Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ALGERIA: "Iraq Deserves Better Government"

Moderate El Khabar stressed (11/22): "Iraq deserves a better government. The Iraqi people deserve to be represented by a power that is not killing and torturing, executing.... [However], we have not said that we would remove Saddam. We have only said that we would work with all elements of the opposition to strengthen them and to work in the long run for a government which would be more representative and more democratic in Iraq."

BAHRAIN: "U.S. Hegemony"

Semi-official Akhbar Al-Khaleej ran this comment (12/6) by Hafed Al-Shaikh: "When Americans say that their target now is demolishing the Iraqi regime, the only interpretation for that is that the suffering of the Iraqi people continues endlessly no matter what concessions the regime offers and, simultaneously, the Americans loot Gulf countries' wealth, either through selling them weapons, keeping them in a state of unsuitability and fear, which requires expenses for security, or through American companies' monopoly under the cover of the imperialist globalization of economy."

"Change Of Iraqi Leadership Concerns Iraqi People Alone"

Semi-independent Al-Ayam published this comment (12/2) by Mohammed Fadhel: "The Iraqi opposition's weakness compels it to publicly cooperate with the Americans and the British, but this in fact undermines it. The Iraqi opposition suffers great harm when it gives precedence to the external elements in the process of changing the regime in Iraq.... The issue of changing the Iraqi regime, or not changing it, concerns the Iraqi people alone."

EGYPT: "The Importance Of Iraq's Oil"

Abdel Azim Hammad, columnist, pro-government daily Al Ahram (12/7): "Securing oil sources and transfer will remain an American strategic demand--beside keeping Israel superior--in the Middle East. The United States has been able so far to contain all the dangers facing oil sources and transfer in the Gulf, though with a high military and political cost. However, the danger has not disappeared completely. That is why Washington has adopted a strategy to diversify oil sources and transfer, called the strategy of limiting dependence on the Hormus strait, which drains the United States financially. The importance of the Iraqi oil thus emerged. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves and its oil is easily transferred to the Mediterranean. For Iraqi oil to be available for this strategy, the sanctions must be lifted. For the sanctions to be lifted the current Iraqi regime must be replaced by a pro-West regime that accepts Israel and a confederation. Does that explain why Washington has changed its strategy from containing Saddam to seeking to overthrow him?"

"Today Iraq, Tomorrow Some Other Country"

Salah Eldin Hafez, contributor, pro-government daily Al Ahram (12/2): "Truly we have differences with the Iraqi regime, but this does not mean that we support a foolish policy aimed to oust Saddam and flagrantly intervene in the country's internal affairs. We should remember also that what happens with Iraq today, will be done with the same foreign scenario with another country."

"Ousting Another Government Very Difficult"

Columnist Maha Abdel Fattah said in pro-government Al Akhbar (11/25): "Ousting another government and replacing it with a democratic regime is very difficult. American policy today is oppressive and forceful at times. American political thinkers have come to the conclusion that eliminating Saddam's regime is not an American government's concern because the only way to invade Iraq and arrest Saddam amid Iraqi cheers is in American movies. This is an imaginary solution because it involves bloody risks and cannot get public or political support in the United States or in the world. Assassination is another option, but it is a violation of a previous presidential decision banning political assassinations. Therefore, Washington is expected only to tighten the political and military containment of Saddam depending on armed Kurdish and Shiite groups. Another solution is that Washington will help create a sundry government from opposition troops under American protection, to be recognized later; this is with the assumption that Washington is capable of uniting the opposition. Without American military support, this opposition army will be slaughtered by Saddam's Republican Guards. Some people in Washington are still boasting of their imminent ability to crush Saddam."

"Saddam's Conspiracy To Waste Arab Money"

Wagih Abu Zikry, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar said (11/20): "Saddam is playing cat and mouse with the UNSC. With all due respect, the UNSC is an American council. In every crisis Saddam creates, the costs are paid to the United States by the Gulf countries. Saddam seems to be part of a conspiracy to waste Arab money. Saddam is under American military control and is forced to implement UNSC resolutions. Some say that the solution is conciliation between Kuwait and Iraq, but this too romantic for Saddam. Saddam's wealth could break the blockade over the Iraqi people, but he has been exposing them to hunger and sickness for eight years. If Saddam has a sense of honor or humanity, he would cede power."

KUWAIT: "Coordinated Scenario Between Iraq And Americans"

Independent Al-Qabas ran this (11/25) by Mohammed Al-Sheebani: "Scaring of the Gulf countries by America did not succeed this time because they felt recent events

were a coordinated scenario between the Iraqi regime and the Americans. Cohen's Gulf tour was a 'play' that [confirmed] his government's policy. Saddam is not stupid enough to use weapons of mass destruction against Kuwait or the region, because he is keen for his life, and because his interests with his 'ally' are not fully accomplished nor will they ever be."

"Are U.S. And Iraq Linked Through Mutual Interests?"

Independent Al-Rai A'am published this letter to President Clinton by Adel Abbas Al-Khdhari (11/29): "Your excellency, you have achieved superb success on the level of domestic policy. Your successes domestically were not affected by the of Lewinsky or the Jones scandals, because you have kept your promises to the American people. However, this does not stop me from directing criticism at your foreign policy. Particularly towards Iraq. The American troops could have finished Saddam on many occasions. We have the right to ask: Are there secret relations between you and Iraq? Is there a [hidden] policy between you and Iraq? Are there any contacts between the American intelligence and Saddam Hussein? When you intended to strike Iraq, you massed troops and made us think that we are about to get rid of this oppressor. But, you retreated militarily. No decisive military action was taken which would deter Baghdad. We don't like this cat and mouse game. If we do not have political stability, we will never have economic stability. We concluded security agreements with you and with Britain and France and we have bought massive amounts of weapons."

"Washington's Endeavors Far From Clear"

Abdullah Al-Shayji (independent/critic of U.S.policy) wrote in independent Al-Watan (11/21): "Washington's endeavors toward Iraq are far from clear. Overthrowing governments. Contravening international laws. Nevertheless, American officials expressed their resolve to do so. Two significant remarks are clear. The first is represented in the clear shift of policy in dealing with the Iraqi file. After America concentrated on the sanctions to keep Saddam in a box. The American president has categorically declared that a 'new government' is the best solution. It is impossible to topple a suppressive regime like Saddam's by remote control. Split the Iraqi opposition or apply the tomahawk diplomacy. The second, consists of commentaries in the American press which were tough on the American administration. Saddam's whims have become recurrent and boring. These whims have cost us so far around $7 billion."

ISRAEL: "Mutually Assured Destruction May Not Be Enough"

Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens wrote in the independent Jerusalem Post (11/20): "Saddam Hussein's obstinate refusal to let the UN inspectors do their job is a pretty good indication of his plans and ambitions. But even when punitive air strikes are launched against Iraq, it is unlikely that they will succeed in putting an end to his attempts to maintain an arsenal of ballistic missiles and non-conventional warheads. Unless the international community conducts a concerted effort to halt the proliferation of ballistic missiles and non-conventional weapons, much of the world will be faced with threats from petty dictators or religious fanatics in possession of weapons that can wreak mass destruction."

JORDAN: "Interests Are More Important Than Ethics"

Saleh Qallab, chief editor of independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm, commented (11/30): "The United States has received more abuse than anyone else, to the extent that we scarcely have a single abusive term left in the dictionary which we have not already leveled at it. Even if the millions of Arabs, the exact number of whom we do not know because every state inflates its figures as it pleases, all stood behind Colonel Muammar Qadhafi and cursed America, which our Iranian brothers now prefer to woo, it wouldn't be anything more than letting off steam. But, as the hurling of abuse continues from all who wish, those who have contacts in Iraq should warn the leadership in Baghdad that it might not emerge safe and sound from every one of its exercises in brinkmanship. The Iraqi leadership should be warned not to rely on the reassuring noises emanating from neighboring countries, or even from major powers, because interests are more powerful than ethics, and all these states may change their positions if they discover that it serves their interests."

MOROCCO: "UNSCOM's Mission Impossible"

Government-coalition L'Opinion asked (11/22): "What does Washington want? To destroy Iraq even if it leads the region to fire and blood? To isolate Baghdad on the international arena and to see the end of Saddam? Whatever the case, Washington does not hesitate to make hostages out of the Iraqi people, since it seems clear that the embargo will never end! We know that UNSCOM is a toy in the hands of Washington and note that it is not Baghdad that has prevented UNSCOM from carrying out its mission, but Washington.... The United States wants to destroy what remains of Iraq, and will use the UN and UNSCOM to harass Saddam and violate international law."

QATAR: "GCC Should Form A Committee To Monitor Iraqi Compliance"

Outspoken political science professor and former editor-in-chief of Al-Sharq, Mohammed Al-Misfir, wrote (12/5) in Al-Watan, "While former British Home Secretary Douglas Hogg stresses the importance of Gulf countries' being self-reliant in security, former U.S. national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines the importance of reliance on the American

presence for Gulf security.... We should notice that the differing views of allies on military presence in the region...may harm our security.... The fact that United States has decided to maintain its military presence in the region cannot be disputed.... This has lead to linking the Gulf to Western security instead of Arab security. Our security policies are therefore planned outside, with U.S. hegemony, creating a future for the Gulf that runs contrary to Arab national security.

"(In Iraq,) people are facing a slow genocide unprecedented in human history and caused by unjust sanctions imposed by the United States and Britain, under the guise of the UN. This great nation (Iraq) has been contributing to human civilization for 1,700 years and during its modern history has helped most Arab causes and fought beside Arab brethren.... To find a way out of the current crisis, I can only urge the GCC summit to form a committee made up of opinion makers or members of the new GCC consultative body to go to Baghdad and find out for themselves the extent to which Iraq has complied with UN resolutions. We should not continue to depend on foreign sources of information."

"Under The Microscope"

Abdullah Al-Nafisi wrote in semi-independent Al-Rayah (11/21): "The three choices the United States has in dealing with Iraq are difficult. They are: continued sanctions, repeated (air) strikes, and comprehensive strikes. The three are all very difficult, and it seems that the best way out for the Americans is to leave the matter for the UN to deal with. The difficulty with the United States handling of the Iraqi affair is the unclear border between American and Zionist interests. This is complicated by the religious and ideological makeup of the team that surrounds President Clinton. It is not a coincidence that they are all Zionists."

SAUDI ARABIA: "The Call To Strike Iraq Is Rejected"

Riyadh-based, conservative Al-Riyadh had this editorial (11/24): "The call to strike Iraq is rejected...because the desired ends will not be realized. In other words, Saddam Hussein simply might chose to be a tribal member (to seek a save haven in the desert).... The United States is aware that the (Iraqi) opposition is composed of dispersed factions and individuals and lacks a common ground, even though it agrees on removing Saddam.... Some believe that openness toward the current situation (regime), with reasonable restrictions, might provide the domestic opposition a powerful impetus to move.... In contradiction to the sanctions regime, Saddam's positions have been fortified even further, and have multiplied his control over power and people and deprived others from engaging in effective action.... The repeated confrontations between Saddam Hussein and the United States remain a tedious political play, and are disavowed, perhaps, because the ends will not be accomplished and because the whole game is an unacceptable reality for the Iraqi people and other Arab and international powers."

TUNISIA: "Toward A More Fair International System"

An editorial by co-editor-in-chief Fatma Karray in independent As-Sabah held (11/25): "There has been much discussion about the work of the Security Council and its structure.... The Council clearly has undue power. Thus, it undermines the importance of the UNGA...and allows its members...to commit injustices against other nations. Indeed, the United States has become the arbitrator of all international disputes that have come before the Council since the fall of the former Soviet Union.... Washington has used its membership as a tool to impose its will...on Iraq, Libya, the former Yugoslavia and Somalia.... The Security Council must become more representative. Its membership should be widened to include Arab, African and Northeast Asian countries...that is, if major powers are interested in international stability."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "UNSC, No More Than A Tool Of U.S."

Largest Arabic daily Al-Khaleej noted (12/1), "The impression Secretary Koffi Annan had following the recent crisis with Iraq was that Washington and London will move quickly without wasting any time in striking Iraq without any prior notice in case any future crisis erupts between Iraq and the UN. It seems that either the secretary general approves this, or he has lost the power to use international law that would restrain U.S. hostilities. By this Washington is the only player that can decide whether Baghdad is complying with the UN or not. The Security Council is no more than an international decorative tool led by the United States.... If the UN chief has given his duties and role to the U.S. how would the Arabs react in light of this? Will they give their hopes and accept the U.S. hegemony as fait accompli?"

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Saddam Wields Terror--And Feigns Respect"

The liberal Guardian said (11/25): "Since 1991 President Saddam has used a two-pronged approach to control the most rebellious regions, including Kerbala. As terror, arrests and state executions continue, the state has mounted an outward show of tolerance and respect, particularly towards the Shiite majority. Iraqis fear another uprising even more than a U.S.-led air attack."

"Saddam Has Had His Chance"

Conservative tabloid Daily Star observed (11/23): "Saddam Hussein has had his chance. Only a week ago the Iraqi dictator promised to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors. Yet already he is playing silly games again. It is obvious now he's never going to change his ways. President Clinton and Tony Blair can't afford to let him make fools of the West any longer. They must finish the job they so nearly started nine days ago--and blast his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons to kingdom come. And ideally him with them. How about tonight?"

FRANCE: "Saddam's Worst Enemy: Madeleine Albright"

Michel Colomes stressed in right-of-center weekly Le Point (11/27): "The head of U.S. diplomacy has made it clear that nothing will stop a U.S. strike if Iraq plays another of its little games.... Madeleine Albright has never been able to accept that the United States should be put in such a historically unique and uncomfortable position as the one it is in since George Bush decided to prematurely end the Gulf War.... American frustration at being kept from directly destroying Saddam's arsenal remains high."

"Good Accounting Of Subversion"

Arnaud de La Grange wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (11/23): "In order to kill a dictator from a distance, Washington has only two weapons: cruise missiles or the anger of populations. The first option has revealed its limits.... Concerning Iraq, the option of rebellion is the option which remains. Who will be the rebels? As usual, American gets them at the borders: the Kurds in the north, and the Shiites in the south. The problem is that all these people have different cultures and different objectives.... In order to motivate them more, Washington will give hundreds of millions of dollars."

"Cooperation Is The Only Solution"

Pierre Haski said in left-of-center Liberation (11/20): "In Washington as in Paris, everyone is convinced that the next time Saddam Hussein triggers a crisis he will not be spared.... Instead

of waiting for his next faux-pas, we should use this period to try and get out of this vicious circle of antagonism between the United States and Iraq. Saddam Hussein is making a mistake if he believes he has the upper hand in a tug-of-war with the United States. Washington on the other hand is wrong to think it can trigger a credible opposition to the Iraqi regime.... The solution resides in something Saddam Hussein has not yet wanted to test: pushing the logic of the disarmament imposed by the UN to the extreme...and putting the United States in the impossible position of continuing with an embargo which has become a collective punishment.... The ball is in Saddam's court."

GERMANY: "The Sanctions On Iraq Must Go"

Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (11/24) carried this editorial by Andrea Nuesse: "All sides involved in the Iraq crisis are fed up with the cat-and-mouse game, but it will go on as long as the world continues to stick to the rigid rules of the policy it developed in 1991-92.... This policy has failed. The embargo as a means of pressure on Saddam has totally failed....

"A lifting of the embargo would hardly have any influence on weapons inspections. Only the threat to use force has had an effect as a means of pressure.... But in this respect we must also raise the question whether the controls should continue in their current form. Iraq is not totally incorrect with its complaints that UNSCOM is under U.S. and not UN control. We still remember the high-handed interviews of UNSCOM leader Richard Butler.... UNSCOM is no longer beyond all doubts. This is why the responsible officials should think about more transparency and about a change of personnel between two crises. At the same time, UNSCOM should get the right to reveal the names of arms suppliers which it found in Iraqi dossiers, and to tighten sanctions because of banned cooperation.

"The international community with the United States at the helm should show the courage to start a rethinking process, keeping in mind that neither sanctions nor the embargo can prevent Saddam Hussein from canceling his cooperation with UNSCOM. But he can no longer justify it as an attempt to force the relaxation of sanctions. And the West can again have a clear conscience."

RUSSIA: "U.S. Plans Are Against The Law"

Valentin Kunin of official government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta (12/2) said about the U.S. Congress' Iraq Liberation Act: "To call a spade a spade, the Washington-announced plans to overthrow the government of a sovereign state are against all norms of international law."

"Cutting The Iraqi Knot Won't Solve The Problem"

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (11/25) ran this comment by Vladimir Lapsky: "The results of the work UN weapons inspectors have done over years are rather modest, while the operation itself looks like a hide-and-seek game.... Lately Iraq's friends have been increasingly less willing to support it. Baghdad has become a major source of danger in the Middle East, and Saddam has been an eyesore to Washington.... The British, as well as the Americans, are serious about toppling Saddam Hussein, oblivious of the fact that he is a legitimately elected president, and to decide whether or not he will remain in power is a prerogative of the people of that country. Iraq is too complicated a knot--just cutting it will not solve the problem. Patience, reason and compromise are essential, as is realizing that Saddam will stop at no sacrifices to satisfy his ambition. It is time to think hard about the anti-Iraq sanctions--are they really effective? The countries and politicians who have at various dramatic moments opposed the use of force against Saddam should now urge him finally to listen to the UN and the world public. Playing with fire cannot go on indefinitely."

DENMARK: "In The Long Run"

Center-left Politiken's editorial said (11/24) "The U.S.-British initiative is a welcome gesture because it points to a long-term solution of the problem of Saddam Hussein. This cannot be achieved by missiles and other types of air-borne punishment every time the Iraqi dictator refuses to comply with international agreements. In fact, that approach may cement Saddam Hussein's position as a martyr.... It would be an additional advantage for their new approach if the United States and Great Britain gave up their resistance towards revoking the embargo on Iraq to allow the suffering population to gain access to necessary food and medicine. Improving the standard of living in Iraq will undoubtedly prove to be the best fertilizer in terms of strengthening an opposition in the country."

SWEDEN: "Pressure Must Remain"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter had this editorial (11/24): "Political experts are of the opinion that Iraq is trying to wear out the UN Security Council by pressuring the international community into a position where the inspections are called off even before all has been revealed. Such a development would be devastating. One may only for a second imagine what Saddam Hussein might do, should he with a CBW capability slip out of the net of the international community."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "United States And Rogue Countries"

An article by veteran journalist M V Kamath in the Mumbai-based left-of-center Free Press Journal (12/3) : "The United States did not become entangled in the Gulf to defend the principle of sovereignty or to restore Kuwait's rulers to their genial department stores and palaces.... Rather American forces were sent to protect (America's) access to oil. As simple as that. If Saddam Hussein had been a willing tool of the United States in the wholesale looting of oil by Western countries, not only would he have been spared, he would even have been lionized in the Western press as God's special gift to the Arab world. That Saddam has chosen not to be an American stooge riles Washington no end....

"India has a role to play in Middle East affairs that it has been reluctant to play in part because it does not have the right kind of leadership. Vajpayee is no Nehru...but that does not mean that we have to sit back and watch as the United States plays ducks and drakes with the lives of innocent Iraqis.... India, it is readily conceded, cannot change the map of the Middle East, nor can it undo history. But surely it can organize world opinion to make Washington behave."

"No End Game In Iraq"

The nationalist Hindustan Times had this analysis by Washington correspondent N.C. Menon (11/23): "As another confrontation with...Iraq ends after running its predictable course, two things become crystal clear: Baghdad's decision to back down and let the UN weapons inspectors back is a far better outcome for the U.S. than air strikes would have been. Second, Washington has no end game in sight in Iraq, no clear idea of who or what it is defending, and no notion of an exit strategy from a region where no vital U.S. interest is at risk. How does the balance sheet stack up for Saddam? With his latest throw of the dice, he has once again moved to center stage in world affairs. If he can ride out the storm, as he has done on previous occasions, he becomes a hero to the radical Arab masses.

"How can the U.S. prevent yet another crisis from erupting in 1999?... In addition to wielding the stick when warranted, the Clinton administration would be well advised to give Saddam Hussein a reason to cooperate with UNSCOM.... Disparaging remarks about Saddam Hussein

by U.S. leaders might play well domestically, but hardly constitute good policy.... President Clinton should state instead that if Iraq works meaningfully with the UN inspectors, he will suspend disbursement of the 97 million to the Iraqi opposition."

PAKISTAN: "Iraq's Dicey Game"

An editorial in the centrist News held (11/26): "To be fair to Baghdad, its impatience with the slow-moving process of certifying elimination of weapons of mass destruction is not entirely unjustified. The lifting of eight-year old sanctions, in particular the crippling oil embargo, hinges on the report of the UN weapons inspectors, who Iraq alleges are biased and deliberately dragging their feet to prolong its ordeal.... While Saddam Hussein may not be in a position to take the collision course, the Americans will also find it counterproductive to interfere in matters that are the sole prerogative of the people of Iraq and not the business of any foreign country."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Iraqi No. 2 Figure Nearly Assassinated"

Xinhua said in official Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 11/25): "There is indication that the armed attacker, who wanted to kill the vice chairman of the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council, has connections with the Iraqi opposition faction.... More important is that the incident occurred at the same time that American authorities were having heated internal debates over how to 'get rid of' Saddam Hussein."

"A Tragic Scene"

Liu Shun, Huang Xingwei and Gu Zhenglong said in Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 11/25): "An Iraqi official said sanctions had brought ever-increasing suffering to the Iraqi people, especially the Iraqi children. For eight years, there have been children dying every day because of the shortage of medical supplies. One indignant woman said 'What on earth is the U.S. going to do? Where are the human rights they have been advocating?'"

HONG KONG: "Iraq: Never-Ending Crisis"

The independent Hong Kong Standard said in its editorial (11/22): "The world is tiring of this game of cat-and-mouse which has become a trial of strength between Washington and Baghdad. One reason for this lies in the question which has hung over dealings with Iraq since Saddam emerged as a threat to regional peace: If he remains in power, can anything really be expected to change, and, if he was killed or driven from office, who would take his place? The Iraqi opposition is weak and divided. Having been largely in exile for so long, it lacks roots in its own country. A military coup to overthrow Saddam will produce an equally bad regime. The Kurdish opposition is fuelled by dreams of a breakaway state that could produce regional instability. Washington appears to have no answers--perhaps for the simple reason there is no answer. But the problem of what happens next cannot be ignored as the backdrop to the recurrent issue of military action. As matters stand, whatever takes place in the air and on the ground, we risk seeing the same scenario played out not only this winter, but into the next millennium."

INDONESIA: "Iraq Again Focus Of Attention After Assassination Attempt"

Leading independent Kompas editorialized (11/26): "The attempt to assassinate Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Izzat Ibrahim again made Iraq a focus of attention.... Efforts to dislodge President Saddam Hussein from his position apparently never abate. Both in Iraq and abroad, opposition groups continue fighting to erode Saddam's power

base. Opposition groups are rampant in the wake of open support from the United States and the U.K.... It is still difficult to see the connection between the assassination attempt on Ibrahim and U.S. and U.K. support for the opposition movement. The United States has announced that political assassination is not part of its support for opposition movements.... Iraqi leadership succession is up to the Iraqis themselves. They have the right to determine their own leaders. As an independent and sovereign country, Iraq is capable of finding a solution to its succession process."

PHILIPPINES: "Any Evidence?"

Eric Giron wrote in his column in the People's Journal, a sister publication of the government-owned Journal (11/20): "Has there been any evidence produced by any of the UN arms inspectors that chemicals and weapons of mass destruction are being manufactured in factories in Iraq? Why the U.S. revival of all that jazz over United Nations inspectors prying into Baghdad factories for the alleged weapons? Until somebody comes up with some credible proof that such weapons for chemical warfare are indeed being produced, how can the world believe it on the say-so of U.S. officials? And yet Clinton is described as determined not to let Baghdad get away with defiance.... The situation looks pretty grim for Iraq so long as Clinton is wearing blinders against any opposition to his coveted aggression on Iraq. And the U.S. allies who might silently resent Clinton's aggressive waving of the big stick would rather be prudent than vocal."

THAILAND: "Good Will For Iraq May Have Run Out"

The lead editorial in the top-circulation, moderately conservative Bangkok Post stated (11/20): "Any renewed violence against Iraq must be taken more in sadness than in anger. But the continued defiance and lying by the Baghdad regime cannot be suffered by a world trying to get on with business in a civilized manner."

VIETNAM: "Better To Have Peace And Cooperation"

An editorial in Communist Party daily Nhan Dan (The People) said in part (11/23): "U.S. budget analysts say that every year, the U.S. government spends billions of U.S. dollars on Iraq's embargo.... On Nov. 17, the mass media and a Gallop poll announced that, when asked, 66% of Americans think that a U.S. attack on Iraq gained no significant results and 42% believed that future U.S. attacks on Iraq will gain no result. In conclusion, American leaders, once-famous American diplomats, as well as people from all walks of life, gradually realize that economic embargos and military policy are out-of-date instruments that need change."

AFRICA

ERITREA: "A Good Lesson For The Eritrean Leader

The independent business weekly Entrepreneur held (11/25): "The Eritrean leader has to learn something from the recent development that has happened in the Gulf. Saddam Hussein used to resist all means to comply with the UN's proposed plans to effect the Security Council's resolution of inspection to destructive weapons in Iraq. But just recently, he took a look around and saw that there was no one supporting his resistance to the UN proposals. Then he gave in. It would, therefore, be a good lesson for the Eritrean leader, who is definitely a replica of Saddam from all the words he bluffs and the deeds he practices, to comply to all the proposed plans to settle the matter, i.e. the redeployment of the Eritrean forces to the areas before the invasion on 12 May 1998, and commitment to effect the proposed peace plans fully and unconditionally."

MALI: "Not The Last Clash"

Respected weekly Le Soudanais said (11/18): "This [is] not the last clash between Saddam Hussein and the United States."

NIGER: "America's Hate Unsatisfied"

Michel Boluvi wrote in weekly independent Le Democrate (11/16): "As dangerous as Saddam is for American interests in the Gulf, the U.S. desire to run everything all over the world is a real threat.... The United States needs, perhaps, this distraction of fire to burnish the image of President Clinton."

NIGERIA: "The Limit Of Diplomacy"

Lagos-based independent Post Express (11/27) ran this editorial: "Each time Iraq came close to being militarily compelled to tow the line, it has relied on the dynamics of diplomacy to remain afloat. The assumption is that there would always be a number of influential countries who have grounds to object to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.... This time around, it ought to have been instructive to Saddam that even the most fanatical Arab state is opposed to his latest affront on the will of the UN. If matters came to a head, Iraq could not have had any serious support to rely on. As it were, the world is weary of the antics of Saddam Hussein. These are antics designed to keep him in power by diverting the attention of Iraqis from his tyranny and focussing instead on the external enemy, ostensibly the United States."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

BOLIVIA: "From War To Conspiracy"

Centrist La Prensa carried this comment by Alberto Zelada (11/24): "There are good reasons for the American government to choose the path of bringing down the Saddam Hussein regime.... But this option also has its difficulties. The most important one is the notorious fragmentation of the groups opposed to the government of Saddam Hussein.... It would be worth the effort to help these groups attain a 'united front.'"

BRAZIL: "Saddam Underestimated Clinton"

A byliner by diplomat Antonio Amaral De Sampaio in center-right O Estado de S. Paulo's op-ed page said (11/26): "It seems certain that the international sanctions aimed at preventing Iraq from possessing mass destruction weapons will continue to be effective as long as Saddam remains in power.... Saddam's repeated challenges against the international community are explained by the dictator's ignorance.... He knows nothing outside the Arab world. Such disinformation...has led him to underestimate President Clinton's leadership and his ability to recover politically.... An impression has grown in certain capitals, not only in the West but also in the Arab world, that if Iraq repeats any armed aggression against its neighbors, then an initiative to remove Saddam through unorthodox methods will be adopted."

CANADA: "Removal Of Saddam Poses Huge Problems For U.S."

Commentator Harry Sterling, observed in the liberal Toronto Star (11/27): "If Saddam Hussein is going to be overthrown, it won't be by U.S. missiles. Only the Iraqi people themselves can topple the 'Butcher of Baghdad.' While Washington's efforts to forge an alliance of Iraqi exile movements and finance an opposition army obviously increase the pressure on the Iraqi dictator, Saddam is not easily intimidated.... Saddam Hussein is not some aberrant madman imposed on the hapless Iraqi people, whose removal would automatically bring peace and democracy. Iraq has never known such Western concepts as the rule of law and respect for

human rights.... Saddam himself is simply a contemporary product of a cultural system whose leaders exercise absolute power with few restraints.... Thus, efforts by Washington... to promote the overthrow of Saddam could end up plunging Iraq into anarchy with its deeply divided minorities fighting each other for ultimate power. Clearly, forces have been set in motion in Iraq which could have totally unforeseen consequences for both Saddam Hussein and his enemies in coming days."

MEXICO: "Shame On America"

Second-largest, independent El Diario De Monterrey carried this comment by Francisco Martin (11/18): "A couple of days ago, President Clinton, leader of one of the most developed democracies of all times, president of a country that supposedly defends political and human rights, said during a television interview that 'the overthrow of Iraq's leader has become an official objective of his foreign policy.'... Where is the U.S. Department of State's strategy to control Hussein? Or is it that the United States is only good at the use of violence and the ferocious exchange of blows? Such a statement by the leader of one of the greatest democracies of our times, affirming that the overthrow of the leader of any country is an official objective of his foreign policy, reveals the myopia in his view and a lack of diplomatic imagination, in addition to the shame that it brings to America."

VENEZUELA: "War Games"

Influential liberal El Nacional carried this editorial (11/19): "This latest episode illustrates not only the course of the confrontation between the United Nations and Iraq, but also the weakness of the world body. Without the power of the United States, which brings President Saddam to his senses, UN resolutions would have absolutely no effect. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's the reality."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/7/98

# # #