|
Office of Research
Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Western Hemisphere |
| November 15, 2002
IRAQ: SADDAM'S 'YES' TO UNSC VIEWED AS 'POSTPONING THE INEVITABLE'
|
November 15, 2002
IRAQ: SADDAM'S 'YES' TO UNSC VIEWED AS 'POSTPONING THE INEVITABLE'
KEY FINDINGS
** Observers worldwide had little confidence that Saddam Hussein would actually comply with UNSC Resolution 1441 but agreed this would be his "last chance" to "save his head."
** While relieved that military intervention has been averted "for the time being," writers worried that given Washington's "resolve" and Saddam's "unpredictability," the specter of war still loomed.
** Most praised the unanimous UNSC vote, declaring it a victory for diplomacy and multilateralism; detractors carped that it was "intentionally ambiguous" to favor U.S. ambitions.
MAJOR THEMES
Saddam Hussein is playing his usual 'game of delays,' his cooperation dubbed a 'sham'-- With many papers deriding the Iraqi parliament's "show" of rejecting the UN as part of a "miserable burlesque," virtually none was surprised by Saddam's letter of "acceptance." Writers agreed that Hussein was neither "stupid" nor so "suicidal" as to give the U.S. "a pretext to attack," but, as a center-left German paper put it, "time will tell whether he will be clever enough to give up his usual trick of impeding the...weapons inspectors." A number, including some Arab dailies, concurred that "the ball was in Iraq's court," and insisted that Baghdad has "no choice but to give up its WMD." Many believed that "the moment of truth was coming closer" for Saddam. Moscow's reformist Izvestiya asserted that "for all the bombast and skillfully staged show, Hussein practically has no room for maneuver." Tel Aviv's ultra-Orthodox Yated Ne'eman, however, issued a familiar warning that Saddam, "is an inveterate liar, who specializes in...repeatedly deceiving the U.S."
Diplomacy puts use of force on hold, but fears of 'postponing the inevitable' remain-- While many were relieved that an immediate war had been averted, they nevertheless cautioned that "uncertainty still prevails." Capturing a common concern, a Czech writer averred that Iraq's submission meant "only a postponement of war." Others, especially writers in the Arab press, saw an American strike as "inevitable." Cairo's pro-government Al Akhbar intoned: "Before the resolution's ink dried, America's vicious threats against Iraq were issued." Skeptics stressed that President Bush "wanted to get Saddam" not "get inspectors into Iraq." Budapest's right-wing Magyar Nemzet declared, "It's about [Saddam] this time. About his ouster."
UNSC 'ultimatum' has Saddam's 'back against the wall' but provides U.S. with 'flexibility' to find excuses to attack-- After acknowledging the UNSC vote to be a "victory" for multilateralism, many went on to complain that the resolution left room for interpretation. Some speculated Washington would be looking for "excuses." They also worried that the U.S., with its perceived "need" for this war, risked undermining the credibility of the UN inspectors. A Hong Kong paper claimed that "the U.S. will exert its considerable influence to win its way in the UN."
EDITOR: Irene Marr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 89 reports from 57 countries over 9-15 November. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Now Reel Him In"
An editorial in the independent weekly Economist argued (11/15): "By being plainly willing to use force, Bush has put Saddam on the end of a hook from which even this serial prevaricator may now be unable to wriggle free.... It is possible...that war can be averted.... But there remains ample scope for miscalculation. And even if he complies fully with the new resolution, thereby ending the immediate crisis, Saddam's long duel with America will not be over.... In the end, as [Saddam] must know, it is Bush's finger, not the UN's which is on the trigger.... Arguably, the harder decision for America is how to react if, against all precedent, Saddam does now swallow his pride and submit without demur to the council's will. In that case, Bush should eventually be willing to declare victory and call off his threatened invasion.... America has both a duty to honour its own word, and-if it is to be taken seriously in future-an interest in doing so. Even if Saddam survives, Bush could be justly proud of a policy that ended with the non-violent disarming of Iraq."
"Saddam's Latest Twist"
The conservative Daily Telegraph stated (11/14): "Bush's policy of diplomacy backed by a readiness to use force has achieved an extraordinary transformation in Saddam's attitude..... Saddam has accepted terms much more stringent than those pertaining four years ago.... However, Saddam know that lying and obstruction could put him in material breach of his obligation and thereby furnish a casus belli. The apparent survival of UBL in the form of an audio tape in which he threatens America's allies including Britain, is a blow to Bush's war on terror. But at least the dictator on the Tigris is once again having to twist and turn in his fight for survival."
"Saddam's Poor Options"
Roula Khalaf wrote in the independent Financial Times (11/12): "Saddam stands alone. The world has turned against him, united in a single clear ultimatum.... Mr. Hussein is not likely to be panicking yet, however.... Reading his next move is not easy. He has, at different times, shown himself to be both a logical pragmatist and a reckless gambler, a shrewd tactician but a poor strategist.... The dilemma Mr. Hussein now confronts is whether he can comply with UN requirements without undermining his own rule.... Underestimating Washington's determination this time could prove suicidal. But as he casts around for ways to delay a U.S. invasion, Mr. Hussein runs the parallel risk that the changes he might make to the way Iraq is ruled could prove irreversible. Emboldened by the elimination of the regime's weapons...Iraqis could shed their fears but not their memories of his brutal rule. One way or another, it seems, the suffering population can look forward to some form of regime change."
FRANCE: "Bush Hopes To Push Saddam Into Making A Mistake"
Jean-Jacques Mevel reporting from Washington in right-of-center Le Figaro (11/15): "Everything indicates that Washington is looking to catch Iraq in a lie. From now until December 8 the United States will hide what it knows or doesn't know, leaving Saddam in the dark until he shows his hand. In the meantime the United States will continue to re-enforce its troops in the Gulf.... Anonymous sources in Washington have indicated that one or two 'patent breaches' will be enough to trigger Washington's firepower with or without the UN's green light. For Washington, December 8 is a key date."
"Battling George"
Alain Genestar in right-of-center weekly Paris Match (11/14): " President Bush's obsession is to topple Saddam.... President Bush never faltered, pushing Saddam against the wall.... It is clear that in this fragile moment of history what was needed was a leader like Bush, even if he falls short of our European criteria which tend to favor class over effectiveness. Without Bush Sept. 11 would have been followed by fervent prayers and wise speeches on the responsibility of the rich and the misery of the poor. Without him those countries that arm and support terrorism, including Iraq, would continue to go unpunished and the UN would continue to sleep. What we must worry about is the next step.... Bush has already won his wrestling match with Saddam... His gun is out of the holster. Although he has not started to shoot, he will undoubtedly start soon."
"Iraq Accepts The Resolution"
Jacques-Hubert Rodier opined in right-of-center economic-focused Les Echos (11/14): "By accepting the UN resolution the Iraqi president is simply buying time knowing full well that by the end of February or beginning of March the first sand storms and the heat in the region will make a military operation more difficult.... It would also be unlikely that the American armed forces stay in full alert for that long...but for now Saddam Hussein has chosen voluntary disarmament...and perhaps the U.S. will not have to launch hostilities. The margin is very slim and the White House is waiting for Iraq to transform words into action."
GERMANY: "Only A Beginning"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger argued in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/15): "The 'supreme adventurer' in the White House deserves our praise. It is a great achievement that the UN Security Council, after years of inactivity and the shameful acceptance of flagrant unruliness, was prompted to remember its duties again. The situation has changed because President Bush is serious. The other 14 members of the UNSC have now understood this. Thus the Security Council finally did what it has to do.... The future course of the Iraq conflict will now depend on Saddam's calculations and on the strength of the pillars of his rule in the coming weeks. In any case, the work and the presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq will set in motion a dynamic development that could lead to a 'de-Saddamization' of Iraq and of which nobody can ever say where it will politically end. But it would be a misunderstanding to believe that the whole matter is settled by sending inspectors. At issue is the disarmament of an 'unacceptable--regime, not whether this or that palace will be checked. At issue is the expulsion of the specter of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons out of the region. This is the goal of the UN."
"Between War And Peace"
Peter Muench had this to say in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/15): "Paper is patient, not the Americans. Everybody in the UN Security Council, who raised his hand knew in favor of the UN resolution knew this. But does Saddam Hussein also know? The letter from Baghdad accepting Resolution 1441 does not give a clear answer. On the one hand, it signals concessions towards the pressure of the international community. On the other hand, the nine-page letter contains an unpleasant number of excuses and provisos. Doubts about the Iraqi leadership's willingness for peace continue to exist. Everything else would be naïve and negligent. But it would be as negligent not to give the Iraqis a true chance to demonstrate insight and at least a healthy instinct to survive."
"Accepted"
Wolfgang Guenter Lerch editorialized in an editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (11/14): "The quick decision.is unmasking the previous 'struggle' of the Iraqi parliament for a decision as a miserable burlesque, which it was right from the onset. The Iraqi dictator will now explain his decision as a responsible move and present himself as man of reason and prince of peace to the people's 'representatives' who allegedly opposed the acceptance of the UN resolution.... We cannot believe that the coming weeks and months will now turn into an easy time for the UN and its inspectors.... The time of conciliatory gestures should finally be over."
"Hurry In Iraq"
Peter Muench noted in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (11/14): "Saddam looked around but...there was no crack anywhere where he could drive a wedge.... Saddam is certainly not stupid and will not act in a suicidal manner by supplying the Americans a reason for war by rejecting the resolution. But time will tell whether he will be clever enough to give up his usual tricks to impede the upcoming controls of the weapons inspectors. He should be aware of the fact that he will fall into the trap which he will set up for the inspectors. There is no doubt about Washington's resolve to disarm Iraq - peacefully or by using force. According to the current result, which is only an interim stage, President Bush can score the points, which his predecessor did not score for years. Four years after they were thrown out, the weapons inspectors are allowed to return but with a much more robust mandate than in the past. With such a move, progress has been achieved, and Bush should be satisfied with it."
ITALY: "'That Letter Is Not At All Convincing"
Arturo Zampaglione's article from New York in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica read (11/15): "The nine-page letter by Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has done nothing but accentuate George W. Bush's doubts and step up war preparations. In other countries, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, the text was welcomed with a sense of relief and hope. On the contrary, to the Americans, the nine pages taste of challenge and offense.... (However) if one reads between the lines, Baghdad's 'yes' to resuming weapons inspections isn't at all unconditional. And its careful selection of every single word could be a premonition of a dramatic turn of events."
"Good And Bad News"
Prominent foreign affairs commentator Franco Venturini wrote on the front page of centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (11/14): "A tactical tug-of-war between Saddam Hussein and George Bush began yesterday, there will be other moves aimed at international public opinion, and Iraq will try to respond to the White House's unchanged determination with the weapon of innocent messages for the media.... Saddam's efforts are desperate.... The United States has reserved the right to intervene as soon as, in its opinion, Baghdad commits a violation of the UNSC ultimatum, and Bush will retain a free hand even after UN inspectors present their report on February 21.... The only solution is to believe Bush when he says that his goal is to deprive Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and not to wage war at all costs and overthrow Saddam. After all, such confidence would allow us to state that yesterday, with the first 'yes' from Iraq, a step towards peace has been made. But to believe that is a different thing."
"The Dictator's Plot"
Prominent strategic analyst Stefano Silvestri commented on the front page of leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (11/13): "The Iraqi regime has no interest whatsoever in speeding up a war. It is much more likely that Saddam, after formally agreeing to comply with the resolution, will begin his usual game of delays and search for details that may somehow delay the conflict and allow him to weave his political plot, seeking support or at least partial neutrality in the Arab world. Saddam, in fact, has realized at this point that he is unable to find substantial support in either Europe or Russia, but he is also aware that many Arab states, first of all Saudi Arabia, would try to avoid a war that would cost them a lot on the political level, giving new strength to the internal opposition inspired by radical fundamentalism, and perhaps also to terrorism."
RUSSIA: "Show Is Over"
Anatoliy Maksimov commented in reformist Izvestiya (11/14): "The show Saddam carefully staged over the last few days is over. The warlike resolution of the Iraqi parliament rejecting the UN's humiliating diktat has been put to rest. Nobody has given in to the Iraqi bluff or rushed to plead with the international community for easing off a bit on Baghdad. Even the countries (Russia, France and the Arab brethren) Hussein considers his allies and patrons have taken a tough stand telling him not to play with fire."
"Dark PR"
Maksim Yusin said in reformist Izvestiya (11/13): "The rowdy vote in parliament, warlike statements, calls for Arab solidarity and a war to the bitter end all are elements of Saddam's dark PR action.... For all the bombast and skillfully staged show, Hussein practically has no room for maneuver. Nor does he have much time, having either to accept the resolution or turn it down, thereby signing a verdict for himself and his regime."
AUSTRIA: "A Test--Not Only For Saddam"
Foreign affairs writer Stefan Galoppi opined in mass-circulation Kurier (11/15): "Should Bush lose his patience and rashly start war in order to enforce a regime change, any initial success could turn out to be a mere stopover on the road to a full-blown tragedy. The real disaster, however, is that it is up to Saddam Hussein to prevent a war--a hopelessly unscrupulous man who is capable of pretty much anything from attacks on his neighbors to taking the weapons inspectors hostage."
"Iraqi Tragedy"
Foreign affairs writer Christian Ultsch commented in centrist Die Presse (11/15): "Saddam Hussein can only hope that in the near future some new mega crisis directs the Americans' attention away from Iraq. After all, the UN resolution does not give him much of a chance to continue with his stalling tactics.... In the long run, though, a war seems to be predetermined."
BELGIUM: "No Surprise"
Foreign affairs writer Baudouin Loos commented in independent Le Soir (11/14): "Iraq's acceptance of UN Resolution 1441.is not a surprise at all.... In his long career at the head of the Iraqi republic, Saddam Hussein has often made wrong political calculations but he has never shown any suicidal traits.... The only way out he has--and nothing guarantees it--is full compliance with the new UN resolution. And, even then, the situation remains tricky. Some Arab analysts believe that only a miracle can avoid a fatal outcome.... Anyway, now that Baghdad's strongman has accepted the return of the UN inspectors under much more stringent conditions for him, we will have to wait and see what damages the new development may cause to his regime that is not used to undergo external diktats just like that. Decidedly, this crisis is of a magnitude without precedent for Saddam Hussein."
"Bush Getting Close To Settling His Account"
Foreign editor Paul De Bruyn observed in conservative Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen (11/13): "According to UN diplomats, Resolution 1441 does not include 'triggers' which unchain a (military) action automatically. However, in the eyes of Bush and his administration, the opposite is the case.... Analysts say that the United States needs 45 to 60 days to get its military engine going. That means that the war might begin in January. It is not too late to avert it, but nobody believes that it is actually possible. That means that the moment when Bush wants to settle his account with the man whom his father could not force out is coming nearer--with the rest of the world as powerless spectators."
BULGARIA: "No To UN! So What?"
Center-right objective Dnevnik held (11/13): "Saddam has no other way out but accepting the resolution at least just to gain a little time. The resolution gave Washington a green light for action in Iraq. Saddam is in a position neither to accept nor to reject the Resolution unless he wants to burn himself on the fire with which he is playing. This time, however, the fire may prove to be devastating for him."
CROATIA: "Saddam Doesn't Have A Chance"
Foreign affairs editor Jurica Korbler commented in Zagreb-based government-owned Vjesnik (11/15):"The American president understands that after this diplomatic victory, and before the military one, the Muslim world must be convinced that the pressure against Iraq isn't directed against Islam. It will require a lot of skill to be understood that way. It will also require a new, sophisticated political trading among the American allies, but also among those who aren't (American allies).... The resolution is just a passport for everything to be legitimate. The smart ones, like Syria and the Arab League, have already realized that. Everything else is pure political theater, labeled that even at the White House, which no longer impresses the large and the powerful ones. Events, which will happen at a speed we don't even expect today, will show that Saddam is history, a new regional architecture an interesting future."
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Only Postponement Of War"
Milan Vodicka declared in the centrist MF Dnes (11/14): "Iraq submitted: All's well that ends well? No. This isn't the end yet, and not everything is well. The feeling of relief is adequate...but it doesn't mean that the war will not occur. It only means that it won't take place now.... President George Bush never said he wanted to get inspectors to Iraq. He claimed however, that he wanted to get Saddam. He said he wanted to secure Iraq, and this is, according to him, an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction and without Saddam.... These two men (Bush and Hussein) will not disperse until one of them is lying in the ring. And who it will be is being calculated."
GREECE: "Terrorism Of Warmongers"
The lead editorial in popular, pro-government and anti-American Eleftherotypia read (11/10): "With their dynamic presence at the European Social Forum in Florence, the movements that oppose globalization and war strengthened the hope that there are forces determined to claim a different world.... Forum speakers stressed that the war on Iraq will cost Saddam Hussein $1.5 billion, while the United States and its allies will spend $396 billion, an amount that could well be spent on peaceful causes. As the threat of wars increases and terrorism is exercised by the sole superpower in the name of 'fighting terrorism,' social movements will be strengthened and the demand for a different world will gain momentum."
HUNGARY: "Game Of Nerves"
Right-wing Magyar Nemzet (11/14) editorialized: "The situation with Saddam Hussein is a bit different this time. Saddam feels it too and that is perhaps why he has not waited until Friday (to make an announcement). Over the past several years he could play differently without any problem. He could be sure that in the very last minute he and the White House would wink at each other and everything would go on as before. But the stakes have changed. It is about him this time, about his ouster. The son has given a clear indication of his decision to conclude the game his father started. Careless about the possible geo-political consequences and the stability of the region the American president continues to checkmate the Iraqi dictator. Although he does not know yet with whom is he going to fill the vast (political) vacuum afterwards. And until he comes up with a solution the United States is going to rule the key country of the region (a country by the way with the world's second largest oil reserves)."
IRELAND: "Why Iraq Must Comply With UN"
The liberal Irish Times held (11/14), "The resolution is certainly stringent. But it does provide room for Iraq to show willingness to accept the terms laid down. The more it does so, the more difficult it will be for the United States to convince other Security Council members and allies that military action is necessary.... It will be up to Ireland and other Security Council members to monitor this extremely closely to make sure the resolution is not being used cynically by those who want a war simply as a means of legitimising it.... The best way for the Iraqis to prevent a war will be to comply with the demands for disarmament. That will put this political process to a severe test.... (Usama bin Laden's audiotape) is a stark reminder that the relationship between his activities and Iraq is extremely tenuous. President Bush says Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction which could be passed to terrorist organisations; but despite much effort by U.S. intelligence services there is no proof Saddam Hussein is actually doing so or intends to in the future. Against this there must be set the much greater likelihood that he would use whatever weapons of mass destruction he has if he were in danger of being overthrown. A war would also provoke more widespread terrorism in response. That is why it must be avoided, if at all possible, by putting continuing and relentless pressure on Iraq to comply."
KOSOVO: "New Dynamics Of Developments"
Leading independent, mass circulation Koha Ditore carried this comment by publisher Veton Surroi (11/10): "After almost two months of intense negotiations, the U.S. managed to find a compromise over the new UNSC Resolution on Iraq.... In this way President Bush secured both the internal and external consensus for the main challenge of his foreign policy, Iraq. However one reads this Resolution, Iraq is left with 45 to 60 days of manoeuvring space to play diplomacy, that is to say to prevent a rigorous plan for an international intervention. More or less it seems like the last days of Milosevic before the bombing and it does not surprise because Serbia and Iraq had (and in some segments still have) a political and military cooperation that made them learn from each other political and military tactics. From this perspective it seems that the Iraqi regime change, either by war or internal rebellion, is unavoidable."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Fair Chance"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant remarked (11/15): "Since the September 11 attacks, President Bush has had little patience with anything or anyone that could be a threat to the United States.... Given Saddam's record of lying and cheating, there is little confidence in his being prepared to sincerely cooperate. The Americans did respond with moderation to the news that Baghdad accepted the UN resolution.... This is part of the game. It is important to keep maximal pressure on Saddam. But on the other hand, the Americans should be careful that their skeptical rhetoric would not give the impression that the inspectors are only a supporting act because they would risk undermining the credibility of the UN inspectors. And that would not be a good thing to do. The UN inspections deserve a fair chance as last resort to avoid a war."
NORWAY: "Can We Trust Bush?"
In social democratic Dagsavisen (11/13): "We know that we can't trust Saddam Hussein. That makes it even worse that it is necessary to ask if we can trust the Bush administration.. There's something that doesn't add up about the enormous focus on Iraq, at the same time that the world is faced with much more serious threats--like...large terrorist attacks, or the danger that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict could end in a supra-regional world war. War in Iraq constitutes a serious step backwards in the battle against terror, and would further destabilize an unstable Middle East.. Oil, is the answer that almost jumps out.... If it is really true that the Bush administration is concerned about stopping the spread of mass destruction weapons, why has the United States--just in these days--made sure to kill the convention that bans the processing,
storage and use of biological weapons?"
POLAND: "We Don't Want To Die For Saddam"
Juliusz Urbanowicz opined in centrist weekly Wprost (11/12): "The resolution gives Saddam no illusion: Either he will disarm or he will be disarmed. It was clear that the UK would back the U.S. stance. But why did France, Russia, and China do so even though they raised the alarm that the world was threatened with a dictate by the only super power? These states recognized that it was better to be on the winning side. It turned out that no one--aside from fanatics--wants to die for Saddam."
SLOVENIA: "Last Countdown For Hussein's Farewell"
Ales Gaube wrote in left-of-center independent Dnevnik (11/9): "The compromise resolution has not digressed significantly from America's initial goal. Namely, the resolution still allows the United States to attack without UN mandate.... The Bush administration's unilateral direction toward pre-emptive strikes...has been successfully hidden behind the two-month polishing of the resolution text.... Iraq has become responsible for the fate of the existing world order.... Even if--as a sign of new friendship--he allotted huge oil business deals to America after he had hypothetically fulfilled of all conditions listed in the resolution, he would still be regarded as an unstable element in America's long-term interests on the Arab Peninsula. Only regime change--[replacement of Saddam] with pro-American Iraqi leaders--will enable the United States to sleep peacefully, and provide enough oil at low price for the growing American economy."
SPAIN: "Saddam Has A Good Strategy For Survival"
Independent El Mundo carried this piece by Alfonso Rojo (11/12): "In order to survive, Saddam has no other choice but to yield in everything, and he will. Before the West, he will appear to be weak and humiliated, but internally his power will remain unharmed. The question now is whether Bush will play along or if he has already made his decision."
"Is Saddam Preparing His People To Break With The UN?"
Independent El Mundo wrote (11/12): "Saddam will end up accepting reluctantly. But the inspectors' task, which seemed arduous, now is even more difficult: What yesterday's announcements can be understood to mean is that Saddam is preparing [Iraqi] public opinion for a break with the UN, whether during the inspections or afterwards, a rupture that would give way to the war scenario that many seem to already take for granted."
SWEDEN: "The UN Gives Iraq A Chance"
Conservative Stockholm morning daily Svenska Dagbladet stated (11/9): "After two months of negotiations the text of the new UN resolution on Iraq became less rigid that what President Bush had hoped for. But it still is tough enough to become a nightmare for the Iraqi dictator. Now the UN means business.... Now Saddam Hussein has one week to decide whether he should accept the terms or be prepared to take the consequences for not doing so. The international community stands united."
SWITZERLAND: "The Acid Test Begins"
Writing in the center-left Basler Zeitung, Willi Herzig commented (11/15): "So far, international diplomacy seems to have been successful. For the time being the danger of war seems to have been averted.... But now the real acid test is beginning--for both sides. How sincere is the Iraqi dictator with his 'unconditional acceptance' of the UN resolution? Already there are signals coming out of Baghdad very reminiscent of the tricks and gambits with which the Iraqi regime sought to stymie the UN inspectors in the past.... At the same time, a great deal depends on Washington's willingness to give a fair chance to the UN inspection program and to de-emphasize its goal of regime change.... In short: for this conflict to be solved without bloodshed would border on the miraculous."
TURKEY: "The UN Resolution Will Also Topple Saddam"
Ferai Tinc wrote in mass appeal Hurriyet (11/10): "The UN resolution not only establishes a mechanism for serious control over weapons of mass destruction, but also, and more importantly, paves the way for a regime change in Iraq without the need of war. With the help of this resolution, the Iraqi opposition is will now be able to make its presence felt.... Baghdad is obliged to comply fully with the UN resolution or else pay the consequences of a U.S. military action. Under these strict conditions and obligations, Iraq must cooperate. Let's not forget that the UN resolution has Syrian approval as well. What happens if the Baghdad regime chooses not to comply? It will not make much difference for the fate of Saddam's regime anyway."
YUGOSLAVIA: "Saddam's Dilemma"
Pro-government Belgrade-based Politika commented (11/14): "The resolution on Iraq is the end of diplomatic maneuvering that was characterized by conflicts and compromise between U.S., on one side, and France and Russia, on the other. The unanimous decision by all 15 of the Security Council's members gave full legitimacy to the Resolution, and narrowed Saddam's space to maneuver. He has two options: to accept and fulfill the resolution - which is expected by the Arab League - or to push Iraq in a new war. This dilemma is even more complicated because an acceptance of the resolution does not mean that military intervention will be avoided.... What can be declared as an obstruction of the resolution is a very flexible issue. In another words, it is easy to find some cause if one wants this, and many believe that the U.S wants intervention at any cost.... Iraq's president so far has made a lot of maneuvers. He was persistent in his resistance. He promised a lot and broke those promises. But now he is in front of a dangerous decision; the decision of his life.... In the last few months Iraq improved relations with its Arab brothers. Saddam can capitalize on this now. An acceptance of the resolution could be presented as a compromise to upset the Arabs. However, nothing is certain in the complex labyrinth of Middle East politics."
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Surrender Or Sham?"
Ultra-Orthodox Yated Ne'eman editorialized (11/14): "The foot-dragging during the waiting period-- both in the U.S. Congress and at the UN--has produced a situation in which Bush is trying to lock the gates of the stables after all the horses have run away, as the Arab proverb has it. Anyway, all those who are familiar with Baghdad's political mentality know the story isn't over yet. Saddam Hussein is an inveterate liar, who specializes in...repeatedly deceiving the U.S. administration, in an attempt to wear out the Western world until its attention is diverted to other issues."
"A Fateful Decision"
Correspondent Efraim Ganor wrote in popular, pluralist Russian-language Novosty Nedely (11/12): "The moment of truth is coming closer for Saddam Hussein....Saddam didn't realize that there is a limit to tolerance and forgiveness that had been demonstrated by the European countries, Russia and the members of the League of Arab States. He underestimated the diplomatic abilities of the United States, which patiently and purposely...applied anti-Saddam pressure and achieved the passing of this resolution by the UN Security Council.... Today, Saddam has to make decisions on more difficult and fateful issues than ever before.... Probably Saddam Hussein will not be able to solve the problem [the international observers are posing to him]. The Iraqi President's slow course of action would only catalyze the beginning of a U.S. military operation in Iraq. Saddam's behavior is rather unpredictable."
EGYPT: "Now The Iraqi Battle Begins"
Small-circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya's senior editorialist Mohamed Abul Hadid wrote (11/14): "The opposition the United States faced at the UNSC resulted in: excluding the phantom of war or a military strike temporarily, rejecting the automatic use of U.S. force, and maintaining the UNSC role at all times. However, the resolution was very bad, indicating, in content, that the dictatorial, absolute rule in Iraq...will be given to the international inspection team and the IAEA...naturally any inspector can claim his mission is impeded, and the U.S. picks the line and...conducts a strike on Iraq.... We would have accepted this coercive decision like a bitter medicine, if it had any indication for hope for Iraqis or a reward at the end of the road of its cooperation with the international community. Unfortunately, the resolution was strictly punitive on all levels.... The Arab position is so far good, but it remains to be governed by the international commitments by Arab states as members of the UN or by bilateral commitments of each state.... The only hope that remains is the Arab street and organizations. The European and American streets have played their role, although Iraq is neither European nor American. Thus, the Arab street's time has come to change the balance."
"Heated Issues"
Aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar's columnist el-Sayed El-Naggar stated (11/14): "Whether Iraq agrees to the UNSC resolution or not, the American strike is inevitably coming. There are many indications confirming this. Before the resolution's ink dried, American vicious threats against Iraq were issued...a plan for he flow of military equipment into the region was revealed, and the resolution included impossible conditions that allow America to strike Iraq for trivial reasons...clearly, America wants to get rid of Iraq's power and eliminate Saddam's regime. Since it failed to obtain an article in the resolution allowing it to change the regime, it should seek that by other means. That is why the UNSC resolution agreed with some opposition trends in order to effect a formal victory allowing flexible explanation that America can use whenever it is necessary."
"All Submit To The Guardian Of The World"
Small-circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya's editor-in-chief Samir Ragab argued (11/9): "The mystery is not about Saddam; it is not important if he stays or leaves. The basic point is imposing the will [of a certain party] under an mirage called the UN, which, along with other superpowers, could only succumb to the pressures of the sole superpower which itself holds guardianship of the entire world."
MOROCCO: "U.S. Strikes Are More Than Probable"
French-language pro-government Al Bayane maintained (11/13): "Iraq is only the first step of the strategic objective of the U.S. to impose its hegemony on the world and subdue the Arab countries to the Israeli entity."
SAUDI ARABIA: "The Importance Of Having Arabs Among The Inspectors"
Abha-based, moderate Al-Watan opined (11/12): "The UN hasn't yet revealed the nationality of the inspectors that are going to Iraq, after Iraq complies with UNSC 1441.... There should be Arabs among the inspectors for Saddam not to claim that the team is conducting tasks other than inspection, and for the Hawks of war not to find excuses to start the war they are seeking."
"Last Chance Decision"
London's Pan-Arab, Arabic-language Asharq Al-Awsat opined (11/9): "Now the ball is in Iraq's playground. In the shadow of the current circumstances, any attempt for Iraq to go back to procrastination will be suicidal. It is clear that Baghdad has no choice but to give up its weapons of mass destruction. The world's recent decision not to launch war against Iraq is a victory achieved by diplomacy. If Iraq does not comply, this victory will be questionable."
SYRIA: "On The Margins Of The Cairo Meeting"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Ba'th said (11/11): "Syria has reiterated the importance of reactivating the UN role in world affairs and believes it is impermissible for an international power to manipulate world destiny and issues. Syria's vote at the Security Council came within the framework of this vision. Syria exerted strong efforts to block the drums of war and save Iraq and the region from the dangerous consequences of military confrontation, after it has become clear there are some hot-heads who are preparing to wage a military strike against Iraq to serve Israel's goals."
"The UN Responsibility"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen declared (11/12): "The inspection teams now hold the keys to war and peace. They must be neutral and objective in carrying out their mission, stirring it away from any provocation to preserve its credibility and commitment to this tremendous mission. On the other hand, the Iraqi side, which realizes the importance and sensitivity of this international mission, is called upon to exercise maximum self-restraint. Iraq should avoid being dragged into provocations, which are being planned to entrap it and thereby allowing U.S. warmongers to fulfill their goals.... Iraq is empty of weapons of mass destruction and has no capability to develop them.... Certainly this does not satisfy U.S. arrogance nor match its plans that aim to ignite war in the region, to control Iraqi oil, and tamper with its sovereignty and security.... Iraq must be careful. Arabs should call for including Arab experts on the inspection teams as safety valves in this delicate international mission. Now that Security Council Resolution 1441 has been endorsed even by Arabs.... Isn't it important for the world community now to move for dismantling Israel's weapons of mass destruction which constitute the major threat to world peace and security?"
"After The SC Resolution"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Tishreen stated (11/10): " We say that Iraq has foiled or avoided the dangers of an American military strike. International inspections must be fair, objective and credible. The UN inspectors must be inspectors for the UN and not for any foreign intelligence service.... If Iraq, in the words of its leadership, is ready to facilitate the mission of the inspectors, the UN has the heavy responsibility of conducting fair and objective inspections that respect the feelings of Iraqis.... If good will prevails, this mission might not last long and it will then be possible to call on the SC to lift the sanctions on Iraq.... It is certain that Syria, which has clearly announced its standing beside the Iraqi people, will exert every possible international effort to move to that phase and completely lift unfair sanctions."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Urging Iraq To Comply With Resolution 1441"
Abu Dhabi-based Akhbar Al Arab declared (11/12): "Iraq is now required to continue its flexibility, show the maximum amount of wisdom and self-restraint, and suppress its bleeding wounds to deny the United States a chance to say that Iraq does not cooperate with international inspectors."
"The Only Chance"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al Khaleej intoned (11/12): "What Washington told Iraq and wants to convey to all Arab countries is that they are required to be entirely confined to the orbit of U.S.-Zionist domination....The American Administration has pledged to subjugate the Arabs to direct colonialism under President Bush...But at the same time, it is a chance for the Arab countries to untie the rope, be set free from captivity and change this into an opportunity to live."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "The Gun At Saddam's Head"
The leading liberal Sydney Morning Herald opined (11/13): "The great and general relief at the unanimous agreement in the UNSC on Iraq may be shortlived. Not only do the multiple triggers in Resolution 1441 make a breach, and so war, more likely than not.... Australia has welcomed the resolution, as it should. At the same time, and reassuringly, it has reserved its position on whether it would follow the U.S. into a war against Iraq not sanctioned by the Security Council.... That is some acknowledgement of the profound unease in the community that Australia may be drawn into a U.S. war which lacks wider international support and justification.. Any satisfaction at seeing Saddam cornered...must be mixed with deep concern at the now greatly increased prospect of a new and terrible conflict in the Middle East."
"The Last Chance For Saddam"
An editorial in the liberal Age read (11/11): "The world should greet the UNSC's ultimatum to Iraq with relief. No one in their right mind would view the prospect of the United States waging war against Iraq other than with dismay.... The fact that the resolution was passed unanimously will be seen as a victory for multilateralism over US unilateralism. The Security Council has acted the way it should: that is, in accordance with its charter, which begins with a commitment 'to maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.' For its part, the US should be given credit for not having taken precipitate action, as many feared it would.... [Saddam] now has the clear choice of being the architect of his country's disarmament or having it forced upon him."
CHINA: "Hegemony Has Lost Its Utility"
Liu Jianfei commented in the official Southern Daily Newspaper Group international news publication 21st Century World Herald (Ershiyi Shiji Huanqiu Baodao) (11/11): "The U.S. behavior to avoid offending the UN on the Iraq issue reflects that there are some changes in the relations between the U.S. and the UN.... Such changes show a world trend of development that hegemony and power politics is going to end and the era of democratic international relations is coming. A powerful hegemony may be overwhelming in terms of military affairs. However this society is not a militarized society, so the possibility that hegemony may lose its utility exists. Therefore, hegemony should pay more respect to democracy."
"Iraq Needs To Make New Choices"
Ma Xiaolin declared in the official popular Beijing Morning Post (Beijing Chenbao, 11/10): "Analysts think that the United States has made the decision to change the current regime in Iraq. The war cannot be avoided unless the weapons inspection can be carried out smoothly and, which is more important, the United States can change its policy towards Iraq."
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "Same Rule For One And All"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post stressed (11/10): "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been given a clear message--hand over or destroy all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons or suffer the consequences. For the sake of global security, he must comply with the demands.... But dictators and despots rarely think or act logically. Often their ambitions--as in the case of Mr. Hussein--get in the way. Under his leadership, Iraq has been a threat to its neighbors.... U.S. President George W. Bush also has ambitions. He wants to oust Mr. Hussein--which his father, when president, failed to do during the Gulf War--and install a friendly government. The United States will benefit by gaining access to Iraq's massive oil reserves. Although Mr. Bush has a mandate for such action from the U.S. Congress, he does not have the support of the Security Council.... The UN has been entrusted with ensuring and maintaining global security. For the sake of a peaceful world, no nation can be allowed to override or ignore its authority."
CHINA (MACAU SAR): "New Resolution On Iraq"
The pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News stressed (11/12): "The new [UN] resolution on Iraq has undoubtedly postponed a potential war. It has also upset the U.S. timetable for dealing with Iraq. The resolution has not, however, eliminated the danger of war."
JAPAN: "Iraq Must Fully Cooperate In Weapons Inspections"
Liberal Asahi observed (11/15): "We welcome Iraq's acceptance of the UN weapons inspection resolution. But it is regrettable that Baghdad criticized not only the United States and Britain, but also other permanent UNSC members, which Iraq's official letter said yielded to U.S. and British pressure calling for accepting the U.S.-drafted resolution. Iraq should realize that it is solely responsible for having complicated the weapons inspection issue by violating UNSC resolutions and obstructing weapons inspectors since the end of the Gulf crisis. We hope that the Bush administration will not become overly vocal about possible military action against Iraq or a post-Hussein Iraq. Now is the time not to provoke Iraq but to have Iraqis faithfully implement the latest UN resolution."
INDONESIA: "Iraq Accepts UN Resolution, Saddam Shows A Leadership Figure"
Leading independent Kompas commented (11/15): "It was not an easy option for Iraq. It finally accepted the resolution in order to avoid war although the presence of the inspection team is felt as an insult to their dignity and honor as an independent and sovereign country.... If the inspection team encounters a deadlock, the United States and its allies would probably not only become upset, but they might also strike."
SOUTH KOREA: "Iraq Accepts The UN Resolution On Inspections"
Moderate Hankook Ilbo editorialized (11/15): "As Iraq has unconditionally accepted a UN Security Council resolution on disarmament and arms inspections, the Iraqi situation is entering a new phase. If this Iraqi decision leads to resolution of the current dispute without a new war, it would be quite fortunate for the Iraqi people.... However, it is too early to be optimistic, because the Bush administration regards the elimination of Saddam Hussein as the key to resolving the Iraqi issue."
VIETNAM: "Ultimatum Of War"
Tien Phuong wrote in Vietnam Women's Union weekly Phu Nu Viet Nam (11/15): "On October 28, U.S. President Bush said: 'The message from the United States is that if the UN does not have the will and courage to disarm Saddam Hussein and if Saddam Hussein himself does not disarm, for the sake of peace and freedom, the United States will lead an alliance to disarm Saddam Hussein.'... That was actually an ultimatum the United States sent to the UN.... In accepting the draft resolution proposed by the United States, the UN may suffer humiliation for giving the United States the green light to baselessly attack an independent, sovereign state and UN member country. But if the UN Security Council does not accept, the United States will attack anyway. In that case, the UN itself reveals to the world that it is the largest international organization but totally impotent because of the transgression and manipulation by the United States."
MALAYSIA: "Staving Off A Needless War"
Government-influenced English-language New Straits Times told readers (11/11): "Doubtless, Iraq should accept the resolution, as it has, under some protest. But whether an American-led war will be averted or merely forestalled by Iraq's acceptance of the resolution depends on whether Baghdad will provide inspectors with full access to President Saddam Hussein's palaces and other sensitive sites.... Uncertainty still prevails. Non-compliance this time around will likely invoke punishment in the form of military strikes. And there is another troubling question. If the elimination of illicit weapons programs is indeed the noble aim of the resolution, why hasn't similar intent and warning of 'serious consequences' been slapped on other countries suspected of the same crime? Iraq has been made to bend backwards far enough. Washington and its allies should refrain from exacting their pound of flesh."
PHILIPPINES: "Hussein To Eat Humble Pie"
The independent Manila Standard editorialized (11/13): "The Americans are pleased. The Iraqis are not. In a surprising move, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that generally backs the U.S. call for tougher measures on Iraq. The inevitability of war seems to have faded in the meantime. After all, Iraq is not likely to take a tough stance with so many strong nations voting against it, with no backer in sight. In other words, Saddam Hussein is about to eat humble pie, at least for now."
SINGAPORE: "No Ifs, Buts Or Maybes"
The pro-government Straits Times noted in its editorial (11/13): "Saddam and his crew should realize that whatever disagreements may exist among the big powers...they agree he must disarm totally - no ifs, buts, maybes. Baghdad should also take seriously Mr. Bush's warning last Friday that the US would be prepared to act alone if the Security Council, for some reason, failed to enforce its threat of 'serious consequences' if Iraq failed to disarm. He is a 'conviction politician'; he has decided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are an unacceptable danger to the world; he means it when he says he will act if Saddam fails to comply with the UN's will. Mr. Bush, however, should be careful not to overplay his hand now, either by increasing the decibel level of US rhetoric or by taking precipitate action. If an invasion proves necessary, it is crucial that it be seen as the clear result of Saddam's violation of the UN's will. Establishing an international consensus is difficult, as the past weeks have shown, but in the long run, the US will benefit if it takes the multi-lateral, not unilateral, route."
THAILAND: "Let's Give Saddam A Chance"
"Zoom" commented in top-circulation Thai-language Thai Rath (11/11): "Iraq's official news agency lately reported that Iraq wanted to spend time studying the UNSC resolution although it viewed the resolution as 'very bad and lacking fairness'. The report signals Iraq's willingness to cooperate with the UN.... Iraq should willingly allow the UN to inspect and destroy its weapons. The Iraqi president should also open up his palace for UN inspection. Why should it matter? If Iraq is indeed innocent, it should let UN inspectors look everywhere it wants."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Pause Before A War"
The centrist Indian Express opined (11/15), "Iraq's acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 two days before the deadline provides some basis for optimism of a war averted. The resolution stipulates stringent inspection by the UN and IAEA inspectors. But Iraq seems to have created a case for future policy choices by getting its national assembly to unanimously reject the proposal to accept the UN resolution ... The Iraqi letter strongly reminds the UN Secretary General that it is willing to co-operate 'in spite' of the ongoing holy month of Ramadan. Washington would do well to note these, rather than dismiss them cynically ... The tussle itself now will revolve around the details of violations by Iraq ... The world should welcome the realism that finally seems to be emerging both in Baghdad and Washington. After months of internal tussles in the US administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell's approach seems to have won over the more aggressive policy advocated by the Rumsfeld-Cheney group.... Bush's unilateralist strategy for the time being has given way to the more multilateral approach to keep international peace and security through the UN and its charter. The US and UK's convergence with the response of the UN Security Council constitutes a victory for international peace."
"Did Baghdad Blink Or Just Wink?"
The nationalist Hindustan Times held (11/15): "The international community has received Baghdad's decision with cautious optimism, but Washington's hostility toward the Saddam regime has hardly abated ... It is clear enough that through the tactic of letting the inspectors back in, Iraq hopes above all to sit it out. A forestalling of the proposed US-led military strike, it may calculate, would weaken Bush, making it difficult for him to go into an attack mode all over again. But the U.S. too appears to be single-minded. After its failure to effectively deal with terrorism and Osama bin Laden, Washington may want some results, and going for Hussein is a relatively easier option. But, at this stage, it may be difficult for it to do so without an OK from the Security Council."
PAKISTAN: "Iraq's Correct Decision"
The Karachi-based independent national Dawn declared (11/15): "Iraq has shown realism and common sense by accepting the Security Council Resolution 1441 passed unanimously last Friday.... The truth is that the Iraqi acceptance of the resolution may have delayed but not altogether eliminated possibilities of a U.S.-led war against Iraq altogether. Washington's aim is not merely the elimination of the WMDs purportedly in possession of Iraq but a regime change. This the U.S. seems determined to achieve even if it means unleashing war on Iraq unilaterally. One hopes Baghdad will cooperate fully with Unmovic and will not give any pretext for the hawks in the Bush administration to launch a military strike."
"Hobson's Choice"
The center-right national Nation stated (11/14): "While the Iraqi Parliament's rejection of UNSC Resolution 1441 allowing UN inspectors into Iraq has been justified by some as indicative of the anger of the Iraqi people, the only path of prudence open to President Saddam Hussain is to agree to the UN conditions, in the interest of peace and stability in the region."
"UNSC Resolution On Iraq And American Designs"
Leading mass-circulation Urdu-language Jang stated (11/12): "Keeping in view its relationship with the Islamic world, the U.S. should not ignore the sentiments of Muslim countries and their citizens regarding the Iraq issue, which reflects the weakening for a chance at establishing peace while U.S. aggression against Iraq is gaining roots. The main objective of the United States and its allies and their action against Iraq is to take control of Iraqi oil resources."
NEPAL: "Ball Now In Saddam's Court"
An opinion piece by senior journalist M.R. Josse in the centrist Kathmandu Post (11/13) read: "Reactions around the globe...have overwhelmingly been upbeat with the consensus opinion being that the ball is now very much in Iraq's court. Yet, while a sense of relief that war has been averted--at least for the foreseeable future--is palpable almost everywhere, the popular perception in Baghdad, in Beirut and among the Palestinians is that the new resolution is only a cover for opening hostilities at a later stage.... Although the original version of the resolution was considerably modified to accommodate the concerns of others, it still meets the Bush administration's key demands: toughening inspections and freeing the United States to take military action against Iraq if inspectors say it isn't complying."
AFRICA
CAMEROON: "Iraqi Parliament Snubs UN Resolution"
Yaounde-based bilingual, government-owned Cameroon Tribune stated (11/13): "The vote against the resolution came despite apparent efforts to achieve a 'yes' vote by the Iraqi leader's son Uday, who told deputies that the country had little choice. However, parliament, which has no real power, said it would stand by any decision taken by the president.... Earlier, Saddam's son Uday sent a working paper to parliament urging the National Assembly to accept the UN resolution. Uday, himself a parliamentarian, argued that acceptance of the UN text should take place 'under the umbrella of the Arab League,' which backed the resolution during a meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo, Egypt. Uday echoed the Arab League calls for Arab weapons experts to be involved in UN inspections, but criticized Syria for supporting the resolution. Uday urged parliament to deny the United States a chance to wage war on Iraq."
NIGERIA: "The UN Has Lost Its Relevance"
Kano-based Hausa-language weekly Albishir editorialized (11/13): "If you do not agree with this opinion, what then do you make of Isreal's refusal to comply with the UN's Security Council Resolution ordering it to withdraw from Palestine occupied territories without America ever threatening to attack Isreal as it has done to Iraq?"
ZAMBIA: "What Happens If Inspections Fail To Find WMD?"
The government-owned Times of Zambia held (11/15): "Humiliating as the prospect of allowing Western arms inspectors everywhere, including Saddam's own bedrooms may be, Iraq has no choice but to allow the inspectors free rein. The crucial question, however, is what will happen if the American-led drive to disarm Iraq finds no weapons of mass destruction in the country? Will the Americans be content with that discovery and allow Saddam to carry on in power, or manufacture a pretext for waging war to dispose him still? Whatever differences there might be between George W. Bush and Saddam, who the American president incidentally calls the guy who nearly killed his father, should not be settled outside the UN mandate."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "UNSC Resolution A Diplomatic Success"
Editorialist Jean-Marc Salvet held in the centrist French-language Le Soleil (11/9): "Despite the remaining tensions, both France and the U.S. can claim victory. And even more so the American administration which has reserved the right to intervene alone or with some allies if need be. The Security Council Resolution is a diplomatic success. It must now become one for peace in the world. More than ever, the ball is in the Iraqi camp."
ARGENTINA: "Iraq Accepts The Return of Arms Inspectors"
Marina Aizen, leading Clarin Washington-based correspondent, observed (11/14): "Yesterday, after strongly criticizing the U.S. and Great Britain - referred to as 'the perversity gang' - Iraq officially accepted the return of UN arms inspectors.... Nevertheless, in his letter, the Iraqi leader assures that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction in his power and warns that, while international experts are in the country, Baghdad will also be keeping an eye on them.... Iraq's letter of acceptance...is by no means a friendly invitation.... It says 'the text, accepted under pressure of the U.S. administration...is extremely perverse and indecent to every honest member of the organization...' and adds 'the UN and its agencies will collapse like its predecessor - the League of Nations - did. Therefore, the responsibility will not only fall on the U.S. but also on the weakness of the shy, who decided to work in favor of U.S. interests under threat or due to its vague promises.'... The letter...has paragraphs that announce possible conflicts with UN inspectors. In this sense, it points out that they will be keeping an eye on their behavior and the way in which they do their job."
BRAZIL: "Theatrical Saddam"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo carried an editorial stating (11/14): "Saddam Hussein has already shown several times that he is not crazy. On the contrary, he has a remarkable instinct for self-preservation. He will try to gain as much time as he can and will hardly give the U.S. a pretext to attack. As has happened before, he is expected to pretend to cooperate with the UN but may at the same time create obstacles, such as 'spontaneous' public demonstrations, to the inspectors' work. President Bush, who seems ready to depose Saddam, will probably go to war alleging a minor violation that many nations would not take into consideration. No one will miss Saddam if he falls, but the UN will once again have yielded to U.S. power. What is deplorable in all this is that the world will have yielded much more to what seems to be President Bush's caprice than Washington's real strategic need. Why Iraq and not North Korea, which admits possessing nuclear weapons?"
"Pressure From The UN"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo opined (11/12): "The text of the UNSC resolution to disarm dictator Saddam Hussein is intentionally ambiguous.... The Iraq Parliament's recommendation to reject the resolution should not be taken seriously.... Given Saddam Hussein's history, he will try to gain time by sending out all sort of contradictory signals, but he will hardly make any gesture capable of making war unavoidable. Actually, [what we have seen is] a partial retreat by nations that opposed a military intervention in Iraq.... Bush did well in obtaining UN support to act against Iraq, but it is still premature to say that multilateral organizations have been strengthened by the episode."
MEXICO: "The War, Postponed"
An editorial in far-left La Jornada read (11/14): "Nobody doubts that the group in power in the United States has cast all its chips - economic, electoral, and strategic - on a new large-scale armed conflict in the Middle East. Bush and his collaborators desperately need this war, not only to boost their weakened economy, but also to justify the fact they are governing according to public opinion and voters, as well as to seize control of a region that it considers important for its oil resources. The first responses to Iraq's acceptance of U.N. Resolution 1441 included that of USG spokesperson Scott McClellan, who tried to open some cracks to introduce pretexts for war.... Under such circumstances, it is right to hope that Baghdad's decision (to comply with the United Nations) creates a window of opportunity that lasts long enough so that by the time Bush and his people have managed to come up with new war-mongering arguments, the international environment will have changed substantially, making U.S. aggression impossible. This would be a really good chance for peace."
"Bush, War Drums"
Alejandro Ramos Esquivel writes in business-oriented Financiero (11/12): "Last week, President Bush obtained broad support at home and abroad for the war-mongering policies that he has advocated for since he took office...the unanimous vote at the U.S. Security Council, which included Mexico, broadens the margin of military action for the USG, at the same time that it opens the door for other U.S. goals that have to do with the world oil market. Bush knows this, and after obtaining such positive election results for the Republican Party, he will continue to cultivate the 'patriotic vote;' abroad, he will continue to use diplomatic means as a way to keep pressure, but above all, he will use military means to reach a goal that will help his quest for reelection and for U.S. interests. The war drums continue to sound."
CHILE: "The United States And World Order"
Leading-circulation, popular La Tercera argued (11/12): "The UNSC resolution harbors the principles that guide multilateral diplomacy--and that were threatened by the preventive attack policy pursued by some White House officials. The initiative...puts the imminent U.S. attack in an international framework...handing President Bush the necessary tools to launch a legitimate operation... Although the resolution does not consent to an automatic use of force if Iraq defies the resolution, the United States is likely to view any minor violation as a license to invade. In this regard, the resolution's ambiguity is President Bush's best tool to oust Hussein with the international community's support.... President Bush has acted consistently with the world order that his country helped build. It is time now for Hussein to stop violating the post-1991 Kuwaiti invasion UN-set disarmament rules, because we cannot ignore the growing sounds of war coming from the White House."
"Ultimatum For Iraq"
Conservative, influential newspaper-of-record, El Mercurio observed (11/12): "The U.N. Security Council's resolution is an achievement for the U.S. in that it condemns Iraq and issues an ultimatum; and for the UN's secretary general...and many of the organization's members in that it succeeds in keeping the matter under Security Council control.... The resolution also puts the Bush administration back into an international coalition, legitimizing its decision to disarm Iraq. With a determination unseen for years, the UN succeeded in balancing the need for effective action with the greater need for legitimacy and peace."
ECUADOR: "The UN At A Crossroads"
An editorial leading centrist El Comercio asserted (11/10): "Since its foundation in 1945, the UN...has never been faced with a dilemma such as the war with Iraq.... In such unprecedented conditions it is important to judge differently U.S. strategy and U.S. politics, and therefore, to correctly evaluate the circumstances of September 11, the animosity against Iraq...and the vigilance of a world superpower.... Against this background and because of the self-interest always present in the West, we can predict that the U.S. -given its total domestic and international political dominance -- would hardly assume the risk of armed confrontation in the Middle East; therefore, the UN will survive."
GUATEMALA: "Iraq Can Save Itself"
The lead editorial in highest-circulation tabloid Nuestro Diario held (11/10): "In effect, the new resolution approved unanimously on Friday...has avoided a new and unequal war in the Middle East. No one fails to observe that the United States' overwhelming military might is ready to demolish entire countries in a few hours or days, without causing great risks to the security of the American people.... There does not exist, and may not exist in the near future, the possibility for any state to challenge the armed forces whose current supreme commander is George W. Bush -- who has his sights on several large and small countries... No one should forget that during the Cold War, it was the developed countries that allowed governments like those in Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and others to achieve the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. For this reason these nuclear powers are morally obligated to coordinate peaceful actions, through the UN, to achieve worldwide disarmament. "
JAMAICA: "UNSC Resolution A Triumph For Diplomacy Rather Than For Bush"
The Editor-in-Chief of the moderate, influential Daily Gleaner held (11/14): "For now, Saddam will be hard-pressed to obstruct the inspectors. Moreover, many diplomats, including allies of the US, see the UN resolution as a triumph for diplomacy rather than a victory for the Bush administration. Without a UN sanction, the U.S .will find it more difficult to go to war now. Nor is it apparent that UN weapons inspectors will concur with U.S. assessments of the state of Iraq's weapons programme.... In the next few weeks, we should see how things will play out. However, it is good to see that diplomacy is getting one more chance."
PANAMA: "Among Spores And Armies"
Independent La Prensa ran Guillermo Sanchez Borbon's op-ed claiming (11/10): "Bush is determined to...attack Iraq, arguing that Hussein is a dictator that doesn't respect human rights and is building terrifying armament.... All these pretexts are transparently false. According to a renown U.S. physicist, Hussein has no possibility of building nuclear armament in less than five years.... I have heard from Bush's mouth only one serious argument to go to war with Hussein: 'He tried to kill my daddy.'... The [Bush] has not, with the evidence presented up to now, been able to convince the experts that Iraq has the armament that Bush assures he has...North Korea, whose government has publicly confessed that is building an atomic bomb, has not worried Bush at all with such an alarming novelty.... But the principal reason for Bush' selective anger, I assume, is that Iraq has an enormous petroleum wealth, and North Korea does not."
PERU: "An Ultimatum For Iraq"
Center-left La Republica noted (11/11): "Having the United States, France and Russia reach an agreement...and after the unanimous approval of Resolution 1441 by the UN's Security Council...a new war in the Middle East is not imminent at present.... Saddam Hussein's government has...to either...accept or reject the conditions established by the UNSC.... We think it is improbable that.... Hussein will decide to lead his... people...into a new devastating war...but rather expect him to [finally] accept the return of the UN's inspectors.... The U.S. decision to wait for the...Security Council's consensus...has...eased concern in the world."
VENEZUELA: "Saddam Gives In"
Rafael Del Naranco argued in afternoon centrist El Mundo (11/14): "France gave him [Saddam] atomic secrets in exchange for oil. Germany, modern technology. The United States, counsel. And the man grew in power. He doesn't lack courage, nor a touch of madness.... His lack of scruples is beyond any limits, simply because he has never had any. He knows as few others how to seize opportunities. That's why he announced that he would accept the new UNSC resolution, saying hypocritically that he wished weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq as soon as possible.... The dictator takes his steps with amazing caution. He humbles himself and speaks like the gods when saying that the most valuable trait of a man, after faith, is reason. Any psychiatrist would say that he suffers from a narcissistic disorder."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
