Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Diplomatic Subversion Washington's Style"

Senior defense analyst Ron Ben-Yishai wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot (11/16): "For the first time the United States yesterday publicly announced...that it wants Saddam out of the way.... It is exceedingly unusual for one country, especially a world power, to call for the ouster of another sovereign government.... Washington has reached the conclusion that Saddam is a palpable threat to world and Middle East peace and that he must be removed. The United States further concluded that Saddam's oppressive policies toward his own people and his deceptive strategy vis-a-vis the international community made him lose his legitimacy as a head of state and also made him fair game."

"Get Rid of Saddam"

The independent Jerusalem Post wrote in its lead editorial (11/15): "The United States may be able to claim the threat of massive force made Saddam back down and thus remove the need for force.... But...Saddam has injected another useless crisis into world affairs, and even if he does back down at the last minute, the climbdown in Washington will be no less .... There is only one solution to the Saddam problem: his removal."

BAHRAIN: "Time For Iraqi Leadership To Comply"

Semi-independent Al-Ayam front-paged this editorial by chief editor Nabeel Al-Hamer (11/16): "Now that the danger of a military strike is eliminated...it is important to seriously evaluate the reasons behind the latest escalation of tension in the region. Since...occupying Kuwait, the Iraqi leadership has been treating its mistakes by committing greater mistakes.... For seven years the Iraqi leadership created one crisis after the other, pushing the region every time to the edge of war.... It would be better for the Iraqi leadership to fully comply with the UN resolutions...and gain the trust of the Gulf countries. Unfortunately, it does the complete opposite.... The time has come for Iraqi leadership to think differently and realize that there is only one way out--implementing all UN resolutions."

EGYPT: "Iraqi Retraction Was Good Step"

Abdel Azim Hammad observed in pro-government Al Ahram (11/16): "The Iraqi president was forced to retract his decision to stop cooperation with UNSCOM. This was a good step, because Arab and international opposition to the use of force against Iraq has diminished and that the American-British strike this time will not be like previous ones. He had received warnings from Russia, France and some Arab leaders that American statements concerning ousting him were not mere talk. Therefore, he was originally mistaken in the timing of his decision to stop cooperation with UNSCOM and he had to retract. We hope this retraction is the beginning of Iraq's maturity."

MOROCCO: "Respect The Way Of Peace And Lift The Embargo"

An editorial in government coalition French-language L'Opinion held (11/14), "What is shocking in this issue is that the United States has become the master of the world and influenced the decisions of regarding security. The United States does not display the same rigor concerning implementation of United Nations resolutions when the violations are carried out by Israel. The Unites States is in biased towards Israel, which it wants to become the single regional power so the U.S. can impose its diktat on all the countries of the Gulf. For Americans, no Arab or Muslim country is allowed to be powerful enough to threaten Israel, yet at the same time the United States does not state that Israel should not have access to weapons of mass

destruction, including the atomic bomb and chemical weapons."

"Threat Against Iraq Is A Threat Against Arabs And Muslims"

A front-page editorial in government coalition, Arabic-language Al Ittihad Al Ishtiraki stated (11/14), "The U.S. administration has given Baghdad two options: Either reconsider its decision to deal with UNSCOM (which includes agents from the CIA and the Mossad), or face military attack. This means that Washington rejects the diplomatic option and intends to humiliate Iraq's dignity and thereby the dignity of all Arabs. Also, U.S. threats and the show of force in the Gulf are considered a test to the U.S. test for its world leadership and its capacity to mobilize Western allies over this issue. It is also a test to see the reaction of Arab regimes and their degree of solidarity.... While we insist on settling the crisis via diplomatic means, we also call on Arab governments and popular Arab forces to show their solidarity with the Iraqi people and exert all kinds of pressure to stop the military threats and avert Iraq from more suffering and destruction.... The international community, Arab governments, the Arab League, the OIC, and all peace-loving forces in the world should assume their responsibility in lifting the embargo against Iraq. The game of international inspectors is a U.S. game aimed at maintaining the embargo and implementing the U.S. strategy in the area to the detriment of Arab and Muslim people on behalf of Israel."

QATAR: "Problem Not Over Yet"

Semi-independent Al-Rayah opined (11/16): "Thank God the crisis between Iraq and UN inspectors has been overcome without the use of force.... If implementing UNSC resolutions is the only way for sanctions to be lifted, Iraq has the right to see the light at the end of the tunnel reflected in the lifting of sanctions. As for Clinton's talk of replacing the government in Baghdad, we believe this to be an internal Iraqi affair."

"U.S. Right To Seek Complete Clarification"

The semi-independent Gulf Times noted (11/16): "We believe that the United States was right to seek complete clarification of these outstanding issues before agreeing to the Iraqi offer, as the slightest confusion on any point could contain the seeds of the next confrontation. (There needs to be) a clear understanding--with firm commitments on both sides--that there should be no more showdowns and no more occasions when the cruise missiles are being armed and the people of Iraq are under threat.... A sustained diplomatic effort is needed to prevent another showdown.... Iraq must now deliver what it has promised, as attempting to frustrate the inspectors' work is likely to draw a swift and forceful response."

SAUDI ARABIA: "For The Sake Of Iraqi Children"

Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina maintained (11/16): "For the sake of Iraqi children, Baghdad must immediately implement and fully comply with all UNSC resolutions. For the sake of Iraqi children, the UNSC must also strictly observe the concepts of international legitimacy, which include protection and defense of justice.... Certainly, no one except Washington understands the real U.S. objectives.... The attempts to alter (the Iraqi government) from outside (of Iraq), either by direct military action--an American military strike--or indirectly--through armed Iraqi opposition groups--would lead only to a disruption of the region or a new form of civil war."

SYRIA: "The Irony of Power"

Hassan Izzat commented in an op-ed piece in government-owned Tishreen (11/15): "Whenever they feel like it, the United States dispatches planes, fleets, missiles, and destroyers to the Gulf region to strike the final blow on Iraq, that is, the Iraqi people. Hence, who dares to stand up to the U.S. might and tyranny."

"What About Israeli Insurgency!?"

Mohamed Khair al-Jamali commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (11/13): "Silence continues to characterize the U.S. stand on Israeli insurgency against the international law; this confirms the U.S. administration's persistence in exercising its hateful double standard, especially on Israeli armament; Washington turns a blind eye to Israel's ownership of weapons of mass destruction while she is very strict about any Arab country (i.e. Iraq) which owns such weapons."

TUNISIA: "Has The Lesson Been Understood?"

Editor-in-Chief Mustapha Khammariin argued in independent Le Temps (11/15): "Can we believe that wisdom has prevailed and that the Iraqi people will not be subjected to more military strikes?... The Secretary General's intervention was decisive.... He saved the Iraqi people...from American air strikes. Has the lesson been understood? We hope that it has....'Wrestling' with Washington would be a disaster for the Iraqi people.... World leaders must understand that...only adherence to the international legal framework will enable nations to resolve conflicts.... We must also emphasize that UN resolutions must be applied equally to all nations. There should be no double standards.... Hence, it must be acknowledged that Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions also goes against efforts to achieve peace."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "UNSCOM Inspectors Spies"

Dubai-based Arabic-language Al-Bayan (11/15) noted: "The reason for the latest crisis is that Iraq is demanding the lifting of the eight-year old sanctions and the expulsion of a number of UNSCOM inspectors, who were found to be spying for the CIA and Mossad. Unfortunately, the Americans have found this grievance to be offensive and directed against them and have thus decided to silence Baghdad through the use of force. The international community is becoming suspicious about the eight-year-long inspection work on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It is also concerned about the discovery of a number of spies among the inspectors which clearly constitutes a breach of the international laws and norms."

WEST BANK: "Diplomacy Best Way Out"

Independent, moderate Al-Quds editorialized (11/15): "If the situation continues in obtaining a solution that is satisfactory to Iraq and the United States, it will be a proof that diplomacy and restraint are the best way to resolve the alarming crisis. In the end, it is not in the interest of the United States to strike against Iraq and burden the Iraqi people with additional suffering and destruction. In a like manner, Iraq is not interested in inflaming the crisis, but rather hopes to see a light, no matter how dim, at the end of the tunnel of economic and trade sanctions

imposed on it for almost eight years."

YEMEN: "Dialogue Is The Key"

Armed forces weekly September 26 said (11/12): "The new-old crisis over UNSCOM in Iraq, with its political dimension, will not only lead to the danger of plunging the region into conflicts, but, more than ever, it will incite the sentiments of Arab and Muslim governments and peoples to oppose any military strike against an Arab people who is already suffering from sanctions.... The Republic of Yemen out of its concern for stability and peace in the region and its commitment to dialogue and balanced and moderate diplomacy sees that dialogue is the key and means that must be followed in all cases when crises break out."

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "The Disunited Nations"

The conservative Daily Telegraph had this lead editorial (11/16): "The latest confrontation with Iraq is once again demonstrating the inability of the UN to deal effectively with rogue regimes.... The aim of alliance policy should be the fall of Saddam. Given the limits of what bombing alone can achieve, the weakness of the Iraqi opposition, and the possibility that the country without Saddam would disintegrate into a chaotic struggle between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, such a goal carries great risks. But while its outcome may be unclear, the disastrous effect of Saddam on stability in the Middle East and on UN authority is there for all to see. A drastic change of tack is worth the gamble."

"Bridging The Gulf"

The liberal Guardian led with this editorial (11/16): "The genius of Saddam's 11th-hour retreat was that he gave just enough to please the French-Russian-Chinese axis, while making sufficient demands to dissatisfy the British and the Americans. The effect was to split a coalition that had begun to glue itself together against him, and to expose the faultline that now separates London and Washington from the rest of the world. And this is the problem that now confronts Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: how to bridge the gap between the English-speaking powers and the rest of the UNSC.... A dialogue has to begin across this gulf.... Without the heat of crisis, when military action is not just hours away, these two sides need to draw up a common position in time for the next showdown with Saddam, which will come eventually."

FRANCE: "Opposing Positions"

Alain Genestar observed in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche (11/15): "By giving in ...Saddam Hussein...continues to engage the United States in a war of nerves. It will soon become clear whether Clinton, exasperated by Iraq's dangerous games, decides to upset international protocol, with the risk of looking like a warmonger. This is highly unlikely. In this tug-of-war, the dictator and the president have opposing positions. One is violating international law, while the other is forever forced to protect it."

"The U.S. Has A Free Hand"

Pierre Rousselin stressed in right-of-center Le Figaro (11/16): "The tug-of-war is not over.... It is highly probable that upon their return, UNSCOM inspectors will widen the area of inspection to include Iraqi sites which have been off-limits. With the risk of pushing Saddam Hussein to trigger a new crisis. But this time the situation has been made clear. U.S. air strikes will come without further warning. Clinton now has a free hand and thinks he no longer needs a green light from the UN before striking."

"Giving Iraq A Glimmer Of Hope"

Joseph Limagne wrote in regional Ouest France (11/16): "It is certainly necessary to hold Saddam to his commitments.... It is just as necessary to give the people of Iraq a glimmer of hope. Reenforced controls must go hand in hand with a set calendar for the lifting of sanctions. Reestablishing trade and opening Iraq to the world will do more for peace than isolation, misery and bitterness."

GERMANY: "Conflict Settled?"

Washington correspondent Siegfried Buschschlueter commented on national radio station Deutschlandfunk of Cologne (11/15): "If Clinton is honest, he must admit that Saddam was

smarter than he was.... The U.S. president took too long before giving the order for a mission against Iraq.... All U.S. explanations that were later made concerning the assurances from Baghdad are at best of a cosmetic nature.... It is foreseeable when Baghdad will again show UN weapons inspectors the door. Even Clinton is aware of one fact: It is Saddam Hussein's goal to stick to his plan to produce weapons of mass destruction and to work at the same time for the lifting of sanctions. [For Saddam], the arms potential is decisive."

"High Time Sanctions Are Reviewed"

Right-of-center Aachener Zeitung asserted (11/16): "It is high time that the sanctions on Iraq are reviewed. It must be possible that the country and its people can lead an independent life and, at the same time, one sees to it that the aggressor's weapons of mass destruction are being scrapped. This goal can be achieved only with far-reaching diplomacy, not with a comprehensive bombardment."

ITALY: "Clinton Suspends Attack But Threatens Iraq"

Siegmund Ginzberg commented in PDS (leading government party) L'Unita' (11/16): "The attack has been postponed once again. We can sigh with relief assuming we keep one thing in mind: This is only temporary.... Even though weapons are silent, this is the continuation of a war which began eight years ago. Nobody seems to know how and when it will end.... Both military threats and diplomatic negotiations have played a role in preventing the attack.... Saddam surrendered only when he was absolutely certain that the United States was determined to proceed.... Military threats pay off."

"A Half Victory For Saddam"

A front-page commentary by foreign affairs analyst Carlo Rossella in centrist, influential La Stampa asserted (11/16): "Saddam's subtle Babylonian tricks have succeeded once again.... Clinton underlined Saddam's unconditional surrender. What he did not tell the American people is that, after Iraq's decision to give in on inspections, the United States found itself alone. Air raids against Iraq would have had no justification any more in the eyes of international public opinion. The fact that war has been averted can be considered once again a success for Kofi Annan.... China, Russia and France...have also been rewarded for their diplomatic perseverance.... But Saddam has only partially won: He has given in, but he has focused international attention on the problem of the tough sanctions which starve his people and leave the regime intact."

BELGIUM: "After Strength, Flexibility"

In independent Le Soir, diplomatic correspondent Pierre Lefevre commented (11/16): "If he bet on Clinton's weakening, on Arab solidarity or on a new French or Russian diplomatic intervention, Saddam made a triple mistake. On Saturday, he had to urgently draw the lesson from it. Baghdad prevented the worst from happening. Washington, for its part, averts a post-strike situation which would not have been easy to manage. Everyone probably breathes again. But one has not returned to the status quo ante. The Iraqi president now knows for sure what he can expect in the event of a repetition. But the Americans have perhaps also understood that this crisis cannot go on indefinitely in such a chaotic manner. A dynamic for ending the crisis must now be initiated, achieving a balance between a serious control of Iraq's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the gradual lifting of the economic embargo.... The White House is now in a position strong enough to afford the flexibility which that requires."

CANADA: "Saddam's Old Tricks"

The new conservative National Post judged (11/16): "[T]here is little chance Saddam will turn over a new leaf in the future. Granted, this time he underestimated the West's reaction in halting all cooperation with UNSCOM.... We can already discern Saddam's next tactic. While to Mr. Clinton, the Iraqi surrender entails permanent compliance to five set conditions; to Saddam, it means nothing more than a temporary and convenient setback to sanctions being lifted and keeping his weapons of mass destruction.... Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton has finally realized Saddam is bloodied but unbowed, and the United States needs a Plan B.... [E]ven if Saddam suddenly offers to cooperate, it is time for the United States to aid the Iraqi resistance in ousting the dictator.... The noose is tightening around Saddam's neck, wriggle though he might, but he is far from reaching the scaffold."

"Playing A Dangerous Game"

Foreign affairs analyst Eric Margolis observed in the conservative Ottawa Sun (11/16): "The United States still presents Saddam Hussein as the greatest threat to world peace, when there are much bigger threats on the world stage. Feel-good bombing of Iraq is not a strategy. It is childish petulance, expressed with B-52s. Brainpower, not firepower, is needed. If the United States can sup with the devil in North Korea or Serbia, why not Iraq? After all, Saddam used to be the West's favorite Mideast SOB. Why not again?"

CZECH REPUBLIC: "Iraq: Something Has Probably Happened"

A commentary in right-of-center Mlada fronta DNES stated (11/16): "Saddam bowed to necessity and, mainly, there were no bomb attacks and no dead.... The end of the crisis has, however, a bitter taste due to...the Iraqi letter which the West initially rejected and then accepted.... Yet another dark side of the affair is the understanding that the good end has not resolved anything. The problem has prevailed, and further crises are behind the door.... And yet, this good end has a brighter side as well: Saddam has made a gross tactical mistake when he revolted against the UN. He has found himself in isolation and, consequently, in a trap. He will suffer isolation because he has demonstrated to his Arab colleagues and defenders elsewhere in the world again that he is an incalculable and incorrigible man who violates agreements and cannot be trusted. Those who pretended to be his friends for the sake of their economic or political self-interests...or a sympathy with the Iraqi citizens will think twice before supporting him."

DENMARK: "In Future, Axe Will Fall Immediately"

Center-right Berlingske Tidende editorialized (11/16): "If Iraq's dictator really intends to give the UN unhindered access, it will be thanks to the United States.... It is no coincidence that the crucial Iraqi concessions came as the American bombers neared Iraq.... It should be made clear to Saddam that in the future the world community will not busy itself with debating aims and means. The axe will fall immediately."

POLAND: "No Calm"

Jan Skorzynski wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (11/16): "Did the Iraqi dictator manage again to save his skin at the last moment? If so, it is not so much the effect of his dexterity, but rather a lack of consent on Iraqi policy within the UNSC.... Only the Americans and British remain intransigent because letters from Iraqi's foreign minister are not a sufficient guarantee of a change in Baghdad's policy.... Washington's and London's stance is fully understood. As a matter of fact, Saddam...has not made any concessions, and his minister's promises can by no means be regarded a trustworthy declaration of cooperation.... To dispose of Saddam's lethal weapons is in the interest of the whole world, not only Great Britain and the United

States. A means to achieve this...is not diplomacy but a real threat to use force.... Rather than contesting a determined Washington's line, the UNSC members should instead join in."

"Baghdad's Policy"

Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas opined in right-of-center Zycie (11/16): "Baghdad's policy...is a reflection of the inconsistent policy of the world and the United States.... What is also missing is a positive policy toward Iraq. Maintaining tough sanctions, regardless of Iraq's endeavors, has caused the growth of hostility towards the rest of the world in the Iraq public. Consequently, they [the Iraqi public] support Hussein--they simply have no other option."

"U.S.: Arab Trouble"

Beirut-correspondent Monika Slowakiewicz opined in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (11/16): "The prospect of a U.S. attack on Iraq has embarrassed Arab governments.... [Secretary of Defense] William Cohen obtained clear support [for military action against Iraq] only from Saudi Arabia, with the other states--U.S. allies seven years ago--preferring to opt for a peaceful solution. Due to an openly anti-American attitude by their own people, they could not afford to support Washington.... The U.S. position in the region is frail. Arab governments are finding it more and more difficult to deal with the frustration and discontent [of the average man] on the street."

RUSSIA: "Hussein In Trouble"

Maksim Yusin said on page one of reformist Izvestiya (11/14): "The only way for Saddam Hussein to avoid air strikes is to resume cooperation with the international inspectors.... Iraq's neighbors are not in a hurry to voice their solidarity with it. Unlike in February, today it is virtually in total isolation. Moscow cannot but acknowledge that it is the Iraqi president who started the crisis. So it is for him, not for his opponents, to seek compromise."

"Only Annan Can Stop Escalation Of Tension"

Aleksandr Reutov pointed out in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (11/14): "Indications are that only the UN Secretary General can stop the escalation of tension in the Persian Gulf. The chief antagonists, Washington and Baghdad, seem to agree on that.... Even though Moscow is opposed to military action, it is so bogged down in domestic concerns that it cannot face intractable international problems."

SPAIN: "He's Done It Again"

Liberal El Pais editorialized (11/16): "(Saddam's) strategy of calculated tension is working.... To suppose that the 'unconditional' acceptance by Saddam guarantees that the inspectors can carry on their work in Iraq and that the Iraqi president will not revive on any pretext a new 'tension strategy' would be nothing but naivete.... The problem is whether the United States or the UN have the right political and diplomatic strategy to cope with the game of provocations with which Saddam tries to reinforce his position as an Islamic leader.... It is urgent that Clinton and Annan find an effective joint approach, which would be more useful than the supposed defense of 'national interest' of the former, or the mere invocation of good sense by the latter, unless they want to repeat over and over the game of cat and mouse, of attacks authorized and then cancelled."

SWEDEN: "Temporary Iraqi Concession"

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter argued (11/15): "Despite the concessions made by Baghdad on Saturday the hope for a lasting solution is painfully slim. The means of diplomacy are limited...and why would Saddam respect today's agreement when he has violated all the others. The likelihood that the dictator will voluntarily give in is nil. He has something to hide, and has proved time and time again that he'll do anything to keep the international community in the dark.... UNSCOM must continue its vital work. Until now neither threats, negotiations, agreements, sanctions, or pressure have worked. Those who will condemn the United States and Great Britain the day air raids are launched--a scenario which still must be regarded as a quite likely one--ought to feel obliged to explain how to neutralize the highly dangerous threat to peace, Saddam Hussein.... [Saturday's] concessions...have provided a temporary breathing space."

TURKEY: "Time For U.S. To Bring Game To End"

Sedat Sertoglu wrote in mass-appeal Sabah (11/16): "How much can a man torture his own people?... Saddam decided all of a sudden to kick out UN inspectors from Iraq, while the UN had started an official debate to reconsider and ease the UN embargo against Iraq. And then the situation reached the point of war. And also Saddam could not find support from any Arab countries this time, including Egypt and Syria. Saddam's action drove Russia crazy because Russia had been working on easing the embargo. It seems this game will continue as long as Saddam...remains in power. Let's see if the American administration will do something to bring this game to an end."

UKRAINE: "Rigid, Strange Anglo-Saxon Tactics"

Oleh Dorozhovets wrote in centrist Den (11/14): "For some reason, Washington and London are convinced that strikes on Iraqi targets will either slow down the Iraqi nuclear program or will lead to an overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Frankly, this rigid Anglo-Saxon tactic looks strange. Not long ago, the White House could see how useless such strikes were when, earlier this year, missiles were fired on Sudan and Afghanistan. Fundamentalist regimes in those countries, although they sustained material losses, saw their popularity soar with the local Muslim population. Finally, American democrats should remember the lessons that Desert Storm taught Clinton's predecessor, George Bush. In the first weeks after the operation, the popularity of the Republicans rose dramatically, but within a year many people would rather blame than praise them for that action."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "What Is The Point?"

Independent, English-language Daily Star had this editorial (11/15): "Defiance by a despoiled country resonates with total back-to-the-wall desperation.... Circumspect military experts and media analysts in the West have openly expressed doubt that no specific purpose will be served by the U.S. air strikes. Saddam's perceived military potential to produce weapons of annihilation may not be destroyed, and what looks like a bleaker prospect in that no end can be visualized to the air strikes, unlike in the case of the Gulf War. Is it not saber-rattling then? Prominent U.S. Republican Senator Dick Lugar has floated the idea that killing President Saddam Hussein could be the only way to stop Iraq from threatening its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. What kind of international civility is projected by such an utterance! Let's not have terrorism to replace another perceived instance of terrorism. Reneging is not terrorizing, but armed overreaction can amount to it. All we want is a time-table for withdrawal of economic sanctions against the Iraqi people."

INDIA: "Playing Cat And Mouse"

Independent Urdu Awam judged (11/16): "Saddam has added one more victory in the war of nerves. By allowing the UN arms inspectors to resume their task... the Iraqi President has virtually isolated the United States in the Security Council. Arrogantly ignoring world opinion, Clinton was adamant on attacking Iraq. He is now faced with the dilemma of how to respond to Saddam's new move.... The diplomatically-agile Saddam has caused a division in the UNSC on what to do next.... Iraq successfully reminded the global community of the unjustified prolonging of the arms inspections while the United States undertook costly but unnecessary preparations for war.... Although war clouds have receded for now, the issue is yet to be resolved. Both sides have had enough, and the tension can lead to an outburst at any time. The only solution lies in lifting the sanctions as soon as possible."

PAKISTAN: "Back From The Brink"

The centrist national News opined (11/16), "Fresh military strikes against Iraq, which the United States threatened much of the last week, seem to have been averted for the moment after a letter from Iraqi Deputy Prime minister Tariq Aziz to the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan.... Unlike previous attacks on Iraq earlier this decade, U.S. military options are further circumscribed by the lack of support from any of the Arab states in the region.... But, for the sake of its own people, the Iraqi regime for its part must also show its readiness to live by the norms of the international community and change its dangerous confrontational course."

"Window Of Hope"

An editorial in Islamabad's rightist English-language Pakistan Observer stated (11/16): "A window has opened up; America should not shut it. This Saturday, Iraq conveyed to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that it would resume stalled cooperation with the UN arms inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency experts, allowing them to perform their normal duties in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.... While Mr. Annan says the Iraqi decision meets the UN requirements, the United States insists it doesn't without explaining why, and continues with its military build-up in the Gulf....

"If, in the first place, Iraq's action was wrong, so is the latest stance of the United States. The weapon expert's mission, without whose completion the eight-year-long UN sanctions imposed on Iraq cannot be lifted, needs to be sped up. And those sanctions are biting the poor Iraqi civilians real hard.... A military strike on Iraq may or may not yield to the Americans their intended aims. But surely it would bring more suffering for the poor Iraqis. That is not acceptable."

SRI LANKA: "Diplomacy Over Force"

An editorial in the independent daily Island expressed this view (11/14): "In the post-Cold War era, the trend appears to be that the world powers through the UN are interfering in internal affairs of countries in turmoil. Whether such interference is justified, even if the governments in power are a threat to regional peace and are committing crimes against their own people, is debatable. The fault of Saddam Hussein is that he is conducting himself as a victor of the Gulf War despite being defeated and bringing ruination to his country. The vaniquished in war must necessarily come to terms with the victor and attempt to salvage what remains of the country.... Diplomacy would be a far better choice than missile attacks and it would be in the interests of the United States as well. Mr. Kofi Annan should once again attempt to bring the Iraqi leader to his senses."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Ball Now In U.S. Court"

Guo Ji said in official Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing Ribao, 11/16): "Iraq's abrupt change offering to resume cooperation with UNSCOM disrupted the U.S. plan of military intervention.... Settlement of the crisis now depends on the outcome of UNSC discussions and whether the United States is willing to give up the idea of military attack.... Earlier this year, Iraqi acceptance of Annan's mediation put the United States into a terribly awkward position. Will the United States let it go at that again? How long will the cat-and-mouse game last?"

HONG KONG: "Preventing A Clash Between U.S. And Iraq"

Independent Sing Tao Daily News wrote in its editorial (11/16): "The United States has been able to 'put on the brakes' at the critical moment to avoid a military clash and the unnecessary deaths of people. The decision is good for the Clinton administration, because it can at least win support from other countries.... If the United States continued to take military action after Iraq 'came around,' it would only arouse criticism that the United States was using its strength to bully the weak."

INDONESIA: "Eight Arab Countries Complicate Iraq's Position"

Independent Suara Pembaruan editorialized (11/14): "The statement by the foreign ministers of eight Arab countries--particularly Syria and Egypt--indicated a substantial change [in their stance toward Iraq]. Egypt and Syria indirectly endorsed U.S. aggression. We find this truly unfortunate. The Gulf countries, Egypt, and Syria could have initiated peaceful diplomacy while pressuring the United States to restrain itself.... Perhaps those Gulf Cooperation Countries' ministers understand that U.S. military action would destroy Iraq's military capability, in turn weakening the Iraqi capacity for aggression that has long worried the GCC. Saddam's action in this instance...was counterproductive, because neighboring countries are distancing themselves from him. Their attitude increases the possibility for U.S. military action."

SOUTH KOREA: "U.S. Determined Not To Be Fooled By Iraq"

Washington correspondent Shin Ja-min wrote in moderate Hankook Ilbo (11/16): "Staying in Washington, President Clinton has to spend the next few days persuading the leaders of other nations to support the U.S. position on Iraq.... The only choice the United States has in order to reclaim its pride and to fundamentally solve the whole Iraqi issue seems to be to go ahead with a military strike against Iraq."

THAILAND: "Stop Using UN As Tool To Oppress Iraqis"

Trairat Soontornprapat commented in the mass-circulation Daily News (11/15): "Are the Iraqis wrong to have Saddam Hussein as their leader?... How long will this trampling of the Iraqis go on? Stop using the UN as a tool to oppress them. These powerful nations in the UN lack impartiality and command no respect. One does not have to look far to witness their atrocities, and at the way they used the economic war to overrun Asian economies."

"Adult U.S. Bullying Infant Iraq"

Pichian Kuruthong commented in elite Matichon (11/14): "Were Bill Clinton or Tony Blair in Saddam Hussein's shoes, they would be as peeved as Saddam Hussein is now and again by the seemingly never-ending UN economic sanctions.... Has the West been trying to blow the lethality of Iraq's chemical warfare capability out of proportion in order to force Iraq to its knees so that it will never again challenge the West?...

"One can see no justification for any more U.S. bombing of Iraq aside from an attempt by some spiteful adults to bully an infant."

VIETNAM: "An Unsuitable Weapon"

Official weekly Hanoi Moi said (11/14): "It seems like there is a repeated cycle between Iraq and UNSCOM: After each detente, there is a growing tension between them. This new troubling event started with the same old reason: UNSCOM has a bad report on Iraqi cooperation, presumably that Iraq has still hidden weapons of mass destruction, while Iraq, both furious and disappointed, decides to stop full cooperation with UNSCOM.... Knocking out a nation, maintaining economic sanctions and pushing that nation into a corner by taking advantage of inspections is a work at risk. All over Iraq, there is a boiling atmosphere protesting against America.... Where is the solution for the current crisis in Iraq? Sanctions are not a suitable solution for international conflicts. On the contrary, it harms both sides. Innocent people, especially children and women, are victims of sanctions. The Vietnam Foreign Ministry spokesman asserted November 4, Vietnam supports the policy of lifting the economic sanctions in order to end the Iraqi people's sorrow. Regarding Iraq's decision of ending cooperation with UNSCOM, concerned parties should try to find a suitable solution."

AFRICA

KENYA: "Iraq's Ping-Pong Game"

The conservative East African Standard held (11/16): "Iraq's latest climbdown from childish but potentially deadly brinkmanship is welcome but offensively tedious. What is now becoming an annual ritual, whereby Saddam Hussein first expels and then allows UN weapons inspectors to resume work, averting Western military strikes at the last minute, must be brought to an end once and for all.... When willI Iraq decide it has had enough of being a tyrant's bargaining chip, cannon fodder and playground?"

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

BRAZIL: "Long-Suffering Iraqi People"

Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo's Beirut correspondent Issa Goraieb reported (11/15) that "a U.S. attack against Iraq, even one aimed at military targets, would probably cause greater suffering to the already long-suffering Iraqi people who have been subjected to a tough international embargo."

PANAMA: "Suffering In Iraq"

Leading conservative El Panama America opined (11/14): "Beginning in 1996, the possibility of aleviating the havoc caused in the Iraqi population was confronted with new obstacles derived from the North American denunciations of the clandestine production of weapons prohibited by international treaties.... The last UN mission (to inspect the possible sites of biological weapons production) was in February 1998, that is to say that eight months have passed and the mission has not been able to certify the existence of these supposed secret biological weapons factories and they (the mission) have not been able to produce an objective report of their inspections....

"Could it be that the past eight months are not sufficient time to find the cleverly hidden weapons or is it true that the weapons do not exist.... Because of the almost chronic diplomatic and military disagreements between Iraq and the United States, the Iraqi people, who have endured a long dictatorship, suffer the expense of not being able to acquire benefits of foreign exchanges with the western market due to the freeze on petroleum exports. The UN has utilized an international humanitarian program to help with the lack of food, medicine, ect. in Iraq; nevertheless, these humanitarian funds have been affected by the reduction of contributions by UN members, among which is the United States who has a debt of thousands of millions of dollars in unpaid loans, but yet collaborates in military actions."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

11/17/98

# # #