Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ALGERIA: "'Desert Fox' Puts An End To Anti-Iraqi Coalition"

French-language, independent La Tribune observed (12/22), "For the time being, the first consequences of the Desert Fox operation has to do with the division within the international community, particularly inside the Security Council. Obviously, seeing hospitals bombed and civilians killed was a major argument for being against the strikes. However, it appears more and more clear that some opponents to the U.S. decision are frustrated. France is seeking to become a superpower, and Russia would like to be reconsidered as the superpower it used to be in the past."

"Holy Alliance Against Iraq"

French-language, independent Demain L'Algerie stated (12/22), "So far, the Americans have not reached their goals. But the Arab regimes in the region are in a very bad position. In one hand, they are linked to the United States, on the other they have to face their publics' opinion."

BAHRAIN: "Lessons For The Arabs"

Leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam featured these remarks (12/23) by Ahmed Juma: "The lessons that the Arabs should learn from the strikes is the importance of ending limitation of the rule of the countries by specific parties and groups.... The Arabs can be active and influential if they are ruled by leaderships that are aware of what is going on in the world and not by traditional systems. The only way to help our people, and especially the people of Iraq, is to draw all its parties, groups and sects into a liberal and democratic system and stop all kinds of deportation, exile, slaughter and starvation."

"What Is More Painful Than The Demonstrations?"

Leading, semi-official Akhbar Al-Khalij published this piece (12/22) by Adnan Bumtai: "The Italian minister of commerce and industry visits Turkey to convince the Turks not to boycott Italian products. The picture of Italian textiles and products thrown on the streets of Istanbul was painful to the Italians. Another incident was in New Delhi when the Indians went to the streets spilling coca-cola bottles into the sewage protesting the imposition of american sanctions on their country because of the nuclear tests. This public protest was also painful to the americans. Therefore, they announced lifting the sanctions they imposed on india. Iran is another example. It benefited from the american blockade through self-dependence and making the country self-sufficient. All these countries and nations have proven that they will not die if they boycott American and European products."

EGYPT: "No Solution If Iraqi President Continued To Be Stubborn"

Abdu Mubasher, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, said (12/23): "There seems to be no solution if the Iraqi president continued to be stubborn and to ignore international and regional changes. He should either apologize for invading Kuwait and return POWs, under an Arab arrangement. Then the United States will have no pretext for aggressing the Iraqi people. Or, he should withdraw from political life."

"Unacceptable That Arab Governments Stand As Spectators"

Said Sonbol, columnist for pro-government Al Akhbar, opined (12/23): "Everybody won in Desert Fox! President Clinton announced that the operation achieved its purpose. Blair stood proudly to announce the end of the shelling and achieving its aims. Even the Iraqi president was shown on TV proudly announcing his victory. Then who is the loser? The Iraqi people are the main loser, and the Arab world was defeated. The threat of resuming the attack after the honored month of Ramadan is likely. What kind of threat to world stability Saddam is posing after Iraq was destroyed, starved and humiliated?... It is unacceptable that Arab governments stand as spectators. We need a unified Arab position to confront the aggression, which no long threatens Iraq alone, but many Arab countries as well."

"Dissension In The UNSC"

Pro-government Al Ahram had this editorial (12/22): "Certainly, the United States and Britain stepped over all the red lines and rules of international relations. They have employed all strange means to make war and flagrantly violated diplomatic and political options.... Unlike the time of liberating Kuwait, this caused dissension in the UNSC. There is almost a consensus on the need to make formulate mechanisms to reach a diplomatic settlement of the crisis."

JORDAN: "What After The Suspension Of The Aggression"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek insisted in semi-official, influential Al-Ray (12/23): "The Anglo-American aggression against Iraq is not over yet. It is just deferred until further notice.... We will continue to uncover facts about this scandalous aggression and its ill intentions, the fact that it is an ugly crime against humanity and a war against Arabs and Muslims. It is our duty to shed light on the ugly person of Clinton, the American fox, the slayer of children and old men and the servant of Zionism.... The rulers of America and Britain should apologize for this horrible crime and realize that terrorism breeds terrorism. The terrorist will end up paying the price sooner or later."

"A National Issue"

Fahd Fanek judged in semi-government, influential Al-Ray (12/22): "The criminal aggression against Iraq is an aggression against an Arab country that is a member of the Arab League and against an Arab people that is part of the Arab Nation. Therefore, this attack against Iraq is an attack against all the Arab countries and peoples and must be dealt with as such. Instead, we find persistent attempts to turn this national and pan-Arab issue into a simple humanitarian issue. Arab rulers refer to what is called the Iraqi suffering, thinking that they are appeasing their people and not enraging the American thug."

MOROCCO: "Arabs Have Missed Solidarity--Will They Miss Diplomacy?"

Government-coalition Al Alam declared (12/23): "Arab countries and the Arab League should be present [at a proposed Arab summit] to discuss the Iraqi issue and to put forward proposals to safeguard Arab dignity, which has been violated by the U.S.-British attack against Iraq.... The Arab action will be strong if Arab countries coordinate their actions with Russia, China and France and form as significant bloc to discuss a solution to the embargo suffered by Iraq."

"After The Elimination Of UN Credibility"

Government coalition Al-Alam noted (12/22): "The U.S.-UK aggression against Iraq was the last nail in the coffin as far as the UN Charter is concerned.... The actions carried out by America and its allies, which threaten peace and destroy people through the embargo...constitute an action to destroy UN credibility."

QATAR: "Unabashed Contempt For International Law"

Semi-independent Al-Watan opined (12/21): "What we have seen is unabashed contempt for international law. The United States and Britain, who always talk about the necessity of changing the regime in Baghdad as a gift to the Iraqi people, are the ones that have carried out

the ugliest crimes against them, whether through sending missiles and throwing bombs, destroying their infrastructure and industry, or starving them with unfair and meaningless sanctions."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Future Of Iraq"

Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad held (12/22): "Today's question is what is the future of Iraq in the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox? And why the recent allies did not get rid of the Snake's head? The response to this question is that the Americans cannot get rid of him or they would like to keep him as a sincere spy, who is able to justify their coming to the region whenever they feel that it is appropriate to their interests.... Albright said yesterday that America wants to get rid of Saddam in the long run.... Why not today? Or tomorrow?"

"Iraq Now Receives The Greatest Arab Support"

London-based, internationally-circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat carried an op-ed article (12/22) by editor-in-chief Abdulrahman Al-Rashed: "The Iraqi government, as a result of this battle, has received the greatest amount of popular support in its modern history. We can assert confidently that Iraq, after Desert Fox, has shifted from an unwanted place to preferred ally status for many Arab countries. Even those Arab countries, such as Iran, Egypt and Syria, which used to assert in private meetings the necessity to restrict Iraq's dangerous military capabilities, were forced to participate in applauding the Iraqi government."

SYRIA: "Containing The Policy Of Aggression"

Mohamed Ali Buza commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (12/22): "The huge international denunciation of the American-British aggression against Iraq and the wave of anger that dominated the Arab and Islamic world, forced an end to the Anglo-American aggression; it demonstrated the isolation and failure that the United States and Britain faced. American and British policy has lost credibility.... The aggression should not run unpunished and the United States and the UK should not be allowed to jeopardize pan-Arab and international security. The responsibility lies with the UNSC to curb the arrogance of the Anglo-American aggression."

TUNISIA: "The Only Truth"

Editor-in-chief Noureddine Achour argued in pro-government As-Sabah (12/23): "If the Iraqi leadership is relying on Russian, Chinese and in a third place French positions, Russia and China have not gone beyond rhetoric. Experience has proved the limit of both parties especially when it touches their interests with the United States and the West...and when it deals with UN resolutions and the necessity of their implementation. For this, it seems that the only way to lift the embargo passes through Baghdad, which means through the Iraqi leadership's implementation of the UN resolutions...but in order to avoid having the same experience as with UNSCOM, it is important to create a credible UN commission."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Call For An Arab Summit"

Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej held (12/21), "An Arab summit should have convened and concluded its agenda for a joint Arab action following the British-American aggression on Iraq. However, one week passed and yet there were no indications in this regard. Although half of the Arabs agreed to the summit, however, the approval of certain Arab countries is vital for any Arab summit. It seems that those countries preferred not to comment on this issue, which they view as unnecessary.... Many nations including Russia, India, Western Europe and others reacted and demonstrated their opposition to the American aggression backed by Britain. Only the Arabs remain helpless and do nothing!"

"Kremlin Calls For A Strategic Triangle To Contain U.S."

Commenting on Primakov's initiative for a strategic triangle along with China and India, the Sharjah-based Arabic daily Al-Khaleej held (12/22), "Following the American aggression on Iraq, Russia realized that Washington is looking down on it. Washington considers Russia as a satellite that flies in the U.S. orbit. The United States expects to have the upper hand in all world affairs. The Kremlin's angry reaction confirms that the United States humiliated Russia, and it has to prove to Washington that Russia remains a superpower, which has its own strategies and policies that need to be respected. This call is an attempt to draw a new formula in the new world order and an end to the U.S. unilateral action in the world's destiny.... If it materializes, the strategic triangle would represent the best deterrent to restrain U.S. aggressions."

WEST BANK: "Russia Is Being Marginalized Just As Arabs Are"

Mohammed Yacoub commented in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (12/22): "The new American aggression [on Iraq] forms a direct threat against Russia.... If Russia doesn't stand firmly against the U.S. offensive, it will be the only loser in this war outside of Iraq and the Arab nation. A negative Russian stance would forever make the U.S. the sole undefeated power in the world.... The firm Russian stance [against the strikes on Iraq], however, proves that it realizes the American ambitions to possess ultimate control over the resources of all the nations and to marginalize all other powers, be they super or minor. This Russian cognizance is not only important to Russia itself but also to the Arabs and the Third World."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Iraq Diplomacy"

The independent Financial Times had this editorial (12/23): "After the straightforward part of dealing a blow to Iraq...comes the complex business of reforging an international diplomatic consensus on how to contain Saddam Hussein for the future.... The time for a new approach to Iraq has come. It will have to rely more on external deterrence, less on intrusive inspection and more imagination in the operation of sanctions to help ordinary suffering Iraqis."

"Reflect And Rethink"

The liberal Guardian had this editorial (12/22): "As the smoke (literally) clears some kind of interim assessment becomes both possible and necessary. And it's negative. For the time being the British position has been made to look all the more hazardous by "standing alone" with the United States at a moment when that country's domestic preoccupations are so strong.... The price has also to be calculated diplomatically in terms of relations inside the EU, in the Arab world, and in the future capacity of the UN to express anything resembling the consensus of the free world.... But if on balance this action was unjustified, what now?... There might be circumstances ahead when the commitment of British forces in the Gulf is once again justified, in coalition. After the UN's presence is reconstituted; after incontrovertible evidence is amassed that Saddam constitutes a potential threat."

GERMANY: "Clueless In Iraq"

Right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine said (12/22): "The Americans are helpless in Iraq. They do not know how to proceed. Military punishment without a constructive political concept failed, as well as the attempt to declare Iraq--as well as some other difficult regimes in the Middle East--a 'rogue state.'"

FRANCE: "A Disoriented Gulliver"

Jean Daniel penned this analysis in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (12/23): "If we must live under a Pax Americana, let it at least be a coherent one. The strikes against Iraq were a waste and the entire planet will be paying the price. Rarely has the use of force resulted in such a major political impasse.... The results of the U.S. strikes in Iraq are catastrophic.... If today Saddam Hussein stands victorious, it is because back in November, Clinton made the mistake of stating outright that he would do everything in his power to get rid of Saddam."

"Iraq: Time For Assessment"

Left-of-center Le Monde opined (12/22): "What have the United States and the UK obtained after 72 hours of strikes against Iraq?... The truth is that the credibility of the United States, if not of the entire West, comes out weakened where it counts the most: in the Arab world.... Anti-Americanism has gone up by a notch.... The days of the UNSCOM are over.... It will have to be replaced. By what, nobody knows.... In the meantime, the United States has humiliated a good part of the UNSC members and the UN Secretary General Annan. The United States has triggered Russia's anger, a few disapproving grumbles from Beijing, and a certain malaise from its European allies.... (As for Saddam), the attack...has made the dictator stronger within."

ITALY: "Disintegration Of Country Is Welcome"

Provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio (12/23) contended: "The Americans have given up the old political-diplomatic theory aimed at maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity. The disintegration of the country is welcome if it can lead to Saddam's fall and the dismantling of his 'evil empire.'"

"The UN Secretary General's Downtrodden Dignity"

Carlo Rossella wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (12/22): "Faced with critical statements coming from other countries who want to defend the role of the UNSC and (want) the UN to be informed about 'Desert Fox,' Great Britain and the United States explain that the UN must not become a world super-government. Indeed, America, the world's only power, wants to contain both the UN role and Annan's activism."

RUSSIA: "Airstrikes Paralyze UN"

Neo-communist Slovo (12/23) editorialized on page one: "The U.S. cruise missiles, sent against Iraq, struck the entire system of international security, paralyzing the activity of the UN, its Security Council and secretary general. Along with the UN's financial crisis, caused by the Americans earlier, this represents a planned and considered action to undermine the principal international institution.... A reign of permissiveness. That's what it is. U.S. actions give rise to arbitrariness and willfulness in international relations, with one superpower claiming a right to dictate to the rest of the world. An answer to that, naturally, will be efforts to restore the balance, build a multipolar world, and form alternative power centers."

"It Might Be Justified"

Vladimir Natalyin mused in reformist Izvestiya (12/23): "If it is true what the Americans are saying about having held off Iraq developing ballistic missiles for a year, their operation may be justified, since, without carriers, weapons of mass destruction are ineffective."

"UNSC Is Main Target"

Business-oriented Kommersant Daily said (12/22): "The main target...is not so much the Iraqi regime but the UNSC. The United States wants to set a precedent, whereby the chief

international organization might be put out of the game and Russia's status brought down to a third-rate country. Hence Moscow's harsh reaction.... According to a high-ranking Russian diplomat, Moscow is not going to drag out the standoff with Washington and London and is ready to restore a status quo, asking for it a moderate price--Richard Butler's dismissal as the UNSCOM head."

ARMENIA: "Oil Prices Will Go Down, Arab Mistrust Of Anglos Will Go Up"

Independent, Russian-language Novoye Vremya remarked (12/22), "The consequences of 'Desert Fox" will be the same as those of 'Desert Storm': The Baghdad regime will likely remain the same. Oil prices...will go back down, and Arabs will have even more mistrust toward Anglo-Saxons."

BELGIUM: "Premeditated Murder"

Independent Catholic De Standaard featured this op-ed column (12/23): "Operation Desert Fox is a cynical illustration of the abuse of power and the policy of double standards with which Washington tries to impose its laws onto the rest of the world. In the Middle East, the United States wants absolute control over the strategic oil reserves and, to that end, it is seeking a permanent, crushing military presence.... When the UN become an obstacle, the United States simply pushes it aside. That (technique) will be repeated if Washington succeeds in enforcing its new strategic concepts onto all of this European NATO partners.... We strongly condemn Washington's and London's military operations against Iraq.... Almost eight years of economic embargo has caused unimaginable and unjustifiable suffering to the Iraqi people."

DENMARK: "Open Up To Iraq, But Reserve Right To Use Force"

Left-wing Information noted (12/23): "The world community (if that term can still be used) must open up culturally and economically to the Iraqi regime while maintaining a military presence in the region in order to ensure that Hussein does not use his increased revenues to build up new supplies of weapons of mass destruction. If he does so, the planes will have to take to the air once more."

HUNGARY: "The Endless Iraqi Story"

Influential daily Magyar Hirlap carried this op-ed piece (12/22) by researcher of the Hungarian Foreign Policy Institute Erzsebet N. Rozsa: "The Iraq incident gives rise to doubts on several counts. On one hand, the procedure itself is rather questionable from the perspective of international law; on the other, the behavior of the supervising committee also raises such important questions as who is authorized to order the UN inspectors to leave. The leader of the group, Richard Butler, supposedly, had not consulted with the UN General Secretary before he ordered the inspectors to leave Iraq. It is even rumored that the United States literally told Butler and his team to leave; what's more, according to reports of the Western media, Clinton received Butler's report before Kofi Annan did. If this is true, the already complicated legal issue is even harder to unravel, but who will take the United States and Great Britain to account?"

KAZAKHSTAN: "Kazakhstani Viewers Protest Use Of Military Force"

Independent TV NTK News (12/18) reported: "President Nazarbayev's press secretary announced that this problem [between Iraq and UN inspectors] had to be decided by the negotiations with consideration of the international community' s opinion. Also, NTK conducted a telephone survey and asked its viewers: "Was it possible to decide the [Iraq] problem by peaceful means?" Seventy three Kazakhstanis called during the program: Sixty four of them said 'yes' and 9 said 'no.'"

THE NETHERLANDS: "There Must Be A Tight Front Against Saddam"

Centrist Algemeen Dagblad maintained, (12/22), "It is certain that the air strikes will have some unpleasant consequences for UNSCOM. Without inspections like the UNSCOM ones, it will be impossible to keep an eye on what Saddam Hussein is doing. It will only be possible to isolate Saddam or to eliminate him if there is a tight front of many countries. Such a front has become an illusion after the U.S/British intervention. Iraq's neighboring countries do not show much enthusiasm for a policy of isolation. The Russians are irritated. Important European allies, France, Germany, and Italy showed skepticism."

POLAND: "Noisy Night, Pitiful Night"

Kazimierz Pytko opined in center-left Zycie Warszawy (12/23): "War, the fate of the leader of the world's only superpower--all this was reduced to a television spectacle occasionally peppered with respective commentaries.... And no one cared to ask whether Iraq, having lost two wars and being the object of sanctions for eight years, could really be a threat to anyone."

"The Way To Tackle Saddam"

Maria Graczyk wrote in centrist weekly Wprost (12/22): "It is hard to play the role of the only superpower without at least being able to influence one's allies in the region. It will not be possible to solve the Iraqi issue without gaining the support of the Arabs.... The road from Washington to the Middle East capitals is very long--not only on a map."

PORTUGAL: "The European Dilemma"

Center-left-Publico's international editor Teresa de Sousa commented (12/19): "Europe cannot easily accept american unilateralism, nor the politics of fait accomplit with which it was confronted, for the simple reason that these are not the principles of international co-existence that its governments defend.... But, faced with the danger of the obscene and unpredictable tyranny that Saddam objectively represents, Europe knows that, in the last analysis, its security guarantees are in the hands of Washington."

SLOVENIA: "Consequences"

Left-of-center Delo opined (12/22), " Clinton is a very bad tactician (hence also a bad politician); because of his underestimation of the rest of the world, he is not able to anticipate the consequences of his unpremeditated acts.... Deposing the Iraqi dictator is the primary goal of all actions, but after every attack, he sits more solidly in the Baghdad saddle.... Similarly, Clinton also strengthens the vultures on the Russian political scene who...irrationally demand the straining of relations with the West after each action against Iraq.... The Russian Duma will certainly not ratify START-2 within the next six months, and Moscow will demand that Richard Butler is replaced.... If it wants to get international loans, Russia will sooner or later have to acquiesce in the present American ignorance. It will be much more difficult to calm down the Islamic extremists.... But, does the world at the break of the millennium really need (broadened) military agreements and new wars? Conflicts should be resolved rather than additionally expanded.... Because of his personal distress, the American president has evidently forgotten the mission of a fair arbiter, a role which he--as the only real master of the world--should never renounce. Not even for the price of his political fall."

SPAIN: "Questions About Iraq"

Dario Valcarcel commented in conservative ABC (12/22): "Was the bombardment inevitable? For many observers, yes. After the intervention of UN Secretary General Annan in February, the United States didn't have any other alternative than to attack Iraq at the first sign of lack of

cooperation with the inspectors of UNSCOM.... Saddam is a murderer, a corrupt dictator.... For Spaniards, it is clear which side we should be on, but many questions loom. Who asked for our support?... Isn't it worth recognizing [and noting] that the Spanish government, like others in NATO, has simply been ignored?"

TURKEY: "Turkey Squeezed In Between U.S. And Iraq"

Dogan Heper commented in mass-appeal Milliyet (12/23): "It appears that Washington is considering how to divide Iraq, after it failed to topple Saddam. Here is the plan--a Shiite state in the south, a Kurdish state in the north and a Baghdad-centered Iraq.... Currently, Iraq is harshly accusing Turkey, and, at the same time, the United States is plotting to establish a new state in northern Iraq. Whether or not Turkey wants it, the aftermath of the U.S.-UK military strikes has brought Iraq to the brink of breaking apart."

EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: "Iraq Bombing Exposes A Policy Void"

Conservative Australian (12/22) commented, "If the U.S. tactics are flawed, at least they exist--more than can be said for those who maintain that Mr. Hussein threatens regional stability but who have not put forward alternative strategies."

CHINA: "Desert Fox Involves Evil Consequences"

Jin De remarked in official Central Legal and Political Commission Legal Daily (Fazhi Ribao, 12/23): "Because of Operation Desert Fox, the UNSCOM weapons inspections came to a dead end.... The most serious consequence is that the dignity of the UN has been damaged and international principles have been violated. President Clinton may be the biggest loser in these air raids; the air raids neither freed him from impeachment nor toppled Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the attack he launched further distanced the United States from the international community."

INDONESIA: "When The Magic Stops Working"

Independent newsweekly Tempo commented (12/23): "Washington's contention that Iraq must be isolated because of the ongoing destructive weapons program that threatens its neighbors is increasingly out of favor, even in America.... The question thus becomes whether millions of Iraqis should suffer for the collective sin of having a leader like Saddam Hussein. This is easily answered, bearing in mind that Saddam was not elected by popular vote.... There is nothing for us to do but call on the United States to cease its strikes immediately and ask the UN to lessen the impact of the embargo on the innocent."

NEW ZEALAND: "U.S. Shift In Policy"

The top circulation conservative New Zealand Herald (12/22), "The Iraqi leader appears now to have less of an incentive to allow the inspectors to return than before. He has become the target.... National Security Adviser, Samuel Berger, signalled the shift in policy--from containment of Saddam to the Iraqi leader's removal. He gave no details but said it would be administration policy to strengthen the Iraqi opposition and provide 'moral and material support.' The sentiments are admirable. As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, the potential for conflict in the region remains high. However, it would be worrying if 'material support' was a euphemism for weaponry. The toll among the Iraqi people from a civil war would make the number of deaths from the weekend bombing and missile raids pale by comparison. Worse, with various factions outside taking sides, a conflict within Iraq would be as destabilizing to the region as is Saddam's regime. Whatever else the players might consider, finding common

strategy against the Iraqi leader should be a high priority.... The cruise missiles have bought time but failed to provide solutions."

PHILIPPINES: "Justified Air Strikes"

Former Press Secretary Jess Sison wrote in his column in the independent Malaya (12/23): "If Saddam's evil design is not aborted, his threat of 'mother of all battles' during the Gulf War might yet come true. With his arsenal of the devil's weapons, millions of people would die. So it seems that the recent air strikes by American and British troops on Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction are justified."

"Purely American Interests"

Roberto Verzola wrote in his column in the government-controlled Journal (12/22): "It is clear from the chain of events, however, the UN Security Council was still discussing the Butler report and deliberating its response when the U.S. and British bombers struck.... The simple truth is that the U.S. actions in Iraq, as are its actions in Indonesia, in Israel, as well as in the Philippines in 1899 when it provoked a war against us, are dictated purely by American interests."

SINGAPORE: "Allied Claims Ring Hollow"

The pro-government Business Times (12/22) said: "If all these past years of economic sanctions...did not prevent the Iraqi regime from building up its weapons of mass destruction...why should anyone be persuaded that this time, it is going to be any different? The other problem...is the disappointment of the other three permanent members of the Security Council.... But the biggest cloud...is U.S. President Bill Clinton's impeachment.... There is no sign that Saddam's grip on power in Iraq has been loosened.... The latest raids may have served to further entrench his position."

SOUTH KOREA: "What Did U.S. Get From Attacking Iraq?"

Moderate Hankook Ilbo (12/22) editorialized: "The strike neither brought Hussein to his knees nor weakened his grip on power.... President Clinton...failed to separate the Iraqi situation from his domestic political troubles, a sign of lack of leadership on his part. As the president did nothing but reinforce Hussein's political standing, the international community now faces a heavy burden in the days ahead."

THAILAND: "After 'Desert Fox', Who Will Oversee World Peace?"

Cafe Dam commented in elite, business-oriented Krungthep Turakij (12/23): "There is no indication that Saddam Hussein's political viability has been effectively weakened by this latest air campaign. To the contrary, he may have been strengthened. Also, the Security Council is likely to be sharply divided, with the United States and the UK on one side, and China, Russia and France on the other. Now, all parties may have to return to their seats at the UN and ponder if the world peacekeeping mechanism has crumbled."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Hardly Any Relief"

The independent English-language Daily Star opined (12/22): "We have two lessons to draw from this sordid episode: First, the U.S.-British action has not only been immoral and ineffective, but it has also been illegal in the eyes of international law because the attack was launched without the full backing of the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the core issue here

being the implementation of certain UN Security Council resolutions, it was all the more necessary for the Security Council to be consulted before mounting the military attack on Iraq. What has happened hardly augurs well for a new international political order. Whatever respite we have [obtained] must now be used to help find a diplomatic solution to the tangle so that the suffering Iraqi people can be saved from wholesale ruination."

INDIA: "After The Bombing"

An editorial in the nationalist Hindustan Times held (12/22), "The irony of Saddam Hussein remaining as firmly entrenched as before even after the U.S.-British air strikes while the commander-in-chief of the American forces faces impeachment is too stark to be missed.... The concept of trying to topple a regime through air strikes is a new one in gunboat diplomacy, suggesting that the earlier methods of achieving the same objective more covertly with the CIA's help have been abandoned. The reason perhaps is that Washington now feels that there is no country in the world today which can effectively oppose its acts of aggression. All that Russia and China...can do is to lodge ineffectual formal protests while France hems and haws and the UN secretary general maintains a deafening silence.... While Hussein has survived, his opponents and interlocutors have not made any major gain from the American show of might. Only the suffering of the hapless Iraqis, caught between a rogue at home and rogues abroad, has increased."

"UNSCOM Should Now Be Disbanded"

The right-of-center Pioneer (12/22) ran a piece by columnist Sandhya Jain that said in part: "The real Iraqi crisis has only just begun. To begin with, President Saddam Hussein...has both his person and his prestige intact after the event.... UNSCOM, on the other hand, stands utterly discredited.... In such a scenario, Iraq has done well to refuse further cooperation with UNSCOM; it should now be disbanded without further ado.... As for Saddam's dictatorship, it is for the Iraqi people to shake off his yoke.... A U.S. attempt to 'liberate' them would only lead to a tin-pot dictatorship of the Shah of Iran variety."

NEPAL: "Strong-Arm Tactics Aggravate The Situation"

The centrist Independent ran this editorial (12/23): "Showing concern in controlling nuclear and other weapons is all right, but this does not mean any one or two countries has the right to attack a sovereign nation. When peaceful dialogue could solve the problem, an outright missile attack on a country is unwarranted. While urging Iraq to allow UN arms inspectors to do their work, the United States and its allies must also understand that they can aggravate the situation and not solve the problem if they act with such strongarm tactics."

"American Hegemonistic War Strategies"

Pro-left Prakash (12/21) declared, "The hegemony of the United States has reached its climax. Not only Iraq but the whole world, has suffered from American imperialism. America has been especially critical of Third World and socialist countries. Using its strategic power, American imperialism is ready to commit any kind of heinous crime. By deploying its troops all around the world, the United States is helping its puppet governments [in many countries] to suppress the emerging revolutions for freedom. The United States, which is expert in creating wars, is also quick to teach human rights to the world. It is not difficult to understand that American strategies look like they are anti-war but are, in fact, for creating wars."

PAKISTAN: "U.S. Attitude And Reaction Of Arab Citizens"

An editorial in leading, mass-circulation Jang judged (12/23): "Keeping the extreme public reaction in the Arab world in view over the U.S.-UK aerial attacks on Iraq, political analysts

point out that, if the United States did not change its attitude then every Arab child will become Osama bin Laden. It was a one-sided war against Iraq. It is ironic that most of the Muslim leadership is cowardly and under the influence of the United States and considers U.S. support imperative for the continuation and protection of their rule. It is a pity that the leaders of the Muslim countries could not retaliate except uttering a few words of condemnation. Differences with Saddam aside, it was a matter of great tyranny over Iraqi public. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the United States and the UK will have to pay a price for their uncalled for aggression."

"Our Nuclear Program Is The Real U.S. Target"

An editorial in the second largest Urdu daily Nawa-e-Waqt stated (12/22), "The recent U.S. act points to the possibility that President Clinton might soon suffer from another attack of such madness and that Pakistan may become the next U.S. target, because [Pakistan] is a country which is trying to build its Islamic identity and is in the process of implementing the Shariah [Islamic code of law]. Although the information minister has expressed satisfaction over the resolution of the F-16 issue, he should be reminded that the actual U.S. target is our nuclear program, which America wishes to eliminate completely."

"The Baghdad Attack Message"

The front-page "Comments" column by Syed Talat Hussain made this point in the center-right Nation (12/22), "Countries like Pakistan ought to carefully read the messages of the three-day-long missile strikes on Baghdad's nearly hundred targets, allegedly used for making weapons of mass destruction.... Generally, the attack on Baghdad, which continued irrespective of the start of the month of Ramadan, highlights the naivete of the belief, which some entertain in Pakistan, that the Clinton administration has made a genuine effort to cultivate the Muslim world. While there has surely been a marked increase in sweet-sounding rhetoric directed at the Muslim world from Washington since the Bill Clinton administration came to power, the paradox is that the same administration has struck in three Muslim countries in less than five months on very weak and questionable strategic motives. Even American strategic and foreign policy analysts, who usually follow the flow of official policy in war matters, have raised eyebrows over the need for the Clinton administration's attacks on Sudan, Afghanistan, and now Baghdad."

SRI LANKA: "Curtailing The 'Global Cop'"

Anti-government, right-of-center, Sinhala-language Divaina asserted (12/23): "In an unfair world where the weaker is always devoured by the mighty, it is not right for one global power to hold such an exalted position of military strength.... Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov's proposal for the formation of a new power block consisting of China, Russia and India is not a suggestion devoid of all innocence.... It is possible that these three countries that have many unresolved differences among them, feel that the most pressing issue at hand is to find a solution to curtail the power of the 'global cop.'"

AFRICA

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: "Clinton, Murderer"

Pro-moderate-opposition La Libre Afrique declared(12/21), "Bill Clinton has just proven to everyone in the world that he is the biggest terrorist of this 20th, which is drawing to its end. Just a few days after the celebration of the declaration of the

human rights, the fiance (sic) of Monica decided to cross the Rubicon in order to kill innocent, children, women and men without justifying very well the reasons for this bloodbath.... Officially, nothing has been proven that Iraq made nuclear or weapons of massive

destruction.... Even then does one become both judge and jury? The moment has come when Congolese should express their anger with the United States for its support to Rwandan, Ugandan and Burundian aggressors by burning their flags and by sit-ins in front of their diplomatic missions.... Sudan, Angola, Somalia and DROC [should] act as one to say 'non' to U.S. effrontery."

MADAGASCAR: "Diversionary Tactics"

Independent, L'Express compared the recent seizure of illegally imported merchandise by Malagasy customs officials to the strikes in Iraq (12/19): "In both cases, there was an attempt to divert attention from the real issue. The U.S. president is tangled up in an impeachment process while the Malagasy government faces a challenge from the private sector."

NIGER: "Act Of Hostility Against Arabs"

Private Le Democrate front-paged this comment (12/21) that said in part, "Even if Arab governments remain quiet, public opinion has seen the American attacks as an act of hostility toward the Arab world 'and beyond that' the entire Muslim community.... This operation takes place just at the moment when the House of Representatives is about to vote on the impeachment of President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Hung Out To Dry"

Montreal's English language Gazette (12/22) remarked: "Mr. Butler has antagonized the Iraqis with his persistence in seeking out information on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But that is no reason to dump him. Mr. Butler is an arms inspector, not a diplomat. He deserves support from the international community for his tenacious efforts to document Iraq's threat to the world."

BRAZIL: "Tension In Pax Americana"

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo opined (12/23), "In addition to the protests led by France, a nation that usually criticizes U.S. arbitrariness, there are other signs indicating a possible retrogression in international relations. Russian communist leaders have suggested the formation of a strategic military triangle with India and China to oppose U.S. military domination. It is very unlikely that such an alliance will prosper either because of the deep historic differences that exist between Indians and Chinese, or because these nations strongly depend on the United States However, considering the little or no democratic culture of these nations and their powerful nuclear arsenals, the mere suggestion of such a military bloc causes apprehension. Developments in the Iraqi case show that there is an instability being generated that must be managed within legal norms. If significant advancements in international law have occurred in recent decades specifically regarding security, it seems that the agenda remains open and needs to be agreed to, particularly by the United States, a nation that unfortunately tends to assume the role of the world's sheriff."

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: "U.S. Actions Toward Iraq"

Top-circulation left-of-center afternoon tabloid El Nacional opined (12/21), "Clinton becomes a villain in Iraq and a victim in the Senate. That's why I sympathize with the Iraqi people in the face of Clinton's aggression, and with Clinton in the face of the aggression of the hypocritical Republicans. And I don't (have dual sympathies) in order to not offend anyone but because it seems to be that this is the way to be just."

CHILE: "No Counterweight To U.S. Power"

Santiago's influential, conservative, newspaper-of-record El Mercurio said (12/20), "The unjustified Anglo-American attack on Iraq is but one more demonstration that at the turn of the century what predominates is the inclination to solve all conflicts between nations with the intervention of the only superpower there is: the United States.... This is not convenient or desirable, because it makes nations and people subject to the plans of the strongest in the area of defense, in which the United States has no counterbalance."

ECUADOR: "Just As With Castro, U.S. Is Doing Saddam A Favor"

Quito's centrist leading El Comercio opined (12/19), "It is believed that what the United States wants, aside from Iraq's military power (which specialists believe is strongly weakened) is for Hussein to relinquish power. The United States is doing this dictator a favor (as they did in Cuba) by turning him into a victim of the first power of the world. It is giving him an argument, the best one, for his political survival. Many interrogations remain about what really happened with the Butler report. One thing is sure, that for now the shots fired by President Clinton have backfired."

HAITI: "World Remains Skeptical Of Clinton's Arguments"

Centrist-conservative Le Nouvelliste opined (12/17), "Where is the glory in bombarding a country already on its knees? In using...300 missiles at a million dollars each just to kill five people? Was it so important that [the United States], without hesitation, embarassed the UN, the secretary general and the Security Council? The world remains skeptical of Clinton's arguments and wonders, was it really worth all this?"

MEXICO: "The Thief Of Baghdad"

Rogelio Rio wrote (12/22) in independent El Norte, "The strategic goal of eliminating Iraq's destructive capability--its bacteriological arsenal--is more than sufficient justification for reprisals from Washington and London. But why go over the head of the UN one more time, since it is the legitimate instrument of coercive against a rogue country that threatens world security? Is an attack by Hussein on his neighbors imminent, or was this a preventive strike?"

NICARAGUA: "Silver Platter From Saddam Hussein To Bill Clinton"

The editorial in right, pro-business La Tribuna argued (12/18), "There is no doubt that the flames in Baghdad represent a temporary oasis for Clinton. But even so, the American bombing campaign is not unjustified. The president of Nicaragua regretted the bombings and asked for dialogue and a peaceful solution to the crisis. 'In a country that has lived the disastrous effect of war, we can do no more than regret the attacks on Iraq,' declared Aleman. True that the present tensions and the attack in the Gulf could have been avoided. The reactivation of armed violence is due solely to the failure of Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions."

PANAMA: "What Did These Attacks Accomplish?"

Independent La Prensa (12/21) ran this front-page editorial column, "Hoy por Hoy": Saddam Hussein seems more defiant than ever; the UN inspectors will not be able to continue their visits, the Arab world is irritated, and the international community has clearly demonstrated its rejection of the decision to attack without the consent or knowledge of the UN Security Council. What did these attacks accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except to be ridiculous."

PERU: "Clinton And Blair's Courage"

Uri Ben Schmuel, deputy managing editor of pro-government Expreso, said (12/22): "If, in the mid-thirties, the leaders of Great Britain and France would have sent a squadron to bomb Berlin, the history of the 20th century would have changed. But they lacked the courage. Saddam Hussein is the Hitler of this generation.... Notwithstanding, vis-a-vis the shameful French and Russian behavior and the capitulation of Kofi Annan, the U.S. and British leaders have shown courage and leadership. The world is in debt to them."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

12/23/98

# # #