Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=3/11/03

TYPE=U-S / OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=IRAQ-U-N

NUMBER=6-1285

BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

CONTENT=

INTRO: The United States, Tuesday, rejected a proposal that would give Saddam Hussein another month, until April 17th, to fully disarm. As the U-N Security Council prepares to vote on yet another resolution demanding such disarmament, the prospect of war appears closer to many U-S editorial page writers. Yet the American press is still divided on the wisdom of a conflict. We get a sampling now from V-O-A's ___________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: A majority of U-S daily papers are calling on the Bush administration to find a diplomatic way to give Iraq a bit more time to disarm. But a minority feels that time has run out, and are becoming impatient for military action to begin. We begin our sampling in the Midwest, where Chicago's Sun-Times says it is time for a vote.

VOICE: When we find ourselves, as we do now, at a point where Secretary of State Colin Powell is meeting with the foreign minister of Guinea, trying to win his approval [to] conduct [U-S] foreign policy in a way consistent with our vital international interests, something is very wrong. The entire effort by the [U-S] to involve the United Nations in its initiative to disarm Iraq has moved from hopeful exercise to lingering farce, and the time has come to put an end to it.

TEXT: Seconding that motion is this editorial from The Oklahoman in Oklahoma City, which presupposes a French and Russian veto in the Security Council.

VOICE: What's hard to believe is that France and Russia appear set to damage good relations with the United States for the sake of Saddam Hussein. The historical equivalent from the late 1930s would be France and Russia siding with Herr Hitler after his annexation of the Sudetenland [a portion of the Czech Republic bordering Germany].

TEXT: In Northern California, The San Francisco Chronicle is concerned that this country may act without U-N assent.

VOICE: For weeks, the Bush administration has been trying to cajole the U-N Security Council to defend its "relevance" by enforcing its resolution for Iraq to disarm. In a strange twist of logic, the White House is now threatening to go to war in open defiance of the United Nations. The Security Council remains resistant -- for legitimate reasons. After all, it voted to disarm Iraq. It did not vote for regime change.

TEXT: The worry in Texas, at The Corpus Christi Caller-Times is that in a war without U-N sanction, the world body "could be [its] first casualty."

VOICE: The United States doesn't need the U-N to wage war, but it needs a united and credible United Nations to forge a lasting peace.

TEXT: In New Jersey's capital, The [Trenton] Times follows the lead of Delaware Senator Joseph Biden in asking for a compromise, even if it requires "hard-liners in the Bush administration to do something for which they have shown little aptitude." Both the Times and the Senator want compromise in order to have the U-N behind this country if war comes.

However in South Carolina, Charleston's Post and Courier is upset with what it sees as the "polarization within the Security Council" caused mainly "by the French-led campaign to appease Saddam." While back in New Jersey The [Bergen County] Record is upset at the lack of debate in Congress.

VOICE: It may be just days before the [U-S] launches a highly questionable and dangerous war, yet the voices of opposition in congress and the Democratic Party have been largely silent. Americans who oppose war with Iraq are hungry for leadership. But it's almost nowhere to be found.

TEXT: Lastly, in Eastern Connecticut, New London's Day complains:

VOICE: President Bush is determined to go to war against Saddam Hussein even without the [U-N's] support, without the backing of several of America's longest-standing allies and in spite of the opportunity to avoid war. The most telling [point] is the unwillingness of President Bush and his covey of hard-line militarists to pursue the opportunity for a peaceful conclusion to this strife.

TEXT: On that note from Connecticut's New London Day, we conclude this sampling of the latest editorials on the Iraq question.

NEB/ANG/RH