikes against Iraq...was right. And Australia is right to support it.... Those who call for more negotiation or appeasement of Saddam must acknowledge that to say 'no' to America would be to acquiesce in Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world community. The world's task now, however, must be to go beyond the post-Gulf War cycle of Saddam's perfidies and periodic military intervention to a more lasting resolution of the Iraq problem."

INDONESIA: "Iraqis Victimized Again"

Muslim intellectual Republika held (12/18): "Without warning, the United States bombarded Baghdad yesterday.... War, no matter where or when, always kills innocent people. But what happened early Thursday defies common sense because the United States should have sought other avenues, especially now as the UN Security Council is seeking the best solution to the conflict."

MALAYSIA: "U.S. Grows More Evil"

Government-influenced, Malay-language Utusan Malaysia insisted (12/18): "The Islamic world should harshly criticize the United States for its actions against Baghdad.... Whatever reason given by President Bill Clinton, it will not wash the blood off his hands.... The Islamic world has the right to ask--why is the United States so fast to react towards Islamic countries and communities, but not towards Israel and other groups which oppress Muslims as in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? The United States has tried to portray itself as the world's strongman, but has become increasingly evil in making Islamic countries its targets when these countries do not bow to its wishes."

"World Bully Takes Extreme Action"

In the view of government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian (12/18): "Just to divert attention from internal matters, Clinton would prefer the sight of dead bodies and a destroyed civilization, which will be Iraq.... These matters must be resolved at the discussion table. The use of military force is not going to bring any benefit."

NEW ZEALAND: "Saddam Learns The Hard Way"

Readers of the conservative Dominion saw this editorial (12/18): "The only surprise about the latest air strikes against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is that they have been delayed so long. After months of Iraqi evasion, prevarication and obstruction aimed at preserving as much of his arsenal of mass destruction as Saddam can manage, the United States and Britain have at last sent a message in the only language a dictator can understand.... It is always a pity when diplomacy fails and ordinary people suffer for a tyrant such as Saddam. Unfortunately, there will be no solution till they are rid of him."

SOUTH KOREA: "Confrontation Between U.S. And Iraq"

Leading, conservative Chosun Ilbo concluded (12/18): "Nobody but Hussein provided grounds for President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq. Since the United States so far has been clear about its intention--of launching an attack without warning when Iraq does not keep its promise, it therefore is hard to criticize Washington over the latest development.... While it is fortunate for the Clinton administration to have the support of American people, there nevertheless is a suspicion about the president's motivation--that he may well be taking advantage of the Iraqi situation for his own political reasons.... President Hussein should comply with weapons inspections, so that the whole matter can be resolved peacefully."

TAIWAN: "Wag The Dog"

An editorial in the conservative, pro-unification United Daily News argued (12/18):

"The most striking and contentious question about Clinton's order to launch air strikes against Iraq yesterday is its timing.... It seems that, intentionally or not, they have always been connected to critical moments when [Mr. Clinton's] political career was at risk.... Even though Clinton has proven that he is a master at the control of political timing, it is doubtful whether he will be able to use this Iraqi crisis to alleviate his impeachment problems."

THAILAND: "Patience Expires For Defiant Iraq"

The top-circulation, moderately conservative Bangkok Post emphasized (12/18): "Only Iraq must bear responsibility for the military attacks. For nearly eight years, Mr. Saddam has had every chance to keep his word to disarm.... The continuing Iraqi hunt for ways to get around, cheat, limit and lie about its weapons programs had to end. With ample time to end the problem peacefully, Iraq chose to confront."

"Clinton's Act Of Political Desperation"

The lead editorial of the independent, English-language Nation asserted (12/18): "The Iraqi air strikes...are a matter of life and death.... If the attack on Iraq is intended to help Clinton save his political skin, impeachment would be the least he deserves."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Attack To Be Condemned"

According to the independent Bangladesh Observer (12/18): "Watchers of the crisis around the world plausibly discern a 'connection' with the impeachment question [and the air strikes on Iraq.]... With the sanctions already [placed on Iraq] for the last eight years...any further attack on a people reduced to such extremities of distress and deprivation is out of the question."

INDIA: "Buying Time"

An editorial in the centrist Asian Age (12/18), "This is a sad day for the United Nations and the world, said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, expressing his helplessness in stopping the U.S.-And British-led attack on iraq.... The last missile attack was when the attack on iraq has come on the eve of the impeachment proceedings.... The impunity with which the attack took place demonstrates the power that the United States has acquired in this uniglobal world to not just police the countries which it dubs as rogue states but also to take violent action when its views and suggestions are thwarted.... It is imperative that the developing world takes a stand against this unilateral action and exerts pressure through the united nations and other fora available to it, to make the United States and Britain...give up violent action for the peace initiative."

"Without UN Consent"

Madras' independent Kannada-language daily Kannada Prabha opined (12/18), "America's desire and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's adamant attitude are the reasons for the war..... Are the transgressions of UN resolutions passed during the Gulf war (seven years ago) and after the cause? If so, is it right to wage a war without the concurrence of UN of such transgressions or waiting for its approval? In this regard, it is imperative that the UN should immediately take a bold stand because the present war is not like the one waged to liberate Kuwait. It will be a war and will be going on till Iraq surrenders. The UN should not give room for such developments."

NEPAL: "Making War Will Not Bring Peace"

Government-owned Gorkhapatra judged (12/18): "The U.S.-led action against Iraq was expected with the [submission] of Butler's report. However, this type of attack will not facilitate the disarmament of Iraq as expected by the international community. War and force will not help the possibility of establishing peace."

AFRICA

SOUTH AFRICA: "Double Standard"

Black, independent Sowetan (12/18) commented: "The American and British raid on Iraq is an application of double standards that the world should condemn. It can be argued, too, that the raid flouts UN protocol. Both countries, especially the U.S., are increasingly acting with impunity as the world's policemen."

"Need For Broad International Backing"

The independent Business Day (12/18) editorialized: "Inevitably, the U.S. missile strike against Iraq has become linked in the public mind with the threat of impeachment hanging over President Bill Clinton. But the questions the strike raises about Middle Eastern conflict are at the heart of the matter.... The bombing is unlikely to have much effect on Iraq's attitude towards the UN.... Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has survived all-out war and years of crippling sanctions... Indeed, by allowing others to portray Saddam as the victim of imperialist bullying, U.S. attempts to force his hand may perversely strengthen him.... In containing Saddam, there can be no substitute for collective approach with broad international backing."

NIGERIA: "Too Drastic Action"

The respected Lagos-based, independent Guardian said (12/18): "Iraq will have itself to blame for the misery Hussein has again invited upon his people. Having said this, we still believe that the option of military strikes is too drastic."

"A Condemnable Act"

The Kaduna-based, federal government-owned New Nigerian said (12/18): "The attack came barely two days to the start of Ramadan, the Muslim month long fasting period.... We join all peace-loving peoples of the world in demanding an immediate cessation of these attacks, which were clearly designed to divert attention from the impending impeachment of President Bill Clinton."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Drop A Bomb To Stop A Bomb"

The leading Globe and Mail (12/17) observed: "The United States was left with no choice but to strike at Iraq.... It's a rerun, but with a difference: This time, the threats are being carried out.... After the air attacks, the world will go back to muddling through on Iraqi compliance with the UN inspections: holding out carrots, brandishing sticks, supporting anti-Hussein insurgents and promising to unleash the dogs of aerial war so long as demands remain unmet. Washington should attempt no less, but no more."

ARGENTINA: "Weapons Talk Again"

An editorial in daily-of-record La Nacion read (12/17): "Once again, weapons are history's key players and express the shameful defeat of dialogue and negotiation.... [Clinton] pointed out that Saddam...has shown that he is ready to use [weapons of mass destruction].... Undoubtedly, the U.S. president's confirmations are true. Nobody could doubt, at this point, the danger Saddam Hussein poses to the Middle East and to the entire world. Nevertheless, humanity asks itself with vexation and strong doubts, whether the road chosen is the most correct one to free the international community of this threat.... In the meantime, the world directs its hopeful look towards the UNSC."

BRAZIL: "An Opportune Time For An Attack"

Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo's Washington correspondent Paulo Sotero argued (12/17): "Saddam's sudden resurgence...could not be more opportune for Clinton. It happened when the U.S. president had apparently exhausted all the chances to avoid the approval of at least one of the four articles of impeachment that the House's Justice Committee recommended against him.... It is uncertain, however, whether the attack against Iraq will affect the outcome of the voting or Clinton's chances to remain in power after the impeachment approval."

CHILE: "A Suspicious Military Intervention"

Santiago's financial daily El Diario opined (12/18), "The U.S. military intervention in Iraq has raised suspicion among international observers.... The international community has the right to defend itself from those who are a threat to peace, but any decision in this regard must be made by a multilateral organization and not by a nation alone, regardless of how powerful it is. The U.S. decision to attack will not only have consequences for the country directly involved, but could also be the beginning of an increase in conflicts in that region. It is not clear if Iraq will have the support of the Arab nations this time. However, it is evident that in that part of the world dwell religious conflicts that could have unknown consequences for humankind."

EL SALVADOR: "We Support U.S./UK Action"

TV channel 33 (all-news) reported (12/17) the Salvadoran government reaction as conveyed in a press statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Relations: "The government of El Salvador supports the actions undertaken by the governments of the United States and Great Britain in light of the Government of Iraq's non-compliance with the accords reached with the Secretary General of the United Nations, by not permitting inspectors of the Special United Nations Disarmament Committee full, unconditional and immediate access in order to verify the elimination of its arsenals of mass destruction in that country. "

MEXICO: "Clinton's Barbarity"

Left-of-center La Jornada judged (12/18): "To justify themselves, the aggressors [The United States and UK] have explained their national security reasons, as well as the supposed need to defend iraq's neighbors from aggression.... They also mentioned their determination to neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction with the pretext that iraq is the only nation to have used those weapons. None of these excuses pass the test of common sense. Iraq is currently a starving and devastated country incapable of menacing the national security of the United States or the UK.... Air strikes against Iraq will strengthen not weaken [Saddam's] bloody and corrupt regime. The rest of the world sees Clinton's action as a return to barbarism. And places Washington in the old and dreaded position of self-proclaimed policeman of the world."

PARAGUAY: "Violence Is Justified"

Major-circulation ABC Color had this editorial (12/17): "Violence among nations rarely has a valid justification. The armed conflict initiated last night by the American and English air forces against Iraq is one of those cases where violence is justified, considering that it is an action of self-defense by humankind against an extremist and perverse government that in more than one occasions has put under risk world peace and, even the survival of humankind; this is the case of the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein."

URUGUAY: "Impeachment Process May Loose Strength"

In its daily column entitled "Topic of the Day," political/business daily El Observador published this editorial (12/17), "For geopolitical reasons, and specifically to counterbalance Iran's hostility against the United States, Bush decided to let Saddam remain in power, presumably because he thought that he would have more control over him after his military defeat.... Bill Clinton inherited this situation and--in light of Saddam's defiant posture of non-fulfillment of the sanctions imposed by the United Nations--decided to intervene. The outcome of this attack is uncertain. Clinton's idea of unifying Iraq's opposition forces is a dream, as these groups have demonstrated that they are not only divided but inefficient. Clinton's action will, at least, have one benefit for him. In the midst of a national crisis, the attempt to start the impeachment process for the Lewinsky case will lose strength."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/18/98

# # #