Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

BAHRAIN: "One Day It May Be Our Turn"

Semi-official Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment (2/2) by Sayed Zuhrah: "Last night I spent two hours reading the text of the debate of the U.S. Congress on what is called 'Iraq Liberation Act.' Today I want to comment on just one thing. One of the congressmen who opposed the law justified his position saying: 'A few years ago we forced the taxpayers to finance, train and arm Bin Laden because he was the freedom fighter...and now we tell the American tax payers that Bin Laden is our number one enemy.' This is what the American Congressman said regarding how rapidly the American positions keep changing, and this is what we the Arab governments, which now support the American plan to overthrow Saddam, need to understand. We should keep in mind that the United States may change its policy one day...and ask the American taxpayers to support overthrowing the regimes which helped it overthrow the Iraqi regime."

"Iraq Is Responsible"

Leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam ran this comment by Sawsan Al-Shaer (1/27): "What this (Iraqi) regime has done served the enemies and made them achieve what they never dreamed of. So, should the regime be rewarded for what it has done and should the situation be made to look as if it is purely 'an American satanic action?'... The Iraqi regime should be punished, or at least be condemned and forced to respect other countries and peoples and stop provoking them. As to America, we have mutual interests with them and we should learn to negotiate with them and protect those interests."

EGYPT: "A Division Of Iraq? Look At Former Yugoslavia Now"

Kamel Zohairy, columnist, pro-government daily Al Gomhouriya (2/1): "While Secretary Albright was touring the Middle East to mobilize support for Iraqi opposition, General Zinni was giving his testimony to the Senate in Washington. He said that Iraqi opposition is worthless. He was frank with the Senate committee that these groups will not be effective. He warned that dividing Iraq will be more dangerous. In this way, General Zinni agrees with the former Admiral Eugene Carol and Assistant UN Secretary General and chief of the oil-for-food committee Dennis Haliday, who resigned two months ago in protest of American policy toward Iraq. These harsh criticisms of Clinton's policy are escalating within and outside the United States. One of the five Le Monde articles criticizing Clinton's policy said that American policy is founded on two bases: obtaining oil with the lowest prices, and alliance with Israel. The article also warns against the division of Iraq, wondering why we do not look at what is happpening in former Yugoslavia now."

"Albright Played The Same Old Tunes"

Salama Ahmed Salama, columnist for pro-government Al Ahram, said (1/31): "After the Arab ministerial meeting, the United States announced that it expanded its military operations in Iraq. Secretary Albright came to the region and played the same old tunes about American insistence on ousting Saddam, certainly with the help of CIA-supported Iraqi opposition factions and regardless of whether this is an intervention in Iraq's internal affairs. In her press conference in Cairo, Albright avoided answering many embarrassing questions which the Arab man on the street asks. Although Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries reiterated their opposition to the military solution and called for a diplomatic settlement, the secretary seemed to have given herself the right to determine what is right for Arab interests."

"Arab States Caught Between Two Evils"

Ahmed Abul Fatth asserted in opposition Al Wafd (1/28): "I doubt that Arab rulers really want to

ease the suffering of the Iraqi people. Certainly, the United States knows of the Arab anger at its crimes and the inability of the Arab governments to help the Iraqis. However, Washington insists that Arab countries support its policies on Iraq. Arab countries fall between two evils, the United States and Saddam. Arab nations want Arab policies to be liberated from U.S. subordination and Saddam will exploit this wish to the maximum. Why do Arab countries not declare the lifting of the unjust sanctions, regardless of American anger? By so doing, the Arab people will regain their dignity."

LEBANON: "Washington Is Lost And The Arabs Confused"

A second-page editorial by Sarkis Na'um in mainstream daily An-Nahar stressed (2/2): "When Ricciardone was appointed, countries longing to get rid of Saddam were overjoyed thinking that finally the American administration would do it. When they heard the statement by the U.S. Gulf commander (Zinni) stating that the policy of Iraqi containment is best for Washington, these same countries were confused. The big question now is the following: What does Washington really want to do with Iraq? Informed diplomatic sources indicated that there is some confusion inside the American administration regarding the policy that should be taken with Iraq. The American military representing the Pentagon is sticking to the containment policy because overthrowing Saddam cannot take place except through direct military intervention.... On the other hand, the State Department decided to abandon the containment policy and adopt a more direct option to overthrow Saddam. The Ricciardone appointment is stage one in implementation. It would not have done so except for Clinton's decision to ignore the Pentagon and adopt this policy. Obviously, Clinton's motives are not nationalistic. He is only trying to gratify the Senate (who approves of overthrowing Saddam) to diminish his losses in the face of the Lewinsky scandal.

"The Arab leaders' problem is the following: They really want to get rid of Saddam but they do not trust the American president's motives. They fear that he is not serious. They want to help the United States, but they are also afraid that, in light of the suffering of the Iraqis, any wrong move on their part may impact negatively their own popularity. The outcome? America is lost and it is confusing everybody else!"

"Would Washington Invade Iraq?"

An op-ed piece by Yusif Andari in independent daily 'Nida' al-Watan' (1/30) held: "It is clear that the United States feels that it is cornered. Probably, its Gulf allies are accusing it of not wanting to put an end to the Iraqi crisis in order to justify its continuous military presence in the region. Until now, it seems that it will not succeed in making any Iraqi opposition group assume the responsibility of overthrowing Saddam. Probably this is what pushed the Gulf commander General Anthony Zinni to tell a hearing of the Senate armed services committee that: 'He does not see an opposition group that has the viability to overthrow Saddam...and that the last thing we want is another mutinous regime.'... The question is: How will this long American series in the region end? Will the United States invade Iraq?"

QATAR: "The Only Winner Will Be The U.S."

Semi-independent Al-Rayah opined (2/2): "No Arab country can announce support for U.S. plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein, openly expressed by Martin Indyk during his tour of the region, even if this agrees with Arab countries' interests. Actually, it is not in Arab countries' interest to ally themselves with Washington in removing, installing, or choosing any leadership in any country. This will become a precedent and will allow the United States to claim this as one of its rights in the region. This will also become a new concern for both Arab governments

and peoples. Of course, we are assuming that the United States is serious in its new goal, because Martin Indyk announced a few days ago that Washington could have achieved the goal during the Gulf war, but it didn't! We believe that the United States is extremist in its views and radical in its dealings with Iraq.... Washington has many a time dealt with Iraq without UNSC jurisdiction, especially the ongoing military campaigns over the no-fly zones imposed without international authority. This does not mean that the Iraqi regime is democratic...but that the decision to permit or change regimes does not belong to the United States. This is the Iraqi people's prerogative. If Washington succeeds in changing Saddam's regime, both he and we are the losers, and the only winner is the United States."

"Dictatorship Of New World Order"

Semi-independent Al-Sharq had this editorial (2/1): "We do not know how Martin Indyk allowed himself to say that he was here to help Iraq's neighbors remove the Baghdad regime, nor do we know the international law or treaty that allows him to implement this American desire. Even the attacks were rationalized in the way that, for example, Israel rationalizes its attacks. We cannot reject Iraqi calls for revolts in Arab countries, which is interference in their internal affairs, and accept the same from the United States."

"Iraq Crisis Demands New Strategy From Allies"

The semi-independent Gulf Times' vice editor-in-chief Paul Cowan asserted (1/28): "A less confused policy is needed to cope with the problem if Iraq is to be persuaded to comply with the UN resolutions, as Arab states indicated this week that it should.... There are two logical options: Either (1) invade Iraq and forcibly remove Saddam's regime replacing it with an acceptable alternative, or (2) remove all his excuses for provoking confrontation and leave him completely isolated and cut off from the basic materials he needs for his military. The first of these options is far too risky as allied action inside Iraq could destabilize the Arab world and might even endanger pro-Western governments in the region. The second would involve conventional containment by further fortifying the borders of neighboring states, imposing stringent sanctions against the import of all mechanical and electronic devices, while abandoning all efforts to intervene in Iraq's internal affairs--cancel the no-fly zones, forget irrelevant opposition groups, forget weapons inspections (which are a dead duck anyway, after the revelations about spying) and make it crystal clear to Saddam that if he ever again attacks another state, his regime will be removed by force. Of course, the Iraqi government would crow victory and the British and Americans would have to admit that their earlier strategy and not worked. But wouldn't it be acceptable to eat a little humble pie in return for escaping from the Iraqi morass and having a policy that works, makes sense and bolsters stability in the Gulf?"

SAUDI ARABIA: "Ricciardone's Title"

London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat had this editorial (2/1): "Frank Ricciardone's (title), at one time, is the coordinator of the Iraqi opposition groups, a second time, the special representative for transition in Iraq, a third time, the coordinator between the (Iraqi) opposition and the (U.S.) administration and, lastly, the coordinator of American activities in Iraq.... The media has failed to provide a consistent description for his mission. This is natural, not only because he is new in his job, but also because his mission is ambiguous.... Perhaps the role required from this 'coordinator' at this phase is to run a public affairs campaign which practically presents him as an heir of Richard Butler. The head of UNSCOM has lost his usefulness in justifying (maintaining) the sanctions and it has become better to replace him with someone who is able to market the new idea: preparation for removal."

"Liberating The Resolve Of The Iraqi People"

Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina had this editorial (2/1): "Alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people is the ultimate objective of all the international and regional efforts regarding Iraq, but this suffering will not be alleviated without liberating the resolve of the Iraqi people and enabling them to exercise their choice."

SYRIA: "Albright's Sneaky Visit"

Fouad Mardoud commented in government-owned Syria Times (1/30): "Secretary of State Albright's recent visit hardly touched on issues of war and peace in the region. Rather, its objective was to explain U.S. policy on Iraq and to build an alliance against Iraq.... In the light of this, one cannot be optimistic about the current stalemate in the peace process. The Israelis are still beating the drums of war.... To put things back on track, the U.S. government must be convinced that it cannot successfully apply its long-term policy of fragmentation in the region. Dealing with one issue at the expense of another will not solve the Middle East's problems because they are inter-related and inseparable."

TUNISIA: "Who Will Put Out The Fire?"

Editor-in-chief Abdelhamid Riahi stressed in Iraq-affiliated, Arabic-language Ash-Shourouq (1/28): "Was the Cairo meeting merely another 'consultative' discussion...or was it the first step in a cooperative Arab effort to resolve the Iraq issue and other related matters?... America, by bombing Iraq after the meeting of Arab foreign ministers, has increased tension and caused additional commotion and violence. Turkey put a halt to America's plans by prohibiting the use of its bases to attack Iraq.... Turkey's action should encourage Arabs to actively seek to defuse the situation...as was their declared goal in the statement released after the Cairo Meeting.... The meeting was not the last stage.... It was, rather, the beginning of a new phase, which requires a certain amount of Arab national commitment to Iraq and its people."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "U.S. Intervention And Arab Responses"

Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej (2/1): "U.S. sponsorship of the Iraqi opposition abroad to make a change inside Iraq has been widely opposed by all Iraqis. In addition, official and non-official Arab objections have been made toward direct U.S. intervention in the Iraqi affairs.... Arabs would be scared that such an intervention may turn into a habit of U.S. policy that extends beyond Iraq to include other countries whose interests may conflict with those of the United States.... Neither the United States nor any other regional power has any perception of an alternative to the Iraqi regime. There are mounting fears that any alternative would be the beginning of dividing Iraq into conflicting ethnic or sectarian entities. There is no doubt that the U.S.imposed no-fly zones in the South and North represent provocative factors for division and partition and represent a vicious American intention toward Iraq that the excuse of protecting Kurds and Shiites cannot justify. For all of that, Arabs must come up with a defined and clear policy toward the future of Iraq and not leave this in the hands of America."

WEST BANK: "U.S. Carelessness Regarding The International Will"

Sameeh Sh'baib commented in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (2/1): "The Iraqi crisis has entered a new developing stage right after the conclusion of the Arab foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo.... The United States and Britain hastened to support the ministers' communique and use it to their advantage in their conflict with Iraq.... At the same time the United States and Britain continued to send additional air strikes against the Iraqi military targets. Such an aggression, which could be the first of its kind in the known wars, reflects the carelessness of the American administration towards the international will, and its aggressiveness in directing its strength against any country it wants without any external

considerations. As a result, we see that the international community has started fidgeting and calling for an end to the aggression, not only against Iraq but also against the will and the future of the international community."

EUROPE

TURKEY: "Iraq And Beyond"

Toktamis Ates had this to say in intellectual, opinion-maker Cumhuriyet (2/2): "It is obvious the United States is using Incirlik Air Base for its own policies. Although the United States has made statements insisting that the base is used only for surveillance flights, one politician, Mr. Ecevit, used to voice opposition to the apparent injustice it caused the people of Iraq. However, he is the prime minister now, and the current situation is plainly pathetic. Incirlik is very busy with war planes taking off and landing. Nobody even bothers to deny what is going on. And it is now Prime Minister Ecevit who is making unconvincing statements to justify the situation. After all, the United States is arrogantly bombarding Iraq. And the agony of the Iraqi people continues."

"Incirlik Will Eventually Become A Headache For U.S."

Rahim Er judged in religious conservative Turkiye (2/2): "Turkey was shaken last week by a report of a missile attack on Incirlik. But the report turned out to be false. One day, however, Turkey may really face such an attack and be dragged into a war. I wonder, is this what the United States really wants? Is the United States now playing the role Germany played during World War I? In short, are we going to find ourselves in a fait accompli war situation? Incirlik is about to become real trouble for Turkey. Immediate measures should be taken before it is too late."

"Platform?"

Intellectual/opinion maker Cumhuriyet carried a front-page editorial (2/1): "After the Cold War era, American bases in Turkey had lost their functions. However, they are now being used for purposes that may put Turkey in serious trouble. Is Turkey providing a platform for the American strategy to topple Iraq's legitimate government? Washington's policy to topple Saddam is a clear violation of the UN Charter, as well as international law. Ankara's policy on Baghdad should focus on the UN resolutions; neither one step behind nor one step further. If Turkey is involved with plans to topple the Iraqi government, it will lose its prestige both in the Islamic world and in the international community. When the once-accepted method of toppling a regime with foreign military interventions is used, nobody knows what will happen next."

"After Saddam"

Sukru Elekdag wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (2/1): "Turkey's national interests require that Saddam be immediately toppled. The continuation of the Saddam regime paves the way for the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq.... Ankara should refrain from any initiatives that may be misinterpreted as backing the Saddam regime."

"The Importance Of Iraq In Foreign Politics"

Gunduz Aktan commented in intellectual Radikal (1/29): "The United States has declared its intention to topple Saddam. Since the necessary money to carry this out has been allocated, the policy is entirely irreversible. The struggle between the two sides (Iraq and the United States) will continue for a long time because the United States is trying to achieve a political goal without actually occupying Iraq. It is likely that after a lengthy struggle, Iraq could be divided. Turkey is scared about the uncertainties and instabilities of this struggle. The

territorial integrity of Iraq and the future of northern Iraq remain highly important to Turkey."

"A New Iraq Policy?"

Sami Kohen editorialized in mass-appeal Milliyet, (1/27): "Turkey has urged the Saddam regime to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, has defended the principle of Iraq's territorial integrity with a centralized authority, and has called for an end to sanctions so that Iraq can be reintegrated into the international community. Nonetheless, there are certain limits to a more active Turkish policy on Iraq: No matter how hard Turkey tries, Saddam's policy, in general, puts boundaries on Ankara's course of action. Moreover, Washington's insistence on its radical policy toward Iraq makes it even harder to try alternative routes for a solution. The Ecevit government, in line with Turkey's conventional conduct, is about to launch new initiatives. However, it is doubtful that Ankara's new plan will influence the Clinton administration's Iraq policy."

BRITAIN: "Containing Saddam"

The independent weekly Economist opined (1/29): "Is it time to lift sanctions on Iraq? On the face of it, the answer must be no. Simply to abandon sanctions now would be to hand victory to Saddam and to give him a free hand to rebuild his arsenal of chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry. Yet a change in policy is required, and at least some sanctions should indeed be lifted. A change is needed for two reasons. One is that over the past year the impediments placed by Iraq before the UN weapons inspectors made their job virtually impossible, and now they have been thrown out. The most useful check on Mr. Hussein is thus ended. The other reason is that the old policy has come to be seen as inflicting appalling suffering on 20 million or more innocent Iraqis and not much on their guilty, and unelected, masters... Four days of air strikes last month served to strengthen the feeling, by no means confined to the Arab world, that the Iraqi people have suffered enough.... In so far as a new consensus is emerging, it is a sensible one: that the pressure should be relaxed on Iraqis at large but maintained, or if possible intensified, on the regime. The question is how."

FRANCE: "Albright's Tour"

Francoise Germain-Robin noted in communist l'Humanite (1/29): "Madeleine Albright has toured the Middle East introducing the man (Frank Ricciardone) who is to coordinate the U.S. efforts to topple Saddam.... No one knows what exact demands Secretary Albright made on the two nations neighboring Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.... But the Saudis did not demonstrate much enthusiasm at the idea of being enrolled in Ricciardone's troops."

"Saudi Arabia 'Betrayed' By Saddam"

Claude Lorieux opined in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/28): "Saudi officials would have preferred a less dramatic backdrop to Madeleine Albright's visit. But her visit comes on the heels of a misfire during a U.S. strike against Iraq...and Saddam's calls for an uprising. Still, the U.S.-Saudi alliance has suffered more serious setbacks in the past.... Now that the Middle East peace process is stalled, Iraq will probably dominate talks between Albright and the Saudi leaders.... Some Saudis are sensitive to the United States' intransigence toward Baghdad. And even if U.S. military power is sometimes misused, it remains a 'full liability insurance' for Prince Abdullah and his Arab brothers."

GERMANY: "Without A Plan"

Udo Ulfkotte penned this editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/1):

"Over the past few days, U.S. fighter planes attacked Iraqi positions again and again. With these attacks they have frightened Saddam Hussein less than [the United States'] regional

alliance partners. Instead of Iraqi air defense positions, one missile hit an Iraqi residential area, while another struck Iranian territory. The secretary-general of the Arab League and Turkey's premier condemned the latest attacks. And in case of further misrouted U.S. missiles, the Turkish base at Incerlik will hardly be made available to U.S. fighter bombers any longer.... Washington is also under pressure from another side of its Iraq policy. Two Iraqi opposition groups...are refusing U.S. financial assistance to oust Saddam. And even the U.S. commander in the Gulf, General Zinni, compromised his own government with the statement that the U.S. policy towards Iraq lacks a successful plan. Washington should take these signals seriously."

"Warnings From Ankara"

Juergen Gottschlich had this editorial in left-of-center Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (1/29): "Turkey is increasingly turning into an uncomfortable partner for the United States. Turkey's Foreign Minister Cem recently announced that Turkey would under no circumstances allow U.S. fighter jets to start from the air base in Incerlik for offensive actions against Iraq.... This move has to do with Premier Ecevit who, as a left-wing nationalist, was opposed to the U.S. policy already in 1991 during the preparations for the Gulf War. But it also has to do with the justified fear of becoming the victim of a misguided policy of the Clinton administration.... [Ecevit] expressed the fear that Saddam's ouster would create chaos in the region and awaken greed among neighboring states.... If the United States does not soon present a more convincing plan than the stupid bombings of alleged or real Iraqi military installations, it will have increasing difficulties with its Turkish ally. We can also assume that the critical mood in the neighboring Arab countries is even more aggressive than in Turkey itself. Saddam is cleverly taking advantage of this situation by fanning opposition to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The warnings from Ankara show that Clinton will not have too much time left if he does not want to run the risk of losing support even in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."

ITALY: "Iraq, Six Strikes In One Day"

Lorenzo Cremonesi wrote from Jerusalem in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (1/31): "The United States is widely implementing its strategy of systematic attacks.... However, these intensifying bombings do not seem to have weakened Baghdad's regime.... And Saddam does not at all seem to fear the aid that the Americans are providing to Iraqi opposition groups, a (U.S.) policy which is seen with increasing perplexity by its supporters as well.... As time goes by, the traditional supporters of U.S. policy in the Gulf are becoming increasingly critical. The most relevant criticism comes from Turkish president Demirel.... Strengthening opposition groups means giving political credit also to the Kurds...a position which Ankara intends to hamper at all cost, even if this should favor a dispute with Washington."

"U.S. Raises Ante, Tension Rises In Iraq"

In left-leaning, influential La Repubblica, Arturo Zampaglione made this observation regarding the heightened state of alert at the Incirlik base in Turkey over a possible missile attack from Iraq (1/29): "The Incirlik incident...confirms that tension is rising in Iraq after the change of policy on the part of the United States, and it also confirms Baghdad's diplomatic isolation. The United States has resolved to raise the ante, and to aim (without hurry) to overthrow Saddam: Secretary Albright expressed her satisfaction about Egypt and Saudi Arabia's response to the new course yesterday during her visit to Amman."

"Albright Asks For Support"

Roberto Fabbri remarked in leading rightist opposition Il Giornale (1/28): "Leaving aside diplomatic caution, Albright yesterday explicitly asked for Saudi Arabia's support to overthrow the Iraqi regime through the collaboration of opposition movements.... The United States has

resolved that the time for ambiguity is over, and asks its allies in the Middle East to run the risk

and support the achievement of the United States' goals. In this atmosphere of imminent settling of accounts, it is not easy to predict who will open fire first: But the people of Kuwait certainly perceive a familiar feeling of serious danger."

BELGIUM: "Iraq: From Show Strategy To Great Strategy"

Conservative Catholic La Libre Belgique ran this op-ed piece by Francis Briquemont, retired Belgian lieutenant general and former ifor chief in Bosnia (1/30), "One only needs to carefully reads the United States president's speeches or General Colin Powell's memoirs to realize that: The new world order must be a world under American leadership, abiding by American norms in all the sectors which constitute power: the economy, the military, the technology, and, let us not forget, culture. The economic strategy is the most important means to ensure this leadership. Following the strategic doctrine defined by American Admiral Mahan at the end of the 19th century, having 'bases' in the world is an important aspect of U.S. military strategy, a buttress of the economic strategy. NATO--a new formula in 1999 being currently discussed--and the Turkey-Israel-Saudi Arabia axis play and will play an essential role for the United States in this part of the world. In this area, controlling the energy sources (oil, natural gas) and their transport is, of course, an essential element of the economic- military strategy of the United States. The important oil resources in the Middle East, but also those of former USSR republics along the Caspian sea cannot fall in anybody else's hands than the United States. The construction of pipe lines in this region will inevitably create tensions among all the states in this region, which are on the border between the Muslim and orthodox worlds.... It is easier to explain the demonizing of Saddam Hussein in the media, as well as the strikes. Saddam Hussein appears as the foil ofthe great American strategy."

BULGARIA: " A Faulty Missile Blames The World "

Opposition Party Duma commented (1/28): "We are wrong, said the Pentagon. We'll investigate, they say. They are very sorry for the 11 people killed by mistake in Basra. Yet another misdirected missile overflew Iraq and hit Iranian territory. However, Tehran didn't even get an apology. Both countries are on Washington's list for bandit and terrorist regimes and this kind of a politeness would be inappropriate. Ever since the United States became the only superpower, it has forgotten even the formalities of the international law."

HUNGARY: "Desert Chaos"

Influential Magyar Hirlap carried a piece by foreign policy editor Csaba Szerdahelyi (1/29): "The officially unannounced U.S. Operation Desert Chaos is raging like a storm against Iraq. Regarding Baghdad, almost everyone has turned against everyone else, and the situation is chaotic.... Opinions about Saddam Hussein are rather divided even within the Arab world. A greater concern is the growing disagreement between Washington and Moscow and Beijing, further aggravated by Paris's attitude. Perhaps that is why the United States is opting for daily bombings, waiting for the real strike back which might then be followed by the real showdown. Which, of course, would not be the final one, since Saddam's power seems to be unbreakable, perhaps as long as he lives."

RUSSIA: "Action Defeats Its Purpose"

According to Vladimir Dunayev in reformist Izvestiya (1/28): "Civilian casualties in Basra do not fit into America's aid-to-the-opposition program. It offered anti-Saddam groups around $100 million and, in an instant with the Basra misfire, robbed them of moral support among the population."

"Total Disregard For Human Rights"

Anatoliy Anisimov stated in official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (1/28): "The U.S. attack is another cynical act attesting to total disregard for Russia's stand, the UN's authority and human rights. Clinton may avoid impeachment but there is no way he can avoid answering for the death of innocent people and destruction in Iraq."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Non-Arab Muslim Nations Should Protest Against U.S."

Anti-West, Bangla-language Inqilab commented (1/28): "The United States can never be a genuine friend of Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Arab and Islamic nations are their genuine friends. It is the call of the hour for the Arab and Muslim world to be united and take a common stand against Zionist, imperialist and expansionist forces.... We hope that Arab nations will condemn the attack and take effective measures to stop further attacks. It is also hoped that non-Arab Muslim nations will also protest and condemn the United States' terrorist activities and take appropriate measures to stop the attack. The U.S. actions, which violate international practice and world opinion, are a great threat to world peace."

NEPAL: "Like Vietnam In The '60s"

Regular columnist Purushottam Shrestha commented in the government-owned Sunday Despatch (1/31), "Like Vietnam in the '60s, Iraq has shown clearly that it would under no circumstances kneel down to the dictates of a superpower. It has amply demonstrated its capabilities to stand up against any intensity of air strikes and also that these raids from the sky would hardly make much difference to President Saddam's rule in Iraq. Short of committing ground troops--an option which is anathema to Americans--no amount of missile rains is going to scare away Saddam any time soon.... The Clinton administration's open acknowledgment of its policy on Iraq that it wants nothing less than the overthrow of Saddam has been taken as a blatant arrogance of power. This was a rare instance of one member of the Security Council openly advocating the overthrow of a government of another member of the UN. This has not been taken kindly by many members, though not openly. After the 60s fiasco in Vietnam, American policy on Iraq has not exactly been the one for which U.S. policy-makers could crow over."

PAKISTAN: "Kill Iraqis, But Talk To Milosevic"

Ishtiaq Ahmad put forth this analysis on the front page of the center-right Nation (1/28): "Last month, when Iraq ordered the UNSCOM team...out of the country, the United States and Britain--without caring about UN resolutions on Iraq and what the world community thinks--were quick in launching the so-called Operation Desert Fox against the country, killing several innocent Iraqis, decimating important development and security sites.... On the other hand, look at Kosovo! Look at the West's response towards it! A 'stick' is nowhere to be seen. Only a 'carrot' is offered every time, while Milosevic murders Muslims."

EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: "Caught Twixt U.S. And UN"

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald had this editorial (1/28): "It is a fact of life that no major UN military action is possible unless it is effectively led or suppported by the United States.... Australia should continue to support international action against Iraq but it must avoid, when allowing its nationals to join UN-sanctioned operations, any suggestion of acting outside permitted boundaries."

MALAYSIA: "U.S., UNSCOM Want Iraq Punished"

The government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian averred (1/28): "The actions of Russia and China, strengthened by support from Malaysia, succeeded in halting UNSCOM from distributing its 200-page report.... There was other support from countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. UNSCOM has shown that it conducted its investigations in Iraq with disregard to the culture and pride of the Iraqi citizens. Malaysia has decided to take this stand because it feels that there has been no justice shown.... UNSCOM should have tried to be more open to the ways and culture of Iraqi people, especially in religious practices.... What this (UNSCOM) report probably doesn't contain is Butler's failure to find the suspected weapons.... What is happening is the continued charade so that Iraq can never redeem itself and economic sanctions continue."

JAPAN: "Saudi Arabia At Odds With U.S. Over Iraq"

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun's Cairo correspondent Tawara observed (2/1), "The gap is widening between the United States and Saudi Arabia over the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. Amid growing speculation that the Saudis are eager to remove the American military presence from their kingdom, both Washington and Riyadh are 'feeling out' their differences in a strained manner, while maintaining, outwardly, close and cooperative relations."

THAILAND: "U.S.' Bizarre Policy"

Charnnarish Boonpharod contended in elite Naew Na (1/30): "Iraq now seems to be the one who is capable of sitting out the hardship to prove the inability of the eight-year-long international economic sanctions to make any negative impact on Saddam Hussein. Washington, on the other hand, has turned into an impatient soul, who resorts to render support to the Iraqi opposition to hasten Saddam Hussein's demise. This indicates the United States' implicit admission of the failure of the sanctions. Moreover, the new U.S. approach is tantamount to direct interference in Iraq's internal affairs."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "One Mistake Too Many"

Editorialist Jocelyn Coulon of Montreal's liberal French-language Le Devoir held (1/27): "To every Iraqi provocation, the United States now retaliates with an excessiveness that verges on the obscene. Of course, Iraq carries the entire responsibility for this situation.... But by striking blindly, the United States perpetuates the suffering of the Iraqi nation. How is it possible, then, to break from this infernal logic? Iraq is completely isolated on the international scene.... So maximum diplomatic pressures must be applied. At the same time, the UNSC should overcome its divisions of which Iraq takes advantage and reunite on two objectives: opening the door to a progressive lifting of sanctions and maintaining long-term disarmament."

BRAZIL: "Backfire"

Rio de Janeiro's center-right, national O Globo (1/27) charged that the recent military engagements in the region have had the opposite effect of what the United States intended: "There is no doubt that the United States is right in using force in the Persian Gulf to preserve peace in the region and contain abuses by Saddam Hussein. But President Clinton's strategy of ordering limited attacks on Iraq, responding to Iraqi provocations in a random way, and praying for Saddam to learn the lesson, has brought questionable results. The military action last month, for example, was politically motivated and, many claimed, served to distract attention from Clinton's trial.... The latest incident [involving civilian casualties]...is proof of the weakness of U.S. strategy."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

2/2/99

# # #