Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Finish The Job"

The independent Jerusalem Post's lead editorial held (12/21): "Not only is the job not done, but with the UNSCOM era over, the challenge posed by Saddam should be expected to increase.... Now is the time for the United States to throw first its full moral, then material weight behind the Iraqi opposition, not as a long-term, theoretical option, but as a centerpiece of allied policy."

"Clinton Misled By Advisers"

Conservative pundit Moshe Zak wrote in mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv (12/21): "President Clinton went on the air the other day to express 'deep admiration for the Muslim world.' The president added, 'All Muslims will soon receive proof of the U.S. honest desire to...attain peace in the Middle East.' This is just another example of the efforts the president's Jewish advisers, whom Saddam calls 'the Zionist clique' are investing in wooing the Arabs.... In normal days Clinton could not be expected to turn his back on Israel.... But these are not normal days."

WEST BANK: "UN Marginalized, Grave Anger In Arab Street"

Independent, moderate Al-Quds opined (12/21): "It became clear that the aggression was not an international decision. The UN was completely marginalized from that decision. Furthermore, the Arab and Islamic countries have expressed grave anger that clearly prevailed in the streets."

"Visit To Bethlehem"

Nasri Qumsiya commented in the semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (12/21): "On the 15th of this month, President Clinton visited Bethlehem... The Palestinian audience, who eagerly applauded and cheered, hoped that this presidential lighting of the tree was a glimpse of hope for a just, secure and stable peace for the region.... It didn't cross anyone's mind that the kindled candles would quickly turn into flames over the capital Baghdad."

BAHRAIN: "Arabs Should Convene A Summit On Iraq"

Al-Ayam carried on its front page (12/21) this editorial by chief editor Nabeel Al-Hamar: "the situation has become very dangerous. We, as Arabs, should move from the reacting status to acting. This requires holding an Arab summit to discuss one item: salvaging the Iraqi people. To do this, two things should be done. First, dismiss the military option in dealing with Iraq because this option is not practical, immoral and will not solve the suffering of the Iraqis. Moreover, it complicates the situation. Second, this Arab summit should have one goal: finding a new strategy for dealing with Iraq. This strategy should include finding a mechanism to push Iraq to comply with UN resolutions and to gradually rehabilitate it, in order for it to return to the Arab community."

"Clinton Failed In Attempt To Apologize To Arabs For The Bombing"

Arabic daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej's columnist, Ali Sayyar wrote (12/21, "The war against the Iraqi people was Ramadan's present to all Muslims around the world given to them by the American president whose sexual adventures have disgraced him, and also by the British prime minister who has been anxious for a role to play in his fading empire. The American president's address to Muslims was a failed attempt to apologize for the aggression, which he said was in our interests. Instead of turning its role in freeing Kuwait to a happy occasion, America has turned it not only to a very sad occasion but to a crime that is even worse than the crime of invading Kuwait."

EGYPT: "Hatred For Arabs And Muslims"

Said Sonbol, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar, said (12/21): "No one denies that Saddam gave legitimacy to these troops after his crime of occupying Kuwait, and many wonder if Saddam collaborated with Americans to give legitimacy for their presence. The United States could have overthrown Saddam after liberating Kuwait, but it has kept him as a bogey man to blackmail the region. We have witnessed a tragedy led by a superpower and its follower, which stepped over all international laws. Will Arab governments remain silent and incapable for ever?"

"Clinton Destroyed What He Had Built"

Salah Montasser, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, said (12/21): "Hardly a few hours had passed after the Palestinian and American flags embraced and after a trip that won him Palestinian hearts, Clinton surprised the world by hitting Iraq. He not only destroyed what he had built, but also he provoked the feelings of millions of people around the world."

JORDAN: "The Crime Of American Terrorism"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek commented in semi-governmental, influential Arabic Al-Ray (12/21): "The war is purely an American war.... What is meant by protecting Iraq's neighbors is protecting Israel.... If the United States wants to exercise terrorism worldwide, it should not complain about the rise of extremism, bigotry and counter-terrorism.... The U.S. president has already lied under oath. Why shouldn't he be lying when he says that he got the green light from Syria and Egypt to justify his terrorist crime? The United States and Britain deal with the Arabs with hatred and contempt and so they deserve our own hatred and contempt."

"The Next Issue"

The centrist, influential among the elite, English-language Jordan Times (12/21) editorialized: "Iraq has won the sympathy of the international community over the U.S. and British attacks. By putting up little or no resistance, Baghdad has proved to the world that it has no military capabilities.... The international stage is indeed set for a real review of the Iraqi file that could very well end up with the lifting of the sanctions."

KUWAIT: "Only Winner Is Filthy Criminal In Iraq"

Independent Al-Qabas's Abdul-Hamid Al-Bilali held (12/19): "Some political science tutors at Kuwait university have unanimously agreed that the military strikes against Iraq did not aim at toppling Saddam. The losers of this military action are the oppressed Iraqi people, the Kuwaiti people and the Gulf peoples and governments, because they will pay the bills which will worsen their economic situations. The only winner is the filthy criminal in Iraq, emerging as the hero who stood before America."

"Military Campaign Will Certainly Weaken Iraqi Regime"

Dr. Shamlan Al-Issa wrote in independent Al-Seyassah (12/19): "On one hand, we regret and are saddened to watch an Arab country being destroyed. At the same time, we hope and wish that the military strikes would lead to toppling the Iraqi regime and to liberating Iraq and its people from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein. The question is: Will this intensive military campaign lead to unseating Saddam's regime? It will certainly weaken the regime and may lead to its ouster in the future."

"Motives"

Independent Al-Watan (12/19) ran this piece by Dr. Abdul-Razzak Al-Shayji: "Whether the timing of the strikes were chosen to cover up Clinton's failure and the loss of his prestige in the Middle East especially after his recent visit to Israel, or to [divert] the impeachment proceedings, Saddam extended a big service in this 'play' to Netanyahu's policy."

LEBANON: "Who Will Fall First?"

Yusif Al-Andari wrote in independent Nida' Al-Watan (12/21): "It seems that the Iraqi curse is affecting all participants in the Iraqi game: President Clinton will have to live with the obvious link between Desert Fox and Monicagate. The UN Security Council transformed into an Arab poet, who does nothing but cry the black days. The Arab League is worse that the poet and its regimes failed to follow its people's example who tried to grab remains of their dignity ano revolutionary spirit.... The question is: Who will fall first? The American president or the system he works for? The UN or the new world order? The Arab League regimes or the Arab public?... No doubt, only the Iraqi curse placed these questions under close scrutiny!!"

MOROCCO: "Aggression Against Iraq And Arab Impotence"

A front page editorial in government coalition, Arabic-language Al Ittihad Al Ishtiraki said (12/21): "America has made Arab brothers into enemies who do not trust each other and who show mutual hypocrisy against each other. It is high time that Arabs come back to themselves and be frank with each other in order to achieve the popular aspirations. History and peoples never forget and Arab leaders should listen to the call of from their peoples to unify Arab ranks."

QATAR: "Blind And Haphazard U.S. Actions"

Semi-indendent Al-Rayah had this editorial (12/20): "The military operations against Iraq have proven that the United States administration is acting haphazardly and blindly. It has also confirmed the world's hatred of the U.S. and its methods in dealing with international crises..... The military strikes also showed that the Arab masses are more forward looking than their leaders. The strikes revived Arab nationalistic feeling making Syrian demonstrators insist on breaking into the American ambassador's house and the British Council..... Washington's continuation of its aggression on Iraq does not serve Arab regimes because it may prove to be more of a threat to Arab regimes than the military strikes are to the Iraqi regime. We believe that Iraq's cooperation with the UN was sufficient for it to at least avoid the air strikes."

SAUDIA ARABIA: "Removal Of Saddam"

London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat had this editorial (12/21): "Washington should decide whether it has finished with using Richard Butler and whether the recent strike was sufficient to begin a comprehensive review. But, the most important thing is that the United States was not able to comfort its friends with the removal of Saddam Hussein, which cannot be accomplished without destroying and dividing Iraq."

"Need For United Position In UNSC"

Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina had this editorial (12/21): "It is likely that surprise strikes to replace surprise inspections, flying bombs to replace visiting inspection teams and illegal sneaky monetary operations to replace internationally authorized legal inspections provide a better alternative, according to Washington's views. These matters require a united position within the UNSC for the UN and the secretary general to maintain a minimum of international order."

SYRIA: "Washington And London Losses"

An unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen (12/21) held, "America and Britain claimed that they enjoy strong Arab support, but the demonstrations that swept the region indicated the opposite. The American aggression has destroyed U.S. and British credibility in the Middle East.... The recent events proved that...there is no credibility for Washington and London as long as they continue to practice a policy of double standards. They have also exposed the U.S. policy to governs the world and ignore the UN role."

"Motives Behind American-British Aggression"

An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Ba'th stated (12/18), "When we note that Israeli officials leaked the reports that President Clinton notified Netanyahu before of the air strikes...we can conclude that American aggression against Iraq aims not to hit Iraq but the Arabs in general. This is a new gift for Israel, after the gift which the Palestinian authorities offered to the Israelis in the presence of the president."

TUNISIA: "U.S. And British Goals And Motivation"

An editorial by Abdelhamid Riahi, editor-in-chief of independent As-Shourouq, held (12/20): "They argue that Iraq is a military threat to its neighbors...yet the air strikes are destroying hospitals, schools, and private homes.... America tells us that there can be no peace and security in the Middle East unless we accept its plan for the region. That plan is to promote the interests of Israel and protect U.S. hegemony in the region."

"The UN's Important Role"

An unsigned editorial in independent French-language La Presse maintained (12/21), "The world was relieved when it was announced that the air strikes against Iraq had ended.... We must give diplomacy a real chance to resolve the crisis. We can only reach a fair solution to the current impasse by applying international law and respecting the rights of others.... The UN is the most appropriate instrument for resolving these disputes."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Rejection Of The Use Of Force"

Semi-official Al-Ittihad had this editorial (12/21): "Arab and international reaction to the strikes demonstrated a complete rejection of the use of force.... The strikes hit civilian targets such as hospitals, refineries and seaports that are being used to receive humanitarian assistance for the iraqi people, industrial installations and oil fields. We all know that what happened will increase the suffering of the Iraqis."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "What's Been Achieved? And What Happens Now?"

The liberal Guardian held (12/21): "How many more will have to die, either at Saddam's hands or in pursuit of a strategy that comes mighty close to making a desert and calling it peace?... American self-absorption makes things worse. Here is a superpower projecting military force half way around the globe in a fit of absence of mind. Some world order, when Russian diplomacy consists in large measure of petulance, and Europe...is characterized by confusion and non-communication. As for the UN, Secretary General Annan has lost authority. UNSCOM's personnel and mission are clouded.... As for the Security Council, it is hard to see if and when it can function again as an embryonic world governing body."

"Diplomatic Battle Is Only Just Starting"

The left-of-center tabloid Mirror argued (12/21): "So what has the action achieved? The Mirror supported it and we still do.... We believe [Saddam] had to be attacked. That it was the right time to launch the bombardment and the right time to halt it. The real challenge is what comes next. How to build on the military success and repair the diplomatic damage."

FRANCE: "What U.S. Strategy With Iraq?"

Dominique Bromberger aired this commentary on government-funded France Inter radio (12/21): "Clinton, who claimed he wanted to work in collaboration with his allies and the UN, launched a war on his own initiative to resolve a serious question that concerned many nations.... What is there left of U.S. policy and its credibility? We are no longer in a position to know when strikes can be launched. It all depends on variables which have nothing to do with strategy. In fact, no one in the United States can explain to us what the U.S. strategy with Iraq is going to be."

"Wrong On Both Counts"

Pierre Taribo maintained in regional L'Est Republicain (12/21): "In reality, nothing is justified. Not the punitive strikes against Iraq, nor the grotesque impeachment procedure against Clinton. In spite of declarations implying that Saddam's military capacity has been destroyed, the international community is not convinced that the end justified the means.... As for Congress, it has launched a despicable war against Clinton, whose private life is the cause of his public disgrace. In short, America is wrong on both counts."

GERMANY: Time For Policy-Makers To Take Their Turn"

On national public radio Deutschlandfunk, Siegfried Buschschlueter told listeners (12/20): "Mission completed. Really? If one looks at the announced goal to reduce Saddam's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and to threaten his neighbors, one can probably say that operation 'Desert Fox' was successful. But how long will this success last? And is it sufficient for the Americans to keep a strong presence at the Gulf to strike again in case of Saddam trying to build up his arsenal again? How long can it be justified that the sanctions remain in place?... The work of UNSCOM seems to have ended. Something else has to take its place. Would it not be time to break the cycle of force and to develop a long term political concept for the entire region which would also be supported by the neighboring states? That is not a job for the military. It is now the policy's turn."

"Now What?"

In centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn, Hubert Kleine Stegmann commented (12/21):

"Even though it is correct that dictators like Saddam must be kept in line...and that their weapons arsenals need to be reduced, even by force if needed: 'Operation Desert Fox' leaves a bitter taste behind. Civilians had to die, the UN was castrated and America's standing is decreasing. Saddam got away unharmed. The already difficult relationship with Russia...is affected more than by the previous Gulf war. All in all, a very high price. It can be paid if a promising political proposal follows the military strike."

ITALY: "'Desert Fox' A Dubious Victory"

Andrea Nativi commented in leading rightist opposition Il Giornale (12/21): "Saddam and his system of power have not suffered irreparable damage and the dictator is not completely wrong when he sings victory for resisting the United States and Great Britain.... And now there is the risk that UN inspectors may no longer be admitted to Iraq, thus eliminating a precious form of

inspection which is impossible to achieve with airplanes and satellites. And if in a month or so the much publicized coup d'etat--which would overthrow Saddam--does not occur, we will not be able to consider 'Desert Fox' a victory."

"Only Words To Achieve Peace"

Ugo Tramballi's argued in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (12/21): "Weapons are not the best solution, and nobody likes war: but shall we or shall we not prevent a dangerous dictator from violating international rules? Air raids will not resolve the problem at its roots and will not overthrow Saddam. But what do we do as we wait for this goal to be achieved? Do we let Saddam ignore the law, build additional chemical weapons, destroy minorities in Iraq, threaten the Gulf and remain unpunished?"

AUSTRIA: "The Loser Is Europe"

Andreas Unterberger commented in Die Presse (12/20): "A glance at the map clearly shows: How close Iraq, or Israel, are to Europe; and how far away America is. A glance at the political agenda of the last days shows as clearly a mirror-inverted picture: How close the U.S. is dealing with these conflicts and how far the European Union, with its 'common foreign and security policy' sealed in two treaties, is standing off to the side. With the limits between the praiseworthy work as a world policeman and the egoistic action of a great power becoming completely blurred, it is no wonder if a great number of people are convinced that very egoistic concerns of one single man might influence political motives. That is, those of a president who wants to divert attention from his impeachment proceedings.... At the level of world politics, it has also become evident that it is extremely unsatisfying if a country with all its specific interests is the only substitute for the role of a world policeman.

"The last hours have also shown that all the hopes that Europe will become a second world policeman are nothing but illusions. This would, though, dramatically reduce the element of despotism inherent in the American way of acting. It fails, however, because of the element of nationalism in the individual EU countries.... With all this national populism, it won't be easy to help propagate the pan-European thinking. For the time being, there is only one loser of the recent bombings, as a matter of fact: the faith in some progress towards European foreign policy has faded again."

BELGIUM: "What Is Clinton Trying To Achieve In Iraq?"

Chief editor Yves Desmet wrote in independent De Morgen (12/19): "What was so urgent in the last (UNSCOM) report that one could not wait for a UNSC decision? Nothing, absolutely nothing.... Because it was so obvious and because the president's decision was met with mountains of cynicism and disbelief, the Republicans could disregard the unwritten law that you must leave the supreme commander alone when he is at war.... One will have to wait for the consequences on the diplomatic level. Of course, one cannot threaten endlessly; sooner or later one has to show one's teeth to a dictator like Saddam. But, it is best to do that in consultation with the UN.... Moreover, what is Clinton trying to achieve in Iraq after all the bombs have been dropped? No one in Washington has an answer to that question.... Clinton certainly does not have to resign because of office sex parties. Those are part of his private life. However, when those quickies lead to an overhasty and reckless act of war things are different."

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Time Will Tell If Desert Fox Was A Success"

A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES opined (12/21): "Was Desert Fox successful?... The air strikes have fulfilled what they were supposed to.... Only time will show if this new, tougher strategy is able to keep the Iraqi president in the cage.... But, at the same

time, it has held a depressing mirror to the fact that it has become evident that the UN mechanism of resolving crises does not work. It has become evident that the world is divided.... It has become evident that many (states) have a poor understanding of co-responsibility. Saddam's defenders say that they are concerned over the strikes; their conduct, however, is of graver concern for the future."

DENMARK: "Bombing Leaves Problems, But No Choice"

Center-left Politiken commented (12/21): "Critics of the Anglo-American attacks are right to point out a number of unresolved problems. The missiles have not removed Saddam Hussein from power.... There is no prospect of UN inspectors resuming their work, and the UN coalition which supported the Gulf war is deeply divided about future policy.... The United States and Britain are paying the political price throughout the world.... But if they had not bombed, the UN's attempts to control Saddam would have proved useless. In addition, U.S. and UN credibility would have suffered."

FINLAND: "One Policeman Better Than None"

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat carried an op-ed commentary by Max Jakobson, the leading Finnish international affairs analyst (12/19): "One is better than none. Everybody agrees, in principle, that Iraq must destroy its weapons of mass destruction. But when the inspectors said Iraqi officials were still concealing information, no consensus could be reached on the use of force although nobody thinks any more that Iraq does not have WMD. The air strikes will not solve the problem, which can only be solved by removing Saddam from power. But it is possible that the strikes are a step in the right direction. What will happen to the UNSC? Will it lose its authority? It is not a supranational supreme court, independent of states, but a tool for great power cooperation whose usefulness depends on the status of great power relations. When the permanent members are at odds, the Council is impotent: that has been the case for decades. During such times the world needs a policeman. One is better than none at all.

GREECE: "With Strikes, U.S. Attempts To Salvage Reliability, Prestige"

Pro-government Kathimerini had this by diplomatic editor George Kapopoulos (12/20): "The strikes are a grand admittance on the part of Washington of the strategic impasse of Washington in the Gulf.... The day after the bombings will find Washington, assisted by the always eager London, to have a clearly bilateral confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime. Thus, a conflict that started in late 1990 as a collective campaign of the international community against the occupation of Kuwait from Iraq is being transformed into a spastic and awkward effort of the world's most powerful country to salvage its reliability and its prestige."

KAZAKHSTAN: "Terrorism"

Official Khabar TV News (12/17) covered the meeting at Kazakhstani general headquarters, where heads of air defense forces discussed the possible development of conflict: "There isn't a direct threat here but we can feel indirect one. One Tomahawk missile flew to Iran, so one of the next missiles could change its route and fly to Kazakhstan." Another correspondent, reporting on Kazakhstani air defense forces, said, "We have a probability--certainly very small--that Saddam Hussein will decide to take revenge and target not Israel, but the Caspian area where the U.S. and British oil and gas companies work."

MALTA: "Operation Desert Fox"

An editorial in the independent, English-language Times said (12/21): "Saddam Hussein has been playing with fire for a very long time now. So, when the United States and Britain

launched the air strikes against his country, few must have expressed surprise. Indeed, most would have probably said it serves him right."

THE NETHERLANDS: "New Global Reality?"

Influential liberal De Volksksrant held (12/21): "Operation Desert Fox is over.... PM Blair spoke of a 'new global reality' in which the threat of force will be used more often to support diplomacy, not just in the Gulf but also in the Balkans. Even though it is quite logical that the Americans and the British are trying to gain more room for maneuver, they have to be cautious not to get a permanent split in the anti-Iraq coalition. In planning a strategy for the future, France and Russia cannot be left out."

NORWAY: "A Strategy For Iraq?"

Conservative Aftenposten commented (12/21) "The following question arises: Which strategy should the United States and Britain--and their allies--follow in the time to come? Large U.S. forces will remain in the area, and the British will even increase their military presence in the coming months. However, if new strikes against Saddam become necessary, the United States and the UK should seek to get wider support for their operations. The UN should not be dismissed, and neither should China and Russia.... The protests against the bombing raids in Iraq may have a dangerous consequence. Although criticism is directed towards Washington and London, moderate Arab leaders will be affected by it. If these leaders are swept aside by radical or fundamentalist political challengers, this could undermine the West's position in the Middle East. After a few days of war, politics must once again take over. There is a lot left undone."

POLAND: "Manly Issues"

Pawel Paliwoda observed in right-of-center Zycie (12/21): "Desert Fox has returned to its base. While one can doubt whether the Americans and British managed to scare Saddam, it is good nonetheless that the Iraqi satrap received a clear warning signal. Leaders like Saddam can be addressed only with the language of power.... This is not always properly understood by the leaders of France, Italy and Germany."

"Change Saddam, Not the Regime?"

Monika Slowakiewicz opined in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (12/21): "Even though the American and British attacks undermined Saddam Hussein's military power, the Iraqi dictator scored valuable political points.... If the Desert Fox operation does not open a new chapter in Middle East diplomacy, the Iraqi opposition will become its first political victim.... The Arab world expects that the military strikes will be followed by diplomacy. Should the Americans and British content themselves with 'keeping Saddam caged,' the Iraqi President will weather the storm out, while the Iraqi opposition will be shifted to the margins and be kept there due to U.S. fear of the unaccountable and incomprehensible Middle East."

ROMANIA: "America's Quarrel With The World"

Pro-government Ziua carried an editorial by former Romanian Foreign Minister Adrian Severin (12/21): "There is nothing more irritating to Europe, Eurasia, and the Arab world than a sole authoritarian 'policeman' and a victorious Saddam, who continues to threaten by his staying in power. America's quarrel with the world that seems to be taking shape can only be resolved by either more conflicts or by a joint effort to define a new architecture of international security and international law. It is self-evident that the second option is to be preferred."

RUSSIA: "Military Success Dubious, Diplomatic One Staggering"

Alexander Koretsky wrote in the reformist Segodnya (12/21): "Whereas the military successes of the administration are quite doubtful, the diplomatic ones are simply staggering: the U.S. Department of State has succeeded in achieving almost the impossible--not a single Arab country has sharply criticized Washington, and the Arab countries limited themselves mostly to official statements of regret about the bombings.... The only thing that may comfort the Iraqi leadership is that Clinton has failed by means of a small victorious war in pushing his impeachment to the background."

SLOVAK REPUBLIC: "U.S. Globocop"

Tibor Mrocek commented in labor-oriented national Praca (12/21): "The United States has already figured out that the strikes cost the American taxpayer approximately $500 million. Much more important than the physical and material losses will probably be the psychological costs, the impact that this expensive and bloody poll of world public opinion left. The countries that are trying to enter NATO understood that this poll was a way to make sure of the level of their support. The way Washington ignored the authority of the UN confirmed once again that the U.S. wants to remain the world's policeman, although the democratic world should be going in another direction."

SLOVENIA: "Would Be Better If Clinton, Not Saddam Were Deposed"

Left of center independent Vecer commented (12/21): "Despite sympathies that Clinton had gained at home and abroad during his first term...he has revealed himself in a bad light. To keep his presidential position, he is willing to lie to the jury...to demonstrate to the whole world that the United States remains the leading power in the world, he scatters Tomahawks on Iraq regardless of civilian casualties and regardless of the fact that--after the air strikes--Saddam Hussein is even stronger than before. The United States may also deserve a lecture by the international community. Namely, at a time when the death penalty is being abolished...and despite warnings by Amnesty International another convicted criminal was killed on Friday. This mighty United States, which proved to the world that it possesses weapons of mass destruction, preaches--with Clinton at the head--democracy to the whole world. It may really be better if Clinton was deposed."

SWEDEN: "Temporary Relief On Iraq"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter had this editorial (12/21): "The international community must not let Saddam Hussein sneak out of the net. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated, and its dictator must not be given another chance to resort to new outrage. It is likely that Iraq will remain high on the international agenda. The question still is how to neutralize a threat to peace like Saddam Hussein. The means of coercion, as well as the willingness of the other states to use the available means, have serious shortcomings.... The Security Council must regain the initiative and shoulder its basic responsibility for maintaining international peace and security."

SWITZERLAND: "Guilt And Damage"

Walter Luethi wrote in right-center Der Bund (12/21): "It is questionable whether the most recent U.S. attacks, which coincide with the planned vote on the impeachment, will bring the dictator to reason. Sometimes he understands the language of violence and sometimes not, e.g. after the invasion of Kuwait. It is possible that he will realize that the embargo will not be lifted without the cooperation of the UN. Iraq's potential with biological and chemical weapons is a real threat and not fantasy."

SPAIN: "The Pathetic Balance Sheet Of A Useless Aggression"

Independent El Mundo editorialized (12/21): "Saddam says that he came out as the winner of the attack...and we can agree with him.... Saddam has emerged unhurt. The same can't be said for the supreme leader of his enemies. Bill Clinton has won much less than he lost. The only material advantage achieved was the weakening of Iraq's military power which was already recognized as exhausted.... Against that, the prestige of the U.S. president has fallen...in world public opinion.... Clinton's handling of the crisis and his arrogance and contempt for diplomatic means has notably damaged the position of his country in key groupings such as the Arab world, the EU, Russia, and China."

TURKEY: "Iraq, The Sufferer; Saddam, The Hero"

Sukru Elekdag commented in mass-appeal Milliyet (12/21): "Without finding an alternate leader for Iraq and still hoping that aggressions can create an internal riot, two possibilities are likely to occur: First, the elimination of Saddam may create chaos and a power vacuum.... Being isolated from the world and having the world-wants-us-destroyed mentality has made Iraq a sick society. Under these circumstances, increased pressure from outsiders is pushing people closer to Saddam, not away from him. America's mistake has yet again made Iraqi people the sufferers and Saddam the hero."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Desert Fox Comes Quick, Goes Quick"

Xinhua said in Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao)(12/20): "Clinton's plan to inflict misery on the Iraqis was by no means successful. Nor did Desert Fox perform honorably."

HONG KONG: "New Weapon Needed"

The independent South China Morning Post wrote in its editorial (12/20): "The current U.S. policy is partly the product of Washington's frustration with its inability to put Saddam in his place, rather than an entirely coherent design for ending the threat his weapons pose to the region. But frustration is hardly the best basis for long-range strategic planning. Nor does it provide any kind of basis for dealing with similar brinkmanship from unpredictable regimes like North Korea or regional bullies such as Serbia's Slobodan Miloservic. With Saddam once again weakened, the time may have come for the international community to stop bickering over the latest tactical intervention and start hammering out a more effective approach for containing rogue regimes in future."

"China's Interests"

The independent South China Morning Post had this editorial (12/19): "China's angry denunciation of the latest air strikes against Iraq has been much stronger than its reaction on earlier occasions when the United States used force in the Middle East.... Anger at bypassing the UN Security Council, which is China's main means of playing a role in world affairs, as well as concern this might encourage the United States to act in the same way against North Korea,

probably played a part in provoking such a shrill response. But it seems likely that concerns about a secure oil supply were also a factor."

INDONESIA: "A Ramadan Month Without Violence"

Muslim intellectual Republika asserted (12/21): "Whatever his pretext for launching the attack on Iraq, Clinton is still perceived as having conducted an uncivilized and inhumane act.... We are very concerned about this incident affecting Muslims in Iraq, particularly during...Ramadan."

JAPAN: "U.S. Loses Its International Strategy"

Liberal Mainichi editorialized (12/21): "The United States has no strategy whatsoever following its military operation against Baghdad. Neither has Washington been able to topple the Hussein regime or force Baghdad to suspend the development of weapons of mass destruction. The international community has become distrustful of the significance of military strikes against Iraq."

MALAYSIA: "Clinton's Actions Entrap Himself"

The government-influenced Malay-language Berita Harian ran this editorial (12/21), "The attempt by Bill Clinton to protect his position by attacking Iraq, with Britain's help and without consultation with the UN Security Council, has been exposed. His attempt to divert the attention of the world, and more importantly the Congress, has failed. He appears to have lost focus and is grasping for the easiest way to save himself.... The Arab world should unite against America, giving the message that the Middle East countries will not always bow to its wishes. If not, America will always try to influence and shape the political situation in the Middle East."

NEW ZEALAND: "Does International Community Have Effective Strategy"

The conservative New Zealand Herald said (12/21): "The implication attending the 'tail wagging the dog' theory is that no action should be taken while leaders are under domestic pressure. That is a recipe for international stagnation. Such political point-scoring hamstrings efforts to formulate effective strategy with which to follow military action.... Iraq will have a capacity to threaten its neighbours as long as Saddam Hussein retains power. An effective strategy would visualise his departure and a constructive reconstitution of the Iraqi government. Bombs have proved stunningly unsuccessful in achieving that end. The question is: short of a costly invasion or an illegal assassination squad, does the international community have any effective strategy available?"

PHILIPPINES: "Superpower Run Amuck"

Herman Tiu Laurel wrote in his column in the government-controlled Journal (12/20): "The Blair-Clinton bombing of Iraq is a cynical campaign aimed at self-preserving political and economic objectives. For Clinton, the reason is postponement of the...House vote on his impeachment. For Blair...the Brits have always maintained the policy of destabilizing the Middle East as a way of sustaining its oil and political leverage over the rest of the world.... President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair [decided on] bombing Iraq on the basis of a report prepared by Richard Butler, the chairman of the UNSCOM. But the report is a gigantic fraud and Butler was lying through his teeth about alleged gross non-compliance of Iraq in the weapons inspection.... What we see in the Clinton-Blair bombing of Iraq is a case of the remaining superpower in the world running amuck with its hold of high tech weaponry."

SINGAPORE: "Iraq Asked For It"

Pro-government Lianhe Zaobao judged (12/18): "By bombing Iraq, the United States has added to the misery of the Iraqis and undermined world peace. That it is taking upon itself a much bigger role than it is entitled to is bound to lead to serious consequences. Instead of accelerating the fall of the Iraqi President as the United States has hoped, the attack has indirectly strengthened the Saddam regime. Obviously, Saddam is trying to drum up public support for himself with the blood of his people. The raid shows that punitive actions will not solve the problem. In the end, the UN may have to be called upon again to pick up the pieces."

SOUTH KOREA: "More Trouble"

Washington correspondent Kim Dong-kyun wrote in business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (12/21): "The U.S. strike against Iraq lost more than it gained.... It failed not only to achieve its military goals but also to help out President Clinton in terms of his political situation. Besides, international opinion opposed, not supported, it. In addition, the strike failed to bring Hussein to his knees."

TAIWAN: "U.S. Demonstrates Determination To Maintain Regional Security"

Liberal, pro-independence Liberty Times had this editorial (12/18): "Although the U.S.' use of force to punish Iraq has aroused different opinions and arguments, its determination to maintain regional peace and security is still worthy of our moral support."

THAILAND: "Victims Of The Iraq War"

Siripong Witayaviroj commented in bi-weekly, business-oriented Prachachat Turakij (12/21-23): "The U.S.-UK joint action is a flagrant violation of all world community and UN norms. The United States has capitalized on its undisputed status as the sole, remaining world superpower to crush Iraq with no qualms about the principle of peaceful co-existence."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Anglo-U.S. Attack On Iraq"

Conservative Ittefaq said (12/21): "No one should have pity for Saddam. It was evident in the UN's initiative to free Kuwait from Saddam's evil clutches. The other side of the present conflict is the UN. It is desirable for the Security Council to take any necessary measures in respect to the crisis."

INDIA: "A Flawed Assumption"

The independent, centrist Pioneer held (12/20): "To assume that President Clinton can, and would, circumvent the entire U.S. military establishment for his personal ends would be not only over-estimating presidential powers, but underestimating the American political processes.... A simplistic estimate of the U.S. presidential decision-making would also amount to a deliberate disregard for the complexities--technological, logistical, diplomatic and political--involved in a modern military operation such as Desert Fox.... The timing of the Iraq mission goes against both the U.S.' own tactical and broader objectives.... President Clinton went ahead with the strikes knowing full well that the goodwill that he had earned all over the Arab world and beyond with his historical visit to Palestine will be greatly undermined by his decision to go against the Iraqi regime at this juncture."

PAKISTAN: "After The Cruise Crusade!"

An editorial the rightist, English-language Pakistan Observer said (12/21): "The halt in the air strikes is a positive development in the volatile region and is indicative of the fact that the international pressure has ultimately prevailed.... It seemingly represents the realization about the folly of the military adventure against a nation, which is heroically poised to determinedly resist the Anglo-U.S. effort of manipulation, despite their misery resulting from years of sanctions.... We...strongly feel that there is an urgent need to ease the sanctions."

SRI LANKA: "Clinton's Loose Cannon"

According to the independent pro-business English weekly Sunday Times (12/20), "We feel sorry for the people of Iraq sandwiched between the ugly schemes of Saddam and Clinton. We understand and unite fully with the people of Iraq, caught as they are between the ugly arrogance of Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein."

"Sri Lanka Does Not Endorse Iraq Attack"

Anti-government right-of-center Sinhala language daily Divaina stated (12/21), "Sri Lanka has said that it does not endorse a unilateral solution of an international issues by way of air strikes by the U.S. and U.K. against Iraq.... It is not correct for the modern world to solve international issues in this fashion instead of resorting to discussions."

AFRICA

GHANA: "Aggresssion And Diversionary Antics"

The government-owned Mirror judged (12/19): "There is no doubt that Clinton has used Iraq as a buffer to protect himself against his domestic problems.... Apart from this diversionary ploy, it is becoming increasingly clear that the United States is using its sole superpower status to subvert the collective will of the UN for its national interests. The U.S. and its allies cannot claim ignorance of the fact that Israel is still defying the UN resolution calling on it to vacate occupied Arab territories.... The manner in which the two countries are subjecting Iraq to constant harassment and attack in the name of the UN only goes to expose their hidden agenda to weaken Iraq and strengthen Israel. Now that the U.S. and British cruise missiles have been unleashed on the hapless Iraqi people, the question is, has the United States succeeded in destroying the remaining weapons of mass destruction? If no, then the attack was uncalled for and has helped to expose the real U.S. motives."

KENYA: "Was Attack On Baghdad Justified?"

Government party-owned Sunday Herald judged (12/20): "Sanctions have failed to bring Saddam Hussein into his senses. The military option has failed as well. The only remaining course...is diplomatic and this is the one that Secretary General Annan has pursued in the past with the result that a looming crisis was averted. We will be the last to support Saddam and his evil character but we cannot help to sympathize with the Iraqi people who have suffered a great deal during the last eight years. We are emphatic that the international community should seek an end to UN sanctions against Iraq."

SENEGAL: "Clinton's Contempt For The UN"

The independent Le Matin held (12/19-20): "In taking military action against Iraq under false pretense--in order to prevent the impeachment procedure in progress against himself, Bill Clinton showed contempt for the United Nations."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

ARGENTINA: "A Fools' Game"

Julio Barboza, pro-government La Prensa's international analyst, wrote (12/20): "(And after the attack) What will Clinton do? It does not sound too credible that with this attack he is going to overthrow Saddam.... If Saddam resists...what can the United States do to save face? New attacks?... Saddam is to blame for triggering new crises when he refused to comply with the UN mandate.... But Americans themselves are to be blamed for engaging in a difficult situation.

"With their unilateral decision, they gave those supporters in favor of lifting sanctions an excuse to insist on this happening."

BRAZIL: "Clinton Loses Credibility In Arab World"

Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo's Beirut correspondent noted (12/20): "Most Arabs believe that the Desert Fox Operation is President Clinton's desperate and profoundly immoral attempt to rebuild America's sacred unity around his own image as a means of escaping the impeachment threat.... The conjunction of these factors [Clinton's failure in implementing the Wye Plantation accords during his Middle East visit, and the coincidence between the attack against Iraq and the impeachment vote] illustrates more clearly than ever the famous U.S. partiality favoring Israel. And if this were not enough, the Arabs consider themselves somewhat insulted and humiliated with the simple idea that the bombings over Iraq could serve to fix the sexual scandal into which Clinton got involved.... Therefore, it was basically because of its timing--apparently much more determined by U.S. internal reasons than by real regional security needs--that the Desert Fox Operation has been so badly received by the Arab public opinion."

PERU: "Easy To Criticize"

Francisco Chirinos, the managing editor of pro-government tabloid Cambio, said (12/18): "The first question is whether since the fall of the USSR, the world has not fallen in the hands of U.S. hegemony. Russia protested the U.S. attack on Iraq and nothing happened. Second, the timing of the attack. There is the feeling that Clinton considered his own situation when deciding on the attack, perhaps not as the main reason, but as an important and significant ingredient in the decision. On the other hand, it is very easy and comfortable for France, Germany, China, and Russia to protest the use of force, but none of these countries have offered a viable solution to the problem of the despotic Hussein and to force him to behave by UN norms. Neither the United States nor nor Britain can watch indefinitely while Hussein permanently challenges the whole world."

URUGUAY: "Prevention Key To Containing Saddam"

Conservative La Mañana published this editorial (12/19): "When Saddam announces his plans for his 'mother of all wars' or the extermination of half of Israel, there are two alternatives: either we believe that we are dealing with a maniac whose words shouldn't be believed or we take his threats very seriously. Since such dictators usually have a proclivity to shout their sinister intentions to all, they shouldn't be ignored. We have learned that there are two ways to confront this dictator: either we defeat him (which will not be easy) or render him harmless. Therefore, we don't want belated regrets once the devastation produced by a bacteriological war comes true; the UN must exhaust its diplomatic efforts. We don't oppose the use of diplomacy to attain unfettered inspections but, in case any obstacles arise, there must be full agreement of the international community that there won't be hesitation. Prevention is better than cure."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/22/98

# # #