Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Confronting Iraq"

The independent Jerusalem Post wrote in its lead editorial (11/13): "Saddam has left the West with only one way to enforce the UN's resolutions--remove him.... Any attack that leaves his personal and weapons security system intact would be worse than useless, and cause suffering without accomplishing anything.... Clinton now has the opportunity to show that the world has learned from the wars of this century and that democracies must be willing to decisively confront aggressive dictatorships."

"Long-Term Objective"

Columnist Zvi Barel wrote in a front-page commentary in liberal Haaretz (11/12): "The importance of destroying Iraqi nonconventional weapons and material cannot be overestimated, but it is even more important to neutralize Saddam's ability to resume manufacturing such weapons. To this end, a long-term arrangement is needed that may be reached only if Saddam is assured that sanctions will be lifted at a pre-set date. Military action will only make Saddam a hero in his own mind as well as in the minds of some Arab countries--and will make the United States feel even lonelier in its battle against Iraq."

BAHRAIN: "Arab Governments Must Publicly Reject Aggression"

Sayed Zuhrah commented in leading, semi-official Akhbar Al-Khalij (11/10): "All America can do is fire its missiles and send its airplanes to destroy Iraqi targets and kill Iraqis.... Now with America threatening to wipe out Iraq, the Arab governments are required to free themselves from the aggression which America wants to launch against Iraq. It is not acceptable anymore that governments feel satisfied to just express their reservations to the Americans behind closed doors. They are required to publicly announce their rejection of the aggression."

"Saddam Shares Some Responsibility For State Of Iraqi People"

Mohammed Fadhel commented in leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam (11/9): "No one approves the use of force against Iraq, and definitely not a single Arab can support such action. But even if the sanctions...were put in place by...'foreign enemies,' this does not eliminate the responsibility of the Iraqi leadership. Here we are again, [with Iraq] trying to convince the world that it is facing a great satanic conspiracy. But we ask: Who is responsible for the invasion of Kuwait?... Who is responsible for what has been happening (in Iraq) for the last two decades? However, what we are concerned about now is the people of Iraq.... Lifting the sanctions will be better than confrontation."

EGYPT: "No Arab Land For Strike Against Iraq"

Salama Ahmed Salama, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, said (11/12): "Undoubtedly this repeated scenario [of American threats] to force Iraq to cooperate with the UN lies in the context of American policies aimed at maintaining constant tension in the region and at covering repeated Israeli violations of the peace deals and the ugly face of Netanyahu. This boring repetition made Arabs lose confidence in American policy toward Iraq. No Arab country is ready to use its land for a strike against Iraq.... Israel's penetration of the inspection team gives Iraq every right to demand the exclusion of Butler and a schedule to end the sanctions.... If the United States and Europe sought a political settlement with Milosevic, why not adopt a more rational and fair policy with Iraq, especially when Arabs agree that Iraq has the right to see the light at the end of the dark tunnel?"

"Blaming Iraq Does Not Mean We Do Not Sympathize"

Morsi Attalah, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, maintained (11/12): "Blaming Iraq for the current crisis does not mean that we do not sympathize with its legitimate demands and right to protest.... This Arab call for Iraq to realize the sensitivity of the situation does not mean that Arabs support an American military strike or agree with Iraq's policy of going to the brink."

"Blame The Arab States For Their Participation In Blockade"

Said Salama contributed this piece to Islamist-leaning opposition Al Shaab (11/10): "We admit that Iraq made a mistake by invading Kuwait.... But the United States was not satisfied by Iraq's withdrawal, so it imposed sanctions indefinitely. We cannot blame the United States and its Western allies, because they will not divert from their aim to shatter Iraq for the sake of the Zionists. But the whole blame should fall on Arabs who participate in the blockade. They are still angry at what Iraq has done, but they forgive Israel for taking the rights of everybody."

"Iraq Playing Into U.S. Hands"

Ahmed Al Guindy maintained in pro-government Al Akhbar (11/9): "Interestingly, Iraq described the United States and Kuwait as its enemies. This means that Iraq does not differentiate between Kuwait, an Arab country, and the United States, which led the international alliance. Iraq does not want to change its position toward Kuwait. It does not give Kuwait a chance to start a new slate and abandon its fears of Iraqi threats. In this way, Iraq is condemning to failure every Arab effort on reconciliation between the two countries. Kuwait cannot, therefore, accept the lifting of sanctions on Iraq or exclude a military attack on it. It will be supported by the GCC. Why does Iraq not realize that the only solution is reconciliation with Kuwait? When will Iraq realize that it is giving the United States the chance to pursue its position and achieve Israel's will?"

JORDAN: "Let Sanity Prevail"

The centrist, influential among the elite, English-language Jordan Times said (11/11): "The Security Council has reason to be concerned about Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM. On the other hand, Iraqis have cause for concern about the suffocation of their country for nearly a decade.... No one would wish to absolve Iraq of its responsibilities under international resolutions. The Iraqi authorities did in cooperate with UNSCOM for several years, and this fact proves that under appropriate conditions this kind of cooperation can be resumed and maintained.... Military action against Iraq by the United States, Britain and their allies must not be taken unless approved by the Security Council... From an Arab perspective, Iraq remains an Arab country and no Arab would wish to see any more killings of Iraqis."

"The Risk Of A Military Strike"

Chief editor Taher Udwan commented in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (11/10): "Unfortunately, the Arabs failed to take advantage of the eight-month period that followed the previous Iraqi crisis to convince the Security Council and the United States to put an end to the inspections in Iraq. The issue has nothing to do with Iraq's compliance with international resolutions. This is a naive simplification of the whole issue. The issue is really about the U.S. determination to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein. We must also realize that it is not an American-Iraqi conflict about democracy vs. dictatorship. Washington has always been the foremost sponsor of unilateral ruling regimes in the world. The story is simply an organized American effort supported by extremists in the U.S. Congress and by the Zionist Lobby to destroy Iraq so it will not threaten Israel's security. Everything else is nonsense."

"New Crisis, New Factors"

Daily columnist Urayb Rintawi stressed on the op-ed page of center-left, influential Al-Dustur (11/10): "One is completely perplexed at Iraq's decision to stop its cooperation with UNSCOM. Saying that it has had enough of the sanctions is not reason enough for such decision. Moreover, accusing members of UNSCOM of spying against Iraq is not a convincing reason since Iraq has nothing to hide after eight years of thoroughly conducted inspections."

KUWAIT: "Opposition To Air Strikes Remain"

Independent Al-Seyassah published this comment by Shamlan al-Issa (11/7): "Kuwaiti public opinion is not for a military strike against Iraq. The reason is that previous strikes did not lead to the [desired] results, such as ending the tyrant's regime and [liberating] the Iraqi people. Only the Iraqi regime will benefit from a military strike. Arab and some Gulf states oppose any military strike against Iraq. This would serve no one but Saddam and Israel, which is trying to keep Iraq away from the Middle East peace process."

"Cohen Visit Did Not Gain Popular Support"

Abdul Mohsen Jamal, writing in independent Al-Qabas (11/7), said, "The Iraqi regime is proving day by day that it is the main source of tension in the region. The interests of major countries are in favor of the regime's survival. The U.S. secretary of defense's visit to the Gulf states did not gain any popular [support] because people feel there is no seriousness in [overthrowing] Saddam. Therefore, this threat no longer frightens Saddam. The survival of the Iraqi regime has prompted some countries, including Gulf states, to [forge] trade relations with Iraq, which is contrary to the message the American secretary of defense sought to convey to the Gulf region."

"Saddam's Political Longevity Will Be Longer Than Clinton's''

Independent Al-Watan ran this piece by Abdullah al-Shayji (11/7), "A year ago we warned against limited strikes which would not succeed in undermining Saddam's power. Saddam is still controlling the game. He chooses the time and way of defiance. Lifting the sanctions is gaining more support. Despite their (Democrats) unexpected victory in the congressional mid-term elections, President Clinton remains a 'lame duck' and incapable of achieving a [major] accomplishment in the sphere of foreign policy. Clinton will disappear from the political scene and Saddam will outlive him. President Bush's son might take his father's position in the White House. Saddam will outlive them and remain ruling with an iron fist so long as there is no serious strategy for putting an end to this boring play."

LEBANON: "Striking Iraq...What For?"

International affairs editor, Sahar Baasiry, wrote in mainstream An-Nahar (11/12): "Whether America strikes Iraq or not, the real problem is the failure of the international sanctions against Iraq. Sanctions did not topple Saddam nor did they stop the Iraqi regime's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.... The sanctions only success was in destroying the Iraqi people as a society. It is difficult to convince the Arabs that this was not the real American intention.... If the Americans don't strike, he wins. If the Americans strike, then he wins by mobilizing the Iraqis against the Americans."

MOROCCO: "Annan Would Have Little Chance For Success"

Front-page commentary by Abdallah Ben Ali in government-coalition, French-language Liberation said (11/12): "Even if Kofi Annan decides to go to Baghdad, his mission would have little chance for success.... The U.S. administration has always put getting rid of Saddam Hussein as a condition for lifting the embargo."

"Does International Community Want Iraq's Assassination?"

Independent La Vie Economique had this commentary (11/6): "Eight years is more than enough for UNSCOM to finish its mission and it could have finished this inquiry a long time ago. We would like to know exactly what UNSCOM has been doing for all these years. It is clear that Washington wants to see the end of Saddam, yet having found that nobody can really replace him and concerned over an explosive power vacuum in the region, the United States practices what it calls 'dual containment,' i.e., the policy of the status quo. The Iraqi people have no more strength to face all these difficulties. Does the international community want the assassination of Iraq?"

QATAR: "U.S. Isolated On Iraq"

Semi-independent Al-Watan held (11/9): "Iraq is seeking to make this battle its last to lift sanctions. Even though it is not equipped to win the battle, Iraq's insistence is noteworthy, especially in that the American military option is receiving the cold shoulder from the Gulf region and the world at large.... Sanctions were not meant to punish Iraq, but to ensure that the country does not stage another invasion of a neighbor. What we have seen so far seems sufficient--or at least should be--whether in terms of destroying weapons or in terms of the Iraqi peoples' suffering.... However, the U.S. insistence on maintaining sanctions is incomprehensible, and if Washington carries out its threats and strikes Iraq, it will realize how isolated it has become on [Iraq]. A military strike would not be worse than what Iraq has suffered so far, and this is what Washington should realize as its prepares its military machine."

"U.S. Won't Get The Blessing Of Arab World"

Semi-independent Al-Sharq charged (11/9): "We do not know how to interpret the outrageous threat issued by the United States to wipe out Iraq if it tries to use weapons of mass destruction.... If wiping out Iraq is in and of itself the goal, then the United States should not expect to do that with the blessing of neighboring countries or the Arab world's approval. These neighboring countries still regard Iraq as a sisterly country.... And if there is consensus that Iraq should be committed to Security Council resolutions, using this consensus in a way that exceeds logical boundaries is totally unacceptable. We believe that the United States has lost a great deal from its hostile policy towards Iraq, which has consequently gained Arab and international sympathy that may pave the way for overcoming sanctions and the selectively implemented UNSC resolutions."

SAUDI ARABIA: "An Intention To Divide Iraq"

Riyadh-based, conservative Al-Riyadh had this editorial (11/12): "Military movement this time is limited to Turkey and Israel...which indicates an intention to publicly divide Iraq.... Another point is that conventional wisdom sees the United States as a power whose actions do not coincide with the logic of justice or the desires of the international community in the formulation of its decisions.... No state can stop the United States from taking the actions it wants, especially on the question of Iraq."

"Saddam Is Misreading Arab Country Positions"

Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad noted (11/10): "It seems that President Hussein is misreading the positions of the Arab countries, which have announced several times that they are against harming the Iraqi people. His bids to escape military strikes will not succeed forever. Despite Arab enthusiasm for the Iraqi people and the rejection of the use of force against the Iraqi people, the international community, represented in the UNSC, is demanding that its resolutions be respected and is strongly suggesting the use force against Iraq.... The Iraqi leadership must understand that, if the UNSC decides on it, no one can prevent a military strike against Iraq. Arabs' enthusiasm for the Iraqi people does not mean (support for) intransigence, rejection of international legitimacy and the dishonoring of obligations."

"Iraqi Decision Irresponsible"

Riyadh-based, moderate Al-Jazira had this editorial (11/9): "Unfortunately, the Iraqi regime risks repeatedly the lives of millions of the brotherly Iraqi people by taking decisions which can only be described as irresponsible positions.... No one in the Arab and Islamic world supports launching of strikes against Iraq. But, by the same token, no one can prevent the party which has a mandate from the UNSC to resort to this painful military option, since the leadership of the Iraqi regime has displayed no responsibility towards the dangers against its country and its people."

SYRIA: "Duality Of American Stand"

An unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen asserted (11/12): "The Security Council has adopted a resolution that calls on Israel to relinquish nuclear arms and to sign a treaty that bans their proliferation. The resolution was passed with a majority of 134 votes, while it was vetoed by Israel and the United States only! The strange thing is that the U.S. veto comes at a time Washington is threatening to hit Iraq under the pretext that Iraq is refusing cooperation with the UNSCOM inspectors.... The duality of the American policy and its flagrant hostility to Arab rights and its bias towards Israel, confirms that the U.S. administration has no credibility, and its claims of concern about implementing the Security Council's resolutions are merely allegations and hypocrisy."

"U.S. Options"

Mohamed Ali Buza commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (11/11): "We have to remind the U.S. administration that its excessive enthusiasm and rush to use might and threats, and to retain unjust sanctions against some Arab countries under weak pretexts, is an unjustified matter that does not suit her prestige as a superpower."

TUNISIA: "A Dangerous Situation"

Senior Editor Mohsen Zoghlami opined in independent, Arabic-language As-Sabah (11/13): "Though it is clear that the American administration is eager to use the military option...we must be responsible and courageous...enough to fully consider whether there are real advantages to taking the more dangerous path...and look at the causes that have led to the suffering of the Iraqi people.... The solution is for Iraq...to cooperate with UNSCOM.... The UN should make its best effort to reach a negotiated solution. The Arab nations must support the interests of the Iraqi people."

WEST BANK: "No Consideration Of Arab Feeling In U.S. Decision-Making"

Hasan El-Kashef opined in Al-Ayyam (11/12): "In the midst of the new development regarding Iraq, both average Arab citizens and officials have come to recognize that there is no consideration of Arab feeling, interest, security or sovereignty in U.S. decision-making.... Washington has decided to attack Iraq as if (the United States) were the only country to decide the world's affairs. Iraq has not occupied another country; it has not threatened any of its neighbors; over the last seven years, Iraq even implemented international resolutions that are unjust and biased; it has undergone comprehensive air and ground inspections that did not overlook any place; and it has suffered from a lack of medicine and food without any hope of light at the end of the tunnel. Despite all this, the besieged victim has been warned of yet more destruction and killing."

"Diplomacy Over Combat"

Hasan El-Batal opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (11/10): "Washington has to do without the services of Scott and Butler and utilize instead the mediation services of Mubarak, King Hussein, Assad, Khatami, Yalmaz, under the leadership of Kofi Annan. Maybe this will assure Saddam Hussein that the $97 million put out to do away with him will go back to the U.S. treasury instead of it being paid to Iraqi mercenaries.... The Iraqi citizens, as a result, would prefer to deal with a tyrant rather than a traitor.... The real solution for the Iraqi crisis is to end the sanctions and to refrain from forcing the Iraqis to choose between their need for life and their...pride."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Saddam Must Be Deterred"

The independent Financial Times had this lead editorial (11/13): "It looks as though the cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein has been playing with the UN for the past seven years is coming to an end. What is less clear is what another round of cruise missile and air strikes can achieve, or what policy options will remain once the bombing stops--particularly given the risk of an anti-American backlash in the Arab and Muslim world.... It is hard to see what alternative the United States now has to military action. But any bombing campaign should be carried out within the framework of deterrence. It should be clearly limited to the Iraqi regime's military infrastructure. To be politically credible, moreover, it should be accompanied by review of sanctions to ensure their effects are concentrated on Mr. Saddam and his henchmen--and not on their victims."

"Countdown Over Iraq"

The conservative Times had this lead editorial (11/13): "Neither in the West, nor at the UN, is there readiness this time to lay down stepping stones for the Iraqi president's retreat.... The only unequivocal success would be the fall of the man who is the cause of it all. Weakening him may be within the capacity of air strikes; removing him is probably not. That has been a good reason for reluctance to use force. It is not a reason for backing away. A clear and present danger presents an equally clear military necessity. As before, it is Saddam who has forced the world to that grim conclusion."

"Singeing Saddam"

The liberal Guardian's editorial emphasized (11/13): "The prospect is that Saddam will not back down in the face of the looming threat of overwhelming force. This means that those...who advocate it have a momentous responsibility to be sure they know why they are about to use it. Is it punitive, and if so, does the punishment really match the crime? Are cruise missiles and smart bombs not an excessive retaliation for the offence of defying UN inspectors?... If the aim is more than punitive, what is the political strategy behind it?... These questions may have convincing answers; we need to hear them."

FRANCE: "An Escalation With Risks"

Pierre Beylau held in right-of-center Le Point (11/13): "Saddam has decided to launch a new confrontation. He may have misinterpreted the process at the UN over the lifting of the embargo. Or he may believe that the United States will never lift the embargo and that only a crisis will make things change.... The United States is ready to launch a new assault that could lead to massive destruction.... Yet, the basic question remains unanswered. Air strikes will not lead to Saddam's removal and could send a major shockwave throughout the Arab world."

"Apocalypse Now?"

Andre Bercoff observed in right-of-center France Soir (11/13): "One could say that the United States once again is teaching us a lesson by deciding on its own to bomb or not to bomb Iraq.... We could say that we are once again faced with global imperialism against nationalism of the people.... But we must also say that Iraq is led by a bloodthirsty tyrant who has never hesitated to massacre his own people when they stood in his way."

"Let's Be Done With It"

Pierre Rousselin frontpaged this editorial in right-of-center Le Figaro (11/12): "Saddam Hussein will have only himself to blame.... Saddam hoped Clinton would come out weakened after the mid-term elections. He thought that a test of strength would allow him to get some promises concerning the possibility of a partial lifting of the sanctions against the UNSCOM inspections. Fostered by Washington's moderation during the last two crises, Saddam made a fatal mistake. He did not expect his enemy to win the elections that liberated him from the Lewinsky affair.... The United States is ready to burst the Iraqi abcess. They are ready to act alone, at any time.... If one wants what is good for Iraq and to put an end to an endless crisis, one has to get rid of Saddam. The first air strikes might then only be the beginning of a long offensive."

GERMANY: "Power And Will"

Guenter Nonnenmacher wrote in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/13): "The question is whether political aims can be achieved with a military strike. With...Iraq, skepticism is justified.... It is an illusion to hope that the regime in Baghdad could be decapitated with a 'surgical strike.'... The punishment of a tyrant, whom the Arab rulers do not like, but whom they consider one of their own...could...result in counter-reactions: Arab countries could disassociate themselves from the United States, it could result in the flaring up of Islamism, and in a wave of anti-Western feelings.... What counts in the Middle East...is power and the clear will to use this power in a worst-case scenario. This is the United States' great trump card."

"Saddam Hussein And No End"

Michael Weissenborn opined in centrist Stuttgarter Zeitung (11/13): "Even a massive military strike will be no guarantee that Saddam's production plants for weapons of mass destruction will be destroyed.... In addition, we must fear that large-scale bombardments will result in great casualties among the civilian population. This, in turn, would strengthen Saddam's position at home and in the Arab world. One thing seems to be clear: A new strategy must be developed against the Saddams and Milosevics of this world. This strategy must give an answer to the constantly returning provocations of these dictators."

"World Should Support U.S. In Eliminating Saddam"

Regional radio station Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg aired the following commentary by Washington correspondent Horst Klaeuser (11/11): "If the Western leading power would fall for the third time within a year into the trap of promises and failed diplomatic activities, and would not match its words with deeds, the credibility not only of the United States but of the UN would be seriously damaged.... Saddam must finally be stopped.... The world should support the United States in finally eliminating Saddam and his regime thus really helping the people in Iraq."

"Always The Same Pattern"

Peter Muench held in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/12): "There is always the same pattern: The [U.S. and its allies] are doomed to reaction and will be able to reverse this trend only if they threaten with a worst-case scenario: the use of force. The alternative would be to capitulate to criminal regimes. The situation in Iraq is now again reaching a climax. There are two versions for the end: war or a bad peace. Only one thing is clear, there will be no happy end."

ITALY: "Difficult Choices"

Franco Venturini judged in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (11/13): "This is the 'mother of all replays.' The Baghdad tyrant quarrels with UN inspectors. America threatens the use of force. The others invoke negotiations as they condemn Iraq and, in the meantime, a countdown has begun for a new 'Desert Storm.'... This time, however, Saddam's calculations may have been wrong. He decided to defy Clinton again three days before the Congressional elections.... Clinton is now stronger than ever.... The last superpower has a right to say that patience is not eternal. It has a right to prepare a unilateral attack."

"Old Middle East Continues With Its Bad Habits"

Ugo Tramballi commented in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (11/13): "Let's prepare ourselves for the usual show.... This umpteenth crisis is no different from previous ones, and there are only two possible solutions to resolve it once and for all: a strong military intervention...or a political compromise. If the Americans opt for the former solution and finally succeed in overthrowing Saddam, the world will be happy.... But it is unlikely that this solution may work.... So we are left with negotiations, which have a valid point of departure: the ineffectiveness of economic sanctions."

"Clinton Wants To Strike Saddam, But What Happens Next"

Provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio argued (11/12): "There are, unfortunately, several unknown factors in the imminent U.S. attack against Iraq.... One of the most serious is the lack of a clear vision regarding not only a possible post-Saddam configuration, but also the political, military and ethnic vacuums that would open in Baghdad, in Iraqi Kurdistan and in the Shiite central southern part of the country in the case of a prolonged military intervention. The idea of replacing Saddam with a more or less democratic coalition of parties appears weak."

AUSTRIA: "Questions For The Day After"

Foreign affairs editor Gudrun Harrer wrote in independent Der Standard (11/12): "If Saddam survives a military attack, which he probably would, he will emerge rather strengthened from this new aggression. The only remaining option will thus be a massive, longer wave of attacks to literally bring him down.... This is an extremely delicate matter, not only from the ethical, but also from the political point of view, which calls for the U.S. politicians to ask themselves the following questions beforehand: Can the U.S. be sure of the reaction of its Arab allies?... Does it know how to react to uproars in Iraq this time? Has the scenario of an Iraq falling into three parts after the end of Saddam's regime been taken into consideration? Plenty of questions, which can only be countered by the realization that things cannot go on this way either. The UN has failed in Iraq, the embargo has not hit the regime...and...even Saddam's traditional advocates at the UNSC--Russia, China, and France--are becoming aware of it."

BELGIUM: "Settlement Of Accounts In The Gulf"

Ludwig De Vocht noted in financial De Financieel- Economische Tijd (11/13): "The United States may obtain more support for a military action against Baghdad than was the case earlier this year. Moreover, anti-American feelings in the area have mitigated after the signing of the Wye accord between Israel and the Palestinians in Washington. The U.S. military buildup no longer seems to be aimed at making Baghdad bend to UN demands. This time, Washington apparently wants to give the signal to Baghdad that the final settlement of accounts is near."

"United States Keeps Saddam In Tight Hold"

Foreign affairs writer Manu Tassier commented in independent Catholic De Standaard (11/10): "Today [unlike with past crises], the situation is different. Iraq stands isolated. Even countries like Russia and France, which made efforts to lift the sanctions, show extreme resentment. In the Arab world, too, the call for moderation is not so loud now. With the Wye accord it has become more difficult to use the argument that the international community applies double standards to Iraq and Israel."

DENMARK: "Attack Should Be Carried Out"

Center-left Politiken editorialized (11/10): "It would be a good thing--not least for Iraq's hard hit population--if military action resulted in the fall of Hussein. This is unfortunately unlikely.... It is most probable that the world community will have to punish him, even though this does not look like it will change the situation within Iraq. It would be good if the United States and its allies...lifted the sanctions that are hitting the entire Iraqi population. But before this can be done, an attack should be carried out to underscore the UN's credibility and U.S. strength in the region."

THE NETHERLANDS: "U.S. Has Started Countdown"

Centrist Algemeen Dadblad observed (11/13): "It is possible that Saddam Hussein will back off at the last minute.... But the United States has started the countdown. Even though diplomatic means are not yet exhausted, Washington is giving the impression that it has passed the point of no return. Clinton is losing his patience.... The score will have to be settled sometime."

POLAND: "Diplomacy Is Over"

Ryszard Malik wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (11/13): "Iraq's decision to break off from cooperation with UNSCOM negates previous agreements with the United Nations--it means a declaration of war. The United States, which last February was close to [launching] a military attack on Iraq as a penalty [for such behavior], stated that this time it is inevitable. Washington says this although aware that the Arab countries, countries in the region, and some world capitals opt for a diplomatic solution and are against military action. The Americans do not seem likely to change their mind."

RUSSIA: "U.S. Provokes Saddam"

Vladimir Natalyin said in reformist Izvestiya (11/12): "It is true though that the Americans have constantly been provoking Saddam. They want him replaced with 'someone of their own.'... [But] there is no guarantee that 'someone of their own' will be better."

"Danger Of New War"

Vadim Markushin averred in centrist, army Krasnaya Zvezda (11/12): "Violence as a way to remove Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been made into official policy in Washington.... In fact, we have been faced with the danger of a new war in the Persian Gulf, a war with unpredictable consequences, including the possibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction. That, by the logic of things, calls for high responsibility on the part of those who today wield the greatest influence in the world."

"Current Approach Counterproductive"

Aleksandr Pikayev of Moscow's Carnegie Center said in reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (# 44, 11/10): "Regular crises over Iraq cause ever more doubts about the approach based on sanctions. On the one hand, there is little chance for them to be lifted, no matter what Baghdad does. On the other, the dictator can with impunity raise stakes in the many-year game with the world community, without fearing to lose power. The current policy for Iraq, rather than solving the problem, reproduces one conflict after another. It will be unfortunate if the new crisis does not lead to the development of more effective tactics in spite of some promising nuances in great powers' policies. As they are reviewing their priorities, they see more reason for cooperation. So, in the end, they may work out a single realistic approach which, while being more attractive to Baghdad, will deny it a possibility to take advantage of differences among the permanent members of the UNSC."

SPAIN: "Five Minutes To The Hour In Iraq"

Liberal El Pais editorialized (11/13): "Saddam Hussein...has dedicated himself to a game of cat and mouse.... Among American military planners, there is skepticism about the effectiveness of an aerial attack, even a long and intense one.... One must insist that the United States...have not only tactics, but a strategy. Saddam counts on the international community's continued inability to figure out how to deal with him.... Clinton...should at least know what to do with Saddam the day after the bombing."

SWEDEN: "When Will Clinton Defeat Saddam?"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter carried this op-ed piece (11/13): "The only language Saddam understands is violence, or threat thereof.... (With regards to Iraq) we can hardly rely on the UN or a divided Europe.... Paradoxically enough, we will have to pin our faith on a weakened U.S. President.... Each choice will be appalling, and the United States may be forced to pick the least vile one, which might be to launch a small scale war now, in order to prevent a future Armageddon."

TURKEY: "Latest Iraq Crisis And Some Realities"

Necati Ozfatura commented in the religious/conservative Turkiye (11/10): "The recent situation shows that both the United States and Israel, as well as Saddam, are favoring the crisis for their own reasons. The crisis deepens because both sides...oppose each other. That means a military strike becomes a very strong possibility. The United States wants to experiment with its new weapons technology.... The Western media argue that Saddam has been playing a cat-and-mouse game, and so far, he has managed to win. However, this time he will not be allowed to claim victory."

SOUTH ASIA

PAKISTAN: "When Will Punishing Innocent Iraqi People End?"

An editorial in the leading, mass-circulation Urdu-language Jang held (11/11): "The fact cannot be denied that by destroying Iraq, the U.S. wants to provide permanent protection to Israel and to achieve this end, it is using the Arabs.... To what extent the Iraqi nation, the innocent Iraqi children, the old people and the Iraqi women have a say in these decisions? When will they get their basic human right to live?"

EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: "Saddam: Crush Or Contain?"

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald held (11/13): "The greatest need is as it always has been, to see Saddam and all he stands for removed. That can never be fully achieved by external force, at least not with safety. It depends on forces within Iraq to ensure that when Saddam goes, his departure is not followed by chaos but a transition, as orderly as can be hoped for in such circumstances, to a more internationally responsible government.... The search for a wider solution, beyond the use of military force, must continue, for the sake of the Iraqi people,

their neighbors and world peace."

HONG KONG: "Sparing A Thought For The Plight Of Iraqis"

Independent Hong Kong Standard commented (11/13): "Now the world is tiring of Washington flexing its military muscles as well as of Saddam's antics. The more the Iraqi leader thumbs his nose at Washington and the UN itself, the more his stock rises among strongly nationalistic Arabs who feel they have been grievously wronged by the West. But at what cost is this image-building? The Iraqi people are suffering due to sanctions. Surely their welfare counts for something."

"Back To The Brink"

Independent South China Morning Post commented (11/10): "The question for the United States is whether it could mount air strikes...without a hostile response from Arab nations.... There is also concern among Western politicians about the plight of the Iraqi people.... Among the options the United States is believed to be considering is a plan to pull out all weapons inspectors and monitor Iraq by external means, such as with satellites and spy planes. That would leave the country isolated and unharmed, if no untoward activity is going on there. But if intelligence reports show clear evidence of weapons build-ups, air strikes would be launched.... The choice--and the consequences--would be [Saddam's] alone."

INDONESIA: "Settle U.S.-Iraq Tensions Wisely"

Independent Suara Pembaruan noted (11/10): "A chance for diplomacy still exists. Experience shows that the U.S. has twice, moments before launching attacks, convinced Iraq to 'surrender.'... It seems that Saddam has two obsessions: elimination of U.S. interference and influence, including in UNSCOM, and removal of the 8-year-old economic sanctions. If Iraq were fully sovereign, it would be the major Middle East power. With this in mind, the solution to this conflict must be wise."

PHILIPPINES: "Drumbeat Of War"

Fred de la Rosa stressed in the independent Manila Standard (11/13): "The drumbeat of war is rising steadily in Iraq.... We may have a different scenario this time with the United States determined to rescue its credibility and a U.S. president...who could be tempted to use a sideshow to help mute domestic and personal problems at home. There is strong support for a military blow on Baghdad from the UNSC."

SOUTH KOREA: "International Community Heads Toward Military Strike"

Reporter Ha Sung-bong remarked in independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (11/13): "Obviously, Iraq is on the losing side because it broke its own promise...to comply with weapons inspections. Its most enthusiastic supporters are conspicuously silent.... The United States is obviously using this different atmosphere as a catalyst for an intensified military campaign, and Hussein is at the crossroads."

THAILAND: "Iraq Leaders Again Fail Their People"

The leading, moderately conservative Bangkok Post's editorial stated (11/13), "Mr. Clinton's arguments are unassailable. UN credibility is at stake.... Iraq's appeal to Arab nationalism is a tactic that cannot succeed. Whatever one thinks of U.S. policy in the region, this is a fight between Iraq and the rest of the world.... Iraq can still step back from the brink and resume the disarmament work. It is a step Baghdad should take in order to prevent still more suffering."

AFRICA

KENYA: "Iraq Should Ease Tension In Gulf"

An editorial said in centrist Daily Nation (11/11): "From whatever angle one looks at the situation, it is President Saddam Hussein who can help defuse the latest tension in the Gulf."

NIGERIA: "Iraq Vs. The UN"

The independent Daily Champion maintained (11/13): "The world is being treated to another sabre-rattling as America is busy consulting with what is left of its Gulf War allies about what to do with Iraq.... We are worried by the prospects that the on-going consultations by American and British officials...might degenerate to a level where a military buildup...will become inevitable. We admonish the world leaders to do their utmost to resolve the current disagreement diplomatically. We agree that, technically, a refusal by Iraq to cooperate with the inspectors amounts to a breach of the provisions of the relevant resolutions. But we also believe that things ought to be [dealt with] objectively, in fairness to all the parties involved."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

BRAZIL: "UN Double-Standard"

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo argued (11/13): "It is impossible to defend the Iraqi government.... But neither is it easy to understand the reasons why the UN acts with relative promptness in certain cases...but acts with enormous slowness in other episodes.... In the case of Kosovo there are equally evident violations of elementary rules of civilization carried out by the government headed by Slobodan Milosevic. The UN threatens but does nothing. The same disrespect happens with regard to the UN's resolutions on the Arab territories occupied by Israel."

CANADA: "Iraq, Encore Et Encore"

The leading Globe and Mail (11/12) wrote: "News flash: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man. Still...he is now in one of his resolve-testing phases. The international community's resolve must be equal to the test.... To their discredit, some governments now prefer the possibility of oil deals with Iraq to ensuring respect for the international rule of law. Others are faltering before the suffering of the Iraqi people under sanctions, forgetting that suffering is caused by [Saddam's] lawlessness, not international intransigence. Thus the United States has largely abandoned attempts to revive the old war coalition in favour of police action against Iraq. But Washington takes the reasonable view that the UN has set out Iraq's obligations, and no further authorization is required to enforce them.... The game continues, and will for some time. And it must: Baghdad must not get its hands on tools of mass destruction. Washington should persevere and, in so doing, enjoy the support of the international community."

PANAMA: "Before It's Too Late"

Leading daily La Prensa opined (11/12): "Since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq has made a mockery of the United Nations. Millions of dollars have been spent on meticulous and sophisticated inspections but to no avail, because Iraq has resorted to any pretext to renege on its promises, violate UN resolutions and make a farce of all whenever any possible sites of nuclear arms installations were detected.... Iraq has prohibited the inspections and expelled the inspectors, yet the UN has not acted on its resolutions condemning Iraq for such actions.... As Machiavelli says, 'Force is justified when it is necessary,' and now it is necessary (to act), before it is too late."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

11/13/98

# # #