September 13, 2002
BUSH AT UNGA: EVEN CRITICS NOTE 'SKILLFUL' STRATEGY ON IRAQ
KEY FINDINGS
** In contrast to their pervasive skepticism beforehand, the majority of the world's media reacted positively to Pres. Bush's UN address, citing his willingness to go through UN channels on Iraq.
** Many dailies, predominantly but not exclusively conservative and center-right, were pleased that not only Iraq but also the UN had been given an "ultimatum."
** Many, irrespective of political idelogy, believe the case still has to be made for going to war.
** Critics charged that any U.S. unilateral action against Iraq would both set a "dangerous" legal precedent and inflame anti-Americanism.
REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS
EUROPE: Applause for Bush speech; 'An ultimatum to the UN'. Major European dailies mostly reacted positively to President Bush's speech at the UN, applauding his willingness to "go through the channels of the UN" in confronting Iraq. Many papers saw a clear subtext to the president's message: That it was as much an ultimatum to the UN as an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and that the "legitimacy of the organization" will be in question should it fail to gain Iraqi compliance. France's center-right Le Figaro said Bush "came on as a resolute leader who has chosen to go through the UN.... If the UN succeeds, diplomacy wins; if the UN backs down, the U.S. will act." Denmark's center-right Berlingske Tidende judged that "Bush made it crystal clear that the 'remove Saddam project' is not about American aggression, but the world's interests." Saying that the president had "turned the tables" on his critics with an "extremely astute strategy," London's conservative Times judged that "the absolute test of the UN's credibility" will come if Saddam obstructs a new UN resolution.
Some writers characterized the UN speech as a concession--at least temporarily--to multilateralism and "the fundamentals of international law" that "give reason for hope" that diplomacy might prevail. Berlin's right-of-center Die Welt determined that "the accusation of unilateralism...no longer remains." Another contingent remained unconvinced by Bush's arguments. Germany's left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau declared that the evidence presented by the president "does not suffice" for a "legally clear charge against" Baghdad. Britain's liberal Guardian, though commending as "heartening" the president's taking his case to the UN, said Bush had "dodged" the question "why now?" Portugal's influential moderate left Público warned that the UN's credibility would be undermined if its resolutions are ignored, creating "a dangerous precedent" if the U.S. goes it alone against Iraq.
MIDEAST: Israeli papers laud Bush's 'persuasive expression of necessary policies'; Arabs: U.S. imposing 'own agenda on international community.' Israeli and Arab writers alike saw a "hammer" about to fall on Iraq in the wake of President Bush's UNGA speech. One Israeli analyst likened the president's words to a Hollywood prosecutorial speech that would "bring the jury back with a guilty verdict in a minute." Tunisian and Lebanese papers portrayed Washington as bent on regional domination in tandem with Israel, and contended that the administration was little concerned with marshaling any new evidence of an Iraqi WMD threat.
ASIA / PACIFIC: Aussie paper, backing Bush, says UN credibility on the line; Others dismayed that U.S. seems determined to go it alone if need be. Observers all preferred that the UN be on board when, not if, Iraq was called to account for its WMD program. The U.S. was seen as rightly seeking to keep its Iraq policy within the rubric of UNSC resolutions. Many writers, however, depicted Washington as openly pressuring the UN to go along with an Iraq policy that its members generally opposed. A conservative Australian daily, however, saw it otherwise: "It is not a matter of the Security Council dancing to a U.S. tune.... Rather the question is whether it will enforce its own existing requirements. If it will not, what relevance will [the UN] have in the future?"
LATIN AMERICA/AFRICA: Concern that Iraq regime-change may only result in more anti-Americanism, not democracy. Media in developing nations worried about a pervasive anti-U.S. backlash should the U.S. strike Iraq without making progress on the Arab/Muslim priority of an Arab-Israeli agreement. Brazil and South African dailies, in particular, were worried that radical Islamic groups may target not only the U.S., but also "pro-Western regimes" around the world.
EDITORS: Stephen H. Thibeault, Steven J. Wangsness, Gail Hamer Burke
*******************************************************
Editor's note: This analysis is based on 70 reports from 34 countries, September 4-11. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "At Last, A Strategy On Iraq"
An editorial in the independent Financial Times stated (9/13): "Bush yesterday proved himself a master of the art of turning the tables on his critics. In doing so, he delivered a speech that was the most powerful indictment of Saddam.... It not only offered a strong rationale for coercive measures against Iraq, It also presented, for the first time, a possible framework for diplomatic and, if necessary, military action that could broaden the support for regime change in Baghdad beyond the current narrow coalition of the U.S. and the UK. Above all, the speech cleverly emphasised that what is at stake is the post-1945 international system itself. [Saddam's] contempt for the international community, if it goes uncorrected, risks profoundly undermining, perhaps fatally, the UN's credibility as the forum for achieving global security. Bush has clearly rejected the views of hardliners in his administration.... Instead he has listened wisely to the counsel of Colin Powell. Critics will say that the Security Council resolution being developed by the U.S. and the UK will merely act as a prelude to a war.... And it is fair to say that it was not really clear from Bush's speech whether the stated U.S. policy of 'regime change' is consistent with a possible agreement by the Iraqi dictator to comply with the renewed UN effort. But the U.S. should be applauded for having taken the diplomatic road. As Bush said, it is the authority of the UN itself that is challenged. The onus is on the rest of the Security Council--to demonstrate their commitment to helping the UN and the international system it represents to face down the challenge to its authority."
"Resolution Required"
The conservative Times editorialized (9/13): "What had been presented as a personal challenge to Bush ended as a political challenge to his audience at the UN. The president deftly turned the tables on his critics. He put the multilateralist argument for dealing with Saddam. This was also a speech that included a number of concessions and initiatives.... It was a extremely astute strategy. The shallow caricature of Bush as a sort of 'cowboy' will be less plausible after yesterday's performance. He has instead offered the UN the opportunity to share the role of sheriff with him. A hectic round of negotiations, largely led by Britain can be anticipated. It should not be impossible to frame a fresh motion that France, Russia and China can live with. [Saddam is sure to follow form and obstruct the UN's agenda. This point] when it comes, will represent the absolute test of the UN's credibility."
"Saddam In His Sights"
An editorial in the liberal Guardian maintained (9/13): "Bush's warning that military action against Iraq will be 'unavoidable' unless Saddam complies with all relevant UN obligations has begun a countdown to war. At the same time, by agreeing to argue his case before the UN the U.S. president ceded some ground to European and Arab critics of his unilateralist approach. He left a slim opening for diplomacy to head off the catastrophe. Bush's list of Saddam's crimes contained little that was new. There is no doubt that this is a vicious dictatorship.... Bush had the chance to answer the much-asked question: why now? And he dodged it. [Bush has made some positive steps--rejoining UNESCO and seeking solutions to global poverty are all commendable].... His decision to take his worries about Iraq before the UN, rather than ignore or bypass it, is heartening. Blair worked hard to persuade the president to observe the diplomatic proprieties and his efforts, in the teeth of opposition were not all in vain.
"Bush is right to say that the UN's credibility will be undermined if its resolutions are ignored [but] the damage may be even greater if...the U.S. goes ahead and attacks Iraq anyway. The damage will be far-reaching if the U.S. does not now apply the same standards of compliance to other states...that have often defied the international community's will. The damage may be incalculable if, in the future, the U.S. continues to veto or block the UN actions it does not welcome simply because they do not serve the narrow U.S. national interest. Support for the UN's integrity cannot be selective...a la carte multilateralism is not an option.... For all the show of consultation and debate, Bush is going through the motions. In search of allies and votes, Bush made some conciliatory gestures in New York. But there was no mistaking his tone or intentions, no doubt he expects to fight. If the other nations of the world want to stop him, they now have their chance--but they will have to be quick."
FRANCE: "The Route To Baghdad"
Left-of-center Le Monde commented (9/13): "The road to Baghdad passes through New York. George W. Bush has chosen the multilateral look. To put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime he is willing to first request a resolution from the UN Security Council.... With his speech, President Bush has scored diplomatic and political points.... He knows that no member of the Security Council will use its veto power.... On the surface the idea is to implement the resolutions asking for Iraq's disarmament. In reality it is a way of making official Washington's new strategy, the strategy of 'preventive war.' Washington's idea of 'preventive war' is rather wide.... Its aim is to counter a virtual threat with a specific operation. President Bush did not even bother to give proof of the existence of Iraq's arsenal or of the collusion between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. Faced with this new doctrine, Europe has nothing to offer. What is most worrisome is not the fact that among themselves, the Europeans had different views on Bush's Iraqi policy. What is of concern is the total absence of strategic thinking in Europe on the threat posed by Islamic radicalism and the dissemination of weapons of mass destruction. If we are against preventive war, what have we to offer? If we feel that Iraq is not today's number one danger and that to wage a war against it is a treatment worse that the disease itself, why not say it loud and clear?"
"Bush And The Return Of The UN"
Michel Schiffres in right-of-center Le Figaro wrote (9/13): "It is not enough to say that yesterday President Bush once again disappointed those who willingly see him as a somewhat silly cowboy, obsessed with seeking solitary power and eager to render his own type of justice. The man is clever.... He came on as a resolute leader who has chosen to go through the channels of the UN.... As a token of his being in tune with his allies' preoccupations, he announced the U.S. return to UNESCO and America's position on an independent Palestine. The charges he made against Saddam are irrefutable.... Enumerating them without passion added to their intolerability. While Washington did not bring out any new proof against an Iraqi threat, the White House's reasoning was faultless.... Now the UN has its back against the wall.... But the UN must keep in mind that the countdown has started: if the UN succeeds, diplomacy wins; if the UN backs down, the U.S. will act."
"Temporary"
Writing in left-of-center Liberation, Jacques Amalric stated (9/13): "The strategy has changed but the goal has been reaffirmed. This in short is Bush's message to the UN. A dose of mutilateralism has been added to the messages of unilateral threats made during the summer. But probably not for long.... President Bush scored high marks for pointing out that Saddam Hussein has challenged the UN for over ten years.... One thing is certain, the ultimatum against Saddam remains even if the date has been pushed back into the future by way of an ultimatum to the UN."
GERMANY: "Bush Demands Increase The Danger Of War"
Andreas Cichowicz had this to say in an commentary on ARD-TV's (national channel one) late evening newscast "Tagesthemen" (9/13): "Iraq may accept weapon inspectors but not to urge Saddam to retire voluntarily. President Bush's demands will increase the danger of a war. In a clever way, the U.S. president extended the fight against terrorism to a fight against tyrants, at least against those who have not sided with the United States. This is called a policy of interests. In the end, the United Nations may offer him a blank check for such a policy; then all obstacles would have been removed. America calls the evil by name and fights it with the blessing of the international community This is a bitter medicine, but let us be optimistic; this oral vaccination also has a good side -- in general it prevents the worst."
"Mideast Is Key"
Regional radio station Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne aired the following commentary by P. Baumgarten (9/12): "The U.S. president is right when he describes ignoring UN resolutions as being totally unacceptable. And the president's vision of a democratic Iraq, a democratic Afghanistan and Palestine, which could influence the whole Middle East as a model, is worth all honors. But it cannot become reality. One reason is the U.S. policy towards the Middle East, which has been characterized by two facts: the support of non-democratic governments in the Arab world and the one-sided and almost unconditional siding with Israel in the Middle East conflict... It may be possible that, without the elimination of the criminal regime in Baghdad, the Middle East will never come to rest. But without Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories, the foundation of a Palestinian state, and the resolution of the refugee problem, the Mideast will not come to rest either. Israel, too, has ignored UN resolutions for decades, and the country has been in the possession of weapons of mass destruction for a long time.... As the president of the U.S. superpower, Bush must be better at interpreting the signs in the Middle East.... Saddam is only one of the many burning fuses in the Mideast powder keg. Is George Bush willing to defuse them, too?"
"Food For Thought"
Giselher Sorge commented on regional radio station "Hessischer Rundfunk" of Frankfurt (9/12): "Bush's speech in New York will also give food for thought in Berlin. Diplomacy to defuse international conflicts turned has guided the foreign policy of the Red-Green government for a long time. If the election campaign is over, Schroeder and Fischer, irrespective of all restrictions from today, will have to be measured against their previous statements. With President Bush's speech in New York, the General Assembly and the UN Security Council have turned into the appropriate forums for the debate over how to react to the Iraq question, even though Bush remains determined to go it alone. But even the Red-Green government cannot afford to confront the UN Security Council with a strict obstructionist attitude in view of the fact that Germany itself will soon become a member of the UN Security Council. Since George W. Bush is now moving and has become predictable for a limited period of time, the Red-Green government cannot help but give up its maximum position towards Iraq, even though this can still take some time."
"Now Up To Security Council"
New York correspondent Thomas Nehls commented for regional radio station "Sender Freies Berlin" (9/12): "It is now up to the Security Council to deal with Iraq, since President Bush refered the.threatening affair back to the UNSC. He also made clear that the affair cannot be diluted, drawn out, or talked over and over again.... After this clearly targeted shot by the U.S. president, the ball is now back in Baghdad's camp. It is up to Saddam Hussein to decide: Either he allows the UN weapons inspectors to resume their work without setting any conditions.or he throws further smoke bombs, thus initiating his own end.... To refuse cooperation because the United States could infiltrate agents into the team of inspectors and to overfly Iraqi territory without an international mandate and to bomb it from time to time is insufficient [for Saddam to argue]. The mere argument that all requirements have been met and new weapons of mass destruction have not been accumulated or ordered almost cries out for a monitoring."
"A Chance"
Berthold Kohler opined in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/13): "The UN secretary-general delivered a fiery plea and called upon the 190-member organization to stick to the rules to which they have subjected.. But Kofi Annan also pointed to the greatest weakness of the system: It requires the unity of its members when it comes to the identification of dangers but also decisions about what to do against them. When Iraq attacked Kuwait two years ago and when nobody doubted Saddam's aggressiveness, this unanimity existed.. But since UN resolutions did not have the desired effect, the UN undermined its own authority. Only since Washington has put Iraq again on the agenda, people at the Hudson River say that the UNSC must 'take action' if Iraq continues to remain recalcitrant. President Bush, who pointed to the UN's weakest spot on Thursday and acted as someone who speaks on behalf of the UN, can consider this to be his first success. But his appeal to accept the danger from Saddam is a chance for the UN to regain lost credibility."
"Beyond Texas"
Jacques Schuster argued in a front-page editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (9/13): "President Bush wants to eliminate the danger emanating from Saddam, and this not alone, but in the legal framework of the UN, approved by the UNSC, side by side with the allies. U.S. resolve is to move the UN to adopt a tough, ultimate resolution which Baghdad will have to comply with if it wants to avoid an attack. America pins its hopes on the Security Council and will try to forge as broad a coalition as possible. The accusations of unilateralism, which the German government in particular raised over the past few weeks, no longer remains.... Soon the question will arise who is going to violate the UN decision, the United States or Germany. It may even be possible that the United States will act more internationally than the model pupils of multilateralism. The days of indifference to Iraq are finally over."
"Global Power And Global Politics"
Karl Grobe had this to say in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (9/13): "President Bush did not present sound evidence to the UN General Assembly and the accompanying document from the White House does not suffice for a legally clear charge against the regime in Baghdad. President Bush obviously thinks that Saddam Hussein's 'appetite' for weapons of mass destruction and his evasive maneuvers towards the Security Council are enough to intervene. This is the martial aspect of his speech, but it was not an appeal to start a war immediately.... Bush is determined to oust the regime in Baghdad, and he ordered his diplomats to win supporters among the UN members for his moves.... UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the role of the UN and the general order of international politics are at sake. He said that unilateral moves harbor the danger of destroying both. Bush listened, and, to sum it up, spoke in a more restrained way than expected. Now it is important to wait for his next steps and to wait for the reaction of the Baghdad regime. They can still be destructive."
ITALY: "Final Warning"
Franco Venturini opined in centrist Corriere della Sera (9/13): "While we were all expecting an ultimatum for Saddam, George Bush's address yesterday was rather an ultimatum to the UN. Before the UN assembly...President Bush showed the world the other face of wounded America: the face of a superpower that has decided to settle all accounts with outlawed Iraq. And, should the international community not be able to defuse...the weapons of mass destruction that Baghdad already has or is preparing, it is ready to take unilateral actions.... President Bush said that...for the sake of UN credibility this will be its last chance.... The fuse triggered by the U.S. president is currently moving onto the table of the UN Security Council, which is responsible for pushing Saddam Hussein in a corner (with only two options): Either an unconditional return of UN inspectors (to Iraq) and the completion of the Iraqi disarmament, or war."
AUSTRIA: "Global Warrior"
Foreign affairs writer Norbert Mayer commented in mass-circulation Kurier (9/13): "Bush's appeal to the United Nations to meet the Iraqi threat with international solidarity is nothing but a rhetorical exercise. It's not going to convince anyone, because Bush--the global warrior--made it pretty clear that he does not really care about the international community's assistance. He is intent on demonstrating resolve and strength; he is determined to go through with his punitive expedition against Iraq, even if he has to go it alone. Hesitant allies are merely accessories here, though they may be good enough as financial donors for the United States' strategic adventures. The UN has been relegated to the rank of observer. Bad times for diplomats, good times for profiteers."
BULGARIA: "The Pretext Is Saddam. The Motive Is Oil"
Leftist daily Duma commented (9/13): "Bush sharply changed the tone of his rhetoric. Yesterday he began arguing not for a preventive war, but for a preventive policy. That is without really giving up the extreme solution--a strike against Baghdad and ousting the regime there.... The U.S. arguments do not sound convincing so far--Saddam could make a nuclear bomb if it manages to import plutonium and experts from somewhere. To justify an invasion into a sovereign country with this sort of imaginary threat is not serious. Preventive policy remains the only reasonable solution. By arguing in favor of this sort of policy Bush is trying to find his way out of isolation. Whether he will succeed is not at all certain. Because the challenge called Saddam is only the formal pretext. The real reason for the war is oil. And you can't get to oil via a preventive policy."
"War And Peace 2002--Deja Vu"
Center-right, objective Dnevnik held (9/13): "The UN and the world heard from President Bush what they had expected to hear all along. The U.S. will act alone if the UN dares not come out with a clear resolution against the regime in Baghdad. This is not a new situation and neither are the possible solutions. Iraq could attempt to play a trick by announcing that it is willing to admit the UN arms inspectors back into the country. This way military action against the country could be touted as aggression.... It wouldn't' be surprising if everything ends with the repeated use of the precedent for the operation against Yugoslavia, when old, but unfulfilled UN resolutions did the job. Saddam is no more acceptable than MIlosevic."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Bush's Ultimatum"
Jiri Roskot opined in the left-center Pravo (9/13): "President Bush's categorical ultimatum [to Iraq in his UN speech yesterday] is only a sop to the world organization troubled by his intentions to wage preventive war which disregards the international legal code.... The effectiveness of the ultimatum is hard to predict. Bush might count on Hussein's pride which would not let him retreat from what he sees as U.S. pressure... The following war might prompt Hussein to deploy chemical weapons which could have devastating consequences...Bush might then have to stand up to heavy criticism in the United States as to whether the war was indeed unavoidable."
"Heretical Thoughts Around September 11"
Frantisek Janouch, the Charter 77 Administrative Board Chairman, wrote in centrist MF Dnes (9/13): "Preventive attacks or wars against states, which support terrorists, can solve little. They contribute more to the polarization of the world and to delivering other nourishing substances giving life to terrorism.... Unfortunately, humankind and our strongest and richest brother have not yet reached this simple truth. I don't dare to think how many other Vietnams, Afghanistans, and other countries will be needed for humankind to realize that prevention is the only effective way of exterminating terrorism as a phenomenon. Moreover, it is also the cheapest and most human way."
DENMARK: "Project Remove Saddam Is Not U.S. Aggression"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende noted (9/13): "Bush made it crystal clear that the 'remove Saddam project' is not about American aggression, but the world's interests. Bush's [excellent] speech has ensured that overwhelming pressure will be brought to bear on Saddam Hussein and the partners of terror."
"Sensible Bush"
Left-wing Information commented (9/13): "Bush refrained from naming any deadlines for the return of the weapons inspectors or for military action. Bush said that the United States would present a draft resolution to the UNSC. The details of this are currently unknown, but [all in all] Bush appears to have made a smart move regarding Iraq. The Bush administration is not ready to invade Iraq without having discussed the issue in Congress and with European allies as well as the Arab and Muslim world."
FINLAND: "Bush Seeking UN Support"
Leading regional independent Aamulehti asserted (9/13), "President Bush's speech...received cautious support from European leaders. The communications director of the Finnish DOD said that President Bush's speech clearly showed that the United States is strongly seeking formal UN support of its military operation in Iraq."
HUNGARY: "Little George"
Liberal Magyar Hirlap editorialized (9/13): "The fact that President Bush appeared in the UN just one day after the anniversary of 9/11 indicates that the hardliners have been pushed into the background.... As Bill Minutaglio, George W. Bush's biographer, explains the younger Bush is more conservative than his father because he is less experienced, therefore less secure. It is not by accident that the big shot senior advisors of the older Bush all tell W. to remain calm before making a hasty (and foolish) decision.... He will only calm down as soon as he becomes certain that he is going to be reelected or that he has toppled Hussein for good."
IRELAND: "Acknowledging The Role Of The UN"
The liberal Irish Times editorialized (9/13): "By making his critical speech to the annual General Assembly session Mr. Bush acknowledged the UN's key role.... Mr. Bush did not present new evidence against Iraq, nor did he link its regime persuasively with those responsible for the September 11th attacks on his country last year.... Mr. Bush has signalled a major political and diplomatic effort over coming weeks and months to convince a sceptical world that the Iraqi regime poses sufficient of a threat to global and regional security to justify preventive or pre-emptive action against it. That has to be a reasoned case made with compelling evidence. Mr. Bush's stated preference for 'regime change' in Iraq does not come within the remit of the UN and could only be accomplished outside its mandates. That way lies a perilous and dangerous course of action, for the territorial integrity of Iraq, the Middle East region as a whole and the future of international law. It would, in addition, endanger the United States's own international legitimacy by asserting its unilaterally defined power and interests against those of the world community as expressed, however imperfectly, by the United Nations."
"Peace Talk, War Threat"
The conservative Irish Independent opined (9/3): "President George Bush's speech...has changed the context in which the United States threatens war against Iraq. Mr. Bush has modified his unilateralist approach. He seeks to move not only in concert with other countries but with UN approval.... The new Bush line... [is] a far cry from suggesting that he has forsaken his ambition to overthrow Saddam Hussein. U.S. intentions in the Middle East region continue to engender profound concern.... Yesterday's speech did not give the world a better understanding of American aims and strategy. The bellicose parts outweighed the conciliatory parts. And the veracity of allegations about Iraq sheltering terrorists and obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity is impossible to assess. But it was noteworthy for two points, one indisputable and one highly positive. One, UN resolutions must be enforced, and Iraq has defied them; two, Mr. Bush wants to act through the UN. He may have only modified, not renounced, his unilateralism. But he has made an important concession to world opinion. That may not save the peace, but it makes the U.S.-dominated world a slightly safer place."
"First Step Is To Resume Inspections"
An editorial in the centrist Irish Examiner commented (9/13): "[Bush's] speech to the General Assembly obviously took cognisance of growing international pressure for a solution to be initiated through the UN. In backing any action through enforcing resolutions, Mr. Bush opted for the more practical approach, because the only support for a military intervention would probably only have been forthcoming from Britain and Israel. The disposition of most of the UN members is one of solidarity with America but questioning the manner of its pursuit of terrorism. The mood of the Assembly is commitment to the international coalition against terrorism, but that does not extend to anything like an invasion of Iraq, as President Bush has been intimating."
LATVIA: "Ultimatum"
Askolds Rodins, a columnist for the largest Latvian-language Diena declared (9/13): "Bush's goal is to overthrow the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein and change the system in Iraq to prevent it from being a threat to the Western world.... Bush needs a U.N. mandate or at least allied support, but his hardest task will be to get a "yes" from U.S. legislators--Congressional elections are comming up on Novermber 6 and the war with Iraq is not a popular idea in the United States. It is wrong to think that a U.S. president can 'take up and start bombing' whenever the idea [to do so] comes to his mind."
NORWAY: "A Clear Ultimatum"
Independent, leading circulation VG held (9/13), "The most warlike hawks among the President's colleagues have been forced to take a break for a short while.... President Bush yesterday played the role of prosecutor and put forth what was in many ways a convincing list of charges.... But a prosecutor must also bring forth evidence, something that both our own Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik and other allied leaders are looking for. Perhaps it will be put forward behind closed doors in the intense diplomatic work that is now going on. If that happens, and Saddam Hussein refuses to back down, it may be necessary to go to war, hopefully with UN support. Force is possibly the only language that Saddam Hussein understands. Therefore, the Security Council members, Norway included, must not leave any doubt that they are ready to put force behind their demands. This can be crucial in the great political game that is now well underway."
"A Double Ultimatum"
Newspaper of record Aftenposten held (9/13), "This course of action from the Americans' side is an indication that they value the securing of a broad political decision on a possible military action against Iraq--and that they are listening to some of the criticism that has also come from the US' allies. This is clear progress compared to the statements from just a few weeks ago, when among others Vice President Dick Cheney rejected such on-site inspections as rather unnecessary--before an attack. At the same time, yesterday's speech can hardly be interpreted as anything other than an ultimatum also to the UN: If the Security Council does not solve the Iraq problem, the Americans will do it on their own. And then there are some rather dangerous roads that Bush is looking at.... Saddam Hussein will hardly be the last ruler who challenges the rest of the world with possible weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it is better to have a clear UN position, supported by the great majority of the organization's 190 member states, than an America acting on its own. The US as lone world policeman is a recipe for new and bigger problems in the future."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Goal And Means"
Influential liberal DeVolkskrant opined (9/13): "The fact that Bush is prepared to go through the UN is the good news. The bad news is that he is not doing this very happily. His message to the UNSC had the tone of an ultimatum: Try to do it your way but if you don't hurry the United States will take actions itself.... The UNSC should use the opportunity to clear up a certain number of issues. Members of the UNSC should agree with Bush and Annan that the way Saddam has been violating the resolutions since 1991 undermines the credibility of the UN. Action should be taken. When selecting the means, it is important to determine which threat Saddam Hussein actually poses. How big are the risks and how acute. How should these be fought.... It all comes down to the issue of proportionality. The UNSC should ask the United States to indicate why it thinks that Saddam's threat is so big that it would justify a war. That was not done yet. "
POLAND: "UN's Last Chance"
Krzysztof Darewicz wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (9/13): "Criticized for years for its inefficiency and wasteful practices, the United Nations today has perhaps a last chance to prove that it is able to safeguard world peace and security. This chance is to immediately force Iraq to implement a dozen-plus UN resolutions that obligated it to unconditionally destroy all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. For eleven years now, Saddam Hussein's regime has been leading the UN and international community by the nose. There is no doubt he would not give up his lethal arsenals voluntarily. The UN's lack of decisiveness allowed Hussein's such behavior. It is high time to put an end to it. Last year's terrorist attack on the United States, the only guarantor-in the military sense-of world security...has proven that the world cannot afford to remain inactive in the face of the growing threat."
PORTUGAL: "Campaigns"
Deputy editor-in-chief António Ribeiro Ferreira penned this in an editorial in respected center-left daily Diário de Notícias (9/13): George W. Bush's speech atthe UN General Assembly was notable, and will certainly shut up many of the usual ferocious critics of the United States, who don't hide their gut-level anti-Americanism, nostalgic for the Cold War and the defunct Soviet Union.... Portugal has already declared--and properly so--its support for Washington."
"The Risks of the Doctrine of Preventive War"
Influential moderate left Público foreign affairs editor Teresa de Sousa asserted in her 'Without Borders' column (9/13): "Yesterday, the American president explained with notable clarity the content of [previous UNSC] resolutions and the threat that Saddam's regime constitutes to the international community by ingoring each and every one of them.... All of the elements of his speech need to be studied.... The solution proposed by the French President has the merit of taking into account Washington's arguments about the real danger that Saddam represents and the risks of leaving him unpunished, at the same time that it safeguards what is essential at this moment: avoiding letting a new doctrine based upon preventive war be put into practice by the United States without UN legitimation. If that happens--if Washington decides unilaterally to overthrow Saddam's regime, with the blessing of a few allies--the door will be open to not only marginalizing the UN, but also to creating a precedent with dangerous consequences.... Europe only has one path: uniting around France's position. If they do it in a firm and politically convincing way, it will probably be heard by America and by the whole world. But it's already very late."
ROMANIA: "War On Iraq May Invite Either Anti-Americanism Or Democracy"
Political analyst Magdalena Boiangiu wrote in the intellectual weekly Dilema (9/12), "The incapacity to fight against an invisible enemy is translated into the decision to attack the visible one, Saddam Hussein, in an attempt to free Iraq of a tyrant and to sweep away the danger of an attack by weapons of mass destruction. For this action, President Bush lacks the support of a significant opposition within the country he wishes to set free, of the traditional allies and also of the occasional allies from the 1991 war against Iraq, of the UN and of Europe, of the Democratic Party, as well as the support of some people from his own party. Through a paradoxical effect, the attack against Iraq may result either in what Usama wanted, i.e. the anti-American solidarity of the entire Arab world by radicalizing the moderates, or--such as the most optimistic hope for--the opening toward modernity of conservative institutions. Before giving an answer to these questions, facts will set a new course to the open conflict in the Middle East."
RUSSIA: "Ultimatum"
Svetlana Babayeva commented in reformist Izvestiya (9/13): "Bush spoke for almost 30 minutes, and his speech, as expected, really sounded like an ultimatum. More than that, at times it gave the impression of an ultimatum from a man who felt personally responsible for the continuing violence and the sufferings of peaceful citizens, children and women in Iraq."
"Nothing New"
Reformist Vremya Novostey (9/13) contended in a page-one report by Andrey Zlobin and Aleksandr Timofeyev: "At the UN Bush only spoke about Iraq. He fulminated against Saddam violating human rights, cheating international inspectors, and pursuing WMD programs. But there was nothing new in what he said."
SPAIN: "Bush's Ultimatum"
Conservative La Razon wrote (9/13): "[Bush] believes...that the Iraqi regime is building a clandestine nuclear program and that his country could be a victim of an attack by the Iraqi dictator. After 9/11 it would be difficult to deny the validity of such an argument.... But Bush has done more than outline his rationale before the most multilateral forum on earth. He has shown great political skill, far from the conventional caricature of him. Those who expected the declarations of a potentate...were wrong. Bush has saved the dignity of the UN."
"The UN Should Help Avoid Having to Choose Between Bush and Saddam"
Independent El Mundo wrote (9/13): "If last week it seemed improbable that Russia, China and France would approve a [Security Council] resolution...in the last few hours the situation has changed. The machinery of American diplomacy has begun to put pressure on...In line with Bush's arguments yesterday, Spanish President Aznar said that the choice was between Bush or Saddam. But it's not that simple. There are clear intermediate options and diplomatic and economic measures that one could use before having to resort to a war with unforeseeable risks and consequences.... Saddam may be a monster, but he has the right to be treated with the impartiality of international legality, that even the United States does not have the right to step over."
"Bush, With The UN"
Left-of-center El País wrote (9/13): "This is a positive step forward on the part of the [Bush] administration that lately leaned completely in the direction of unilateralism.... In a speech with impact he was able to synthesize the various postures of his administration to try first the UN route and that of diplomacy, which Secretary of State Colin Powell backs, as do the Europeans. In this sense it was a step against unilateralism and has had a certain success.... [But] Bush presented affirmations, not proof."
"Iraq, Bush and Aznar"
Conservative ABC wrote (9/13): "Bush yesterday before the General Assemby of the UN gave a speech marked with pragmatism and in harmony with his allies..... The most reasonable way has won.... It is certain that a war against Iraq carries risks, but the most dangerous risk is passivity and to leave the initiative to aggressors in power...The clear position of the Spanish government [in support of the U.S. position] is loyal to the values which the civilized world defends with such ardor."
SWEDEN: "Rallying Against Saddam"
Independent, liberal Stockholm tabloid Expressen editorialized (9/13): "The world breathe freely for a while. President Bush's address before the UNGA gives the signal that the White House is modifying its position with regards to Iraq.... This is a welcome change of course. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein constitutes a threat against the U.S. and the rest of the world.... But at the same time the risks of a possible attack are immense.... Should there be a U.S. attack it is crucial that the U.S. has the support of the UN Security Council. President Bush must also improve his position in the Arab and the Muslim world.... The U.S. has not yet managed to convince (the world) that it would be a greater risk to bide one's time than taking action against Iraq. However, having to choose between a unilateral U.S. action to crush Saddam, and one that would go through the UN, the latter would be most preferable."
SWITZERLAND: "Bush Appeals To UN's Sense Of Pride"
Respected daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung commented (9/13): "Even critics of the Bush administration and its current fixation on the regime of Saddam Hussein will have to admit that the American president in his appearance before the UN General Assembly presented his case skillfully and with convincing arguments.... In his speech, Bush was intelligent enough not to emphasize opposition and differences between America and the United Nations. Thus he was able to avoid an atmosphere of confrontation.... The president emphasized that an important aspect of his policy of applying pressure to Iraq is that it is about strengthening the success and credibility of the UN. Thus he appealed to the world organization's sense of pride."
"A Skillful Move"
Writing in Tages-Anzeiger, a leading German-language Swiss daily normally very critical of U.S. foreign policy and the president, Luciano Ferrari commented (9/13): "With his UN appearance, U.S. President Bush inverted the previously existing situation and skillfully passed the responsibility for military action against Iraq to the United Nations.... But he made it clear that if the UN doesn't act, the United States will. And in that event, it will no longer be possible to accuse him of not having sought the involvement of the international community."
TURKEY: "The Impact Of September 11 On International Law"
Ferit Hakan Baykal wrote in Islamic-intellectual Zaman (9/13): "The post 9/11 situation seriously damaged the international law. The way the US treated international law and order and its treatment of some countries has constituted a base for mistrust for the international legal system. In the current situation, because of the United States, power has become the main issue while the legal system has been weakened by exceptions.... The U.S.' violation of international legal practices constitutes a crime against peace as well as humanity.... The developing world should work on changing the US attitude and return the international system of law's prestige."
"If U.S. Strikes Iraq"
Kamuran Ozbir wrote in nationalist Ortadogu (9/13): "Unlike his father's success, President Bush failed to form an international coalition as well as consensus against Iraq. Along with opposition voices from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, the anti-American sentiment is mounting in the whole Islamic world.... This fact leaves out the 'international alliance' option for now. There is another option for the United States which is to use Kurdish opposition groups in northern Iraq as a starting base for the US operation. However, the Iraqi Kurdish opposition is too much divided and efforts from Washington did not produce a concrete result yet, except the recent rapprochement between Barzani and Talabani.... The United States should also consider the post-Saddam era. In case of toppling Saddam regime, a Kurdish state in the north might be a case which will result serious consequences for the whole region."
MIDEAST
ISRAEL: "George's Show Of Horror"
Senior analyst Hemi Shalev opined in popular, pluralist Maariv (9/13): "Bush gave a prosecutorial speech that in Hollywood movies would have brought the juries back in a minute with a guilty verdict.... After months of blunt contempt towards the international organization [the UN], the American administration changed its tactics, at least outwardly, and now it is asking legitimacy from the Security Council to attack the Iraqis.... [But] even after a few weeks of hectic diplomatic efforts, most Arabs and Muslims would continue to believe that it is all a Zionist-Imperialist scam.... From Bush's words one can determine that the die has been cast, that the decision to attack Saddam has already been taken and that the attack would be committed with or without the UN's approval."
"On The Way To Baghdad"
Military commentator Alex Fishman asserted in mass circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (9/13): "President Bush drew his gun yesterday, cocked it, and announced to world leaders: I am already on the way to Baghdad; you're invited to come along. If you want to, fine; if you don't, I'll do it alone. He did not ask, he did not justify himself, he did not even present a real ultimatum that would give the Iraqi leader a loophole. It was a speech bearing tidings of an approaching war.... The yellow face of the UN secretary general showed yesterday that Kofi Annan, like his colleagues in the European Union, understood that he was late getting on the train. On the eve of the speech, the secretary general and the European Union leaders still hoped that Bush would give the UN a last chance to deal with the Iraqi file diplomatically. They worked in that direction--and got a slap in the face. Bush's speech showed them that their opinion on this significant subject of fighting the axis of evil does not count."
"No Illusions"
The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (9/13): "Of all the virtues George W. Bush was thought to bring to the White House, a talent for oratory was not among them. Yet in his speech at the United Nations yesterday, as in his several addresses to Congress and his June 24 speech setting the terms for Palestinian statehood, he has proved more than eloquent. He has given persuasive expression to necessary policies, in this case turning the tables on those at the UN and in Europe who had hoped to use the rhetoric of multilateralism as a cover for inaction toward Iraq.... So even as diplomatic wheels turn in New York, the U.S. must continue to make ready for war, both to give teeth to that diplomacy as well as to prepare for its likely failure."
LEBANON: "Dangerous Assumptions"
Rafiq Khoury wrote in centrist Al-Anwar (9/13): "President George Bush went beyond the famous remark by one of his predecessors at the White House which advised Presidents to walk softly calmly but carry a big stick. Apparently, Bush had no problem in carrying a big stick while talking aggressively to the world.... What Bush did during his speech at UNGA is try to impose his own agenda on the international community and hint that he will indeed implement his agenda even if he has to do it unilaterally.... The world's rejection of the U.S. position on Iraq did not prompt Bush to show real evidence that Iraq owns weapons of mass destruction, at the same time, did not stop him from holding the world responsible for not getting rid of the Iraqi danger. The only thing President Bush did is challenge the United Nations instead of presenting evidence against Iraq."
"Baghdad's Last Chance Before The Hammer Falls"
The English-language Daily Star editorialized (9/13): "Both President...Bush and U.N. Secretary General...Annan made it clear...that time is running out for Baghdad to either settle its differences with the world body or face another military pummeling.... Saddam Hussein and his regime faced a similar situation in 1990, and they responded with one of the most devastating mistakes ever committed by a national leadership.... The solution is simple. Instead of 'allowing' the return of U.N. arms inspectors whom they have accused of spying on behalf of America and Britain, they should invite teams from countries around the world--with the proviso that each and every expert and all their vehicles be equipped with television cameras that broadcast their activities 24 hours a day, seven days a week.... If the Iraqi government is really complying with the U.N.'s decisions, the inspection teams will find nothing.... The existence of most Iraqis under sanctions is a miserable one, but an invasion would make matters even worse."
TUNISIA: "Bush's Proof"
Senior editor, Mohamed Tawir opined in independent As-Sabah (9/13): "President Bush's address to UNGA, yesterday, was a repeat of the same accusations against Iraq, accusations whose credibility are surrounded with doubt.. The American president has not presented the tangible proofs that he promised to present in order to prove the accurateness of these accusations."
"The Big Trickery"
Editor Nader Bargui wrote in independent French-language Le Quotidien (9/13): "Speculation on Iraqi armaments has a sole goal of making sure that Iraq has no more strength, in order to facilitate (U.S.) aggression and desire to control petrol resources. This is to move forward the creation of a new American global empire and to open up the way to implement, without obstacles, the project of a powerful Israel.... American leaders seem not to have learned the only good lesson from the 9/11 painful events, first, for the sake of the wonderful American people, and, then, for the sake of the whole humanity which has the right to expect a lot from the nation of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. This lesson comes down to three words: international solidarity, peace and development. Unfortunately, on the eve of a third big international tragedy, the only worry of our planet's leaders is reduced to status, money, and silence. Therefore, for heaven's sake, we call on the stooges of this international atrocious comedy to spare us from their long speech on morality, civilization, human rights and international legality.... In our era, there are no dupes except those who profit from this trickery. And for the good fortune of our enemies, dupes are alas, manifold in our region."
EAST ASIA
AUSTRALIA: "Enforce Security Council Resolutions Or The UN Will Die"
Former political adviser and Foreign Affairs Department Secretary Michael Costello wrote in the national, conservative Australian (9/12): "The United States has up to now followed the UN route. And it looks like they plan to do so again when President George W. Bush addresses the Security Council tonight. The U.S. attack on Iraqi forces in the Gulf War was as the leader of a broad alliance authorized by the Security Council. The United States did not invade and destroy Iraq itself because its UN and alliance mandates did not allow it. Respecting the resolutions, the U.S. declined to act unilaterally despite the ease with which it could have done so. That very restraint and compliance with UN requirements at the Gulf War's conclusion was and remains a major target for attack by unilateralist voices in the U.S. debate.... It is not a matter of the Security Council dancing to a U.S. tune by imposing new requirements. Rather the question is whether it will enforce its own existing requirements. If it will not, what relevance will it have in the future?"
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "Putting Pressure On UN Through Shame"
Independent Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Journal commented (9/13): "Their unilateralism makes Bush administration hawks distrust the UN, which they want to bypass when taking action. Given the opposition to deployment of U.S. troops against Iraq, however, the U.S. can only return to the UN. The Bush administration's overbearing attitude is designed to force the UN to take action. Caught in the middle between the U.S. and Iraq, the UN is in an awkward position. If the Security Council yields to U.S. pressure and passes a resolution that sets a deadline for sending weapons inspectors back into Iraq, and if it determines that troop deployment is authorized given Iraq's violation of UN resolutions (as suggested by French President Jacques Chirac), then the UN would be viewed as a tool of the U.S., especially by countries in the Third World. On the other hand, if the UN does not support the U.S.-sponsored resolution, the U.S. and Britain may act alone. The UN might then lose its prestige."
JAPAN: "A Prelude To Armed Inspections And Military Strikes"
Liberal Asahi's New York correspondent Nishimura observed (9/13): "President Bush's speech at the UN...was...his issuance of an ultimatum against Saddam Hussein. At a time when the U.S.'s Iraq policy is being criticized globally as being unilateral, Mr. Bush selected the world body as the venue for his speech to 'make a point' and get world attention.... The president warned the UN General Assembly that 'action will be unavoidable' against Iraq unless the UN takes a hard line to force Baghdad to disarm. The focal point is now shifting to whether Iraq will accept UN inspections of Iraqi WMD facilities. But the U.S. administration thinks the inspections will merely be a prelude to military action against Baghdad. Even if there is no clear evidence suggesting that Iraq will strike the U.S. militarily, the 'Bush doctrine' justifies pre-emptive military strikes against nations deemed as potential threats."
PHILIPPINES: "Ground Zero Is Hallowed Ground"
Columnist Sonny Coloma wrote in leading Business World (9/13): "A call to arms against Iraq is not likely to generate the same magnitude of international solidarity evoked by the commemoration of 9/11. President Jacques Chirac has proposed a most pragmatic approach. Why not give Saddam a final ultimatum of, say, three weeks within which to comply with United Nations arms inspection requirements unconditionally? If again there is non-compliance, then, he said, the UN Security Council could decide on appropriate sanctions, possibly including the use of armed force. He emphasized that a unilateral, pre-emptive strike by the U.S. would not be acceptable to France and other erstwhile U.S. allies, saying that 'we need to play according to some set of rules' if there is to be an effective global coalition against terrorism."
SOUTH KOREA: "U.S. Should Reconsider Unilateral Strike Against Iraq"
Conservative Segye Ilbo editorialized (9/13): "The countdown has virtually begun for a U.S. strike against Iraq.... During his speech to the UN General Assembly today, President Bush demanded Iraq choose between going to war and accepting unfettered international weapons inspections. Given Iraq's firm intention of not bowing to such a U.S. demand, it seems unlikely that war will be avoided. It is a tragedy to see the Gulf region be again engulfed in a war after the Afghan campaign. Even though thousands of innocent American people met undeserved death during the Sept. 11 terror attacks, numerous civilians also lost their lives in the war in Afghanistan. It is regrettable for the U.S. to give the impression of rushing to stage a war against Iraq without any diplomatic efforts. The U.S. should note that its planned war against Iraq cannot be successful without international support...and that its diplomatic and military unilateralism will only invite increased anti-Americanism."
THAILAND: "Where Is The Voice From Heaven?"
The lead editorial in elite, business-oriented Krungthep Turakij read (9/13): "In the speech commemorating 9/11 (President Bush) used the word 'dictator' together with 'terrorists'.... The word 'dictator' refers to none other than President Saddam Hussein. Rather than making a decision, based on emotions and self-interests, to wage a war, we call on the U.S. to produce hard evidence showing Baghdad is threatening world security by possessing lethal weapons."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Bush Blows The Trumpet For War On Iraq"
The executive editor of Calcutta's independent, centrist Ananda Bazaar Patrika observed (9/13): "From one perspective the address of President Bush was historic ... Undoubtedly, after this speech the current session of UNGA will have Iraq as its most important agenda. But at the same time it is clear that it will be not easy for him to get the UN by his side in his unilateral expedition against Saddam Hussein. The missing tune was apparent from Kofi Annan's speech, ahead of Bush ... Even Prime Minister Vajpayee made it clear during his bilateral meeting with President Bush that India's relations with Iraq were most cordial ... Naturally India has reasons to worry if a war is announced against Iraq ... America however wants to send the message out that the United States is not prepared to wait any longer to exercise caution in this regard despite the advice from the rest of the world."
AFRICA
GHANA: "Unacceptable"
The Insight, a weekly with urban circulation and avowedly socialist in outlook stated in an editorial (9/11-12): "President George Bush's determination to attack Iraq on the flimsiest of excuses is clearly unacceptable...The question we would like to ask is this, is the United States going to go around the world overthrowing all governments which do not meet its own standard of democracy? What are the substantial differences between the Iraqi regime and the one in Pakistan?.... The Insight is firmly opposed to the Bush plan to attack Iraq on the grounds that it is a shameful display of hypocrisy and double standard."
SOUTH AFRICA: "A Glimmer Of Hope?"
The liberal Star opined (9/13), "Bush was offering a glimmer of hope that the impasse with Saddam Hussein could be resolved peacefully--or at least multilaterally.... Sceptics will suggest that Bush has deliberately presented Saddam with impossible demands. They will suspect the US president has challenged the UN to conduct a proper weapons inspection, merely to avoid being accused of unilateralism. They may even be correct. But, either way, the ball now seems to be in the UN's court. ...Giving multilateralism real teeth seems to be the only credible way of averting unilateral U.S. action and possibly subverting the UN system irreparably. Of course the ultimate responsibility lies with Saddam."
"Iraqi Ball In UN's Court"
The conservative Citizen opined (9/13), "The United Nations must respond positively to Bush's challenge to help strip Iraq 'immediately and unconditionally' of weapons of mass destruction.... If the UN could be relied upon to have the backbone to do the right thing, Annan's position would be unassailable.... But that assumes the UN exercises moral authority, which in reality it does not have.... The United States and Britain have a strong case. The ball is in the UN's court."
"Iraq Inaction The Worst Scenario"
Greg Mills, National Director of the South Africa Institute of International Affairs, commented in the liberal Star (9/12), "Is an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction likely? The answer to this question is a definite 'Yes.' Would such an attempted 'regime change' be likely if he did not have such weapons?... The answer is 'Probably not.'... The key reason why Saddam would probably be left alone, if the evidence of his possession of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] was not so overwhelming, is, simply, that it is impossible to determine what the impact of his removal will be.... Iraq without Saddam could, however, become a force both for progress and modernization in the Arab world.... Rhetorically the SA government is dead set against any such attempted forced removal of the Iraqi leader from power.... U.S.-led action would, in this way, also be seen to undermine the multilateral (UN) role to which Pretoria is committed. Saddam's removal might create problems back home for SA in terms of the reaction of its own Muslim minority, who are likely to oppose this act.... Two things are clear to the United States at this stage. Saddam Hussein poses a threat to world peace with his weapons of mass destruction. Short of his handing these over, an attempt will soon be made to remove him from power. Ignoring his possession of WMD could amount to a costly act of callous complacency."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Annan's Uphill Task In Confronting Iraq"
Toronto's leading Globe and Mail editorialized (9/13): "President George W. Bush's forceful speech to the United Nations yesterday on Iraq leaves the ball squarely in the UN's court. That's where it belongs, but it may not stay there long. A UN Security Council resolution, proposed by France, is being formulated calling on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to bow to pressure and permit the prompt, unconditional return of UN weapons-inspection teams. Yet even if Mr. Hussein buckles, which is unlikely, a war may just be a matter of time, because Washington's plans for Mr. Hussein's gangster state go far beyond ascertaining whether Iraq has disposed of its weapons of mass destruction.
"Mr. Bush, too, has been under fierce pressure: There has been a global chorus of alarm at the prospect of the United States plunging into such a conflict, especially without UN authorization. In challenging the Security Council to enforce the numerous UN resolutions that Iraq has blithely disregarded for the past 12 years, meanwhile, Mr. Bush has lent powerful weight to what critics of the UN have been demanding for years. It's late in the day, but UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan now agrees that fresh teams of weapons inspectors--after a hiatus of almost four years--must be dispatched to Iraq, period....But no less clear was Mr. Annan's warning that a U.S. attack on Iraq without UN approval would pose a serious threat to international law and global stability. He has a strong point, on that score.... Mr. Bush has yet to explain why, after 11 years of semi-containment, the Iraqi regime has suddenly become so dangerous that the only available option is war. He did not do so yesterday."
"It Is Clear The UN, As Well As Iraq, Have Now Been Put On Notice"
Writing in the conservative National Post, Hugo Gurdon had this to say (9/13): "President George W. Bush probably achieved several goals yesterday at the United Nations. The overarching one was to make up for weeks, indeed months, during which his administration--more particularly the President himself--has left almost unchallenged the steady stream of commentary from those who oppose his plan to topple Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator.... The speech ended with a ringing peroration in which the President told the international community to understand 'we cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather.'.... But the President was only inviting the United Nations to join him, not giving it a veto. The speech therefore not only put Iraq on notice, but also put the United Nations on notice that they were both in peril. The organization could do its duty and join America in the fight for right, or it could become irrelevant and wither like its predecessor, the League of Nations."
ARGENTINA: "Some Support With Doubtful Benefit"
Oscar Raul Cardoso, political analyst of leading Clarin opined (9/13), "Questions are now open: Did Foreign Minister Ruckauf decide that Argentina was ready to actively participate in the next battle of the Persian Gulf War that the Bush administration seems ready to wage against Iraq?... There are no clear reasons to support Bush junior's view when even the U.S. Democratic opposition insisted yesterday... that the President has not built a convincing case regarding Iraq yet, or when German Prime Minister Gerhardt Schroeder reiterates that his country will not join the U.S. military action or when UN Secretary General... reminds Bush that 'there is no legitimacy' in a conflict like the one Washington proposes without UN support. Why a crisis-stricken and weak country like Argentina would receive any benefit through a blow on the principle of multilaterality? No one believes that the Argentine contribution could be meaningful from the military viewpoint. In fact, experts think that, in the war scenario, even the European participation would create more problems than the ones it could solve... If critics of Bush assure that invading Iraq could only guarantee the U.S. a bigger exposal to the terrorist threat, one has to think that nothing good will be left for Argentina out of all this, bearing in mind that the 1990/91 Argentine Government's enthusiasm was followed by the tragic attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA headquarters."
BRAZIL: "Bush's Unacceptable Ultimatum"
Lead editorial in center-right O Estado de S. Paulo asserted (9/13): "There is no controversy regarding the need to force dictator Saddam Hussein to follow once and for all the 16 resolutions that the UN Security Council has approved since the Gulf War.... The disagreement that exists is in regards to means.... Certainly Bush would not have gone to the UN to announce his intention to attack Saddam without giving him and the organization one last opportunity. But it seems he did just that, thereby increasing the president's differences with the other Security Council members, except for the UK. By listing an extensive number of conditions Baghdad would have to fulfill under the UN orders so as not to become the target of the promised military intervention, Bush has made Iraq's mission impossible. The ultimatum demands much more than the 'immediate and unconditional' destruction of chemical and bacteriological arsenals and long-range missiles.... There is not the slightest possibility that Saddam will accept Bush's ultimatum. Three SC members with veto power do not share the U.S. president's intention to change the Iraqi regime at any cost. As was expected, the first effect of Bush's UNGA speech was a severe fall in the stock markets in the U.S. and Europe."
"A Multilateral Way Out"
Liberal Folha de S. Paulo lead editorial stressed (9/13): "George W. Bush's UNGA speech had an imperial tone. He practically demanded from the UN a decision against Iraq.... Many of the U.S. accusations against Iraq are true.... [But] even taking into consideration Baghdad's discredited past it is a mistake to carry out another war against Iraq without exploring all the possibilities of a negotiated solution.... The UN cannot endorse state coups. It cannot be used by powerful nations such as the U.S. to give an appearance of legality to hidden interests.... Saddam is a bloody tyrant, but he is far from being the only leader of this type. If it is legitimate to overthrow him, as Bush wants, the same treatment should be given to several other leaders whose regimes do what Iraq does. This is something the U.S. seems not willing to do."
"Bush, The UN, Iraq And The Future"
Business-oriented Valor Economico editorialized (9/13): "President Bush's UNGA speech provided softer colors to the threats his administration has made against Iraq.... Since three Security Council members might exercise their veto, it is possible to expect that the UN will not make any hasty decision. By stating to the world his intention not to act without the UN's consent, Bush has practically guaranteed that the war will not occur in the short term.... Evidently, it is not possible to be sure how the White House will act under President Bush. But everything indicates that Bush's aggressive impetus has been refrained by political reasons presented by the U.S. elite.... The current UN measures used against Saddam Hussein have been very effective in refraining him at least in regards from aggression against other nations. The possibility of a long military campaign with a high cost in soldiers' lives is great. A frontal attack against the Iraqi regime would probably make it use any chemical of biological weapon it may have, in addition to provoking radical Islamic groups in nations currently under pro-Western regimes."
JAMAICA: "Mobilising Against Iraq"
International Relations Professor, Dr. John Rapley wrote in the moderate, influental Daily Gleaner (9/12): "Nobody doubts that a war on Iraq, particularly at a time when the American government is giving its blessing to Israel's continued crushing of its Palestinian enemy, will inflame Arab opinion.... Even the most powerful empire can over-reach if it grows arrogant in the assessment of its threats, and this is a real danger for the USA. To date, Mr. Bush has had few successes in persuading skeptics both at home and abroad of the imminent necessity of an attack on Iraq. Apparently sensitive to this fact, he now appears ready to attach an invasion plan to an ultimatum from the UN that Iraq allow arms inspectors to return. Mr. Bush had wanted to avoid involving the UN, but America's allies are insisting on it.... If his government decides to press on alone, America may pay a high price down the road."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
