Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Saddam Won Desert Fox"

Analyst Reuven Pedatzur wrote in independent Haaretz (1/10): "Desert Fox was not only a blatant strategic failure, it was also another act in a process which has severe implications for the Middle East in general and for Israel in particular. The most upsetting aspect of Operation Desert Fox is that it signifies the end of the international supervision regime in Iraq. Although this time it was clear to the planners of the military operation that it will result in the collapse of the UN inspection mechanism, they did not prepare an alternative plan. The result is that U.S. policy toward Iraq has reached a total impasse, with the inevitable consequence that Iraq will proceed to arm itself with weapons of mass destruction.... Paradoxically, the military blow he sustained enabled Saddam Hussein to achieve the goal he had sought for the past seven years and, consequently, to emerge as the big winner of Operation Desert Fox."

EGYPT: "A Complicated Issue"

Salama Ahmed Salama opined in pro-government Al Ahram (1/12): "Which is more useful for Arab interests; to have a unified Arab view and position on the Iraqi issue, or to be led like sheep after the American-British solution that is being implemented zealously? Unquestionably, dealing with the evils of the Iraqi regime is less harmful.... The United States launches military strikes, conspires coups, sets no-fly zones, uses the land of neighboring Arab countries, and cooperates with mercenary opposition elements and agents, so that finally Iraq will be divided into three countries. It will be free land for American intelligence and American operations against other Arab countries. Obviously, the United States does not have a specific plan to deal with the situation in Iraq after ousting Saddam.... This means that Arab foreign ministers have a complicated agenda in hand. The issue is more serious than a desperate regime and an irrational Arab ruler."

BAHRAIN: "Why Doesn't Regime Step Down?"

Leading, semi-independent Al-Ayam had this by Mohamed Fadhel (1/10): "The two parties (Iraq and the United States) have used a common element to coerce each other, that is the people of Iraq. The Americans wanted to punish the Iraqi regime through the sanctions weapon. For its part, the Iraqi regime has been capitalizing on the sufferings of the Iraqis to attract Arab and world sympathy.... The Iraqi leadership knows that the people are punished because of the regime, so why doesn't the regime step down and salvage the women, children and people of Iraq?"

"A Great Scandal"

Al-Ayam also had this comment by Omran Salman on the UNSCOM spying allegations (1/10): "The question now is how can the United States want countries to respect the UN and its resolutions while it disrespects the UN and violates its resolutions?"

"Is There A GCC Position On U.S., UK 'Aggression'?"

Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij published this commentary (1/9) by Hafedh Al-Shaikh: "In Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the GCC Foreign Ministers will hold a meeting tomorrow and on their agenda are three issues: the American-British aggression at the beginning of Ramadan; another aggression expected after Ramadan; and the UNSCOM spying business.... In short, it is not convincing anymore when it says that the Iraqi regime alone is responsible for the sufferings of the Iraqi people and that the Americans and the British should not be blamed.... The GCC should come up with a positive and courageous stand in supporting the people and children of Iraq who have been facing inhumane attacks for the past eight years."

"UNSCOM Allegations Prove That Saddam Was Not Lying"

Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment by Mohamed Khalil (1/7): "The latest developments in the UNSCOM spying business prove that Iraq was not totally lying when it accused the commission of spying. These developments also prove that accusing Iraq alone of fabricating the crisis is not correct. There are others also who were responsible for those crises, particularly the United States."

JORDAN: "The Coming Disaster"

Center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustur held (1/11), "One day after another, the Iraqi crisis intensifies and its chapters reveal the most serious threats and repercussions for the future of Iraq and the entire region. A policy that stems from desperation and frustration is one that eventually leads to the harshest of choices.

Jordan has always warned of this and called for dialogue and diplomacy as logical alternatives to escalation and force. The post-Desert Fox era is marked by conflict and division among the Arabs, something that has prevented the achievement of joint Arab action. With this in mind, we hope that the Arab foreign ministers' meeting on January 24 will be the opportunity to stop this deterioration in Arab relations."

"Time To Re-Examine Iraq File"

The centrist, influential among the elite Jordan Times asserted (1/10): "We now have a new ball game over the Iraqi conflict and a fresh start is certainly called for. What is still ominously missing is a collective Arab voice demanding the rectification of the grave errors committed against Iraq as a country and a people. The least that we may expect is Arab insistence on the resignation of Butler and the reconstitution of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq on more solid ground. The international community is up in arms over the shocking revelations about the true mission of UNSCOM. Arab silence could ultimately compromise the various Arab regimes that stood solidly behind the military strikes against Iraq. With Iraq now also questioning the legitimacy of the no-fly zones imposed by Washington and London, the stage is set for a new appraisal of the entire Iraqi file. Arab capitals should make themselves heard on the side of what is right and what is not, and become an integral part of the awaited review."

"The Scandal Of Spying On Iraq"

Center-left, influential Al-Dustur held (1/9), "The idea that UNSCOM inspectors are spying on Iraq is worrisome. On one hand, it shows the ugly way in which an international organization like the United Nations, with its laws and resolutions, has been used to violate the sovereignty and threaten the security of a member country. On the other hand, it shows how far Washington and London have gone in their violations of Security Council resolutions to serve their own objectives."

KUWAIT: "Iraq's Inspections Must Continue"

Independent Al-Qabas published this piece by Khaldoun Al-Naqeeb (12/30): "What has prompted the United States and Britain to shift from containment without having a strategy for toppling the Iraqi regime is still not clear. None of the justifications presented by either of the two countries are convincing. Containing the Iraqi regime is essential. However, aerial bombardment will not achieve that goal. The Gulf states must push for the continuation of the inspections."

"Where Was Al Jazeera During Israel's Aggression Against Lebanon?"

Independent Al-Seyassah ran this piece (12/25) by Faisal Al-Qinaei, secretary general of the Kuwait Journalists Association: "The Arabs who staged demonstrations to denounce the bombardment of Iraqi military installations, and who abused Kuwait, America, and Britain, have not said a single word of denunciation about the Israeli aggressions against southern Lebanon. Don't the Lebanese deserve sympathy? Is it because Lebanon does not pay bribes or fund political parties as does the Iraqi regime? Where is the Al-Jazeera TV channel from this Israeli aggression? Or does it specialize in defending the criminal Saddam and abusing Kuwait?"

"Is Al Jazeera Controlled By Pro-Saddam Elements?"

Independent Al-Qabas ran this article (12/30) by Ahmad Al-Rubei: "Some Kuwaitis feel that Saddam's regime has emerged victorious from the recent air strikes. Subsequently, the demonstrations staged confirm what many believe, that Saddam's regime witnessed a revival of its popularity. Others believe that the Al-Jazeera channel is controlled by pro-Saddam elements, and is proof of the success of the Iraqi regime. The call for convening an extraordinary summit for supporting iraq has failed. Even the meeting of the Arab foreign ministers, which was delayed for one month, has failed."

QATAR: "Baghdad Dreaming Again"

Semi-independent Al-Rayah had this editorial (1/11): "It is interesting that Iraqi escalation against Arabs leaders...coincides with a concerted Arab effort to find a solution to the Iraqi people's suffering. Prominent is the Saudi initiative to reduce the level of sanctions on the Iraqi people allowing Iraq to freely export oil and import medical and food supplies--keeping sanctions on arms and military equipment in compliance with UN resolutions. If the Iraqi regime believes that escalation will win it Arab popular support, Baghdad is dreaming again. The Arab street sympathizes with the suffering Iraqi people, and not with the regime and its interests. Baghdad's behavior confirms that it cannot be trusted."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Saddam's Departure Is Called For"

Jeddah-based, conservative Al-Madina asserted (1/12): "Saddam's regime went crazy when a [Saudi] proposal was submitted to lift the sanctions on basic (materials) and revealed its true criminal structure because it trades on the misery of the people in order to remain in power.... Such a regime does not deserve to remain in power because it has lost its legitimacy. Its departure is a duty, and the first ones to understand this are the Iraqi people who are responsible for the change."

"Iraq's Rejection Confirms Its True Motives"

Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad held (1/12): "The Saudi initiative is the most important and the best way out of the sanctions because it provides everything except weapons of mass destruction. (By rejecting this proposal) Iraq confirms its determination to continue its aggression not only against neighboring countries but also against the Iraqi people suffering from the sanctions."

"The Tyrant Of Baghdad"

Official government Saudi Press Agency said (1/11): "The tyrant of Baghdad has returned to his enticement wearing another mask and calling on the Arab people to revolt against their legitimate leadership, with his evil soul enticing him to sow the deeds of sedition among those people, instead of reforming himself and taking the opportunity of this blessed month to make a call for the good and to return to God. The fact is that the Iraqi people are the ones who

deserve and need a revolution at a time when Saddam Hussein is celebrating the establishment of the army."

TUNISIA: "Who Will Prevent Misuse Of UN?"

Editor-in-chief Abdelhamid Riahi argued in Arabic-language As-Shourouq (1/9): "Now, is it time for the UNSC to take the lead in resolving the Iraq issue? Is it time for the UN to regain its international respect by dealing effectively with this and other important issues without outside intervention or mediation?... Recent disclosures about the intelligence relationship between UNSCOM and the United States threaten the future of the UN.... These documented violations of UN rules and procedures...demand not only an Arab summit on the issue, but an international response to prevent similar misuse of UN institutions."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "A Green Light For Future Airstrikes"

Semi-official Al-Ittihad contended (1/12): "The Iraqi parliament is pushing the entire issue back to the starting point...thus allowing the United States a legitimate pretext for future strikes. The Iraqi people are paying dearly for political decisions about which they have no say.... We wonder now what the situation will be when Iraq withdraws its recognition of UNSC resolutions.... Iraq's cooperation with the UN is inevitable. It is the Iraqi people's destiny to pay the price for their leadership's mistakes in Kuwait. In fact, it is the duty of the leadership to alleviate the suffering of its own people and work diligently to gain Arab and international support for an end to their suffering. Therefore, Iraq's current political behavior, including its threats and war of words, is not what the Iraqi people need at this time. Besides, it will give the United States a green light to direct new strikes against Iraq. Iraq should announce its willingness to complete cooperation with the UN within a timetable that will identify what remains of its commitments in return for a partial lifting of the sanctions. There is no doubt that a solution like this would generate Arab and international support."

WEST BANK: "Belated Glad Tiding"

Hasan El-Batal opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (1/12): "In search of the true story, the American press and its television networks have exposed the Western war policy against Iraq and made public the details of Washington's employment of the UN and its inspection team in carrying out direct spying for Washington and Tel Aviv..... We would like to think of the Saudi initiative, regardless to its outcome, as a belated glad tiding, by which Baghdad could surprise its neighbors with its rationality as it has surprised its friends and foes with its steadfastness."

"America Is Nothing To Be Scared Of"

Mohammed Saed commented in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (1/10): "America, which some of us are scared of, has not been able to topple even one Arab or Islamic regime that opposes it. America has not been able to dictate to or influence the Iraqi people, despite carrying on the fiercest warfare since the Vietnam War and despite vigorous sanctions.... Tell us, Oh leaders of the Arab nation: What is so scary about America?... Is it not enough that we are accomplices in the killing of the Iraqi people?"

EUROPE

BRITAIN: "Saddam Emboldened And Frustrated"

The conservative Times noted (1/12): "Saddam appears to believe that threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will persuade them not to allow America and Britain to use bases on their territory for future air strikes, which many in Baghdad believe could come when the Muslim holy

month of Ramadan ends later this month.... While Operation Desert Fox appears only to have emboldened the Iraqi leader, his actions can also be viewed as a sign of frustration as he attempts to demonstrate his ability to continue to seize the initiative."

"Saddam's Motives Uncertain"

The liberal Guardian observed (1/12): "With Baghdad escalating its diplomatic and propaganda warfare on almost all fronts, and leading Arab governments for the first time openly calling for President Saddam's removal, tension is approaching levels not seen since the eve of the Gulf War.... There is widespread uncertainty in the Arab world about President Saddam's motives, some saying that he is driven by a frustration or desperation that could take an incalculable turn, some saying that it is part of his plan to end UN sanctions and break out of his regional and international isolation."

"I Personally Vote For Obliterating Saddam"

The liberal Observer had this op-ed essay by columnist John Sweeney (1/10): "Bombing Saddam back into the stone age is not the kind of view you would expect from anyone who works for a liberal newspaper.... Saddam should be killed, first and foremost, because he is evil. Saddam should be killed, second, because the Iraqi people want his head. It is impossible to visit Baghdad without sensing the terror of the Iraqi people. Saddam should be killed, third, because he is dangerous.... What is wrong with Western policy on Saddam is its lack of clarity. To wound, to cage, but not to kill the tyrant is a dangerous mistake. Life will only get better for ordinary Iraqis once the West finally stops dithering and commits to a clear and unambiguous policy of snuffing out Saddam. And when he falls, the people of Iraq will say: What kept you? Why did it take you so long?"

FRANCE: "End Of UNSCOM"

Patrick Sabatier observed in left-of-center Liberation (1/12): "The proposal made by Hubert Vedrine for a new system of arms control in Iraq has apparently left U.S. officials cold.... The United States is still in favor of UNSCOM's returning to Baghdad, on condition that it can conduct its work efficiently. The implicit message from the United States is that UNSCOM cannot [do its work], because, says an anonymous U.S. source, 'after the U.S. strikes, Saddam will certainly not cooperate.'... No one in the Clinton administration appears to be saddened by the 'end of UNSCOM.'... The priority for Paris and Washington appears to be the 'consolidation of the UNSC,' the clearest victim of the 'Desert Fox' operation."

"The Strikes Were A Mistake"

Foreign Affairs Minister Hubert Vedrine told listeners on Europe One radio (1/10): "The U.S.-UK air strikes were an error.... They resolved nothing and have weakened the authority of the UNSC.... We often repeated that the solution of military strikes, especially if taken unilaterally by one or two nations, was a mistake.... Today, it is clear that the decision was a mistake and that it resolved nothing.... France is neither in the Russia-China group, nor in the U.S.-UK group.... We place ourselves at a point of equilibrium, thanks to which UNSC authority can be restored. In Iraq, the United States has a policy of punishment, we have a logic of solution.... Today, we need to establish a new and different system of control...with the option of lifting the embargo which no longer serves any purpose."

GERMANY: "Flawed Policy Of Secrecy"

Right-of-center Rhein-Zeitung of Koblenz opined (1/11): "The UN is faced with piles of rubble. But not because its weapons inspectors in Iraq cooperated with U.S. intelligence services and probably also with the intelligence services of other UN members.... The straw that broke the

camel's back was the policy of secrecy used in trying to hush up such cooperation. This is the real scandal. Nobody could seriously believe that an inspection team would be able to track down hidden sites or factories or even production facilities of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons without information from intelligence services when the owners of such plants...tried to conceal them by all possible means. But if the UN uses such sources, it must be authorized to do so. In the fight against dictators who do not respect human rights...there needs to be consensus about this at least among the well intentional nations.... However, such consensus is not in sight."

ITALY: "Saddam's Poisoning Arsenals, The Bomb And Pax Americana "

A lengthy article in provocative classical liberal daily Il Foglio said in part (1/12): "The American strategy... is based on the fact that the United States is the only world superpower...which pushes its potential enemies to adopt unconventional weapons--hence the tactics and issues of 'catastrophic terrorism'...of the 'rogue states'.... Indeed, most of the U.S. intelligence work is now specializing in these 'low intensity war' scenarios. However, in this vision, there is also the serious risk...of losing sight of the political...feature...of any terrorist attack that can be expected in the future.... For the American superpower the real risk does not come so much from the most extremist terrorist groups.... From this perspective, the destruction of Iraqi arsenals and war potential is a need which has mainly to do with other types of problems. In the first place, the United States doesn't need to have its credibility undermined by the Iraqi challenges. In the second place, it does have the need to maintain its own (and Israel's) strategic supremacy in the region unchanged.... Also, with its raids on Iraq, the White House has tried to prevent, more from a symbolic than concrete point of view, the solid and close risk of nuclear weapons proliferation in large Third World areas.... Last but not least, the different perception of nuclear risk in the Middle East also has something to do with the dangerous rifts in the transatlantic relationship which emerged in 1998."

RUSSIA: "UNSCOM's Days Numbered, Saddam's Victory"

Valeriya Sycheva judged in reformist Segodnya (1/12): "A new aggravation of the Iraq crisis may result both in Moscow's winning another diplomatic victory, as it seems to have found a path to a peaceful solution, and in Baghdad's making big headway to the longed-for lifting of sanctions. Saddam will win even in the event of a military finale--every time Iraq comes under attack, its leader's authority among his subjects grows, whereas the UN's prestige wanes and divisions within the UNSC increase.... The signs are that the days of the Baghdad-hated UNSCOM are numbered. For Washington to ignore the opinions of the other UNSC members would be to ruin the global security system and turn the 21st century into an age of international lawlessness."

"Baghdad's Goals"

Alexander Reutov wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/11): "Sensing that he has, if not the support, then at least the absence of resistance from most countries of the world community, Saddam is in a hurry to make the most out of the situation. The lifting of sanctions remains Baghdad's principle aim. But at the same time it aims quietly at expanding the rifts in the relations among the former partners in the 1999 anti-Iraqi coalition. This applies first of all to the permanent members of the UNSC and the Arab world. And Baghdad's hopes of success are not all that ephemeral."

AUSTRIA: "This Time, The United Nations Is The Loser"

Foreign affairs editor Gudrun Harrer analyzed in liberal Der Standard (1/10), "The big loser in this round is the United Nations and thus the international community. In fact, Kofi Annan's sudden cautiousness that there is no evidence of espionage activities is to be seen against the

backdrop of a telephone conversation during which U.S. Secretary of State Albright allegedly said that the UN Secretary General is undermining the U.S. policy. This is the reality of the United Nations. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein is naturally not the sly fox as commentators like to portray him. His strength is the mess in Washington and New York. He has just made another mistake. By calling on the Arab peoples to topple their governments, Saddam is forcing them into a new alliance with the United States as it were. This applies, above all, to Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Things will become interesting again when the United States resumes its attacks at the end of Ramadan which seems more likely now than ever before."

BELGIUM: "State Affair"

Guido Boodts argued in independent Catholic De Standaard (1/9): "There are probably sufficient reasons to wish that the regime of dictator Saddam disappears. What the man has done to his own people and the people in the area...is unacceptable. It is normal that the international community wants that man not to have arms of mass destruction at his disposal; and it is understandable that no one believes his words and that, therefore, inspections are imposed.... However, if it is definitively established that the United States abused the UNSCOM mission for its own goals, (the United States) will have caused serious damage to the UN. The Iraqi dictator's position would be strengthened at home and in the whole Arab world--while America's position would be weakened proportionally."

BULGARIA: "The American UN"

Opposition Socialist Party Duma observed (1/8): "It is an unavoidable fact of life that in an enormous international organization like the UN some espionage would exist.... However, the insolence of the U.S. confession that it has used UN arms inspectors to spy for the CIA crosses the line.... The facts could not be kept in silence and another position was taken: 'We are strong and we'll do what we want.' This is what one can read between the lines of U.S. official statements. Yes, this is true, no matter how one understands it. The only thing is that the authority of the largest international organization has been ruined. If it becomes semi-officially American, then it cannot be international."

CROATIA: "The U.S. Discredited The UN With The Spy Affair"

Government-controlled Vjesnik ran this commentary (1/9) by Fran Visnar: "Saddam Hussein did not want to risk anything, and by forbidding further UNSCOM activities he actually intercepted a newly established spy network in his country. Of course, the case is very embarrassing for the UN, Kofi Annan in particular. If he publicly admits that a part of UNSCOM was actually also doing something else, much more delicate than the basic mission sketched in 1991, he will become the target of America's anger and will have to forget the payment of the incredibly high American debt to the UN.... After all, official Washington ceased to use the same standards for very similar cases long ago. Against Iraqis, they react militarily and use 'convincing military means,' all available power in the region, once the Iraqi army turns on its anti-aircraft radars for 15 seconds. But in Angola, Americans calmly tolerate the downing of two UN C-130 Hercules transport airplanes, packed with UN personnel. Why? Because the two 'Hercules' were downed by the rebels of Jonas Savimbi's UNITA movement, which was armed to the teeth, trained and financed by American intelligence agents, without being considered as something bad by official U.S. policy. Again: Why? Well, because the CIA in its not so distant past occasionally did love to go to bed with the bad guys."

DENMARK: "Saddam Scores"

Center-left Politiken opined (1/9): "Saddam Hussein must be rubbing his bloody hands together following the U.S. admission that some of the UN's weapon inspectors were moonlighting as CIA spies. This will strengthen his position in the Arab world and will no doubt be used by

countries such as Russia, China and France. The dismissal of UNSCOM leader Richard Butler will no longer be enough. Iraq and its supporters will not accept any new team of inspectors that includes Americans, but, without an American contingent, it will not be possible to carry out controls effectively."

FINLAND: "Saddam's Cat-And-Mouse Game"

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat contended (1/12): "Once again, the Iraqi dictator is playing cat and mouse with the international community. The chain of events provides an important lesson of how difficult it is for the rest of the world to fight a lone leader who is ruthless and totally indifferent to the suffering of his own people. Revelations that the United States used UNSCOM for espionage have given Saddam a new boost. He can take advantage of the situation in his propaganda war. The December bombers, the United States and Britain, are increasingly isolated as the anti-Saddam front continues to erode. UN prestige has suffered and the chances for UNSCOM to continue its work are fading way.... Nevertheless, we must not forget what is at the core of the matter: Saddam is a man who acquired weapons of mass destruction and showed that he is ready to use such weapons even against his own people. The Middle East must not be left at his mercy."

NORWAY: "UN Spies"

Independent tabloid Dagbladet commented (1/12), "Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein was right--the American members of UNSCOM were working as CIA spies. In March of last year, an intelligence agent in Baghdad succeeded in placing listening devices enabling the U.S. to infiltrate Saddam's intelligence network. The Americans used some of the information they collected in the bombings raids in December.... The espionage charges do not only affect UNCOM's work in Iraq. It has consequences for UN weapons control programs all over the world. At the same time, Saddam is safer and happier than ever in his office in Baghdad. This wasn't exactly the intent, was it?"

POLAND: "The End Justifies The Means"

Jacek Potocki wrote in center-left Zycie Warszawy (1/9-10): "It turned out that Iraq was right when it repeatedly accused [UNSCOM] inspectors with spying for the United States. The United Nations has lost face...and the UN Secretary-General will find it extremely difficult to restore the organization's authority without sinking America too much.... With the breakup of the bipolar world, the United States took on the role of hegemony without any constraints. On many occasions, it would influence the other participants of the world game not through presenting an example but by shouts, open threats, or--as the Iraqi example shows--by a trick.... America's allies and friends...will now think twice before they support it in controversial, even though otherwise right, causes. This great power, alas, instead of good diplomacy has only an unlimited sense of power. And this obscures its perspective and leads to permanent arrogance, as well as a ruthlessness to use others to secure an alibi."

TURKEY: "The UNSCOM Spies"

Izzet Sedes wrote in sensationalist Aksam (1/12): "Iraq continues to strongly accuse UNSCOM of spying.... Despite these ongoing accusations, the UNSC is keeping its silence. According to foreign diplomats serving in New York, it is a well-known fact that UNSCOM was spying. The only difference is that this time it has become news for everybody.... The situation in the Gulf region is a mess, and it is unlikely to improve in the near future. Turkey is squeezed in between Washington and Baghdad. The United States is our most important NATO ally, yet Iraq is our bordering neighbor. Whatever happens between these two countries, Turkey will suffer the most."

"UNSCOM Discredited"

Yasemin Congar wrote from Washington for mass-appeal Milliyet (1/11): "UNSCOM's assistance to the United States to eavesdrop on Iraqi communications has discredited the UN's inspection efforts. France's new proposal to reshape the commission foresees loose inspections at infrequent intervals. This will enable Iraq to effectively hide its technology of weapons of mass destruction, making it easier to lift sanctions."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "U.S. Admits Receiving Data From Inspectors"

The official English-language China Daily observed (1/9): "After acknowledging the United States received intelligence information from the UN weapons inspectors, the Clinton administration is faced with the far tougher task of pressuring Saddam to disarm. The United States could be faced with a difficult choice, if the flurry of disclosures of ties between the Commission and American intelligence operations enhances a mood of compromise within the Security Council. In that event, the Clinton administration would either have to fight for terms that impose only limited damage to a comprehensive inspection system or give up entirely on UNSCOM."

HONG KONG: "U.S. Shamed By UNSCOM Expose"

Independent Hong Kong Standard wrote in its editorial (1/9): "It was absolutely high-handed of Washington to make use of a UN team to eavesdrop on confidential Iraqi security communications. It is even worse if the head of UNSCOM was either privy to the U.S. activities or actively supported it.... To make use of a body that has been created by the UNSC under a specific resolution for a specific purpose is not only to thumb one's nose at the world body, but to abandon all moral scruples while arguing, cynically, from the moral high ground."

NEW ZEALAND: "Time To Leave Iraq To UN"

The liberal Evening Post told its readers (1/11): "It's time for the United States and Britain to rethink policy on Iraq. Yes, the pre-Christmas bombing raids were probably necessary, [but] what's important now is that the raids are followed up by a new strategy. As Saddam shows no sign of backing down, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the bombing raids will start again. That would be pointless.... Unless the United States and Britain are prepared to launch a land war--and they're not--Saddam will stay in power and nothing will be gained.... President Clinton's call for democracy in Iraq, while laudable, is at this stage wishful thinking. Clinton and his advisors need to rethink. Saddam Hussein remains a political reality and the West will have to deal with him. The UN has to be the key. Richard Butler...has to go--not because he's necessarily done anything wrong, but because the job needs a new face. Rightly or wrongly he is seen by the Arab world as a stooge of America.... Second, the UN needs to urgently review sanctions... Third...the United States has made its point. It would be wise now to back off, and give the UN a chance to make progress."

"No Illusions About Inspectors' Roles"

The conservative New Zealand Herald held (1/11): "UN representatives cannot fulfill their missions without an effective intelligence-gathering system. So let us not be under any illusions about the roles of the weapons inspectors. However, the UN is placed in a difficult position if its members begin behaving in a proprietary manner. There is a belief in some American quarters that, because the United States provides sophisticated intelligence-gathering equipment for UN operations, it should by right benefit from what is gathered. To be effective [UN intelligence-gathering operations] must be seen as neutral. Proof that the world body is

becoming a conduit for the passing of information to individual states for their unilateral use would undermine that position. Washington must tread carefully or it could compromise the UN's vital role as international police officer and peacekeeper."

SOUTH KOREA: "The Integrity of U.S. Diplomacy Damaged"

Reporter Park Jin-young of the moderate Hankook Ilbo (1/12) wrote: "The

U.S. is in a dilemma, having made wrong moves over Iraq.... This time, the integrity of U.S. diplomacy is at stake again, with reports being made about possible U.S. placements of its spies among UN weapons inspectors sent to Baghdad. As a result, it is not clear when the weapons inspection can resume in Iraq.... Questions continue to be raised about the way the United States is handling Iraq, with the U.S. policy indeed appearing centered on a retaliatory method.... The United States may have to fight Iraq alone soon."

THAILAND: "UN Must Focus On Iraq Inspections"

Largest circulation, moderately conservative Bangkok Post had this lead editorial (1/11): "The charges against the weapons inspectors and Western intelligence must be investigated. This probe must be speedy, and as open as possible without revealing methods being used to disarm Iraq. For that is the major point at issue. The UN still has the duty to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. It must do this properly, free from suspicion that it is being used by the Americans or any nation."

"Saddam's Master Plan"

Charoon Seri commented in top-circulation Thai Rath (1/11): "The possibility is high for renewed U.S.-UK attacks against Iraq. Saddam knows he has to strike while the iron is hot, when he is still riding on international sympathy condemning the recent U.S.-led raid on Iraq.... Saddam's master plan is to wear out the United States' patience until it decides to strike again, hopefully during Ramadan, to draw ire and heated protests from the Muslim world."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "UNSCOM As Unscam"

Centrist Times of India said (1/9): "Iraq has been complaining about the biased nature of UNSCOM and its chairman, Mr. Richard Butler, for some time now without the international community taking much note. After this week's revelations, hopefully, most countries will look upon Iraq's allegations with greater sympathy.... With UNSCOM itself thoroughly discredited, the United States is not going to find much international support for its unreasonable demand that the weapons inspection work be allowed to resume. All indications are that Washington will bide its time before once again attacking Iraq, presumably with even greater ferocity than it did in December. If the international community wants to avert such a disaster, it must take urgent steps to lift the sanctions on Iraq and resume monitoring of Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations through some new more transparent and unbiased mechanism."

PAKISTAN: "Challenge For UN"

Centrist national News asserted (1/11): "Recent disclosures in the American press have--ironically--helped to substantiate what Baghdad has alleged all along: that (UNSCOM) was used for espionage by the United States.... Sensing its new-found moral leverage, Baghdad has asked the UNSC to 'act firmly' on reports of Washington's dubious linkage with UNSCOM. The demand for restructuring the UN commission is likely to get wider and more vocal support, in the wake of Butler and company losing face as genuine weapon inspectors.... The question of lifting sanctions against Iraq cannot be postponed indefinitely to suit the

American agenda for Iraq.... The challenge before the UN is to rectify the wrong and salvage its credibility."

"Vindication Of Iraq's Position"

Islamabad's rightist Pakistan Observer observed (1/8): "It has now been proved that [Butler] had been deliberately submitting negative reports about Iraq's non-cooperation in UNSCOM's operations, with a view to providing maximum time and facilities to help U.S. authorities use intelligence to destabilize Iraq, despite the international community's persistent calls for an early end to the inspections.... The U.S. State Department's observation, that the United States had worked to help UNSCOM in its search for Iraq's concealed weapons and had not sought specifically to further its agenda, is an unambiguous proof of its clandestine operations for which UNSCOM was instrumental. This development has not only undermined the UN's credibility but has also strengthened the smaller nations' perception that the world body has been reduced to a subsidiary of the U.S. State Department."

SRI LANKA: "Was Inspection Team A Den Of Spies?"

A commentary by UN correspondent Thalif Deen in the popular, independent/pro-opposition English weekly Sunday Times read (1/10), "Last week there were new charges of spying--but this time around the Americans were accused of using UNSCOM in Baghdad to intercept Iraqi security intelligence.... The cover, for all intents and purposes, had been blown.... The whole episode has not only embarrassed the United Nations but also put its integrity, impartiality and credibility in doubt."

AFRICA

GHANA: "See How Brave America Is"

The influential, independent triweekly Ghanaian Chronicle (1/11-12) held: "Unfortunately, the United States has adopted methods that will entrench rather than 'uproot' Saddam Hussein.... The bombing destroyed civilian property and killed civilians some of whom might even have been opposed to Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the thinking behind the latest, typical American idiocy was that the suffering inflicted on the people by the bombing would induce them to rise against Saddam Hussein and overthrow him. It is all reminiscent of American behavior in Vietnam where, sometimes, the American army destroyed whole villages 'to save them from Communism.' Why does America's self-righteousness desert her when the intransigence is shown by Israel? Why does America protect regimes as repressive as Saddam's if not more so, if the well-spring of her actions is morality and the desire to enforce international law?... The United States of America has two options to earn respect: by being truly moral and just, or by tearing off the mask of hypocrisy behind which she masquerades as a righteous nation and be her true, lawless self."

SWAZILAND: "Iraqi Intervention: Excuse To Divert Attention From Clinton"

The independent Times of Swaziland opined (1/10): "It has been suggested that (the Iraqi intervention) was an attempt by Clinton to draw attention away from himself, especially in the wake of impeachment proceedings and to assure the American people that he was a man of steel.... The American psyche in general has been programmed to think everything Arabic or Islamic is evil, and therefore capable and deserving of destruction.... With the collapse of the USSR, the United States regards itself as the sole and main world power and can, therefore,

dictate terms as she sees fit." The editorial concluded by noting: "Let us start to level the playing field. If Iraq is decreed to reveal her muscle power, so must everybody (else), including the United States."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CANADA: "Spy Fiasco Hurts UN"

The liberal Toronto Star observed (1/11): "The UN now stands accused of abetting a U.S. spy effort. While that may be going too far, U.S. officials do acknowledge that their spies collected data on the methods used to protect Saddam himself, as well as on weapons.... Future UN intelligence-gathering ought to be visibly multilateral in nature, if only to safeguard the UN's credibility...and the UN must know where to draw the line. Authorizing a covert operation in which the Americans alone controlled the flow of information, was a bad move.... It left the Iraqis able to claim that the partisan Americans, not the impartial UN, were running the show. It gave them the excuse they craved, not to cooperate. This helps no one. Whatever scant data the UN may have gleaned from this ill-advised spookery wasn't worth the trouble."

"The Future Of UNSCOM"

Jocelyn Coulon penned this for Montreal's liberal Le Devoir (1/11): "UNSCOM is attacked on all sides.... Its sole existence is put into question. The accusations of spying that have been laid out by the American press have made it an object of mockery. UNSCOM is dead. We must find a new tool to keep an eye on Saddam.... France is passing around a plan...which remains vague, but which the UNSC should look at and improve. Essentially, it proposes replacing the current inspections regime with long-term surveillance of suspicious Iraqi installations.... The embargo would be lifted but financial receipts would be strictly controlled. Would Iraq...accept this new tutelage? Will the United States, trapped in a logic of war, let themselves be convinced to loosen their hold while maintaining their vigilance?"

BRAZIL: "Spies Nest"

Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo's political columnist Antonio Carlos Ferreira commented (1/12): "Saddam is a dictator who oppresses his people and represents a serious threat to stability of a vitally important region.... His military capability which puts at risk regional stability must be neutralized--but all indications are that this is not happening, thereby justifying a change in the UNSC's policy in the region. But Saddam's dangers do not justify UNSCOM's reckless adventure, that has put the UN's credibility at stake as an independent international organization, which cannot submit itself to political and intelligence goals of one of its members."

"Trojan Horses"

Liberal Folha de S. Paulo's political columnist Janio de Freitas commented (1/10): "Dictator Saddam spoke the truth. The fierceness of the attacks directed by spies from the United States and UK destroyed even the UN food warehouses, as additional retaliation to hamper the program to assist those most affected by the economic blockade headed by the United States and the UK. From the point of view of personal morality, the U.S. and UK actions would be a violation of ethics, which, however, do not exist between nations. There are only international interests and there are two ways to achieve them: the use of force and the tactics of hypocrisy.... Trojan horses, regardless of their origin, do not build nations. Their purpose is to extend the zone of influence, control and economic utilization. In other words, domination."

#

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/12/99

# # #