• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere

September 20, 2002 IRAQ'S INSPECTIONS GAMBIT: THE VIEW FROM NATO EUROPE

September 20, 2002

IRAQ'S INSPECTIONS GAMBIT: THE VIEW FROM NATO EUROPE

KEY FINDINGS

 

** Many observers viewed Saddam's offer to re-admit inspectors "unconditionally" skeptically, seeing it as a tactical ploy designed to buy time and divide the UNSC.

** Still, while urging caution, most argued that a new round of inspections backed by a new UNSC resolution had to be given a chance, if only to call Saddam's bluff.

** Some writers voiced the suspicion that the U.S. will undermine the inspections offer because it remains intent on starting a war with Iraq.

 

MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS

 

The 'artful dodger' of Baghdad, under pressure, buys himself some time with 'a classic tactical trick.' Many writers described the "unconditional" Iraqi offer to re-admit weapons inspectors as part of a "game" in which the "cunning" Saddam showed he is "a great game player and an excellent tactician." Saddam had "scored a point" with the "surprise" maneuver, delaying an attack on Iraq, "cracking pro-American unity" and "complicating the issue for President Bush."

 

'Don't trust, but verify.' The Iraqi offer itself was greeted with skepticism in many quarters. "Saddam's word is worthless," Britain's independent Financial Times reminded its readers, while Spain's left-of-center El Pais agreed that Hussein had long proven to be "untrustworthy." While few papers expressed more than the "hope" or "wishful thinking" that Hussein would "act wisely" and make good on the offer, most counseled the Bush administration not to dismiss a new round of inspections outright, however "vexed" and "caught off-guard" the U.S. was by the ploy. France's left-of-center Le Monde editorialized that "we will soon enough know if Saddam has something to hide" if inspections go forward: "This is the least owed public opinion everywhere before war is declared." London's conservative Times said the Iraq offer had to be met with "a new, explicit" UNSC resolution to remind Saddam that this was his "last chance"--then it will be seen how "unconditional" the offer really is. If it becomes clear that Iraq is once again using inspectors as "pawns," a Danish paper wrote, the case will be made "for the U.S. going it alone."

 

Some say Bush will go to war in any case. More than a few writers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's willingness to give a new round of inspections a chance. To immediately reject the Iraqi offer as "a farce," warned Holland's influential, liberal De Volkskrant, "the U.S. gives the impression" that it has another agenda beyond disarming Saddam. The suspicion of some, said France's left-of-center Liberation, was that Washington wanted to put together a UNSC resolution so "constraining" that Iraq would "automatically" reject it--because, as one German paper put it, "Bush wants Saddam gone, no matter what."

EDITOR: Steven J. Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 43 reports from 11 countries. September 17-20. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

BRITAIN: "New Resolution Must Be 'Tough As Possible'"

 

The independent weekly Economist opined (9/20): "Might Saddam's offer be sincere?... The possibility can be dismissed immediately.... He will do as little as he can get away with. The task for the outside world is to make sure that he has to be sincere, in every single respect. And the only way to do that is to keep up the military and diplomatic pressure.... America's military build-up...should continue. Iraq's Arab neighbours, should keep up their diplomatic arm-twisting, both privately and publicly. Above all, the Security Council needs to draft and then pass new resolutions that are as tough as possible.... The demands in a new resolution can and should be set as broadly as is necessary to encompass the subject-matter of all the 16 resolutions he has flouted.... For the United States and Britain to press for such a new resolution, or if necessary two new resolutions, will be risky...with careful diplomacy and bargaining, [opponents] will be persuaded to fall in line.... Saddam has long ago forfeited any right to be trusted. The dream must be that one day soon he will join Milosevic in the dock for crimes against humanity."

 

"Bush Is Right On Threat To Us All Posed By Saddam"

Peter Mandelson, former Northern Ireland Secretary, offered this view in the liberal tabloid the Mirror (9/19): "I'm pleased that Saddam has agreed to allow the UN weapons inspectors back into his country. But, I believe anything Saddam says must be treated with complete caution.... Saddam's offer is a step in the right direction, [But] it is only a small first step.... We need a tough new UN resolution. We can't relax the pressure on Saddam. If we do, he'll see it as a sign of weakness.... There comes a time when the international community has to be ready to act. And, on the threat from Saddam that time has come".

 

"Saddam And The Agony Of A Liberal Conscience"

Magnus Linklater, columnist for the conservative Times, editorialized (9/19): "These are testing times for the liberal conscience.... Iraq's apparent climb-down came about, not because of the UN's resolute action...but because Washington laid claim to the moral high ground and pursued the clearest and most consistent line.... It was that line...that forced Saddam's hand.... And if we accept that in making its case the U.S. had right on its side, are we not obliged to accept that the ultimate goal of regime change may also be right?.... It may be that there is a moral case for ousting Saddam by invading Iraq, but there is equally a reasonable case for challenging it.... It is not hard to muster a case against a savage dictator.... It is far harder to justify his violent removal.... Exploring these issues does not make one an enemy of America, or even critical of its aims.... The U.S. needs to convince the rest of the world of the merits of its case and win its support before going ahead."

 

"Last Chance Saloon"

The conservative Times editorialized (9/18): "The UN has to remind Saddam that he is in last chance saloon.... The unexpected success of Bush's address to the UN General Assembly last week left Iraq severely exposed.... An updated mandate would make for a more rigorous inspections process.... Saddam's response has to be met by new, explicit, resolution. Any other scenario would allow the Iraqi dictator to engage in his favoured pastime - playing for time. Bush and Blair should also, stick with their plans to publish a dossier. Russia should demonstrate its solidarity with the United States by endorsing a fresh Security Council resolution. Any such pact would make Saddam realize that this inspection drive would not be like the others. And only then will it become clear whether this offer is actually as 'unconditional' as Iraq claims."

 

"Responding To Baghdad"

The independent Financial Times observed (9/18): "Saddam's word is worthless. But now...the Security Council and the international community...must force the Iraqi dictator to live up to his word. For that is the only conceivable way, at this 11th hour that a new Gulf war may yet be averted.... There is every reason to suspect Monday's cave-in is a tactic to gain time.... Baghdad hopes to divide the five permanent members of the Security Council.... Already yesterday there were signs of divisions. It is vital now that the Council stays united. Somewhat to the surprise of his adversaries, the Iraqi leader has made his offer on inspectors unconditional. The new resolution must enshrine that and set reasonable deadlines.... The threat of a military response...should be spelt out.... It would undermine the gathering international effort if Washington were now to make removing the current regime, rather than disarming it, the overarching goal of a new resolution. But this is the Iraqi despot's last chance--and for any subsequent action to command maximum support it must be seen by all to have been a fair chance".

 

"Surviving Saddam"

The liberal Guardian opined (9/17): "Since 1979, when he seized overall power, Saddam has proved himself a survivor. This basic instinct for self-preservation has remained constant and paramount.... It is a sad irony that Saddam's very survivalist credo may now represent the best hope of avoiding an all-out U.S.-led war in Iraq. And it is a surprising paradox that, for a growing number of European and Arab states, Saddam's survival now presents the lesser of two great evils....

 

"Mr. Bush's motives and timing understandably inspire distrust among putative allies. The possible consequences for Iraq's people, the region, and other regimes the U.S. dislikes inspire alarm. Mr. Bush's evidence that Saddam has the capability and intent to threaten or attack the U.S. or its allies, and is party to a wider terrorist conspiracy, remains opaque. Sudden U.S. concern for the UN's authority and international law looks, in a broader context, hypocritical. Not for the first time does the Bush administration's proposed cure appear more immediately dangerous than the disease.

 

"If Saddam's tactical aim is to thwart U.S. pressure, and if his strategic aim is, as ever, to retain power, then such divergences afford him a clear opportunity. Thus, in all logic, he will open his doors to the UN and work out the details later.... Unsatisfactory though this is for some obvious reasons...it is however the best hope of defusing a crisis that, for many, still bears the stamp 'Made in America'."

 

"Washington Oils The Wheels Of War--And European Politics"

From the Foreign Editor's briefing by Bronwen Maddox, in the conservative Times (9/17): "Iraq's move [on inspections] will be a boost to Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac, two politicians who are having a great war, even though the first shots have yet to be fired.... Iraq's move will only strengthen the German Chancellor's ability to play the anti-war card right up to the elections.... But there is plenty of room for him to take a more pragmatic, pro-American line afterwards.... In many cases in the past year, Washington's brusque treatment of continental European interests has served it poorly. But in the case of Iraq, the White House could be forgiven a sense of vindication. In France, Russia--and probably Germany in a week's time--fierce statements of principle have given way to knowing hints that there is room for a deal, and the main bargaining chip is oil.

 

"The question is whether that is a deal Washington still wants to do. Its own oil companies have their eyes on exactly the same prize. In the light of new estimates that a war could cost $200 billion, Washington might reckon that its own companies deserve the payback now it has the Arabs on board, if nervously, it has less need of European support."

FRANCE: "Bush Asks Congress For a Green Light"

Jean-Jacques Mevel in right-of-center Le Figaro stated (9/20): "The White House, caught off-guard by Baghdad's turnaround, has no other choice but to try to force the hand of three of its key partners in the UN Security Council, France, Russia and China. In Congress, as at the UN, it is a mad race against the clock in order to short-circuit the return of the inspectors. Saddam's concession is not something that President Bush can reject openly because it meets a direct UN request.... This time around the U.S. is ready to work with the UN only if it is ready to bend to Washington's conditions. The vote in Congress must prove Washington's determination, regardless of France's hesitation or Russia's opposition.... Mostly it must demonstrate that Washington is ready to strike by itself."

"Washington's Tough Resolution"

 

Fabrice Rousselot wrote in left-of-center Liberation (9/20): "Some people are wondering whether Washington may not be tempted to put together a resolution that is so constraining that it would automatically be rejected by Saddam Hussein."

 

"Bush On All Fronts"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos observed (9/20): "If the UN Security Council does not send Saddam Hussein a clear enough message, the U.S. will do it instead. President Bush's intent could not have been clearer. The U.S. President, who is working on all fronts, is eager to insure he retains some flexibility while not closing the door to diplomacy.... President Bush's speech at the UN last week spurred the international community into resolving the Iraqi crisis. Without this speech it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would have accepted the conditions he has been refusing for four years.... Washington's priority is to keep the pressure on, because for years Saddam Hussein has neither kept his word nor honored his commitments."

 

"Taking Saddam At His Word"

Jean Daniel in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur (9/19) said: "Saddam has given in. He is gaining time. He is bending, but he has managed to crack the pro-American unity, to divide the UN and to give back to the Security Council a considerable role. He has changed his Anglo-American enemies into potential aggressors. Saddam has capitulated like a realistic politician. He has lost the aura of martyrdom in the Arab world. The U.S. has been caught short and claims that Saddam is more dangerous and devious than ever before. This is what Washington has been thinking for the past ten years and it has nothing to do with its crusade against terrorism. The U.S. wants to get rid of Saddam for all the oil, strategic and moral reasons we know. But Saddam must be taken at his word."

 

"Iraq: France Will Have to Choose"

Pierre Rousselin wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/18): "War will very probably be delayed. But it has not disappeared from the scene.... With his turnaround, Saddam is complicating the issue for President Bush.... The U.S. is greatly vexed, as evidenced by its initial reaction.... The well-known script of Iraqi crises has convinced us that Washington will be imposing drastic conditions to the return of the inspectors. As for France, it is embarrassed and hesitant about how to proceed. It previously managed very adroitly to tone down Washington's unilateral ardors.... But now it is back to the drawing board. France will have to choose between accepting Saddam Hussein's gesture point blank, and following the U.S. ... For the time being Paris is playing for time and wants to take Saddam at his word. But for Washington, this will not be enough. At the Security Council table, France must play its role, between the U.S. and the British on one hand, and the Russians and the Chinese on the other. The scenario offers no margin for error."

 

"Baghdad's Yes"

Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (9/18): "The well-known scenario of Iraqi crises could be termed a psycho-drama if the situation weren't so tragic.... Saddam Hussein has finally understood that by involving the UN, President Bush managed to rally a good portion of the international community.... Baghdad has sent word that it is now accepting what it has steadfastly been refusing. Foreign Affairs Minister de Villepin had the right reflex: 'we must take Saddam up on his word.' We will know soon enough whether Saddam Hussein has something to hide. This is the least owed public opinion everywhere before war is declared.... Washington has rejected Baghdad's offer.... This is the wrong reaction. While everyone knows that Saddam Hussein is an artful dodger, war is too serious a matter not to take Saddam up on his word. In reality it is Washington's word that is in the balance. What does Washington really want: to disarm Iraq or to topple Saddam?... The Security Council must adopt a resolution calling for the return of the inspectors. This is a necessary step."

 

"U.S. Seeks New Mideast Map"

Francois Lafargue author of Iraq: Ten Years of Chaos wrote in left-of-center Liberation (9/18): "The obstinacy of the United States with regard to Iraq can be understood in light of two issues: oil and politics... The American attitude towards Iraq cannot be reduced to a question of mere filial revenge, it is significantly more ambitious and seeks to redefine the future boundaries of the Middle East."

 

GERMANY: "Bush's Course May Lead Into Disaster"

 

K. Paul commented on regional radio station Hessischer Rundfunk of Frankfurt (9/19): "Bush made it clear that he wants Saddam gone, no matter what.... It is precisely the scenario the chancellor and his foreign minister have warned against for weeks.... In light of this development, it was not only permissible but necessary that the chancellor and his foreign minister identified their position clearly and early. If bombs start raining down on the Middle East, Europe will feel the impact, not the United States. Schroeder's course does not lead into a dead end. Bush's course, however, leads away from international law and into disaster."

 

"Europe Between Friendship And Opposition"

 

Wolfgang Koydl stated in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (9/20): "What is the main thing separating Americans and Europeans with respect to Iraq policy? Money and profits. One side wants to (and will) make money during the reconstruction of the country, after Saddam is gone and a pro-American regime has been installed. The other side counts on the dictator's gratefulness once the bothersome sanctions have been lifted and investments can flow freely.... While reluctant to discuss the issue in the open, Washington nevertheless believes that its European and Arab allies as well as Russia are cooperating with Baghdad. They advised Saddam to offer a gesture of compromise--for their own interests. After all, if the dictator behaves well, if he allows unconditional inspections, if he torments only his own people, the sanctions that have kept Europeans and Russian from making lucrative business deals with the oil-rich country might be lifted. Numbers and facts back up this U.S. suspicion. Only one day after Bush's UN speech, three members of the French national assembly traveled to Iraq to make him change his course."

 

"Bush And The Hawks"

 

Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (9/20) editorialized: "The position of the U.S. administration on Iraq must be clarified after Saddam's offer.... A change of regime was not an issue in Bush's UN speech, which was influenced by the doves. Bush must stick to the approach he suggested. If the inspectors conclude they are being kept from doing their work or cannot fulfill their mission for whatever reason, a new situation will arise. Until that point, the current unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy is only being made worse by Bush's asking Congress for the permission to take military action. Bush's request does not appear to be a difficult one--a few weeks before the Congressional elections, when all Senators and House members are ready to prove their patriotism."

 

"Up To Saddam"

 

Right-of-center Schwarzwaelder Bote of Oberndorf (9/19) argued: "George Bush will be acting only in a logical way if he maintains pressure on Saddam Hussein. If he dismisses Baghdad's readmission of UN inspectors as a trick and deception, then his adversary can now prove that he is serious about this offer, meaning that the U.S. president was wrong and was confirmed at the same time. And if the weapons inspectors did not find any indication of weapons of mass destruction, there would be no reason to wage war. This would also justify Bush's threatening scenario in hindsight. A war against Iraq is by no means looming, because diplomacy has not shot its wad."

 

"Don't Offer Saddam A Pretext"

Right-of-center Thueringer Allgemeine of Erfurt (9/19) opined: "The current pressure to which Saddam gave in has mainly come from the Arab League which is increasingly worried about its own business and interests.... The situation would totally change if U.S. forces were deployed in the Middle East and the subsequent protests of the Muslim population. Then the success would be in jeopardy which the UN weapons inspectors could achieve peacefully.... They would not be able to stay in Iraq if a war is looming. The current threatening scenario is jeopardizing their work and their security already now. We should not offer Saddam a pretext to undermine the controls demanded by the UN."

 

"Blind Zeal Costs Credibility"

Right-of-center Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung of Heidelberg (9/19) had this to say: "History only partly repeats itself, as far as the slyness of Iraq's dictator is concerned to defeat the western opponents with their own means.. If Saddam were in George W. Bush's position, his terror regime would no longer exist. But the difference is important for the legitimacy of the United States as the last power that creates order. And it is not German foreign policy that has betrayed some of its most important principles in an election campaign. Even the blind zeal of U.S. diplomacy that aims at Saddam's elimination has cost the U.S. president some credibility, since an election campaign is also going on in the United States."

 

"Saddam Is Playing Us All"

D. Landwehr commented on regional radio station Suedwestrundfunk of Stuttgart (9/18): "Saddam Hussein...is misusing our democratic thinking by seemingly accepting these rules in order to make a fool of us.... The weapons inspectors must certainly go to Iraq. But they have had this right for more than eleven years now and they have never been able to work freely. We do not know whether Iraq is a real danger, as the United States wants us to believe, but we know that Saddam Hussein would like to be such a danger. But this can be prevented only if the United Nations speaks with one voice now, if it formulates clearly what it wants from the Iraq, and if it makes clear what will happen it nothing happens."

 

"Trickster"

Peter Muench judged in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (9/18): "Anyone who takes Saddam's offer at face value and believes the danger of war to be contained is either naïve or has a hidden agenda (election campaign in Germany, business ties with the old Iraqi regime, blind anti-American sentiment). Anyone who is ready to condemn Saddam's offer is either stubborn or has a hidden agenda as well (election campaign in the United States, business ties with the new Iraqi regime, blind pro-American sentiment). All of this is easy to understand, as are Saddam's motives. He wants to create confusion, split the Security Council, and win time.... The fact that Saddam may be playing games is not necessarily a problem. After all, anyone who knows the rules can influence them.... Talks with Iraq about the return of the inspectors...must not prevent a new, more forceful UN resolution. After all, such a resolution should make it impossible for Saddam to fool the inspectors as he did in the past. At the same time, the Americans must use the talks to underline what they are after in Iraq: the implementation of UN resolutions, as Bush claimed recently, or simply a change of regimes and U.S. interests."

 

ITALY: "Bush: The UN Better Make A Move, Otherwise We'll See To It"

New York correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa (9/20): "The Iraqi crisis has turned into a long-distance duel between Bush and Saddam.... The United States is increasingly exerting pressure on the United Nations, by warning that if it doesn't approve a resolution, it will become an uninfluential spectator of the attack (on Iraq). The Russian opposition remains the main obstacle, followed by France and China's (opposition)."

 

"Pacifism, Saddam's New Trap"

Cesare De Carlo wrote in La Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il Giorno conservative newspaper syndicate (9/19): "Saddam's move has already produced the first result: the pacifist trap.... This is the most dangerous disturbance that the Iraqi offer can bring about...on the international level. Large sectors of public opinion in the allied countries, in fact, risk falling into that trap. Let me, therefore, join those who disagree with that...but, at the same time, do not oppose inspections. Inspections are certainly welcome. But they should not be separate from a U.N. ultimatum. Once the latter has expired without satisfactory results, an armed intervention...would become inevitable.... (But) the pacifism of the naïve will rise as a result of the yeast of professional anti-Americanism. And everything will become more complicated for America and its friends."

 

"A False Tug-of-War Over Inspections"

An analysis by Alberto Negri in leading business daily Il Sole-24 Ore commented (9/19): "The one between the United States and Iraq is a dialogue of the deaf: for Washington, in fact, the real issue is not disarmament, but the end of the Saddam regime. And it has been like that for a long time.... Saddam has apparently scored one point, i.e., delaying the attack.... The game of inspectors has thus begun again.... The return of the inspectors should ascertain whether Saddam is, indeed, still dangerous.... In any case, the Baghdad dictator seems to be at the end of his political race...due to the end of his historical role...defending the unity of a country whose difficult and uncertain borders were drawn by colonial powers with a stroke of the pen on the map of the Middle East."

 

"America's Splendid Isolation"

 

An editorial in elite, classical liberal daily Il Foglio (9/19) opined: "Even if the world wants to wait, pretends to be willing to trust Saddam again, and has postponed an obligatory appointment, the United States is nonetheless going its own way.... Congressional leaders...committed themselves to vote on a resolution authorizing war against Saddam Hussein.... America is in solitude, with the exception of its dear friend Blair, a guy who knows what leadership means and has already managed to change the attitude of British public opinion regarding the war. America, the great nation...is now leading the fight on terrorism alone, and it even has to convince sophisticated, but lazy, allies."

 

"If You Want Peace, Prepare War"

Elite, classical liberal Il Foglio commented (9/18): "The military pressure exerted by the United States and Great Britain, along with the creation of a U.N.-centered coalition supporting military intervention, has forced Saddam to try to set a trap for his historical enemies.... The Baghdad dictator hopes to divide the Anglo-Americans from the Europeans, from Russia, from China, and from the Arab world. This is a classic tactical trick, the typical move by a leader who has given his country only defeats and has built his power and his popularity on repression, censorship and on the obliged indoctrination of the masses. And what about the reaction? Those who are celebrating peace and asking to rapidly reduce the pressure on Iraq are pure hypocrites and obviously have other goals. Those who are, instead, working to intensify military and diplomatic pressure, those who want to disclose Iraq's bluff and impose peremptory conditions for a full disarmament concerning weapons of mass extermination--also through a written U.N. resolution and military buildup--are keeping the door open for a peaceful solution."

"The First Encouraging Signals"

Foreign affairs commentator Boris Biancheri wrote on the front page of centrist, influential La Stampa (9/18): "Saddam Hussein's move...makes everybody sigh with relief and, at a minimum, puts the risk of war further away. It is also a move that reflects great ability and confirms that the Baghdad dictator is an able player. On one side, his initiative is corroding the support...that U.S. diplomacy was achieving...on the need to ascertain Iraq's dangerousness without ruling out the use of force.... But Saddam Hussein's smartest move has been that of diverting, for the time being, a new, more peremptory resolution by the U.N. Security Council--stronger than all those ignored by Iraq for years. His stated goodwill is taking the situation back to square zero.... We cannot rule out the possibility that a new phase of skirmishes, of acceptances alternating with refusals, may begin."

"The Dictator's Move To Put Bush Off Track"

Vittorio Zucconi wrote on the front-page of left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (9/17): "A surprise letter by Saddam Hussein to the UN containing his 'unconditional' acceptance of the UN inspectors' return provokes Annan's optimism and a bad mood at the White House, which seems to have gained a first victory, but which, in reality, must accept the dictator's move that at the moment stops the march toward the war.... As President Bush was feeling he had resumed control of the war table and American domestic politics, and was already asking for funds for the military operation, unexpectedly he has been dealt a new hand of cards."

 

DENMARK: "U.N. Unable To Remove Saddam Hussein From Power"

Centrist Weekendavisen judged (9/20): "Saddam Hussein has done the only thing that could really paralyze the U.N.--he has allowed the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors. As long as the U.N. has free access to Iraq, the organization is bound hand and foot. It is likely that the hawks in D.C. are right about Saddam Hussein's dangerous potential, and there can be little doubt about his intentions. It would be a great idea to remove Saddam from power and the majority of the members of the U.N. know this. The problem is that the U.N. is not the organization that is capable of initiating a change of government."

"Saddam's Play"

Center-right Berlingske Tidende judged (9/19): "Rather predictably, Saddam Hussein's decision to allow access to U.N. weapons inspectors has divided a number of the leading nations in the UNSC. Russia and China appear satisfied by Iraq's change of course, while the U.S. and the Britain maintain that no good reason exists to trust Saddam. Both wings in the UNSC have a point, and this should be remembered during the coming weeks as we discover whether or not military action will be initiated against Iraq.... [Iraq's] new sincerity ought to be tested. The U.N. must be allowed to enter the country on the UN's terms and not Iraq's. There is no reason for the world to blindly trust that Saddam will cooperate in a constructive fashion.... Apart from finding evidence of arms production, the U.N. inspectors serve another key

purpose: they must secure unity in the alliance against Saddam. If it becomes clear that, as the U.S. and Britain suspect, Saddam is only using the U.N. inspectors as pawns in a tactical game, the case ought to be clear...for [the U.S.] going it alone on Iraq. In any event, [if Saddam Hussein's most recent maneuver is shown to be insincere] he will have played his last card, and a military action will be unavoidable."

"Saddam Is Winning On Points"

Center-right Jyllands-Posten carried the following analysis by D.C. correspondent Klaus Justsen (9/19): "The American President received praise in connection with Saddam Hussein's decision to allow weapons inspectors. But the quick Iraqi response has come as a surprise for Washington. Now the U.S. must choose whether to initiate complicated diplomatic negotiations or go it alone (with a military action)."   

HUNGARY: "The Shortsightedness Of The Powerful Can Backfire"

Respected security policy expert Peter Talas asserted in influential Hungarian business/political daily Vilaggazdasag (9/19): "A war against Iraq...is inevitable [despite Baghdad's offer on inspections].... The Bush government has 'managed' to corner other leading powers, which were reluctant to attack Iraq. The American President has put the Iraq question into a new dimension..... It is also a 'test' question for [the Bush administration] whether America...manages to get rid of the obstacles of the UN-based international military security system (by launching a military action).... A lot depends on the final position of the other powerful countries and how they view the strong Washington-London axis."

"Stakes Raised"

Foreign affairs writer Ivan Nagy argued in liberal Magyar Hirlap (9/18): "Can anybody believe to Saddam Hussein?... The answer is simple and clear. No. There is no question...[that he] is a great player and an excellent tactician. It can be almost entirely excluded that Baghdad will fully cave in. Baghdad maybe wants to win time. The chance of a war [has] diminished.... But it is still there. The world would, no doubt, be a better place without Saddam. But it is far from sure that it would be good for the international community if the 'hyper power' United States launched a war alone (or with only a few allies) without a UN mandate. A chance should be given (to the UN and Baghdad)."

 

NETHERLANDS: "Surprise From Baghdad"

Influential liberal De Volkskrant editorialized (9/19): "Saddam Hussein has not forgotten how to play the game. Less than five days after Bush's strong speech before the UNGA, he embarrassed the U.S. president by suddenly agreeing to the return of UN weapon inspectors. Even before a new war coalition could be formed, he already divided them up.... There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is trying to survive and that his Arabic neighbors told him that the war threat was a serious one. Giving in to the UN was better for him than giving in to the U.S. By immediately assuming that the Iraqi offer is a farce, the U.S. gives the impression that it has a double agenda itself.... The dictator maneuvered his enemy into a difficult position. In order to start a war this coming winter, preparations should be made now. In order not to lose allies in the war on terrorism, Washington can hardly afford to ignore the UN. However, UN authority will not be served by a war but rather by preventing a war."

"Ways To Delay"

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad commented (9/18): "Saddam Hussein knows the game. In the pressure cooker of international diplomacy there is the rule that a rapid surprise move almost always has a major impact.... Iraq suddenly agreed with the return of UN weapon inspectors. And the ball was back in the other court, the initiative back in New York and Washington where confusion over the rapid Iraqi reaction prevailed.... After years of being misled and cheated, the general impression in Washington is not to believe Saddam Hussein by his words but by his actions. And the U.S. is right. The fact that the UN weapon inspectors are welcome does not say too much. It is about when and where and what they will be allowed to do.... It is important to the U.S. to maintain unity in the UN and determination with its allies. For a moment it seemed they would close the ranks but one single letter from Baghdad, which still leaves many questions unanswered, was sufficient to break the front. This will prove the Hawks in Washington right."

 

POLAND: "The Middle East Bomb"

Bronislaw Wildstein wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (9/19): "Hussein's last move is a clever maneuver. It gives another argument to those who are against ousting him. But should the Iraqi dictator reject a UN ultimatum one more time, it would be difficult for the permanent members of the Security Council.to substantiate their refusal to intervene.... China, Russia and France do not want a U.S. intervention, which would largely subjugate that region to the U.S. influence. Meanwhile, the U.S. would see a withdrawal from such an intervention as a compromising action, leaving a ticking time-bomb in the Middle East. Therefore, it is likely that it will launch an intervention even without a consent from the UN."

 

PORTUGAL: "An Opportunity for Europe"

Influential moderate left daily Público foreign affairs editor Teresa de Sousa asserted (9/20): "Europe can be a determining factor in defining the next step, which must again take place in the multilateral framework of the United Nations and which has to be sufficiently credible to remove the hypothesis of a unilateral intervention by America to overthrow Saddam's regime.... Let's be clear: there isn't a drop of good faith on Saddam's part, nor the least intention of allowing the destruction of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction.... To do this, Europe--and especially [the UK and France]--have to help elaborate a new resolution that is clear enough to get the inspection process underway immediately, and stop it being transformed into another 'cat and mouse game' like what we saw in 1997 and '98....

"No European country wants to be confronted with a unilateral American action taken in the name of 'preventive war', because all share the same perception of the risk of such a precedent for the international order.... Since September 11, this is perhaps the first decisive test of the Union's capacity to adapt to the world that emerged from the ruins of the Twin Towers, in order to effectively influence the design of a new international order."

 

"The Empire State"

Editor-in-chief Carlos Cáceres Monteiro declared in left-of-center leading newsweekly Visão (9-19): "In calling attention to the dire consequences of an attack on Iraq outside the context of the UN, [President] Jorge Sampaio took the only attitude possible. One hopes that [his] position...would also be that of the Portugal itself...and that it would prevail over the genuflection that [PM] Durão Barroso displayed at the White House.... It is known that U.S....'arguments' already include the promise to divide up Iraqi oil among the countries that make up an allied force. The sack of war! Seen like that, things take on a tone of political obscenity.... Trying to devalue Baghdad's acceptance [of inspectors] is a form of crude manipulation. Bush is playing with fire. Because it divides public opinion in his own country...divides potential allies and inflames public opinion in the Arab countries and the so-called Third World."

"Bush Fell Into Mousetrap He Created"

Influential pundit Miguel Sousa Tavares asserted in leading financial Diário Económico (9/19): "There's no question that the situation has changed a great deal...since Bush went to the UNGA...and now he is hostage to the strategy he himself proposed.... President Chirac, to his credit, marked out a position that should have been that of Europe and not just of France, saying no, we're not blind followers, we're not going to line up behind every unilateral action the United States decides to take."

 

SPAIN: "Bush and 'Others' Should Respect the UN"

Independent El Mundo wrote (9/20): "It is worrisome that Bush may give the impression that he is willing to [work with the UN]... but if he does not like what the Council says, he will attack with the support of 'others.' If we--rightly--choose the multilateral way under the principle of international legality embodied by the UN, we will have to follow that way until we will, at least, have put to the test Saddam's real intentions.... Contradicting that international legality by Bush and those 'others'--including Aznar?--could mean grave consequences and seriously destabilize a very volatile area."

"The Subject Of Iraq Needs A Larger Debate"

Independent El Mundo declared (9/19): "It is clear that the return of inspectors raises many doubts about their effectiveness. Their arrival does not mean an automatic end to the threat, but it is an indispensable option, the only path that can be taken now. Before putting forward any other kind of action, the UN should accept Saddam's offer and send their inspectors in urgently."

 

"Unconditional?"

Centrist La Vanguardia stated (9/18): "It is proven that Saddam has had chemical and bacteriological weapons that he has not hesitated to use against Kurds and Iranians. There is also no doubt of his wish to have nuclear arms... However, being a country devastated by sanctions and by his despotism, is Iraq really still a lethal threat? UN inspectors should dispel the world's doubts as soon as possible and if the Bush's Administration wants to prove itself right and build an international coalition, it should give this last opportunity to Baghdad's dictator."

 

"Taking Him At His Word"

Left-of-center El País wrote (9/18): "The UN is still useful, even indispensable, even if it only is because it is the only reference accepted by all in an issue of global scope. Now starts the phase of the 'diplomatic dance.' Saddam Hussein has shown during too many years he is not trustworthy. But under these circumstances we do not lose anything by putting his word to the test. Quite the contrary."

 

TURKEY: "War Is Coming"

Yilmaz Oztuna wrote in mass appeal-conservative Turkiye (9/19): "It is entirely up to Saddam whether a war is going to happen or not. An inspection by the UN is not enough by itself. Iraq should also be willing to destroy all of its chemical, biological weapons as well as its factories. This way Iraq will give a relief to the whole world. Otherwise, it is for sure, the U.S. will strike with its all strength and the people of Iraq will suffer most.... Iraq has nobody to rely on. I am sure even the Saudis will open the door for their bases to be used by U.S. forces.... Let's hope that the Iraqi leader acts wisely. If not, the war is coming up, there is no doubt about that."

"Unexpected Development"

Izzet Sedes wrote in mass-appeal Aksam (9/18): "The U.S. did not find convincing enough the recent move by Iraq [acceptance of unconditional inspection]. However, as far as the general atmosphere in the international community, Baghdad's decision to invite the UN inspectors unconditionally is regarded as a very important step as well as an unexpected development.... With the help of this development, it seems the possibility of an imminent war is decreasing. For the time being the world is waiting to see what Saddam has to say as he promised a message to the UN soon. The U.S. as well as the UK and Israel have already stood against Saddam's response, but as the saying goes, never say never. There might be still some hope for preventing a war in the Middle East."

 

"Iraq's Belated Action"

Zafer Atay noted in economic-political Dunya (9/18): "The Baghdad decision to invite UN inspectors unconditionally seems to be a tactical game to avoid a U.S. military intervention. Unless the Saddam administration makes certain concessions along with the inspection process, it would be very hard to prevent the U.S. operation from happening.... It sounds like a wishful thinking, nevertheless let's hope that Iraq acts wisely and prevents the war."

##