Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT: "Iraq Ended Hope For Arab Solidarity"

Samir Ragab, editor-in-chief of pro-government Gomhouriya, held (1/7): "Unfortunately, Saddam put an end to any hope for Arab solidarity and unification of positions in 1990. He shocked everyone when he invaded Kuwait without taking into consideration the simplest Arab traditions."

"Iraq Should Apologize"

An unsigned editorial in pro-government Ahram argued (1/7): "Iraqi leadership...should seek the interests of its own people instead of intervening in the internal affairs of other Arab countries and inciting their people against their own governments. This once again has ignited tensions between them and Baghdad. The right step is for the Iraqi leadership to stop all the media campaigns and clearly and directly apologize for all that Iraq has caused in the region since August 1990 until the present time."

"Insults Of Desperate Leaders"

Salama Ahmed Salama opined in pro-government Al Ahram (1/6): "The Iraqi regime insulted everybody. It did not differentiate between those who wanted to spare Iraq and the Arab nation the consequences of [its] foolish policies and those who want to eradicate the Iraqi regime. Iraq attacked Russia, China and France for not using their influence in the UNSC.... Whatever the American and British violations to the international law have been, there are limits to the reasons for defending a country which is violating its citizens' rights and which is aggressive towards its neighbors. The Iraqi regime attacked all Arab countries without distinction. We should not have stooped so low so as to respond to the insults of desperate leaders who failed to save their nation's interests and imposed their regime. The Iraqi regime is the only beneficiary of these responses, exactly as it benefits from American strikes on its palaces and guards."

"America's Double Standard"

Galal Dowidar, editor-in-chief of pro-government Al Akhbar, argued (1/6): "It was natural that Arab nations revolt against the American and British barbaric attack on the starved Iraqi nation.... It was a venting of their anger at the double standard policy of the United States in the Middle East. It strikes against Iraq in the name of international legitimacy but stands incapable and even collaborating with Netanyahu's crimes."

BAHRAIN: "Iraqi Propaganda"

Mohamed Fadhel commented in leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam (1/6): "As part of its continued efforts to blame the outside world for all its problems and tragedies, the Iraqi leadership and its propaganda are really good at fabricating enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, in order to market its policies internally. The campaign against Egypt and the Gulf countries...was just an example of Iraqi policy and propaganda. The Iraqi leadership and its propaganda continue to call for Arab solidarity and for Arab support, as if invading an Arab country is just like a quarrel at a coffee shop that should be forgotten and considered as if nothing happened."

JORDAN: "Policy Of All Or Nothing"

Urayb Rintawi maintained in center-left, influential Al-Dustur (1/7): "Saddam's call for the Arab people to rise against the Arab regimes that are friendly with the United States raises a number of questions. Is this call a decision on the part of the Iraqi president to launch a war against all

the Arab countries and governments, since all of them are friends or would-be friends of the United States? Has the Iraqi president misjudged the demonstrations in Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Syria to be an authorization for him to lead the Arab people into rebellion and change?... We will not seriously consider the Iraqi call to oust the regimes, because it is simply a violation of international law as well as an intervention in the domestic affairs of Arab countries.... The problem with Iraq is not only the fact that it won't learn from its mistakes, but that it insists on making the same mistakes over and over again."

"Iraq Needs To Take It Easy"

Writer Khairallah Khairallah front-paged this piece in semi-government, influential Al-Ray (1/7): "It is time for the Iraqi ruling regime to understand that the Arab countries did not fail Iraq and that, in fact, it was the Iraqi regime that brought harm to the Arab countries.... Iraq needs to take it easy at this stage, particularly when the Arab countries are going through tough times. Iraq must understand what each country is going through, especially in this prevailing state of Arab weakness that was originally brought about by Iraq's crazy adventure in Kuwait."

QATAR: "Saddam: Step Down"

Semi-independent Al-Rayyah maintained (1/6): "If the (Arab) nation is obliged to drive out its leaders and if the Iraqi president is sincere in giving the people the right to chose their leaders, we ask him--in God's name--to walk away (step down). It is sad that the Iraqi president tried to use religion, nationalistic emotions, and noble Arab feelings towards brotherly Iraq and the Iraqi people to his and his regime's advantage.... He exploits the Arab feelings that opposed the recent U.S. and British attack on Iraq to issue a cry to Arabs to get rid of their leaders.... The war of words between Arab countries saddens us and results in more divisions, but Saddam angers us when insists on launching his rockets of words against Arabs."

"Terror Time"

Semi-independent Al-Watan opined (1/6), "The continuous clashes between U.S. planes and Iraqi fighters over the 'no-fly-zones' remain to be a source of tension in the region. At a time where these terrifying clashes sweep the region, we find that the whole world is silent and we hear no voice calling for drawing a line between the UNSC resolutions and the United States' unilateral actions. Amid this ordeal facing the region, the United States focuses only on its plans, serving its own interests, which most of time conflict with others' interests particularly those of the Arab world. The world kept quiet when Washington reinforced the 'no-fly-zones' with the pretext of protecting the Kurds and the Shiites. Now, Iraq has made the decision to confront the daily U.S. penetration of Iraqi airspace. The world should make a move by clearly taking a position to regain its bleeding dignity. The Arabs, before others, should be very decisive in their positions and protect the region, which is being pushed to the brink. The Arab leaders, if they do not want to lose their credibility before their people, should stand against the United States' unilateral actions in a similar way as they support the UNSC resolutions. In this way, the leaders can create a balance and be objective in their positions toward Iraq. Equally they will be able to clear the skepticism coloring their decisions on Iraq."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Schizophrenic Saddam"

Riyadh-based, moderate Al-Jazira opined (1/7): "Yesterday Al-Jazeera TV volunteered to broadcast Saddam Hussein's address where he urged Arab nations to revolt against some of their leaders. The address was new and strong evidence that Saddam Hussein provided to Arab, Islamic and international public opinion that he suffers from schizophrenia and confuses his own views with the views of the people he is urging to revolt.... It is a shame that the international community is not able to adopt a legitimate move...to save Iraq and its people from this sick tyrant."

"Saddam's Misguided Thinking"

London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat argued (1/7): "What is the significance of this call to the Arab masses to revolt against their leaders? Perhaps Saddam thinks that the popular protests against the American-British aggression were demonstrations of support for his wise leadership. Certainly, this is incorrect.... If Iraq is subjected to strikes once again, Saddam should not be surprised that the people do not go out to protest.... This does not mean that the people have changed their views regarding the aggression but that they reject the Iraqi leadership taking advantage of their protests."

TUNISIA: "People Suffering"

Editor-in-chief Nourredine Achour argued in pro-government As-Sabah (1/6): "The government of Iraq periodically denounces the loss of life caused by the embargo, yet it does not act decisively to lighten the embargo's effect on the Iraqi people.... Although Arabs feel sympathy for the innocent Iraqis...we must ask whether the embargo and no-fly zone will continue for another eight years before the Iraqi administration decides that it must feed its people and ensure them a steady supply of medicine?... What is the good of rejecting international aid?"

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Are We Trying To Oust Him--Yes Or No?"

The conservative Daily Telegraph had this op-ed by foreign editor Patrick Bishop (1/7): "So Saddam is not, after all, firmly back in his cage.... If anything, he's as insolent as ever. In the past few days, he has challenged British and American aircraft in the no-fly zones and called on Arabs to overthrow their leaders. This is not how it was meant to be. The speed with which Saddam has resumed his bad old ways raises awkward questions about the sustainability of the Anglo-American approach to Iraq. In many ways, the two leaders have brought this on themselves. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton owe us an explanation.... The policy remains what it has always been--containment. That is a neat word to convey a messy reality. With the arms inspectors gone...sanctions will be the principal means of keeping Saddam in check, even though the great mass of victims will be innocent Iraqis.... It is an unsatisfactory way of doing things and, with each crisis and confrontation, there is growing public disquiet with the approach. In democracies, the use of violence has to be shown to have a moral basis. By smudging the outlines of what is going on, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Blair are denying people the facts on which to decide whether or not they approve of what is being done in their name. It is time for Washington and London to come clean."

"Looking For Coherent Policy"

The liberal Guardian had this lead editorial (1/7): "The chances of the world arriving at a coherent policy for dealing with Saddam seem increasingly slender. While the United States and Britain say they are committed to their 'new' policy of military pressure and encouragement of Iraqi opposition groups, there is no evidence that, even if the resolve to remove Saddam has hardened, there are any new ideas on the means of doing so.... Iraq, meanwhile, has begun a campaign of provocation, directed both at the Americans and the British and at its Arab neighbors, which dismays even those who pass for its friends in the international community."

"Defiant Jets Prove Iraq's Will To Fight"

The centrist Independent noted (1/6): "The dogfight over an Iraqi no-fly zone yesterday showed that the Iraqi forces were not as 'degraded' as Washington and London have implied.... The most obvious interpretation, from a Western viewpoint, is that Iraq is trying to provoke a

confrontation.... There is clearly increased tension in the air in the south. It is possible that yesterday's episode was just part of a broader conflict that may be stirring over southern Iraq."

FRANCE: "Sanctions That Kill"

Denis Halliday argued in left-of-center monthly Le Monde Diplomatique (1/99): "In spite of what some nations might still believe, there is no hope for democracy under a regime of sanctions.... These sanctions nurture fanaticism and could lead to political extremism.... Air strikes, sanctions and isolation have accomplished nothing positive.... One can rightfully hate Saddam, but find nothing in the UN Charter which allows his assassination or the torture of his people."

"Saddam Enhanced By U.S.-UK Fiasco"

Dominique Bromberger aired this commentary on government-funded France Inter radio (1/6): "Saddam Hussein looked in great shape during his televised address when he called on the Arab people to 'rebel against their kings and their presidents.'... Several hours before, an incident without precedent had taken place in the no-fly zone...while on the ground, the execution of the Shiite population continued. Proof that the no-fly zones are useless.... Two weeks after the U.S.-UK strikes, one can say that from Washington's perspective, the result is catastrophic.... Saddam has proven that it is possible to stand up to the United States.... Saddam has been able to divide the allies while at the same time getting the support of a major part of Arab public opinion.... The U.S.-UK operation has turned out to be a fiasco...and Saddam is in reality the only one who could bring down his own regime."

GERMANY: "Helpless"

Werner Adam wrote this editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/7): "The UN and the Security Council have rarely before cut such a helpless figure as they have in view of the recent U.S.-British military strikes against Iraq. UN arms inspectors are locked out by Iraq, their chief is now accused by the UN leader of having clearly sided with Washington, and now it appears that what Baghdad has claimed for a long time may be true: That the leadership of UNSCOM acted as an extended arm of the U.S. intelligence service. It is self-evident that the weapons inspectors should do everything possible to bring to the fore the ruses of the notorious swindler Saddam. But the fact that the data from these eavesdropping operations were assessed only by the CIA and the Pentagon...makes the worried question of UN secretary General Kofi Annan concerning the UN's neutrality and mission understandable."

"Realpolitik And Morality"

Christoph von Marschall had this to say in an editorial in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (1/6): "There is no doubt who is the villain in the Iraq conflict. But the United States makes it difficult for the world to regard it as the sheriff with a clean slate. Some actions seem like belated attempts to justify the controversial airstrikes. Why is Washington only now publishing reports about massacres of Shiites that occurred last November?... At that time, these reports would have given the bombing of Baghdad an additional legitimacy.... But Washington's policy towards Iraq is split. The United States wants to force Saddam to his knees, but at the same time it is afraid of the power vacuum which Saddam's death would leave.... One can try to understand this discord between realpolitik and morality, but it is not convincingly legitimate."

"Saddam Scores Point After Point"

Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (1/6) carried this editorial: "Saddam is not yielding an iota.... And what about the United States? The last superpower only strikes without being able to explain why and without being able to define its goals. Washington is now leaking reports about massacres of Iraqi Shiites which so far nobody has been able to confirm. The UN is

watching the strikes and counter-strikes as if it were paralyzed.... But one thing is clear: Saddam is scoring one point after the other. His star is not fading and his Arab neighbors are surprised at how the dictator is defying the United States. Only Egypt's leader is criticizing Saddam.... Diplomatic action is urgently needed to put an end to the specter in the Persian Gulf. The EU can be more than sycophant or Cassandra."

ITALY: "UN Spies"

An editorial in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica held (1/7): "The revelations about the incestuous relations between American intelligence and UN inspectors...force new consideration of the future of UNSCOM...and its chief Richard Butler's role.... Over the last few months, his arrogant methods and attitude have made him lose the confidence of several UNSC members.... The time has come for a turnover at the top of UNSCOM. Inspections should resume, since they have been very important...for disarmament. And normalization is not possible with so many doubts about Butler. Kofi Annan cannot ask for his head, so the best solution would be for Butler to offer his resignation. But if he fails to do that, then the other countries interested in a peaceful solution of the Iraqi crisis, beginning with Italy, should ask that Butler be replaced."

AUSTRIA: "Special Interests In Iraq"

Prestigious Die Presse carried a commentary by Christian Ultsch on the accusations of espionage recently raised against the UNSCOM weapons inspectors (1/7): "What the Iraqi regime has spread abroad for a long time; what several independent observers have suspected, seems to prove to be true: Many an inspector of the UN special commission for the disarmament of Iraq probably also acted in the 'special interest' of his country of origin, after all, it is the declared goal of the United States and Great Britain to topple the terrorist regime in Baghdad. Richard Butler, the headstrong chief of the UNSCOM, has long been the thorn in the side of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. And since the firebrand informed the United States--before the UN Security Council--about the report which served as the basis for the Anglo-American bombings in December, he is regarded as a 'persona non grata' not only in Baghdad. The recent accusations of espionage might be not only a reason to fire Butler, but may also mark the end of the UNSCOM as a whole."

BELGIUM: "Saddam Increases Pressure"

Foreign affairs writer Manu Tassier front-paged this piece in independent Catholic De Standaard (1/6): "By having his jet fighters penetrate the no-fly zones, Saddam is taking one more step in his confrontational policy vis-a-vis the United States.... A large-scale strike like in December will not deter Saddam--on the contrary. He is probably speculating that such an operation will spark even more disapprobation in countries like China and Russia, and in Arab countries, and hopes that it will cause breaches in the embargo against his country. By resisting, Saddam is also playing the role of protector of the Arab world against the West. It was no coincidence that he exhorted the Arab people in an address on television to revolt against the regimes which receive support from the West."

DENMARK: "A More Imaginative Policy Towards Iraq"

Center-left Politiken editorialized (1/7): "The need to establish a more imaginative policy towards Iraq and to attain tangible results is becoming increasingly urgent. Attempts to force Saddam to live up to the terms imposed after the Gulf War have failed. The notion that Iraq should be increasingly controlled using military means will no doubt continue and intensify. The role played by the UNSC looks like it will become even more marginal as the dogfights continue.

"America's dilemma is that it must either intensify its pressure on Baghdad--without

any certainty of achieving results--or abandon its disarmament policy."

POLAND: "Nuclear Bogey"

Juliusz Urbanowicz wrote in centrist weekly Wprost (1/6): "Neither the threat of a nuclear war nor the peril of the use of another weapon of mass destruction disappeared in the wake of the collapse of communism and the end of confrontation between two superpowers.... The possession of weapons of mass destruction is still treated by many countries as an efficient bogey and determinant of their international position.... The military action which the United States and Great Britain launched against Iraq proves that even international inspection cannot efficiently prevent a dictator from continuing arms projects. Is the term of 'nonproliferation' likely to become an entry in a dictionary of political archaisms after the breakup of the bi-polar model of the world?"

RUSSIA: "Anglo-Saxons Not To Give In To Saddam"

In reformist Segodnya, Georgy Bovt commented on Saddam suggesting that U.S. and British subjects, members of the UN mission, should leave Iraq (1/6): "Baghdad's one-sided actions are a threat to the oil-for-food program. The Anglo-Saxons are unlikely to give in to the Iraqi dictator. Following the latest clash, they, far more than Saddam, feel like winners."

SPAIN: "Inspectors Or Spies?"

Liberal El Pais editorialized (1/7): "The information obtained by UNSCOM belongs to the Security Council, not to one of its members.... It is a clear violation of the UNSC mandate if UN inspectors become spies for the United States, no matter how much Saddam is a detestable dictator. The damage is done. The allegations feed the illegitimacy of the U.S. policy towards Iraq and most of all, undermine the work of the UN.... Only the removal of Butler could give a slight opportunity to renew the UN dialogue with Iraq. This doesn't matter to the United States which has openly opted for gunboat diplomacy.... Now, the dictator isn't trying to win the military game but rather the war of propaganda, and the United States appears to have pledged to help him. Wouldn't it be better to change strategies?"

TURKEY: "What Kind Of Damage Did Iraq Get?"

Izzet Sedes commented in the sensationalist Aksam (1/6): "With Operation Desert Fox, the United States tried to weaken Saddam and eliminate Iraq's capacity of weapons of mass destruction. But the operation only met some of these objectives. The Pentagon announced that the operation was 85 percent successful.... On the political side, there is no improvement. The Clinton administration believed that the operation would help topple Saddam and establish a new regime in Baghdad. But Saddam still has control over both political and military authority. Clinton opponents are now asking: What was gained from the attacks? Because everything still remains the same as before."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "A Diplomatic Initiative"

The centrist Independent commented (1/7): "In the interest of peace, a diplomatic initiative ought to be immediately set in motion to persuade cessation of military encounters. For the sake of the welfare and peace of its own people and of the region, Iraq on its own should also redouble its efforts to mend relations with the UN by showing that it has abided by UN resolutions on the suspected stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

"U.S. Attack On Iraq: An Assessment"

The centrist Independent opined (1/6): "Some say that the United States and Britain have targeted Iraq because its state-owned oil industry is difficult for the West to influence. Western powers may indeed have an economic interest in continued tension in the Gulf. Some say that Washington and London used military force on Iraq as part of a broader plot to achieve world domination."

INDIA: "Ominous Escalation"

The centrist Hindu opined (1/7): "With a sharp increase in rhetoric by Baghdad and some more aggressive U.S. military posturing, the Gulf appears to be moving inexorably into another war.... Emboldened by the failure of the repeated attempts by the Anglo-Saxon alliance to dislodge him from power, Mr. Hussein has decided that the time has come for him to escalate the challenge and test the strength and resolve of his opponents. Washington's diplomatic isolation at the UN...was the tonic that Baghdad required and America's indefensible stand on the sanctions issue and the continuation of the even more objectionable 'no fly' zones provided the rationale to launch the counteroffensive.... Mr. Hussein has just wielded his weapon of last resort. His call to the Arab people to raise against their rulers and overthrow them adds a dangerous dimension to the on-off confrontation.... All this can be compounded by the helplessness of a reluctant international community, already weary of the ceaseless confrontation and the brinkmanship of the protagonists. The UN seems too immobile for action."

"A Change Of Regime In Iraq?"

The centrist Hindu had this analysis by Qamar Agha (1/6): "The game the United States is playing is dangerous and could lead to chaos and anarchy if the bombing is repeated.... The problem is that the United States is not interested in installing a democratic government in Iraq. It could have done so in 1991 when the Shias and the Kurds had revolted in the wake of the Gulf War. The U.S. did not want Mr. Hussein replaced by a Shia. Washington fears such a change would benefit only neighboring Iran.... In recent weeks, U.S. policy has undergone a radical shift from containment to removal of Mr. Hussein.... Although the United States and Britain have been waging a war against Mr. Hussein, they have failed to forge a broad alliance of major opposition groups. A large number of people would like to see a change in Iraqi leadership but they do not approve of the American initiatives either. Their repeated bombings and refusal to lift the sanctions have brought suffering to the common people."

PAKISTAN: "Now A Change Of Regime In Iraq?"

An op-ed column by Qamar Agha in the Peshawar-based, independent Frontier Post held (1/7): "The U.S.' ability to engineer a regime change in Iraq depends to a considerable extend on support from Tehran and Damascus. But Washington's relations with both Syria and Iran are in an uncertain phase, and it is not entirely clear if the United States is ready to quickly and radically rework its bilateral relations with these two nations."

"Operation Desert Fox And Thereafter"

Mahmood Hussain argued in Islamabad's rightist Pakistan Observer (1/6): "Iraq, may be asked to again come out with firm assurances to honor the security and integrity of its neighbors, especially Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but in return the entire process of humiliating inspections and continued sanctions should be lifted.... In this regard, the OIC and the Arab League should also play their due role and help rehabilitate Iraq."

EAST ASIA

LAOS: "Attacks Inconsistent With UN Charter"

Government-controlled, Lao-language Vientiane Mai judged (1/6) in an editorial, that "the attacks were inconsistent with the UN Charter and international laws, and was strongly criticized by the international community. The unilateral use of violence, without approval from the UN Security Council is a serious mistake and endangers international relations. Not only Iraqi citizens suffered, but the UN was also indirectly affected by such acts which undermine the organization's system of maintaining international security, the essence of the Security Council."

SOUTH KOREA: "Hussein's Self-Destruction, Clinton's Agitation"

Reporter Chae In-taek of the business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo argued (1/7): "Relentless, Saddam Hussein continues to provoke the United States. His main purpose in doing so is to strengthen his political standing. Meanwhile, he is trying hard to take advantage of the frustration of the Iraqi people (from economic difficulties), turning it into anti-American sentiment.... Clearly, Hussein believes he has nothing to lose even if more U.S. attacks are on the way, (this boldness) leaves the United States in a dilemma."

AFRICA

NIGERIA: "Let Iraq Be"

The Lagos-based independent Daily Champion carried this editorial (1/7): "By attacking Iraq in such manner, both the United States and Britain have demonstrated that they have no iota of respect for international law and UN procedures.... The new international order which enables a country or group of countries to attack another sovereign state in order to protect their economic interest must be resisted. Iraq should be allowed to live. The UN has a duty to save Iraq from America and Britain, in the same way it saved Kuwait from Iraq."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Ignoring Iraq"

The new conservative National Post (1/7) commented: "The perennial temptation of arms control is to ignore or deny violations, because to notice them would mean that some kind of response must be made. Both Mr. Annan and Mr. Clinton until recently ignored Iraqi violations. Saddam Hussein, however, would not allow them to do so. By forcing the withdrawal of UNSCOM inspectors from Iraq, he invited the Anglo-American military action that recently degraded his weapons stockpile. What is to be done now?... The West can either contain Saddam Hussein or seek his overthrow. What it cannot do is allow Saddam Hussein to remain in place and get the UNSCOM he wants. Mr. Annan must not be allowed to yield to pressure from Russia, China, and perhaps France to force the resignation of UNSCOM's efficient chairman Richard Butler and to reconstitute UNSCOM."

CUBA: "U.S. Maintains Tension With Acts And Words"

Cuba's only daily, Communist Party Granma, (1/6) carried this from Cuban-owned Prensa Latina: "The confrontation between U.S. and Iraqi aircraft...is just the continuation of the process started December 19 to 'protect the no-fly zones,' which already has claimed new victims on the ground, under the pretext of counteracting threats from Baghdad. This is the clearest demonstration of the so-called new world order, where Washington and London, without authorization from the UN, established these zones."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/7/99

# # #