January 5, 1999
U.S.-IRAQ: 'MORE TENSION AND CONFLICT LOOM ON THE HORIZON'
The ongoing tension between the U.S. and Iraq has continued to draw editorial comment from practically all regions over the past few days. Writing in advance of reports that U.S. and Iraqi jets clashed over southern Iraq early this morning, most editorial writers expressed a distinct preference for dealing with Iraq in other than military terms. A majority of these writers questioned the effectiveness of U.S.-UK air strikes against Baghdad last month and urged Washington to find a different approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein over the longer haul. In the view of many, "Washington's claims of victory" did not ring true since "most people were certain that air strikes did little to help solve any problems." Indeed, citing the "sharpened division in the UN," "the telling blow to the UN's authority," and "the new mood of belligerence on the part of the Iraqi government," many believed that the military action made the Iraq situation "immensely more complicated." Dhaka's English-language, centrist Independent judged presciently before the January 5 incident that "more tension and conflict loom over the horizon for Iraq." These were major themes:
ARAB AND ISLAMIC WORLD: From the perspective of writers in the Middle East and Asian countries with major Muslim populations, the larger issue is how the Arabs should deal with Iraq. Citing the postponement of an Arab League summit on Iraq, Arab writers decried the lack of a quick and concerted response condemning the U.S.' "flagrant aggression." Observing that the discord "adds another dimension to the Iraqi tragedy," an independent Jordanian daily criticized the ongoing verbal battle between Iraq and some Arab countries such as Egypt, arguing that Iraq "cannot afford" such a conflict at this point. Cairo's pro-government Al-Ahram blamed the "Iraqi ruler's conduct" for driving a wedge not only between Iraq and the world community, but also among the Arab countries. Some papers echoed the view of Saudi Arabia's London-based pan-Arab Al-Hayat, which called for an agreed-upon Arab stand on Iraq.
HEGEMONY: Pundits determined that while there is "an unequivocal recognition of Saddam's status as an international pariah for his criminal use and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons," last month's air strikes undercut the UN's authority and called into question the legitimacy of U.S. actions regarding Iraq. "For once, there is real criticism of U.S. policy-making," a Pakistani paper opined, "just like in a Third World ghetto, the policeman has turned openly into the villain as well." Moscow's reformist weekly Itogi deemed that "how the White House treated the Kremlin during the Iraq crisis in December is stark testimony that Russia's chips have fallen low in world politics." Papers in Morocco and Pakistan were particularly virulent in denouncing the "U.S. aggression against Iraq," judging that "the Arab nation as a whole...is the ultimate target" for the U.S. and "Iraq is the test case of whether the U.S. would dictate terms to other states on the basis of its military power." A former Indonesian foreign affairs minister, writing in nationalistic Merdeka, charged that Western countries are attempting "to isolate Islamic civilization and foment internal dissent" in Muslim countries in order to promote Western "domination."
This survey is based on 30 reports from 20 countries, December 29-January 5.
EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Katherine Starr
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "Defusing New Tensions Over No-Fly Zones"
Pro-government Al Ahram had this commentary (1/5): "Iraq rightly rejects the violation of American and British planes over its airspace under the pretext of the no-fly zones. Continuing tension in Iraq...threatens new armed clashes. Undoubtedly, no one, including Egypt, accepts this escalation. Wise regional and international parties should defuse this possible aggression. The UN is certainly urged to determine its position clearly on the no-fly zones. Otherwise, it should urge Washington and London to stop their provocation of Iraq."
"Saddam's Conduct"
Ibrahim Nafie, editor-in-chief of pro-government Al Ahram opined (1/1): "Undoubtedly, an Arab summit is a necessity.... But the belief in the value of this summit is not enough. The truth is that since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, problems continue to exist and the wound has not healed. Iraq should have learned the lesson of the catastrophe it caused the Arab world. Its adventures cost Iraq all its money and the Arab world $670 billion in a single decade. But Iraq failed to learn the lesson.... We are not defending the American-British strike. It is unacceptable morally and legally and an indication of international chaos. But we mean to say that the Iraqi rulers' conduct has not only created a gap between Iraq and the international community, but also with Arab countries which are required to participate in the summit to support Iraq. Egypt's position is clear; it supports a summit only if it will drive Arabs forward. This will only happen if Iraq changes its conduct."
"Postponement Of Arab Summit"
Sanaa Al Said argued in opposition Al Wafd (1/3): "As usual, Arabs fell into confusion that reflects their division. The foreign ministers' meeting was postponed. This must be the U.S.' doing, since holding a summit on Iraq will mean a condemnation of the United States due to its flagrant aggression. In this way, the United States has aborted the idea of an emergency summit. It has succeeded in spoiling Iraq's chance to speak to a collective gathering about lifting the blockade. The meeting was postponed so as not to embarrass some Arab regimes, which initially do not support lifting Iraqi demands. Iraq's blockade and isolation, thus, has increased.... The United States now has a fresh chance to try to overthrow the Iraqi regime."
JORDAN: "Iraq Is At The Heart Of Comprehensive Peace"
Mohammad Asfour opined on the front-page of semi-government, influential Al-Ray (1/5): "The true obstacle in the path of peace is not only the hard-line policies of the Netanyahu government and the Likud Party and the lack of implementation of the Oslo and Wye River accords. It is also the lack of commitment to international legitimacy on the part of the United States and its insistence that the Iraqi issue be separate from the Mideast peace process and that the bombing of civilians in Iraq is part and parcel of reinforcing peace in the region. This is not the peace of the people that can survive and is lasting. This is just a political maneuver to achieve a temporary objective in the absence of the Arab will power."
"The Summit Is An Arab Need"
Chief editor Taher Udwan maintained in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (1/5): "What have the Palestinians and the Arabs decided in terms of handling the new situation that was created by the Israeli elections?... The Arabs are in dire need of a comprehensive Arab summit meeting, not because Iraq has asked for it [but] because Palestine is begging for it."
"Arab Consultations On Iraq"
Chief editor Taher Udwan wrote in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (1/4): "It is evident that Washington believes that it has achieved the objectives of its December military offensive against Iraq. Both Washington and London do not seem to be interested in reinstating and using the same formula for UNSCOM's inspections. They seem to want to adopt a policy of containing Iraq that is accompanied by the threat to use force when needed in order to retain the sanctions regime and to limit and control the movement and capabilities of the Iraqi regime. We expect Arab consultations on Iraq to increase and to actually involve Iraq. We also expect Iraq to get out of its isolation and to move from the circle of being held accountable to the circle of realistic political dealings. Iraq's isolation at this stage is very dangerous whether inside the Arab League or inside the Security Council."
"Iraq And Arab League"
Marwan Huzayyen wrote in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (1/4): "The escalation between Iraq on the one hand and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League on the other adds another dimension to the Iraqi tragedy. In my opinion, this exercise serves whatever the United States is planning to implement against Iraq, namely forcing Iraq to succumb to its wishes. Arab countries should consider this dimension well. It should signal a change in the Arab countries' stand towards Iraq. The Arabs should support Iraq against the aggression instead of allowing the U.S. administration room to do whatever it wants. There has to be an Arab awakening that leads to logical conclusions vis-a-vis Iraq. Media campaigns against Iraq should immediately stop and a firm stand should be adopted against the U.S. objective of destroying Iraq."
WEST BANK: Test Of Arab, Iraqi Citizens' Reaction"
Khairy Mansour opined in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (1/4): "From the indications of the dual aggression against Iraq, we can tell that this aggression is not about to end. In fact it reflects much of its name, Desert Fox, which attests to an avowed deception and a cunning plan. The strikes against Iraq so far are not the real thing. They are just an experiment to measure the reaction of the Arabs and the people of Iraq. The resumption of the aggression during or after Ramadan will have much more serious and long-term goals than those announced during the four-day strikes. The coming strikes will aim at destroying the Iraqi infrastructure, which will lead to the destruction of the whole country and finally dissolve the unity of its land."
BAHRAIN: "Differentiating Between Iraqi Leadership And People"
Leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam had this comment by Mohamed Fadhel (1/4): "It would be absurd to deal with the Iraqi issue the way the Iraqi propaganda wants us to do: not differentiate between the leadership and the people. It is not true that it was the West which separated the people from their leadership.... Amidst the blockade and the economic sanctions, the whole world saw the Iraqi president celebrating his birthday on a golden carriage driven by horses.... Differentiating between the leadership and Iraqi people is a reality created by the Iraqi leadership and was not made by an imperialist power."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Arab Solidarity"
London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat opined (1/5): "The question is not whether to strike Iraq or to invite it to an Arab summit. There are other questions, such as can we build an Arab self-defense (system) to protect an Arab solidarity agreement?... Since 1991 many unifying basics of the Arabs' policy have collapsed. There is (now) a need to develop a new policy.... But we lack the faculty to do so, and the judgment is that the danger will encompass and smash
all of us if we fail to move."
"An Arab Position Essential"
London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat contended (1/4): "An Arab position must be developed. To hold the Iraqi regime responsible will not be convincing this time. It will not be sufficient; it will look foolish. Arabs are not observers regarding the Iraqi question, or remote states whose only concern is trade, but, rather, they are concerned directly."
MOROCCO: "Real Targets Of American Aggression"
Government-coalition Al Alam had this piece (1/5): "Although some accuse the Arab masses of naiveté, Arab populations are well aware that the Arab nation as a whole, with its 285 million people, is the ultimate target of U.S. aggression against Iraq, Sudan and other Arab countries. The Arab masses are also well aware that close Arab (government-to-government) relations with America are only on a (temporary) 'honeymoon' while Washington consumes its good will in the Arab world, as it has done in the past with Marcos in the Philippines and with others. Meanwhile, even the Egyptian press is criticizing the silence of Arab governments towards the U.S.-British strikes against Iraq."
SYRIA: "A Difficult Optimism"
Sayyah al-Sukhni commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (1/2): "With a new year beginning, it is difficult to be optimistic about the huge obstacles to peace and the possibility of achieving just and balanced international relations.... The excessive use of power against Iraq and the blind bias towards Israel prove that Washington is selective in her stands and serves the Israeli extremists and their reckless policies. If the U.S. stand remains, then there will be grave consequences that might demolish all hope of peace and stability in the region.... When we talk about international efforts to save the peace process, we should not overlook the U.S. role. But events in the last few years proved the futility of such a role because the United States is biased towards Israel."
EUROPE
RUSSIA: "The World Loses"
Reformist weekly Itogi (12/29) published this commentary by Leonid Velekhov and Sergei Strokan: "Clearly, the ruthless attack [on Iraq] has added to anti-American sentiment in that country and had the hapless and starving people rally to the dictator whom they see as a savior and defender from 'murderer Clinton.'... If a search for a winner in this weird four-day war, which started for no apparent reason and ended with no apparent result, leads us nowhere, a search for a loser might be far more effective. The bombing of Iraq dealt a telling blow to the UN's authority. For the first time in its history, a military action against one of its members was carried out without the Security Council's approval.... How the White House treated the Kremlin during the Iraq crisis in December is stark testimony that Russia's chips have fallen low in world politics. Moscow, judging by its reaction, is greatly demoralized, unable to formulate a constructive reply."
FRANCE: "Desert Fox: An Assessment"
Jean Hatzfeld argued in left-of-center Liberation (1/5): "The strikes against Iraq were essentially 'symbolic.'... According to the UNSCOM report, the United States didn't know where the Iraqis were hiding their chemical weapons. Therefore, how could they destroy them? The official stand adopted by the United States and UK is that they did not want to bombard
chemical weapons plants for fear of spreading the chemicals. A praiseworthy attitude which helped to hide reality.... The targets destroyed were in fact anything that could transport the chemical weapons.... The political assessment of the strikes is that nothing has changed. The Iraqi dictator has kept his political and military control of the country."
"Saddam Endures"
Jean Hatzfeld held in left-of-center Liberation (1/4): "The disappearance of Saddam Hussein from public life does not mean that his image has disappeared. On the contrary. The less one sees of the man, the more he is present. His image is omnipresent.... While this virtual presence of his power astonishes foreigners, it no longer surprises the Iraqi people.... After two devastating wars and eight years of embargo, experts admit that Iraq's army has lost a good part of its potential for harm.... While the internal destruction of Iraqi society can in the long term undermine the regime, it would be a utopia to imagine that the airstrikes could affect it in the short term."
KAZAKHSTAN: "Resolution In UN Hands"
Official Kazakh-language Yegemen Kazakhstan held (1/1): "We cannot say that the situation in the region has stabilized. Iraq does not recognize its defeat and United States is not going to stop crushing it. They seem unlikely to stop the quarrel any time soon. Given the situation, an action on the part of the UN seems necessary. But there is no such action.... The last war didn't stop Baghdad but strengthened its noise. Saddam Hussein [seems to believe] that the criticism of various countries is [actually] support of his activity, [and has] strengthened his anti-American direction.... The United States will not continue the war during the Muslim holiday, but they will not wait for long to reply.... There is only one way to stop the conflict: the UN should take it into its hands. And force every country to follow its decision."
POLAND: "Attack On Iraq"
Adam Szostkiewicz wrote in social and cultural Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny (1/5): "Since Saddam's regime cannot be overthrown, its military potential must be undermined. This is the only clear conclusion from the 'Desert Fox' operation, with the rest remaining a mystery. It is not known what the other objectives of the U.S. and British air forces' attacks...were. The military in Washington and London named the mission successful.... Meanwhile, nothing actually changed: Iraq will reconstruct the damaged facilities, and Hussein will walk in the glory of the martyr.... There is nothing to indicate that the current American administration...will conceive a more coherent policy toward Iraq."
"Operation Which Triggers Crisis"
Eugeniusz Janula wrote in leftist Trybuna (1/4): "On the military side, the Americans and their British allies might call the [Desert Fox] operation a significant, even though not complete, success. Iraq's military infrastructure...has been wrecked, and Iraq faced with its bad economic situation will find it increasingly difficult to rebuild its military installations. Despite the apparent unity of the nation, growing decentralizing trends around the dictator occur and Saddam finds it increasingly hard to answer why the masses starve and ail.... This is only one side to the story, however. While in 1991 the Arab world was divided in its views, now it is not only the Arabs but also the nations of the Islamic culture that support Iraq.... Also, individual Western countries adopted a very restrained position toward the military operation.... There is much to indicate that an attempt by one country to make decisions on behalf of the whole world can lead to an unpredictable situation."
TURKEY: "The Never-Ending Tango With Saddam"
Yasemin Congar wrote in mass-appeal Milliyet (1/4): "There is a reason why Baghdad decided not to accept the no-fly zones and to fire at American and British aircraft. In fact, as of January 2nd...all of these defiances send a message to the Arab world: Saddam hopes to gain more sympathy from his own people, as well as the region. By maintaining military tension with the United States and UK, Saddam creates enmity against the West and uses it as a political tool for himself. He tries to boost nationalistic morale by claiming to shoot down allied planes.... The Iraqi administration wants to use the divided opinions of the UNSC to his benefit. Since the no-fly zone matter is not under the auspices of the UNSC, Baghdad will do its best to isolate the United States and UK on this issue."
SOUTH ASIA
BANGLADESH: "More Conflict Looms Over Iraq"
An op-ed article in the English language centrist Independent held (1/5): "In a situation when the right thing for the Iraqi government would have been to create a climate of trust with the UN and see off the embargo, Saddam has continually caused irritants and provocations by his biological and chemical weapons program.... America's concern over this matter cannot be summarily dismissed. The best thing that could happen to Iraq today would be the toppling of Saddam.... Given the kind of system that has sustained Saddam in power, it looks highly unlikely that America will accomplish this aim. In the wake of the U.S. airstrikes, the Iraqi problem has become immensely more complicated. The division in the UNSC has been sharpened.... We have the prospect of a prolonged stalemate on two sensitive issues, i.e. the future of UNSCOM and lifting of the embargo on Iraq.... There is a new tone of defiance, a new mood of belligerence on the part of the Iraqi government.... More tension and conflict loom over the horizon for Iraq."
"Missiles On Iraq Again"
The independent English-language Daily Star opined (12/30), "The leaders of the Western powers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, best know what purpose has
been served by the attacks but, manifestly, they have damaged the consensus that had been reached by the United Nations Security Council members to contain Iraq without military intervention. The entire process of consolidating peace in the Middle East has been set back by the indiscriminate aggression on a suffering people."
PAKISTAN: "American Agenda In Iraq"
An op-ed column by Shameem Akhtar in the Karachi-based independent Dawn argued (1/5): "It seems that Russia and China have entered into strategic partnership to counter the American domination of world politics. Iraq is the test case of whether the United States would dictate terms to other states on the basis of its military power or international relations would be governed by norms of civilized behavior.... The overthrow of any established government, including the Baathist [in Iraq], is not on the UN agenda.... The United States insists on its pound of Saddam's flesh. If it vetoes the lifting of the embargo on Iraq, other states will be left with no other alternative but to declare an end to sanctions."
"The Wider Objective Of Desert Fox"
Sherry Rehman [former editor of the Karachi-based, monthly Herald] opined in the center-right Nation (1/3): "After nine years of economic sanctions that crippled mostly innocent civilians, there was and still is an unequivocal recognition of Saddam's status as an international pariah for his criminal use and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons. Desert Fox changed a
great deal of that. Saddam is still the object of vilification for his illegal aggression against his external and internal enemies.... The problem in all of this is that just like in a Third World ghetto, the policeman has turned openly into the villain as well. For once, there is real criticism of U.S. policy-making, or rather its execution, even at home. The Republicans in Congress as well as independent American media are linking the...timing of the bombing to Clinton's personal need to divert public focus from his impeachment. With his own conduct in public office under unprecedented fire all over the world, the president's moral authority to engage in global policing is itself not grounded in widespread legitimacy."
EAST ASIA
CHINA: "U.S. Motives For Air Strikes"
Xinhua wrote in official English language China Daily (1/5): "Operation Desert Fox dealt another blow to a weakened Iraq, but also fueled questions about U.S. motives and the justification for the use of force. It created a rift in the Security Council. As Washington claimed victory, most people were almost certain the air strikes did little to help solve any problems. It succeeded in ending the weapons monitoring regime that had been hailed as 'effective' in the past eight years and which had made a defiant Saddam even more defiant."
INDONESIA: "Iraq, The West And Indonesia"
An op-ed piece by former Foreign Affairs Minister Roeslan Abdulgani in nationalistic Merdeka asserted (1/2): "The West's current war is not meant to occupy a region. Nor is it intended to seize power. The West has frequently attempted to isolate Islamic civilization and foment internal dissent. Both overtly and covertly, Indonesia --classified as an Islamic society by the West--has been continually challenged, persuaded, and perhaps even isolated and divided. We must be aware of this, both short term during the fasting month and long term as we enter the 21st century. The recent flare-ups are not only caused by internal differences but also by external parties' hidden interference. Particularly the West, which requires the clash of civilizations [to promote] its domination."
NEW ZEALAND: "Saddam Heads For Dustbin"
The conservative Dominion opined (1/4): "The New Year has begun with a depressingly familiar tragi-comedy being played out in the skies over Iraq. President Hussein is anxious to turn to his political advantage the fallout from the latest bombing of Baghdad, and is defying the UN no-fly zones. Saddam's murderous history in his dealings with those groups [Kurds & Shiite Muslims] is justification enough for the zones remaining in place. He continues to show that in diplomatic as well as psychological terms he is an irrational actor.... The problem for the West is to come up with a policy that can counter Saddam's irrationality. He appears to welcome the bombing in the hope that this will consolidate support for him, both internally and externally. But allowing Saddam to continually thumb his nose at the UN resolutions is not an option either if the UN is to have any credibility in the future. Increasingly it is becoming clear that there will be no solution till Iraq has a new leader."
PHILIPPINES: "Saudi Arabia In A Dilemma"
The government-owned Journal said (1/2), "Saudi Arabia finds itself in a dilemma once again as big brother America and sidekick Britain maintain military pressure against its neighbor Iraq. Amid threats by the dynamic duo that they will resume attacks any time if Baghdad violates the so-called 'no-fly zone' over the devastated country, Riyadh says that it will not allow its territory to be used as a launch pad for U.S. and British strikes. As if it has a choice.... There is nothing new to Prince Sultan's pronouncement about his country's objection to being used as a launch
pad for air strikes against its neighbor. He has been issuing it whenever he gets the chance, which is quite often.... The U.S., on the other hand, has learned to ignore him, relying wisely on the blessings of King Fahd instead. Saudi Arabia was host to U.S.-led forces that liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's grip in 1991. And since then, allied warplanes have been flying missions over the Iraqi no-fly zone from bases in the kingdom. So, what Riyadh really has is a Hobson's choice, which, simply speaking, is no choice at all."
THAILAND: "Iraq Loses Friends With New Policies"
The mass-circulation Bangkok Post editorialized (1/3): "Iraq had agreed to disarm as the price of its brutal occupation of Kuwait in 1990. It has lied, obfuscated, delayed, misled and otherwise refused to disarm. Its attempts to portray Baghdad as the victim in the chain of events that has led to the current confrontation is laughable. If Iraq spent half its delay tactics in cooperating with UN arms inspectors, the country would soon be publicly and openly disarmed. Then sanctions would end, and Iraq could try to rejoin the civilized world."
AFRICA
NIGERIA: "A Discriminatory And Selective Policy"
Lagos-based independent This Day carried this editorial (1/5): "We enjoin the Iraqi leader to rethink his policies and intransigence.... We however also hasten to point out that the U.S. policy in the Gulf appears discriminatory and selective. There are other countries in that region which have amassed weapons of mass destruction and the United States has not seen fit to lift a finger against them.... The situation in the Gulf calls for superpower diplomacy, and we urge that, in future, any military action in that area should receive the backing of all the permanent UNSC members."
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
1/6/99
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
