Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=10/03/02

TYPE=WORLD OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=U-S IRAQI CHESS MATCH

NUMBER=6-12657

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The debate continues in the U-S Congress and at the United Nations over policies on Iraq. And around the world, the globe's major newspapers continue to comment on a potentially deadly conflict between the U-S and Iraq. Now, V-O-A's _____________ join's us with a sampling of editorial comment in this week's World Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: In the latest developments, President Bush and the U-S House of Representatives have agreed on a resolution authorizing the U-S to use force to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. It means the Democrat-controlled Senate is under increasing pressure to follow suit. And in Vienna, Austria, where U-N weapons inspection officials are meeting with the Iraqis, comes word that Saddam Hussein wants to place off limits his presidential palaces including hundreds of buildings.

The prevailing view of many papers is that there must be unconditional resumption of inspections, but big papers in several nations take the other view, that some conditions from Iraq should be accepted. We begin our sampling in London, where the British Daily Telegraph suggests:

VOICE: The Iraqis' agreement to allow weapons inspectors back into the country has caught Washington off guard. America . has rightly concluded that to send the inspectors back under existing resolutions . would simply invite the prevarication at which Saddam excelled in the 1990's.

TEXT: Across town The Guardian is not so sure the current course is the right one.

VOICE: The 1988 stalemate has finally been broken. Problem solved? Crisis over? Sadly not. Far from being happy that its pressure has paid off, the U-S says, in effect, that [Hans] Blix [the chief weapons inspector] and the U-N and France, and Russia and all those Arab states that urged Iraq to comply are being duped. This drastic course of action is justified by suspicions, based on past experience but not by current behavior, that Iraq is not acting in good faith. The U-N inspectors must be allowed to recommence their work without further delay.

TEXT: As for the French view, this editorial from Le Monde, in Paris, suggests:

VOICE: For President Bush, the only thing that counts in judging the U-N is the implementation of the resolutions on Iraq. This attitude entertains a shared feeling in Africa, Asia and the Arab world that there is a U-N policy tailored to fit every situation, depending on whether the national interests of a major nation are at stake.

TEXT: Turning to Italy, Rome's big La Repubblica runs this report from its man in New York.

VOICE: The . U-N Security Council [seems] quite cautious, although in the [last few] hours there was a pro-U-S attitude. Russia, for instance. yesterday showed some flexibility, surprising the diplomats . [while] France seemed more flexible, as well. The prevailing impression is that both Paris and Moscow would like to agree . with the United States . [but] would oppose any formula that might justify a unilateral action by the Pentagon.

TEXT: A more jaundiced view comes from Russia, where in Moscow's Vremya Novostey there is this assessment.

VOICE: It is a stalemate, with Saddam pretending to be about to capitulate, and with [President] Bush not inclined to capture prisoners of war. The Western tradition of democratic pluralism is on a slow retreat, as [Mr.] Bush refuses to have his hands tied and demands that all in his country should speak with one voice. . Everyone realizes that the world can rein in a small aggressor, as shown by the 1991 war. But no one can stop the world's only superpower once it gets started.

TEXT: In Austria, the chief foreign affairs writer for Die Presse in Vienna sees it this way.

VOICE: Apparently, the United States' regard for the U-N is not very high. It is quite obvious Washington wants a military strike at all costs -- so Baghdad's cooperation would only spoil U-S plans.

TEXT: For those wondering what the Spanish think of all this, an indication from El Mundo in Madrid which explains:

VOICE: The adoption or not of a new [U-N] resolution should not be the most important thing: what is essential is sending the inspectors [back], letting them start their job and check to what extent they can do it without hindrances and efficiently. Only if they are prevented from carrying out this task will it be time for other measures.

TEXT: In a single Middle Eastern voice, Saudi Arabia's Al-Nadwa suggests:

VOICE: Although Iraq's approval of the return of the U-N inspection team was positive and constructive . at the same time the U-S position, backed by the U-K to pass a new United Nations Security Council resolution raises new kinds of worries.

TEXT: Skipping quickly to Asia, we read in China's special administrative region of Macau, in the Macau Daily News a somewhat fatalistic view.

VOICE: Regardless of whether or not Baghdad accepts the return of U-N weapons inspectors -- and whether or not it will comply with U-N Security Council resolutions -- the U-S plans to send troops to 'topple Saddam.' Now the focus has shifted to whether President Bush can secure legal grounds from the international community or from the U-S itself to send its troops. If both the U-S Congress and the Security Council reject [Mr.] Bush's 'right to use force,' however, he will be in a dilemma.

TEXT: Japan's huge Asahi in Tokyo is a bit more encouraged by the latest developments.

VOICE: The deal struck between Iraq and U-N weapons inspectors concerning the resumption of inspections is a step forward. But we cannot help but call the accord ambiguous because it put restrictions on inspections of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Thorough U-N inspections of all Iraqi facilities are a prerequisite for resolving the Iraq crisis.

TEXT: As for the subcontinent, Pakistan's Daily Times, based in Lahore suggests:

VOICE: The world did not accept [Mr.] Bush's stance that he didn't have to go to the U-N for another resolution for an attack on Iraq. After the latest U-N-Iraq agreement on the return of the inspection team, .world opinion will move further away from the American president.

TEXT: Moving on to our own hemisphere, we dip south of the border for this Mexican view from Jornada in Mexico City.

VOICE: . the White House does not want to prevent alleged destruction by Saddam Hussein; rather it seeks to take over Iraq to control its oil, to strengthen the Republican party for the upcoming elections, and to settle old debts [Editors: we would say in English "scores" not debts] between Hussein and [George] Bush, senior. However one [wishes to analyze] the situation, [President] Bush's urgency to begin a war against Iraq can only be fueled by secret interests or needs.

TEXT: We award today's last editorial "word" on this topic to Paraguay, and Ultima Hora in Asuncion, where we read this assessment.

VOICE: The situation is difficult: It is the choice between two evils -- a preventative war that causes irreparable damage to innocents and that could possibly become a wider conflict, or to leave a tyrant to continue building his political and economic power and his ability to eliminate entire societies.

TEXT: On that assessment, we conclude this sampling of the global press on the current issue of inspecting Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

NEB/ANG/RH