Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT: "No U.S. Concept For Solving Iraq Crisis"

Ibrahim Nafie, editor-in-chief of pro-government Al Ahram, opined (3/10): "So far, the American administration has not provided a definite concept for solving the Iraqi crisis. An observer would realize that what the American administration is doing does not settle the crisis, but merely extends it in order to maintain tension in the region without the United States losing control. Managing the crisis is the U.S.'s alternative to settling it, which shows that the American administration has not succeeded in the double standard policy against Iraq and Iran and in the military option. That is why the United States has managed the crisis with a mixture of methods, such as military shelling, supporting the opposition, and playing on the Kurdish and Shiite aspects. This road is full of mines that will explode in the region one day. The American statements about arming the Iraqi opposition means a repetition of the American mistake in Afghanistan, which will add a new source of tension to the region."

"Rising Concern That U.S. Policy Unclear"

Ibrahim Nafie, editor-in-chief of pro-government Al Ahram argued (3/9): "An American military official was talking from the Turkish Incirlik base saying that American fighters launched Laser bombs on five Iraqi sites in self defense! How can the official think that anyone will be convinced by this talk? Although Arab public opinion does not approve the Iraqi regime's policies, it also does not agree with such military policies [of the United States]. Arab public opinion realizes the falsehood of this statement, which is disappointing and surprising. Everybody knows that only the United States and Britain imposed the no-fly zones. There is a rising conviction that the American policy is unclear and incapable of settling the crisis reasonably. There is also conviction that the shelling harms the Iraqi people alone."

"Air Attacks Should End, Cancel No-Fly Zones"

Pro-government Al Ahram had this editorial (3/8): "American attacks on Iraq continue to lack international legitimacy. The attacks become horribly inhumane when American fighters hit oil pipelines. These attacks should stop because they are virtually a war of attrition to drain Iraq of resources. They should end immediately. The United States should also cancel the so-called no-fly zones because they belong to the Iraqi airfield, not the United States. At the same time, Iraq should work effectively on improving its relations with Arab countries, because the Arab [nation] can protect Iraq."

"The U.S.' Grand Plan In The Gulf"

Sanaa Al Said asserted in opposition Al Wafd (3/7): "It seems that Arabs have gotten used to their coma. They cannot see the dangers around them. The trilateral American-Israeli-Turkish alliance is a major threat. The three parties are implementing a plan under which Israel would punish Lebanon, Syria and Palestinians, and the United States will handle the Gulf, which has become its empire, while Turkey will be able to get rid of the Kurds and get part of the cake. The scenario has started with the war of attrition the United States has led against Iraq since Ramadan. The United States imposed the status quo since it created the no-fly zones in the north and south, disregarding international legitimacy. The embargo it imposed on Iraq in 1991 was the beginning of the real division of Iraq into three entities. That is why Ricciardone seemed right when he stated recently that the military coup the United States seeks to achieve in Iraq will not lead to dividing Iraq more than it is already divided now. The shelling is increasing day after day. Secretary Cohen confirmed this. His tour of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan and Israel is certain proof that the countdown is about to end and the United States is about to implement its plans--oust the regime and divide Iraq."

JORDAN: "The Unasked Questions"

Columnist Jihad Momani wrote in center-left, influential Al-Dustur (03/11): "How could...Cohen convince the Arabs that Iraq is violating the no-fly zones when it attacks U.S. and British planes over its own territories?... Everything that Cohen said and tried to sell during his regional tour is unacceptable. We have withheld asking certain questions just to be hospitable (during the Secretary's visit); questions like: What right do they (Americans) have to establish no-fly zones in an independent state? What right do they have to partition a country and dole out pieces to anti-regime factions? Why don't they do the same thing with a country that has occupied Arab territories for 40 years? Don't you feel ashamed that you are giving this country [Israel] the most lethal weapons and funding in support of its occupation of the Golan, Palestine and South Lebanon, while you besiege Iraq and threaten to oust its ruling regime? Is there a sane person anywhere who would agree to let you use his land for your armies to launch attacks against Iraq because it is just possible that Iraq may be a threat to the region in the future, while you are doing nothing about the real cancer that is threatening the world's security?"

"Two Envoys And Two Agendas"

Daily columnist Urayb Rintawi asserted in center-left, influential Al-Dustur (3/11): "Both William Cohen and Martin Indyk, well-placed Jews in the service of the Clinton administration, are touring the region now with not-so-innocent agendas. Cohen comes with plans to divide up Iraq, while Indyk comes with plans for wasting time. Cohen comes with offers to sell advanced weapons, while Indyk comes with only a promise to convince Israel to resume the peace process.... Cohen seeks to exploit the Arab fears and anxiety over Iraq and Iran, while Indyk seeks to absorb Arab resentment towards Israel's anti-peace policies.... Two delegates and two agendas; the gist of it all being: More harm to Iraq and the economies of the Gulf countries, damage to the Palestinian plan to declare an independent state, and more time for Israel to organize its domestic affairs without pressure."

"Iraq Between Two Positions"

Center-left, influential Arabic Al-Dustur opined (3/9): "U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen continues on his Gulf tour promoting the plan for splitting off northern Iraq and establishing a Kurdish entity there. At the same time, the French foreign minister is on his own Gulf tour to convince concerned countries to accept France's initiative of lifting the economic embargo on Iraq while maintaining a weapons of mass destruction monitoring and inspection regime in Iraq.... France's position seems to be that of a power with an acute sense of international responsibility, while the U.S. position seems to be one of blackmail.... We condemn the unjust U.S. aggression against brotherly Iraq and we denounce attempts at dividing up and weakening Iraq. On the other hand, we salute France's stand that seeks to eliminate the cowboy mentality with which the Iraqi crisis is being handled and that wants to see an end to the suffering of about 20 million people."

"Cohen's Tour And The Arab Solution"

Mohammad Amayreh had this op-ed piece in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm (3/9): "The outcome of Cohen's tour in the Gulf region is very clear. Reports that he is managing to convince the Gulf countries to support the U.S. stand against Iraq are misleading... None of the Arabs can stand up alone and put an end to the U.S.-British aggression against Iraq. In fact, none of the world's countries could do that either.... What everybody agrees on however, is the need to end the suffering of the Iraqi people, and this means that the sanctions will have to be lifted sooner or later.... We have to say that the real solution to the Iraqi crisis would be an Arab solution that preserves Iraq's unity, sovereignty and rights and that protects its people from suffering and pain. But who is capable of bringing this Arab solution into the realm of reality?"

LEBANON: "A War Of Attrition"

Sihar Ba'siri front-paged this editorial in mainstream An-Nahar (3/11): "Secretary Cohen had to pay the following price to get the Gulf states' support for the American policy in Iraq: a) Sec. Cohen informed Saudi Arabia and Bahrain that America will sell them air-missiles that are currently owned only by Israel and the United Arab Emirates; b) Cohen assured the United Arab Emirates that the 'M-16' jet fighters deal will be finalized soon; c) Cohen agreed with Qatar to establish a direct link between both of their defense ministries.... This is a war of attrition not only against Iraq, but against the money and oil of the Gulf states."

OMAN: "Competition Between Cohen And Vedrine"

Mohammed Naji Amairah held in semi-independent Al-Watan (3/9): "U.S. Secretary of Defense Cohen and French Foreign Minister Vedrine are both making trips to the Gulf at the same time that the Americans and British continue their war against Iraq. Mr. Cohen aims to secure the support of the Gulf countries not only for the continuation of the war against Iraq, but also to reach the stage of liberating Iraq from its government (through external opposition and military support) even if this leads to the murder of the current president. As regards Mr. Vedrine's trip, it has a different goal in gaining Gulf support for the French recommendation which aims at trading Iraq's implementation of international resolutions for a lifting of economics sanctions. While France is adopting a diplomatic way in its political affairs, Washington aims only to gain Gulf support for the doubling of military force against Iraq. The Gulf countries have tried to keep from involving themselves in the internal affairs of Iraq.... This can be seen clearly in the policy adopted by the Sultanate of Oman during Cohen's trip: (We have) not accepted the U.S. and British attack against Iraq, but at the same time we remain keen on having Iraq implement UN resolutions....

"There are two factors which have recently emerged that indicate (Gulf) support for Mr. Cohen's efforts. The first one is the recent, public threats made by Iraq against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The second one is the (belligerent) Iranian military exercise in the Gulf which could make the Gulf countries (more likely) to accept U.S. policy in the area. We had expected Baghdad to act more wisely towards its neighbors, so as to reach an Arab solution and deepen (inter-Arab) confidence. This seemed possible until Iraq's recent media pronouncements."

QATAR: "Our Daring And Independent Position"

Semi-independent Al-Watan opined (3/10): "Qatar's daring and independent positions were reiterated by the foreign minister yesterday when he opposed daily U.S. air strikes on Iraq in a press conference in the presence of the U.S. Defense Secretary himself. Yesterday's position is a natural extension of Qatar's proclaimed principles.... Strong Qatari-American ties were reaffirmed yesterday, as well as their ability to sustain some differences. These ties are strong and mature because each party respects the other's opinion. But what is more important in this issue is that if all Arab countries followed the foreign minister's open manner in expressing their opposition to the U.S. policy of using force against Iraq, the United States would be forced to change its policy, which has not resulted in anything but increased tension in this sensitive region. This region requires wisdom and reflection rather than arrogance and a show of force. Americans are not immune from making mistakes, and they are not the most knowledgeable in the area's details and special positions.... We wish that Washington would fully comprehend Qatar's clear position and consider the area's interests, which can (be seen) from dimensions other than daily provocation and pouring oil on fire."

"Differing Views Among Arabs And The West"

The semi-independent Gulf Times had this editorial (3/6): "Secretary Cohen said yesterday that air strikes will continue as long as Baghdad defies the 'no-fly' zones over Iraq. Although the

international community has criticized the air strikes and condemned the no-fly zones as illegal, the American administration has ignored that. U.S. officials do not mention UN sanctions these days, focusing on the two no-fly zones and the threat that the Saddam regime poses to U.S. and British interests in the region. The peoples of the Arab countries do not exactly share that belief. Sanctions have killed more Iraqi civilians than the Gulf war did.... Even Iraqis who oppose their government regard the air strikes as an act of aggression and the destruction of Iraq's defense facilities by U.S. and British airplanes as destruction of their country, not the regime. The people of Iraq are convinced that their economic difficulties are created by UN sanctions, not by their government as many Westerners may argue. And they also believe the no-fly zones were created as a first step towards disintegrating Iraq and the people of Iraq will resist these illegal zones too."

SAUDI ARABIA: "Wishful Thinking"

London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat (3/8) ran this editorial: "The United States has begun to consider daily limited strikes on Iraq as the correct way...to deal with the Iraqi crisis or the American crisis in Iraq. The silly thing mentioned in marketing these strikes is that it does not anger the Arab Street (public opinion) as Operation Desert Fox did and, therefore, makes Washington more and more convinced that a prolonged war away from media attention will be useful and effective.... We note two things here: First, that the absence of an Arab reaction toward these strikes does not mean that it constitutes correct policy. Second, that there is American acknowledgment that there is an Arab public opinion and an effective one.... (When) American officials mention...that they look forward to the day when there is a new regime in Baghdad, we wish they would understand that such a desire, when it comes from the Americans, raises negative reactions among the Arabs.... Certainly, the United States prefers to deal with Arab governments...but it cannot claim that it enjoys absolute support from these governments. Otherwise, what would turn the American officials' visits (to the region) into a season of tension and worry in the region's capitals?"

SYRIA: "Whereto For Israeli Ideas?"

An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Ba'th held (3/10): "Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk's visit is timed with the increasing fever of Israeli election. Is Indyk going to reactivate the peace process based on Netanyahu's point of view? On what basis is the U.S. building its current peace move? Will Washington build its stand on Netanyahu's position that calls for resuming peace talks without Syrian conditions. Washington knows that Syria has no conditions; its stand is consistent with U.N. resolutions, the Madrid formula and with the Wye Plantation talks.... Is Indyk going to raise the issue of amending the April Understanding or raise the issue of Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon without security arrangement? If so, that means the separation of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks? If true, both proposals will be rejected. But if he carries new ideas, then they will okay."

TUNISIA: "It Is Happening--In The Arab's Absence"

Co-editor-in-chief Abdelhamid Riahi held in Arabic-language Ash-Shourouq (3/7): "Both the American Secretary of Defense and the French foreign minister are currently visiting the Gulf.... The reason for the American official's trip is to put pressure on the most important Gulf countries to accept another 'Desert Fox' by convincing them that the United States will guarantee their security.... However, France...joins Moscow and Beijing in opposing the continuation of the blockade against Iraq and in calling for the current policy, which has resulted in increased violence in the region, to be abandoned. The French position is also in line with President Ben Ali's call for international law to be adhered to in resolving the crisis.... It is incumbent upon the Arab countries to work together to end the embargo on Iraq.... Cohen and Vedrine's trip remind us of the 'absent Arabs'.... Their absence is no longer acceptable.... We cannot not allow others to tell us how and when to reconcile....

"We all are on the same ship, and none of us will survive if a storm comes up."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "The U.S. Military Solution"

Hassan Mudun wrote stressed in Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej (3/9): "The recent tour of U.S. Defense Secretary Cohen in the Gulf is not the first and will not be the last to discuss the situation in the future arrangements in Iraq. However, the selection of the defense secretary to do this reflects the nature of any solution in this regard. America wants to escalate militarily either through its repeated strikes of Iraq's infrastructure or through the militarization of the region to the maximum. Such a solution does not sound appropriate to the regional nations or their aspirations for peace and security apart from any tensions. It seems that the American military arrangements and mobilizations in the region go beyond the toppling of Saddam.... We have our own interests that are different from those of the United States."

"Cohen's Tour And The Conspiracy Against Iraq"

The UAE's largest Al-Khaleej, charged (3/10): "Has the U.S. moved from the planning phase to the implementation phase regarding the future of Iraq? Recent weeks' developments and U.S. efforts exerted in this regard carry these indications. The appointment of Ricciardone, the repeated aggressions on Iraq without any authorization, the no-fly zones in the north and south and the strikes against economic and strategic installations are all signals that there is something being planned against Iraq. The visits of U.S. officials to the region aim at promoting this.... Indyk's visit last month and the region's opposition to his plans foiled U.S. schemes to drag Arab countries into the partition of Iraq. We believe that Cohen's visit is not far from Indyk's in its objectives. But Cohen is carrying with him alternatives to the previous plans such as the establishment of a Kurdish entity that would be an award to the Kurds in return for agreement that their entity would be used as a launching pad for the Iraqi opposition against the regime.... Arabs should not allow the American schemes to materialize and should not be partners in the destruction and partition of Iraq."

"New American Strategy Flawed"

Dubai-based Al-Bayan argued (3/10): "The new American strategy towards Iraq that Cohen is promoting during his visit does not solve the crisis of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region. The United States must realize that the continuous strikes against Iraq will unify the entire Iraqi people and even the opposition in the face of any division of the Iraqi entity. The West must solve the issue through international legitimacy and not through the sanctions and strikes against a helpless people."

EUROPE

FRANCE: "The U.S. Is Playing With Fire"

Pierre-Marie Christin told listeners on privately-funded RTL radio (3/10): "Operation 'Desert Fox' was such a diplomatic and military fiasco that everyone was ready to stop the United States from being the only sheriff in charge. But what happened? Tired from such demanding effort, everyone returned home leaving the United States to handle things.... Officially, Baghdad continues to be a terrible threat. Less officially, the strategy is to harass the Iraqi army until it gets rid of Saddam Hussein--with very little chances of success. One possible outcome is the replacement of one dictatorship by another. Or worse, Iraq can crumble under a civil war that will ignite the entire region. The United States, following a bizarre way of thinking, intends to free the Iraqi population from Saddam Hussein, while continuing to burden them with the embargo and daily bombings. Washington is playing with fire."

"The New Alchemist"

Jacques Amalric wrote in left-of-center Liberation (3/9): "Can a serious international crisis be resolved through air strikes? This is the question which arises from the tactic adopted by Bill Clinton over the past two months with regard to Saddam Hussein.... The U.S. president has decided to transform an avowed dictatorship into a modern democracy through the use of air strikes. This at least is what he wants us to believe.... We can only feel confusion at this lack of good will on the part of this new alchemist, who thinks he can change the most extreme totalitarian society into a convivial society. It is highly probable that he himself does not believe one word of his own declarations. Yet he needs to give the impression he is master of a situation that escapes him completely. Hence the strikes, for lack of anything better."

"After Eight Years Of Fiascoes"

Gilles Delafon commented in right-of-center Le Journal du Dimanche (3/7): "The CIA fiasco...can legitimately make one wonder about the will--or the capacity--of the Clinton administration to do away with Saddam.... After eight years of a U.S. policy with obscure goals and punctuated with a number of fiascoes, Washington's most faithful allies are beginning to wonder about its policy's efficiency.... Even in the United States, some wonder about the logic behind the Clinton administration's policy.... Washington is locked into a logic of violent confrontation with Saddam Hussein, whose only reason for living is that confrontation. For the United States, any other solution, such as a progressive lifting of the embargo, as proposed by France, is out of the question. At the same time, U.S. democracy, which is a blind power with its hands tied by Congress, cannot deploy troops in Iraq. A terrible dilemma which stems essentially from the fact that U.S. foreign policy is dictated by domestic considerations."

BELGIUM: "The Man To Overthrow Saddam"

Independent weekly Le Vif/L'Express (3/6) devoted its cover story to Frank Ricciardone's mission. It said in part, "Probably never before has Washington argued with so much self-assurance in favor of the right of interference.... Until now the Americans claimed they wanted to 'contain'. Now, Madeleine Albright talks about 'containment plus'.... In clear, the policy implemented after the Gulf War having failed to solve the problem, one seeks, seriously now, to get rid of Saddam. The Americans want to play with two levers: psychological war and formation of fighting units.... In the United States, the new policy toward Iraq does not make the unanimity.... What embarrasses those who are against this new policy is on the one hand the perspective of a new fiasco if it does not work, and on the other hand, the risk, if it works, to see an Iraq rid of Saddam become quite quickly a new Afghanistan.... This time, the announcement (of this new official policy) condemns the United States to succeed."

DENMARK: "Good Reason For Celebration"

Center-right Berlingske Tidende editorialized (3/11): "As discreetly as it is possible to do so, the United States and the UK have intensified their military campaign against Saddam Hussein. However, there is no reason to be offended by this. The current situation has only arisen because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow the UN weapon inspectors to carry out their work. Even further back, the root cause of the conflict lies in the fact that Iraq has not complied with the conditions of the UN's cease-fire agreement following the liberation of Kuwait. The UN has displayed an overbearing attitude that time and time again has made the global community look helpless and paralyzed. But the patience of England and the United States has just about run out. Instead of throwing themselves into another round of diplomatic talks, they are trying to break the back of Saddam's regime by destroying the only thing he holds dear: His military. This is good reason for celebration."

RUSSIA: "Strength Suggests Generosity Of Mind"

Vadim Markushin stated in centrist, army daily Krasnaya Zvezda (3/10): "Violence is no answer to the Iraq problem. A subtle, constructive policy is. Why not give Iraq a chance by lifting the sanctions? It needs one to turn over a new leaf and show its worth as it deals with other countries in a normal way. Having a whole nation continuously harassed, allegedly for its own good, is ungodly and politically stupid. To be strong means to be magnanimous."

SPAIN: "Deadly Ritual"

Liberal El Pais judged (3/8): "Washington appears to have given up trying to come up with a coherent policy against Saddam Hussein. Its theory is that broadening the air attacks will lead to an uprising from within against a dictator incapable of defending his country. No one more than the Iraqis probably want to be rid of Saddam's despotic regime, but one thing is to want to and another to be able to, two very different things in Iraq. Not just because Iraq is a police state, but even more so because the numerous opposition groups are irrelevant and declared enemies of one another.... Thus, what began as internationally sanctioned punishment [of the regime last December] threatens to degenerate into a private war between Clinton and Saddam--one in which the Iraqi dictator could turn out to be the eventual winner, and his impoverished people the big losers."

TURKEY: "A New Policy On Iraq?"

Hadi Uluengin commented in mass-appeal, independent Hurriyet (3/10): "The U.S. policy on Iraq was formulated based on the principle of toppling Saddam. Will it work this time? I have serious doubts, bearing in mind that so far, the United States has gotten all of its assessments regarding Saddam wrong.... Moreover, whatever support Washington may provide, the opposition groups in Iraq are too dispersed to unite.... Also, the policy of toppling Saddam is not convincing enough. That was even voiced by an American commander, General Zinni.... The United States, in reality, is not even sure about what it wants in Iraq. It is even unsure about whether Saddam should really be ousted or not."

"Opportunity To Talk To Architect Of Dual Containment"

Fikret Ertan wrote in religious/intellectual Zaman (3/9): "Martin Indyk is one of the key figures in America's dual containment policy which covers Iran and Iraq.... It has been almost seven years since the dual containment policies were implemented. In the meantime, the United States and Iran gave signals of rapprochement. As for Iraq, the American administration seems to be determined to continue. However, the attitude that there could be no criticisms on the dual containment policy no longer exists. Even prominent figures of U.S. foreign policy are now bitterly criticizing this policy.... With Martin Indyk's visit to Ankara, Turkish government officials now have a very good opportunity. They can obtain more insights about this policy, and also give Indyk their assessments on the region."

"How To Topple Saddam"

Enis Berberoglu commented in mass-appeal Hurriyet (3/8): "On the issue of toppling Saddam, the United States does not have too many choices. Regarding the regional political factors, there are two alternatives. The first alternative is to divide Iraq into three parts: Kurdistan in the north--something Turkey will never accept, a puppet-like Shiite state, and an Arab-led area. This option will not only upset Ankara, but will also disappoint moderate Arab regimes because of the dangers of Shiite influence in the region. The second option is to leave the Iraqi regime in the hands of a Sunni military junta.... The United States favors the second option, but it is not very easy to achieve. The U.S. needs Ankara's support more than ever."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Cohen's Tour Gets Mixed Response"

The centrist Hindu had this analysis by Kesava Menon (3/10): "U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen is well into a nine-nation tour of the Middle East on a mission to sell arms and the administration's new policy on Iraq. He has achieved success on the first aspect of his mission...but it does not appear that he will make much progress in regard to the second. As has been the case since the U.S. administration realigned its policy from the beginning of this year, it does not appear to reflect the concerns of countries in the region.... The missile deals by themselves indicate the divergence in the security perceptions of the United States and its Arab allies. Member countries of the GCC have built up their weaponry considerably since the 1991 Gulf War. While the threat which was posed by Iraq prior to the war would have been one of the factors which induced these purchases, it is unlikely that the Iraqi air force, which was pulverized during the war and has not been able to recover on account of the continuing sanctions, looms large in the threat perceptions of the GCC states.... While the United States postulates that these countries need advanced weaponry to protect them from Iraq, the regional countries buy them (as) they perceive a threat from another direction--Iran.... The United States does not appear to have been able to convince regional leaders that they can smoothly bring about a change of regime in Baghdad, while avoiding the attendant risk that Iraq might disintegrate in the process.... Saddam, as per the general belief in the Middle East, possesses sufficient support and strength to stoutly resist any effort to overthrow his government. A civil war in Iraq, which could lead to all sorts of consequences, is the last thing that its Arab neighbors want."

PAKISTAN: "Cohen Finds Little Public Support In Gulf For Air Strikes"

Islamabad's rightist Pakistan Observer observed (3/11): "Cohen wrapped up a Gulf tour Wednesday with no public expressions of support for U.S. air strikes against Iraq and some blunt criticism from U.S. friends in the region."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

HONG KONG: "Saddam Changes U.S. Tiger's Roar To A Cat's Meow"

Chang Kuo-sin commented in the independent Hong Kong Standard (3/8): "The outcome did not come from a direct conflict between the United States and Iraq, but in a strange round-about way: Iraq stood up against the UN and the U.S. policy on Iraq collapsed--on the surface, a victory for Iraq and a retreat by the United States.... It is a complete about-face in U.S. policy, turning from the roar of a tiger to a meow of a cat. It is humiliating and it erodes U.S. credibility. The UNSC termed the Iraqi position 'totally unacceptable' and voted unanimously to renew the sanctions with the U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson asserting that the sanctions will stay 'in perpetuity.' But to all intents and purposes the UN arms inspection program is now in a shambles.... In the face of this widespread opposition, America was forced to swallow its pride and backed down despite its primacy as the world's sole superpower."

VIETNAM: "When Air Strikes Become Daily Business"

Vietnam's Union of Youth Societies' Thanh Nien contended (3/10): "Continuous air strikes on Iraq on a daily basis are an unusual matter. This is viewed as an unannounced war of the U.S.-British alliance against that country. Sandy Berger, the national security advisor, said the ongoing raids are the key measure to attain the goal of creating a change in the Iraqi government. However, in this effort, the United States needs regional countries' support. U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen once again travels to Gulf countries this week to angle for their support. At the time, these countries are torn between sentiment and sensibility. Their

hearts sympathize with Iraq while their minds ask them to go in line with U.S. demands. Because of this, right now, their answers to U.S. calls for support are ambiguous."

"Don't Create Animosity"

Quan Doi Nhan Dan, newspaper of the Army's Party Committee and the Ministry of National Defense, judged (3/10): "Acting as an international gendarme is the nature of the United States and it disregards others' criticism of its superior behaviors. However, unlike the government, American people are not aggressive at all. They did and still do struggle for peace. A bright example is Morrison, who burnt himself to death to protest the Vietnam War. So, the call now is for the United States to urgently stop bombing Iraq and to negotiate with that ravaged country so that Iraqi children no longer have to suffer from harsh conditions and, thus, animosity will be gone. Such a move will also contribute to common world peace and prosperity."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CUBA: "Espionage In Baghdad: Caught Red-Handed"

An article on the International Page of the Cuban Communist Party organ Granma said (3/6): "It is clear that it is not enough for the United States to use the Security Council for its own designs, but it also openly deceives it, placing its spies in a commission which, far from finding peace, has turned the Iraqi conflict into a war of attrition, of low intensity and an inhumane continuation of sanctions. This U.S. intelligence operation and its consequences should be a warning to the world about the reach of U.S. imperial policy.

"The world, which only knew about the 'Iraqi refusal' to cooperate with the UN inspectors through the most advanced media--which serve the Western powers--should now know that many of the so-called inspectors, or at least their chiefs, were receiving instructions from Washington and working under its orders. And now they can clearly understand the position of Iraq, which is trying to prevent the aforementioned inspectors from continuing their 'noble duty' of spying in Baghdad."

PERU: "Iraq Is Still A Problem: Undermining Hussein"

Reliable business daily Gestion asked (3/7), "Is there a U.S. plan to overturn Saddam Hussein? The main U.S. dailes, such as The Washington Post and TheNew York Tmes, analyzed this possibility last week. If that is the case, it should be treated very carefully. It would be absurd to lament the destiny of someone who has crushed the will of his people brutally for more than two decades. But it would also be naive to think that the fall of Saddam Hussein would immediately mean the beginning of a democacy in Iraq."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

3/11/99

# # #