|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| October 18, 2002
IRAQ: MANY TROUBLED BY THE WAR ABOUT 'THE WAR'
|
October 18, 2002
IRAQ: MANY TROUBLED BY THE WAR ABOUT 'THE WAR'
KEY FINDINGS
** Those following U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq maintained that while Washington is dutifully going through UN channels, its "unilateralism" still threatens the body's authority.
** A majority of editorials in all regions rejected any switch from containment to preemption, arguing that an attack on Iraq would provoke, not discourage, anti-U.S., anti-West terrorism.
** Skeptics across the ideological spectrum challenged the administration to prove that its stated aims of disarming and democratizing Iraq are not a cover for advancing U.S. oil interests.
REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS
Western European, Russian media urge Washington to 'stay multilateral'--The UN Iraq debate was largely considered a tutorial in dealing with both the world's only superpower and rogue regimes as well. French writers were pleased that Paris's advocacy of a two-phase UNSC resolution had "given America's omnipotence a real pounding" and "rallied a majority of nations to back France's position." Other Western European observers, however, worried that widespread endorsement of France's position would only highlight wide-ranging U.S.-EU policy disputes. Writers regretted Europe's inability to articulate a unified foreign policy when bargaining with the U.S. A commentator on government-run France Inter concluded: "If George W. Bush wants to topple Saddam--he will do it because he has the means...and because no one can stop him." London's independent Financial Times urged Washington to "stay multilateral" on Iraq and "not treat Baghdad in isolation" from other Middle Eastern issues.
Iraq's neighbors pick away at U.S. positions--One Israeli writer questioned Washington's ability to succeed where UN inspectors had failed. Another warned Bush that Israel couldn't "sit quietly should it be attacked." Turkish observers fretted that an alleged U.S. fondness for military solutions could spell economic ruin for Turkey. A Jordanian daily complained that Bush was implausibly presenting an Iraq attack as the solution to a raft of regional and global security problems. The paper along with other Arab outlets warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq is certain to "yield more terrorists who will target America and seek revenge."
Writers representing non-European UNSC members worry about U.S. contravening international norms--State-run media in China and Syria and independents in Singapore, Mexico and Cameroon lambasted Congress' authorization of unilateral force against Baghdad, charging that it "exposed" Washington's "lack of faith" in seeking solutions within the UN framework. Singapore's pro-government Straits Times stressed that Asian leaders need the "political cover" of the UN "to offset the influence of radical Muslims among their masses, if and when an attack on Iraq becomes unavoidable."
EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke
***********************************************************
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 63 reports from 43 countries, October 9-17. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Europe's Three Ways Of Dealing With Iraq"
Gerard Baker, chief U.S. commentator for the independent Financial Times, offered this view (10/17): "Much of the angst in Europe focuses on capabilities--the enormous disparity in military hardware between the United States and the EU. But this is missing the real problem. The Iraq debate reveals something much more serious. The Europeans may be constructing their architecture of a common foreign policy... But the ground on which this complex structure rests is made of sand. The current three biggest cannot agree on the most pressing issue of foreign policy.... Europeans have divergent views of Europe's role in the world and relationship with the hyperpower, [America].... France and Britain at least share an ambition for a world role. The problem is they take fundamentally different views as to what it should be. The UK sides, as ever, with the United States.... But the French see Europe as a counterweight to U.S. power.... What prevents Europe from balancing U.S. power is not military disparity or even a radically different world view from the one that now obtains in Washington. It is not, in other words, that 'Americans are from Mars; Europeans are from Venus,'.... It is that, on the basic question of what they want Europe to be, and how they propose to deal with U.S. hegemony, the Europeans occupy a solar system of views on their own."
"The War About The War"
An editorial in the independent weekly the Economist stated (10/11): "Mr Bush should not let himself be beguiled by [recent successes in Congress and with the UN]. [He should not assume] he has now won his battle in the wider court of world opinion. He hasn't. [There have been many dissenting voices about war in Iraq, their concern is the catastrophic knock-on effect a war would have]. But many people are equally troubled by something rather different: a feeling...that the whole American case for war is somehow bogus or hypocritical. [The two most frequent accusations being that, since Bush is intent to go to war anyway, a UN mandate is mere window dressing. The other argument is that Iraq cannot rightly be accused of breaking UN sanctions when Israel has ignored UN sanctions also]. Good questions on the face of it. But they can be answered. [Bush has consistently maintained] war is not inevitable. Second, [the situation in Israel is wholly different, as there was no order of disarmament, as there was after the Gulf War]. Might some of those in the Arab world who complain about "double standard" care rather more about preventing action against Iraq that about seeing justice for the Palestinians? Perish the thought."
"Washington’s Fear Of Weapons Inspections"
Gerard Baker, chief U.S. commentator in the independent Financial TImes wrote (10/10): "Everyone thinks the inspectors are central to resolving the crisis. Everyone, that is, except the Americans.... [The assumption has been that negotiations can go one of two ways: Either Security Council inspectors would be let in, or they would not and the U.S. would proceed with military action]. Yet what if there is a third way?... Do not assume that the U.S. commitment to the UN means it is committed to a new UN inspections programme. The thing to watch out for...is whether the U.S. can find a way to ensure that the inspectors never go in at all.”
The Right Road To Baghdad"
An editorial in the independent Financial Times declared (10/9): “This is the right approach. It focuses squarely on the central issue: [Saddam’s] possession and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. There can be no case. . .for a unilateral attack on Iraq.... Without a broad base of support, intervention in Iraq could make things worse in the region, not better. There are also questions, to say the least, about pinning confrontation with Iraq to the need to defend the integrity of Security Council resolution--flouted serially by Israel over decades.... A coalition against [Saddam] needs to be more sober and determined.... [The U.S. should work towards] a UN-mandated coalition.... The alternative--unilateral U.S. action with one or two allies--is risky beyond words.... It is obvious that Iraq would be easier to deal with if the Arabs felt the international community was dealing even-handedly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A cohesive coalition would in turn make it easier for the United States to restrain Sharon.... It is time to confront a long record of policy failure in the Middle East. Staying multilateral on Iraq and not treating it in isolation would be a start."
FRANCE: "France With Panache But No Saber"
Bernard Guetta on government-run France Inter radio (10/17): "France has reiterated that a decision concerning the use of force must be taken by the UN Security Council. Not only is France opposing the United States as it has been doing for the past several months, it has just now raised its tone by a notch... In other words Jacques Chirac has threatened to use France's veto power or to abstain: If Washington persists with its attitude at the UN, this means a real break with the United States. France's message is clear.... But a feeling of malaise remains nevertheless... because in spite of the war of words at the UN, in the end, if George W. Bush wants to topple Saddam--and nothing proves he has changed his mind--he will do it with or without France's panache. He will do it because he has the means, because he has Congress's green light and because no one can stop him. The United States may have to pay a political price, but if Washington is ready to pay it... it will intervene because on the international scene the U.S. has no counterweight.... Panache is okay. A saber would be better."
"Franco-American Dissension At The UN"
Luc de Barochez wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/17): "Irritation in Washington and Paris is growing as the impossibility of reaching a compromise on Iraq becomes apparent. The UN Security Council is facing one of its thorniest decisions since WWII and yet it is moving at a snail's pace.... France, which has been giving America's omnipotence a real pounding, has also managed to rally the support of a majority of nations to back its position. Washington is therefore forced to negotiate with Paris. But the French and the Americans cannot seem to find the wording that will satisfy everyone.... Exhausted by the discussions, some diplomats claim that like two parallel lines, the French and American positions will never meet... The UN debate, like the summit on Francophony in Beirut, are two venues where France can publicly advertise the support it has garnered while showing in contrast America's isolation."
"France’s Position Reinforced"
Pierre Rousselin wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/10): “The battle France is waging to save the UN is far from won. But thanks to France there is the hope of seeing a convergence of views at the Security Council. For the time being the U.S. has given up on the idea of imposing the law of the mightiest.... The road traveled since this summer’s summons is considerable. It is a reflection of an American public opinion which is less gung-ho on war than Washington’s political class. The U.S. has finally understood it cannot be effective if it operates alone.... From the start France adopted a common sense position to which everyone is now rallying.... Because of the extreme position of everyone else, France has become a privileged interlocutor and a convergence of views is reinforcing France’s position in favor of a two-phase resolution.... The power struggle between France and the U.S. continues. Paris is resisting Washington’s demands and needs to rally to its cause the undecided, while keeping Washington in the game that is being played out at the UN. This is a risky exercise. Until now France has been maneuvering adroitly. But the stakes are such that France has a fifty-fifty chance of winning.”
GERMANY: "Ready For War"
Matthias Rueb commented in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/12): "The public debate
that has been going on for weeks now in the United States, the days of passionate discussion in the two houses of Congress, and finally the outcome of the vote, when considered objectively, clearly show the condition the United States and its political leadership find themselves on the eve of a possible war. It is not true that the President and his 'war cabinet' have refused to take into account rational arguments. The critical questions at home and abroad have led to a marked change of position. The democratic discussion has had an effect. President George W. Bush went to the United Nations in New York to seek support by the community of states--of course, connected with the announcement of going it alone, if need be.... The United States is the undisputed world power, but not even the U.S. Government, which has been reprimanded so often for its alleged unilateralism, is making a point of going it alone but is seeking allies. The change of regime in Baghdad, which, by the way, had already been demanded by Congressional resolution during President Bill Clinton's term of office, no longer has top priority among the strategic goals; but of course, it probably remains the unavoidable vehicle to achieve controlled disarmament of Iraq."
"Under Pressure"
R. Buhrow commented on ARD-TV's (national channel one) late evening newscast Tagesthemen (10/10): "Bush put considerable pressure on Congress and the world. Pressure, however, may force a decision, but it does not really convince anyone€. Saddam is an unscrupulous dictator capable of everything. That is true, but it has been true for years. There is still no evidence justifying why Saddam must be forced to his knees right now, why he suddenly is a direct threat to the United States and the free world. Along with the Iraq resolution, Bush presented Congress with a new strategic doctrine, which claims the United States' right to take preventive action. What kind of peace do we want? Not a Pax Americana, forced upon the world by U.S. weapons, said President Kennedy almost 40 years ago. One can only hope that these words still mean something to President Bush."
"Mandate For War"
Matthias Nass noted in a front-page editorial in center-left weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (10/10): “There can be no doubt anymore that President Bush is determined to wage war against Iraq if Saddam does not immediately and completely fulfill the request for disarmament.... As with Afghanistan, Bush’s Iraq policy has not unfolded recklessly. Step by step he has worked toward building political support for a war, albeit without paying much attention to counter arguments.... The United States did not suddenly discover its heart for the UN. Urged by Secretary of State Powell, it has understood, however, how important legitimization by international law is even for a superpower.... If the Security Council agrees to Chirac’s two-step resolution plan, Berlin’s strict ‘no’ ceases to be an option. It isolates Germany in the Security Council...and it prevents a common European policy. Chancellor Schroeder does not have to click his heels in front of Bush, but he should pay his respects to the French in the interest of Europe. If Germany has nothing to offer but ‘no’ to its closest allies England, France, and the United States, its foreign policy will become superfluous in the end.”
ITALY: "A Personal Opinion"
A commentary by Ugo Tramballi in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (10/17): "The Silvio Berlusconi who met with Putin yesterday in Moscow is the same person who, a few weeks ago at Camp David, said that he was in agreement with George Bush, so in agreement to promise that Italy would do its part. But, in fact, problems begin precisely when Italy--both in the past and at present--promises to do its part, i.e., to be, as always, a little here and a little there: with Putin now that we are in Moscow, and with Bush when we were at Camp David. Berlusconi made it clear that the fact that Iraq no longer has mass destruction weapons at this point is only 'a personal opinion.' That would be O.K. to say for a party leader, a businessman, the president of a soccer club, or an ordinary citizen. But the Prime Minister cannot have personal opinions, especially when he serves as Foreign Minister as well and, even more, when he travels abroad.
"His opinion is the opinion of an entire country--a country that had been promised that it would have been different."
ARMENIA: "Tectonic Changes In International Relations"
Oppositionist Orran opined (10/11), "Saddam Hussein is an 'illegal' president for Washington not because he is a dictator or because he is not establishing democracy in his country. He is simply an 'unsuitable' partner for protecting U.S. oil interests in the region. All accusations by the White House regarding Iraq and Iraqi leadership smell of 'oil'. And the United States is definitely going to attack Iraq. Iraq will be divided into parts. As a result, the situation in the Middle East and in the entire region will become more complicated and critical. Washington is 'merciless and impartial' even towards its allies. Germany is one example. The White House did not forgive Counselor Schroeder for his criticism of the U.S. policy toward Iraq.... Thus, 'tectonic changes' are occurring in international relations on a personalized basis."
AUSTRIA: "Bush And The Dangers Of Arrogance"
Senior editor Hans Rauscher commented in liberal Der Standard (10/8): "The irritating thing is that the Bush administrations' reasoning cannot be dismissed entirely, while at the same time it does fail to convince. Allowing Saddam Hussein to acquire nuclear weapons...would be disastrous. At the same time, though, the Bushies' fundamental attitude raises doubts even among the supporters of a tough position with regard to aggressors and perpetrators of genocide. No doubt, the entire Gulf region would profit from democratization.... But is the Bush administration's blasé and apparently blundering strategy really suited to achieve that?"
BELGIUM: “Diplomacy Gets The Upper Hand”
Foreign editor Gerald Papy in independent La Libre Belgique (10/9) reported: “Less than a month from the mid term elections, a poll indicating that 69 percent of the Americans would like the President to focus more on the economy reminded the latter that his fellow citizens were not as obsessed with a preventive war in Iraq as he was.... A two-phase scenario--the option which Paris, Moscow, and Beijing preferred--seems to be prevailing: a first Resolution imposing a stricter framework for the return of the UN inspectors, and a second Resolution about the use of force if Iraq does not comply.”
GREECE: "Plain Coincidence"
Independent influential Kathimerini senior commentator Costas Angelopoulos wrote (10/10): "We believe that the Greek admirers of the new ethics of U.S. foreign policy must applaud when the military operation against Iraq comes, as long as President Bush believes that Saddam Hussein not only belongs to the ‘axis of evil’ but is even worse than Milosevic. Who can forget that Washington traditionally loathes dictatorships worldwide and only supports democratic regimes? Unfortunately, there are monomaniac anti-American circles who claim that President Bush is only interested in Gulf oil. They use as their main argument the ‘plain coincidence’ that Condoleeza Rice, the President’s National Security Advisor, is a stockowner and former executive of Chevron-Texaco, that Gale Norton used to represent BP-Amoco and Saudi Delta Oil, and that VP Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO."
HUNGARY: "An Authorization For Bush"
Senior columnist Hanna Szalay held in influential business-political Vilaggazdasag (10/14): "Congress has mandated Bush to act (against Iraq). It is a clear victory for the President in the congressional voting. But the resolution...is not an overall permit for war, it applies only to a war against Iraq. The president's hands are tied, to some extent. He has regular reporting obligations. The Congressional resolution connects to certain points with the UN procedures against Iraq. It could become a useful tool in the hands of the president. It can help Bush to build a new international coalition."
IRELAND: "Ireland Set To Issue First Policy Statement On Iraq"
Conor O'Clery, North America Editor reported in the liberal Irish Times (10/17), "In its first policy statement on the crisis over Iraq at the UN Security Council, Ireland is today expected to outline a position close to that of France, which has been resisting Washington's demands for a single new resolution that could trigger the use of force.... The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen was last night expected to finalise in Dublin the text of Ireland's contribution to the debate, which could have considerable implications for Ireland-U.S. relations. Dublin's position is that any trigger for violence should be in the hands of the Security Council, an attitude that puts it firmly in France's camp. Ireland is not expected to oppose a tough new resolution on inspections, but would find several proposed U.S. conditions unacceptable. These include the ability of inspectors to take Iraqi officials and their families out of the country for interrogation, allowing any permanent council member to nominate inspection sites and receive inspectors' reports directly, creating a two-way intelligence flow to Washington, and permitting the United States to make an independent assessment on compliance."
NORWAY: "An Echo Of Bush"
Social democratic Dagsavisen (10/17) held in its lead editorial: "Norway is signaling its support for the United States in the battle for a new Iraq resolution in the Security Council.... We believe that France's proposal for moving forward is much better. It gives in a completely different way the UN Security Council control over an eventual escalation of the conflict. First, a resolution that demands weapons inspections. If the demands are not fulfilled by Iraq, the Security Council must discuss the issue anew, evaluate how serious the violations are, and decide which consequences should follow... The demand for inspection must not be formulated in such a humiliating way that no independent nation could approve it. If this happens, it will only strengthen the suspicion that this not only is about finding weapons of mass destruction, but something far more long-term, like lasting control of increasingly important oil resources."
PORTUGAL: "We Came From Baghdad"
Leftist University of Coimbra Social Studies Center director/University of Wisconsin visiting sociology Prof. Boaventura de Sousa Santos used his regular column in left-of-center leading circulation newsweekly Visão to argue (10-17): "For five hundred years, Baghdad was the reference point for 'civilized' and 'modern'.... Because of its importance, Baghdad was always an object of envy.... The West's historic debt to Baghdad is huge. We always return to it whenever we visit the roots of our culture. This time, however, the West seems to be returning to Baghdad in another spirit, that of the Mongol invaders. That is whence comes the doubt whether this return might not after all be the return of the 'Tartary monster',...giving rise to a despotism much greater than the Oriental despotism that Marx and Weber spoke of."
RUSSIA: "U.S.' Real Motives Aren't What It Claims Them To Be"
Reformist Izvestiya (10/17) published a comment by Maksim Sokolov: "All agree that Saddam Hussein is a rare type of SOB. But Bush's and Blair's charges that Hussein hungers for world domination and, therefore, needs to be bombed out immediately hold no water. Admittedly, there is no stopping Bush because his real motives are a far cry from what he claims them to be. Had the United States been really concerned about universal security and striven to check Iraq's global ambition, its politicians, supposedly sane people... would have tried to prove convincingly that Saddam Hussein (not, say, Saudi princes) is the chief danger and the world's enemy Number One. The fact that the sane politicians have not done so suggests that their true goals are somewhat different. One of them is to secure an absolute right to punish and pardon--any exception to it would relegate the absolute hegemon to the status of a nation that comes first among equals. The other goal is to gain full control over the world's oil resources and restore the cheap-oil economy, with today's high price of oil stalling America's economic progress."
"Moscow's Hard Choice"
Reformist business-oriented Kommersant (10/17) noted in a piece by Boris Volkhonskiy: "Russia's interest in Iraq has a price tag of $ 8 billion. This is the money Saddam Hussein's Iraq owes it. Russia hopes to get it back, but it may just as well be left out in the cold if it resists plans to overthrow Saddam's regime too much."
"War Leads To New World Order"
Aleksandr Kustarev held in reformist Vremya Novostey (10/16): "The effects of the U.S. campaign against Saddam are more important than its direct outcome. The conflict will bring us closer to solving the problem of a new world order.... The United States' role as a hyperpower is likely to grow. Now how does America see that role? Today its policies are a combination of isolationism and globalism. The United States has focused on fighting terrorism militarily. At the same time, Washington has ostensibly refused to take part in several major global projects (of the ICC type). A mixture of global claims and isolationism produces an ideology of 'unilaterism.' Its chief spokespeople are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a career university lady by the name of Condoleezza Rice, who believes that the United States must protect its interests. This is a throwback to the great-power rhetoric of the 19th century.... Washington seeks support from major allies or at least neutrality from some countries, Russia among them, in order to get the UN to authorize an operation in Iraq. The Americans' failure to get what they want would definitely augur ill, as they would swing to unilateralism. So maybe it would be better and safer for Europe and Russia to give in to Washington a little and sacrifice Saddam."
SLOVENIA: "Desert Embarrassment"
Left-of-center independent Vecer carried this commentary (10/11) by Vojislav Vercko: "It is almost impossible to get rid of an impression that the American Administration is determined to [remove] Saddam Hussein's regime.... Despite Iraq's yielding--which may well be only a pretense--it seems that the question is no longer whether there will be a war; the issue is when it will begin and by which coalition, and whether it will have the support of the Security Council. Operation Desert Storm II seems inevitable... [Eventual] Security Council's resolutions...will only be a cover for what has long ago been decided and outlined by the White House."
SPAIN: "Full Military Power For Bush"
Conservative ABC wrote in part (10/12): "The U.S. Senate's resolution is a real political victory for Bush and strengthens his clearly unilateralist foreign policy.... Apart from the suitability of the possible attack to Iraq, the political doctrine of acting alone if it is necessary and imposing its will and enforcing loyalty has engendered a great deal of international distrust towards the United States."
TURKEY: "War With Iraq"
Yilmaz Oztuna editorialized in mass appeal-conservative Turkiye (10/11): "It seems nothing will possibly ever change President Bush's determination for a military strike against Iraq. The operation will happen and certainly will cause serious bloodshed. What's going to happen is to take place right at the Turkish border.... Turkey has prepared for a series of problems, which might come along with the military operation, including a refugee influx.... Turkey made a big mistake by allowing some refugees into Turkish soil during the Gulf War and that better not be repeated this time.... As for the Saddam Hussein regime, this time it certainly has no chance at all. The Saddam regime has been feeding itself with blood for survival and its ending will be by blood as well. It is the time to think about Iraq in the post-Saddam period. Ankara should come up with a serious as well as sensible policy for that."
"In The Case Of Iraq War, Turkey Will Have To Knock On IMF's Door Again"
Yalcin Dogan wrote in social democrat-intellectual Cumhuriyet (10/9): "The US operation against Iraq will definitely put the Turkish economy at serious risk...the political side of the picture is not any better than the economic. Turkey will have to deal with the northern Iraq problem and will most likely have to face a Kurdish state.... In the event of war, Turkey's financial losses will be huge and the refugee problem that comes along with the operation will not be helpful either. In sum, neither side is bright for Turkey's future. ... As the Minister of State for economy notes, Turkey's current economic reform program will also be at stake in the case of war."
YUGOSLAVIA: "Referendum Results Won't Shield Saddam"
Official Politika (10/17) discussed why Saddam Hussein’s attempt to use the referendum results as the shield against U.S. threats is going to fail: " All we have to do now is wait for the resource centers of Pentagon and CIA, the same centers that had not been able to prevent the September 11, to some how connect Baghdad with the massacre in Bali. In other words, like Saddam [who attempted to protect himself with the referendum] the U.S. is providing legitimacy of the attacks on Iraq.”
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "A Dangerous Partner"
Senior columnist Zeev Schiff wrote in independent Ha'aretz (10/11): "Coordination with the U.S. ahead of a possible war is essential. Israel, too, has some important questions to ask. For example, in the wake of an Iraqi attack on Israel using weapons of mass destructio --chemical or biological--will Israel have to obtain an American okay in order to retaliate militarily, or will consultation be sufficient, even though the response is not automatic? Such coordination will undoubtedly require further talks between the senior professional levels, after the Sharon visit and the meeting between the two leaders."
"The Iraqi Trap"
Conservative columnist Nadav Haetzni wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (10/9): "During the past week, the United States has increased its demands that Israel be a good child and sit quietly should it be attacked by Iraq. There can be no argument over the fact that the friendship with the U.S. forces Israel to be enthusiastic about meeting President Bush--to the limit of Israel's capability. But Israel has already been asked to pay much more than it can.... All told, if someone wants to buy Israel's verbal and physical restraint, he should compensate Israel, not punish it.... Good children increasing their sweet neighbors' motivation to spurn them. Therefore, should it turn out that Israel will become the sacrificial lamb in the expected Iraqi bash, Israel will have to ruin the party. Most likely, messing up the American party will be necessary to be able to get out of the trap, but it could also serve to rehabilitate the bad child image associated with Israel, which has been so badly damaged."
WEST BANK: "War Beyond Iraq”
Rajab Abu Sariya commented in independent Al-Ayyam (10/8): “The American administration will not be satisfied with any outcome of its war on Iraq short of changing Iraq’s regime. This fact explains why President Bush criticized his ally British PM Blair, who stressed on the importance of resolving the Middle East conflict after the war on Iraq is concluded… The Bush administration seems to be planning for a war that will go beyond Iraq to reshape the whole region… in an effort to keep the Arab political regimes loyal to U.S. policies. This administration also aims at meeting the needs of the ever-growing American imperialism by employing Arab societies to serve the American interests in the region and the whole world.”
EGYPT: "Calling A Spade A Spade"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram's senior columnist Salama Ahmed Salama (also in English-language Al Ahram Weekly) (10/17): "Having secured Congressional approval for the use of military force against Iraq, the White House is now confident that it will overcome reservations by France and Russia in the UNSC.... Now it will be harder for [Arab countries] to straddle the fence.... Over the past few weeks U.S. policy has substantially succeeded in changing the position of the Iraqi leadership.... But with every concession made by the Iraqis, the ceiling of U.S. demands kept rising, just enough to push the humiliation of the Iraqi government and people beyond a level they are able to bear.... The double standards are glaring and so is the powerlessness of Arab governments.... They cannot antagonize the Americans and yet, they have no comforting words for their own people.... Washington is not calling a spade a spade. When its marines were attacked in Kuwait...it claimed that the attackers were linked to al-Qaida.... It is hard to imagine that this attack will be the last. The people of the region, including those of Iraq's worst adversaries, have obviously had enough of U.S. policies and some may just well decide to cross the line from rhetoric to resistance. The horrific explosion in Bali, Indonesia, and the suicide attack against French oil tanker...off Yemeni shores, provide some food for thought.".
LEBANON: "Against The American War"
An editorial by Ali Hamadeh in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (10/8) read: "Washington says that a change in Iraq will be a democratic change - however, this democratic Washington should be focusing on preventing itself from this criminal bias towards Israel. We also believe that Washington can definitely attack Iraq, oust the current regime and establish a new one. However, it will never be able to find a safe place for itself in an Arab or Islamic country. As much as the Arab people hate their own regimes, they certainly hate a thousandfold more, to be occupied by American Armies in the name of democracy. New calls for resisting the new American enemy will be heard. ...Rejecting the American war on Iraq is actually rejecting imprisonment by Americans. The issue of Arab corrupt leaders is our concern, not the concern of George W. Bush and his administration."
JORDAN: “Blank Check”
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek wrote in semi-official, influential Arabic-language Al-Ra’i (10/15): “The U.S. Congressional decision to authorize President Bush of launching war on Iraq is not a blank check and it is not an authorization to declare war as newspapers have said. The decision has tied the President’s hands and placed conditions that are hard to meet.... It is very likely that such an attack [on Iraq] will yield more terrorists who will target America and seek revenge. The most important source for anti-American terrorism lies in the Arabs and Muslims’ feelings of degradation and insult and complete helplessness in the face of America’s power. Without a doubt, occupying Iraq and appointing a American military governor in Baghdad will be the biggest insult to every Arab and Muslim.”
MOROCCO: "Repetition Of The Mistake"
Inside page editorial of Al Ittihad Weekly signed by Lahcen Laassbi said (10/11): "What the U.S., led by George Bush, is planning looks almost like the scenario for the Arab world at the beginning of the last Century... Strategic centers in the United States do not hesitate to talk about preparing new maps of the Arab world. They are talking about a new situation in Iraq, a probable partition of Saudi Arabia and a confederation solution for Palestinians. All these new maps aimed at protecting Israel.... We are afraid that Arabs will once again be the victims at the beginning of this new century."
SAUDI ARABIA: "A Dreadful Plan"
Jeddah's conservative Al-Madina editorialized (10/13): "The report published by the American New York Times on plans to occupy Iraq raises many questions about the future of international relations, the real reasons behind the determination of the administration of President Bush to strike Baghdad, and its downplay of the Iraqis statements and proposals, which accept inspection without any conditions.... The published plan not only calls for exclusion of the Iraqi opposition...but also inaugurates a new and dangerous phase in the history of international relations where countries are attacked preventively and to occupy nations in the name of democracy."
SYRIA: "Americanization Of The Security Council"
Ahmad Dawa, a commentator in government-owned Al-Thawra, wrote (10/15): "U.S. pressures on the Security Council have started jeopardizing its authority and international prestige.... Congressional authorization for Bush to conduct an open war against Iraq should motivate the Security Council to decisively reject President Bush's attempts to Americanize the Security Council. But the UN Secretary General's statement to a group of US students that the Security Council can rebut any U.S. pressure to legitimize any war anywhere in the world, in contradiction of President Bush's statement 'you are either with us or against us,' gives us a little hope."
"Miscalculations"
Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned Syria Times, editorialized (10/8): "A first reading of the proposed Security Council resolution on Iraq presented by the US suggests that it was purposely drafted to be instantly rejected and lead to war.... Is anything more intimidating than this? Certainly not. But why was it purposely drafted to be instantly rejected? This is simply to allow the UN weapons inspectors to end up wielding more power than the Iraqi government itself. They would be escorted by a large number of US troops and would be able to enter any site.... Analysts say that if the UN Security Council agrees to incorporate the bulk of these American-British conditions in a new resolution, Iraq will reject them. Washington would then have a ready-made excuse for war against Iraq. If not, the US war will be against both Iraq and the UN. President Bush might start by turning his guns on Iraq in the near future, but no one could tell how they would be silenced. The man who miscalculated so massively so many times during his first year in office might not be immune to miscalculation in the future. Mr. Bush's apparent determination to go to war - with or without UN endorsement - will have negative consequences not only on Iraq, but also on the whole region and well as the US. Let's hope that wisdom and not miscalculation prevails."
TUNISIA: "Who Is Giving The Bad Example?"
Editor-in-Chief Mustapha Khammari stated in independent French-language Le Temps (10/15), "The enthusiasm with which Bush has welcomed the Congressional and the Senate green light to strike Iraq, without UN agreement, is misplaced. Any military initiative without the Security Council agreement is comparable to aggression. It strengthens the position of those who revolt against American unilateralism. The recent events in Bali show that blind violence is synonymous to horror. This attack could only be firmly condemned... At the same time we should condemn in force, the ones who hurried to accuse Muslims in order to substantiate the idea of a crime by Muslims, even before the investigations had started.... All these factions who use violence could only be countered by referring to international law, which should be respected everywhere and with the same determination. Hence, it is urgent to refer to this international law as applied to Iraq as well as to Palestine."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Liberating Iraq From Its People"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al Khaleej (10/12) editorialized: "The White House announces good news, saying that Iraq under U.S. supervision--or more accurately, occupation--will sell more oil. This is a clear admission that basically, the motive behind the invasion is to control the oil, which Washington wants directly in its hands. In spite of all this, the American administration calls the planned aggression a 'liberation'; it is indeed so, but actually a liberation of Iraq from its people and its independence."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "The Facts About U.S. intervention"
An op-ed in the business oriented Australian Financial Review (10/9) from NSW Solicitor General and author Michael Sexton read: "In the recent public debate concerning the events of September 11, 2001 and the possibility of some action against Iraq, some contributors appear to hold massive preconceptions about the United States' recent history Many of these myths seems to be based on a view that the US is responsible for all of the world's problems or that, even if it is not, it has a duty to deal with those problems. On the other hand, as soon as the US does intervene, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of another country it is roundly criticized... Let's have a debate about Iraq, but without these modern history fables that seem to have clouded the issues over recent months."
CHINA: "U.S. Unilateralism Spells Danger"
Xin Bei commented in the official English-language newspaper China Daily (10/14): "However, with Congressional authorization of the unilateral use of force, the United States exposed not only its lack of faith in seeking peaceful solutions within the UN framework but also its determination to weaken fundamental UN principles. On the one hand, the Congressional authorization will discourage Bush from being patient enough to seek UN support. On the other hand, it irresponsibly put a U.S. legal stamp on the use of force, which goes against international law. The United States cannot claim the moral high ground with its doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against a sovereign state.”
"U.S.-Iraq Prewar Contest Is White-hot"
Tu Longde commented in the official popular Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao, 10/8): “Analysts think that, at present, the prewar contest between the United States and Iraq is white-hot. According to the analysts, the Bush administration eagerly attempts to launch military attacks on Iraq for the following reasons: First, the publicity of ousting Saddam will help the United States exert further pressure on the UN to pass a resolution that grants the United States the authorization of war against Iraq. Furthermore, the publicity also helps strengthen the U.S.’ allies' conviction. Second, since the U.S. mid-term election is coming, the publicity of ousting Saddam and anti-terrorism can divert American people’s attention away from the depressing domestic economy. In this way, a good foundation for Bush to be re-elected in the future is established.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "The Courage To Lead"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post opined (10/9): "Opinion polls suggest the U.S. public supports war but is at best uneasy. Some suggest Usama bin Laden is still considered a greater immediate threat.... Waging war is the greatest responsibility placed upon a president. Once the mid-term elections are over, he must make a solid and objective review of his options for dealing with Mr. Hussein and his weapons stockpiles. Other, less dramatic or dangerous means may suddenly seem viable. Taking such a path would run counter to the rhetoric of the present, but it need not be seen as a retreat. Given the characters who surround him, it might well prove courageous. And that is what defines great leadership."
JAPAN: "U.S. Should Listen to World Voices"
The moderate Tokyo Shimbun editorialized (10/15): "An unexpectedly large number of U.S. lawmakers voted against the war powers resolution. We are concerned that President Bush, encouraged by the resolution's passage, is more likely to opt for preemptive strikes (against Iraq). If the U.S. launches a preemptive strike, it would deal a serious blow to the prestige of the United Nations and world order. As the leader of the world's only superpower, the president needs to recognize these risks and listen to world voices. Iraq will have to behave sincerely and accept weapons inspections thoroughly and unconditionally."
MALAYSIA: "Shadows Of Saddam Make Bush Ignore His Own Citizens"
Government-influenced, Malay-language Berita Harian opined (10/17): "Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir has criticized America's plans to attack Iraq based on the possibility that the country has nuclear weapons. At the same time, America turns a blind eye to Israel, and in fact, assists the Jewish regime in developing nuclear weapons. Nine people in Washington have been shot, and if Bush can't even take the weapon away form the shooter, how can he continue pushing for a war with Iraq because it wants to take away that country's nuclear weapons?"
PHILIPPINES: "Deliver Us From Evil"
Carmen N. Pedrosa wrote in her column in the third leading Philippine Star (10/17): "With heightened emotions and political pundits predicting the U.S. will attack Iraq with or without UN mandate, it will be tempting to forego due process. Cooler heads should intervene. On the contrary, this is the time to pause and reflect on what the UN, the world body of 190 nations, is about.... All right thinking people should support its collective voice and provide a sense of order in our troubled world. For this task, America's support, as the sole superpower in the world is crucial. America must be persuaded that its threats to go it alone using brute superiority against Iraq will destroy both the world order and recourse to the rule of law making it no different from the terrorism it condemns. But more poignantly it will destroy the American dream."
SINGAPORE: "Why Anti-American Feelings Are On Rise In East Asia"
Jusuf Wanandi of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta wrote in an op-ed page commentary in the pro-government Straits Times (10/17), said: "U.S. policy towards Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who Muslims in Southeast Asia do not consider a real Muslim leader, has not generated much negative reaction yet. But moderate leaders will need a political cover, such as a UN Security Council authorization, to offset the influence of radical Muslims among their masses, if and when an attack on Iraq becomes unavoidable.... Given enough political cover, East Asian leaders can overcome pressures from the public and cooperate to fight America's war on global terrorism. For Muslim leaders in particular, this is possible only if the United States shows some balance in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This means that real changes are needed in some U.S. policies and attitudes. U.S. policy needs to show real concern about the plight of others and a willingness to listen."
SOUTH KOREA: “Iraqi Issue And U.S.-North Relations”
Ha Yong-chul, Professor of Diplomacy at Seoul National University, observed in the moderate Hankook Ilbo (10/17): “The U.S.’ tenacious push to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is upsetting its diplomatic balance. Recently Mexico complained that talks with the U.S. on pending issues have remained in a complete deadlock since September 11. U.S.- North Korea relations are no exception… This is because the U.S. does not want to complicate its diplomacy by improving relations with the North, one of the ‘axis of evil’ nations… Furthermore, if the U.S. successfully replaced Hussein with a new figure, the U.S. attitude toward North Korea’s Kim Jong-il regime could grow much harsher, further setting back bilateral negotiations to normalize diplomatic ties.... The ROK should discuss the implications of U.S. dealings with Iraq on North Korean issues with relevant countries, including Japan, China and Russia, as well as continue to persuade the U.S. of its position on the North.”
VIETNAM: "Spanning A Bridge Towards War"
Quang Loi wrote in Vietnam People's Army daily Quan Doi Nhan Dan, (10/17): "An invisible force is pushing the US along the path of wanting to use force to revenge. The one that is fanning this terrible psychological flame is nobody else but the 43rd president of the United States and hawkish figures in his administration. The top leader of the U.S today is determined to accomplish what his father failed to complete: eliminating totally and eternally S. Hussein.... In the chess game on Iraq, the White House also wants to send out a message about its will and supreme power of the US as a superpower, which no one should dare to challenge. Iraq is becoming a place to experiment the new national security strategy. Looking at it from this angle, the war on Iraq creates a new, worrying situation not only in the Gulf region but also for the entire political and military life in the early years of the 21st century.... At the same time, the war, if it breaks out,... the US will become a target for terrorist groups to attacks. Violence gives birth to more violence. Therefore, it will be hard to end the spiral of violence."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: Bush Isolated"
Hyderabad -based right-of-center Newstime held (10/11), " Both President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, the principal gung-ho proponents of war against Iraq have been desperately trying up to shore up domestic support in their own countries, despite fear and scepticism in the public about the efficacy and prudence of such action. Of the two, Bush has been more successful. Blair failed to win unqualified support even from his own Labor Party at its annual conference last week, and he himself had to tone down his support for any prospective action to a degree which suggested that Britain may not, after all, go along blindly with Bush's adventurist plans ... Blair linked the situation in Iraq with that in West Asia as a whole. He said that a Palestinian state should be declared and that Israel should withdraw from All Palestinian areas at once. With that, Blair pacified the strong pro-Arab lobby in Britain. His new stance will also make it impossible for Bush to agree, for no American President can afford to go against the Jewish lobby in his country. With that, the Grand Coalition between George Bush and Tony Blair may well collapse."
IRAN: "Why Didn't U.S. Target Iraqi Chem Weapons In Iran-Iraq War?"
Tehran's official Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran asserted (10/8): "Mr Kazemzadeh, a specialist at the radio news research and commentary unit [said].... 'The point that must not be overlooked is that the following question is raised for public opinion: Why did America not adopt this kind of stance when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in the course of the imposed [Iran-Iraq] war? This, too, highlights a kind of duality in America's behaviour. Public opinion also stresses the following point: Why is it that, whilst America is underlining the need for a new resolution against Iraq, it does not adopt this stance on the need to resolve the Middle East conflict and demand that a new resolution be passed against the Zionist regime?'"
PAKISTAN: "Iraq: America's Extremist Behavior"
The pro-Muslim League Urdu-language Pakistan (10/8) editorialized: "It is evident from President Bush and other senior American officials’ statements that the U.S., for its political and economical objectives, has decided to attack Iraq. Meanwhile, the permanent members of UNSC -- France, China and Russia -- have played a commendable role in stopping the U.S. from its aggressive intentions. But it seems that despite pressure from its western allies and the international community, the U.S. is unyielding and is looking for an opportunity to attack Iraq.... France, Russia, China and other developed countries are of the view that no action should be taken without UN approval. The General Assembly has already become ineffective. Now America is bent upon making the Security Council useless."
AFRICA
CAMEROON: "Babel"
Yaounde-based opposition, French-language Mutations opined (10/16), "In the United States where people are always one step ahead of the whole world, one discusses, elaborates, and ponders geopolitical problems. So, at the White House, (experts) are very seriously studying a post-Saddam scenario in Iraq, in which they foresee that after the--surely victorious--war that Bush will wage on Saddam, the United States will occupy and rule the country for a long time. Just to 'civilize it': which means teaching fellow Iraqis how to take off their boubous and wear blue jeans, Iraqi mothers how to serve hamburgers to their children instead of couscous, to speak Yankee rather than Arabic.... One doesn't know who will pay for the 'civilization' of Iraq. For people in Washington, this is not certainly not a problem. (Iraq)'s abundant oil reserves can pay for everything. And the rest will go to fill America's coffers that will have been emptied to purchase bombs and military equipment in order to 'pacify' Iraq."
GHANA : "Save The World From A Bush War"
The Insight, a leftist privately-owned bi-weekly with regional circulation ran this commentary in its (10/11-15) edition: "The attitude of Washington towards UN resolutions and their enforcement demonstrates nothing but double standards, hypocrisy, arrogance, disrespect for international norms and lack of moral principles. The most recalcitrant member state of the UN is the state of Israel.... Let the voices of reason prevail against the unbridled arrogance and inordinate ambitions of the U.S. political establishment, whose interest clearly does not converge with that of the world's majority of people....Our governments must listen and wake up to articulate the genuine concerns of our people by calling upon the USG to stop their plan to attack Iraq and save our world a Bush war."
SOUTH AFRICA: "War And Word Games"
Pro-government, Afro-centric Sowetan commented (10/15), "It is becoming emphatically clear the Mr. George Bush...will stop at nothing to force what he terms a regime change in Baghdad - his euphemism for an attack on Iraq... We hold no brief for Saddam.... He is not popular in the Arab world, but an attack against him would see them lining up behind him. However, our grave concern arises from the damage that a US-UK (unilateral) attack on Iraq would do to the doctrine of multilateralism. The UN's standing, as a world body, would be fatally compromised by an attack. An attack on Iraq might just prompt Saddam to use his weapons of mass destruction, including against his own countrymen. Also, imagine the impact of the war on civilians. Has this crossed Bush's mind?... Why is Bush so keen on the war? Bush has just survived a round of damaging corporate scandals. A war might just help shore up his showing at opinion polls. In weeks, he is facing crucial mid-term elections. Of course, there is this other little commodity beneath Iraq's soil--oil."
ZAMBIA: "U.S. Urged To Exhaust All The Channels Of Diplomacy In The Iraq Stalemate"
The government-owned Zambia Daily Mail held (0/12): "Ordinarily the U.S. resolve to compel Iraq to respect the will of the UN is a good restraint to any international outlaw. But the fact that the U.S. will only apply its moral leadership selectively, undermines the very core of their intended action against the Gulf state.... Some misinformed and mischievous Arabs will find an
attack on Iraq fertile ground on which to ply their evil activities against innocent citizens, both
American citizens and other nationalities too. We urge caution to all those who control the U.S. instruments of power to exhaust all the channels of diplomacy in the Iraq stalemate.... The U.S. risks losing its hard earned points in the global coalition against terrorism which many across race, religion and political ideology barriers have so passionately supported."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA: "France At Odds With Bush Again Over Iraqi Crisis"
Maria Laura Avignolo, leading Clarin's Paris-based correspondent, wrote (10/17) "More frustrated now by France's opposition to their plans regarding Iraq, Bush's cabinet yesterday decided to 'toughen their stance' against their French peers. Colin Powell told his French counterpart over the phone 'The time has come for France to take action.'"
CHILE: "Europe Divided On Iraq"
International affairs journalist Raul Sohr wrote in government-owned, editorially independent La Nacion (10/11): "The perception is that a military conflict would create greater threats than those it seeks to eliminate."
GUATEMALA: "The Responsibility Of George W. Bush"
Leading, moderate morning daily Prensa Libre (10/13) said in its main editorial: "There seem to be few doubts that the U.S. Senate will not give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq.... Although the resolution clearly states the need to exhaust diplomacy, it is evident this will not work because of the notoriously mad personality of the man who governs Iraq that is a potential threat to the peace in the entire world.... This makes the responsibility that President Bush has really overwhelming.... The United States allies have much to say and are also divided, with Germany as an example of opposition. But among all, the president's responsibility lies on his orders that mean the deaths of U.S. soldiers, something that public opinion is not willing to accept."
MEXICO: "Mexico And The War"
Manuel J. Jauregui writes in independent Reforma (10/16): "Those knowledgeable say that if U.S. President George Walker Bush wants to give Saddam Hussein two slaps in the wrist he will have to do it before Thanksgiving....and if not, he will have to wait until next year. So the longer takes for any actions to begin, it becomes less likely for us to wake up with the news that Iraq's little pieces are being carried in a wagon. The economic impact of a possible war would be considerable, but without any doubt, oil is the factor most likely to disrupt world economy in a considerable manner, and Mexico plays an important role regarding this.... It is almost a fact that the United States would ask Mexico to increase its oil production, if the launching of missiles begins. But the question is, how much more oil would Mexico be able to pump into the international markets?... Mexico remains as an observer, due to its little decision-making power, a victim of a dangerous game that not only jeopardizes oil-price stability, but the world economy in general and the U.S. economy in particular."
"Sovereignty And Foreign Policy"
Jose Blanco commented in far-left Jornada (10/15): "Defending sovereignty today against the only world's only dominant power--which has resuscitated Theodore Roosevelt's 'big stick policy' as a moral imperative --could only mean defending international law via all possible alliances, and fighting to make international law more democratic, something that has been very unsatisfactory. Regarding Iraq, the Mexican position should not be other than to defend the legal framework formed by the UN Charter to regulate the Security Council."##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
