SECRETARIA DE ESTADO DE ECONOMÍA,
MINISTERIO DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE POLÍTICA ECONÓMICA DE ECONOMÍA SUBDIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ECONOMÍA INTERNACIONAL
CUADERNO DE DOCUMENTACION
Número 43
Alvaro Espina Vocal Asesor 22 de Abril 2003
CUADERNO DE DOCUMENTACIÓN 22042003 43 Guerra de Irak: (VIII)
1.- Foreign Affairs May/June 2003, Vol 82, Number 3. Issue Highlight:
“The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus” by Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal "Why the Security Council Failed" by Michael Glennon “How to Build a Democratic Iraq” By Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha “A Trusteeship for Palestine?” Martin Indyk “Is Turkey Ready for Europe?” by Michael S. Teitelbaum and Philip L. Martin ………………………………………………………………………………………Página 3
2.- Informe completo días 10, 11, 14, 16 y 17 de abril
- April 17, 2003 MIDEAST ROADMAP: IRAQ WAR OPENS 'WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY' FOR PEACE .………………………………………….. Página 9 - April 16, 2003 IRAQ: THE HUNT FOR 'STUBBORNLY ELUSIVE' WMD…P. 27 - April 14, 2003 POST-IRAQ: SYRIA IS LIKELY 'NEXT VICTIM' OF U.S. 'IMPERIALISM' ……………………………………………………………Página 40 - April 10, 2003 DEATHS OF JOURNALISTS: SUSPICION U.S. ATTACKS WERE 'NO ACCIDENT' 1,? ……………………………………………...…... Página 61 - April 10, 2003 FALL OF BAGHDAD 'IMPRESSIVE' BUT 'TROUBLING' ………………………………………………………………………... Página 76
3.- Brookings Iraq Reports días 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 y 18 de abril
...... Página 99
1 TheNew National Security Strategy: Focus on Failed States by Susan E. Rice………………………………………………………… Página 111
4.- American Outlook Today, días 15, y 16 de abril
…...... ………… Página 117
5.- San Francisco Chronicle, The pictures of the war
………...... Página 123 “Plan for democracy in Iraq may be folly. Experts also question U.S. ability to reform entire Middle East”, by James Sterngold, ...... Página 131
6.- American Enterprise Institute
Bird's Eye, by Radek Sikorski ...... …..…....……….....…Página 136
Economic Shock Therapy—A Prescription for the Middle East? Lessons of Post-communist Transformations ……….…………...……Página 139
Political War Can Remove Terror Masters in Syria and Iran .…....…Página 141 A Peaceful Approach to Regime Change ………………………..….…Página 148 Why We Need a Democratic Iraq ……………………………….…..…Página 151 Background paper AEI Studies in Public Opinion: American Public Opinion on the War on Terrorism……………………………………………….…….....…Página 156
2
May/June 2003 Vol 82, Number 3
The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal
Once marginal, morality has now become a major force in foreign policy. For all the problems this development raises, the United States and the world are better off.
Why the Security Council Failed Michael J. Glennon
One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower.
How to Build a Democratic Iraq Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha
What follows the war in Iraq will be at least as important as the war itself. Nurturing democracy there after Saddam won't be easy. But it may not be impossible either. Iraq has several assets doing for it, including an educated middle class and a history of political pluralism under an earlier monarchy.
A Trusteeship for Palestine? Martin Indyk
The Bush administration's plan for Middle East peace is a road map to nowhere. A more ambitious approach will be necessary to parlay the bounce from a successful Iraq war into serious Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The time has come to consider the notion of a trusteeship for Palestine.
Is Turkey Ready for Europe? Michael S. Teitelbaum and Philip L. Martin
Brussels has delayed a decision on whether to admit Turkey to the EU. This caution is wise: it may aggravate the Turks, but no one really knows what consequences accession would bring, and Turkey has yet to achieve Europe's economic standards. History suggests that open borders would bring a flood of Turks northward looking for better jobs--a negative development for all the countries involved.
3
The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Summary: Once marginal, morality has now become a major force in foreign policy. For all the problems this development raises, the United States and the world are better off.
In the space of a few weeks recently, here's what happened on the international morality and values front: Madeleine Albright testified at a Bosnian war crimes tribunal, the State Department's chief policy planner argued that promoting democracy was one of the most important reasons to go to war with Iraq, and a top Bush administration diplomat traveled to Xinjiang to examine China's treatment of its Muslim citizens. The news stories were routine and unremarkable -- which is what was remarkable. A former secretary of state at a war crimes trial. Democracy for Iraq. Beijing allowing a U.S. human rights official to check out its domestic policies. Such events occur regularly now with little comment, no snickering from "realists," indeed with little disagreement.
Something quite important has happened in American foreign policymaking with little notice or digestion of its meaning. Morality, values, ethics, universal principles -- the whole panoply of ideals in international affairs that were once almost the exclusive domain of preachers and scholars -- have taken root in the hearts, or at least the minds, of the American foreign policy community. A new vocabulary has emerged in the rhetoric of senior government officials, Republicans and Democrats alike. It is laced with concepts dismissed for almost 100 years as "Wilsonian." The rhetoric comes in many forms, used to advocate regime change or humanitarian intervention or promote democracy and human rights, but almost always the ethical agenda has at its core the rights of the individual.
This development of morality cannot be seen simply as a postmodern version of the "white man's burden," although it has that tenor in some hands. These values are now widely shared around the world by different religions and cultures. Movements for democracy or justice for war crimes are no longer merely American or Western idiosyncrasies. And although some in America's foreign-policy community may still be using moral language to cloak a traditional national security agenda, one gets the sense that the trend is more than that. In the past, tyrants supported by Washington did not have to worry a lot about interference in their domestic affairs. Now, even if Washington needs their help, some price has to be exacted, if only sharp public criticism. Moral matters are now part of American politics and the politics of many other nations. They are rarely, even in this new age, the driving forces behind foreign policy, but they are now a constant force that cannot be overlooked when it comes to policy effectiveness abroad or political support at home.
THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA
The moral phenomenon we are now witnessing did not materialize out of whole cloth. It evolved over time, in fits and starts, solidifying only in the last 30 years.
From the dawn of human history, there have been laws about the initiation and conduct of war. The ancient Egyptians and the fourth century BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu set out rules on how and why to begin wars and how those wars should be fought. Saint Augustine argued . . .
4
Why the Security Council Failed Michael J. Glennon
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Summary: One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century-- the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower.
SHOWDOWN AT TURTLE BAY
"The tents have been struck," declared South Africa's prime minister, Jan Christian Smuts, about the League of Nations' founding. "The great caravan of humanity is again on the march." A generation later, this mass movement toward the international rule of law still seemed very much in progress. In 1945, the League was replaced with a more robust United Nations, and no less a personage than U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull hailed it as the key to "the fulfillment of humanity's highest aspirations." The world was once more on the move.
Earlier this year, however, the caravan finally ground to a halt. With the dramatic rupture of the UN Security Council, it became clear that the grand attempt to subject the use of force to the rule of law had failed.
In truth, there had been no progress for years. The UN's rules governing the use of force, laid out in the charter and managed by the Security Council, had fallen victim to geopolitical forces too strong for a legalist institution to withstand. By 2003, the main question facing countries considering whether to use force was not whether it was lawful. Instead, as in the nineteenth century, they simply questioned whether it was wise.
The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. But he warned that he would act alone if the UN failed to cooperate.
Washington's threat was reaffirmed a month later by Congress, when it gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting approval from the UN first. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council."
Two weeks later, on October 25, the United States formally proposed a resolution that would have implicitly authorized war against Iraq. But Bush again warned that he would not be deterred if the Security Council rejected the measure. "If the United Nations doesn't have the will or the courage to disarm Saddam Hussein and if Saddam Hussein will not disarm," he said, "the United States will lead a coalition to disarm [him]." After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in "material breach" of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of "serious consequences" if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.
The vote for Resolution 1441 was a huge personal victory for Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had spent much political capital urging his government to go the UN route in . . .
5
How to Build a Democratic Iraq Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Summary: What follows the war in Iraq will be at least as important as the war itself. Nurturing democracy there after Saddam won't be easy. But it may not be impossible either. Iraq has several assets doing for it, including an educated middle class and a history of political pluralism under an earlier monarchy.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
Thus far, most of the endless talk about the war in Iraq has focused on several issues: the scale of the operation, Washington's motivation, and the rift in the Atlantic alliance. It is now safe to assume, however, that if and when war comes (as of this writing, the battle had yet to begin), the United States and its allies will win, Saddam Hussein and his cronies will be toppled, and some sort of massive military occupation will follow.
In the aftermath of the war, the occupiers will focus on immediate tasks, such as ensuring order, providing relief to the long-suffering Iraqi people, and asserting control over the country. Very quickly, however -- even before they have met these goals -- the victorious powers will have to answer another pressing question: How, exactly, should they go about rebuilding the country? Saying simply that postwar Iraq should be democratic will be the easy part. Just about everyone agrees on that, and indeed, for many this end will justify the entire operation. The more difficult question will be how to make it happen.
Fortunately, the job of building democracy in Iraq, although difficult, may not be quite as hard as many critics of the war have warned. Iraq today possesses several features that will facilitate the reconstruction effort. Despite Saddam's long repression, democratic institutions are not entirely alien to the country. Under the Hashemite monarchy, which ruled from 1921 until 1958, Iraq adopted a parliamentary system modeled on that of its colonial master, the United Kingdom. Political parties existed, even in the opposition, and dissent and disagreement were generally tolerated. Debates in parliament were often vigorous, and legislators were usually allowed to argue and vote against the government without fear of retribution. Although the palace and the cabinet set the agenda, parliament often managed to influence policy. And this pluralism extended to Iraq's press: prior to the 1958 revolution that toppled the monarchy, 23 independent newspapers were published in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra alone.
Not that the Iraqi kingdom always refrained from electoral fraud, harassment of opponents, or abuse of emergency powers. The government also occasionally banned newspapers that dared to indulge in particularly virulent criticism of the regime (although the bans typically lasted for only short periods). To be sure, Iraq's history -- both under the monarchy and especially after the 1958 coup -- has been filled with plenty of authoritarianism, tribalism, and ethnic and sectarian violence. The postwar reconstruction of Germany and Japan, however, not to mention the more recent transitions from communism in eastern and central Europe, all testify to the way in which democratic political institutions can change such attitudes in a country -- often quite quickly. Having said that, the success or failure of democracy in Iraq will depend on whether the country's new political institutions take into consideration its unique social and communal makeup. It is therefore important to start talking about specifics. What should the blueprint for a future democratic Iraq look like?
LET'S . . .
6
A Trusteeship for Palestine? Martin Indyk
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Summary: The Bush administration's plan for Middle East peace is a road map to nowhere. A more ambitious approach will be necessary to parlay the bounce from a successful Iraq war into serious Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The time has come to consider the notion of a trusteeship for Palestine.
ROAD MAP TO NOWHERE
The second Palestinian intifada will soon enter its fourth year. Both Israelis and Palestinians have become exhausted by the worst violence in the history of their bloody conflict, and yet it continues. Palestinian terror attacks and Israeli military responses are dragging both communities deeper and deeper into the abyss.
Still, as President George W. Bush has averred, the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq would create an opportunity for broader Middle East peacemaking. Iran and Syria, fearing that they might be the next targets, would feel pressure to reduce their support for Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hezbollah -- the terrorist organizations that have done so much to fuel the current conflict. With a new regime in Iraq emerging under American tutelage, the balance of power in the Arab world might shift decisively in favor of the more moderate states of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, which are committed to Arab-Israeli peace. The elimination of one of the terrorists' patrons and the lowered profile of others might further lessen the appeal of terror for a Palestinian community already coming to the realization that violence has been nothing short of disastrous for its cause and circumstances. And Israelis suffering from an unprecedented number of civilian casualties, a worsening economic crisis, and a war-weary reserve army would welcome some deus ex machina from the war in Iraq to get their country out of its current rut.
Should President Bush decide to seize such a moment of diplomatic ripening and try his hand at Arab-Israeli peacemaking, he would find that a remarkable consensus has formed around his own vision of a two-state solution to the conflict. The president first articulated this vision in November 2001, when he called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside a secure Israel, and he elaborated on the idea in June 2002, when he added that such a state had to be democratic. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has endorsed this vision, as have majorities of the Israeli and Palestinian publics, and the international community believes in it.
What Bush would also find, however, is that he lacks an effective mechanism for translating his vision into reality. Bush has announced his personal commitment to working on the implementation of a "road map" of reciprocal Palestinian and Israeli steps toward peace -- beginning with Palestinian reform, an end to violence, and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrawals, moving on to a freeze of settlement activity, and proceeding eventually to negotiations on an interim arrangement that would create a Palestinian state with provisional borders. The problem with this approach is that it is likely to meet the same fate as all previous failed attempts to get Israelis and Palestinians to take reciprocal steps, most notably the Tenet cease-fire plan and the Mitchell recommendations.
On the Palestinian side there is simply no credible institution capable of constraining the terrorist organizations and armed militias responsible for the violence -- and without such an institution the IDF will . . .
7
Is Turkey Ready for Europe? Michael S. Teitelbaum and Philip L. Martin
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003
Summary: Brussels has delayed a decision on whether to admit Turkey to the EU. This caution is wise: it may aggravate the Turks, but no one really knows what consequences accession would bring, and Turkey has yet to achieve Europe's economic standards. History suggests that open borders would bring a flood of Turks northward looking for better jobs--a negative development for all the countries involved.
TUSSLES IN BRUSSELS
Last December, the EU's leaders formally agreed to expand their union in 2004 from 15 to 25 members -- a historic broadening of one of the world's most exclusive clubs. Europe's politicians also set a schedule under which two more countries, Bulgaria and Romania, would be brought into the fold three years later.
During the months leading up to the December decision, Recep Tayyip Erdogan -- leader of Turkey's Justice and Development Party, which won control of Turkey's parliament in November -- energetically toured Europe's capitals, urging EU leaders to include his nation in their expansion plans and to set a definite date to begin accession talks. Ankara's lobbying got strong backing from Washington: President George W. Bush even made a personal telephone call to the EU's then president, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to make the case. After much debate, however, when the EU announced its decision at a summit in Copenhagen in December, Turkey was turned down. Instead of offering a concrete date, the EU's leaders, in somewhat Delphic language, merely promised that if Turkey fulfilled the so-called Copenhagen criteria on human rights and democracy by December 2004, accession talks could then begin "without further delay."
By waffling, Brussels in effect managed to push down the road what has become a fundamental debate on the continent: should Turkey ever be admitted to the EU? Brussels' ambivalence reflected what has become the position of many of Europe's individual leaders -- an attitude that can best be described as "yes-but." Many of Europe's politicians now seem willing to recognize Turkey as an official candidate -- but only once it becomes more like them. This means greater respect for human rights and a reduced role in government affairs for Turkey's military. And it also means that Ankara must demonstrate sustained economic growth, enough to minimize the flood of Turkish emigration that many fear will result from its admission to the EU.
Some European leaders have also expressed darker concerns about Turkey. Most declarative, perhaps, have been the views of France's former president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the man now in charge of overseeing the drafting of a "constitution for a United Europe." On November 8, speaking to an interviewer from Le Monde, Giscard d'Estaing flatly asserted that Turkey simply is not a European country. "[Turkey's] capital is not in Europe," he declared, "and 95 percent of its population is outside Europe. [It has] a different culture, a different approach, and a different way of life. It is not a European country." EU membership for Turkey, he further declared, would mean "the end of Europe."
Giscard d'Estaing is not alone in such sentiments. His comments have been echoed by West Germany's former chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, who publicly voiced fears that the admission of Turkey "would open the door for similarly plausible full membership of other Muslim nations in Africa and in the Middle East. That could result," he argued, "in the political union degenerating into nothing more than a free trade community."
As such comments . . .
8
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction
April 17, 2003 MIDEAST ROADMAP: IRAQ WAR OPENS 'WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY' FOR PEACE
KEY FINDINGS
** The U.S.' "intimidation campaign" against Syria aims to "calm the Israeli-Palestinian front."
** Washington should prod its "protégés in Tel Aviv," not try to "remodel the Middle East."
** The "liberation of Iraq" could allow a "fresh start" in the peace process.
** As the war's "principal victor," Israel will only offer the Palestinians "crumbs."
MAJOR THEMES
The U.S. focus on Syria helps 'relaunch the roadmap'-- The U.S. is using threats to force Syria, "Israel's staunchest opponent," to reduce its "influence on radical Palestinian elements." Tel Aviv's left-leaning Ha'aretz argued this would diminish the danger to Israel and bring it "closer to another peace agreement." Muslim writers stressed instead that the "Zionist lobby" is "prodding the U.S.-led Coalition to attack Syria," which Pakistan's centrist Dawn declared would severely damage "America's relations with the Arab-Islamic world."
Washington must 'exert not only subtle but also public pressure on Israel'-- PM Sharon's "conciliatory tones" resulted from "U.S. pressure," with dailies agreeing that investing "energy, persuasion and stamina on the Israel-Palestine question" will create more "peace dividends" than threatening Syria or Iran. But the U.S.' "unfair attitude" means it won't expend any effort to "convince Sharon to give up impossible strategies," says Brazil's right-of-center O Globo. Observers were "pessimistic" the U.S. would undertake a sufficiently "radical change of emphasis and policy" to persuade "a very skeptical Israeli government" to accept the roadmap.
9 'Now is the time' to bring 'peace with dignity to the Middle East'-- The "liberation" of Iraq, Abu Mazen's PM appointment and Sharon's "softening" all "herald a change for the better," as the "fundamental changes in the region" mean this may be a "new era" for the peace process. The West Bank's independent Al-Ayyam said the "fierce American storm blowing violently in the region" makes it necessary to avoid a government that "follows a losing path, unable to face this storm." Norwegian and South African papers saw a "glimmer of hope" for a "safer Israel next to a more viable, independent Palestine."
PM Sharon's 'concessions' are only a 'PR deception'-- The planned peace with the Palestinians is "nothing but a farce" because the U.S.' recent actions have given Israel enough of a "free hand" that it "does not even need to pretend to support the Oslo process." Leftist observers from Israel and the West Bank alike predicted Sharon will entangle the roadmap in "endless and barren arguments dooming it to oblivion." Arab papers blamed Sharon's "intransigence" and "impudence" for Israel's "attempt to avoid peace." Conversely, right-wing Israeli papers opposed the roadmap, urging the world to place the "primary burden of statehood and peace on the Palestinians, where it belongs."
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey was based on 60 reports from 30 countries over 12 - 17 April 2003. Editorial excerpts are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Don't Hold Your Breath"
Jonathan Freedland opined in the leftist Guardian (4/16): "For once the outlook seems almost sunny. In a conflict where a change in prospects is usually from bleak to bleaker, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle has suddenly begun sprouting apparent green shoots of possibility. Perhaps after a season of war, pray the optimists, this could be the season of peacemaking in the Middle East. It'd be nice to think so. But--and this might be good advice for our prime minister - it's best when gazing at the Middle East to put aside the rose-colored spectacles. For there is every reason to be skeptical, rather than hopeful, about the intentions of both the Israeli and the U.S. administrations.... This administration will do little or nothing for Israeli-Palestinian peace this side of next year's presidential elections.... And this is about more than the crude (and often mistaken) assumption about the Jewish vote.... But more important is the 'iron triangle' within the Republican Party. It consists of Jewish donors, ideological neocons and critically, the Christian right. It is this group--which stands to the right of the American Jewish community--which Bush would be reluctant to offend. Put simply, the message from Washington is: don't hold your breath. The White House will put no pressure on Israel until the Palestinians are deemed to have made the grade on internal reform--and that judgement is not coming soon."
"Bush's Next Move"
The leftist Guardian said (4/15): "What is the Bush administration up to? Even the gloomiest observers of Washington's hawkish neoconservatives do not believe Abrams tanks are about to deploy to Syria. Colin Powell's warning of economic and diplomatic measures is nearer the mark. The US is making hay while the post-war sun shines. Mr. Assad is vulnerable because of the loss of illegal Iraqi oil imports and a mounting sense
10 of regional isolation. The US and Britain agree he would be taking risks if he allowed Arab fighters or weapons across his border or sheltered senior Iraqis--though UN backing for the war would have made such demands easier to enforce. The US also wants Syria to rein in political support for groups like the suicide -bombing Palestinian Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese Shi'ite organization Hizbullah. That could help calm the Israeli-Palestinian front--though only if Mr. Bush follows Mr. Blair's urgent advice and exploits new opportunities in Jerusalem as well as Damascus."
GERMANY: “Sharon’s Maneuvering”
Sillke Mertins noted in business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg (4/17): “The fear of terrorism is safeguarding Ariel Sharon’s power and popularity for the time being. But the economic weakening that goes along with the ongoing political crisis could break his back. A general strike and protests against cuts in all sectors are the harbingers of a massive social conflict in Israel. Sharon may withstand the revolt of the Palestinians but not the intifada of the Israelis. It is time for one of his aides to tell him: ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ And the only way out of the economic misery leads via the seized headquarters of the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.”
"A Fire Still Burns"
Right-of-center Nordwest-Zeitung of Oldenburg contended (4/17): "The end of the military operations in Iraq cannot obscure the fact that a fire is still burning at the powder keg in the Middle East. The Islamic leadership is suspicious of an American-British protectorate.... But as if this were not dangerous enough, Ariel Sharon is pouring oil into the fire. In a patronizing way, the Israeli premier does not recommend a military strike against Syria, but as far as the economy is concerned, he would not mind the United States turning the thumbscrews. Again the hawk in Jerusalem is pursuing his own interests which will make peace even more fragile.”
"No Turnabout"
Erik-Michael Bader judged in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (4/15): “If Israel’s Premier Sharon had really declared his willingness to clear the Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we could speak of a sensational change.... But it is simply not imaginable that an Israeli government would ever be willing to give up all its 200,000 settlers in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. According to the Israeli point of view the ban laid down in international law not to settle on occupied territory is not valid in this case, since it does not consider this territory the occupied territory of another state. Israel considers the annexed eastern Jerusalem, including the surrounding with the 200,000 settlers part of its own territory.”
"Tightrope Act In the Middle East"
Business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg opined (4/15): “With a look to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are trying to call Syria to reason. In their search for legitimacy for the military strike in the Gulf, the allies promised to intensely push the search for a peaceful solution of the Middle East conflict after the end of the war. Following the swift ouster of the Iraqi dictator, the Americans and the British must now keep their promise in order to turn a
11 military into a political victory. But without Syria’s concessions, the solution of the conflict will hardly be possible.... It is no coincidence that we suddenly also hear more conciliatory tones from Israel...but Ariel Sharon would certainly not have been willing to make compromises without U.S. pressure.... But U.S. mediation attempts will be successful only if the United States is able to convey a picture of an ‘honest broker.’ The Arab world watches the ‘protector’ of the hated Israel with great skepticism. Only if the Americans exert not only subtle but also public pressure on Israel, will the Arab world be willing to get involved in a peaceful solution of the Mideast conflict.”
ITALY: "Domino Effect In The Middle East"
Arturo Gismondi commented in pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (4/15): “Ariel Sharon has beaten all those who are interested, one way or the other, to the roadmap for peace in the Middle East--the United States, Europe, Russia, the Palestinians--by hinting to the concrete prospect of a quick beginning of negotiations guaranteed by the international community. This is an important development, since Sharon has outlined in a precise fashion to his interlocutors the concessions that Jerusalem is ready to make.... Sharon’s interview with Haaretz is the first ‘domino effect’ of the war in Iraq, capable of changing the immobile scenario of the Middle East.... Palestinian extremists will have to do without the protection, and the money, of Saddam Hussein. Israel can now look to the future with more optimism. Also because its other merciless enemy, Syria, suspected of hiding mass destruction weapons and giving shelter to Saddam’s top collaborators, has excellent reasons to be careful and to control the mortars and the rockets of the Hezbollah at the border with Lebanon.”
AUSTRIA: “This Hyper-power Is Capable Of Anything”
In mass-circulation Kurier, Walter Friedl asked (4/16): “Is this just a warning or already the overture to another war in the Middle East? No one outside the neo-conservative circle around US President Bush knows how exactly the American threats against Syria should be interpreted.... But let’s not give in to illusions: If Bush decides to go wild and Blair stresses the partnership for moderate Islamic regimes, the pattern is somewhat reminiscent of the good cop-bad cop scheme. Both have the same goal: Establishing a new order in the Middle East. Whoever doesn’t fit in will have to go. And it is certainly no coincidence that these states are the declared enemies of Israel. Apart from the safeguarding of national interests (oil), all that activity in Washington has another goal: To strengthen Israel at the expense of the Arab world. The planned peace with the Palestinians is thus nothing but a farce.”
"Arafat Has Shot Himself In The Foot"
In liberal Der Standard, Gudrun Harrer opined (4/15): "Palestinian President Yassir Arafat is opposed to the new Palestinian cabinet suggested by designated Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), who is not a ‘Zionist agent,’ but an old companion of Arafat’s. As soon as this cabinet exists, the--meanwhile no longer new--‘roadmap’ for the Middle East, which the EU, the UN and Russia have been bragging about in the USA for months, will finally be published. This was promised by US President George Bush himself. And now Arafat is doing everything to prevent the cabinet and the roadmap. He has shot himself in the foot here.... Dov Weisglass, head of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s cabinet, was supposed to call on Bush’s Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on
12 Monday in order to present Israel’s reservations regarding the roadmap: He was able to nonchalantly point out that nothing can be done as long as Arafat is still around.”
“Another War In The Middle East?”
In centrist Die Presse, Gerhard Bitzan wrote (4/15): "As happened with Iraq last year, suddenly all sorts of allegations against Damascus turn up: Syria produces chemical weapons, Syria is a warmonger, Syria supports al Qaeda, Syria is a stronghold of terrorism.... However, the US is facing more of a struggle with Damascus than it did with Baghdad. Not on a military level, but on the level of international politics, an attack would meet with utter incomprehension. After all, Syria has not broken any UN resolutions for years, as Iraq has. It might be light-years away from democracy, but it does not have a slaughter regime like the one in Baghdad. At the same time, Syria is Israel’s staunchest opponent in the region, and this seems to be the true reason for the increased attacks. It would be too great for Israel if, in the course of the big spring- cleaning, Syria, too, would be put in its place. However, all of this can surely not be a reason for war.”
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Warning To Arafat"
Pavel Masa commented in center-right Lidove Noviny (4/17): "An American commando team detained Abu Abbas in Baghdad and it is important to note that he had to return to Baghdad after Syria refused him entry to its territory. Abbas's case has become warning message to Palestinian extremists including Arafat. After they lost one of their main sponsors--Saddam Hussein--they are confronted with the prospect that Syria under U.S. pressure will gradually start sacrificing them. Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas, who is attempting to eliminate the influence of Palestinian extremists and head towards a peace with Israel, can be satisfied. And if the Americans manage to find in Baghdad a live witness of Arafat's participation in past crimes and evidence about his financial machinations at the expense of the Palestinian people, the Premier could really celebrate."
IRELAND: "US Turns Its Attention To Syria"
The center-left Irish Times stated (4/16): "The United States has turned its attention to Syria after securing military control over Iraq.... This is a signal of what is to come and a sharp reminder that a wider regional agenda underlies Washington's Iraq campaign.... Syria's role is deeply bound up with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That gives it a real obligation to play its hand responsibly.... The Bush administration has had a constant ideological sympathy with Mr Ariel Sharon's government in Israel, which has been strengthened by the outcome of the war. While Mr Bush has pledged to devote as much attention to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement...this would involve a radical change of emphasis and policy towards Israel--a readiness to put pressure on it to make major concessions for peace. This looks unlikely in the light of the US presidential election next year, in which Mr Bush will rely on Jewish and Christian fundamentalist votes to win another term. Pressure for a peace agreement will have to come from the other members of the 'quartet'."
NETHERLANDS: "Shockwave"
13
Influential independent NRC Handelsblad editorialized (4/14): "The Americans are using the momentum to put pressure on Syria.... However, it would reflect political overconfidence if the United States would immediately push through to Syria. It would also diminish the opportunities which the end of this Iraq war offers to help find a solution for the problems in the region.... Sharon has rightly so emphasized the importance of the opportunity now that another phase has begun.... Israel and the Palestinians, particularly Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas' administration, should be judged by their actions. No more suicide attacks followed by the unavoidable counterattacks on Palestinian villages and cities. Only then will serious talks be possible. There is immense mutual suspicion and hatred; both parties will have to make painful concessions...but if there is a chance to break the spill of mutual violence then now is the time."
NORWAY: “Hope And Fear”
Christian-Democratic Norwegian-language Vaart Land held (4/16): “Instead [of pursuing a war against Syria] the mighty U.S. and U.K. must gamble on a fresh start in the Middle East, and a fresh start can only be about a better relationship between Israel and Palestine. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said that the outcome of the war gives possibilities for big changes, but he does not give any concrete promises or admissions. The peace process is more ruined than Baghdad, but in this quiet week it is possible to see a glimmer of hope. Can it grow stronger?”
"Shock And Relief Over Baghdad’s Fall”
In newspaper-of-record Aftenposten, Per A. Christiansen commented (4/12): “For now it is unclear to what degree President George W. Bush will try to pressure a very skeptical Israeli government to accept this so-called ‘roadmap’ for peace. Especially Bush’s nomination of the strongly Israel-friendly retired General Jay Garner as acting leader in Iraq has for now weakened the Arabs’ hope that the U.S. meant it seriously.”
PORTUGAL: "From Enlargement To 'Pax' Americana"
Editor-in chief Rui Teixeira Santos wrote in centrist weekly Semanário (4/17): "What we saw [in Iraq] was...the pragmatism of a surviving people.... The renaissance of Islam proclaimed in Cairo and Damascus is ending in the pragmatism of a new order for the Middle East, where peace means dividing the water of the Golan Heights among everyone, and where the collaborationism of Syria and Iran will mean, at last, the recognition of a Palestinian state, but also of Israel and its vital interests as a peaceful nation and viable state."
"Who's Next?"
Vital Moreira vituperated in influential moderate-left Público (4/15): "It is to be feared that instead of forcing its proteges in Tel Aviv to put an end to Palestinian humiliation (and in fact the systematic violation of a dozen United Nations resolutions), Bush and his team are already planning for their next 'preventive' victim, if by chance there happen to be countries so senseless that after the crushing of Iraq they dare to incur the wrath of the new lords of the world."
14
SWEDEN: "A Window Of Opportunity Has Opened"
Conservative Stockholm-based Svenska Dagbladet editorialized (4/15): "The liberation of Iraq has, at last, opened slightly the window of opportunity in the Mideast. In addition there are signals from Washington, that indicate that President Bush would be willing to open it completely.... The toppling of the Iraqi dictatorship might be an impulse for the building of democracy in the Arab world. The creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel would no doubt facilitate such a process. Ariel Sharon, who until now has only redeemed the negative expectations put on him, now has the chance to go down in history with a different posthumous reputation. Whether he can make himself take it, however, is another matter."
TURKEY: “Who Is Next?”
Soli Ozel noted in mass appeal Sabah (4/17): “Despite the strong warnings, a US military operation against Syria is unlikely. The Bush administration is currently going through the list of measures in an orderly fashion, and at the same time calling on the Damascus regime to ‘read correctly’ the consequences of the Iraq war. Washington clearly is asking the Syrian administration to end support for terrorism and to work for a lasting settlement with Israel. The policies pursued by Syria will shape future developments in the region.... Another important factor to watch carefully is US policy about the Israel-Palestine issue in the Bush administration’s new Middle East plan.... Considering the approaches to the Middle East ‘road map’ from both the US and Israel, we can draw a pessimistic conclusion. The way Washington sees the road map tells us that the Israeli administration will not face any pressure for peace, at least in the near future. In other words, peace and stability in the region are still far in the distance.”
“Transformation”
Hasan Cemal observed in mass appeal Milliyet (4/17): “It is absolutely the best for Turkey when and if Syria is freed from the Baath dictatorship and its support for terrorist organizations is ended.... A peace between Palestine and Israel can also be made possible if the US exerts enough pressure on Sharon, especially after the normalization process of Iraq and Syria. Such a development might have positive effects for change in Lebanon as well as in Iran.... The current situation in the Middle East is in the process of a transformation. It means a certain amount of instability. Yet the current situation was also inherently unstable. Therefore, Turkey should refrain from siding with the status quo and instead encourage the change.”
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Between The Settlers And Bush"
Zeev Schiff commented in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (4/16): "Anyone who holds to principles that include the end of the occupation that began in 1967, in Bush's words, does not intend for the hundreds of Israeli settlements to remain in Palestinian territory as if they are a part of Israel. Sharon understands this just like he understands that Bush and [settler leaders] represent totally opposing positions. It is impossible to realize both their expectations.... At this point, [Sharon] does not want a confrontation with either Bush or
15 [the settlers].... The expansion of settlements means only one thing: the continuation of the occupation and the rule over another people, if not over all of it then over most of it. All the word games will not whitewash this fact. The inevitable result of the continued occupation, even via settlements and outposts, will be an increase in terror and its reinforcement by external radical elements. And if the terror attacks resume after the Iraq War, how has it helped the struggle against terror?"
"U.S. Adopting Saudi Plan"
Orly Azolai-Katz wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/16): "The disagreement between Israel and the U.S. over the 'road map' is getting sharper. Tuesday for the first time, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the 'road map' would also be based on the Saudi initiative for a peace agreement in the Middle East, which consists mainly of a return to the June 1967 borders.... Up until Tuesday, Administration officials refrained from mentioning the Saudi initiative in their discussions about the U.S. 'road map.' Now the U.S. wants to have Saudi Arabia participate in the peace process in exchange for quiet cooperation on its part in the war against Iraq. In the past Israel already rejected the Saudi initiative, which turned out to have been formulated in cooperation with the Americans, and which was adopted by the Arab League.... Government sources in Jerusalem said last night that Israel would not be able to accept the American demand that the 'road map' be based on the Saudi initiative."
"How To Deal With Syria"
Independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz editorialized (4/15): "The Syrian provocation is also to be seen in its ties to organizations hostile to Israel--Palestinian (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front - General command) and Lebanese (Hizbullah). The global U.S. campaign against terror is also aimed at these groups and the countries that provide them shelter. If the United States succeeds in forcing Iran and Syria to cease their support for these organizations that are trying to harm Israel inside its borders, in the territories and overseas, it would be another substantial contribution--following the removal of Iraq from the circle of hostile countries--to Israel's security. The situation that has emerged on Israel's northern front--from the moment the Iraqi threat was neutralized, thus eliminating the eastern front--justifies opening a diplomatic, not a military, campaign.... Renewing the Israeli-Syrian talks...could thaw the tension between Washington and Damascus and bring Israel closer to another peace agreement that would have an impact on the contacts with the Palestinians. The price Israel would have to pay, a withdrawal from the Golan, should not deter the Sharon government."
"Sharon Was Brainwashed"
Nationalist columnist Hagai Segal declared in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/15): "Judging by the depth of his fresh concessions [in his April 13 interview with Ha'aretz], Sharon is more worthy of contempt than of anger. He is neither 'pragmatic' nor 'moderate'--and certainly not a 'De Gaulle,' as commentators have been praising him. He is a tired person.... Today, the idea of the establishment of a Tanzim Palestinian state on the ruins of Jewish communities sounds even crazier than two or three years ago, when 760 [Israeli] victims of the Intifada were still alive. It could only be compared with the establishment of a new Ba'ath government in liberated Baghdad and the restoration of Saddam's statues at the Americans' expense.... In his next interview with Ha'aretz,
16 [Sharon] might even sing new melodies about Jerusalem."
"A Window Has Been Opened For Us"
Arik Bachar wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/15): "Even with all the uncertainty that has enveloped the Middle East after the completion of the American project to eradicate the Iraqi regime, one can determine with near certainty that if Israel does not make a substantive change in its political and military positions, someone on Israel's team is going to fail to recognize the fact that indeed there are fundamental changes in the region. The eastern front that threatened Israel for years no longer exists, in practice.... There are encouraging signs that Abu Mazen’s assumption of his duties as the first Palestinian prime minister truly does herald a change for the better. If this new, yet still inchoate situation does not warrant new Israeli thinking, then we probably will never find good reasons to think about how our situation has improved in the last 50 years.... Even if the international pressure, with American support, reaches Israel only after all of the other countries in the area have learned their lesson, arrive it most certainly will. That is a good reason for the Prime Minister to think seriously and not only to contemplate in a newspaper interview about dismantling settlements and about meaningful Israeli gestures that will promote a more pragmatic leadership among the Palestinians, showing that Israel is capable of thinking outside its traditional box when a new reality begins to take shape around it."
"What Sharon Says"
Independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz editorialized (4/14): "Polished statements [by Ariel Sharon in his April 13 interview with Ha'aretz] and the initial reactions to them--whether enthusiastic or condemnatory--will not be the judge of Sharon's determination 'to make every effort,' as he said, 'to reach real peace'.... But...what is the Prime Minister doing to help Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbs] establish the government that Sharon wants so much? What gestures has he made? Has he ordered a reduction in house demolitions, armored raids, the waves of night-time arrests, the closures? In addition, Sharon's future 'painful concessions' echoed through the air Sunday. But a careful examination of what he said shows that while the future he refers to is far off and still unseen, in the visible present, the prime minister has no intention to concede anything or to be pained.... There is a gnawing concern in reading Sharon's words, given the way his government has been dealing with the Palestinians, that the prime minister is raising 'the issue of stages,' as he called it, as a means of undermining the road map by entangling it in endless and barren arguments dooming it to oblivion."
"A Dove Named Arik"
Nahum Barnea stated in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/14): "Those who made do with reading the headline [of Sharon's April 13 interview with Ha'aretz] reached the conclusion that Sharon is ready for far-reaching concessions. Those who went to the trouble of reading the small print found that it balanced out the large print. For more than two years Sharon has been contorting himself like a juggler on this tightrope.... Sharon is just hanging on and not going anywhere. Sharon's conditions for negotiations on an agreement are: a different Arab leadership, fighting terrorism, a list of reforms, a
17 complete cessation of incitement, and the dismantling of the terror organizations. These are conditions that vast majority of Israelis agree with wholeheartedly. The problem is with the agreement itself. For the handful of Bantustans that Sharon is offering the Palestinians, it is doubtful if in the long term there will be any leaders willing to make the effort. Sharon has not become more moderate, but more extreme.... Turning a concession on the right of return into a precondition for negotiations is a wonder pill guaranteed to torpedo any agreement. Or, at least, to torpedo the 'road map.'"
"Speak, Mr. President"
Conservative, independent Jerusalem Post opined (4/14): "The road map is so obsessed with placing equal blame and making equal demands of both sides that it is hard to see how it can be satisfactorily amended. There is also little point in amending it, since that would mean going back for another lowest-common-denominator document from the UN and the Europeans, which would not turn out much better. What should be done instead is to supplant the road map, just like the road map supplanted Bush's June 24 speech. Turnover is fair play. Bush, not the Quartet, is the ultimate interpreter of his own speech. And the essence of that speech was to place the primary burden of statehood and peace on the Palestinians, where it belongs. The issues of blame and burden are not quibbles; they spell the difference between another failed round of 'peace' diplomacy and a viable attempt to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. Bush should say simply that he has confidence the people and government of Israel are ready for peace the moment the Palestinians and the Arab world demonstrate they are ready to live with Israel.... If Bush wants the fruits of a new Middle East, he cannot get it using a failed diplomatic playbook."
WEST BANK: "Israel's Real Test"
Independent Al-Quds opined (4/14): "It is now clear that Israel, which has done everything in its power to postpone the publication of the road map until after the U.S. aggression against Iraq and wagered on the time factor, is trying once again to set preconditions to the Palestinians under new slogans and pretexts. Sharon pointed out the need for a new Palestinian leadership, the enactment of several reforms, a total halt to incitement, and quashing terrorist organizations as a condition for reaching an agreement. This is an old position on which Sharon only bestowed further intransigence.... Therefore, we maintain that the public relations deception by Israel and its prime minister by talking about painful concessions and the readiness to attain a peace agreement amid a plethora of conditions and dictates cannot conceal Israel’s attempt to avoid peace and its renewed wager on the time factor.”
"Sharon's Statements Should Be Taken Seriously; Let's Put Sharon To The Test"
Ziyad Aby Zayyad urged in independent Al-Quds (4/14): "Despite the lack of confidence which makes each side doubt any statement or positive initiatives...by the other side, it is high time to get rid of our doubts, put aside sentiments and emotions, and seriously listen to the other side’s statements. I read Sharon’s remarks to Ha'aretz very carefully. He expressed readiness to compromise on some parts of the West Bank and said that he decided to exert every effort to attain a settlement, that ultimately a Palestinian state will be established, and that he believes that Israel should neither rule over other people nor run their affairs because it doesn’t have the capabilities to do so and because this constitutes a heavy burden on the Israeli public and inflicts vast moral and economic
18 harm on it. These statements--and I mentioned only part of his remarks--should not be taken lightly but rather seriously. The Palestinian side should grasp these statements and invite Sharon to the negotiating table to sit together once under an international umbrella, primarily the Quartet’s.”
"The Palestinian Government Is ‘Fateh-Parliamentary’ But..."
Hani Al-Masri opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (4/15): "We are in need of a national, political, rational, democratic, professional and technocratic government, one that is an apparatus within the PLO [and] is not an alternative to the historical and legitimate leadership of our people. We don’t need a government that takes a foolish position of standing against the fierce American storm blowing violently in the region at this time. But we are also in no need of a government that follows a losing path, unable to face this storm.”
"Abu Mazen Government: Double Mission"
Rajab Abu Sarieh wrote in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (4/15): "As the Palestinians try to work out final details regarding the formation of the new government, a reading of the initial formation of this government indicates that it is going to be a technocratic one, able to deal transparently with the internal situation.... This reveals keenness to integrate important Palestinian institutions by separating between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.”
"The Road Map: Illusion And Reality”
Gazi Al-Khalili contended in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (4/13): "Many recent American statements have confirmed that while the ‘Road Map’ will be declared after the formation of the new Palestinian cabinet, it will not be imposed on the parties, stressing that the American administration will wait to hear from both sides. This means that it is very possible that the game of stalling and prolonged negotiations will resume, which basically means abolishing the whole plan. This is exactly what Sharon needs in order to impose his own plan of continuing settlement activities and dividing the Palestinian areas into cantons isolated by separation walls.”
EGYPT: "Post-Fall Plots"
Leading pro-government Al Ahram contributor Fahmy Howeidi commented (4/15): "With the fall of Baghdad, the first Arab capital in the 21st century has fallen.... The worried voices in many Arab capitals are saying if foreign intervention under the pretext of democratization can be repeated in any other country, there should be rapid political reform, whether to abort the foreign intervention plots, or to absorb the anger of the public, which emerged to retaliate from the symbols of power, rulers' houses, and statues of the one leader.... Despite the diversity of predictions on the form of the new Middle East, Israel's share is the clearest so far. Israel had a role in mobilization, planning and implementing thee war.... General Gay Garner...was nominated by Rumsfeld and supported by Sharon because of his relationship with the extremists in Tel Aviv.... Two of the group that are nominated to run Iraq are former CIA chums Woolsey...and Kerny, as well as former VOA director Riley who will run the Iraqi TV 'Haaretz.' Jewish organizations in the U.S. established good relations with Iraqi opposition...and some
19 Israeli companies have already planned airlines between Tel Aviv and Baghdad."
JORDAN: “Stop Asking For New Glories”
Jamil Nimri remarked in independent, mass-appeal Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/15): “During this war, the Arab people stood against the invasion, except for the one people who actually fell under that invasion, for they wanted to get rid of what they were suffering from.... After this recent shock, would it be right to ignore those methods of domestic rule that are justified on the pretext that they confront foreign intervention? Would inflaming emotions with fiery, high-noted pan-Arab and Islamic speeches and feeding hopes of regaining the glory of the nation justify ignoring the oppression and corruption and stepping on of individual citizens.... We do not want any single leader to decide to drag us into confrontations. Only governments elected by elected parliaments would decide such a thing, so that people can bear the responsibility, whether negative or positive.... Commenting on the objectives of imperialism and Zionism in our region and for our people is masked idleness that seeks to exempt us from holding ourselves accountable for what we are in. Is it logical that a regime would wage two destructive useless wars?”
LEBANON: "All Roads To A Better Future Lead Through Palestine"
The English-language moderate Daily Star (4/16): "No one who understands such matters had any doubts that once the United States lead an invasion of Iraq, the former would prevail. What remains to be seen is whether U.S. President George W. Bush is willing to invest the same amounts of effort, money, time, and politico-diplomatic capital in a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has enough advises to know by now that whatever goals have been achieved in Iraq will not matter very much--or for very long-- unless he unties the Gordian knot at the core of the region's problems: Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.... Washington's plans for the region will sink or swim in Palestine and nowhere else.... The riddle is not insoluble but the damage incurred by failing to act now will be irreparable.... The beauty of the Palestinian issue is that an equitable agreement can help further a host of worthwhile objectives across the region, including genuine democratization, economic growth, open markets and increased stability. The unfortunate corollary to this capacity for good, however, is an unstoppable propensity to block these and other ambitions if the status quo is allowed to persist. The choice of which route to follow is Bush's for the taking."
"The American Campaign Frees Israel's Hands"
Joseph Samaha wrote in Arab nationalist As-Safir (4/16): "Now that the war has already taken place, and Washington has indicated that it...wants to reassemble the Middle East starting with its campaign against Syria...consequently we can talk about the Israeli benefits.... It will be no exaggeration to believe that the torrent of American positions against Syria provides Israel with a political coverage to do what it can to complete the U.S. strategic plans in the Middle East; i.e., the U.S. might ask Israel to do what it does not want to do 'in person.' Therefore, we can conclude that the U.S. recent positions have 'liberated Israel' and has given it a free hand."
20 "The Great Zionist Dream And The American Warnings Campaign"
Charles Ayoub noted in independent, non-sectarian Ad-Diyar (4/15): "Washington is leaning on its power and is not taking justice into consideration. It is using its double standard policy with excessive impudence: On one hand, it supports Israel, which is an invader, with money and weapons. On the other hand, it invades Iraq barbarically and threatens Syria without any justification.... The U.S. is standing naked without any credibility.... It owns nothing but the weapons of power and destruction.... America is being led by Zionism. There is no independent American decision and President Bush is not the decision maker.... The Zionist lobby is behind the American campaign against Syria.... The truth is that Israel is the country that owns WMD while Syria does not. Washington talks about Syria and ignores Israel.... The current American policy is what is really dangerous for international stability. Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld are implementing the Zionist dreams.... America will eventually be destroyed by Zionism."
MOROCCO: “U.S. Accusations Against Syria, Difficult Stability In Iraq And Post- War Uncertainty”
Semi-official French-language Le Matin held (4/16): “Having won the war in Iraq, the U.S. now wants to be more involved in the future of the Middle East. Settlement plans made by George W. Bush and his advisers are that after Iraq, Syria will be the next target of the American strategy.... The intimidation campaign against Syria is aimed at neutralizing Syrian support to Hamas and Hezbollah Islamic movements, and reducing Damascus’s influence on radical Palestinian elements in order to relaunch the ‘road map’."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Syria War For The Following Reason"
Abha's moderate Al-Watan noted (4/16): "Syria was also able, to a great extent, to disturb Israel domestically through the Palestinian Intifadah, which has been going on for more than two years, by allowing organizations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to operate and support the Intifadah.... But in the Syrian case Washington understands, along with its closest ally London, that statements by the American leaders are no more than throwing dust in the eyes in order to harvest elsewhere. It is no longer a secret, especially now that Iraq's occupation has coincided in a naked way with a revitalization of the roadmap."
"Partial Towards Israel And Against Peace"
Riyadh's moderate Al-Jazirah declared (4/15): "The American campaign will not have an impact on the existing facts in the region, accordingly it will not assist in stabilizing the peace, as long as it aligns with Israel, and at the same time is attacking the countries which are complying with the peace process. Lagging behind the Israeli agenda means that the key countries are limiting their visions to the region, according to the Israeli conception, which is contrary to the aim of all regional countries looking for a comprehensive and upright peace.... Syria will not yield to any pressure, to subjugate itself for Israel, since Israel itself is occupying Syrian as well as several other Arab countries' land."
21 "Israel And Campaign Against Israel"
Riyadh's moderate Al-Jazirah editorialized (4/15): "Israel entered the tension line between Syria and the US, in the hope of arousing the conflicts, and to see another Arabic country is torn down by the American military planes. By entering among the tools of this campaign, Israel aims to press Syria to accept dealing with Israel's incomplete presentation for peace, and hoping also for Syria to get such a strike, as well as to remove all efficient authorities in the Arabic world away from the Arabic-Israeli conflict's arena, to keep its stolen Arabic properties and rights. Peace and stability in the region will not work out, if dealing with the region's countries will go through the method of accusations, to pass on definite schemes, lacking the upright and comprehensive peace principles. Under no such circumstances and threats with the next Arabic generation accept these settlements."
"Sharon's New Ploy"
Makkah-based conservative Al-Nadwa opined (4/14): "What Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister declared yesterday, that he is ready to remove some of the Jewish settlements from the west bank in order to solicit a peace settlement with the Palestinians, is merely a new trick, to go around the American and British efforts, which the American President and British Prime Minister promised to carry out to move the peace process forward in the Middle East after ending the war on Iraq. What Sharon is proposing, is no more than maneuvers to exploit the nature of the current phase, to which all attentions are directed now on the Middle East, seeking a political peace settlement after ending the war. Sharon's signals are no more than misleading signals for the international community to avoid putting any pressure on him that might lead to a final settlement for one of the most complicated crises in the world."
"Sharon's Impudence"
Jeddah's moderate Okaz declared (4/14): "Israeli Prime Minister Sharon remained silent for long time and when he finally spoke, he spoke the language of the infidel. He is taking advantage of the recent chaos and disorder in the world to score some goals of his own. He is using his agents in Washington to fill the U.S.' heart with hatred against Saudi Arabia, employing the same old story that Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorist organizations. In his first press conference after the war, he impudently links Saudi Arabia with other countries that are allegedly supporting terrorism. Saudi Arabia is not surprised, because we have a just cause and we take solid stands, which we will continue defending, and because we would not expect anything less than such lies from Sharon and his gang. We are hopeful that the U.S. is aware of all the Zionist false accusations. It should not come as a surprise to the entire world, that Zionist lobbies are targeting US- Saudi relations, because such coalition creates an obstacle for Zionist plans. However, we remain as eager to maintain this coalition, as we are protective of our just cause. We will not pay any attention to Sharon's impudence."
TUNISIA: "American-Israeli Objectives Behind Threats Towards Syria"
Editor-in-chief Noureddine Achour observed in independent Arabic-language As-Sabah (4/15): "The issue of chemical weapons is a pretext; when used, it brings the theoretical support of American general opinion and that of the western world.... It seems that
22 Washington's requests to Syria represent strategic goals, including forcing Syria to withdraw its forces from the Lebanese territories and to dislocate the organization of Hizbollah militia. It also aims to reach arrangements with Lebanon that would guarantee the 'right' of Israel to profit from South Lebanon waters and to find a solution to the Golan Heights. These arrangements would allow Israel to place this area out of the reach of Syria's sovereignty, perhaps even by deploying 'international' forces on it. Hence, what the American administration is going to achieve this time is neither linked with oil nor with democracy, but with saving Israel from its own complexes and fears... In the case of dismantling Hizbollah militia, the strike will be binary, as it will also target the last remnants of Iranian control outside of its territory."
UAE: "An Arab Role"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al-Khaleej editorialized (4/16): "The earthquake in Iraq created an unbalanced situation, but there is a chance to reunite all that have been scattered, also there are abilities and capabilities from which they can benefit. The Arabs must realize that Syria is not the only target, and that protecting it is protecting what remains on a long American-Zionist list, regardless of the violent and brutal attacks.... Otherwise, the imprisoning of Arabs that began in Palestine and continued to Iraq will not be limited to any borders."
ASIA
AUSTRALIA: “Priorities In Middle East”
An editorial in the liberal Sydney Morning Herald read (4/16): "With the dust yet to settle on the expeditious capture of Iraq, the rattling of American sabers at neighboring Syria is untimely and unsettling. It fuels suspicions that the United States led the pre- emptive strike against Iraq while concealing its real intentions. Critics can legitimately celebrate Iraq's liberation from decades of tyranny while questioning the consequences for international order if the world's only superpower chooses gunboat diplomacy to create its own domino effect. As pressing as the US may regard the bringing to heel of Syrian excesses, the investment of energy, persuasion and stamina on the Israel-Palestine question is more likely to pay peace dividends.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "Winners And Losers In The War On Iraq"
Sunanda Kisor Datta-Ray stated in the independent English-language South China Morning Post (4/15): "With so much contention, the U.S. will probably do what it would have done anyway--install its own pro-consul. The objection is that the nominee, retired General Jay Garner, is a leading light of the same military-industrial complex that favors Mr. Chalabi. It is also strongly pro-Israel. Israel's role can only be guessed at. It was Israel that whispered to the Americans that Syria was sending military supplies to Iraq. It was Israel that suggested Saddam Hussein might be in Damascus. What needs no guessing is that Israel does not even need to pretend now to support the Oslo process. President George W. Bush's road map for Palestine probably fell far short of the original vision. The Palestinian Authority will have to be grateful for whatever crumbs the Israelis throw it. Indeed, after the devastation of Iraq, Palestinians are the real losers in the war. Israel is the principal victor."
23 JAPAN: "Arab World Concerned About Postwar Crisis"
Liberal Asahi observed (4/15): "As Iraq comes under the control of U.S./UK troops, post-Saddam 'waves of change' are expected to sweep the Middle East and Arab region. As things stand, the U.S., having demonstrated its overwhelming military might in the war in Iraq, is expected to hold sway over the region, probably setting its sights on Syria and Iran as its next (military) targets. As the balance of power between the U.S.-Israel group and the Arab world is fast crumbling, the outlook for Middle East peace appears to be more distant."
INDONESIA: “The U.S. Now Pressing On Syria”
Christian-oriented Sinar Harapan commented (4/15): “The allegations that Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction and harbors Saddam’s regime leaders constitute a form of pressure that could justify Washington to attack Syria if it refuses to comply with the will of Bush and his friends. We find the allegations unfair.... The U.S. methods to develop unfair partial foreign policies in the Middle East for momentary interests are very dangerous and will only bring about more failures.... The root of the problem is the U.S. unfair attitude in handling the Israel-Palestine conflict. Support for a fair settlement there could very likely end the various conflicts and political upheavals in the Middle East. All in all, those threats indicate that the multilateralism era has ended and has been replaced with U.S. unilateralism.”
MALAYSIA: "Syria Next?"
Government-influenced English-language New Straits Times editorialized (4/17): "The Bush Administration’s sabre rattling over Syria shows that occupying Iraq was only the opening shot in its attempt to reshape the Middle East. Syria is accused by the US of accepting fleeing Iraq officials, developing WMD and sheltering anti-Israeli militant groups such as Hezbollah. In going after Syria, the US is doing what the Israelis had all along wanted--to neutralize a powerful backer of the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom and their rights. Syria has denied developing WMD and instead has accused the US of double standards in turning a blind eye to Israel's possession of WMD. Washington cannot hope to impose a lasting peace in the Middle East with military might alone, even after deposing Saddam Hussein. Having tasted blood in Iraq, the hawks are now gunning for Syria. It is hard to see how there can ever be peace until the warmongers, whether in Washington or Tel Aviv, are reined in."
"Israel Pressuring The U.S. To Go After Syria."
Government-influenced Malay-language Berita Harian opined (4/16): "There is no doubt that all the pressure Syria has been receiving from the U.S., stems from Israel’s insistence that its powerful ally help remove all threats to its country. What is puzzling is why the U.S. becomes dumb when it comes to the weapons of destruction owned by Israel. Instead U.S. President George W. Bush is most willing to send military aid so that Israel can continue its terrorizing and killing Palestinians, destroying their property and confiscating their lands. Bush then accuses Palestinian ‘warriors’ of committing acts of terror towards Israelis. In the tense confrontation with Damascus, the U.S. is being supported by Britain. What are the intentions behind Bush and British PM Tony Blair’s maneuvering in the Middle East? Do they want Israel to reign supreme in the region
24 once the U.S. manages to crush all the Arab nations? We hope, as voiced by Acting Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, that the U.S. does not make an attempt to destroy the sovereignty, independence and freedom of yet another Arab country."
"Peace, Too, Must Be Won"
Editor-in-Chief Abdullah Ahmad maintained in the government-influenced English- language New Straits Times (4/15): "Israel has not been quiet, solidifying and posturing its invulnerability. Now is America's moment in the Middle East, indeed in the universe. George W. Bush, the swaggering world policeman and his loyal associate, Tony Blair, have everything; they have won the war, now they want to win the peace, too. They may get their wish. They must turn their energy to the creation of a secure Palestinian state as they pledged. They have to deliver it, the sooner the better, otherwise the AngloAmerican interest in the Islamic world will always be imperiled.... That is why the reconstruction and renewal of post-war Iraq must be handled by the UN. If this unfortunate conflict is ever to have a happy ending, the country must be spared the shame of having been held captive by a foreign power. The war in Iraq must mark only the end of the beginning of a sustained and determined campaign to bring peace with dignity to the Middle East."
INDIA: "Sharon Softens"
The centrist Statesman held (4/17): "Ariel Sharon is giving out interesting signals--he has told an Israeli newspaper that a Palestinian state is inevitable, and that he would be willing, for the sake of peace, to remove some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This softening of stance is welcome, although qualified by the readiness to give up only 'some' settlements in occupied areas. Sharon may be treading carefully to prepare Israeli public opinion for some concessions to the Palestinians--he realizes these are inevitable to placate the Arab world, inflamed by the Iraq conflict. Washington needs to show some compensating moves--and defining an early Israeli position for negotiations is a good move.... It may be time for a bold move to impose a final settlement, broadly in the form of West Bank, Gaza, and bits of Jerusalem for the Palestinians, in return for impeccable security guarantees for the Israelis. The Americans could persuade the Syrians to stop sponsoring Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Washington and London need to 'win hearts and minds' in West Asia in order to secure their own interests; facilitating a satisfactory settlement of the Palestinian problem would certainly go a long way."
"Victory For Israel"
Hyderabad-based right-of-center English-language Newstime declared (4/14): "It was Israel that whispered to the Americans that Syria was sending military spares to Iraq. It was Israel that suggested that Saddam, his sons and his high command...were in Damascus.... No wonder the Israelis, with full American backing were so anxious to foist on Yasser Arafat a Prime Minister who would curtail his authority. The Palestinian Authority will now have to be grateful for whatever crumbs the Israelis throw it. Indeed, after ravaged Iraq, the Palestinians are the real losers in this war. Israel is the principal victor."
25 PAKISTAN: "And Now, Syria's Turn"
Populist Urdu-language Khabrain noted (4/15): "It seems as if one of the several motives for the U.S attack on Iraq is providing protection to Israel.... America's threat to Syria is a moment of concern for the international fraternity. Where will this trend of the U.S. targeting other countries on mere accusations end? Will a single human being be left on earth by the time America sees its final victory? These questions demand answers if there is to be peace on the face of this earth."
"Warning To Syria"
The Karachi-based independent national Dawn opined (4/15): "One never thought America would turn its attention on its next Arab target so soon. The situation in Iraq is still fluid. But the heat is already being turned on Syria.... At times, Bush administration officials have denied that they had a list that they would pursue after the Saddam regime was toppled. Secretary of State Colin Powell was among those who recently denied that the US had any such plans. Yet, the recent spate of threats to Damascus suggests that the hawks once again are trying to sideline the moderates led by Powell.... These charges are in addition to the allegation of Syrian support to "terrorists". Which is the Israeli- American euphemism for those fighting for Palestine's freedom. Is the stage now being set for another drama of death and destruction in another Arab country? This time the "coalition" could even include Israel, which already is there--though behind the scenes-- in the Iraqi war.... One only hopes the Bush administration is aware of what the outcome for America's relations with the Arab-Islamic world will be if the Zionist lobby succeeds in prodding the US-led coalition to attack Syria."
AFRICA / W. HEMISPHERE
SOUTH AFRICA: "After Saddam"
Afrikaans-language Rapport declared (4/13): "The biggest challenge in coming months will however be to install successful and credible transitionary Iraqi government...a prerequisite being that the UN plays a meaningful role...without which a future government in Iraq will always labor under the suspicion of being a puppet of Washington.... A formidable task awaits Pres. Bush to try and regain trust of Arab world...the key being...apart from Iraq...a speedy answer to the Israeli-Palestine question.... Should Bush manage to install a credible government in Iraq and a safer Israel next to a more viable, independent Palestine, it can start a new era. Even the biggest critics of Bush should give him a fair chance (to accomplish this)."
CANADA: "Shielding Iraq From Profiteers, Proselytizers"
Jim Travers commented in the liberal Toronto Star (4/12): "To spike that fearful notion, to convince Arabs that Bush's road map to Middle East peace doesn't detour through Iran and Syria, Washington needs help. Despite its deep antipathy to a body steeped in bureaucracy and often-futile debate, the U.S. needs the logistical support and diplomatic legitimacy only the United Nations can provide to relief operations and to a new government."
BRAZIL: "Positive Agenda"
26
Right-of-center O Globo opined (4/15): "With Saddan Hussein's fall and Iraq in ruins, it's valid to ask to where is the Middle East going, now that as everything indicates the U.S. has arrived to stay. It's important to note that the region's future depends on the result of internal disputes in Washington--at the White House and the Congress. What trend will prevail in President Bush's administration? In case the most bellicose wing of Bush's government prevails--i.e., that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Deputy Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz--there is the risk of the American military action be extended to Syria and Iran. That's not an auspicious possibility and fortunately not a likely one. The use of force to overthrow Saddam Hussein is per se a resource of questionable efficiency as a an instrument of stabilization. To use the same method against other autocratic regimes in the Middle East would be an extremely fearful, even senseless adventure. The Bush administration could help repair the damage caused by his unilateral impetuosity if it used this moment to try to solve the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Rather than sending troops to Syria, he should exert economic pressures on the Damascan government to stop to logistically financing and supporting terrorist groups--and start negotiating again with Israel over Golan's destiny and other areas. The Arab world sees the war as a brutal U.S. recourse to guarantee oil, supply and strengthen Israel's position. A way to change this bad impression would be to convince Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to give up impossible strategies such as the settlements. Hasn't Sharon himself asserted that the Iraq war has 'opened prospects of great changes?' The new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas is already trying to form a government that may please Bush's demands. As one sees, there is a positive atmosphere to channel the forces unleashed by the military action."
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction
April 16, 2003 IRAQ: THE HUNT FOR 'STUBBORNLY ELUSIVE' WMD
KEY FINDINGS
** U.S. and partners need to find Iraqi WMD "soon" to convince "world opinion."
** Arab, developing world outlets say disarming Iraq was only a "pretext" for war and claim Syria is the victim of the same "false" charge.
** Skeptics call for UN inspectors to verify any "magical" WMD discoveries made now.
27 MAJOR THEMES
The question on everyone's mind: Where are the WMD?-- While Denmark's centrist Weekendavisen averred: "WMDs will no doubt turn up sooner or later" in Iraq, commentators worldwide found it "curious" that no WMD had been uncovered and stated U.S. "credibility" was on the line. "Since these weapons were the main reason for going to war," a Norwegian daily contended, "it is important to find them quickly, or President Bush will have a serious explanation problem." Other papers noted that the "over-eager claims" made by Coalition officials whenever a possible WMD site was found, reveals "how much is at stake." India's Economic Times, however, stressed that the discovery of WMD "would legitimize the war in the eyes of many people."
Saddam didn't use them, so he must not have had them-- France's left-of-center Liberation judged it "too early to say" if the U.S. "knowingly lied" about Iraq's WMD. Yet other leftist and developing-country papers concluded that "the biochemical scare was simply a pretense to justify" military action. A common argument was that Saddam's failure to employ WMD in his own defense proved he didn't have them. "It is hardly believable" that Hussein would "go to such absurd lengths to produce" WMD but not use them "when they were most needed."
Tarring Syria with the same brush-- Arab and Muslim papers saw the "dark hints" about Saddam's having moved his WMD into Syria as an indication that "Bush administration spin doctors" were looking for "a fallback excuse" in case no WMD turn up in Iraq. A Pakistani paper said the U.S. was "setting up Syria to take a fall" while another held there is "nothing unusual if Washington perceives the presence of WMDs only in Muslim countries."
'No one will believe' any WMD unearthed now, so 'impartial' UN inspectors needed again-- Writers called for "qualified inspectors under the auspices of the UN" to be brought in to verify any WMD discovery in Iraq. Only an "impartial authority" like the UN can overcome the "legitimacy gap" caused by U.S. "hyperbole" and suspicions that whatever WMD that appear will be a "plant" or "fabrication." "It would not be very convincing for the Americans to turn around and allege they have discovered terrible weapons hidden in a hole," stated Portugal's center-left Diario de Noticias. A Colombian writer said "the whole world" will think that any "sudden" uncovering of WMD is "just like the DEA" planting drugs "inside the luggage of the people they want to ruin."
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 46 reports from 32 countries, April 6-16, 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "When Saddam Is Ousted, UN Inspectors Should Be Sent Back"
The left-of-center Independent argued (4/8): "Almost three weeks into the military campaign, the...U.S. administration's objective of 'regime change' appears close to being realised. The chief purpose of the military operation, however, and the one that gave it even the dubious legitimacy it had, has remained stubbornly elusive. Despite regular
28 reports attributed to military officers and released at key points through political channels, there is still no confirmed find of any chemical or biological weapons.... Each day that passes without evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction adds to the doubts we harboured about using force. It also augments the political damage this war could ultimately inflict on Tony Blair.... Military force was invoked only after Iraq had flouted successive UN Security Council resolutions. The objective was to rid Iraq and the world of its lethal and illegal weapons.... For the time being, military successes are obscuring this awkward fact. If no weapons can be found, however, it will undermine the whole rationale for sending this country's troops into battle. How much is at stake is apparent from the over-eager claims made by U.S. and British officials as soon as some chemical weapons-related equipment or unidentified substance is uncovered.... After kitting out the troops in protection suits, gas masks, antidotes and special ointments, Allied commanders are allowing their forces to fight in normal battle-gear. The inference is that if Saddam had these weapons, he would have used them by now. Perhaps they were out of his reach, or he chose not to use them, or they did not exist in any useable form. When the fighting is over, the U.S. and Britain will have unrestricted access not only to Iraqi territory, but also to the weapons scientists who will no longer have any reason to conceal what they know. We may have to wait until then for the truth. Given the record of allegation, hyperbole and straight lies that surrounds the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, any finds must be verified by qualified inspectors under the auspices of the UN. This is the only way that they will carry conviction and demonstrate the legitimacy of the war beyond doubt."
FRANCE: "Victors Must Never Abuse their Victory"
Serge July wrote in left-of-center Liberation (4/11): “The images of U.S. tanks in the streets of Baghdad were necessary to overcome Bin Laden’s challenge. That has now been accomplished.... Other proof is still lacking, such as the existence of WMD or the links between Saddam and Bin Laden.... It is still too early to say whether the U.S. knowingly lied about these questions. But it will be difficult to ignore its affirmations.”
“The Good Word”
Gerard Dupuy maintained in left-of-center Liberation (4/09): “While the relative ease of its military victory...strengthens the U.S. administration in its attitude, some of the arguments put forth before the war have fallen short of their target: the Iraqis have not used WMD...and the coalition has found no proof of their existence.... The Franco-German- Russian trio is sure to point out these truths...in support of the non-violent strategy which they are still pursuing.”
CZECH REPUBLIC: "What Victory In Iraq?"
Adam Cerny wrote in the centrist daily Hospodarske Noviny (4/15): "The saying that history is written by victors suggests that the U.S. was more right in carrying out its policy than those who had criticized it. However, the success will be ultimately measured by the degree to which George Bush accomplished his goals: first, finding WMD, second, changing the regime in Baghdad; and third, change of the political and social environment in the whole region. Only months, maybe years to come will show what kind of victory the U.S. achieved in Iraq."
29 "Fights Are Over, Propaganda Is Not"
Pavel Tomasek maintained in the business daily Hospodarske noviny (4/14): "Mistaken were those who believed that propaganda would end together with the war.... The success of the U.S.-led coalition is evident, but for the Americans it is equally important to show the happy Iraqis to the world, also because no evidence of WMD has been found in Iraq so far."
DENMARK: "WMD Evidence Is A Matter Of Time"
Centrist Weekendavisen commented (4/16): "WMDs will no doubt turn up sooner or later. Last Monday, buried chemical laboratories were discovered. It is possible that these laboratories were designed produce fertilizers, but it seems rather unlikely."
GREECE: "A War Based On Lies"
Writing in influential pro-government daily To Vima, managing editor Yiannis Kartalis had this view (4/9): “The U.S. is winning as expected, but loses reliability for waging war without UNSC approval, based on claims that have not been proven.... If no WMD are found to the end, this war will stay in history as a war without cause.... It now becomes clear that the biochemical scare was simply a pretense to justify a war done for other reasons. It is no secret that the neo-conservatives now in power in the U.S. knew that Saddam had destroyed his biochemical weapons or had minimal quantities not enough to strike the U.S. His country, on the other hand, has the biggest oil reserves, second only to those of S. Arabia, whose regime is now showing signs of instability.”
LITHUANIA: "Bitter Taste Of Victory"
Second largest daily Respublika editorialized (4/16): "The majority of the democratic world population does believe that Iraq's dictator was a threat, at least to his neighbors within the reach of his unconventional weapons. But a bigger part of the world needs material, not virtual proof of evil. Flasks with bogus bio-weapons samples and stenograms of secretly recorded Iraqi conversations presented by the U.S. Secretary of State for the UN are not enough to start a war that cost several thousand civilian lives. The U.S. allies that followed blindly believing in American righteousness also need real proof.... Evidentiary material could reuinte the former allies divided by the Iraq crisis back into one. But the truth might be unpleasant. It may ruin illusions and pit the allies. But wasn't the truth declared a reason for this war?"
NORWAY: "New Hope In The Hunt For Banned Weapons"
Morten Fyhn commented in the evening edition of Aftenposten (4/14): "Now the U.S. has found two central Iraqis, who better than most others should know where the weapons [of mass destruction] are being hidden, if such weapons really exist. But whether they will tell the truth, is of course an open question.... In meetings with among others Hans Blix both al Jafar and Saadi claimed that Saddam’s government long ago had destroyed all banned weapons. But they said that before the war while Saddam still led. Now the regime is fallen, and Saddam is gone. Perhaps he is dead. Perhaps the two will now tell another story. In order to make them more talkative, the U.S. can for example offer them amnesty. In order to convince a still skeptical world opinion, a find of banned Iraqi weapons would
30 be good for the U.S. It would also be good to find Saddam, dead or alive.” "The U.S. Shows Muscles"
The social democratic Dagsavisen argued (4/15): "For the U.S. it is important to show that the campaign against Iraq was worth the price. The hunt for weapons of mass destruction is fully in progress. Since these weapons were the main reason for going to war, it is important to find them quickly, or President Bush will have a serious explanation problem."
PORTUGAL: "Searching for Political Victory In Iraq"
Influential center-right analyst Prof. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa observed in his weekly column in leading financial daily Diário Económico (4/15): "What is important is not that a democracy in Iraq comes into being from one day to the next.... Now it is important that it happens, just like the discovery of those weapons of mass destruction.... Not that there weren't other reasons for this American invasion...but in terms of public legitimacy, this-- long with support for international terrorism--was presented as fundamental."
"And The Weapons?"
Former Social Democratic finance minister Francisco Sarsfield Cabral opined in respected center-left daily Diário de Notícias, (4/15): "It is hardly believable that, attacked in the devastating way that the Iraqi regime was, it didn't do everything it could to defend itself-- at least in the last resort.... It would not be very convincing for the Americans to turn around and allege they have discovered terrible weapons hidden in some hole. So then why didn't Saddam and his generals use them? It will always be suspected that those weapons were planted there by hands friendly to the coalition.... Maybe Saddam's link to terrorism will be proven, but this absence of transparency is not helping the U.S. win the peace. The problem is political, not military.... It's a question of confidence in the Americans and the U.S.' credibility before the world."
ROMANIA: "The Hunt For WMD"
Political analyst Octavian Andronic commented in the pro-government daily, Azi (4/15): "The crusade against Saddam Hussein was justified by the lack of confidence in Saddam’s repeated statements that he had destroyed all WMDs.... The Americans and the British were almost convinced that, when push comes to shove, Saddam would not hesitate...to use bacteriological or chemical weapons, at any risk.... The question which is most difficult to answer and is related to these WMDs--whether Saddam hid them so well, or he had destroyed them: why did this war start in the first place? Democracy and the freedom of the Iraqi people were always second place motivations. The first one has always been the danger of using chemical or bacteriological weapons for terrorist purposes. Faced with such a risk, there is only one solution: the respective weapons must be found! There is also a saying, which goes: 'he who seeks, will find.' Almost everything he wants to!"
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO: "The Conquerors Or The Liberators"
Pro-government daily Politika commented (4/11): “The joy of being liberated from a cruel regime and the joy that Americans have arrived are not the same thing. The whole Arab world is in a state of shock.... The ties with Al Qaeda have not been proved, WMD have not been found and it remains to be seen if the Iraqis will become owners of their natural
31 resource, the oil."
TURKEY: "Is Syria The Next Target?"
Fehmi Koru argued in Islamic-intellectual Yeni Safak (4/15): “Even before the restructuring of Iraq, hawks in the U.S. have launched another campaign for the implementation of the U.S. global empire plan.... Being threatened by the U.S. does not necessarily happen because a country possesses weapons of mass destruction. Saddam, for instance, did not have WMD, and would not have been able to use them even if he had. But the U.S., despite the fact that the pretext for the Iraq war has proven false, continues to threaten Syria and Palestine.”
MIDDLE EAST
SAUDI ARABIA: "Democracy In The Lab"
Jeddah's moderate, Al-Madina editorialized (4/14): "Saddam Hussein's whereabouts and the defeated Iraqi armies no longer present a challenge to the U.S. Washington has much more difficult tasks ahead of it. Most importantly, it (Washington) has to find the WMD allegedly hidden in Iraq. Iraq is now under its control, its land (Iraq), seas and scientists, who supposedly would not testify earlier because of their fear from the brutal regime. The U.S. has to find these weapons to prove to everyone that launching war against the world's consensus was justifiable."
"Elusive WMDs"
The English Language Arab-News editorialized (Internet version) (4/6): "The rumor from Israel that perhaps Iraq had shipped its WMD stockpile to Syria for safe keeping is not simply outrageous. It also smacks of the Bush administration spin doctors desperately setting up a fallback excuse in case no WMDs are ever found inside Iraq.... If the coalition cannot produce any WMDs, they will have lost their main reason for attacking Saddam in the first place. This could prove a crucial turning point for world opinion, because Washington will discover more and more people dubious of the U.S.-UK claim that they have acted disinterestedly."
SYRIA: "An Aggravating U.S. Impasse"
Ahmad Dawa, a commentator in government-owned Al-Thawra, contended (4/9): "With the U.S. failure to control Baghdad within a short time, the possibility that U.S. forces will fake announcement of finding WMD in Iraq becomes more likely, as many analysts and international observers maintain, even saying the U.S. forces might import WMD into Iraq [for that purpose].... America, which has violated international legitimacy and was the first use WMD, is likely to take this step very soon..... The U.S. will use WMD against the Iraqi people whose fierce resistance might deepen the coalition's impasse so dangerously that America might find itself under pressure, and, under its illusion of hegemony, might find itself forced to use these WMD."
32 EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Mass Distraction"
Marianne Hanson wrote in the Brisbane Courier Mail (4/8): "Curiously little is being heard these days of that phrase 'weapons of mass destruction,' despite the fact that it was Iraq's alleged possession of these weapons that was the prime motivation for U.S. President George W. Bush to launch his war against Iraq.... This is very embarrassing for the prosecutors of the war, but it seems likely they are willing to gloss over this irritation.... Mr. Bush is speaking more and more about liberation of the Iraqi people and less and less about weapons of mass destruction. The problem with this is that any legal grounds for war against Iraq, if they existed at all, rested on the WMD issue, and not on the nature of the Iraqi regime."
JAPAN: "A New Era Of Wars"
Liberal Mainichi stated (4/11): "The start of U.S./UK action against Iraq and U.S. troops' demonstration of overwhelming power in their seizure of Baghdad marked the start of new wars in a world dominated by the 'democratic empire' of the United States. Although the original purpose of the U.S. use of force was to disarm Hussein of WMD, no such weapons have so far been found in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. appears to be publicizing 'democratization' as the purpose of war in Iraq. Now, the U.S. can opt for the purpose of war at its own will."
INDONESIA: "The U.S. Now Pressing On Syria"
Christian-oriented afternoon daily Sinar Harapan (4/15) commented: “The allegations that Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction and harbors Saddam’s regime leaders constitute a form of pressure that could justify Washington to attack Syria if it refuses to comply with the will of Bush and his friends. We find the allegations unfair. But such allegations and pressure are only directed to non-U.S. allies. Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India and Taiwan all have chemical and biological and even nuclear weapons, but the U.S has never meddled with them."
"Where Is The Evidence Of Iraq’s Possession Of WMD?"
Leading independent daily Kompas noted (4/7): “For the past 19 days of battle, Iraq has not shown any possession, let alone use, of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Indeed, the U.S. and Britain have used the issue of weapons of mass destruction as their reason to strike Iraq. The war is indeed not over yet. There is still suspicion that will use them as its ultimate weapons.... For the sake of justice and truth, the U.S. has to prove to the world about the veracity of its accusation. Moreover, the accusation has brought about a major disaster among the Iraqi people.... The U.S. and Britain have to be accountable for the death and destruction in Iraq if the reason for the attack cannot be proved. And the world indeed has to file a charge.”
MALAYSIA: "Weapons Inspections"
Government-influenced English-language New Straits Times commented (4/15): "If it is verified that Saddam had disarmed, under the glacial pressure of international sanctions and United Nations resolutions, the case for the U.S.-British aggression to kick him out stands
33 to be severely undermined. This is why weapons inspections remain no less an issue now than in the build-up to the war. The legitimacy gap created by the American-led assault can only be bridged if they are conducted by an impartial authority such as the UN and not, as the victors currently propose, by the U.S. Army. Every effort must be made to thwart the American military juggernaut from letting its success in Iraq get to its head."
PHILIPPINES: "Fast Action By Iraqis Can Abort Puppet Government"
Federico Pascual wrote in his column in the independent Philippine Sta (4/15): "What? No WMD? Except for Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's birthplace, the U.S. has clinched virtual control of the prostrate nation. Americans have full access to all suspected hiding places of weapons of mass destruction. But after more than three weeks of scouring the ground, they have not found the supposed WMD, the excuse given for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Having failed to prove its case, why is the U.S. not withdrawing and making amends? Let's hope nobody is waiting for some operator to plant the weapons so they could be suddenly discovered."
"Still An Unjust War"
Columnist Rina David wrote in the widely read Philippine Daily Inquirer (4/11): "Let's not forget that the primary reason given by the United States and its allies for the invasion of Iraq was to secure Saddam's cache of 'weapons of mass destruction.' The invasion, U.S. President George Bush said, was a 'preemptive strike' to forestall a potential and even probable attack on the United States and the rest of the world. But it's now Day 22 of the invasion, and so far, no WMDs have been unearthed or unleashed. Could it be that the 'Satan' Saddam had been telling the truth after all? Or that chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix should have been heeded when he pleaded for more time for his team to find those weapons without the attendant loss of lives and suffering?"
TAIWAIN: "Why Is It The Iraqi People Who Have To Suffer?"
Chai Ping Shang noted in centrist Min Sheng Daily (4/16): "The U.S. launched military actions against Iraq on the grounds that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. But so far, no traces of biological or chemical weapons have been located. How is the Bush administration going to explain this to the world? By claiming that it is a misjudgment or a lie? The downfall of Saddam's regime is what the dictator deserves. But the fact that the U.S. has used its military strength which is two hundred times stronger than that of Iraq's to maltreat this weak Gulf nation, and that it has shown no mercy to cherish the culture and people of Iraq, will certainly leave a stain on the history of the U.S."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Weapons Of Disruption"
The centrist Times of India took this view (4/16): "Hans Blix's discomfort with the Anglo- American line on Iraq has been apparent for a while, and now he has come out in the open to accuse the U.S. and UK of having made up their minds in advance to attack Iraq.... Blix's words confirm what has long been suspected: That the WMD served as a pretext for the war.... Indeed, the offensive weapons have not shown up anywhere in Iraq. Was the attack on Iraq, then, deliberately mounted on a false premise?... The world at large would
34 be justified in reaching that conclusion, whether or not the U.S. now finds WMD in Iraq.... There were also dark hints about Saddam having moved his WMD into Syria. There is little Syria can do about this charge, given the way the U.S. went about establishing WMD in Iraq.... If the standards now being applied to Syria were extended further eastward, India could find itself on a sticky wicket. India possesses WMD and it has been included by the CIA among those who helped Libya build its ballistic missile program."
"Death Of 'Chemical Ali'"
The centrist Times of India commented (4/15): "The 'allied' forces claim to have killed Ali Hassan al-Majid...'Chemical' Ali.... Ali died without using even an ounce of the huge quantities of chemical agents the U.S. establishment, the CIA and even private defense institutions said Iraq had in its possession.... Obviously, the chemical suits were shed because there were no chemical weapons--neither with the dreaded 'Chemical' Ali nor with the Iraqi regime. The young marines had been stuffed into their chemical suits merely to advance the American argument that Saddam had chemical weapons and had every intention of using them. After this, who would ever believe anything said about Iraq's WMD?... After this, who will believe the tomes produced by powerful governments, their intelligence agencies, and indeed, private institutes, as clinching evidence against so-called rogue regimes?... Just why would anyone go to such absurd lengths to produce prohibited WMD and not use them when they were most needed?... There are no WMD and today we have this on the authority of UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who alleged that 'the invasion of Iraq was planned in advance.' Further that 'the U.S. and UK were not concerned about finding any banned WMD.' There should be no more doubts about who should claim moral victory in this war. Not the side that went to war citing the danger of Saddam's WMD, but the side that said the WMD were a mere pretext. There should equally be no doubts the next American stop: Syria."
"Lies Of Mass Destruction"
Pro-economic-reform The Economic Times had this to say (4/15): "Where are the weapons of mass destruction? The UN inspectors failed to find any in their numerous visits to Iraq.... Even when his regime was falling, Saddam Hussein did not use these weapons of mass destruction. How do we explain Hussein's inaction?... These weapons were the primary pretext for this war; their discovery would legitimize the war in the eyes of many people.... The desperation in implicating Iraq of possessing biological and nuclear weapons is so high that the U.S. even used forged documents to link Iraq in the purchase of uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein is history now, but the saga of weapons of mass destruction goes on."
PAKISTAN: "Beyond Syria"
The center-right national daily, The Nation editorialized (4/16): "Originally accused of accepting Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders, Mr. Powell has now charged Syria with itself seeking to develop chemical weapons.... This is a new revelation. The original WMD accusation neatly explained why the U.S. forces have failed to find any in Iraqi itself, while setting up Syria to take a fall. Now comes Mr. Powell's revelation, which 'establishes' Syria as a 'terrorist state' subject to U.S. sanctions."
35 "What About Israel?"
The Islamabad rightist English-language daily, Pakistan Observer argued (4/16): "Ironic is, however, the fact that while Syria is being threatened on the basis of a perceived notion that it possesses chemical weapons, nothing is being said about Israel, which is an established nuclear power, has chemical and biological weapons and resorts to state terrorism against Palestinians with impunity.... The U.S. hard line against Syria just after occupying Iraq is obviously not surprising because it's quite in line with Washington's plan to wipe out the military capability of Arab nations that possibly have the potential of effective self-defense against Israel's vandalism. There is, therefore, nothing unusual if Washington perceives the presence of WMDs only in Muslim countries."
"Targeting Syria"
An editorial in the centrist national daily, The News stated (4/15): "U.S. President George W. Bush's allegation that Syria has chemical weapons and Secretary of State Colin Powell's warning to the country not to harbor Iraqi leaders can be recognized as the initial groundwork to mount a military offensive.... It was expected that American zeal to play the role of a conqueror will die down once it realized the mess created by destroying Iraq on a false premise of WMDs."
SRI LANKA: "The Inside Of Iraq War"
Opposition Sinhala daily, Divaina, commented (4/5): "UK and U.S. justifications are contradictory. First they said that Iraq had WMDs and chemical weapons. Then they cited biological weapons. Now they say that Iraqis need to be freed from a dictator...and that is why they took to the offense.... It is now clear that this war is aimed at removing the obstacles to the possession of Iraqi oil."
AFRICA
GHANA: "The Truth About Iraq"
Ghana Palaver, a bi-weekly with urban circulation, affiliated with the opposition party (NDC), stated (4/15): “Iraq, after all, has no weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by the invaders, a 'charge' used as the main excuse by the aggressors for the violation of the United Nations Charter, in launching a war of aggression against a member country. The war strategy adopted by the aggressors confirms the strongly-held view that the dispatch of UN inspectors to Iraq was only a ploy for the Americans to send their spies to that country and 'draw up' strategies and a war-plan for use later. And now, if any 'discovery' is made or 'evidence' is found on the existence of any 'strange' weapons, it must be a plant by the Americans, themselves.... As the truth about Iraq, the non-existence of any weapons of mass destruction there, unfolds, the invaders are now becoming vociferous with their other claims of liberating the people there from a tyrannical ruler.... The war on Iraq has rather vindicated Saddam Hussein, as a truthful person. And the liars are now known to all.”
SOUTH AFRICA: "At The End, A Rout"
Balanced Business Day held (4/10): "Coalition forces must quickly unearth the weapons of mass destruction.... If these are not found then the Americans and the British have fought
36 and died and killed for a lie. The damage to the world order as we know it will be incalculable."
TANZANIA: "Another War Should Be Avoided"
IPP-owned Nipashe commented (4/16): “At last, the war in Iraq is over. America and Britain have failed to locate any weapons of mass destruction; now they are accusing Syria of having them.... Syria agrees that there are weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region, but these are to be found in America’s darling state, Israel. America and Britain do not want to comment on Israel, because for them, that country deserves to possess such weapons and nobody else."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA: "What To Do Afterwards?"
Luis Rosales opined in business-financial InfoBae (4/14): "The outcome of military operations has been widely satisfactory for the U.S.-UK alliance. It has not been the case regarding world public opinion.... The ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda have never been clear.... So far, there is no evidence of Iraqi WMD.... All these arguments are important for international public opinion.... All those arguments...have little influence on U.S. public opinion [and]...this leads us to think that...the current USG will continue with its 'war against terror,' without caring too much about world public opinion or about the consensus system claimed for by international institutions."
BRAZIL: "The 'Demonstration Effect' Weapon"
Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo editorialized (4/16): "It would be simplistic to give credence to the USG's accusations that Syria has chemical weapons, may be in possession of some of the WMDs not found in Iraq and has harbored leaders of Saddam's regime.... So far, U.S. officials have not spoken about a 'regime change' in Damascus. [Instead, they have said] that Syria must change its behavior and cooperate. The contrast seems eloquent. The new language suggests that the U.S. believes in what Bush's advisers have called a 'demonstration effect.' Bush believes that America's overwhelming success in Iraq, coupled with strong pressure, is sufficient to persuade other nations seen as potential threats to the U.S. to get themselves off the black list."
"Many Questions"
Political columnist Boris Fausto wrote in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo (4/14): "As the war in Iraq is surprisingly coming to an end, many unanswered questions remain: Where are the terrible chemical and bacteriological weapons Saddam Hussein was to have kept? What happened to the Republican Guard? What has happened to Saddam Hussein? Everything indicates that Saddam's weapons simply do not exist, or if they exist, they do not have the importance attributed to them, although some last-minute 'discovery' could still be made.... A great effort has been mounted by the USG to justify the invasion and keep the U.S. population in a state of fear and patriotic fervor.... Iraq is a nation exhausted by the embargo imposed on it following the Gulf War and by the madness of a cruel dictatorship.... The idea that one of the reasons for the war, although not the most important one, was the fact that Iraq was weak in comparison with the other members of the
37 'axis of evil,' has been confirmed.... Is Iraq a 'unique case,' as the USG says, or will the Bush administration's political and military successes lead it to attack other supposed members of the 'axis of evil,' such as Syria?"
"The Other Side Of Victory"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political columnist Janio de Freitas commented (4/13): "The absolute lack of military resistance in Baghdad was a demoralizing refutation of everything Bush and Blair had used as justification to violate the UN's principles and attack Iraq.... It is no longer a case of questioning the existence of WMDs.... After 12 years of economic embargo, Iraq was unable [to defend itself]. Didn't years of spying make this clear to the U.S. and UK governments?.... Now, not even the emergence of WMDs would change the scenario, because no one would believe [their discovery] was not another fabrication. The world is seeing that Bush and Blair are not responsible for the fall of a dictatorial regime. They are responsible for the ruin of a nation and its people."
"Washington's Suburb"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political columnist Eliane Cantanhede commented (4/10): "Bush's war is coming to an end. Where are Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons? Either the dictator did not want to use them because he is a saint, or there were no WMD. The U.S. pretext was a lie.... Under the pretext of eliminating arms that did not exist and of 'saving' people who have different religions, beliefs and culture, [the U.S. has] turned Iraq into a suburb of Washington."
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: "Let Them Search Me"
Rafael Molina Morillo expressed this view in left-of-center, independent Hoy (4/15): “The lethal chemicals of Iraq, as well as other arms of mass destruction, never materialized. One could almost say they never existed, because had he had them Saddam would not have kept them hidden especially when his demise was near.... Syria better get ready, because Bush has the feeling that they have chemical weapons, and this means that they also have to exterminate these people, in order to guarantee world peace.”
GUATEMALA: "Iraq"
Mario Roberto Morales contended in conservative, business-oriented daily Siglo Veintiuno (4/15): “After the killing, with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, much less any ties between Saddam and Bin Laden, the authors of these two monsters and the devastation of Iraq offer the ruins of a destroyed country.... One can think it is a relief to have overthrown Saddam, but one cannot stop thinking it is not encouraging to have a worldwide dictatorship by a far-right Republican Texan...who will now go after Iran, Syria and North Korea to prepare the ground against Russia and China."
MEXICO: "Iraq: Theft And Uncertainty"
Alberto Aziz Nassif wrote in old-guard nationalist Universal (4/15): "The reconstruction of Iraq will begin soon, but the myths that questioned the war remain: mass destruction weapons have not been found; Saddam Hussein's military strength was broken; the Arab world was absent; the Iraqi welcoming of the 'gringos' was short-lived.... The United States
38 hurt international law with this illegitimate war. It was clear that the empire has 'permission' to take action when the rest of the international community cannot.... But the hawks are focusing their sights on Syria, and I wonder, how many preventive wars will we see during the Bush administration?"
CHILE: "The Evidence Left by the War."
Conservative afternoon La Segunda commented (4/15): "With the fall of Tikrit... the general goal of occupying Iraq can be considered accomplished and the war concluded.... It is now possible to confirm some facts of major effect, especially on public opinion: [One is] the evident U.S. military might.... [Another is] that there are no trustworthy traces of the weapons of mass destruction, which were invoked as a pretext to launch the war.... [Yet another is] the impact of the images of innocent victims and the pillaging.... In the past, the horror of war remained hidden or distorted for years, as in the case of Hiroshima or Dresden and the Nazi concentration camps.... But now public opinion is global in scope, and although it is exposed to disinformation, it is very sensitive to ethical aspects and to suffering, and it judges the powerful by the minute. Perhaps this is a warning to moderate the use of violence in the world in the future."
COLOMBIA: "Post-War For Idiots"
Antonio Caballero commented in influential weekly Semana (Internet version) (4/15): "So where are the weapons? The weapons of 'mass destruction' they said Saddam Hussein had, the imminent threat repeatedly given as the pretext for the massive destruction of Iraq by Bush and his Black Hawks. They did not appear. The UN inspectors didn't find them, neither have the occupying troops. It's curious. Well, neither have they found Saddam Hussein. Nor his sons...nor his cousin 'the chemist'.... Nor any of his ministers. Nor any of his generals.... But Donald Rumsfeld...wisely suggested that if they don't find any weapons it's because the tryant already removed them from Iraq. Why would he have removed them if using them was his only defense? And how did he remove them? Did he flee with them inside his suitcase?... Why would anyone believe them, except for the idiots. No one will believe it, even if suddenly, the so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' magically apear in Iraq. The whole world will think that they placed them there themselves, just like the DEA plants drugs inside the luggage of the people they want to ruin. The only weapons of this type (biological and chemical) that Saddam had were those which Rumsfeld personally sold to him during the Reagan years to use against Iran."
39
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction
April 14, 2003 POST-IRAQ: SYRIA IS LIKELY 'NEXT VICTIM' OF U.S. 'IMPERIALISM'
KEY FINDINGS
** Syria is seen as the "next target" of the U.S.' "dangerous master plan" for the Mideast.
** Washington is undertaking a "new form of imperialism and colonialism" worldwide.
** Pro-Israel "hawks are still dominating" the "Christian, rightist administration" in Washington.
** Arabs and the world must join together to contend with the U.S.' "ideology of a unipolar world."
MAJOR THEMES
'American self-confidence' means Syria 'might be next'-- Washington's "remorseless pressure" on Damascus intensified speculation that Syria will be the "next victim" of the U.S.' plan to "reshape the Middle East." Leftist and Muslim observers alleged that the U.S. is "setting up Syria as the next threat to world peace and security." Pakistan's Nawa-e-Waqt cited the American plan to "deal with all Islamic countries one by one" with Baghdad "being the starting point." Arab papers in particular concluded that the "list of targeted Arab countries is clear" as Baghdad was "only the first piece in an chain of Arab countries that will fall." In contrast, moderate outlets predicted that the "chaos and anarchy" in Iraq will "cool down fantasies" in Washington of attacking Syria. Canada's leading Globe and Mail warned any such attack would "be viewed as American unilateralism."
Iraq is 'just the beginning of U.S. expansionism'-- Latin, Arab and Asian papers expected "more catastrophes" given the "growing American avarice for subduing the world." Brazilian dailies used the terms "classical imperialism," "Pax Americana" and "universal empire" to describe the new world order, while Mexico's left-of-center La Jornada predicted a "new era of oppression, destruction, occupation and sacking" by the U.S. Tokyo's liberal Mainichi agreed that the "seizure of Baghdad" would mean more "new wars in a world dominated by the democratic empire of the U.S." Chinese papers increased their warnings of U.S. "hegemony," adding that "if the U.S. controls the Middle East" and its oil, "the day that the U.S. imperialism controls the world is not far off."
Washington's primary aim is 'guaranteeing Israel’s security and expansionist ambitions'-- Papers from Muslim-majority countries were especially critical of U.S. leaders and their strategy, alleging the "Zionist-run U.S. is out to implement Israel's expansionist agenda."
40 Hardline critics of U.S. policy accused the "junta of racist leaders, war-mongers and greedy gangsters" of only seeking to "maintain peace and security for Israel" by launching a "war on all Arabs." Lebanon's nationalist As Safir concluded: "The American Ministry of War is only an Israeli room of operations."
'The fate of Iraq is a grim reminder' of the importance of global solidarity-- Arab and Asian papers emphasized the importance of "unity" in order to "stop the arrogance of the U.S." Tunisian, UAE and Jordanian dailies urged Arab countries "to achieve their own union" to protect the "Arab identity." Pakistan's center-right Nation said "Muslim countries...should waste no time in formulating a joint policy to defend" against the U.S. Bangkok's conservative Thai Rath declared: "Asia must close ranks with Africa and South America...to counterbalance...Western oppression."
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 82 reports from 46 countries over 7-14 April 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "America's Attacks On Syria Confirm Fears Of Middle East Intentions"
The left-of-center Independent stated (4/13): "There is something unseemly, not to say alarming, about the way in which the U.S. appears to be setting up Syria as the next threat to world peace and security even before the guns have fallen silent in Iraq.... Having eliminated Iraq as a threat, the Bush administration gives the impression that is casting around for more enemies. The risks of such public accusations were all too apparent in the failed international diplomacy that gave way to the war on Iraq. The current disorder in Iraq similarly illustrates the dangers inherent in effecting a 'regime change' by force without sufficient planning. There are those in the U.S. administration who have made no secret of their desire to re-order the whole Middle East. Iraq is only the start.... One ill-conceived war with the potential to destabilize the whole region is already one too many."
"Iraq Will Preoccupy And Pin Down The U.S. For Years"
Martin Woollacott, a columnist with the left-of-center Guardian took this view (4/11): "Victory in Iraq is at once a blow for freedom and a step into an unknown world in which the extent of American power and the wisdom with which it is used become more critical.... That the formidable nature of the American military instrument has been spectacularly displayed, albeit against a terribly disadvantaged enemy, is not the most important aspect. What is more important is that the U.S. has embarked upon a project of change in Iraq and the region which will be, for quite a while to come, at the center of world politics. Its success or failure will affect everything, from Moscow to Mecca, from Brussels to Beijing.... The Bush administration has set itself a very hard test indeed in the Muslim world and everybody is aware of the reasons it may not pass it.... Iraq will equally be at the center of things for the Europeans, the Russians, and others who parted company from America.... But France, Germany, and Russia...will surely not allow themselves to become the Rejection Front of the western world, something which would permanently rupture the UN, NATO,and the EU.... The question of how American society will absorb this victory is rather mysterious. Underneath the crowing of the 'let's stick it to the French' patriots, American common sense is working away.... It grasps there is a new burden in the shape of a whole country taken into American care, to be paid for and policed, at a time when the economic prospects of ordinary Americans are clouded."
41 FRANCE: "The American Danger"
Former Minister Albin Chalandon noted in right-of-center Le Figaro (4/14): “Must every nation succumb to or resist America’s hegemony? The present crisis is serious not so much because of what it reveals, but because of what it has kept hidden.... America’s radicalization finds its origin in its ancient history: America is religious, it is a theocracy.... Its egocentric conception of religion...legitimizes everything the U.S. does.... The quasi-metaphysical feeling of excellence that the Americans feel about themselves motivates their leaders’ actions.... While man needs religion, it is a great mistake to mix religion and politics.”
GERMANY: "What Comes After Iraq"
Malte Lehming held in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (4/14): “From the U.S. viewpoint, the Iraq campaign was a magnificent success...but does the success increase appetite for more? Threats in the direction of Syria are on the rise, and Syria and Iran are within reach of U.S. guns.... Will bombs soon be dropped on Damascus? This is highly unlikely, but cannot be ruled out either. Washington wants to capitalize on its victory in the entire region. States that support terrorists and/or strive for weapons of mass destruction are on top of the list. In addition, it is no longer necessary to set up a threat scenario. It gives people in Washington satisfaction to see how the knees of the rulers in Tehran and Damascus are shaking."
"Who Comes Next?"
Dietmar Ostermann argued in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (4/14): “The case of Syria is complicated. As a threat to the United States, President Bashar al Assad is even less credible than...Iraq. Damascus is considered an active sponsor of terrorism, but these accusations refer to activities against Israel. In the hunt for Islamic Al Qaida terrorists, the secular Syria, and even Washington recognizes this, cooperated more consistently with the United States than some other countries.... The Bush administration may keep all options open…but the current problems with chaos and anarchy in Iraq will cool down fantasies to march to Syria or even Iran. Washington will now likely face the problems of every day business.... North Korea learned one lesson from this war: even the U.S. security guarantees will offer no protection from U.S. first strikes. This can be guaranteed only by setting up one’s own military deterrence. And this is a hardly concealed reference to nuclear weapons--which could prompt Washington to intervene.... The Iraq war was not as successful as the United States pretends it to be.”
"A Chance For The Arab World"
Wolfgang Guenter Lerch judged in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (4/11): “The planned restructuring of Iraq will show whether this Arab defeat will be another one in a long series of many disasters, or whether the Arab world will succeed in departing for pluralism.... Much will change in Iraq, but it is unlikely that a democracy of western nature will develop in the country. This kind of vision is confronted with the inertia of history, culture, and religion.... Future changes in the neighborhood will have a chance only if the experiment of an open system in the not too distant future succeeds. This will depend considerably on the attitude of the winners."
ITALY: "Washington Now Accusing Damascus"
Marcello Foa maintained in pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (4/14): “The accusations against Syria launched yesterday by Washington are taking on special significance. For once, the U.S. administration seems to be united. Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz paved the way for Bush, who accused Damascus again of hiding chemical and biological weapons. Over the next few days we will know whether we are heading for a new military crisis or whether Washington, for the time being, simply wants to frighten young President Assad. The United States, in any case, believes that Syria has played a decisive role in supporting the
42 former regime of Saddam Hussein, helping it survive longer than it should have. Is it possible that Saddam may have found shelter in Damascus? Rumsfeld yesterday ruled out this possibility, but the suspicion remains."
RUSSIA: "U.S. Ready To Attack Syria"
Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta carried a comment by Yuliya Petrovskaya stating (4/11): "It looks like the U.S. aviation is about to bomb Syria. U.S. officials are preparing the ground for that. No sooner had Baghdad fallen than Donald Rumsfeld pointed an accusing finger at a country that has offered refuge to members of Saddam's regime.... A new war would not add much to the United States' expenditures. For an attack on Syria, the Pentagon and Congress could effectively use troops that are now stationed in vanquished Iraq and at U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf area."
"Next Targets Of Antiterrorist Coalition"
Leonid Gankin noted in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (4/11): "The U.S. Defense Secretary's statement sounded like a verdict. Of the several warnings the chief of the Pentagon has addressed to Damascus so far,this one is the harshest. Secretary of State Colin Powell, following the Defense Secretary, has made it plain that now that the Iraqi regime is in the throes of death, Syria should be careful not to become the next target.... Analysts and diplomats have no doubt that Iraq is just the first step in Washington's plans for the Middle East, as it seeks to reduce the danger of international terrorism coming from that region."
AUSTRIA: "Soon To Happen In Syria"
In liberal Der Standard, Gudrun Harrer commented (4/12): “Even a short while ago, anybody who predicted a U.S. attack on Syria would have been declared totally insane, but by now the scenario seems really quite possible. It is in any case noticeable that the people in the U.S. who are now uttering threats against Syria were also the first to publicly propagate the invasion in Iraq.... An aggravating factor is that the U.S. even praised Syria for its cooperation against al Qaeda after September 11. It also wouldn’t be easy to accuse Syria of owning weapons of mass destruction, but--especially if nothing is found in Iraq--it might be possible to “suspect” (as has been suggested already) that Iraq shifted its weapons to Syria before the start of the war. The Syrian option would be particularly interesting to the U.S. democratizers as Syria carries more political weight than corresponds to its actual power, and a political overthrow would therefore have more short-term effects on a regional level than the one in Iraq, a country that was politically isolated in the Arab world as well.”
BELGIUM: "Confusion"
Peter Vandermeersch remarked in independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard (4/12): "There is confusion. First, among those who were convinced that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction? To date, the coalition troops have found nothing that justified a war for those reasons. There is also confusion in the other camp--that was opposed to the war. Paradoxically enough they have to admit that, thanks to the war, the majority of the Iraqi people are on the threshold of a new better existence. Finally, there is uncertainty.... Will the Arab world swallow the humiliation of this war? Won’t the ethnically and religiously divide Iraq succumb in a civil war? Will the American self-confidence after this successful test of the preemptive action doctrine lead the United States to further military adventures in Syria, Iran or North Korea? The coalition has won the war. Will the world win the peace?"
CZECH REPUBLIC: "Armies On March"
Pavel Masa remarked in center-right Lidove noviny (4/11): "The decision of George W. Bush
43 to use Hussein's fall to establish pro-American regimes in other countries of the region is definite. Its realization can take various courses. The optimistic scenario would have the Syrian leader Assad and the Iranian ayatollahs trying to avert Hussein's fate and ceasing to support armed groupings abroad. Another variant is economic and diplomatic pressure. And if that pressure does not force Assad to ease up, the U.S. Army can set off on another march. The problem lies in the fact that after possible actions against Syria and Iran, the U.S. would stand at the gates of Moscow and Peking. Few would doubt that these two states play a role similar to that of Syria."
NORWAY: “Risky Game Against Syria”
In newspaper-of-record Aftenposten, Per A. Christiansen opined (4/14): “The war against Iraq also serves as a signal to the other countries in ‘the axis of evil’ that none of them should feel secure in case they continue to defy the U.S. The warnings to Syria can precisely be a bluff in this game, an attempt to pressure Damascus over to another course. In any case it is a dangerous game, because the Syrians have never shown themselves to be particularly receptive to pressure. And in a crisis situation President Assad will get considerably greater support from the rest of the Arab world than his ex-colleague Saddam Hussein could demand.”
“Pax Americana”
Peter Normann Waage commented in independent Dagbladet (4/11): “The first country in the ‘axis of evil’ is conquered--and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld immediately reminds Syria that they have not taken consideration of his earlier warnings and stopped the help to the Iraqi authorities. To be sure Secretary of State Colin Powell denied just after that the war will now be extended to Syria, but Rumsfeld’s words point toward America’s overriding strategy, as President Bush explained already before the war started: To defeat Saddam was only the first step toward a restructuring and democratization of the entire Middle East.”
PORTUGAL: "How to Avoid the Imperial Temptation"
Influential moderate-left daily Público foreign affairs editor Teresa de Sousa wrote (4/11): "The message of [President Bush's] victory is not just about the invincible force of the American superpower. It is also about its moral rightness.... The American president now has the historic opportunity in his hands to legitimize the conflict, showing that it was not waged to glorify America's imperial supremacy, but to better the fate of the Iraqis, open new opportunities for the peoples of the Middle East, and give direction to a world in disorder, danger and uncertainty. This is the battle that Europe has to wage together with Washington, overcoming its frustrations, its divisions, its weaknesses and its own temptations.... What can Chirac, Schroeder and Putin do today in St. Petersburg? Try to show that there is still an alternative 'pole' of power to American power in the world? This... 'pole' can only be the European Union...strong, cohesive and determined enough to make itself heard in Washington."
TURKEY: "Who Is Threatening World Peace?"
Semih Idiz declared in mass appeal Aksam (4/14): "It's gradually becoming clear that this war has got nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi nation. It is now understood that it is related with the 'black gold' and Israel, a country essential for America's regional interests. The evidence for the latter is seen in U.S. statements that Syria might be next because of its support for Hizbullah, the enemy of Israel. It seems that the Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle 'cabal' has developed an extremely dangerous master plan. Those who claim that Bush, not Saddam was a threat to world peace are right."
44 UKRAINE: "Bush Hasn't Committed A Mistake. His Ends Are Different"
Anti-American weekly 2000 speculated (4/11): "By splitting UN, NATO and EU, by provoking crises in those organizations, the U.S. transfers the resolution of international problems to an entirely different level. For Washington, it is preferable...ideally to negotiate with each country individually. In view of the American might, the U.S. will have no difficulty in 'persuading' any nation to take a 'right' decision.... The U.S. pursues a policy of creating 'managed crises'.... To be able in the future to act in pursuit of its strategic objectives, American global hegemony being the principal one, the U.S. needs the existence of dictatorial regimes, the spread of terrorism, proliferation of WMD, and the weakening of international organizations to the point where nobody can guarantee anything to anyone. And the world will be forced to beg protection of the American military machine. And the Americans are always prepared."
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Washington Turns Its Sights On Damascus"
Zeev Schiff observed in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (4/14): "Hardly a day has gone by recently without Washington lashing out against Syria.... These statements indicate a turnaround in Washington's approach to Damascus. The previous policy of quiet operations was led by the CIA, which apparently got intoxicated by information that the Syrians had provided at some stage about Al-Qaida's operations in various countries, including Germany.... The leading concept in Syria today is that Iraq should be to the Americans what Lebanon was for Israel--namely, to cause terror attacks and suicide bombers and generate as many American casualties as possible.... Traditionally, Syria has pointed a finger at Israel, accusing it of inciting Washington against it. In truth, Israel is doing its best to keep a low profile in the Iraqi affair in which Assad got himself entangled, but it, too, will have to reevaluate its policy vis-a-vis Syria under the rule of Assad Junior."
"Syrian Mental Repression"
Amit Cohen wrote in popular, pluralist Maariv (4/13): "Assad's unbearable willingness to be drawn into a clash, even if he is not truly interested in it, is what stands behind the decision to grant asylum to Saddam Hussein's people and to disregard the American warning.... It could be that the Syrians think that they will be able to emerge from his entanglement with merely a mild warning. After the war in Afghanistan too the U.S. demanded that all of bin Laden’s men be turned over. But in practice the al-Qaida activists spread out across the entire world. Maybe this time too Syria thinks it can finesse things. Nevertheless, the current situation is different. After Afghanistan, the U.S. homed in on Iraq and did not want to expand the arena of conflict. Now the United States has a free hand, encouraged by its success in Iraq. Furthermore, if Saddam's engineers of death truly are in Syria, then that is precisely the kind of proof that the Americans need."
WEST BANK: "War Against Iraq: Where Are The WMD?"
Ashraf Al-Ajrami wrote in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (4/14): "The United States can wage a war against Syria under the pretext of helping the Iraqi regime by sheltering Iraqi escapees or based on accusations that Syria possesses weapons of mass destruction, as some American officials have already stated. The United States can also provide the Syrians with the same kind of freedom offered to the Iraqis, which means destroying Syria and depriving it of all of its cultural symbols in order to provide business opportunities for ‘poor’ American companies. Also, an attack on Syria will be a chance for the compassionate and humane American administration to carry out vital missions of rebuilding the destroyed country and its leadership with the aim of achieving democracy.”
45
“The Cloud Of Aggression Will Clear Away”
Independent Al-Quds editorialized (4/11): "After overcoming the effects of the shock of the bitter military defeat, the Iraqis will find themselves facing the brutal reality of occupation, which was forced upon their country under trivial pretexts and without legal or ethical justifications. The occupation forces will try to divide the Iraqi people in order to maintain their presence in Iraq. Thus, the real test for any national and patriotic movement in Iraq is its ability to deny the occupation forces the chance to divide the Iraqi people.”
“The Third Palestine”
Fouad Abu Hejleh commented in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (4/11): "Syria is also a target now after the Secretary of evil Rumsfeld started to impudently threaten Damascus. He is totally aware of the fact that Damascus can be easily isolated, especially during this lousy time for the Arabs. We agree with Rumsfeld and Sharon that the Palestinians and Syrians should learn from the Iraqi lesson. This lesson has shown that abiding by international law is of no use and much like slow suicide. It has shown that accepting inspection and eliminating weapons mean surrendering to death.”
EGYPT: "A Slip For World Capitals"
Columnist Ahmed El-Guindy held in aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar (4/14): “The fall of Baghdad is a fall for all world capitals, but mainly a moral, human and political fall for Washington and London. The most important consequence is the hatred of the Arab people to both of them. This hatred will increase every day as the aims of this colonial war are revealed.”
"Baghdad, An Open City"
Aggressive pro-government weekly Al Akhbar al Yom columnist Nabil Zaki stated (4/12): “Definitely the nature of the regime in Baghdad served the plots of those who decided to usurp and occupy Iraq.... A regime’s falling to the hands of the people of the country is different from one falling into the hands of a foreign power which doesn’t hide its ambition to usurp the country’s wealth, rule under colonialism and turn the country into a base to protect Israeli expansionist ambitions.... It is logical to expect more catastrophes after the fall of Iraq especially given an growing American avarice for subduing the world.”
“A Major Test”
Leading pro-government Al Ahram contributor Morsi Attallah remarked (4/10): “The issue is not one of democracy in Iraq as outlined by American officials. The issue is satisfying the American agenda by securing oil resources and the market and guaranteeing Israel’s security and expansionist ambitions...(and) to cover for the horrible crimes Sharon is committing against Palestinians.... Further proof of this...is talk about an American desire to make radical changes in Arab infrastructure under the banners of democracy, civil society and human rights.... After this military war, we should expect another political, psychological and economic war against Iraq and others.... We are confronting a real tragedy wherein falsehood of America and Israel is commingled with Arab inability and hesitancy.... It is no longer a time to persist in blindness to Israel’s influence on American decision making.”
“Tragedy Between American Victory And Saddam’s Boastfulness”
Small-circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya Editor-in-chief Samir Ragab opined (4/10): “Whatever the American and British pretexts in Iraq, this is definitely an occupation, and an
46 occupier must pay eventually.... That is why I suggest: There should be stress on the fact that Saddam deceived his people and the entire Arab region and that he only cared about his personal interests; the U.S. should regain its credibility and reform its relations with the Arab region by letting Iraqis themselves run Iraq’s affairs just as President Mubarak advocated yesterday.... There should be a serious and rapid implementation of the roadmap for the Palestinian issue which, we repeatedly say, is the core issue of the middle East dispute. Definitely the fulfillment by Bush of his promise will have positive results--the simplest of which is refuting the charge he launched the war on Iraq for the sake of Israelis.”
JORDAN: “Hurry Up Before It Is Too Late”
Hilmi Al-Asmar wrote in center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (4/14): “The usurpation of Iraq has lifted the cover off the Arab political regimes. All are now candidates for the ‘liberation’ whether they like it or not. It is best for the political elites to start changing their colors and taking cover with their people by ‘liberating’ their people from oppression and tyranny now when there is no pressure, before this issue becomes a pretext for bringing down the rejectionists and before their files are taken out of the CIA drawers. It is a new age, the age of liberation and democratization by force. So hurry up before it is too late for you.”
“The Occupation Is The Beginning!”
Mohammad Kawash argued in independent, mass-appeal Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/7): “The Americans and the British will eventually come to the realization that the occupation of Iraq is not the end of the line, that it is not going to achieve security and stability and open doors for investment companies. Occupying Iraq will be the beginning, because Washington has no political solutions for Iraq that could overcome the historical, geographical, political and ethnic complexities and difficulties.... We are certain that the occupation of Iraq and its tragic repercussions are going to lead to entrenching the Arabs’ and Muslims’ feelings of hatred and animosity towards the United States. This in turn is going to lead to the creation of a state of instability inside Iraq that would extend to a number of countries in the region. This means that the entire region is at the threshold of a wave of violence, the consequences of which cannot be predicted.... These measures and plans are part and parcel of an America’s project to liquidate the Palestinian issue, to reshape the Middle East, to nullify the Arab order, and to turn this region into small sectarian and ethnic states, which would nullify the joint Arab action and the Arab identity.”
LEBANON: "Occupying Iraq: The First American Target In An Israeli War!"
Talal Salman declared in Arab nationalist As-Safir (4/14): "With the last bullets against Tikrit announcing the U.S. victory in Iraq, the American administration disclosed that only the first round is about to end and...specified a new target. Yesterday, members of the American administration took turns in launching a massive campaign against Syria, using a lot of the vocabulary that was used before to justify their aggression on Iraq. This was not the first time in which the U.S. warned Syria; however, the list of accusations this time was the biggest and the most violent.... What is also noteworthy, is President Bush's personal involvement in accusing Syria of harboring chemical weapons.... Knowing that the American Ministry of War is only an Israeli room of operations...it would be easy to conclude that Iraq was not the only target...consequently, this is a war on all Arabs.... It is a war of Israeli nature on all the Arabs.... It is an Israeli war with an American title."
“Wars In Iraq”
Sahar Baasiri declared in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (4/11): “The happiness of the Iraqis over the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime should not blind their eyes from seeing the dangers that are threatening them and their future.... Happiness is legitimate. The fall of every
47 oppressor is a happy event.... However, what is important is what will happen next. The Americans and British are talking about liberation, democracy and a great future, while reality is filled with many challenges.... The struggle is on several levels: On the level of the American command where there is conflict between the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department; on the level of the different factions of the Iraqi opposition; and on the level of Kurds...but the real struggle now is to keep Iraq for the Iraqis.”
“The Fall Of A Capital: Going Back To 1917”
Rafiq Khoury noted in centrist Al-Anwar (4/10): “Baghdad fell on the heads of all Arabs...and all (Arabs) will feel the impact of this fall.... The dancing around Saddam Hussein’s statue is only a fleeting image in a dramatic scene which will have many dimensions.... This occupation is a new defeat for Arabs within the series of defeats in wars against Israel. This time, however, defeat is more dangerous because the victor is the only super-power in the world, which has an imperial strategy that does not hide its aims.... What is left is some hope in the natural course of things. Every occupation creates a resistance and every big force has its enemies...however, the first condition for a successful resistance is for it to be a popular/public resistance.... We have a great challenge ahead of us.... Baghdad’s defeat yesterday took the Middle East back to the phase that followed the first World War...as if we are destined to work again for the independence we received at the beginning of the twentieth century. The greediness of imperialism is enormous, however, our mistakes which were responsible for this tragedy are enormous as well.”
QATAR: "Who Is Next, Syria Or Iran?"
Taha Khalifa opined in semi-independent Arabic-language Al-Raya (4/14): "Which country will be next? The easy fall of Baghdad made the war on Iraq looked like a picnic. That might stimulate President Bush's appetite to settle the United States' accounts with 'international pockets of resistance.' North Korea is not in focus now. However, Iran, as a member of Bush's axis of evil, and Syria, which just joined the club, are the most likely to be next on Bush's agenda. Syria, according to the USG, is offering safe haven to fleeing Iraqi leaders; allowed Arab fighters to cross into Iraq to fight against coalition forces; and most importantly is hiding Iraq's WMD and developing chemical weapons. In addition, there is always the old accusation that it supports Hezballah and other Palestinian terrorist groups. Any of the above could serve as an excuse for the U.S. to launch military action against Syria. Minutes after the fall of Baghdad, senior American officials sent a message to Syria and Iran urging them to learn from the mistakes of Iraq.... Strong states in this region will be broken in order to maintain peace and security for Israel. That is the ultimate goal of Bush's Christian, rightist administration."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Syria: Just a Question!"
Jeddah's moderate Al-Madina editorialized (4/13): "In the beginning, we (Arabs) missed an opportunity to prevent the war from erupting. We failed to convince the U.S. to give UN inspectors more time, and we also failed to convince Saddam to leave the country and spare his nation the atrocities of war. The political map of Iraq is being drawn now. Are we going to miss the chance once again? As part of self-determination, Arab nations have to reevaluate their past to disclose the reasons behind the current disgraceful situation. The list of targeted Arab countries is clear and has been made public by the U.S. Even before the war ended, U.S. media gave clear signs that Syria is next in line. There is no need to think hard about the reasons behind these threats. American and Israeli hawks have many reasons to head toward Damascus. But the question remains, are we (Arabs) going to stand still and wait for that to happen, and then convene at some summit to exchange accusations and bad-mouth each other. Just wondering?"
48 "Why Accuse Syria?"
Riyadh's conservative Al-Riyadh declared (4/13): "Syria is the most important obstacle for Israel, due to its geographic position in the neighborhood, its nonnegotiable political stance, and its hard line in dealing with its own issues and Arab national issues. Putting it on the hot issues list, after the fall of Baghdad, it then becomes a matter of consideration, because the Israeli hawks are still dominating the American hard line.... Therefore, Damascus has the same importance as Baghdad, if we assume that regional security is part of American political success."
"Iraq’s Future Post-Saddam"
Jeddah’s moderate Al-Bilad editorialized (4/10): "Finally Iraq’s capital fell, and Iraqis breathed easy. For decades they were living under the mercy of harsh dictator who exploited the country’s resources for his own benefit. This sudden swift fall marks the beginning of a new stage in the future of Iraq.... President Bush and PM Blair’s recommendations of establishing an interim government is exactly what Iraq needs now. There is no harm in seeking American, British or even the UN’s help during this period. Iraqis are going to need a lot of help in this period until they can once again govern themselves. We hope that the international aid is not just going to be in the form of construction and rebuilding ruins, but that it extends to help Iraq set the basis of a new state."
SYRIA: "Mass Destruction Democracy"
Riad Zein commented in government-owned English-language Syria Times (4/13): "The liberation of Iraqi is an illusion since occupation perpetuates and is reminiscent of colonialism, and since many Iraqis are turned into slaves under the technology of war of the invading forces. Human rights are protected in terms of massacring thousands of innocent people, bombarding civilian areas and destroying a whole country with internationally banned weapons of mass annihilation. America's freedom and democracy are expressed in terms of encouraging people to loot and destroying government buildings and private property of maintaining unrest and creating disorder and instigating violence.... It is really the freedom of robbery and theft and the democracy of disorder and violence that America seeks. This is actually the mass destruction of freedom and democracy.... What an immoral, criminal and brutal superpower governed and guided by a junta of racist leaders, war-mongers and greedy gangsters!"
“The Iraqi People’s Responsibilities”
Ali Nasarallah commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (4/11): “Even though the US war- machine has been able to kill thousands of Iraqi people and demolish Iraq’s infrastructure, it will certainly not be able to kill the Iraqi people’s resistance. This is not theoretical, but is learned from the lessons of history.... U.S. Administration officials announce they will need 2 or 3 years of occupation to reorganize.... Iraq. They talk about a transitional situation, which accords with the Israeli perspective and...Sharon’s logic vis-à-vis US claims about fulfilling security and stability...then about organizing elections and withdrawing US forces while still maintaining military bases to protect the oil fields and US interests. But achieving security and stability in Iraq might not be achieved for two reasons: first, the US will not help achieve security and stability; rather it will encourage chaos and revenge, and will deepen disputes among Iraqis. Second, the Iraqi people will feel the danger and will refuse to succumb to the invaders. This will extend the duration of occupation.... The Iraqi people will soon realize the tragic aspects of occupation and its catastrophic results. They will realize that their national interest is in giving up internal disputes and maintaining their political and national unity.... The US and the UK should realize that they won’t be able to kill the feelings of freedom."
49 TUNISIA: "Privileging The Rational"
Editor-in-chief, Noureddine Hlaoui contended in independent French-language Le Temps (4/12): "What is essential in these current events, is the fact to turn to the future and to get down to the task of reconstruction, labor and knowledge. In fact, the time is for another battle but of a different kind. Other countries have been through the similar circumstances and got out of it with great fortune. We cite the examples of Japan and Germany that are today considered as the first rivals of the U.S. on the economic level. Bush and Blair have supposedly delivered a positive speech concerning the future of Iraq and its wealth. We should take them at their words and launch a call to the international community to take note of the American-British engagements. On the other hand Arab countries are called to achieve their own union, which should start on the economic side. They should take inspiration from the European Union example."
"War Against Iraq: It is Just A Delayed Action"
Editor-in-chief Chokri Baccouche stated in independent French-language Le Quotidien (4/11): "The United States and the Great Britain have maybe won a battle, but they could never win the war. Because the hardest is to come and the occupation of Iraq opens up the door to chaos. The invaders have gotten off on the right foot to undergo one heck of a change.... From being a weak and exploited country, Iraqis will obviously discover the other side of the coin, which is a country led by a puppet government that fully obeys the American administration. They will see the tankers full of crude oil moving under the control of the occupying army without receiving any dividend. Their lives will not be better for sure. The true reaction of the Iraqis won't take long to start and the 'liberators' of today risk undergoing one heck of a change."
UAE: "Arab Policy Towards Iraq"
Dubai-based business-oriented Arabic-language Al-Bayan editorialized (4/13): "The Arab league and Arab countries are requested to move towards protecting not only Iraq and Syria, but also all Arab countries that might sooner or later find themselves an American target."
"Iraq Is Only The First U.S. Target"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al Khaleej editorialized (4/11): "When the U.S. threw its first bomb under its motto for the 'liberation' of Iraq, it was a new era of occupation. It was the first bomb against all Arabs and their rights and it won't be the last. Baghdad is only the first piece in an chain of Arab countries that will fall. Choosing Iraq as the first target was not a random step since it is the biggest, richest, and most powerful country in the Middle East."
EAST ASIA
AUSTRALIA: "The New Nuclear Diplomacy"
Geoffrey Barker noted in business-oriented Australian Financial Review (4/14): “Judging by the cost of the war and the post-war problems facing the U.S. and its coalition partners, it may be some time before future U.S. intentions become clear. Restoration of order...and the installation of a new Iraqi regime will be slow and expensive.... But perhaps the clearest signal that the U.S. might be trawling for more pre-emptive targets has been its remorseless pressure on Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, a regime probably no less brutal than Hussein’s.... It would be ironic and tragic if the Iraq war, which was supposed to disarm one dreadful regime, had the unintended effect of speeding other dreadful regimes towards nuclear weapons acquisition.“
CHINA: "The Iraq War Will Influence The Middle East Situation"
50
Tang Zhichao and Wang Xiaole opined in official Communist Party-run international news publication Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) (4/14): “The U.S. will hold the sole hegemonic position in the Middle East. Russia, France and Germany have lost an important chessman to bargain with the U.S. The importance of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan will decrease in Middle East strategy of the U.S. Israel will be a big winner of this war. The Middle East will still be the source of unstability. Iran and Syria are worried that they will become the next targets of the U.S.”
“Seeing The Prospect Of The U.S. Hegemony From The Iraqi War”
Yuan Peng wrote in official Xinhua international news publication International Herald Leader (Guoji Xianqu Daobao) (4/11): “The U.S. dream of imperialism has never been as obvious as it is now. Although the U.S. has strong, comprehensive national strength, its strength of moral influence and cultural centripetal force are decreasing day by day. This sole super power of the world is facing a dilemma it created itself. Now it is hegemony, not the U.S., which the other countries are opposing. This is a chance for the U.S. to correct its mistake by giving up its unilateral strategy and adopting a practical attitude.”
“To Comprehend Bush's Strategy”
Peng Di commented in official Communist Youth League-run China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao)(4/10): "In the attack to Iraq, how dedicated the Bush Administration is! How rushed its actions are! How strongly statements are worded! And, how rudely its diplomacy is! These are all rarely seen in international relations.... Many people can see that the deeper goal of the U.S. is oil. But there is much more than oil.... If the U.S. controls the Middle East and the oil in the area, there is a great possibility that economic lifelines of many important oil- consuming countries will be controlled by the U.S. Then, the day that the U.S. imperialism controls the world is not far off. How much the Bush Administration hopes to realize that!.... The first step of Bush’s ‘ambitious’ strategy is close to being accomplished. His second step may still be in the Middle East, but possibly change another way to set up another pro-U.S. regime. The whole world is cautiously watching the next U.S. step.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "U.S. Hawks Are In Power, World Can Hardly Have Peace"
Independent Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Journal wrote (4/12): "The U.S. neo- conservatives who planned the war will become even more influential in U.S. foreign policy, with a greater impact on the international order. These neo-conservatives and the U.S. Jewish lobby are closely related. They highly praise Israel's right-wing Likud Party, with its military mindset and style of government. Today, the U.S. emphasizes national security in justifying its pre-emptive measures, which is no different from Likud's strategy.... The situation today is different from the past as the U.S. hawks are in power. Although they represent a minority view in international politics, their actions will impact the global situation. Given an American victory in Iraq in just one month, the neo-conservatives may redouble their efforts to promote their philosophy. It is feared that the world map may shortly be redrawn."
JAPAN: "A New Era Of Wars"
Liberal Mainichi observed (4/11): "The start of U.S./UK action against Iraq and U.S. troops' demonstration of overwhelming power in their seizure of Baghdad marked the start of new wars in a world dominated by the 'democratic empire' of the United States. Although the original purpose of the U.S. use of force was to disarm Hussein of WMD, no such weapons have so far been found in Iraq. Instead, the U.S. appears to be publicizing 'democratization' as the purpose of war in Iraq. Now, the U.S. can opt for the purpose of war at its own will."
51 INDONESIA: “New Form Of Imperialism”
Muslim-Intellectual Republika commented (4/11): "The Iraqis and the world community seem to have no choice but to accept the reality, the bitter reality of a new form of imperialism and colonialism. New imperialism because no matter the form of the new government in Iraq, the U.S. will ‘force its will.’ At least they have to get ‘approval’ from the Uncle Sam.... But how many more democratic government have to ‘fall’ if they oppose U.S. interests?.... Even the fall of President Soekarno was reportedly also due to U.S. interference.... We and other civilized people certainly do not want the world to be made black and white by the president of one country, the U.S. A president that forces the law of the jungle is one that opposes the world.”
MALAYSIA: "The Future Of The Gulf Is Not In U.S. Hands."
Government-influenced Malay-language Utusan Malaysia contended (4/11): "One of the Arab world’s concerns now is if the U.S. will live up to its promise of allowing the Iraqi people the freedom to rebuild their own nation. Another is whether the U.S. will target another Arab nation for opposing the war in Iraq. The is much speculation that the U.S. would not have attacked Iraq if it did not count on a positive ‘domino effect’--to enlarge its sphere of influence in the Middle East. The fate of Iraq is a grim reminder to the other Arab countries that unity among them is important if they want to stop the arrogance of the U.S. Saddam Hussein may have committed heinous crimes and alienated his neighbors, but to let foreigners topple him from power--is something that should not have been allowed to happen. The Iraqi people need not share the same fate as the people of Afghanistan. All Islamic countries should offer assistance to rebuild this oil-rich country. We should also be aware that the U.S. and Britain will always start with economic sanctions, and then with the excuses of freedom, democracy and anti-terrorism, before they invade other countries."
PHILIPPINES: "Might Does Not Make Right"
Sonny Coloma wrote in the leading business-oriented BusinessWorld (4/11): "Beyond Iraq, the Arab world has been put on notice that awesome U.S. technology could be used against other recalcitrant regimes. What country will be next: Syria or Iran?.... U.S. unilateralism has created a serious rift between the Americans and the Europeans, principally the Germans, French and Russians. To his credit, Prime Minister Tony Blair has been quite outspoken in his advocacy for a significant UN role in post-war Iraq. In contrast, the U.S. has already telegraphed in advance its plan to install a retired general as warden of Baghdad and put in place an American- backed transitional regime. My own wish is to see larger crowds and hordes of jubilant Iraqi citizens dancing in the streets.... Beyond that, they should assertively establish their own government, not a government of puppet or stooges as feared by...prescient Arab observers. But this could really end up as wishful thinking in the face of realpolitik.... Alas and alack, the resort to expedient unilateral military action has defined the parameters for the post-Saddam Iraqi and Middle Eastern political arena. If there is no effective counterpoint to U.S. unilateralism, we may well be hapless witnesses to a new world order that will be built mainly on the platform of military might."
SOUTH KOREA: "A Return To Barbarism"
Lee Young-ja opined in government-owned Daehan Maeil (4/14): "The war in Iraq was a result of thorough planning and decision-making, not an event occurring by chance. If Nazism had claimed the lives of millions of Jews in the past, 21st century 'Americanism' has taken the lives of countless Arabs as a sacrifice. The U.S., having emerged as a powerful nation in the 20th century after a victory over Nazism, is now writing its own disgraceful chapter in history to surface as the superpower state of this century. Regardless of whether the U.S. wins in the war or not, and even if the Iraqi people welcome the Americans as liberating them from an iron- fisted rule, the U.S. attack on Iraq can never be justified. If, instead of introspection, the U.S.
52 finds justification for its actions, then mankind's history will return to a helpless state of barbarism."
THAILAND: “A Unipolar World--An American Dream”
The lead editorial in conservative, Thai-language Siam Rath read (4/10): “American experts’ theory on the clash of civilizations sees U.S. culture as the standard for the west. To survive and remain strong, western civilizations must have U.S. culture at their core.... Such is the principle of the U.S. ideology of a ‘unipolar world’ or an American dream, if you will. The U.S. would have achieved its goal had it not been too cruelly hasty. Apparently the western bloc is now splitting into two camps…. Asian countries that have been at odds, competing with one another and following in the west’s footsteps should rethink and reunite. Asia must close ranks with Africa and South America so as to act as a counterbalance against western oppression.”
VIETNAM: "War In Iraq And Its Long-term Consequences"
Dang Vu wrote in Ha Noi Moi, run by Hanoi city authorities (4/10): "Politically, the war that the U.S. unilaterally waged against a sovereign country has seriously violated the UN Charter.... The US has immensely damaged the role of the UN.... The war of aggression against Iraq has made countries and regions adjust their strategies and policies toward the U.S. Militarily, although the U.S. is able to gain control over Baghdad, the situation in Iraq and the region will be unstable for a long time, just like what happened in Kosovo and Afghanistan. A government set up by the U.S. [in Iraq] will face opposition from the people who lost their families and who were displaced because of the war. Ethnic conflicts will break out. Terrorism will have an opportunity to mushroom in many places. The conflict between the Muslim world and the U.S. and its allies will become more profound. Countries will have to spend more on defense budget. An arms race will begin."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Fighting Imperium"
The nationalist Hindustan Times carried a piece by Anand K. Sahay saying (4/12): "It's not yet clear if Syria will go Iraq's way in U.S. planning, but America has already attacked two countries in the last 18 months. Such a high frequency of military excursions has not been seen in modern times, or since the United Nations was established to prevent wars.... We can't yet be certain if Iraqi nationalism is cohesive enough to be reckoned as a factor in the current scenario; nor whether there exists such a thing as a wider Arab identity that the American imperium may have to contend with. However, while the Arab Street may be an unknown quantity, a postscript can be appended to the U.S. invasion, namely, that 'shock and awe' failed as a military strategy."
PAKISTAN: "If Hawks Have Their Way"
An editorial in the Karachi-based independent national Dawn read (4/14): "Following on the heels of the universally opposed Iraq war, any further widening of America's doctrine of pre- emption in action could plunge the region into turmoil and further polarize a deeply divided world still seething over the unilateralist U.S. attack on Iraq. Most of its allies, including Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the pro-U.S. Arab states, are urging Washington to shun further confrontation and move instead towards healing the rifts opened up by the war, restoring the battered credibility of the United Nations and putting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process back on track."
53 "Dawn Of A New Day"
Iqbal Latif contended in the Lahore-based Daily Times (4/14): "Muslims seem fanatically devoted to their tyrants. Muslim populations virtually everywhere have protested against the war and supported Saddam Hussein.... I wonder why the Muslims demonstrate against the liberation of an Islamic population.... We have just witnessed the end of Saddam's regime following the U.S. invasion. But this is an invasion with a difference. Baghdad's surrender this time around has not ended in massacres. In fact the poor people of Iraq have been delivered from tyranny and will shortly be given the power to decide their own destiny.... The decline of Iraq was due to the absence of freedom. Welfare and freedom are interlinked, with freedom will come the fruit of prosperity. It can be hoped that the land will regain its lost glory. It will be a harbinger of progress in that region."
"The Next Patriotic War"
Shafqat Mahmood declared in the centrist national News (4/11): "is it over for the United States? Indications are that the next target is already being lined up.... There is an eerie familiarity to the opening salvos in the Syrian game plan.... The stage will be set. Quislings will create a free Syrian army. A new coalition of the willing will be put together with Israel as a major partner and war unleashed. Another Arab country will be 'liberated'.... It is not a surprise that Al-Jazeera, the independent Arab television station has been hit for a second time in two conflicts. It was hit in Kabul and now in Baghdad. This just indicates how vital it is for the U.S. to control the news.... The name of the game is controlling information.... This American administration is moving at a breakneck speed to reshape the world to its liking. It has no care or concern for other people or for the suffering that it leaves in its wake.... American troops are in every region of the world and in more than fifty countries. Pax Americana continues to extract a heavy price."
"Another Fall Of Baghdad"
Second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt maintained (4/11): "America has completed the plan to deal with all Islamic countries one by one; the fall of Baghdad being the starting point. In the garb of friendship, the U.S. is an enemy of the Islamic country (Pakistan) that went for nuclear testing despite the warnings of American president Clinton.... We wish we could sense the danger emanating from Baghdad."
"Fall Of Baghdad"
The Islamabad-based rightist English-language Pakistan Observer said (4/11): "Iraq's fate should, however, be an eye-opener for other Muslim nations. Irrespective of the denials by the United States, the fact remains that Muslims are the targets of President Bush's policies. His projected plans to reshape the Middle East map and to bring about democracy in the region obviously smack of his ultimate designs about the region.... It's a sad day because the fall of Baghdad will open floodgates of political intrigues, blackmail and turmoil in the Middle East, whose implications will also spillover to other regions as well.... Saddam's blunders have contributed towards encouraging Bush's vision to make the 21st century as the U.S. century. Difficult days are thus ahead of the world, as new doctrines and patterns have been introduced in the international politics by the U.S. Might will be right in the 21st century as well!"
"The Fall Of Baghdad"
The center-right national Nation maintained (4/11): "As President Saddam Hussein lost his hold on power, the people were aided and abetted by the invading army to pull down his imposing statue in the heart of Baghdad, whose outstretched arm pointed towards Al-Quds (Jerusalem). When a guiding motive of the whole anti-Iraq exercise was to make Israel the region's
54 paramount power, any threat to Israel symbolized by this statue is anathema and to be removed. Although U.S. troops took down the Stars and Stripes they put on it briefly, the lurking intention of imperialist occupation was not lost on TV viewers worldwide.... While the Iraqi campaign is not yet over, U.S. and U.K. warmongers have fired warning shots at other targets.... Muslim countries, which are undoubtedly in the line of fire, should waste no time in formulating a joint policy to defend themselves, lest they are taken out one by one. The Zionist-run U.S. is out to implement Israel's expansionist agenda. It has to be stopped in its tracks. Meanwhile, it is also essential that the international community move to prevent a U.S. quasi-colonization by pressing for the UN to take the lead role in the country's rehabilitation. As a Security Council member, Pakistan must play an appropriate role."
"After Saddam, What Next?"
The Lahore-based Daily Times observed (4/11): "How will the post-war, pre-peace situation unfold in Iraq and who, if any, is likely to be America's next target. Both questions are obviously interlinked.... Whether the U.S. now moves on to create more such "democracies" will depend on whether it takes its cue from the ease with which it has toppled the Iraqi regime or from the difficulties it is going to face in winning the peace. There are fears that it might use the war rather than the still-to-be peace as the benchmark to make that decision. That would be a mistake.... Most neo-conservatives think or hope that the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II. This is a misconception. It equates two nation-states like Germany and Japan with over one billion "Islamic" people spread across vast swathes of the globe and politically, ethnically, nationally and in many other ways different from each other. This is the Huntingtonian fallacy that refers to an Islamic civilization in the same context as Western, Sinic and other 'civilizations', a kind of theoretical packaging that eschews the many fault-lines in an attempt not to lose the larger theoretical picture.... In the next phase, therefore, the U.S. and its war-allies will face...a multitude of interests, ethnicities, tribal loyalties and feuding, individual and group demands and so on."
NEPAL: "Lesson For N Korea And Others"
Dr. Shreedhar Gautam held in the centrist Kathmandu Post (4/10): "The Iraq war is the most unequal, immoral, unjustified and brutal in nature.... There was a deep conspiracy and a long drawn out plan to attack Iraq and eliminate the leadership with a view of occupying the land directly, and to take hold of Iraqi oil wells. Now the destruction of Iraq is almost over and the occupation of Iraqi soil by the outsiders is almost certain. The moot question before other nations is to analyze the event calmly, and then to draw a definite lesson for the future. Though many nations might meet the fate of Iraq, the immediate impact of the war will be felt by North Korea… The case of Iraq has helped us understand the reason why North Korea is not abandoning its nuclear policy, despite the U.S. threat… Now it is clear that the U.S. would have never dared to attack Iraq if the latter had either nuclear capability or adequate modern weapons to match the highly superior firepower of the former.... The U.S. action has shown that no country in the world can preserve its independence if its army and people are not one in defending their soil from the possible attack. Now small countries are threatened and scared."
AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: "Hollow Victory For The War Whores"
Intellectual weekly Mail & Guardian said (4/11): "It would be a grave mistake to view the scenes of rejoicing...as a post hoc sanctification of the United States' criminal invasion.... With no sign yet of Saddam's WMD, the 'justified pre-emption' argument is looking more and more threadbare.... The US and its jackal, the United Kingdom, have done the easy bit. With the
55 world's most sophisticated military hardware, they have overwhelmed a country savaged in an earlier conflict and bled white by sanctions. Now they have the far more demanding task of winning the peace.... One can only hope Iraq's sovereignty is restored as soon as possible, and that somehow from this appalling mess a stable, legitimate government and integral state is salvaged. For this, it is essential for the US to relinquish administrative hold of post-invasion Iraq to the United Nations. The longer the invaders stay on conquered soil...the stronger the impression in Arab and Third world minds that this was a colonial resource-grab. And the victory they proclaim will indeed be a hollow victory for the 'war whores'
TANZANIA: “Iraq Should Be Rebuilt By Iraqis Themselves”
Kiswahili-language independent weekly Rai commented (4/10): "After America and Britain failed to convince the UN to endorse military action against Iraq, these two countries took it upon themselves to invade Iraq. This action was condemned by the international community as an act of bullying. Hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives. A big part of Iraq is now in the hands of foreign troops, and already the work of reconstructing the country has been initiated by representatives of these powerful countries. The original purpose of invading Iraq, so as to disarm Saddam’s regime of its weapons of mass destruction, has changed. Even the second reason, which was to liberate Iraqis from an oppressive regime, has also changed. It is now becoming obvious that these countries actually wanted to topple Saddam Hussein and rule the country. TV stations have been showing pictures of buildings and infrastructure that have been demolished by incessant bombings. They have fulfilled their purpose. Iraq is now in their hands. It would thus be prudent, if they would rebuild Iraq politically, socially, and economically, just like they had promised. But in doing so, Iraqis should be in the frontline in supervising this work, which should not just be for the benefit of outside corporations.”
ZIMBABWE: “What Next For 26 Million Iraqis After Saddam?”
The independent Daily News opined (4/10): "The United Nations is justified to be concerned at the future of the 26 million people of Iraq after the United States-British forces have routed Saddam Hussein and set up a ‘colonial’ administration.... The world needs to restore its faith in the UN, whose efficacy as the final arbiter of peace in the world has been sorely challenged by the U.S.-UK adventure in Iraq.... The morality of the military action against Saddam Hussein will be debated for a long time to come, along with the new doctrine of the U. S. Government of ‘regime change’.... What does the future hold for what have been called ‘rogue regimes’ which ignore everything that can conceivably be seen as allowing for the freedom to the people to exercise their inalienable rights as citizens? There are governments today, members of the UN, who can be slotted into this category. The UN itself has no power to act against them, unless there is consensus for such action among the five permanent members of the Security Council. If there is no consensus, what happened to Saddam Hussein becomes an option, a dangerous option, but an option nevertheless.”
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "The Threat From Syria And The Right Response"
The leading Globe and Mail editorialized (4/11): "There's good reason why the flags of Iraq and Syria are almost identical. The neighbouring countries are like brothers, albeit bickering brothers. They've been run for decades by separate arms of the Arab Socialist Baath Party.... Now, the U.S. military controls Baghdad. Is the next stop Damascus? One might think it possible, judging by accusations being exchanged by the Bush administration and the regime of Bashar Assad.... There's little doubt the White House would like to see regime change in Damascus. The Syrian government has provided intelligence about al-Qaeda to the CIA. And it voted at the UNSC last fall for Resolution 1441.... But these helpful steps, U.S. officials
56 suggest, are outweighed by Syria's support of organizations such as Hezbollah.... But even the most hawkish members of the Bush administration know another war is unlikely. The invasion of Iraq is commonly viewed as lacking a basis in international law, though Washington has defended it on grounds that numerous UN resolutions against Iraq hadn't been met. There is not even that rationale concerning Syria, though; an attack would be viewed as American unilateralism, pure and simple."
"America In The Post-Saddam world"
Jeffrey Simpson reflected in the leading Globe and Mail (4/11): "In this unipolar world, post- Saddam Iraq, how does the United States use its power? Will it be Iraq today, Syria, Iran or North Korea tomorrow? Or will the U.S. have its hands so full rebuilding Iraq that it will lack the concentration, resources and will to turn to these countries? Was Iraq a one-off case, or the first of a series of confrontations that, by military and/or diplomatic means, the screws are turned by Washington? What lessons, in other words, will the Bush administration and the U.S. public draw from this easy triumph in Iraq? The answer, in part, lies in what happens next. Should all go well--Iraq restored physically and rebuilt democratically--the euphoria sweeping across the U.S. media (and their Canadian acolytes) will embolden the Bush administration to new targets. If, over time, things begin to go wrong--discord in Iraq, more terror, political instability, unexpected financial costs--then the euphoria will fade and questions will be asked about imperial America.... It would appear that the U.S. has an agenda, paid in blood for it in Iraq, emerged triumphant (as if a military victory were ever in doubt), and will now proceed as it chooses, superpower triumphant."
"Who Is Next On America's List?"
George Jonas commented in the conservative National Post (4/9): "With coalition forces converging on Baghdad, the Bush administration's warning to Syria to stop supporting Saddam Hussein's regime with military equipment seemed ominous.... I don't think it's incumbent on the democracies of the West to force people to live in peace with their neighbours. If they can't come to terms on how to share a strip of land, too bad; let them duke it out.... It's only when other cultures seek to involve us in their quarrels, whether by terrorism or by the development of weapons of mass destruction, that we're justified in sending tanks and warplanes to offer them tutorials in the benefits of democracy. The regimes that meet the criteria of intervention include any that aren't armed with WMDs at present if they attempt to develop them. They also include regimes that already possess WMDs if they exhibit hostile intentions, e.g., North Korea. Naturally they include all regimes or ideologies that sponsor, train, shelter, or reward terrorists, as Iraq's Baathists or the Taliban have done.... We might expose them to the usual consequences of belligerency, including blockades and invasions. Insofar as Syria's Bashir Assad or Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei flirt with developing WMDs or encouraging terrorists, they may find democracy being delivered to them by tanks and warplanes. This, incidentally, is true for Saudi Arabia's royals as well. They'd be safer on their oily thrones if, instead of funding and condoning Islamofascist terror, they stuck to such relatively benign expressions of their culture as stoning adulterers, amputating the hands of thieves and preventing women from driving."
ARGENTINA: "A Crucial Piece In The Complex Middle East Chess Board"
Ana Baron wrote in leading Clarin (4/14): "By saying that the US believes Syria has WMD, President Bush reinforced the position of those who think that the Syrian government will be the next target of the antiterrorist war. Nevertheless, just as in the case of Iraq, the argument of weapons would not be the most important one. Syria is a crucial piece in the geopolitical map of the Middle East that Bush wants to redesign and democratize.... Both Arabian and Western observers agree that the only thing that could stabilize the region after the war on Iraq is an Israeli-Palestinian deal.... In this framework, the US is reported to have promised Tel Aviv that it 'will take decisive action', which could include military action, to put an end to the Syrian help
57 to Hezbollah.... With his eyes placed on reelection, Bush will hardly decide to strongly pressure Sharon, which could deprive him of the Jews' vote. But he could well pressure Syria for free from a domestic point of view."
"Who Is Next? Syria, Iran Or Northern Korea?"
Claudio Uriarte opined in left-of-center Pagina 12 (4/10): "As of yesterday, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria border with a new country: the U.S.... The military victory of US-UK led troops has been conclusive and fast.... The denunciation made last year by George W. Bush of Iraq, Iran and Northern Korea as members of an 'Axis of Evil,' and the fact that Iraq succumbed yesterday under US-UK weapons should not lead us to think...that they will be used in the same way as in Iraq. Instead, they would rather have a role of strategic destabilization, political guarantee and military deterrence, and, particularly, for political destabilization.... For instance, Iran is the main country accused (by the U.S.) of sponsoring terrorism...as well as Syria.... Saudi Arabia does not have armed forces...but part of the money of its oil fed Al Qaeda.... And North Korea is the most enigmatic component of the 'axis of Evil.' In fact it is nothing else but a ghost of China. And China is the real power that allows filling out the image. It provided North Korea with the components of its nuclear weapons.... China was the author of the program used by Pakistan to build its nuclear arsenal, and China, not least, is the strategic enemy imagined by the Pentagon's hawks within the next 25 years."
BRAZIL: "Who's Next?"
Liberal Folha de S. Paulo editorialized (4/13): "The crushing U.S. victory over Iraq presents the world with a new geopolitical situation. The greatest risk is that the Bush administration's hawks might try to expand their field of action. The veiled threats that USG officials have been making to other nations with which Washington has disagreements are worrisome.... The worst thing is that such interventionist ideas have the support of the U.S. populace.... The Bush Doctrine supports preventive and unilateral attacks against nations or groups that represent or may represent a threat to the U.S. A sensible administration, however, would avoid using arms whenever possible. In truth, following Iraq, the simple threat of attack could work as a dissuasive force. But common sense has not characterized the Bush administration, dictators such as North Korea's Kim Jong-il or terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. As a result, the possibility of imprudent actions cannot be dismissed.... In the past few weeks, Syria has gained prominence among George Bush's 'major villains.' Washington is also profoundly unhappy with Saudi Arabia. Who will be next?.... The notion of preventive attack against future threats, not against imminent aggression, is unacceptable. If it were a 'right,' as the White House's ideologists see it, and all nations exercised that right, the world would live in a permanent state of war."
"Going Backwards" Luis Fernando Verissimo contended in right-of-center O Globo (4/10):"This war's dreaded figures may be lost in a convenient non-definition, because no one will be interested to know even why the war occurred, whether for a cheaper oil or any noble cause. What difference will it make in the way Iraqis were liberated in the invasion of their country without provocation? To kill is also to liberate.Another thing that may not survive these unbelievable days is our old habit to mistake technology with civilization. A habit we should already doubt when one concluded that only a very civilized people like the Germans would be able to develop methods of mass extermination as efficient as those of the Nazis. Today, the world's greatest technological power is using all its ingenuity to go back in time 100 years to a colonial occupation of a country.... We're back to classical imperialism, to the hypocrisy of the Crusades, to the pure prepotency disguising plundering. What other story are the intelligent missiles telling, the warriors with night-vision and the fantastic new doctrine of liberation bombing--not to mention, of course, Bush's election -if not the failure of civilization, or the means to measure it?"
58 "A Shock Of Civilizations"
Center-left Jornal do Brasil runs article by Leonardo Boff saying (4/11): "Never mind the mystic, economic or political motivations, the fact is that Bush aims to establish the Pax Americana and fit the world to the American way of life. After 9/11 it was decided that this would be done through the use of force. No one should dare to challenge this pretension or else he will know the U.S. devastating power. Therefore, Bush prolongs and takes the intrinsic mark of the Western paradigm to the last consequences: the wish to subject the whole world, to establish a universal empire. The so-called globalization is nothing but a Westernization or, poisoning of the world.... The West, namely, the U.S. may hold the control over capital production and technological and scientific knowledge. But, no car will move...without the Arab petroleum. Hence the pressure and surveillance of Western powers over the Arab countries, dividing them and maintaining them under severe control. There exists a great disappointment and even anger in the Arab and Moslem people vis-à-vis the West and the U.S. Despite their essential role on the functioning of the world system they feel they don't count.... And their religion, the best, the highest, is only seen as a focus of terrorism.... Today, under Bush's perception the threat is back under the spectrum of mass destruction arms and of ferocious terrorism. Hence the need to face it militarily. It's important to grasp [the idea of] those hidden structures in order to better understand the reasons of the current war."
"After Baghdad's Fall"
Center-right O Estado de S. Paulo opined (4/11): "The quickness with which the invaders advanced in Iraq belied those pessimistic forecasts--in which even this paper believed--of the conflict's duration and intensity, in addition to showing the efficiency of Rumsfeld's strategy. But is it is also a fact that the doubts had been sowed by the Bush administration less for the warnings that the war would be long and difficult than for the alarm that Saddam could use his poisonous weapons anywhere.... The result of the attack is expected to raise Bush's popularity back to post-Sep. 11 levels, thereby increasing his reelection chances next year. It is also expected to stress the arrogance and self-sufficiency that characterizes the current U.S. administration's view of the world and behavior. The indications that Washington has not excluded the possibility of resorting to force once again, now against Syria, are notorious."
MEXICO: "Preemptive Peace"
Miguel Angel Granados Chapa held in independent Reforma (4/11): "North American hawks such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have insisted in singling out the next victim, Syria. Washington has identified an axis of evil whose members are on an ominous waiting list. Against the war in Iraq, the ones promoted by unilateralism, we should organize preemptive peace."
"The Future After The Battle"
Olga Pellicer wrote in independent Reforma (4/10): “The decision to maintain control of the reconstruction of Iraq is consistent with the principles that guided the international strategy of the Bush administration. In the first place, it will head this ‘civilizing mission,’ that the Administration probably wants to take beyond the borders of Iraq. In the second place, it will be possible for the Bush administration to firmly maintain the visibility of U.S. supremacy. Now that he is at the point of completing the first stage of his intervention in Iraq, President Bush could pause for a moment to ask himself if the criteria he used to embark upon this military adventure, so opposed by the rest of the world, were the best, or if he should reconsider them. Unfortunately, nothing seems to indicate that there is any willingness to engage in this kind of reflection. By contrast, the future after the battle seems to be framed by the strengthening of American arrogance and the unease of those who fear a long period of instability.”
59 “Iraq: Balances And Perspectives”
Left-of-center La Jornada observed (4/10): “The regimes of North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya are considered by Washington as its enemies; the story about the diplomatic pursuit and the invasion on Iraq is perceived by them as a sign of the uselessness of the UN, of its resolutions, and of its procedures; perhaps their conclusion is that the only solution to appease the US is the development of weapons of massive destruction capable of dissuading the White House. For international journalists who preserve a minimum of honesty and professionalism, it is clear that the murder of journalists committed in Baghdad is a clear indication that Washington considers the independent press as dangerous, a military goal and an enemy that must be destroyed and demoralized.... The end of Hussein’s regime is the beginning of an era of oppression, destruction, occupation and sacking directed by the U.S.”
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: “The Domino Effect"
Establishment, pro-business Listin Diario editorialized (4/11): "“Once a new order is imposed in Iraq, the enormous task of political carpentry will bring many surprises to the Middle East.... It is not only a matter of handling multimillionaire deals to capitalize production and the economy. It is about the political reconstruction that will set the foundations to reform a new state based on democratic principles, western-style.... When Iraq...ceases to be what it has been, Hussein’s and a powerful elite’s private preserve and bloodthirsty, and it uses its riches to promote development and freedom, the story of the Middle East will be a totally different one.... Hussein’s fall could open the doors to a, still unpredictable, democratic process in the Middle East. A process already feared...by those Arab states that know that their short-comings and weaknesses will become apparent to the free world, when Iraq enters the new chapter of its history. This war will undoubtedly have a domino effect, in the long or short-term. Let’s wait for it.”
GUATEMALA: “The First Hyper-Power Is Born”
Rodrigo Castillo del Carmen observed in moderate, leading Prensa Libre (4/11): “The United States has gone from being a superpower to become the first hyper-power in the world. With the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. government has said to all nations that, from its particular point of view, security outside the United States no longer depends on the consensus of countries that had interpreted the end of the Cold War as comfortable vacations from strategy.... There is no doubt that the invasion of Baghdad is just the beginning of U.S. expansionism in the Middle East. Washington is ‘warning’ Iran, Syria and North Korea to learn their lesson.”
PANAMA: "Sadam's Fall"
Sensationalist tabloid Critica Libre declared (4/10): "The supposedly cruel enemies of the United States and of Western culture, were now waving the stars and stripes and were congratulating the Marines for having them liberated from oppress yoke. The same scenes of happiness that manifested when the Berlin wall fell.... It is expected that United States and Great Britain will impose a provisional occupation regime.... The United Nations participation in this immediate reconstruction plan is necessary to ensure that the new government does not lose legitimacy before the international community.... Now it is necessary to carefully observe the reactions of other countries considered enemies of the United States.... Syria, Iran and North Korea. As said by one of President Bush's advisors, the U.S. preventive war against terror can neutralize other countries."
PARAGUAY: "The Dictatorship Of The Empire"
Business-oriented Asuncion-based La Nacion stated (4/13): "The Emperor George W. Bush and his allies are sighing in relief after a victory, that, besides trying to hide censorship and the
60 murder of journalists, caused more fatal victims than they thought. That is, if those who carried out this war thought at some time about the deaths they could cause."
VENEZUELA: "One Fewer Dictator"
National El Mundo commented (4/10): "Saddam Hussein fell, and there is one fewer oppressor in the world. Not a one of the Arab people arose to defend him. There was talk of a fight between Islam and Christianity as during the Crusades, but now we see that Baghdad is not Constantinople, nor is Saddam Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam's supposed courage vanished into smoke, into nothing. The man who was so bizarre when he tried to massacre the Kurds, persecuted his own people and invaded Kuwait, has hidden like a frightened damsel. God willing, if he is still alive, he will have the courage to face his defeat and assume his responsibility for the catastrophe his stubborness has wrought upon Iraq. Have you seen how his statues fell yesterday? There are dozens. He thought he was God...living in luxurious palaces, while his people scraped roots from the dirt to have something to eat. Every despot should learn the lesson of his defeat, for this time will come to all."
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction
April 10, 2003 DEATHS OF JOURNALISTS: SUSPICION U.S. ATTACKS WERE 'NO ACCIDENT'
KEY FINDINGS
** Leftist and Muslim writers accused the U.S. of "targeting journalists" who are "conveying the truth."
** The attack boosted "suspicion" that the Coalition seeks to silence "independent media."
** The deaths intensified debate of the U.S.' "aimless" and "indiscriminate" bombings.
MAJOR THEMES
The 'premeditated hideous crime' was deliberately planned to 'hide reality'-- Arab papers in particular treated the dead journalists as "martyrs at the hands of invading forces," targeted by the U.S. because of their reports on the Coalition's "tyranny, brutality and repression." The deaths intensified commentary on the U.S.' desire to "make the world hostage to its side of the story" by "attacking freedom of information." Jordan's semi-official Al-Rai concluded, "whoever is not with them is their enemy. Bush said that and now his forces are saying it too." The belief that the U.S. desired to prevent any "witnesses" from seeing the "infallible evidence"
61 of "tragedies" was widespread in papers from Argentina to Lebanon to Norway to Pakistan.
The Coalition obviously favors 'embedded journalists who travel with the aggressors'-- The attacks were a "tragic mistake," but European and Latin papers still did not find it "easy to believe" they were "due to convenient bad luck and tragic wrong targeting." A Belgian paper highlighted the "American troops' increased hostility toward the journalists who are not embedded--and are therefore more critical." Because the "media are today more important than ever" and "the management of the information war has become a higher priority," the only "face of the war America wants to see...is reported by the reporters embedded with its forces." Algeria's independent Sawt Al Ahrar dismissed embedded journalists as "mere trumpets for American propaganda...that marched with the bands of murderers from the South."
The journalists were brave victims of the 'chaos of war' and American 'hysteria'-- The journalists' deaths were taken as confirmation of the Coalition's reckless rules of engagement. An Indian daily declared that "targets are being finalized with little thought to the possibility of civilians being put in harm's way." Austria's liberal Der Standard believed the "journalists became the victims of understandably nervous and inexperienced 20 year-olds. Unfortunately, the same is true for the civilian population of Iraq." Cameroon's pro-opposition Mutations added that "American soldiers fire on everything that moves." In such a "chaotic war situation," it is the responsibility of the U.S. forces to "limit such casualties" among both journalists and civilians.
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 59 reports from 29 countries over 8-10 April 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
GERMANY: “It Affects Us Deeply”
Stephan-Andreas Casdorff argued in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (4/9): “The war is coming to an end and now it is really affecting us. The journalists, who report on events and bring the suffering of the people closer to us, are now also becoming victims. They--and thus the public--are becoming the targets of attacks. After weeks, the term ‘embedded’ gets its real, brutal significance.... The attacks and the debris can now be watched in real time. It is becoming clear that the journalists in Iraq’s capital are no longer ‘embedded’ as reporters, but are drawn as participants into the war. Never before were we, the public, closer to war. This increases the dramatic events in these days."
"Pictures As Weapons"
Tina Hassel said on ARD-TV's (national channel one) late evening newscast Tagesthemen (4/8): “When pictures are used as weapons, journalists run the risk of becoming combatants--or what is even more dangerous--opponents. And this brings us to the center of the problem. Were the shots at the international media center and the offices of the independent Arab TV station only an unfortunate mishap in the course of the fighting?.... I admit that I have difficulty believing this. The Americans knew exactly where the press was staying.... But was it a clearly-targeted attack? If this horrible assumption came true, then the killed journalists were not victims of the war but victims of a war crime.... Should the nation that was the first to include the freedom of the press in its Constitution really have fired at journalists, then this nation would have forfeited the thing for which it entered into this war: confidence in democracy.”
62 “In the Line Of Fire”
Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg stated (4/9): “According to the Geneva Convention, journalists and civilians have a right to be protected by the war-waging parties. But the United States of all nations, which wants to bring democracy and the rule of law to Iraq, is now raising doubts about the compliance with this principle. America must remove the suspicion that, following a number of incidents, reporters are not only exposed to the general risks of war but are also made deliberately military targets to speed up the U.S. victory.... The media are today more important than ever for the psychology of war. That is why pictures from an Iraqi perspective are considered an annoyance. Nevertheless, the media are no weapon in the sense of the Geneva Convention. If politics and the military leadership blur the limits of what are real military targets, then it is impossible for the troops on site to protect civilians. The bombing of the Iraqi state-run TV station at the beginning of the war was already a violation of the Geneva Convention, as was the attack on Belgrade’s state-run TV station in 1999, and Al Jazeera’s office in Kabul in 2001. Such attacks are jeopardizing America’s credibility.”
ITALY: “A Tragic Mistake”
Franco Bechis commented in Rome's center-right Il Tempo (4/9): “The American tank man who fired at the journalists’ hotel either wanted to erase freedom of press or made a tragic mistake.... The first hypothesis is pure folly, which however has found support in our Parliament and in some media.... Indeed, we would have liked to hear more words of apology from the Pentagon spokesperson, but that targeted shooting on journalists was not planned.”
RUSSIA: "War Takes Heavy Toll Among Journalists"
Mikhail Zygar declared in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (4/9): "Yesterday the Coalition forces destroyed the Al Jazeera office and shelled the hotel Palestine, where all the foreign journalists were staying.... This means that the military operation is drawing to a close-- there will soon be no one to send reports from Baghdad, and the United States will announce a victory."
AUSTRIA: “War Correspondent”
Hans Rauscher said in liberal Der Standard (4/9): “Being a war correspondent always means risking your life.... The war in Iraq is proving this yet again with its death toll among journalists, unusually high for a 21-day war.... What is new, however, is that the American president is forced to protest against allegations that US troops are targeting journalists on purpose (not Americans, but international journalists, who report from the Iraqi side, so to speak). The truth is probably that the Americans don’t hesitate to open fire in city battles. This would explain why a US tank fired into the journalists’ hotel Palestine because real or imagined Iraqi snipers were firing from there. Thus journalists became the victims of understandably highly nervous and inexperienced 20 year-olds. Unfortunately, the same is true for the civilian population of Iraq.”
BELGIUM: "Condeming The Attacks"
Laurent Raphael wrote in independent La Libre Belgique (4/9): "The International Federation of Journalists--based in Brussels--condemned these attacks that it claims targeted non-military objectives--that is obvious for the Al Jazeera offices, and partially obvious for the Palestine hotel, which is known for housing the journalists who remained in Baghdad but also representatives of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence services.... Reporters Without Borders also condemned these attacks, and pointed out that it is hearing more and more stories about the American troops’ increased hostility toward the journalists who are not embedded--and who are
63 more critical.”
BULGARIA: "The Revolution Murdered Its Children"
Leftist, stridently-anti U.S. Monitor remarked (4/9): "Yesterday the U.S.' democratic war pointed its barrels towards Palestine Hotel, where, as everyone knows, the media covering the war is staying..... Since yesterday no normal person in the world could find even the smallest reason to believe in the democratic character of this war, nor in the words of its instigators and leaders. For the first time in the modern history of a country, the superpower America pointed its gun against journalists and fired. Two people died. But if Bush's army was truly as good as he claims it is, the number of victims would have been much larger."
GREECE: “Killers Of Speech”
Popular, pro-government and anti-American Eleftherotypia editorialized (4/9): "The answers to the relentless questions posed after the premeditated hideous crimes that were committed in Baghdad lead directly to the culprits.... The mafia of the raid on Iraq cannot exterminate the infallible evidence of its serial hideous crimes nor can it cover them up. The journalists, who were shocked by the loss of their colleagues, were not terrorized. They will remain in the trenches of ‘Palestine’ to keep open the eye that cannot be censored or fall victim of the killers of speech.”
“Apocalypse”
The lead editorial in top-circulation pro-government influential Ta Nea read (4/9): “Three murderous attacks in one day are no coincidence.... Journalists became targets because the allies wished to send a message out about their wars, current and future, that they will not tolerate independent journalism that discloses the slaughters of non combatants, schools, open markets, and hospitals.... It seems that history hasn’t taught them anything: however many journalists they kill, however many media they bomb, however much censorship they impose, the atrocities of their wars will always be disclosed because they can simply not kill information.”
IRELAND: "U.S. Sends World Mixed Messages"
Left-of-center Irish Examiner editorialized (4/9): "The Jekyll and Hyde nature of America's dangerous balancing act on the world stage was plain to see yesterday as U.S. troops targeted members of the media covering the war in Baghdad while in Belfast President George W Bush was giving out a strong message of support for lasting peace in Northern Ireland.... After coming under intense pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush has promised the UN would have a 'vital role' to play in post-war Iraq.... He is refusing to spell out in any detail what role it would have in the aftermath. Their marked reluctance to define how the UN would be involved reflects the determination of the hawkish regime currently controlling US foreign policy. Undeniably, the vast majority of people in and outside Iraq will applaud the collapse of Saddam Hussein's monstrous dictatorship.... Despite its many flaws, the UN remains the only agency capable of commanding respect and credence on a global basis."
NORWAY: "Being Frightened Into Silence?”
Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten commented (4/9): "War will always cause suffering, and in a city like Baghdad it is the civilians who are hit hardest. Journalists are there of their own free will, and have greater resources than the rest of the city’s own inhabitants. It is a perspective we media folk must have clear. When there is anyway a reason to put up a strong protest when the media is attacked, it is because we know that there are many who wish to silence present, free and aware journalists. And it is only independent media that can tell with credibility about what
64 now happens in Baghdad. Serious journalists could tell yesterday that there was no military target where the two centers for media reporting were hit. So the Americans must find that this raises the question as to whether this is a terror shooting meant to frighten international witnesses out of Baghdad before the final outcome for the city comes. It is not easy to believe that this is due to convenient bad luck and tragic wrong targeting. We are reminded that the Americans also attacked Al-Jazeera’s offices in Kabul during the war in Afghanistan, without succeeding in frightening the television channel into silence. They will not succeed this time either.”
“Grenades Against Cameras”
Aasne Seierstad held in newspaper-of-record Aftenposten (4/9): "The headquarters of the American forces thinks the tanks had been shot at from the hotel, but journalists at the hotel find that hardly believable. Nobody had seen armed men or heard shots from the building that morning.... Every night the bomb room [at the hotel] is full of Iraqi families that think that the large number of journalists protects them from the Americans’ bombs. ‘They will never attack this hotel, Americans stay here,’ said an Iraqi woman who had taken her children with her down into the basement one evening. But it was exactly what the Americans did yesterday. Shot with grenades at cameras, that followed their battle efforts with telephoto lenses.”
PORTUGAL: "They Didn't Mean to Kill Journalists"
Miguel Sousa Tavares asserted in leading financial Diário Económico (4/10): "I think the United States has had a hidden agenda in regard to Iraq for a long time, long before the war had even started: to secure Iraq's oil. Not directly...but they want to have a government that guarantees them the supply of oil.... They're worried that Saudi Arabia is going to fall into the hands of the fundamentalists.... Therefore, they want to secure Iraq. And this cannot in fact be done if they are there to truly democratize. If the Iraqis choose whom they want, they are certainly going to choose people who are not the Americans' friends."
"Dead For All Of Us"
Jose Manuel Fernandes opined in influential moderate-left Público (4/9): "The search for the truth of this war is being paid in a great deal of blood. Journalists' blood.... Their sacrifice provides us with a tragic dimension of the conflict and, at the same time, expresses the power of the democracies we live in.... It is these legions of journalists [in Iraq] that allows us to have, in the Western press, a plural vision of events--exactly the opposite of what is happening in the Iraqi 'media', where the only 'truth' are the bald-faced lies of the Minister of Information. But these journalists that have fallen are not the only victims these days of the freedom to inform. On the other side of the world, in Cuba, an abominable regime took advantage of the media distraction provoked by the war to arrest journalists and sentence them to heavy prison terms.... It is at times like this, when some of us are dying while doing what they most want to do, and others are arrested for the crime of having an opinion, that we best understand the superiority of a democracy. And how democracy, at times, also demands its tribute in sacrifice and blood."
SPAIN: "Palestine Hotel"
Left-of-center El País remarked (4/10): "Hiding and lies are the continuation of war by other ways.... The hypothesis of an express order to shoot journalists is not likely, and does not correspond with the credibility that a high military command of a country which respects freedom of the press deserves. But the fact of that the same day Al Jazeera's and other Arab TV's office in Baghdad were bombed, makes it hard to believe that this was only an individual human mistake.... The access to real images of horror influences the central debate about the legitimacy of the war, and the proportionality of the evil that was trying to be avoided and the suffering caused. That is why Al Jazeera was bombed and that is why they lied about what
65 happened at the Palestine Hotel."
"Death Of Journalist In Baghdad; Shocking Coldness"
National private TV Telecinco carried a report from special correspondent Vincente Valles saying (4/9): "This morning and with shocking coldness we have heard Col. Vincent Brooks say that they only can control the journalists that are embedded, but they can't know where the rest of the journalists are. In fact, anyone who is even minimally informed about this war knows that journalists are in the Palestine Hotel. So this is something that one really can't understand."
"U.S. Responsibility For A Journalist's Death"
Independent El Mundo declared (4/9): "The explanations that the allied command gave about the shots against the Palestine Hotel are confused, contradictory and unacceptable.... Without denying that journalists assume a risk when they decide to stay in a war zone, what is really monstrous is that a press hotel could be considered a military objective.... Apart from the pain of losing this Colleague...what is most important is to ask if the loss of human life serves some purpose. And the answer is yes. Yes, because thanks to the work of people who are risking themselves at the front, public opinion is, in this war, so much informed on what is happening than ever before."
"A High Price"
Left-of-center El País declared (4/8): "With the death of Julio Anguita Parrado, a young and competent journalist working as an El Mundo correspondent...the number of journalists killed in Iraq is now eight.... One can criticize many things about the way that the information about the war is being treated and above all the military filters of the British-American forces.... But there is no doubt that the embedding of journalists among the British-American troops has allowed all to know about incorrect actions, mistakes and horrors, which otherwise would not have been seen by Western public opinion.... War is horror. But horror must be told to the citizens who elect and judge the governments that have decided to wage it. And in this war we are having more and better means than ever before."
MIDDLE EAST
WEST BANK: “American Assassination Of The Story And The Witness”
Hassan el-Kashif wrote in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (4/9): "Perhaps, the Americans may apologize for the intended killing of journalist Tarek Ayyoub, Al-Jazeera correspondent in Baghdad, along with two other journalists. Such an apology, if it happens, will not be a confession of a sin or any wrongdoing. The colonial invaders will continue the intentional killing of Iraqi civilians, including children and women, in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. They will also continue to threaten the lives of the Arab and foreign journalists, who may report on the war crimes committed by the colonial invaders.... Journalists are being targeted by the colonial invaders because they do not want any witnesses to their crimes. Also, in its current state of deterioration towards a new era of colonialism, the United States wants to be the sole military and media pole in an effort to make the world hostage to its side of the story.”
ALGERIA: "A Planned Act"
Indpendent, French-language Liberte editorialized (4/9): “It is not a secret for anybody that it was a premeditated act planned to silence the voice of troublemakers disrupting a scenario written and enacted by the Pentagon. America is prompt to react and denounce obstacles to
66 freedom of speech and to take the defense of journalists who died in conflicts. America can be proud today of its trophy: eleven journalists killed in twenty days. It is a record. America's record."
"Private Massacre"
Independent, economic-oriented French-language La Tribune declared (4/9): "Curiously, at a time when things had begun to go better for the Americans, they seem to be disoriented. Which is just a manner of speaking, since the coalition forces, from the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, have never ceased progressing from south to north. The very serious aggressions committed deliberately yesterday against people enjoying great immunity and protected by the Geneva Convention, would tend to prove the contrary: that things are not as clear and simple as implied by the CENTCOM communications center. The coalition forces have rendered themselves guilty of new war crimes on real-time TV. Recent 'live' images [of journalists in the Palestine Hotel] met with a much more savage resistance than the ones permitted to be heard, those of 'enrolled' colleagues, as some journalists on the American side are."
"Filth Of Criminals"
Independent Arabic-language Sawt Al Ahrar commented (4/9): "The American criminal murderers and their allies have not abstained from killing the journalists who present American barbarism in voice and images. One of the spokespersons of the mercenary forces said impudently that the aggressors know only the sites where their journalists are staying.... The great power has become a group of murderers that want to exterminate every voice that does not repeat the lies of the Pentagon and American intelligence. This power that used to praise its conquering armies, is today revealing its real face, and its cowardly soldiers are just war criminals without dignity. They do not shrink from killing civilians or killing those who witness their crimes. It was necessary to silence the voices of TV channels that have chosen to present the acts of aggression freely, without being turned into mere trumpets for American propaganda, like some Arabic and Foreign media that marched with the bands of murderers from the south."
EGYPT: “Killing Eyewitnesses In Baghdad”
Dr. Mona Al Hadidi observed in aggressive pro-government Al Akhbar (4/9): “Killing media correspondents in Iraq was the fast solution by coalition forces to blemish facts and cover for the horrors committed against the innocent Iraqi people.”
“Separating Lines”
Small-circulation pro-government Al Gomhouriya opined (4/9): "Our hearts are bleeding of grief over Baghdad. Saddam eluded us that Baghdad will remain steadfast against invaders. We admit that the success of the aggressors to reach the presidential palaces at the heart of Baghdad...is a bad omen.... Iraqis are being burned and mutilated, while President Bush is declaring in Belfast that his troops care for the lives of civilians. The cards are ashamedly mixed, where occupation becomes liberation in the eyes of the American masters.... The rapid and humiliating surrender of Iraqis was astonishing, and Saddam’s statements that his army, the guards and the volunteers will slay the aggressors [proved untrue]. Not a single plane confronted the enemy.... Obviously, the traitors succumbed to the devil’s temptation.... The American Constitution stipulates freedom of opinion and absolute right for journalists to obtain information. However, when the American masters realized that information on their tyranny, brutality, and repression will destroy the masks of lies, they immediately, without a second thought, killed the [journalists] who conveyed this information.... The theory of killing for the sake of killing has been proved and there is no aim other than occupation.”
67 JORDAN: “A Crime In Baghdad”
Nahed Hattar maintained in independent, mass-appeal Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/9): “The Americans are going to pay a political price for committing the murder of our colleague, the martyr Tareq Ayyoub. All efforts exerted by the American Embassy in Amman to establish relations with Jordanian journalists died with the death of Tareq. The martyrdom of Tareq Ayyoub is a heinous crime against Jordanian journalists. The American invaders have outdone the Nazis and the Zionists by cowardly targeting representatives of the Arab and international media in Baghdad. Is it enough to say that it is a flagrant and barbaric violation of international accords that ban the targeting of the media during wars? And yet, this aggressive and colonialist war was launched in the first place out of a clear violation of international legitimacy and of the right-wing recklessness with international and Arab public opinion.”
“Tareq Ayyoub: A Martyr Of The Battle Of Baghdad”
Chief Editor Taher Udwan contended in independent, mass-appeal Arabic-language Al-Arab Al-Yawm (4/9): “The martyrdom of colleague Tareq Ayyoub confirms the fact that the media is not neutral, and that, particularly in this war, should not be. Tareq Ayyoub, the correspondents of Al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite stations in Baghdad, are enemies in the eyes of the invading forces, because they are Arabs and because the public opinion that they belong to and seek to address is an Arab public opinion.... The fall of Tareq Ayyoub as a martyr at the hands of the invading forces must push Arab media representatives and the representatives of Arab satellite stations to take the side of their nation and of the blood of the martyrs of this nation. Baghdad today is not much different from Ramallah or Gaza or Hebron or Jenin or Nablus when they fall under the fire of Israeli bombing. Just as Arab journalists and media professionals who belong to their nation and their doctrines must not stand ‘neutral or objective’ when covering the crimes of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, this ‘neutrality or objectivity’ would neither be understood nor accepted when in it comes to covering the crimes of a foreign invasion of an Arab country, so that an American General can rule and lays the foundation for an American-Zionist empire over the lands of Arab and Islam.”
“Tareq’s Blood Is On The Hands Of The Invaders”
Urayb Rintawi wrote in center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (4/9): “The blood of Tareq Ayyoub, who fell a martyr yesterday, is on the hands of the leaders of the coalition in London and Washington. No words of sorrow or apology will do, not ready-made accusations that try to acquit those responsible for his blood or the blood of hundreds of Iraqis who fell victims by the bullets of guns and by the shrapnel of the American missile attacks all around Iraq.”
“The Enemies Of The Press, The Enemies Of The Truth And Tareq Ayyoub, The Symbol Of The Noble Profession”
Semi-official, influential Arabic-language Al-Rai editorialized (4/9): “We did not need all this terror, targeting and recklessness with which the reporters covering the American-British invasion of Baghdad were faced, to prove that the invaders have had it with the media, apart, of course, from that media that is with them, who abide by their strict and programmed instructions.... For the killers to say that they were shot at from the Palestine hotel that was targeted by the bombing, while all the journalists were denying that, is a mark of shame to be added to disgrace that they afflicted upon themselves when they shed the blood of innocent media people.”
“Tareq Ayyoub: Your Role Harassed Them And So They Killed You”
Sultan Hattab opined in semi-official, influential Arabic-language Al-Rai (4/9): “Killing our
68 colleague Tareq Ayyoub is a clear message against the new changes in the Arab media that are represented by the active Arab satellite stations, such as Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TVs. What Tareq Ayyoub said in his last report from Baghdad was sufficient for the circles of American aggression to kill him.... Tareq exposed them and so they killed him, because whoever is not with them is their enemy. Bush said that and now his forces are saying it too.”
LEBANON: "The Forbidden Image"
Sahar Baasiri stated in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (4/9): "The U.S. military spokesman had no response to a question related to what international reporters were subjected to yesterday in Baghdad, except that 'we only know the locations of reporters embedded with us'.... What is worse than the crime that was committed yesterday against the journalists, is the U.S. attempts to justify it, in the sense that the U.S. is increasingly appearing as if it has no human values. Furthermore, it appears that it does not value this career itself, i.e. journalism. A mistake? How? The TV office of Al-Jazeera was shelled, the TV office of Abu-Dhabi was shelled and Hotel Palestine was shelled. Mistakes do not occur in this routine fashion.... They don't know where the offices of journalists are located? Of course they do. Al-Jazeera and Abu-Dhabi's TV offices are close and well known and everyone knows that Hotel Palestine has changed into a headquarters for Arab and foreign journalists in Baghdad. The U.S. command was informed of the locations of journalists. The battlefield is dangerous, but these journalists were in their offices. They were deliberately targeted. They were targeted because they are reporting the other face of the war, the face American wants hidden. The only face of the war America wants to see is that which is reported by the reporters embedded with its forces.... The U.S. wanted to destroy this power of being able to report on the forbidden face of the war."
MOROCCO: "Aimless Bombings Are 100 % American"
Pro-government, Arabic-language Al Alam opined (4/9): "Now, the U.S. Ambassador in Morocco may propose to her supervisors to present compensations to our colleague journalists who were killed while on duty, in the service of freedom and democracy. In fact, no one could trust U.S. official claims that Iraq was behind the bombing that had targeted those journalists. Aimless bombings in the past were one hundred percent American and the killing of children and civilians and destruction of historical sites and popular areas were all American one hundred percent.... Of course, those who don't accept bribes in dollars while alive won't accept dollars from the killers."
"Patriot Act Or Death"
Amina Talhimet noted in pro-government, French-language Liberation (4/9): ”To get hold of Baghdad, the key city of this 'democratization' folly, the main obstacle is not only Saddam but also the media that is based in the city. Journalists, who since the beginning of the war, have given more credible information than their 'embedded' colleagues. The attempt on the part of the coalition to silence any voice that is discordant another evidence that freedom is only an empty word for the leaders of this war. Ferocity of the strike against Baghdad overcomes any sensible political or military strategy. Sharon's brutality and hatred are present."
"U.S. Forces Target Journalists: Hunt Of Witnesses"
Jamal Hajjam, Editor-in-chief of pro-government, French-language L’Opinion, declared (4/9): "Impartial journalists who cover the war constitute priority targets of U.S. forces. Within several hours, three journalists were killed. As usual Americans will mention 'non intentional error' carried by weapons whose precision has always been underlined. The power logic is the privileged procedure of U.S. decision makers and through fire and steel they impose their will. All the rest is solely words."
69
SAUDI ARABIA: "Another Struggle In The Media War"
Riyadh's moderate Al-Jazira editorialized (4/9): "Doubts will arise regarding the motives behind bombing the international journalists media offices, whether to conceal what the party is doing, or set up the arena for its ongoing plans, or just to silence the media from revealing the war facts. These doubts will remain floating, in addition to other matters that have arisen along with launching this war.... On the other hand, there was an insistence on going to war, and an insistence also to silence any one who tries to oppose the war, or to expose the war's brutality, its high cost, and high losses, and its stepping over the noble human mind, which values peace and rejects violence."
"No Matter If It Is A Child, A Woman Or A Journalist"
Riyadh's conservative Al-Riyadh carrried a commentary by Editor-in-chief Turk Al-Seder saying (4/9): "Nobody before the U.S. has killed journalists and reporters. The U.S. did so. It has also overstepped international laws related to human rights and the UN charter governing the freedom of nations, because it does not want to allow the pen of a journalist or voice of a broadcaster in any satellite TV channel to report on the indiscriminate, reckless and irresponsible killings inside the land of Iraq.... Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Who is actually conducting the mission of total destruction of human life in Iraq?"
SYRIA: "An Aggravating U.S. Impasse"
Ahmad Dawa commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (4/9): "With the US failure to control Baghdad within a short time, the possibility that US forces will fake announcement of finding WMD in Iraq becomes more likely, as many analysts and international observers maintain, even saying the US forces might import WMD into Iraq [for that purpose].... America, which has violated international legitimacy and was the first to use WMD, is likely to take this step very soon.... But the U.S. warplanes started targeting journalists' offices and representatives of news agencies--those who are conveying the truth about the invading forces' deliberate shelling of civilians--this will be a prelude for bloodier and more savage U.S. action against Iraq. The U.S. will use WMD against the Iraqi people whose fierce resistance might deepen the coalition's impasse so dangerously that America might find itself under pressure, and, under its illusion of hegemony, might find itself forced to use these WMD."
TUNISIA: "A War With No 'Ethics'"
Hajer Jeridi wrote in independent French-language Le Temps (4/9): "In its total illegality, the war against Iraq could not keep a minimum of ethics.... The work of the media well-received by TV spectators around the world seems to seriously bother those who want to do their jobs quietly, far away from outside commentary from 'parasites' that can cause great embarrassment. By attacking the journalists, the coalition forces are attacking freedom of information, a value they brandish as an inalienable right. Journalists are symbols. They are the eyewitnesses of what is going on in the different Iraqi cities. Their witness, sometimes harmonious and sometimes discordant, will be very important to the history books that will review a posteriori the responsibilities in this war--unless they are not allowed to leave any mark on this conflict. If not, how can we explain this will to muzzle the media by making attempts on journalists' lives, the ones whom the coalition forces could not rally to their cause?"
UAE: "Regrettable"
Dubai-based business-oriented Arabic-language Al-Bayan noted (4/9): "It is regrettable to see the American military spokesman, Frank Thorpe tell CNN that 'we have told them from the beginning that Baghdad has become a very dangerous place, a war zone.' This statement reveals
70 the facts behind the war operations. The shelling does not take into consideration unarmed civilians, a fact revealing the hidden face of the war. No one can deny that what happened was deliberate to hide reality and stop any revelation of what is occurring in Iraq."
"Has The War Against Reality Begun?"
Semi-official Abu Dhabi-based Arabic-language Al-Ittihad editorialized (4/9): "It was interesting to see that the war promised as a clean war has killed a large number of journalists and photographers with many others wounded.... The tragic bloody scene of the journalists in Baghdad yesterday opens the door for many allegations about a desire to silence the voice of truth and prevent the heroic journalists in the battlefield in Baghdad from transmitting what happens and what tragedies might occur as the war enters its decisive stage in the streets of the Iraqi capital."
"Turning Off The Lights To Hide The Crime"
Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al-Khaleej observed (4/9): "Targeting journalists in besieged Baghdad, under fire this very hour, is a new crime that must be added to the list of crimes committed by the aggression (Coalition forces). It represents part of the larger crime committed against the Arab people of Iraq before the entire world...a massacre needs to be committed to allow the aggression to achieve its goals in Iraq. This massacre needs to be implemented in complete darkness, and this explains why all lights must be switched off to avoid further scandals."
ASIA-PACIFIC
CHINA: "U.S. Action Nothing Short Of A Crime"
Yan Xizao wrote in the official English-language China Daily (4/10): "If the Americans are truly serious about their hunt for war criminals, they should have a look in the mirror. The havoc invading US troops wreaked on the international press in Baghdad on Tuesday was nothing short of a war crime.... The Pentagon did express regret over the tragedies. But there was no indication of willingness to assume liability. Instead, as always, they tried to evade and transfer the blame to Saddam Hussein.... If the strikes were not aimed at chosen targets, were the Americans conducting indiscriminative bombings on innocent civilians?.... American GI's are seeing their enemies everywhere, but their hysteria is no excuse for indiscriminative killing. Beyond various American attempts to explain away their responsibilities, there is the suspicion of a US intention to silence unfavourable media voices.... Whatever the case, the US military should be held accountable by international humanitarian law for its attacks on civilians."
INDIA: "Usurping The Media"
Left-of-center Mayalayam-language Mathrubhumi said (4/10): "The attack on Al-Jazeera TV and Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad and hotels where journalists stayed proved that America had a pre-meditated plan to kill truthful reporting.... The truth is America sees journalists also as its enemies.... America probably wants to control the dissemination of news from Iraq. They probably are afraid that these reporters would paint the true pictures of the war especially the attack on civilians. These moves by America once again clearly indicate that along with the war it is having a parallel agenda to usurp the media world. This agenda of America should be thwarted by not just the fourth estate but by the entire international community."
"Truth As Casualty"
An editorial in the centrist Indian Express read (4/10): "The Second Gulf War-like innumerable
71 wars before-has already notched up a long list of journalists killed in accident or in combat. Many more are said to be missing. It is, however, the frequent attacks specifically on hotels and offices housing journalists in Iraq that is worrisome.... Incidents such as these raise two concerns: That independent reporters are being chastened into subservience and that targets are being finalized with little thought to the possibility of civilians being put in harm's way.... The war is as much to conquer minds as it is to mop up territory. The targeting areas of operation of unilaterals-especially of Arabic language reporters-is bound to fuel suspicion that some trigger- happy military planners cannot countenance reportage with an anti-US spin. Al Jazeera.... By targeting reporters, the U.S.-led coalition stands to lose its bid to win hearts and minds."
"Independent Press, RIP"
The nationalist Hindustan Times declared (4/10): "An American tank fires on a Baghdad hotel killing three journalists and what's the response from the US military? Sorry, but tough luck. In another American offensive...three Al-Jazeera journalists were killed. The spokesperson in Washington regretted the casualties and added in a 'we-told-you-so' tone:.... American arrogance and determination to wrap up the war quickly have taken care of all that. Tuesday's 'casualties' were by no means a part of 'collateral damage'. They seem to have resulted from what one hopes was a blunder of epic proportions. Or were they meant to silence voices giving a perspective of the war that Washington doesn't want the world--and more importantly, Americans back home...to see?.... So who do we believe in this information smog? Quite clearly, the US has much to gain if it manages to stop embarrassing or downright 'bad' press. The management of the information war has become a higher priority than ever before.... The non-embedded journalists who died on Tuesday were standing in a dangerous no-man's land that was neither 'with us nor with them'. The American action against them--inadvertently or otherwise--may spell the death of 'independent witnessing of war'."
PAKISTAN: "Media Murders"
The centrist national News observed (4/10): "The death in Baghdad of an Al-Jazeera reporter and two other cameramen was no accident. All three were killed when the American troops fired on the Palestine Hotel, where foreign journalists are known to be staying. The flimsy excuse by the American commander of retaliating to firing from the hotel lobby has been debunked by the journalists present there, who have also asked why the upper floors were targeted if the provocation had come from the lobby. Al-Jazeera, in fact, has been in the American crosshairs for a long time. The wanton murder of its reporter, Tareq Ayub, follows a number of earlier 'shots across the bow' targeting its vehicles, offices and reporters. The American grouse against Al-Jazeera is that the Arabic TV channel exaggerates Iraqi successes and focuses unduly on the human cost of the conflict. These 'charges' seem bizarre considering that a whole battery of international media networks is working overtime to project Anglo- American successes, even manufacturing these when needed, and purging all the time the horrible war of its inevitably tragic human cost.... Recalling the moral huff in which Britain and the U.S. had unfurled the otherwise forgotten Geneva Conventions when Al-Jazeera had shown picture of their PoWs, it is ironic that they should themselves now be violating international law.... The reality is that the U.S. is afraid of any reporting of the horrendous human cost its massive bombardment of Iraqi cities is exacting and would do anything to stop it--even killing journalists."
"Killing Of Journalists In Baghdad"
Second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt contended (4/10): "The Pentagon has offered token condolence to the families of journalists killed in Baghdad. These crocodile tears shed by the U.S. cannot wash away the crime it has committed. No amount of condemnation of this incident is sufficient. The Nawa-e-Waqt Group offers heartfelt sympathies to the families of
72 journalists who became victims of American madness in Baghdad and praises them for their professional courage and sacrifice."
"Killing Of Journalists: A Shameful Aspect Of The Coalition War"
Popular Urdu-language Din (4/10): "It is unfortunate that those who kill journalists in this manner strut around the world as the sole champions of freedom of thought and expression. The killing of journalists shows how much freedom they allow journalists to have. One crime of these journalists is said to be that they had started sending out factual reports of civilian casualties at the hands of the coalition troops.... In short, these journalists lost their lives fulfilling their responsibilities and serving a higher cause. One shameless aspect of the unlawful and immoral war imposed by the coalition on the Iraqis is that where they targeted civilian areas for bombing, they did not spare the journalists either."
"A Cowardly Attack On Press Freedom"
Center-right Urdu-language Pakistan opined (4/10): "Targeting civilian areas and journalists is shameful in the extreme and worth condemning. The UN must take note of the ploys the coalition is using to meet its objectives and conceal its crimes. In this connection, it is not wrong to say targeting journalists deliberately constitutes a war crime. Protests by journalists around the world at this barbarity are but natural. Such open violations of international rules and regulations will increase hatred for the invaders around the world."
"One Side Of The Picture"
Karachi-based right-wing pro-Islamic unity Urdu-language Jasarat opined (4/9): "Americans' image of human feeling, morality, decency, civilization and adhering to the principles of war has been severely tarnished at each and every step in Iraq. The bombing by the U.S. on the hotel where different journalists were stationed could not be termed as an accident. This is a deliberate and well thought out attack. The attack on the Al-Jazeera television team was carried out after both the U.S. and Britain had launched a campaign against the channel since the beginning of their aggression. This is the punishment for showing American POWs and bodies of American troops on the channel."
AFRICA
CAMEROON: "Dictatorship"
Yaounde-based pro-opposition French-language Mutations commented (4/9): "American soldiers fire on everything that moves. The courageous Qatar TV was bombed in Baghdad.... Al-Jazeera is now going to compete with CNN elsewhere, but not in Iraq...which became this week the 51st state of the American federation.... With the refusal of the Bush administration to comply with international laws under U.N. authority, it is clear that the second war in the Gulf will inevitably be a dirty war."
SOUTH AFRICA: "The Media And War"
The liberal Natal Witness commented (4/10): "Lives are inevitably being lost.... Alarmingly this now includes as many as 12 media personnel.... The media has an extraordinarily difficult task in covering any military conflict Moreover there is a limit to what can or should be conveyed though the media on the horrific actualities of war.... It will always be tricky in such situations to get the reporting right.... The human shields have left and come home; the reporters have remained."
73 "Iraq War Coverage Has Tragic Cost"
The liberal Herald editorialized (4/10): "A unique feature of the Iraq war has been the intensive and extensive coverage by the media.... Inevitably, this has come at a price. The tragic deaths of newsmen...has starkly brought home the fact that the danger faced by newsmen is not confined to the front line.... The appetite of modern, hi-tech media is insatiable, and feeding this appetite has exposed an unprecedented number of journalists to the danger of war."
"Democracy A Dirty Word"
The liberal Daily Dispatch declared (4/10): "The deliberate targeting of journalists and civilians in wartime is a shocking and extreme contravention of international law. To accuse the Americans of what amounts to war crimes of this nature would also be extreme.... It's true that there is a war going on and that journalists involved must expect the danger that goes with that. It is also true that in a chaotic war situation there will be civilian and other casualties. But there is an obligation on the forces involved to limit such casualties.... The war on Iraq is giving 'democracy' a bad name."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA: "An Action Aimed At Concealing The Truth"
Marcelo Cantelmi wrote in leading Clarin (4/9): "This distortion was powered by the actual conflict due to the underlying illegitimacy of this war. But the paradoxical issue is that this is one of the conflicts with the largest number of journalists on the battlefield, and with a technology that allows immediate access to what's taking place in the front line. This is so because the Pentagon took for granted that this war would be short, and that the Iraqi people would quickly turn against the Iraqi tyrant, and would receive the liberation troops with flowers.... The unexpected and stubborn resistance of Iraq...made the coalition lose all scruples in their effort to achieve, without delay, their initial goal of taking over the country and eliminating Saddam.... The allied command meant to control a good portion of the press 'embedded' in the military campaigns.... But a legion of journalists evaded these controls and installed in Baghdad to report in an independent way.... The recent attack by coalition troops against three journalists was precisely against this group of independent reporters... The immediate perception is that it was a deliberate action poorly counter-attacked by the allied command, which resorted to the idea of self-defense at an alleged attack of snipers, an issue that was outrageously denied by a group of correspondents.... The fact that these incidents are taking place in what seems to be the final stage of this war is no minor issue. Particularly when everything indicates that the final surge will face a mountain of dead bodies.... The strategy seems to be aimed at eliminating the group of journalists who are covering this Gulf conflict without restrictions."
"'War Is Dangerous,' Says The Pentagon"
Ana Baron opined in leading Clarin (4/9): "First they said the attack against the Palestine Hotel, where the international press in Baghdad is located, was an accident; then they explained that coalition tanks had been attacked by snipers posted in the hotel. The truth is the Pentagon managed to convince no one. Yesterday, in Washington, there were waves of requests from different governments and organizations (defending press freedom) to investigate the episode.... How is it possible that, on the same day, allies attack independent Arab TV Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi's TV and the Palestine Hotel, this is to say, independent press? Even if there had been a sniper on the roof-top of the building, as the Pentagon says, is it legitimate for the forces to fire back at a hotel where everybody knew there were independent journalists?.... The U.S. press covered the attack against the international press reflecting the Pentagon's viewpoint."
74
MEXICO: "'Friendly' Fire"
Business-oriented El Financiero held (4/9): "If there were not enough elements to criticize the war against Iraq already, the number of casualties and the fact that journalists have become a target for the coalition--led by President Bush--confirms that world public opinion is correct when it rejects this adventure, where the goals have been confused, if there ever were any goals. Operation Liberation contradicts itself; it forgets about human rights. It is covered with the blood of innocent people, even with 'friendly fire' that exterminates freedom of expression when searching for war plunders, where the brightest jewels are oil and a geostrategic position. Saddam Hussein's perversity and justice are secondary. The fact that a journalist has died every 48 hours during the past 20 days of this war is painful, and the fact that the 'friendly fire' slaughters society and liberties is painful as well."
“Bush, A Murderer Of Journalists”
Left-of-center La Jornada maintained (4/9): “American forces murdered three journalists yesterday, wounded another four, and destroyed the offices of Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi Television; these attacks are unjustifiable and criminal, they can be regarded as terrorist attacks because they are not isolated actions, but decisive steps by Bush to impose silence on any information that does not fit his official propaganda--the American and British military commands provide information to the embedded journalists who travel with the aggressors-- Bush also tries to hide atrocities perpetrated in Iraq and chases away international journalists who stay in the devastated Iraqi capital. On Sept. 11, the Bush administration declared war on an uncertain enemy called international terrorism and also against the practice of professional, critical and honest journalism. Washington authorities have acted to silence journalists and to bind them to official discourse.”
GUATEMALA: “The Other Victims Of War”
Conrado Alonso observed in leading, moderate Prensa Libre (4/8): "The number of deaths in the armed conflict in Iraq is rising. Soldiers...and war correspondents of different nationalities and diverse media outlets have died.... When a journalist becomes a victim while fulfilling his duties...it is our obligation to recognize that he or she died to be able to tell us about the war. We must honor these people who undoubtedly deserve it.”
75
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction
April 10, 2003 FALL OF BAGHDAD 'IMPRESSIVE' BUT 'TROUBLING'
KEY FINDINGS
** The fall of Baghdad a "historic turning point," but reservations remain about "enormous risks ahead" and concerns about the U.S.' ability to "manage the peace."
** War opponents bid Saddam "good riddance" but do not accept that the means used to oust him were justified, citing the absence of definitive proof of WMD.
** Writers understand Iraqi "jubilation," but warn against U.S. "triumphalism," Coalition occupation, and the Iraqi "model" of U.S. pre-emptive war.
MAJOR THEMES
A 'beautiful day for democracy,' future of Iraqi people 'brighter than ever'-- Outlets in Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Russia and Israel portrayed the fall of Baghdad as a "liberation," and a "turning point" in history. Ottawa's conservative National Post asserted that the "accomplishments" of Bush, "go beyond the battlefield" and put an end to the conceit that the "21st-century threat" posed by WMD, terrorism and rogue power could be addressed "according to the dictates of 19th-century international law." Calling yesterday an "historic day of liberation," London's conservative Times held that "after 24 years of oppression, Baghdad has emerged from an age of darkness," but cautioned that Iraq "now stands at that dangerous point between war and peace." Others suggested that the war's "fortunate outcome" now offers America and Europe the chance for a "greater willingness for compromise" over the post- Saddam order.
War still a 'mistake with respect to its genesis,' as WMD remain undiscovered-- Acknowledging that the world will be better off after the "fall of the dreadful regime," those opposed to the "irresponsible bellicose adventure" maintained that its positive outcome did not make the war legitimate. The very swiftness of the campaign and absence of a decisive WMD discovery revealed that Saddam was not enough of a threat to warrant the Coalition's "unilateral move" and "obscene" use of force. Germany's center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung insisted that "a military success" did not mean that the "regime could not have been ousted and eliminated otherwise without the bloodshed and without the political damage." Echoing the skepticism in European outlets about the existence of WMD, liberal Folha de Sao Paulo noted, "WMD, whose existence was the main justification for the attack, have not been found."
Obstacles and 'enormous risks' lie ahead-- Dailies also focused on the challenge of winning
76 the peace, pointing out that the war was not over yet. Reiterating the common refrain that getting rid of the regime "is the easy part," the Saudi pro-government Arab News stressed that the difficult part is filling the "resulting vacuum." The paper joined others urging the Iraq people not to settle for being ruled by "a quasi-democratic leadership" from an administration "propped up by those greedy for Iraq's oil" and set on, as an Algerian writer noted "providing complete security for Israel's interests." The risk of "enraging" the Arab world and the possibility of "lawlessness" and "anarchy" were additional concerns. South Africa's balanced Business Day cited the "new seeds of anger sown among Muslim militants," among the "massive challenges for the world." A UAE daily observed "there is more to the liberation of Iraq than removing the regime; a new rule of law has to be introduced." The UN was considered essential to the reconstruction of Iraq. Tokyo's liberal Asahi advised that in order to "restore stability," the U.S. should "let the UN take the lead role in setting up a tentative administration."
Iraq may serve as 'dangerous model'-- Dailies focused on the possibility that the U.S., "crowned with this military success," would repeat the Iraqi experience elsewhere. These observers found that "Iraq does not mean future pre-emptive unilateral, illegal war-making is now somehow OK." Belgium's conservative La Derniere Heure advised the U.S. to "remain modest and avoid granting itself the right to become the policeman of a world that it wants to reshape according to its interests." Editorials from Muslim countries in particular speculated that Iraq was "just the beginning." Turkey's mass-appeal Sabah alleged that "dictatorships and other backward regimes in the Middle East are next on the list," and Islamic-intellectual Yeni Safak warned the U.S. "might target any country in the world by using 'magical' terms such as liberation and freedom." A Pakistani paper cautioned against "giving America the license to replace any disliked foreign government using military might."
EDITOR: Irene Marr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report is based on 73 reports from 34 countries, over 9-10 April 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Liberated Baghdad"
The conservative Times editorialized (4/10): "Baghdad, once the glittering capital of the Muslim world at its zenith, has been attacked, besieged, bombarded and occupied more often than any capital in the Middle East.... But yesterday was like no other day.... After 24 years of oppression...Baghdad has emerged from an age of darkness. Yesterday was an historic day of liberation. For the first time, Iraqis felt free to voice their suffering, to recall their horrors and to spit out their hatred of the man who had crushed their spirit.... When dictatorships fall, a political structure based on intimidation disintegrates. The vacuum could easily lead to a catastrophic collapse of living standards, endemic violence and ethnic or tribal disputes. Iraq now stands at that dangerous point between war and peace.... The immediate challenge is to hold together a country and society exhausted by everything it has been through....
"Liberating Iraq from its past means binding up the wounds, as quickly and fairly as possible, of a society all but destroyed by dictatorship.... Liberation means more than this, however.... The road back to prosperity and legitimacy will be strewn with obstacles. A continuation of the European bickering that preceded the U.S.-led liberation must not be one of those obstacles, and nor should battles for institutional turf. Efficacy matters more than who does what. The goal must be Iraqi self-government just as soon as is practical, and transitional machinery should be kept simple and free of paternalism.... One of the first needs is the swift resumption of United Nations humanitarian aid. That needs no new resolution: help can be channeled through the
77 existing oil-for-food regime.... Baghdad recovered from devastation by the Mongols and sacking by Tamburlaine. Now, at last, it has a chance to recover from the devastation wrought on it by the tyrant from Tikrit."
"After The Fall"
The left-of-center Guardian took this view (4/10): "The collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime will send shockwaves of joy and alarm around the world.... Finding [Saddam] and bringing him to justice is a more urgent priority than ever. Until the body of Saddam is handed up, dead or alive, until the spectre of Saddam is finally exorcised, many Iraqis will have trouble believing they are really free.... Iraqis' problems are not at an end; they merely change in form and scale. Baghdad, let alone Iraq as a whole, is not yet secure. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction have not been found.... There may be hard fighting still ahead.... There may be yet more civilian casualties to add to the uncounted thousands.... For them and many like them, victory is meaningless. But the swiftness of Saddam's rout reduces the chances of continuing carnage. For this relief, much thanks.
"Iraq's state of shock, replacing its state of siege, will have many difficult manifestations. Already, revenge and reprisal intermingle with celebration.... Parts of Baghdad and other cities are close to anarchy.... Such tendencies to chaos, unless quickly curbed, threaten civil conflicts sucking in thinly-spread allied troops. The shock of the day weighed heavily on some--but not all--Arab hearts.... This unprecedented show of U.S. offensive power sends a daunting message. Who knows which way the Abrams tank barrels will swivel next? And who in Damascus, Tehran or Riyadh is entirely sure that the Iraqi people's release, although largely involuntary, will not find willing emulators there? If reconstruction works, and that is an enormous 'if', a resource-rich, democratic Iraq may become the throbbing engine of the Middle East. The political ramifications of that do indeed invite shock and awe. On one level the U.S.-British success to date is deeply impressive and on another, troubling. Saddam's overthrow is a great boon. But Iraq's 'liberation' must not lead to internal destabilisation or external exploitation. Pre-war promises must be fulfilled; there must be long-term follow-through and a major rethink, too. For George Bush's America must understand that Iraq does not mean future pre-emptive, unilateral, illegal war-making is now somehow OK. Sometimes war proves unstoppable; but it is seldom OK. "
FRANCE: "A Page Is Turned In The Middle East"
Jean de Belt held in right-of-center Le Figaro (4/10): "Yesterday marked a historic date: Saddam Hussein's regime is no more. This is a victory for George W. Bush.... This is a war than strengthens America's unilateralism.... America's goal goes beyond Iraq and it would be insulting the U.S. to imagine that its unilateralism is being implemented without vision. The White House has a simple plan: to pacify the Middle East, bringing democracy to Iraq, turning it into an example. This is why tomorrow's task is as decisive as yesterday's victory.... No one can predict how the U.S. model will be accepted. Yesterday, a dictator fell. While we cannot accuse President Bush's plans of lacking coherence, we cannot ignore the risks involved."
"What Lies Ahead"
Patrick Sabatier argued in left-of-center Liberation (4/10): "Saddam's regime is over, even if the war is not completely finished.... We rejoice along with the liberated people of Iraq.... But the hardest task is still ahead.... The weeks to come will be decisive. The Coalition will need to harness the emergence of anarchy and secure the distribution of humanitarian aid. Will President Bush know how to handle victory and avoid exacerbating the rage which feeds Islamic terrorism in the Arab world? Establishing a government under UN supervision is essential."
78 "What Now?"
Bernard Guetta had this to day on state-run France Inter radio (4/10): "Now that the regime has fallen...two questions remain. This first is whether the Americans will know how to deal with the challenge of peace.... The Americans are determined to manage peace the way they managed the war, on their own. This will not make the second problem any easier: finding political stability for Iraq.... How Iran will react is part of Act II in this regional Great Game."
"The Law Of Might"
Denis Jeambar opined in right-of-center weekly L'Express (4/10): "The fall of Baghdad will determine how our world is organized for years to come. This battle will fall in the category of symbolic battles which have changed history.... International relations are being redefined...with religion playing a new role.... The notion of force and its use will play a new and central role."
GERMANY: "Fall Of Baghdad"
Siegmund Gottlieb commented on ARD-TV's (national channel one) late evening newscast Tagesthemen (4/9): "This is not yet a historic day, and we have not yet experienced the end of the war. Reality is much more complicated than a simple perception of pictures on TV. Where are the weapons of mass destruction, which served as the main argument for Washington's campaign? Was the regime of the dictator really as dangerous, making it necessary to disarm Saddam? This question must be raised, and it must be discussed with the Americans.... But to insinuate that they would wage this war out of hegemonic lust for power, for billions they could raise from oil resources, or in religious blindness, would be too shortsighted, since it were not we but the United States that has still not yet overcome the trauma of September 11. But it would also be too shortsighted to insinuate with European arrogance that the Arab world is incapable of democracy until further notice."
"The Judgment Of Iraqis"
Berthold Kohler noted in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (4/10): "With its swift military success, the United States has been able to make up some of its political defeats which it had to suffer from its attempt to get a UN mandate for its activities. As long as the American soldiers are welcome as liberators in Baghdad and not spit at as imperial oil thieves, even die-hard anti-Americans will have difficulty refusing Washington's leading role in shaping the post-war order in Iraq. Believing that America would give up control over Iraq, just as it has achieved a swift victory over a feared terror regime and demonstrated to the world and itself its power, would be naive. And this is also true for the notion that the UN could take over control immediately. A massive military presence will be necessary to end this war, prevent a rekindling of the conflict and to restore a more or less stable order in the country. The surprisingly quick collapse of Saddam's rule should not prompt us to assume that a democracy could be set up on the debris of the regime. If the smokescreen of the war has faded, many existing conflicts will come to the fore again like the one between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and the Arabs and the Kurds. There will be a lot of work for so experienced civil society builders as the Europeans. But for a long time to come, someone with a gun will have to stand right next to them."
"Saddam's End"
Peter Muench argued in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (4/10): "Liberation is no act of the moment, it is a process. It is necessary to work for liberation; to fight for it and to celebrate it is not enough. The end requires a new beginning, chaos requires order. Regime change, which the Americans and British have written on their colors, cannot be more than a
79 stopover on a waystation. A great number of significant problems is now on the agenda: safety must be created in a country in revolt; assistance must be offered to a pauperized population of 24 million people, and an infrastructure that was destroyed within three weeks requires billions of investment. But the war of the alleged coalition was a unilateral move of a few willing nations which deliberately put off the others. Now the allies are faced with the dilemma that they need support but are unwilling to give up control. In addition it is necessary to follow an iron law: the future cannot happen without coming to terms with the past. Two things must be reprocessed: the legacy of the regime and the legacies of the war that toppled the regime. The first is not easy, but, nevertheless, the easier task. After the war, not only Iraq, but the entire Middle East and the whole world, must search for a new order. The question of the effects of this war should not push aside the question of what were the reasons for this war. The outcome does not decide whether it was justified. A military success does not clarify whether the regime could have been ousted and eliminated otherwise without the bloodshed and without the political damage. If the question of preventive war is now being pushed aside, it could be raised again at another troublespot."
"The Right Thing"
Christoph von Marschall stated in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (4/10): "Even the positive outcome of the war does not undo the violation of international law, which cost the lives of many people. But obviously, even a false war can create something good. This is the distressed experience for the old Europe, which gives doubts a higher priority than the fight against a criminal regime. And all this is happening on the same day--and this is another symbol when the European Parliament agrees on the acceptance of ten new members in the EU, states that are more open for the idea of democratic intervention because of their history. The new Europe will not support a policy that speaks of multilateralism and the United Nations as the highest authority, but means America's containment and uses the United Nations to assert national interests. France and Germany already had to feel this.... The fortunate outcome of the war offers America and Europe the chance to show a greater willingness for compromise to negotiate the post-Saddam order. President Bush made the first step and offered the UN an important role. But what Iraq now needs the most cannot be guaranteed by the UN nor by Germany and France: security and public order. The pictures of exuberant joy should not obscure the things that this day also produced: looting, chaos, boundless greed. For the time being, only Bush and Blair's forces are able to create a new order."
ITALY: ''The Victory With Its Challenges"
Managing Editor Ezio Mauro wrote in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (4/10): "A tyrant was pulled down along with his statues...and this is a beautiful day for the Iraqi people, who invaded the streets of Baghdad...a beautiful day for democracy. The route through which president Bush has reached this result proved to be successful, quick as well as costly in terms of human lives. In fact, all that sophisticated high technology couldn't eliminate the load of destruction and grief, which all wars always carry with them, no matter whether they are right or wrong wars. This war remains a mistake with respect to its genesis, as well as a dangerous model, because (it was conducted) outside of international legitimacy of the UN, with the United States becoming, after September 11, simultaneously victim, judge as well as avenger.... Once the war is won, Bush and Blair, in order not to lose the postwar, should go through the United Nations as well as a political European platform, so that they will actually be able to turn Iraq into a democratic, independent (state)...free from its liberators, as well. In fact, the building of a democracy begins with rules, rules for everybody."
"The War That Tastes Of Jubilee"
Managing Editor Marcello Sorgi commented on the front-page of centrist, influential La Stampa (4/10): "The war that tastes of jubilee, the jubilee that tastes of war.... It is not the foregone,
80 military outcome (of the war) that weighs, but the climate of its conclusion, as well as the relief for the liberation impressed on the faces of the Iraqi people, which will offer the Americans an extra opportunity, as well as many good reasons, to gather greater solidarity around them, which, until now, was quite little. They will have the opportunity, in some cases, to break out of their isolation and build, once again, the broad chain of worldwide friendships that they had established the day after September 11. For President Bush, the price of this (positive) evolution consists in his reassessment of the doctrine based on a 'pre-emptive intervention.'... In Belfast, the U.S. president appeared sensitive, but also cautious. Victory could push him towards a less prudent approach."
"Bush Watching TV: 'This Is History'"
Ennio Caretto reported from Washington in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (4/10): "George Bush followed fascinated the fall of Baghdad, live on TV, from his private room next to the Oval Office. This is the President's happiest day.... Bush looked excited, suddenly standing up, 'this is an historical moment,' he said to his spokesman Ari Fleischer.... Since dawn, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others were informed that the Iraqi capital was collapsing. They then agreed on a common line: to contain their enthusiasm and to warn the public that the worst could still come.... This contained approach includes a three-fold objective: to give time to the administration to establish a temporary Iraqi Authority; to gain control of the entire territory of Iraq; and to admonish Syria and Iran not to interfere."
RUSSIA: "Bush, Blair Win"
Maksim Yusin wrote in reformist Izvestiya (4/10): "Today Bush and Blair have every right to rejoice. They have won. They have kept their word. They have overthrown the 'bloody regime.' They have not found weapons of mass destruction yet, but they will certainly find them. Even if they don't, who will rebuke them, the winners, after they have captured Baghdad in a matter of days, almost bloodlessly?... Yesterday was a happy day for the Allies. Already it is history.... To defeat an almost unarmed country, to destroy an army which refuses to fight, and to overthrow a rotten regime is the easiest part of the mission. Its most difficult part is still ahead."
"Baghdad Captured, Pillaged"
Maksim Chizhikov contended in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomol'skaya Pravda (4/10): "While northern Iraq and Saddam's hometown of Tikrit are still unsubdued, the war is virtually over.... Where are the 'patriots' who were willing to die for Saddam? Only recently they kissed his hands. Now they kiss the boots of U.S. Marines, pose for pictures with an 'I am an American' sign, help topple monuments to Hussein, and loot stores and offices on the quiet. They are the people Russia supported. With friends like these you don't need enemies."
BELGIUM: "Peace Still Needs to Be Won"
Chief editor Beatrice Delvaux held in left-of-center Le Soir (4/10): "In spite of the persistent doubts on the reasons for waging this war, and in spite of the legitimate criticism on the way it was imposed to the rest of the world, the fall of this dreadful regime and of its vile dictator arouses a feeling of relief.... It is also simply fair to point out that the Americans fulfilled the first part of their promises: their intervention was rapid. But that was the least one could ask them. The upcoming challenges are bigger, riskier and more difficult than ever. Iraq will have to promptly become a democracy that is not the vassal of a superpower or of Islamic fundamentalism, and that is not economically colonized. No tank or oil contract can do that. But beyond this, Bush will have to demonstrate that he does not want to impose this 'new American order' on the Middle East but that he wants to participate in the reconstruction of a
81 genuine democratic project, respectful of the rights and identities of each of the countries of this region that is stil dominated by despotism and injustice. A first and undeniable sign of this would be the real resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
"Winning Peace"
Chief editor Gerald Papy in independent La Libre Belgique (4/10) editorialized: "One can only rejoice at the fall of the Iraqi dictatorship and at the rapid outcome of the conflict. The Iraqis are spared sufferings that recent history imposed to them on too many occasions, first and foremost because of a brutal dictator but also because of the hypocrisy of the international community and of the United States in particular that, on other occasions in the past, let realpolitik prevail over the respect of freedom and of human rights.... Beyond the military victory that was predictable, the challenge of winning the peace will be much more delicate to take up. Yet, the hardly concealed intentions that some attitudes of the Bush administration showed can be worrying. The persistent instability of a country like Afghanistan that was also freed from a dictatorship by a lightning war--should lead American leaders to be cautious and modest. Especially in light of the fact that the Middle East remains a potential powder keg."
"Expectations Are High, Promises To Keep"
Patrick Dath-Delcambe commented in conservative La Derniere Heure (4/10): "Peace must now be won. The United States and Great Britain have made a lot of promises to the Iraqis, and even to the entire region. The Americans are usually not sparing their promises. Expectations are high, especially for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Crowned with this military success, the United States should nevertheless remain modest and avoid granting itself the right to become the policeman of a world that it wants to reshapes according to its interests. Their decision to impose the members of the new Iraqi regime is not encouraging."
"How To Win The Peace"
Diplomatic correspondent Mia Doornaert commented in independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard (4/7): "With this war, the United States made itself less sympathetic than ever before. But, if it wants to win the peace in the region, it must take two paths at the same time. First, it must give the UN a role- as important aspossible--in the reconstruction of heavily battered Iraq. Second, it must immediately focus on a genuine peace solution on the basis of two viable states: Israel and Palestine. Only in that manner can the United States start to remove the Arab feelings of humiliation and show that the great protector of Israel is no enemy of the Arabs."
NETHERLANDS: "Baghdad Captured"
Left-of-center Trouw editorialized (4/10): "After three weeks of war, and ultimately more quickly than expected, American troops captured the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. However, the war is not yet over.... And no one knows what the Iraqi government is still capable of doing.... Winning a war could prove to be much easier than winning peace. And eventually, also easier than changing a dictatorial Iraq into a state with some sort of democracy. The latter is a task the Americans and the British cannot handle alone but also should not want to handle alone...this task should mainly be handled by the UN.... President Bush said the UN would play an 'essential' role in all areas. Bush will have to be held to that."
"Exit Saddam"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant opined (4/10): "After three weeks of war, Saddam's regime collapsed.... Except for surprises that could still occur, the battle seems to be settled. Son Bush did what father Bush did not dare to do: move into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.... After Kosovo (78) days and Afghanistan (38 days), the military victory in Iraq seems to be in sight
82 after 21 days. The outcome itself is a good thing.... But triumph would be inappropriate.... Bush and Blair started this war from a very lonely position. They can now feel strengthened by the images of people celebrating in the streets of Baghdad; the opponents of the war cannot ignore this fact. Whether this is sufficient to retroactively legitimize the invasion will depend on whether or not the allied forces find illegal weapons of mass destruction. It will also be important to see if Bush will manage to win this war not only militarily but also politically by pacifying, stabilizing, and democratizing Iraq. That is an enormous task, and his father can tell him how quickly military victory can turn into political defeat."
PORTUGAL: "Saddam is the Enemy of God"
In a featured editorial, influential moderate left Público editor-in-chief Jose Manuel Fernandes wrote (4/10): "The images of celebration in the streets of Baghdad...remind me of Belgrade's unforgettable October 5, the day a popular uprising overthrew Milosevic, and the celebration that I experienced personally, almost 30 years ago, on a certain April 25 [in Portugal]. Do you remember?.... Do you remember how they said that we weren't ready for democracy? Or that we would never be a 'bourgeois democracy'?.... Someone is going to have to be found quickly to take the reins of power, more quickly than even the most optimistic had dared to believe. And, at this moment, there are only two countries with the moral authority and forces on the ground to lead the process: the United States and the United Kingdom.... With this war ended and won -- and it is still not over -- the peace has to be won. Not just in Iraq, but in the whole of the Middle East. Starting with Palestine."
"April 9"
Deputy editor-in-chief António Ribeiro Ferreira penned in respected center-left Diário de Notícias (4/10): "Freedom for Iraq was achieved against the will of France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and naturally the UNSC. Despite that, the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq -- a cyclopean and lengthy task -- will be done, as Bush and Blair affirmed in Belfast, with the UN and the international community involved.... Following the Iraqi April 9, it is now possible to dream about a realistic and just peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. The Iraqi April 9 represents an enormous defeat for international terrorism and for all those who, either actively or passively, support it."
"Comic Book Re-drawn"
In an editorial in influential moderate-left daily Público, deputy editor-in-chief Nuno Pacheco argued (4/10): "[...] There has been a deaf shock of fears since the beginning of this war: fear of the unknown stamped on the faces of many young soldiers; and fear of the known, visible in the initial attitude of many Iraqis facing the black shadow of Saddam Hussein. Now that everything has crumbled, and Saddam has strangely 'evaporated' --as Osama bin Laden or the sinister 'mullah' Omar had earlier 'evaporated' --the audacity of the uniformed 'daredevils' whom the obstinacy of the White House had pushed into a war decided upon long ago has flowed out into a wave of popular euphoria in the wake of the overthrow of the dictatorship, and into an immense desert of unknowns."
"War Crimes"
Editor-in-chief Carlos Cáceres Monteiro had this to say in an op-ed in left-of-center leading circulation newsweekly Visão (4/10): "The absurd inhumanity of this war is exceeding all bounds of the acceptable: hotels [in Baghdad] have been declared to be military objectives.... There are no reasons that can justify this war. It would have been possible to depose Saddam Hussein without it. And, as can be seen, the famous arsenals of chemical weapons in large quantities are yet to be discovered."
83 SPAIN: "The Collapse"
Left-of-center El País wrote (4/10): "The fall of a dictator of this ilk, who resisted in the end and added to the suffering of his people, is a reason to be satisfied. This was not, however, the way to achieve it.... The world is better without this dictator, but the execution of this conflict has contributed to the weakening of the fragile international order.... Few Arabs will cry for the disappearance of Saddam, but probably many now feel humiliated.... It has been a military campaign of speed, concentration of bombing and fire, and precision, without precedent, but it also makes very clear with so many civilian deaths that the idea of a 'clean war' is impossible.... The war has produced too many victims, has made a mess of international legality and has put in stark relief a bad use by the U.S. of its immense military power.... In the hour of victory one shouldn't forget that Bush wasn't able to get in the UN Security Council the votes necessary to justify this war which shou ld never have happened."
"How The Steamroller Rolled The Paper Tiger"
Independent El Mundo judged (4/10): "What this conflict has proved, without any doubt, is the overwhelming--almost obscene--military superiority that has literally erased the Iraqi military.... What we have seen in these last three weeks is a crushing military exhibition, worthy of the very best of international arms fair.... But the fall of Baghdad and the war's development has made clear the lack of justification for this attack by Bush and his allies.... Where is the terrible arsenal which Powell referred to? Saddam has not made use of weapons of mass destruction in this conflict. If he had them and they were effective, why didn't he use them when he was cornered in Baghdad?... And if he didn't have them, then this war has been based on a great trickery."
TURKEY: "He Did Not Even Fire One Honorary Bullet"
Editor-in-Chief Ertugrul Ozkok observed in mass appeal Hurriyet (4/10): "The Saddam era has ended and the future of the Iraqi people is now brighter than ever before. In the next 5 to 10 years, we are going to see the proper use of oil money--that is, for the welfare of the people as opposed to building kitsch palaces for dictators or producing chemical weapons. It is sure that in the years ahead, we will observe the domino-effect on other'Baath-like' regimes in the region.... Yet it is also the time for us to get rid of the 'Third world rationale' and 'Saddam-like' mentality in Turkey. It is just the right time to lift Turkey up to become a full member of the modern Western community."
"Iraq Is Only The Beginning"
Erdal Safak wrote in mass appeal Sabah (4/10): "The fall of Baghdad not only signified the end of Saddam, but also the end of the Eisenhower doctrine, which had served as a protective shield for regimes in the Middle East since 1956.... Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. has begun to shape a new doctrine. As Paul Wolfowitz defined it, 'the U.S. cannot possibly be safe and secure unless the Middle East is democratized'.... The Iraq war is just the beginning. Dictatorships and other backward regimes in the Middle East are next on the list, and it is certain that the most immediate concern is Syria.... Turkish Foreign Minister Gul should urgently cancel his upcoming trip to Damascus, which will only serve to increase misunderstandings between Turkey and the U.S."
"Toward The End"
Fehmi Koru argued in Islamic-intellectual Yeni Safak (4/10): "The planners of the Iraq war did not conceal their intention to move toward other countries once Iraq is finished. It will also be interesting to see what kind of administration is to be formed in post-war Iraq.... The world is rapidly moving toward a new era, and it will most likely be formed based on the 'superiority of
84 power.' From now on, the U.S. might target any country in the world by using 'magical' terms such as liberation and freedom."
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Baghdad Rises"
Sever Plotker declared in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (4/10): "Baghdad has not fallen. Baghdad has risen. Baghdad has risen from a decades-long nightmare of cruel dictatorship.... Baghdad was not captured, it was liberated in a war that was one of the shortest, most efficient, surprising, and least destructive in modern history.... Opponents of the war were still demonstrating against America in the streets of Paris while the residents of Baghdad welcomed the American soldiers with shouts of happiness.... True, the Americans are bringing democracy to Baghdad with the barrels of tank cannons, but Iraq will be democratic under its own steam. It will be the first Arab country to have the generations-old curse lifted, the curse whereby being both Arab and democratic is impossible, whereby the two are diametrically opposed. Iraq will disprove the learned theories that claim that Arab culture rejects the values of liberal democracy, because it has other values.... It has been said of many countries in the world that they would never succeed in becoming democratic because they have a 'culture' or 'tradition' or 'religion' that is not amenable to democracy. And they are democratic in all respects: Argentina and Chile, Romania and Poland, South Korea and Ghana, South Africa and Spain, Portugal and Mongolia. Iraq will be too. And why not? Countries with an ethnic and national makeup much more complicated that Iraq's have become democratic. For their own good."
"An Earthquake Broadcast Live"
Yoel Marcus wrote in independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (4/10): "The fall of Baghdad on Wednesday, the earthquake broadcast live, will be remembered along with the key events of history.... People like Saddam come into the world as promising leaders who wind up cruel dictators. In effect, Saddam brought stability to a country of constantly changing governments. With time, he fell in love with his own image and turned Iraq into a medium for his megalomaniac ambitions. It's not clear why eight years of war with Iran were necessary, or why it was necessary to invade Kuwait or massacre thousands of his own people. Saddam could have gotten out of this mess by just surrendering, had he not been over-enthusiastic for war and sure that he could win it. Saddam is one of those who believe that their people really love them and are willing to die on his behalf. Saddam is one of those people who live within a bubble of themselves--and end up suffocating inside that bubble."
WEST BANK: "Baghdad Has Another Awakening"
Independent Al-Quds editorialized (4/10): "The painful scenes broadcast by the satellite channels of the streets of Baghdad that fell under the fire of the American-British occupier, may not be the last episode of the hostile Anglo-American war. There might be other episodes in some cities that did not fall in the occupiers' hands. These episodes might not be pleasent for the aggressors, or perhaps we will see the same scenes [of Baghdad], because all signs show the absence of the Iraqi authority. This absence puzzled commentators and observers, even the British and the Americans...Baghdad's fall is a catastrophe and it will not be the last one, because the Anglo-American victory will whet the appetite of the colonialists to devour more Arab capitals. In addition, this victory will encourage them to reshape the Arab world according to the political, cultural and social values of Washington."
"The Second Palestine"
85
Fouad Abu Hejleh commented in semi-official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (4/10): "We expected the invading forces to reach Baghdad and the American-British forces to occupy Iraq, but we did not expect it to be that easy. We were astonished by the weakness of the Iraqi resistance in many areas and its absence in other areas of Iraq.... There is great vagueness and secrets, which might be cleared up later to explain the reasons of this Iraqi surrender to the American-British-Israeli power.... It seems that the American 'shock and awe' was realized, despite our writing about the failure of that method. We dealt with the military dimension of 'shock and awe', but did not pay attention to the psychological effects on the people following the first attack."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Against The Occupation"
English-language pro-government Arab News editorialized (4/10): "The images of Iraqi people in Baghdad dancing on the broken hull of a statue of Saddam Hussein yesterday were welcomed by all of the civilized world. Saddam was a dictator and accordingly was hated by most of his people. That they are rid of him is a good thing, and to argue otherwise would be not only foolish, but cruel. But some things remain as they were. The debate surrounding this war got off on a false premise. It said that either you were with the US/UK forces and their bid to topple the Saddam regime, or you were with Saddam himself. This was false because the world and its problems can almost never be divided into simple black and white, right and wrong.... Back here in the real world, those who opposed the US/UK invasion of Iraq according to principles quite beyond the “with or against us” dichotomy have no reason to change their minds, celebrations or no celebrations in Baghdad.... The plan to invade Iraq was drawn up long before Sept. 11 by individuals who are now members of the Bush administration. They had, and still have, close ties with major energy firms whose chief concern is oil.... For the Iraqi people to be rid of a tyrant only then to be vulnerable to exploitation by the conservative Zionist junta who have taken over the White House is merely for them to be thrown from the frying pan into the fire. The Iraqi people, like everyone else, deserve to be the masters of their own destiny.... As with all the revolutions in history, the easy part is getting rid of the regime. The difficult part is knowing what to fill the resulting vacuum with. The danger now is that, because the invaders offer something better than Saddam in the short term, they may be left in the dark as to those invaders’ real long-term motives. The Iraqi people should not settle for second best, namely being ruled by a quasi-democratic leadership propped up by a US administration which is itself propped up by those greedy for Iraq’s oil and spurred on by their desire for a secure Israel. Baghdad has fallen, Saddam is on the run and his Baath Party has disintegrated. Good riddance to them all. But now those who were against the war must double their protests against an American occupation."
ALGERIA: "Baghdad + ? = !"
Independent, Arabic-language El Youm noted (4/10): "According to observers, after the end of the American aggression against Iraq, and the end of the peace spectacle between Palestinians and Israelis, Syria’s turn will come, in order to provide complete security for Israel in the Middle East region. Then, a transition in the Arab Gulf will begin, and finally in North Africa, beginning with Tripoli. The barbarian American machine has begun. Those who prostrate themselves have to wait their turn because they possess only subservience, for they are rejected as a people."
JORDAN: "Listen To The Friends"
The English-language, independent, centrist Jordan Times observed (4/10): "Some perhaps expected that, before scenes of jubilation in Baghdad at the progressive downfall of the regime of Saddam Hussein, some Arabs would feel shocked and disappointed. But Iraqis' relief at what is possibly the nearing end of both the war and the regime does not mean that this aggression was ever just or right, nor that a US occupation is welcomed. Some channels showed a few
86 Iraqis throwing flowers at US-British soldiers, cheering and dancing on the pieces of a smashed statue of Saddam, taking off their shoes to hit his murals and portraits. There was no footage yesterday showing Iraqis' rejection of a US military occupation, but there will indeed soon be plenty, if Washington makes the mistake to listen to its “hawks” rather than to its friends.... For Iraq and the region to be stable and secure, Iraq needs to be run by Iraqis. Iraqis might be happy that Saddam's regime is disintegrating. It does not mean that they would be happy for that regime to be replaced by another imposed from the outside. It does not mean that the breach of international legitimacy and UN Charter by the so-called “coalition” was justified. It does not mean, most of all, that all the suffering and death brought about by this war was “for a good cause.” Never the end justifies the means. Obviously the US will win this war militarily. One had to be seriously brainwashed or living on a remote island to think otherwise. What the US has not won, and is no way near winning, is the peace. Get out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis."
MOROCCO: "A New Style Of Liberation"
Abdelkrim Ghallab wrote in pro-government, Arabic-language Al Alam (4/9): "America has come to Iraq to liberate it and this is a new style of liberation which includes thousands of airplanes bombing Iraq with bombs and destroying all cities, all villages, all schools, all hospitals and all museums and historical sites that go five thousand years back in history. All these sites have become rubble as a result of U.S. liberation airplanes.... It may become a tradition for America and Britain to liberate other Arab and Islamic countries so that Israel will remain the master in our Arab and Islamic Middle East. Let's learn the lesson from the liberation of Iraq well taught by two countries called the U.S. and the United Kingdom."
SYRIA: "Iraqi Nationalists Must Maintain Iraq's Territorial Integrity And Self- Determination"
Dr. Mahdi Dakhllalah, chief editor of government-owned Al-Ba'th observed (4/10): "The Iraqi crisis has entered a new phase with the occupation of extensive parts of Baghdad.... The basic principles that should now be applied to the Iraqi issue are: Iraq's unity and territorial integrity both as an entity and a people, and the People's right to choose their future and destiny.... Maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and securing its people's right to self-determination is the first mission of the Iraqi people, throughout all their segments and within the framework of national unity which is as essential as water and air. All Iraqis...must now forget the past and start working within a unified formula, without force or intervention, to cement democratic and pluralistic rule that encompasses all strata in Iraq. The goal is to build an Iraq that will positively contribute to pan-Arabism and be a part of the Arab homeland; an Iraq that will achieve freedom and equality, for its people and allow them to take part in politics. The alternative will be that occupation forces will fill the vacuum left by political institutions linked to the occupiers. National action must occur if Iraq is to achieve nationalist salvation. The salvation of Iraq is one of the basic current tasks of all Arabs, of their joint establishments and of the pan- Arab structure. It is the mission of the international community, which must restore the respect for the international law and international legitimacy that was so arrogantly bypassed recently. All Arabs confirm that no matter the circumstances and difficulties, the only option for Iraq is to restore its important pan-Arab role and confront the Zionist scheme and its tool, Israel, which ambushes all Arabs from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf."
"On The Tune Of Chaos"
Ahmad Hamadeh commented in government-owned Al-Thawra (4/10): "Aggression against Iraq has entered a dangerous phase for the life of the Iraqi people. The invading forces are promoting chaos in Iraqi villages and towns. Its trumpets of information are focusing on fights revenge trying to force Iraq back to the Stone Age.... After three weeks of killing and destruction and misleading world opinion about the goals of the invasion, the Iraqi capital is left
87 facing complete and utter chaos.... What kind of liberation have they achieved? The new curriculum America has prepared for Iraqi children omits everything that reflects a pan-Arab pulse and a nationalist trend in support of Arab rights, and that exposes Israel's racism and its colonial role in the Arab region.The American-British aggression against the Iraqi people confirms the absence of logic that now dominates international relations due to the US's unilateral monopoly of international decision-making and its ownership of brute force enticed into committing oppression and aggression against a people without any consideration of the sanctity of law and ethical norms. What is taking place in Iraq is the best evidence about this."
LEBANON: "How The Victors Can Become ‘Liberators’"
Beirut-based English-language Daily Star editorialized (4/10): "It took almost three weeks for the war in Iraq to produce the promised “shock and awe,” and the feeling came not from the technological wizardry of American defense contractors but from the heartfelt actions and emotions of Iraqis celebrating the downfall of Saddam Hussein. The scenes of jubilation on the streets of Baghdad were many and memorable as an oppressed people finally concluded that their tormentor had lost the power of life and death over an entire nation. Like those of so many other dictators, Saddam’s cult of personality proved surprisingly fragile once it was no longer backed up by fear. Despite receiving at long last the scenes of joy they had counted on getting as soon as they crossed into Iraq, however, the Americans should not confuse happiness at the tyrant’s fall with a willingness to accept occupation. The only time they will be truly welcome in Iraq will be when they leave.... The vast majority of Iraqis are thrilled that Saddam’s rule is hurtling toward an overdue end, but they have every right to see the entire war as an exercise in the United States’ cleaning up its own mess. It was Western assistance, after all, that kept Iraq together during the long years of Saddam’s war against Iran.... The watchword should be sensitivity. The young soldier who first draped a statue of Saddam with an American flag, only to subsequently remove it, cannot be blamed for his over-enthusiasm. It is the senior US commanders who must prevent similar gaffes from being repeated if Washington and London are to keep from fueling the perception that Iraq has, in fact, been “conquered” in the traditional sense of the word--and for the same traditional reasons.... The period of foreign tutelage must be one of understanding for Iraq’s culture and respect for its people. Only in this way will the Americans ever be regarded as genuine “liberators.”
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Now The Hard Work Begins"
The English-language Gulf News (Internet version) stated (4/10): "Where is Saddam Hussain? Along with his regime, he seems to have melted into the background, leaving Iraqis to celebrate in the street, throughout the nation. It is obvious from the pictures broadcast live on satellite television that most Iraqis are overjoyed at the release of the suppression under which they have lived for the past 35 years. While many are still cautious, since they fear some form of retribution if they celebrate too soon at the departure of the Baath regime, the majority have accepted that the actuality of the coalition forces arriving in Baghdad and taking over key buildings, merely confirms what they have all along wanted: liberation from repression. It is a welcome sight that gladdens the heart of those who have empathy with the plight of all Iraqis.... But there is more to the liberation of Iraq than removing the regime; a new rule of law has to be introduced as well as an administration that will be accepted by the populace. There is much to do, but first, the confidence of the people must be gained. That will include the more urgent necessities, such as the provision of adequate food and water. Even more important, in the light of the number of sick and wounded, is the need for medical supplies and facilities.... What happens in Iraq in the following days and weeks will be watched very carefully by the world community, to determine whether there is any movement by America to be a de facto government, or install an administration that is contrary to the wishes of the majority. Thus far, the attempt by the coalition forces to win the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has been far from successful. The jubilation in the streets of Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere is insufficient evidence to claim that occupation by America is required, merely that the people are glad to be free
88 again."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "For Iraqi Opposition, UN Is A Force Not To Be Reckoned With"
Peter Fray wrote in the liberal Melbourne Age (4/10): "Debate about the UN's postwar role is largely ignoring the fact that many of the leading Iraqis who will soon take control of their country actually do not want the UN to run the show or even play a "vital role", as US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have put it. What is important for the Iraqi National Congress...is an end to the war, restoration of law and order and an interim authority that leads to government of Iraq by Iraqis as soon as politically possible. Coalition forces are delivering the first two faster than many thought possible, and moving quickly to establish the mechanism for the third, under retired general Jay Garner. Where then does the UN fit in? Delivering the humanitarian aid, but possibly not much more. For the Iraqi opposition, freedom from Saddam Hussein has been achieved despite the UN, not because of it. Having failed to endorse the war, why should the UN expect to organise the peace, they argue. The Iraqis are grateful to the coalition, but also do not need them to hang around once the job is over. Exactly how the US intends to move from restoring law and order (now), establishing an interim authority (soon), and then delivering free elections (in a year or so) remains unclear."
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR): "After Saddam, The First Order Should Be Elections"
Independent South China Morning Post declared (4/10): "The debate over post-war Iraq is no longer academic but it is certainly still political. With American and British troops sweeping through Baghdad, it may only be a matter of days before Lt. Gen. Jay Garner's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, now based in Kuwait City, will move north to set up the framework of a transitional government. Unlike in Afghanistan, East Timor, or Kosovo, the United Nations will not be in charge--the United States will be, with some help from its ally, the United Kingdom. Like the debate before the war, the squabbling over this arrangement is already vociferous.... More importantly, the only politics that count in a post-Saddam Iraq are going to be those fostered by Iraqis, however confused, disorganised, and demoralised they may be by Saddam Hussein's brutal, dictatorial rule and 12 years of some of the harshest economic sanctions ever imposed by the UN.... The most constructive role other countries can play at this juncture is to hold the US administration to its words. It is promising that Mr Bush, at the top of his political game with victory almost within his grasp, seemed aware of how dangerous and reckless it would be to prolong the US occupation of Iraq beyond the time needed to get Iraq's own civil and political machinery going again.... The costs to Mr Bush of not living up to his promises will be high, not only in the loss of international credibility but in managing the peace. Post-war Japan aside, the US has little experience with occupying other countries, and the American public will quickly lose interest if Iraq proves ungovernable under America. This will be the case if its new government carries even a taint of American orchestration. Iraq, as Mr Blair and Mr Bush both have said, must be for the Iraqis, and as soon as possible."
JAPAN: "Regime Collapse: The Test Starts Now"
Leftist Asahi opined (4/10): "Three weeks after the start of the war, the capital of Baghdad has fallen, and Hussein's regime has collapsed. Although sporadic battles are continuing, organized resistance in the capital is over. In the densely populated eastern area of the city, military and police figures have disappeared and thus looting has broken out, it has become a situation where there is no government. Although President Bush has indicated that the war is not over, it is largely decided. Now, it is necessary to urgently supply medicine, food and water to the people and the restoration of stability. Through air bombing and land attacks many civilians have become victims. there is still the threat of guerilla war and terrorism. In addition, most
89 important is to avoid street fighting in the cities. Due to violent attacks from the U.S. and Britain, the republican guard, the nucleaus of Iraq's military regime, have largely surrendered. But throughout the country battles are continuing. althoguh teh whereabouts of Hussein himself are unclear, we seek to end all fighting and resistance from this moment forward, not a moment too soon. As for the war goals of both the U.S. and Britain, along with the toppling of Hussein's regime, there is also the destruction of WMD and the democratization of Iraq. We must grapple with the job of reconstructing Iraq and helping create a new future administration, which rests in the hands of each Iraqi. The U.S and Britain must first spread military rule, and then speed up the process to restore a tentative control structure made up of Iraqis themselves. If one thinks of the most important issue having to do with restoring stability, most urgent the need to end military rule from the British and the Americans. To accomplish this, the U.S. should consider these factors and let the UN take the lead role in setting up a tentative administration. With that, there will be more international support, and easier to gain cooperation from Arab countries."
PHILIPPINES: "A Role For The UN"
The independent Philippine Star declared (4/10): "Whether or not Iraqi President Saddam Hussein survived a US bombing the other day, the streets of east Baghdad erupted in jubilation yesterday. They were scenes the world had been looking for since the start of the war: Iraqis cheering their 'liberation'--as coalition forces want to describe it--from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Amid the jubilation, however, were early signs of trouble that the coalition would have to address immediately. In Saddam City and a suburb of Baghdad, Iraqis were seen happily entering the government buildings they once feared, then leaving with everything they could cart away, from sacks of flour to computers and refrigerators. Across the country, in areas under coalition control, anxious residents asked coalition troops to stop the looting and impose order. With Saddam’s regime crumbling, Iraq could quickly slide into lawlessness and an orgy of revenge on Saddam’s enforcers who once held that nation in the grip of terror.... In the task of peacekeeping the coalition clearly needs help from the United Nations. For all the cheering in Baghdad and Northern Iraq, years of sanctions have made the United States unpopular among Iraqis. As in much of the Middle East, there is also resentment in Iraq over the Americans’ perceived pro-Jewish bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Facing the muzzle of an Abrams tank, with "bunker busters" poised to strike their homes and offices, Iraqis may accept American authority. But the Iraqis will do so grudgingly, and simmering tensions will hobble post-war reconstruction. The United Nations is still wrangling over who should take the lead role in rebuilding Iraq.... In dealing with these urgent problems the coalition must call in the United Nations."
"Quick End To War A 'Sin' For The US"
Solita Collas-Monsod commented in business-oriented BusinessWorld (4/10): "The United States is really in for it now. It has committed the sin of winning the war in Iraq in what looks like an obscenely short span of time.... But, against all expectations (even President Bush added to the doubts with his "as long as it takes" statement), victory for the coalition seems to be all but assured after 18 or 19 days.... The swifter-than-expected victory is not going to stop the critics from finding even more fault than before--and may even spur them to greater efforts on this score. Already one can visualize the following scenarios: For starters, there's going to be a lot of pooh-poohing of the stories of Iraqi civilian cooperation.... Then there will be analyses which will argue that the relatively quick successful outcome was because Saddam Hussein's military might was actually very weak or nonexistent.... There will also be, I am certain, an enumeration of the costs of the war.... Much will also be made of the increase in anti-American sentiment.... But what is also needed, to allow us to come to a conclusion as to whether the decision to go to war was the right one, but which may not be forthcoming, is a listing of the benefits arising from it...greater stability in the region, greater stability in world oil supply, savings in cost compared to a larger war in the future. And then there will be the ensuing discussions on whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If these are not found, the
90 US will be blamed for going to war for no reason. If they are found, the US will be blamed anyway--for planting the stuff. Uncle Sam makes a very large, very easy target. And with all that mud that is and will be thrown, it is going to be very hard to determine whether the hat he wears is white or black. But then, I guess it goes with the territory."
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "Overwhelming Baghdad"
The centrist Hindu opined (4/10): "The larger issue, however, is the extraordinary human cost of this aggressive push into the Iraqi capital and, that too, in an unequal war where there was always going to be only one victor ... The assault on Baghdad clearly reveals that the U.S. strategy is dictated by the overweening consideration of bringing the battle to a quick end. Among the many fears about engaging in a longer war is the adverse impact it will have not only in the Arab countries but pretty much all over the world, where anti-war sentiments, coupled with anti-U.S. emotions, are growing with every passing day.... Washington never tires of repeating that it is doing whatever it can to minimize (collateral)damage, a claim which is hardly corroborated by the events on the ground.... The Iraq conflict has shown that while precision munitions may work well in open country, their use in densely-populated urban areas cannot but kill innocent people.... To make matters worse, the U.S. has demonstrated that it is not averse to liberally using far less accurate heavy artillery in urban areas.... The strategy employed to capture Baghdad and incapacitate the Saddam Hussein regime so quickly...will weigh heavily on the minds of most people are the cost at which this was achieved and the basis it provides for constructing an edifice for peace."
"The Way The U.S. Will Travel After Winning The War"
Pro-BJP Calcutta-based Bengali-language Bartaman declared (4/10): "Even if there were a few problems down the middle, Rumsfeld's plans have become the winner. He has taken President Bush along the path of war and he is bringing victory in the hands of the President. In the 21st century if the American Empire takes shape, Bush will get the recognition as the vanguard. But Rumsfeld has brought about the lion's share of his achievements. It is because of this Powell is getting defeated in the domestic fights to Rumsfeld ... The U.S. has not waged the war as an obstinate and it is advancing with a well thought out strategy. They are also taking calculated steps to establish the American Empire. Mere disturbances on the streets will not help in deviating them from their goal. These will also not help them check."
"Chief Of Baghdad"
The centrist Times Of India editorialized (4/10): "Having waged the war against Saddam Hussein almost entirely on its own, it is the US that will determine the destiny of Baghdad for the foreseeable future. He who holds the stick, owns the buffalo, as an old Indian saying has it. On Tuesday, after yet another summit meeting with Blair...the U.S. president was willing to concede...a 'vital role' for the UN in post-war Iraq, but it was just as well that he was not questioned too closely on the exact nature of this role. The fact is that Washington has no plans to include the UN, in anything other than a subordinate capacity, on the political and administrative side of things. The 'vital role' that Bush spoke of is restricted purely to humanitarian relief and civil reconstruction. But even here the UN will have to work under the overall control and supervision of the American army ... On the political front, the real issue is not so much what role America will play but which arm of the US government ... Current indications suggest that it would be the Pentagon rather than the state department. As for the post-transition phase, Bush's stirring promise of a 'democratic' Iraq, running 'its own affairs', is perhaps too far-fetched to bear serious scrutiny ... Democracy may eventually come to the Arab world, but for a long while it will be one directed from Washington."
91
PAKISTAN: "Iraq War: International Community And UN Must Not Accept Any Role"
A commentary in second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt read (4/10): "It seems as if the U.S. wants to use the international community and the United Nations to achieve its future objectives; and by creating the impression of differences with the U.K., wants to ensnare the whole world.... If the U.S. succeeds in capturing Iraq after breaking all records of barbarism and forms a government led by Jay Garner or Tommy Franks, it will be an illegal, occupation government established by military force and coercion.... Providing a legal cover for this government is a political necessity for the U.S. However, the international community and the so-called Ummah have no compulsion to recognize a foreign regime imposed on a sovereign and independent state. Recognizing such a government would mean giving America the license to replace any disliked foreign government using military might."
"U.S., U.K. Remembering The UN Now"
Karachi-based right-wing pro-Islamic unity Urdu-language Jasarat opined (4/10): "After destroying Iraq for the last nineteen days, the United States and U.K. have all of a sudden remembered the United Nations. Only 20 days back these two countries had abandoned the UN and its Security Council to attack Iraq. The forceful resistance of the Iraqi public has further blackened the faces of the U.S. and the U.K."
"Blood-Bath In Iraq"
The Islamabad-based rightist English-language Pakistan Observer (4/10): "Iraq is undoubtedly in a blood-bath as the U.S. and British forces have unleashed a hell of ground and air fire against the civilians in Baghdad and other cities and towns of the country. Men, women and children with chopped off limbs are a common sight in the hospitals, which are overcrowded, besides facing serious shortage of medicines. The situation in Baghdad is particularly critical, which has so far braved thousands of tons of bombs, besides thousands of missile and unprecedented artillery fire. It's under virtual siege as the allied forces have encircled the historic city, which was once the cradle of knowledge and civilization."
AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA: " The Fall Of Baghdad"
Liberal Cape Times commented (4/10): "It will still take a long time before the full ramifications become clear of the US/UK military victory in Iraq yesterday.... Immediate relief must be provided to the civilians affected in various ways by the conflict... An immediate end must also be brought to the looting and breakdown of order... But that is just the beginning of what will be a long and arduous process.... The U.S....must make room for the UN in this process. It cannot be both player and referee.... The UN must not become an unintended casualty of the war in Iraq. International peace and security is not the exclusive concern of the U.S. The U.S. made many enemies through its unilateral decision.... It can still win back some of the goodwill by not behaving graciously in victory."
" At The End, A Rout "
Balanced Business Day commented (4/10): "Baghdad fell to the U.S. Marines with barely a whimper... It is possible the Butcher of Baghdad is dead or being protected by Russia. Politically, he is finished... While the war may not be over, officially, it is not too early to take some stock.... The U.S. and British forces...have done a remarkable job - in purely
92 military terms.... On the other side of the coin, the misery spread among the victims of the air attacks and artillery bombardments, the damage done to the Western body politic in the run- up...the inevitable diversion of development funds away from Africa now to rebuild Iraq and the new seeds of anger sown among Muslim militants are all massive challenges for the world.... Coalition forces must quickly unearth the weapons of mass destruction.... They must rebuild what they have broken of Iraq. And then they must leave.... If these [WMD] are not found then the Americans and the British have fought and died and killed for a lie. The damage to the world order as we know it will be incalculable."
"Underestimating Bush Can Be Costly - As Foes Find Out "
Washington based correspondent Philip van Niekerk (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) writes in balanced Business Day (4/10): " "Bush has extraordinary political instincts. And he compensates for his deficiencies by surrounding himself with some of the shrewdest minds in Washington, people who understand power - how to apply it and how to keep it.... The war has bolstered the administration domestically.... Now that the U.S. has Baghdad by the throat, Bush appears vindicated in the eyes of his supporters and the swing voters. However, much depends on what happens in the months ahead... It is questionable whether Americans will long tolerate a drawn-out and bloody battle, particularly if the coalition forces are unable to locate Iraq 's alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, which is what the war and the shedding of lives was supposed to be about in the first place... The Democrats are starting to realize that this Bush is a more formidable foe that the old man.... He has launched the most radical changes in international relations since the Second World War. His administration is peopled by proponents of a greater US power in the wider world and a smaller government in Washington.... By allowing his presidency to be inordinately influenced by a narrow band of ideological neo conservatives, Bush has recruited a core of well-motivated, well-funded, well-organized partisans who will fight to maintain their hold on Washington. "
NIGERIA: "Thumbs Up for U.S."
Akeem Soboyede commented in the Lagos-based independent Punch (4/10): "A democratic Iraq that emerges from the ashes of Saddam's despotic regime would serve as a shinning example for repressed citizens in other countries in the region--the so-called 'Arab Street'--who have been sold on the lie that only the present repressive regimes can protect their 'way of life.' If an invasion of Iraq is what it would take to changethis frightful reality, so be it. The whole world -- not least people in the Middle East--would owe a debt of gratitude to the United States for this."
"Global Dictatorship"
Edwin Madunagu wrote in the respected Lagos-based independent Guardian (4/10): "America abandoned the (Security) Council, gave it a one-day ultimatum, followed by a 48-hour ultimatum to President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq, and finally a one-day ultimatum to foreigners and United Nations personnel to leave Iraq. Two hours after the expiration of the ultimatum to Iraq, American rulers attempted to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his leading lieutenants. Shortly after this, and in spite of huge anti-war protests across the globe, especially in America and Europe, American and British rulers launched a savage war on Iraq. All this while, neither the Security Council, nor the UN Secretary-General, did anything. And they did nothing simply because they could do nothing. The post-Cold War United Nations has become irrelevant except as post-facto American 'undertakers.' The new global dictatorship has replaced it."
UGANDA: "The Winner Is Bin Laden"
93
The government-owned, influential New Vision opined (4/10): "Who is the winner in Iraq, Saddam or Bush? The answer is neither; the winner is Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden hated both the Great Satan and the heretical Saddam. Now he has succeeded in getting them to destroy each other. When he attacked the World Trade Centre 18 months ago, the whole world feared that the USA would indulge in a kneejerk act of revenge against the Muslim world. Instead, Bush and the USA...provided convincing evidence that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible and that they were being hosted by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. They secured an international consensus to depose the Taliban with support from Iraq, Iran and many other Arab governments. Bin Laden eluded capture but he had been marginalised. He had failed in his primary task of precipitating a global Islamic backlash against American hegemony. Now bin Laden has succeeded. For whatever reason, whether in pursuit of oil or revenge for 9/11, the reckless adventurism of the Bush administration in Iraq has turned the Arab and Muslim world fiercely against the USA and Britain. Every day that the Marines remain in Iraq further reveals the hollowness of their agenda. No WMD have been found. There has been no popular uprising. And in the end, the Americans will resort to former Ba’aathist officials to run their interim administration because they are the only Iraqi technocrats available. What was the point? The only beneficiary is bin Laden. American credibility is ruined. Bush has brought that global revolt against the USA one step closer."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Next p? American Triumphalism"
Columnist Jeffrey Simpson commented in the leading Globe and Mail (4/10): "The war, as was often said, would be easier than the peace, and certainly shorter. For the U.S., there now awaits a self-appointed mission of remaking Iraq into a democratic, peaceful, prosperous country - something it has never been in a history stretching back thousands of years.... The public explanation for the U.S. strategy was to remove the threat of these weapons of mass destruction; the weapons, after all, might be given to terrorists, who, in turn, would use them against the U.S. or its allies. The UN inspectors found little to support these contentions. And, so far, U.S. inspectors have found nothing.... The U.S. will have to be engaged in Iraq for a long time in Iraq....The easy military victory will certainly surround George W. Bush at home with the aura of a commander-in-chief who knew what he wanted and how to get it. Those who encouraged the military option will have had their opinions strengthened that the United States should never hesitate to use its vast might when vital interests are at stake, regardless of what nervous Nellies, appeasers, doubters, multilateralists and all those mired in the 'old' ways of thinking might say or do. American triumphalism will be deepened at home, even while it is resented and feared abroad."
"Iraq's New Beginning After The Tyrant's Fall"
The leading Globe and Mail opined (4/10): "Mr. Rumsfeld could have sent a much larger invasion force, of course. But this war, while primarily about hurling Mr. Hussein from power, was also about sending a message to other regimes that the Bush administration abhors - Iran and North Korea, primarily, and auxiliary members of the axis of evil, too, especially Syria. The message: American power is unchallengeable, it can refashion history without breaking a sweat. Don't mess with us. This is a key reason, though, why the world also should be uneasy about what has occurred. It is impossible not to rejoice at the liberation of Iraq's 24 million citizens from one of the worst despots of the modern age - the man associated with acid baths. Even those who passionately oppose the war did so knowing that Iraqis deserve a new birth of freedom. But they wonder about Washington's goals and about the impact on global governance if the world's sole superpower be comes all too willing to eschew the structures of multilateralism in favour of gunboat diplomacy. This will remain a concern. The world is far
94 better off with a speedy American victory than a prolonged guerrilla war against Iraqi fighters that saps U.S. resolve. But the victorious troops are now an occupying force in a volatile region that, at best, is profoundly skeptical of Western power. Many Iraqis seemed sombre yesterday, and many across the Arab world seethed at the worst defeat since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The Bush administration now must prove that its motives are true - disarmament and democracy. And it must stay only so long as to achieve it.... The international community, riven by the diplomatic tensions of recent months, needs to come together to put Iraq on its feet. This is the most important reconstruction project since postwar Germany and Japan. It cannot be allowed to fail. As the war ends, so should the bickering about the war."
"George W. Bush: Victor, Liberator"
Canada's conservative National Post editorialized (Internet version) (4/10): "Yesterday--just three weeks after the war began--the Iraqi capital was effectively liberated, with the greatest threat to U.S. troops coming from teetering Saddam Hussein statues.... How wonderful it is to know that, after 12 maddening years of watching Saddam deceive the civilized world, his game is up. No more UN resolutions. No more Kofi-brokered compromises. No more phony inspections. Meanwhile, the euphoric spectacle that unfolded in Baghdad's Firdos Square yesterday was as inspiring as anything we've seen since the demise of the Soviet bloc. Indeed, it is not overly optimistic to imagine that the Muslim Middle East might soon stand at the same political threshold Eastern Europe did a generation ago.... Mr. Bush's accomplishments go beyond the battlefield.... The President has done more to revamp the world's intellectual landscape than any politician of our time. Most importantly, he has dispensed with the conceit that the 21st-century threat posed by the intersection of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and rogue power must be addressed according to the dictates of 19th-century international law.... Even if Mr. Bush resigned today, his foreign policy accomplishments would place him prominently among the most effective presidents in U.S. history."
"Victory In Iraq But Success Awaits"
The liberal Toronto Star maintained (Internet version) (4/10): "After decades of tyranny, the feared Baathist regime is no more and the joy is evident.... U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--and the military forces under their direction--deserve the credit for liberating Iraqis from a 24-year nightmare, in three weeks. They have yet to uncover evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which was Bush's main pretext for this war, much less the means to deliver them. But people are freer today, and full of hope. That is no mean achievement.... And yet Iraq's liberation has come at a cost, not just in the thousands of lives that have been sacrificed...but also in the damage done to the United Nations, the global consensus and the rule of law. The sheer speed and 'success' of America's first 'pre-emptive' war...may now tempt Washington to hubris, and down a reckless path.... Where will the American superpower strike next? For what reason? And what demands may it make of allies?
"Looking ahead, Bush must rebuild Iraq in a way that heals the U.N. rift, dispels some of the world's hostility to the Anglo/American invasion, and reassures proud Iraqis that they will not be occupied for long. Rather than impose a lengthy American colonial administration, Bush should invite the Security Council to mandate a speedy process whereby Iraqis can take charge of their own government and legislature. Any political program should have the U.N.'s formal blessing, and input. And Washington should refrain from trying to stack the post-Saddam regime with American cronies.... And war criminals would best be hauled before The Hague, not U.S. military tribunals. Bush promised Iraqis liberation, not oppression under new management. They expect no less. Delivery should begin today."
BRAZIL: "Baghdad's Fall"
95
The lead editorial in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo judged (4/10): "The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime is good news. Iraq and the world are better off now that the dictator has been removed from power. Of course, this does not mean that George W. Bush's war has become just or necessary. The tyrant's overthrow is a positive collateral effect of an irresponsible bellicose adventure.... So far, the WMD, whose existence was the main justification for the attack, have not been found.... The end of the war seems imminent, but Iraq and the world are far from recovering from Bush's irresponsible adventure."
"Washington's Suburb"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo political columnist Eliane Cantanhede commented (4/10): "Bush's war is coming to an end. Where are Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons? Either the dictator did not want to use them because he is a saint, or there were no WMD. The U.S. pretext was a lie. Now, with Bagdhad occupied, it is time to look to the future. And it is as much or even more worrisome than the war. Of course, American newspapers are showing pictures of U.S. flags over Baghdad and Iraqis celebrating Bush's victory. But the open images of independent television stations have shown a different reality: just a few people surrounded by photographers really lauded the occupation.... Under the pretext of eliminating arms that did not exist and of 'saving' people who have different religions, beliefs and culture, [the U.S. has] turned Iraq into a suburb of Washington. And what if these people - from Iraq and its Arab neighborhood - did not want to be saved by western Christians? And what if, as a result, 'one hundred bin Ladens,' as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak predicts, emerge?"
"Bush's Victory"
Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo editorial writer Helio Schwartsman maintained (4/10): "George W. Bush will pay a high price for his triumph, but not with coalition soldiers. To depose Saddam Hussein, Bush has sacrificed not only the lives of thousands of Iraqis, but also the UN, NATO, the anti-terror coalition, the U.S. image in the world and the notion that humanity advances by creating civilized means for nations to coexist.... Bush has already undermined several international initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC and the UN's consensus for the control of light arms trafficking, to mention just a few of his achievements.... Some of his top associates are suspected of involvement in business fraud. According to recent reports, business groups linked to Bush's Cabinet members will be favored in contracts for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq. If [these reports] are confirmed, then it will be the legalization of pillage."
MEXICO: "The President Fulfilled His Duty"
An editorial in old-guard nationalist El Universal (4/10) read: "The war in Iraq is about to end. The tortuous process of dominating a population with sufficient reasons to feel insulted will begin-thousands of lives have been changed for the worse forever. It will not be easy too make up a government that is independent from the invading forces. Iraq can be the first stage in the re-colonization of the Third World.... With regards to Mexico, it is obvious that President Fox acted according to the Constitution when he refused to support the invasion of Iraq. Further, he acted with the full backing of the Mexican people. He has been transparent, fair and honest. Once the worse moments of the conflict are gone, perhaps President Bush will be capable of understanding why the Mexican President acted as he did. There is no reason for Bush to feel disappointed: there have been no double talk or deception, but transparency, openness and fulfilling responsibilities.... It might not always be possible to agree on everything, but we coincide on a number of issues. Let's understand the former and continue to expand the latter."
"Who's Next?"
96
Jesus Ortega writes in business-oriented El Financiero (4/10): "Only 23 days were enough to confirm that barbarism contradicts humanity's future.... The military operations led by the United States and its allies to invade Iraq will be accompanied by a ritual performed by the media that honors victory. Whose is this victory, when the world is being threatened by a power that has taken a path against humanity...? The U.S. unipolar world that resulted after 9/11, has a counterpart in the sketch of a society that preconceived multilateralism.... to rule over the world. This means war does not fit anymore in today's world, neither the role of a superpower over international organizations; this is the only way to avoid humanity to remain subject to the will of weapons."
PANAMA: "The Real War"
Attorney Juan David Morgan's oped published in independent La Prensa (4/9): "To keep its world leadership, the United States will have to overcome the contradictions, paradigms, and double standards that have tarnished some of its actions in the international arena.… Today, the United States, being the only world power, cannot and should not make mistakes in the international arena because the harmful effects of its mistakes will be suffered by all of humanity.… It is time for the leaders of the great nation [U.S.] to stop, reflect, and understand that in today's world they cannot look for momentary solutions to resolve complex and long range problems -- just as it was understood by that nation's admirable leaders, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt when the foundations were laid to establish their country as the paradigm of democracy, humanism and liberty."
"Reflection Of A Friend Of The United States"
Independent La Prensa also carried an op-ed by Octavio Vallarino Arias (4/9): "Rejection of war is universal, because normal people detest it.… The U.N. Security Council failed because not enough pressure was applied to Hussein.… Why wasn't Hussein asked to turn in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or to leave power to avoid war?… How would the world be today without America's intervention in conflicts in world history? Probably Europe would be a Great Germany; Noriega would still be in power; Cedras in Haiti; Castro would own Grenada; etc. I don't agree with those that state that the Americans have invaded Iraq for their oil...I have never seen the Americans conquer or invade a country in order to take possession of its property. It did not happen in Japan or Germany. On the contrary, they [U.S.] helped to reconstruct both countries.… The root to so many anti American feelings in the Arab countries comes from the envy they have of the powerful western country."
PERU: "Bush's Nephews"
Serious tabloid Correo editorialized (4/9): “One of the global consequences of the...military attack on Iraq...will certainly be the resurgence of leftist groups… In Peru...public opinion will associate the U.S. attack...with… abuse of power...free market policies and expansion of capitalist groups.… Even liberal groups have criticized the neo-conservative fundamentalism of Washington’s Republican Party representatives.… Free markets and democracy will be affected by the war.”
VENEZUELA: "The End Of Saddam Hussein"
Leading Venezuelan national liberal daily of record El Nacional commented (4/10): "From a military point of view, the situation is finally decided in favor of the American-British alliance. A giant statue of Hussein in the center of Baghdad was toppled by the Iraqis themselves, cheered and watched by Marines close by.... The symbolism of the fall of Baghdad and the chaotic scenes of people sacking palaces were more than sufficient signs to think that this is closer to the end than the beginning.... The end of dictatorships and strongman regimes seems
97 to obey universal rules.... Nonetheless, winning the war does not mean that Washington and London have won the peace.... Reconstruction is a name given to many things. It involves the political and economic influence in the region and the Muslim world. It involves the control of Iraq's oil, whose reserves can determine the destiny of OPEC. It involves control of the great wealth of Iraq in foreign banks. It involves the participation of different companies specializing the arduous, costly and complex work to come. Finally, and not least, it involves selecting the Iraqis who will form the post-Saddam government and building the bases of an open society. All this has the apparently simple name of 'reconstruction.' By extension, it also means 'the role of the UN. In other words, no to the monopoly of the U.S."
98
With the War Over, the U.S. Faces Hard Challenges
Brookings Iraq Report, April 18, 2003
Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The United States has won an important victory in Iraq. Removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power has eliminated a terrible threat to the people of Iraq, the Middle East, and the entire world. Casualties from the war, both for coalition military personnel and Iraqi civilians, have been gratefully low—the images on al-Jazeera notwithstanding. There were very few terrorist attacks, either inside or outside Iraq. Although, as expected, the Iraqi people have mixed feelings about the United States, most of them feel a sense of relief that Saddam's tyranny is gone. Certainly, this war could have gone much worse than it did.
Americans should not lose sight of these significant accomplishments, but neither should they ignore the very real risks that still lie ahead. Washington's handling of both the prewar diplomacy and the immediate aftermath have hardly been faultless. In general, the Bush Administration did a fine job of nailing down the political, military, and even economic tasks required to ensure the success of the war itself, but neglected other issues that could determine the ramifications from the campaign over the longer term.
The force the United States employed in Iraq was adequate to handle the most important military tasks (albeit while taking some risks with the long supply lines back to Kuwait), but desperately requires reinforcement to handle the all-important political tasks that have now taken center stage. The looting and lawlessness that continue to prevail in large parts of Iraq were entirely predictable, and almost certainly preventable by the presence of coalition troops charged with keeping the peace. While this may seem like a minor problem, it is one that could have very severe consequences if not quickly resolved. As we have seen in places like Yugoslavia, a power vacuum can quickly tear apart the internal fissures in a country that might otherwise have remained whole.
What's more, the coalition's failure to quickly restore order and security in Baghdad and other major cities could affect the critical issue of the legitimacy of the reconstruction effort. This is where the looting of antiquities from the Iraq Museum could an immediate impact. Many Iraqis worry that Washington intends to colonize their country and steal their oil, and they point out that the United States deployed enough troops to ensure the safety of the Iraqi oil ministry in Baghdad. The priority shown to the oil ministry over the Iraq Museum strikes exactly the wrong chord with many Iraqis.
So too does American action on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress and other exile groups. Few Iraqis are familiar with these exiles. Airlifting INC members into Iraq and allowing them to claim that one of their own has been "elected" the new senior official in Baghdad simply reinforces the fears of many Iraqis that Washington intends to install a puppet government beholden to U.S. oil companies. There was never any question that the political reconstruction of Iraq was going to be a difficult and painful process but, as with the inadequate initial security presence, the United States's inability to immediately articulate its plans for a transitional political authority created an opening that is allowing Chalabi and others to assert themselves in a way that diminishes the legitimacy of the U.S. effort.
This legitimacy is critical to the success of the reconstruction effort. If reconstruction is going to succeed at all, it is going to take a long time—five, 10, 15 years or more. What's more, international assistance will be required for most or all of that time. However, American and other international personnel will be welcome in Iraq only as long as the Iraqis see the endeavor as legitimate. Thus Washington's miscues
99 could have serious consequences if they prompt Iraqis to turn against the international presence altogether.
Which is also why bringing the reconstruction under the rubric of the United Nations remains the best course of action available to the United States. Unfortunately, the choice is often presented as binary: either the United States handles the reconstruction or the UN does. This is nonsense. There is no reason on earth that the United States and the UN cannot handle the operation jointly. In Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti and elsewhere, the UN has developed hybrid systems for handling specific problems. In the case of Iraq, successful reconstruction will require a very strong U.S. component—to provide key resources and direction—but it will also require a UN umbrella to provide the legitimacy that is necessary to allow a long-term international presence.
The Bush Administration has smartly recognized the need for the United States to commit itself to a full- scale rebuilding effort. Now it has to be smart enough to ask for the help needed to make it a success.
After the Iraq War: The View from Asia
Brookings Iraq Report, April 16, 2003
James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies
TOKYO—Without much notice or credit, East Asian governments have provided the United States some of the strongest support for the military intervention in Iraq. Australia offered the most robust backing, dispatching combat troops to participate in the operation. Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi offered unequivocal political support, and, more surprisingly, South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun offered to send non-combat troops. Even China distanced itself from the European "axis of opposition" on the Security Council—France, Germany, and Russia. While China was not prepared to offer explicit support, it made clear it would not stand in the way of UN action and even took steps to temper public opposition at home.
Yet the war has caused considerable unease throughout East Asia. Government officials and analysts in this region are looking at Iraq through the lens of its implications for the crisis that affects them most directly—North Korea. All the countries in the region are anxiously awaiting signs of whether the U.S. action in Iraq presages a more confrontational approach to the DPRK, notwithstanding U.S. assurances that there is no "one-size-fits-all" policy for dealing with proliferation threats, and the Administration's repeated statements that it is seeking a diplomatic solution.
For both Japan and South Korea, solidarity with the United States is seen as essential to assure U.S. support for engagement with them on how to handle the North Korean nuclear program. The concern is most keenly felt in Seoul, where the government has made clear that it is strongly opposed to any military action, even if North Korea moves forward with reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel that could provide plutonium for up to six nuclear weapons. For South Koreans, the possibility of a U.S. pre-emptive strike poses an unacceptable risk that the North will retaliate, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Many, especially younger ones, question whether North Korea really poses a threat—at least to them. The mere possibility of conflict on the peninsula is already having an adverse impact on the South Korean economy. As President Roh prepares for his now accelerated first trip to Washington, he is eager to show a willingness to help out where it matters most to the U.S.—by providing support on Iraq in the face of
100 strong public opposition, in the hope that President Bush will reciprocate and heed South Koreans' concerns.
The situation is more complex in Japan, where the North Korean missile test in the late 1990s heightened Japanese fears about North Korea's military intentions, and the controversy over North Korea's treatment of abducted Japanese citizens has hardened attitudes toward the North. For this reason, Japan has been more willing to back America's harder line, but most would like to see the United States be more forthcoming in negotiations. More important is the broader Japanese discomfort with U.S. unilateralism in Iraq, and the apparent U.S. disdain for multilateral treaties and institutions like the UN. For Japan, the open-ended security alliance with the U.S. has been at the heart of Japan's security strategy for over 50 years, and, in the future, with the possibility that North Korea will become a nuclear-weapon state, and the growing military, economic and political power of China, the reliability of the U.S. commitment could take on even greater salience.
Japanese are even beginning to broach, however tentatively, the question of whether a contingency strategy might be necessary to guard against abandonment by the U.S. This even includes discussion of the heretofore taboo question of whether, under some circumstances, Japan might need to build offensive weapons to pre-empt the North Korean threat—and even the possibility that Japan might need to renounce its non-nuclear commitment. The UN, too, has been central to Japan's broad approach to global security, but today some Japanese are beginning to question why Japan should provide 20 percent of the financial support for an organization that is being marginalized by the United States (and where Japan's own quest for a Security Council seat has been relegated to a far-back burner).
For China, the Iraq war has posed the most complex dilemma. It already seems clear that the U.S. action has contributed to China's willingness to be more active in trying to bring North Korea to the negotiating table. China's leaders fear that after Iraq, the U.S. just might be rash enough to contemplate using force against North Korea. Such an action could unleash a conflict that could send hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to China, and runs the risk of destabilizing the whole region.
More broadly, some in China wonder whether the Administration's willingness to resort to the unilateral use of force might have implications for future action toward China, perhaps in the context of a crisis involving Taiwan. Notwithstanding the dramatically improved ties between Washington and Beijing, the Chinese have not entirely forgotten the Administration's earlier tough posture toward their country, and they are wary that the pendulum could swing back.
China is also watching with interest and concern the longer-term U.S. strategy toward the Middle East in the post-Iraq-war period. With its rising need for imported energy, China has a growing stake in a stable oil-producing region, but also worries whether growing U.S. influence in the region (as well as Central Asia) might jeopardize China's access to oil in a future crisis. For now, this combination of factors has led China to accentuate the positive in its relations with the U.S., for lack of a better alternative, but few in China have any conviction that a more assertive United States will redound to China's interest.
Thus all the major powers in the region have more or less embraced the U.S. action in Iraq, in the earnest hope that such an impressive, largely unilateral, un-UN blessed assertion of military power never, ever happen again.
101
Syria Hears the Sound of Rattling Sabers
Brookings Iraq Report, April 15, 2003
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
With the combat phase of the Iraq war now just about over, the question on everybody's lips seems to be: "Who’s next?" The remaining members of the "Axis of Evil," Iran and North Korea, seem unlikely immediate targets, the former because hopes remain for positive change from within, and the latter because of those unfortunate nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of artillery tubes within range of Seoul. Iraq's neighbor Syria, however, might be a more plausible candidate. We all saw what happened, after all, the last time a Ba'athist Arab regime was accused of developing weapons of mass destruction, harboring terrorists, and threatening its neighbors.
If the Bush administration was hoping to downplay fears that Iraq was just one battle in a longer war and that Syria was next on the list, it has not been doing a very good job of it. On the contrary, aside from the ritual reminders that every situation requires a different response, what has been most striking about the administration's comments about Syria has been its willingness to put Damascus on notice that its "bad behavior" will not be tolerated.
In recent days, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has accused Syria of sending "busloads" of mercenaries to fight in Iraq, possessing and having tested chemical weapons, providing refuge or safe passage to Iraqi war criminals, and supporting Hezbollah terrorists. In Senate testimony late last week, Rumsfeld's Deputy Paul Wolfowitz warned that Washington might "need to think about what our policy is with respect to a country that harbors terrorists or harbors war criminals, or was in recent times shipping things to Iraq." President Bush himself has repeated the assertion that Syria has chemical weapons and warned that Syria "needs to cooperate" with the coalition.
So is Syria next? It might be, but nervous war opponents and hawks ready for their next target should probably slow down and take a deep breath. The Pentagon's war plan did not include an order for the Marines to head directly east when they got done with Tikrit, and plenty of factors work against the idea of invading and occupying Syria.
One is that we've still got a substantial portion of our overstretched Army working on the uncertain project of bringing stability to 24 million Iraqi and we've just spent some $70 billion on the invasion and its aftermath. Another is that without the 12 years of ignored UN Security Council resolutions backing the use of force, we'd probably have even fewer coalition partners for Syria than we just had for Iraq. This means even more international opposition, resentment of the United States, and unilateral American assumption of the costs of action. Finally, dismantling the regime in Syria means undermining order in neighboring Lebanon (currently pacified by some 40,000 Syrian troops), and it is not clear that Americans want to repeat the experience of a Lebanese peacekeeping mission. It is not clear that Bush wants to do so either.
Instead, the administration's accusations and warnings against Syria are meant to reinforce part of an overall message that the invasion of Iraq was designed to demonstrate: that the United States now takes the issues of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism very seriously. If pushed too far, it is willing to pay a very high price to deal with them. In the eyes of most war proponents, invading Iraq was necessary
102 not just to deal with that specific threat but to have a dual "demonstration effect." On the positive side, the creation of a stable, prosperous democracy where human rights are respected would lead citizens throughout the region—in Syria, for example—to push for similar changes in their own countries. Whether that dynamic really takes place will depend on successful nation-building in Iraq, and will not be known for years.
The effects of the negative demonstration effect, however, were meant to be more immediate: If you pursue weapons of mass destruction and support terrorism like Saddam did, you will ultimately pay a very high price. The elimination of the Iraqi regime was thus meant to send a clear message to other hostile states in the region, and it is not surprising that the Bush team is seeking to capitalize on that message now, rather than backing away from it. The logic is that you might not need to invade a country like Syria in order to persuade it to improve its behavior. In 1999, for example, after having demanded for years that Damascus stop harboring Kurdish terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan, Turkey massed troops on the Syrian border—and Ocalan quickly found himself with a one-way ticket out of the country. As Pentagon advisor Richard Perle recently asked: "Would you rather talk with Syrian President Bashar al- Assad about terrorism before or after the liberation of Iraq?"
American tanks will probably not be rolling down the streets of Damascus anytime soon. And if the Syrian president takes American warnings to heart and keeps a lid on support for terrorism and his own weapons of mass destruction programs, they probably never will be. But by doing in Iraq what many (including perhaps Saddam Hussein) thought he would never dare do, President Bush has at least sent a message to Syria and other states in the region that the threat of U.S. military power is not merely theoretical. Whether Syria ever does become a target of that military power probably depends as much on the thinking in Damascus as it does on the thinking in Washington.
The Priority in Iraq: Forestalling a Humanitarian Crisis
Brookings Iraq Report, April 14, 2003
Roberta Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
.
With the Saddam Hussein regime gone, the first priority in Iraq now must be to forestall a humanitarian crisis that threatens to envelop the country in a very short time.
Hunger, which is already developing in parts of Iraq, could turn to famine if the food distribution system that existed before the war is not quickly reactivated. That system relied on 44,000 offices throughout Iraq, mostly run by the Iraqi government, to distribute 400,000 metric tons of food brought in each month under the United Nations oil-for-food program, which is now suspended. These distributions sustained some 60 percent of Iraq's 24 million people. The number of people dependent on relief supplies is likely to be even greater now, owing to war destruction and to the wave of looting, arson and general chaos that swept through the country in the aftermath of the regime's fall.
U.S. and international humanitarian agencies have stockpiled large amounts of food in neighboring countries but so far it has been possible to bring in only small shipments owing to the lack of security in
103 Iraq. And just bringing food into Iraq is not enough. The complex distribution system, now in a state of collapse, must be restored in order to reach large segments of the Iraqi population.
Food is not the only problem. Iraq's medical and water distribution infrastructures are also in crisis. On April 11, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported that the medical system in Baghdad had "virtually collapsed." The ICRC has issued a desperate appeal to coalition forces to protect hospitals and water supplies. Thirty-nine of the 40 hospitals or clinics in the city have been looted or forced to close. Hospital staff in Baghdad are too frightened to report for work. In Basra, Iraq's second largest city, drivers of water trucks have feared to venture into many parts of the city, exacerbating a growing public health problem resulting from people drinking contaminated water.
The prompt restoration of law and order is the key to resolving the crisis and avoiding more dire consequences. It is also key to achieving a meaningful victory in the war, for an invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam but worsened the plight of the Iraqi people would incite anger against the United States throughout the Muslim world—quite possibly aggravating, rather than alleviating, the global terrorist threat.
This is a task for which the Pentagon's war plan clearly did not make adequate preparation, despite warnings by both other administration officials and humanitarian organizations. Last week's looting quickly moved beyond the symbols of the fallen regime to strip bare hospitals, hijack Red Cross ambulances, plunder food stocks from World Food Program warehouses, ransack the offices of the United Nations Children's Fund, and vandalize water pipelines and electric generators. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's attempt at dismissal of this wave of violence as something almost inconsequential—"a period of untidiness"—did the Administration a serious disservice.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United States as occupying power (whether it likes the label or not) is bound to ensure security and to minister to the needs of the population. The White House's humanitarian relief strategy, made public well before the military campaign, promised to "promptly provide aid and rapidly restore services" after military action as well as "facilitate early secure access" and "humanitarian space" for relief agencies.
The Bush Administration now has only a short time in which to make good on these promises. To date, chaotic conditions on the ground have made it impossible for the international staff of United Nations agencies and most non-governmental organizations to enter Iraq beyond the port of Umm Qasr. Until an Iraqi police force can be reconstituted, the United States must enforce security either through the diversion of its own forces or by promptly enlisting NATO or others for the task.
Some in the U.S. military would resist such a role for coalition forces at present, on the grounds that they are not yet numerous enough or properly prepared to police Iraq. In fact, CENTCOM explicitly resisted the mission during the early phases of the mayhem late last week. But their view is not compelling. First, most U.S. troops today get at least some training in peacekeeping and policing. Second, while regular troops may not specialize in taking fingerprints or deposing witnesses, they are very good at doing armed reconnaissance patrols through cities and confronting threatening individuals. Such a basic infantry soldier task is not a bad approximation of the kind of policing that is most needed in Iraq today. Third, while combat forces obviously must finish defeating Saddam's regime and must also worry about force protection, they have enough people in Iraq today to do a considerable amount of policing simultaneously. We need simply to prevent mass anarchy while fostering the provision of relief and medical care.
Fortunately, when viewed in this light, the argument for restoring order in Iraq is so compelling that CENTCOM and Secretary Rumsfeld seem to agree. Even as they have publicly resisted the mission, they have increasingly directed more U.S. and U.K. forces to conduct it. But the job is far from done, and further speed is of the essence.
104
No Easy Victory
The Washington Post, April 12, 2003
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
In "'Cakewalk' Revisited" [op-ed, April 10], Ken Adelman gives himself a pat on the back for having predicted in a February 2002 Post op-ed that defeating Iraq would be a cakewalk, and he accuses us of having written a "fear-mongering" article about the challenges that might be involved in doing so.
Everyone's definition of "cakewalk" is different, and if Adelman's is stretched to include a campaign in which we so far have deployed 300,000 troops, spent $70 billion, lost more than 130 servicemen and women, suffered hundreds of wounded, and killed many thousands of Iraqis, that is his right. But his trivialization of the costs of war becomes pure chutzpah when he gloats about the success of the military strategy that he and many of his intellectual allies had opposed for years.
Adelman's prediction was made in response to our December 2001 op-ed in which we challenged arguments by such war proponents as Pentagon advisers Richard Perle and James Woolsey that Iraq could be liberated and stabilized without a major commitment of U.S. ground troops [see "A Tougher Target"]. Bush administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, had made a similar case before they took office. We argued that to be sure of success both during the war and after, we would need at least 100,000 to 200,000 troops—an idea that Adelman mocked as overkill. His alternative? U.S. air power and "arming the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and [Saddam's] many opponents everywhere."
Let us be serious about what has been happening in Iraq: A massive invasion force has been winning an ugly fight. The Powell doctrine of overwhelming force has not been repudiated. With Saddam Hussein's irregulars bold enough to engage in serious firefights, harass coalition flanks and intimidate the Iraqi population into subservience, one can only imagine what would have happened if the United States had limited its military contribution to a small number of troops. With looting in Iraq rampant today, one can only imagine how much harder it would be to restore stability—a mission that we must urgently pursue— absent a major outside force.
Adelman and company did get some predictions right—thanks mostly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's decision to ignore their advice by sending in a decisive ground force. American casualties were not high. No Scud missiles have been fired at Israel. Only a few oil wells have been set afire. Hussein has not used chemical or biological weapons. Turkey has not intervened in the north, and Iran has not intervened in the east. We admit to having been skeptical that Baghdad would fall before at least some of these things happened—and are delighted to have been proven wrong.
We also acknowledge that this war may prove to be a major strategic success. Indeed, the two of us publicly endorsed using the threat of force to make disarmament work, supported the war effort once diplomacy failed and defended the basic Pentagon strategy in the war's early days, when many were criticizing it. Iraq is being liberated and demilitarized to the benefit of its own people, the Mideast and the world at large. But it is a misreading of what has been happening to suggest that changing the regime in Baghdad was an easy task, and it would be equally misguided to assume that stabilizing Iraq in the
105 coming months and years will be any easier.
These are not just debating points. Those who claimed that a small force could overthrow Hussein also assumed that significant numbers of U.S. troops would not be necessary to stabilize Iraq once he was gone. We can all hope they prove right. But it would be folly to assume that stabilizing Iraq will be a cakewalk until the situation begins to settle and until we can find—or build—a security force capable of maintaining order. About 100,000 to 200,000 troops may be needed to police the country, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, prevent remnants of Hussein's loyalists from regrouping, maintain a northern presence to deter conflict among Kurds, Arabs and Turks, and train a new Iraqi military.
That means it is time to start forming a plan for post-Hussein Iraq that our allies will support, because we will need their boots on the ground. The best idea would be to turn the military stabilization mission over to NATO and persuade even France and Germany to contribute troops. This administration's initial instincts to assume Iraqi postwar stability and treat the country as a U.S. protectorate are as flawed as the cakewalk crowd's prewar arguments about how easy it would be to remove Saddam Hussein.
Mideast Peace?: An Arab-Israeli Pact Must Come First
The New York Times, April 12, 2003
Shibley Telhami, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The relevance of the Arab-Israeli conflict in American policy toward the Middle East will once again be highly debated as Saddam Hussein's regime falls. This very subject has itself become a political issue. Arab publics fear that if the conflict is deemed unimportant, it means that the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has a green light to dictate his terms, while Arab governments worry that attention could shift to their own authoritarian political structures. Israelis, meanwhile, fear that if the issue is deemed too important, it means that the United States would pressure Israel and impose a solution not to their liking.
These fears further intensify Israel's profound sense of insecurity and the Arabs' pervasive sense of weakness, the psychological states that are almost as central to understanding the conflict as the objective differences. They also blur the debate about United States policy in the Middle East.
The reality should be stated at the outset: the United States cannot impose a solution on either side. Only a negotiated settlement that addresses both sides' vital interests, based on mutual concessions, has a chance of achieving an enduring peace. The fact remains, however, that only the United States can help the parties come to the negotiating table and provide the conditions that enable their possible success. Unless the Bush administration makes the Arab-Israeli conflict a priority and works to put it on a path of de-escalation and resolution, broader American policies in the region will be troubled.
The Arab-Israeli issue remains the prism through which most Arabs see the United States. To be sure, it is not the only issue driving resentment of American policy in the Arab world. Even outside the Middle East, from Latin America to Western Europe, resentment of the United States is strong today in areas where the Arab-Israeli issue is marginal. It is unreasonable, thus, to suppose that Arab-Israeli peace will eliminate America's challenges in the region. But this issue provides the distorting vision that makes it harder to address other issues. It also explains the level of passionate public anger with American policy, even if it is not the only basis for this anger.
106 It would be puzzling if the conflict were not central in the minds of the Arab public: since the creation of Israel in 1948, five major Arab-Israeli wars, mostly losing and devastating, have shaped the collective psychology of several generations. Their impact has been real in the lives of Palestinians and many in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and beyond. To this day, the unsettled Palestinian issue and the continuing bloodshed—now graphically relayed on television to homes in every corner of the Arab world—are daily reminders of the widespread sense of weakness and humiliation in the Arab world, both in relation to authoritarian governments and to the outside world. The Palestinian issue in particular has become an issue of identity for most Arabs. Although its role is far from identical, it has some similarities to the role that Israel has come to play in contemporary Jewish identity: one can disagree with the government of Israel and oppose Ariel Sharon, but if Israeli survival seems to hang in the balance and innocent Israelis are being killed, it is hard not to rally behind Israel. And if any party seems to be aiding Israel's enemies, especially in war, it is hard not to pass judgment accordingly.
Many Arab governments and others have exploited the Palestinian issue to their advantage over the years, including to distract from real problems at home. Even Osama bin Laden, who initially ignored the Palestine issue, elevated it to the top as he sought to rally support for his cause after the horror of 9/11. Similarly, Saddam Hussein declared, as American troops surrounded Baghdad, "Long live Iraq, long live Palestine." That these are acts of deliberate manipulation is clear enough. But these acts employ the Palestinian issue precisely because no other issue resonates more with people in the region, providing the shortest cut to their sense of collective identity.
In democratic politics we fully understand that some politicians often appeal to public passions and interest group politics to advance their interests. While it is legitimate to suggest that this appeal reinforces and often strengthens interest groups, it would be wrong to suggest that the issues of these groups are themselves artifacts of political manipulation in democracies. In the authoritarian systems of the Arab world, public opinion is at least in part the product of what the government says or does. But it is a mistake to assume that most of the public's outlook on the Arab-Israeli conflict is a product of government control.
States that have had peace with Israel and close relations with the United States, and that are dependent on them, like Egypt and Jordan, have become the objects of their publics' anger by virtue of the escalating passions on the Arab-Israeli issue. Despite the government's best efforts, public opinion in Jordan has remained strongly moved by events in the West Bank and Gaza, often posing serious challenges to the monarchy. And despite attempts by the Egyptian government in recent months to reduce public anger toward the United States (because it understood that this anger could ultimately be aimed at President Hosni Mubarak himself), the fury has remained.
Certainly, authoritarian governments have been able to ignore their citizens in the formation of policy, which explains why many Arab governments supported the war on Iraq, even as many European democracies opposed it. But even for a government like Jordan's, which knows that political reform is in its long-term interest, this comes at a cost: more repression. To pre-empt public anger from turning into a real threat, governments turn to repression, which in turn perpetuates conditions for militancy.
Although democracy in the long term is good for the region, two problems remain in the short term. First, transitions to democracy are usually long, volatile and unpredictable. In that sense, issues that are close to the hearts of the public are even more exploitable by competing politicians. Second, even if democracy is attained, it is not clear how this could translate into stronger American-Arab relations if differences on core issues remain. The case of Turkey's democracy blocking the launching of United States troops from its soil in the Iraq war is a telling example.
The Arab-Israeli issue is also critical to the United States in ways that we sometimes ignore: the American commitment to Israel means that parties who pose a potential threat to Israel will become a target of American policy; that when Israel needs support, the United States will be there, including the exercise of its veto power in the Security Council. But it also means that when Israel has the upper hand and Arabs are on the losing side, the United States will inevitably be the subject of regional anger for empowering Israel. Mediating peace is a moral obligation that would reduce this anger and benefit Israelis and Arabs alike.
There will always be many in the Arab world who will oppose the United States for ideological and other
107 reasons. The real challenge is to marginalize these groups. The region faces its own potential battle between the forces of intolerance and militancy, and those who seek tolerance, reform and peaceful settlement of disputes. The responsibility for this battle lies largely with forces in the region, as does the ultimate responsibility for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the continuing visible pain of this conflict plays into the hands of those forces the United States wants to see defeated.
As we reflect on the future of American policy in the region after the Iraq war, one thing remains the same: any strategy to reduce militancy, anti-Americanism and repression in the Middle East cannot succeed unless a robust effort to mediate a fair Arab-Israeli peace is a priority.
Michael Scott Doran argues that maintaining American predominance in the Persian Gulf, with its oil reserves and its strategic location—not settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—is a prerequisite for stability. Read his April 12, 2003, New York Times opinion piece, "Mideast Peace?: The Key to Peace Is a Stable Gulf," for more analysis.
The Struggles Ahead in Iraq
Brookings Daily War Report, April 11, 2003
Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Saddam's regime has fallen, but the war is not over. The coalition still faces important military missions.
A number of important towns are not yet under the coalition's control. The most important of these is Tikrit, Saddam's birthplace. Tikrit is a city of 250,000 people that has furnished many of Saddam's top lieutenants and vast numbers of Republican Guards, Special Republican Guards, and other members of his internal security organizations. As a result, many Tikriti families have benefited enormously from Saddam's ill-gotten largesse. Saddam lavished benefits on Tikrit, including new public works, greater access to food and fresh water, and subsidized luxury items. If there is any town in Iraq where the people genuinely support Saddam Hussein, it would be Tikrit.
Consequently, taking Tikrit might prove to be a difficult military task. U.S. intelligence believes that elements of the Adnan Mechanized Infantry Division of the Republican Guard have survived in Tikrit, and as many as four battalions of Special Republican Guards may also be present in the city. Additionally, sizable numbers of Saddam's Presidential Guard, Special Security Organization, and other internal security services have probably fled there.
In truth, none of these groups represents a serious military threat to U.S. and British forces. As the battles for Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriyah and elsewhere have demonstrated, coalition forces can prevail against Saddam's loyalists—even in urban combat—with very light casualties. However, what makes Tikrit a potentially difficult obstacle is the possibility that the civilian population itself will actively support Saddam's loyalists.
So far, in all of the cities in which coalition forces have battled Iraqi Republican Guards or irregulars the local populace has not been a factor. Most of the populace wanted Saddam gone and while few were willing to assist the coalition actively for fear of Saddam's retribution in the event he prevailed, even fewer actively abetted the Fedayeen Saddam, Republican Guards, or other regime forces. In Tikrit, there is the real possibility that the civilian population itself will take to the streets and actively participate in the city's defense—creating exactly the kind of problems the U.S. military faced in Mogadishu.
108 Of course, it is at least equally possible that the demoralizing effect of seeing the regime fall so easily elsewhere in the country will convince even the Tikritis that Saddam is not worth dying for. But in war, it pays to be prepared for the worst, and Tikrit might be the worst.
Beyond Tikrit, there are still other pockets of resistance, and bands of the regime's irregulars who continue to fight on. coalition military forces will need to locate them and root them out, but doing so is only half the challenge. Of greater importance will be winning the support of the Iraqi people themselves. After all, if the Iraqi people are willing to assist coalition forces by betraying the whereabouts of Saddam's irregulars, the residual threat they pose can be eliminated very quickly. In contrast, if the populace turns against the coalition, Saddam's remaining loyalists could become the nucleus for a larger insurgency.
It is for this reason that the most important military mission of all for coalition forces is to throw a security blanket (in all senses of the word) across Iraq. Right now, Operation Iraqi Freedom faces a crucial challenge—not from Saddam's paltry remaining military forces but from the lawlessness threatening to snowball across the country. If coalition troops do not move into Iraq's cities to stop the looting, retributions, and internecine fighting, the Iraqi people are likely to turn against the United States and Britain very quickly. It is not enough to bring justice and freedom to Iraq, we must also bring safety and stability.
What's more, we cannot forget that behind the current spate of lawlessness lurks the specter of real chaos, a descent which once started is difficult to reverse. For all of these reasons, getting sufficient troops into Iraq to stabilize the cities currently under coalition control must be job one—even ahead of subduing Tikrit, which while nettlesome does not threaten to undermine the objectives of the campaign. American and British forces don't like the role of peacekeeper, but they are going to have to play it if they are not going to lose the war they have worked so hard to win.
Give NATO a Role in Post-war Iraq
Brookings Daily War Report, April 10, 2003
Philip H. Gordon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
View the complete index of Brookings Daily War Reports.
As we contemplate the tremendous challenges of maintaining order and beginning reconstruction in Iraq, it is worth thinking about how the United States can avoid the burdens and risks of what may come to be seen as unilateral occupation. Wouldn't it be nice, for example, if we had at our disposal a multilateral organization to which we could turn for help, a body more effective and efficient than the UN but that would still confer legitimacy on the operation and help spread some of the costs? Imagine, in fact, a grouping composed of over two dozen democracies, including our most prosperous European allies, that had interoperable military forces, experience with peacekeeping and disarmament tasks, an available pool of troops, and existing command arrangements. Imagine further, while we're really fantasizing, that this organization had close institutional links with several dozen partner countries and a proven track record of promoting defense reform and civil-military relations in former authoritarian states. If such an
109 organization did not exist, we would certainly want to invent it.
Fortunately, such an organization does exist. NATO has all these attributes and there would be many advantages to giving it a key role in post-war Iraq. First, nowhere else is there a large group of available and experienced peacekeepers who could gradually replace the thousands of exhausted American and British soldiers currently deployed in Iraq. The United States should not wish to keep (or pay for) a substantial part of its army in Iraq for the foreseeable future, especially given other military challenges that could suddenly appear somewhere else around the world. And it is implausible that we will be able to quickly draw down our current force presence, given the political vacuum in Iraq and the potential for ethnic strife, retributions, looting, or outside meddling in the country. Fresh troops will have to come from somewhere, and no organization is better placed to provide them than NATO.
Involving NATO in post-war Iraq would also help to legitimize the reconstruction process in the eyes of many around the world—making a UN mandate more likely and clearing the way for EU reconstruction funds. Having launched the war without explicit UN authority and against the will of much of world opinion, there is already much skepticism about American motives and little trust that Washington will take any but its own interests into account. Putting the Pentagon in sole charge of maintaining security, hunting weapons of mass destruction, and reconstituting an Iraqi army would only heighten that global skepticism, no matter how much confidence Americans might have in their own judgment or fairness. Putting the UN directly in charge of security in Iraq might be reassuring around the world, but as it showed in the Balkans, the UN is ill-prepared to play an effective security role in a potentially hostile environment. Giving a role to NATO—some of whose members have recently proven their willingness to stand up to Washington—would prove that Iraq was not a mere American protectorate, while still giving us confidence that security would be ensured.
Finally, involving NATO in post-war Iraq's security arrangements would be a vital step toward giving our European allies—including Russia—a stake in the successful reconstruction of Iraq. One of the most negative consequences of having to fight this war without support from France, Germany, Russia and most of European public opinion was that those countries and many individuals overseas now see the creation of a democratic, stable and prosperous Iraq as our project, not theirs. Although they would never say so, they even have an almost subconscious stake in our failure, if only to prove the merit of their opposition to the war. To reverse that destructive dynamic, the United States has a strong interest in involving as many European allies as possible in the effort to make a new Iraq; a collective NATO commitment to that goal would be an important first step.
There is, of course, no guarantee that even if Washington seeks to involve NATO in Iraq—and many in the Pentagon will fight the idea of relinquishing any control, especially to French and the Germans—the project will succeed. France, in particular, has long opposed efforts to endow NATO with a global security role, given Washington's dominant role in the Alliance and Paris's preference for the UN or EU. But it was interesting that when the issue of NATO in Iraq was quietly broached at the time of Secretary of State Powell's April 3 trip to NATO headquarters, several allies strongly supported the idea, and no ally—not even France—flatly opposed the idea. France also has been quietly lowering its opposition to a NATO role in Afghanistan beginning next summer, when the current Dutch-German force in Kabul is scheduled to leave. While it would be premature to see these moves as a major opening, it would also be a mistake not to explore that possibility. Getting NATO involved in Iraq would not only help share the burden of what could be a difficult and costly occupation, but it could be a first step toward repairing a vital transatlantic relationship currently in tatters.
110
TheNew National Security Strategy: Focus on Failed States by Susan E. Rice February 2003
ABSTRACT
Among the most important elements of President Bush's first National Security Strategy (NSS) is its focus on failed states. The president is wise to draw attention to the significant threats to our national security posed by failed and failing states. Such states can and often do serve as safe havens and staging grounds for terrorist organizations. Failed states create environments that spur wider regional conflicts with significant economic and security costs to neighboring states. They pose serious challenges to U.S. interests in terms of refugee flows, trafficking in illicit goods, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, and lost trade and investment opportunities.
Despite the welcome emphasis in the NSS on the security threats posed by failing states, the Strategy does not offer any vision, policies, or new resources to counter these threats. A new U.S. strategy should combine improved intelligence collection with more aggressive efforts at conflict resolution and post-conflict "nation-building" in global crisis zones. Creating pockets of improved development and security would help limit the operating space of international outlaws. Thus, the United States should devise innovative ways to assist failed and failing states through targeted development and counterterrorism assistance as well as improved trade access to the U.S. market.
POLICY BRIEF #116
New Emphasis on Failed States
From its first page, the National Security Strategy focuses attention on the dangers posed by failed states: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones." In his letter introducing the NSS, President Bush elaborates: "The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet, poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders."
President Bush is correct to focus on the problems posed by failed and failing states. The NSS also represents a new direction for this administration, which had not previously emphasized concerns about failed states in explications of the U.S. national interest. During his campaign, President Bush disparaged "nation-building." In this new NSS, the Bush administration strikes a note of continuity with President Clinton's last NSS (issued in December 1999), which identified failed states as among the threats to U.S. interests. President Bush has taken this concept a step further, stressing the direct threat such states pose to U.S. national security.
Failed states are countries in which the central government does not exert effective control over, nor is it able to deliver vital services to, significant parts of its own territory due to conflict, ineffective governance, or state collapse. Current examples include Afghanistan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. Failing states—those in which the central government's hold on power and/or territory is tenuous—also pose a serious threat. They are often countries emerging from, or on the brink of, conflict such as Angola, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Burundi, and Cote D'Ivoire. Others, like Colombia, have relatively strong central governments but are cause for concern, due to their lack of control over parts of their territory. Still others, including Pakistan, Georgia, Albania, Yemen, Nigeria, and Indonesia, are weak, if not yet clearly failing states.
111 At present, the preponderance of state failures is in Africa. While the problem is not exclusively African, the prevalence of failing states there suggests the need for Bush administration policies to help stabilize African states as a strategic interest of the United States, and to allocate resources accordingly.
The Threat Posed by Failed States
Why are failed and failing states significant threats to U.S. national security?
First, these states provide convenient operational bases and safe havens for international terrorists. Terrorist organizations take advantage of failing states' porous borders, of their weak or nonexistent law enforcement and security services, and of their ineffective judicial institutions to move men, weapons and money around the globe. They smuggle out precious resources like diamonds and narcotics that help fund their operations. Terrorist organizations may also recruit foot soldiers from local populations, where poor and disillusioned youth often harbor religious or ethnic grievances.
Africa offers several cases in point. Sudan has served as a sanctuary and staging ground for al Qaeda and other global terrorist organizations. Its radical Islamist government is identified by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. Somalia, lacking any effective central government, has afforded safe operational space to affiliates of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have hidden effectively in various African states (including Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa, Cote D'Ivoire, Mauritania, and elsewhere), where they planned, financed, trained for, and successfully executed terrorist operations against American and allied targets.
A second reason, not mentioned in the NSS, why failed states represent a threat to U.S. national security is that they often spawn wider regional conflicts, which can substantially weaken security and retard development in their sub- regions. The conflicts in Sierra Leone, Congo, and Sudan, each largely internal in nature, have also directly involved several other states. In some extreme cases, these conflicts have exacerbated conditions in neighboring countries, accelerating, though rarely precipitating, their failure. Examples include the impact of the Sierra Leone conflict on Guinea, and Congo's on Zimbabwe.
The costs of such conflicts to the United States are substantial. They include: refugee flows that can reach American shores; conventional weapons proliferation that exacerbates regional instability and strengthens international outlaws; billions spent on humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance; the opportunity costs of lost trade and investment; and the exportation by criminal elements of precious, portable resources including diamonds, narcotics, tanzanite, and coltan—a mineral found in Congo that is used in products such as cellular phones—that failing states often possess. Failing states can also harm U.S. national security and impact American society in other ways, notably through their occasionally active role in narcotics production and trafficking, as in Colombia and Afghanistan.
Resource Flows
Much of what the administration offers the developing world could, over the long term, help improve growth prospects in a number of countries, but not in failed and failing states. The much-heralded Millenium Challenge Account (MCA), if fully funded by Congress, would provide at least $10 billion in new assistance to developing countries by 2006, and $5 billion each year thereafter. However, it is available only to countries that "...govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom," which clearly excludes weak or failed states.
112 The final criteria for MCA country eligibility are likely to be so stringent as to Right Focus, Insufficient exclude other important states that are taking steps in the right direction but are Response not yet exemplary performers. This limitation reflects a contradiction in administration strategy, since it often looks to these same big countries to prevent or resolve conflicts in neighboring failing states and to serve as regional partners "The National Security in the war on terrorism. According to the NSS, Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, and Strategy of the United States of Ethiopia are "anchors for regional engagement and require focused attention." Yet America" was issued by given the high bar being considered for MCA eligibility, most of these countries President George W. Bush on may not benefit from it. September 20, 2002. This Strategy, the first by the Bush administration, is issued in Despite acknowledging their importance, the administration does not propose to accordance with the direct new resources to failing states. Indeed, with a few important exceptions Goldwater-Nichols Department (e.g. in Colombia, parts of the former Yugoslavia, and now Afghanistan), most of of Defense Reorganization Act these states, especially those in Africa, receive little from the United States except of 1986, which mandated an emergency humanitarian assistance. While there are many reasons to be cautious annual report to Congress with expenditures in failing states, it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet serious detailing the National Security threats without additional resources. Strategy of the United States. A copy of the Strategy is available Trade at The NSS devotes substantial attention to the benefits of trade for the world's
developing nations. However, the goals and tools for spurring economic growth outlined in the NSS do not apply to failing states. Trade promotion authority, offers to negotiate new free trade agreements with various parts of the developing world, and even the rather broadly available, nonreciprocal benefits of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) do not apply to failed states. Yet some failing states are currently positioned to export at least modest quantities of agricultural products, minerals, and even light manufactured goods to the United States.
Conflict Resolution
The administration's approach to regional conflict resolution is notably cautious, suggesting a reluctance to lead efforts at regional conflict resolution, or to engage in peacemaking where the conflicting parties are not clearly ready for peace. If this posture were adhered to consistently, it would all but rule out concerted U.S. efforts at conflict resolution in failing states, few of which currently demonstrate sufficient will to end the conflicts that plague them.
In fact, the administration has been only selectively reluctant to engage. It has worked assiduously to avert wider conflict between India and Pakistan. In Africa, by contrast, the administration's efforts have been more mixed. The NSS devotes several paragraphs to challenges of conflict resolution in Africa and notes that "together with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa's fragile states..."
Yet the administration has largely limited its active diplomacy in Africa to efforts to end the long war in Sudan, devoting little attention to Somalia, Liberia, or the urgent cases of Burundi and Cote D'Ivoire.
Nation-building
If the United States is to deal decisively with failed states and to succeed at post-conflict rehabilitation, it must engage in nation-building. The Bush administration remains ambivalent on the issue. In April 2002, President Bush invoked George Marshall's vision as he spoke of the need for extensive U.S. efforts to "give the Afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirations." However, the NSS itself is silent on the subject of nation-building.
As a practical matter, the United States has been comparatively generous in helping meet Afghanistan's emergency requirements. But it will need to increase its assistance—with the help of other donors—and sustain it over the long term. Equally important is the need to bring greater security to the country. The Bush administration's decision to devote more U.S. military forces to helping stabilize and reconstruct areas outside of Kabul should improve security and thus conditions for development.
113 Other post-conflict challenges, such as Haiti, Angola, and Sierra Leone, seem to have fallen almost entirely off Washington's radar screen. In each case, however, important nation-building tasks—ranging from re-integration and re-training of ex-combatants to institution-building—remain to be accomplished.
Counterterrorism Assistance
The administration seemingly has few plans to provide much counterterrorism assistance to failing countries. The NSS states that: "Where governments find the fight against terrorism beyond their capabilities, we will match their willpower and their resources with whatever help we and our allies can provide." In practice, the United States has made only a few commitments to back this broad pledge in failing states. Colombia is among them, as a recipient of the generous Plan Colombia program and greater military assistance. Afghanistan also now receives significant security support from the United States.
In Africa, the Bush administration has stated its intent to provide selected countries, such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia, with increased counterterrorism assistance. Yet, with the exception of Somalia, for which the administration requested $1.2 million in counterterrorism assistance in its Fiscal Year 2003 budget (down from $1.4 in FY 2001), those failing African states that are most incapable of policing their borders and tracking resource flows—Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola—are not slated to receive such U.S. support.
Toward a New Approach
To address effectively the threats to U.S. national security spawned by failed and failing states, the United States needs to move beyond rhetorical acknowledgement of the problem toward a more strategic approach characterized both by preventive action and innovative responses to state failures in progress. Many traditional development tools require adaptation, and specific attention should be paid to limiting the potential for failed states to serve as havens for, or resource-suppliers to, terrorist organizations.
The specific programs crafted should take into account the particular circumstances of the recipient country, and some countries will merit more resources than others. Nevertheless, there are common, initial elements of an invigorated U.S. approach to failed and failing states that should be incorporated into a broad strategic framework, and linked to the extent possible to the efforts of such multilateral organizations as the UN, World Bank, and African Union.
Improve Intelligence Collection
First, the United States must understand better the specific risks inherent in each failing state. In this regard, we are severely under-resourced. With the exceptions of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Pakistan, and Colombia, where U.S. forces are deployed, U.S. intelligence collection and analytical resources devoted to failing states remain woefully inadequate. In Africa, intelligence collection has steadily diminished since the end of the cold war. The loss is particularly severe in the realm of human intelligence following the closure of a number of CIA stations. While collection increased somewhat after the U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998 and, again, presumably, after September 11, 2001, there is little evidence of sustained efforts to improve intelligence collection and analysis in most parts of Africa. As the administration obtains additional funding for intelligence activities in the context of the war on terrorism, it should direct the intelligence community to elevate the importance of, and resources dedicated to, collection and analysis in Africa and in other areas prone to state failure. Collection ought to focus particularly on transnational security threats, such as terrorism, smuggling of precious minerals, weapons proliferation (both conventional and weapons of mass destruction), crime, narcotics flows, and disease.
Take Risks for Peace
To deal seriously with failed and failing states, the administration must overcome its reluctance to prevent conflicts and attempt to broker peace, even where peace is elusive. There are no guarantees of success in conflict resolution, but there is also little prestige to be lost in failing, where credible effort has been exerted. On the contrary, where a threat is identified, and little effort is made to address it, there is far more ground for faulting the policy and its makers.
The administration should engage early and aggressively across the board when conflict is imminent or persistent—in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. The United States should continue its active efforts to defuse tensions between India and Pakistan and to resolve the conflicts in Colombia and Sudan. However, it should also immediately resume energetic involvement in the conflict in Burundi, which lapsed after the Clinton administration left office.
114 There, the risk of mass killing is increasing, and the United States could face the consequences of its recent diplomatic neglect. At the same time, the United States should provide logistical and financial support to buttress the UN peacekeeping mission as well as disarmament and demobilization requirements in the Congo. In West Africa, the administration needs to recognize the significant risks posed by political fragility in Nigeria and bolster the flawed but democratic government through such tools as debt relief, rather than by keeping it at arm's length.
Finally, the complex and difficult situation in Somalia now merits increased attention from Washington. Somalia's warring factions recently signed what may be a promising peace agreement. If the agreement holds, the United States should pledge economic assistance to Somalia and join with the European Union to provide logistical support to regional states, should they deploy peacekeepers to monitor the cessation of hostilities.
Help Failed States Regenerate
Where tenuous peace agreements offer the potential to revive weak or failing states, the United States, working with others in the international community, should be prepared to make sustained and large-scale commitments to post- conflict reconstruction, including nation-building. Despite negative perceptions of nation-building, there are several cases where strong U.S. or UN leadership has yielded largely positive, if far from perfect results. Examples of relative success include Mozambique, East Timor, Kosovo, Cambodia, and Lebanon.
Effective nation-building requires substantial investments in: disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, and resettlement of ex-combatants; skills training and food for work programs; and, building transparent, accountable government institutions, particularly in law enforcement, the judiciary, the legislature, and economic ministries. U.S. and other resources are also required to strengthen civil societies, foster press freedom, and professionalize militaries. Without sustained U.S. commitment to see nation-building through to its eventual conclusion, one cannot expect lasting progress in reducing the number of, and dangers posed by, failed states.
However costly and long-term, these investments are essential to securing fragile peace. The donors' bill for Afghanistan alone is estimated to be $10 billion over the next five years. The cost of dealing effectively with the post- conflict challenges of Sierra Leone and Angola, and possibly with those of Congo, Somalia, and Sudan, could range from perhaps $3 billion to $15 billion over the same period, depending on how many of these conflicts reach lasting resolution. The U.S. share of the total cost could be approximately 25 percent (our traditional share of international financial obligations), or between $750 million and $3.75 billion over five years. Such funds would require an additional appropriation in the Foreign Operations Account separate from the proposed Millennium Challenge Account.
Nevertheless, the successful rehabilitation of these failed states would pay considerable security dividends to the United States. At the same time, the United States would likely reap longer term economic benefits in the form of reduced humanitarian assistance and significantly increased trade and investment opportunities, especially in oil- producing Angola, Congo, and Sudan.
Provide Aid, Trade, and Debt Relief
Current development strategies leave little place for significant, non-humanitarian expenditures in failing or failed states. There are rare exceptions in high-profile cases where the U.S. military is employed, as in Afghanistan and Bosnia. While the bulk of U.S. assistance should continue to be targeted to viable countries well positioned to benefit from development resources, new approaches are needed to help spur long-term recovery in failed states and to assist in the rehabilitation of weak states, especially those emerging from conflict. The resources for such programs should not be sought within the MCA but rather in the form of debt relief for countries emerging from conflict and enhanced country programs with flexible programming authorities, such as the Economic Support Fund (ESF). ESF funds are controlled by the State department, and disbursed by either State or the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Limited and well-targeted assistance could be usefully employed in parts of failed states, but rarely is. Helping to establish zones of relative security and economic opportunity within these states would make such areas less attractive to potential smugglers, criminals or terrorists. An augmented ESF account for countries in transition, funded at approximately $200 million per year, could provide valuable seed monies for a range of high-impact investments in failed and failing states. Even as conflicts continue, the United States could invest such funds in micro-enterprise, education, sanitation, and health projects in the more stable parts of Somalia, Congo, and rebel-held Sudan.
115 Trade benefits should also be utilized to aid the rehabilitation of failing states. The United States has opened its markets to thirty-eight African countries under AGOA, but the eligibility criteria clearly are intended to reward satisfactory political and economic performers. Excluding failing states was logical, given the objectives of AGOA, but consideration should now be given to new ways to spur trade with failing African states as one of several means to assist in their long-term recovery. Special trade provisions could also be implemented for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Colombia with the aim of improving stability through accelerated growth and development.
Build Counterterrorism Capacity
Currently, the bulk of U.S. counterterrorism assistance goes to relatively stable states that are already active partners in the war on terrorism. This makes good sense. The United States should aim to provide more generous counterterrorism assistance, especially to partners situated in tough neighborhoods.
At the same time, limited and carefully directed additional resources could be provided to certain failing states that are presently unable to be effective partners in the war on terrorism, but whose territory is prone to exploitation by terrorist organizations. In selecting potential recipients, we must take account of their will to work with the United States, and not just of their weakness. For instance, it makes little sense to provide such assistance to the Government of Sudan until the United States determines it is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, or to Liberia, with which the United States presently has a chilly bilateral relationship.
While human rights issues must be considered, Burundi and Cote D'Ivoire could benefit from U.S. counterterrorism assistance. It would also be wise to assist the governments of Sierra Leone, Angola, and Congo to secure their borders and their diamonds from potential terrorist infiltrators and smugglers. The U.S. should also seek more active controls over uranium sources in Congo, Niger, and in other weak producer states.
Susan E. Rice is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
116
April 16, 2003
Teaching Hate in Saudi Arabia by Herbert I. London
Across the world one hears the yearning for peace, or at least stability, between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Acolytes of moral equivalence contend that Israelis and Arabs are equally culpable in advancing their interests. Hence a standoff must exist, unless some compromise is achieved.
Yet compromise is achievable only when both sides in a negotiation give in, and recognition of an Israeli state is impossible so long as it is believed that Jews are intruders in Arab land.
Recently the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace translated portions of textbooks used in Saudi Arabian schools. The books are replete with anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bigotry along with violent interpretations of Islamic scriptures. This isn’t different from the past, but the quotations serve as a graphic reminder of Arab intransigence and the encouragement of youthful hate even as Arab leaders maintain they are ready to negotiate a settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.
In a September 2002 60 Minutes program, Prince Sa’ud categorically denied that hate is propagated in Saudi schools. He noted, “Ten percent of what we found was questionable. Five percent was actually abhorrent to us. So, we took a decision to change that, and we have changed.” The evidence, however, offers a different story, one consistent with the widely understood condition that control of the schools was ceded to hardline Islamists many years ago.
In a tenth-grade class text under the title of Judgment Day, students are told to read “The hour will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and Muslims will kill all the Jews.”
In a ninth-grade grade class, students are told that “Jihad against the enemies is a religious duty.”
In an Arabic literature class, students are taught, “There are two happy endings for Jihad fighters in God’s cause: victory or martyrdom.”
In a tenth-grade Literary Study class, students are told to read the following passage: “Muslims will never get Palestine, or other regions back, without holy Jihad by which faithful throngs will march and fight, so that God’s word shall be the highest. And I do not think there
117 will be among us one who will refrain from answering such a faithful call.”
In a tenth-grade text, History of the Muslim State, students read, “There sometimes appears a racist nationalism like Nazism and Zionism.”
Quoting from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—the flagrantly anti-Semitic fictional text— a student handbook entitled The Danger of World Jewry contends that Jews are “upsetting the foundation of world’s present society and its systems, in order to enable Zionism to have a monopoly on world government.”
In a sixth-grade geography textbook, students read, “Palestine has remained Muslim since it was conquered by the Muslims. But imperialism has created within the Arab nation’s body an alien element—the Jews, who managed to occupy Palestine with the help of the enemies of Islam—so that element would be a source of harassment and worry, [a cause] of the elimination of the Muslim world’s economics, as well as [a cause] of the fragmentation of its unity.”
In a ninth-grade class on the Qur’an, students are taught that “The Jews’ . . . deception, shyness, and crookedness [was shown] when they used to greet the Prophet by saying ‘poison be upon you’ . . . as if they were saying ‘peace be upon you.’”
In a tenth-grade class text on Mohammed, the following quotation can be found: “In the present era there is no aggression against our nation more serious and more wicked than the aggression of Imperialism and its protégé—Zionism.”
The reader for grade seven notes, “The Jews . . . there is no bond that binds them, except for a corrupted religion.”
In the worldview promoted in Saudi schools, Jews comprise a wicked people whose disappearance is desired. Israel is not a sovereign state and Zionism is an “evil movement” posing the gravest danger to Islam. Rather than a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict, jihad and martyrdom are advocated. Christians and Jews are mortal enemies of Muslims and, as a consequence, no love or friendship can prevail among them.
Within this context, how can peace or even a modus vivendi exist? How is it possible to negotiate? And in what sense is understanding realizable?
I only wish the misguided moral guides who insist peace can easily be attained would read what is promoted in Saudi Arabian schools and madrassas in much of the Islamic world. Perhaps utopian schemes would be harnessed. As long as Arabs are taught that Jews are wicked and out to endanger Muslims, equilibrium will be a distant dream in the Middle East, a dream that occasionally rises like soap bubbles only to be punctured by the bright light of day.
Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and the John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial, recently published by Lexington Books.
118
April 15, 2003
Baghdad and Beyond
Another Victory for the Bush Doctrine by Alan W. Dowd
The Bush Doctrine of coercive diplomacy, preemptive action, and regime termination has passed another important test: After destroying the terrorist regime run by the Taliban and bankrolled by al Qaeda, it has dismantled the Saddam Hussein vast prison state, thus eliminating one of the centerpieces of global terrorism and preempting the use or transfer of weapons of mass murder onto the American homeland. But there’s more to come—and there’s more happening than meets the eye.
While the U.S.-led coalition swept through Iraq, the Pentagon quietly continued its ongoing operations throughout the eastern hemisphere—a fact underscored by large-scale raids in eastern Afghanistan timed to coincide with the initial assault on Saddam’s regime. In Pakistan, the Bush Doctrine’s coercive diplomacy has converted President Pervez Musharraf from the Taliban’s only friend into a dependable ally in the War on Terrorism. U.S. Special Forces now roam freely along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, conducting search and destroy missions on both sides of the border—sometimes deep inside Pakistani territory, and often with the assistance of Pakistani troops.
In the Philippines, teams of U.S. troops are conducting what the diplomats call “counterterrorism training missions” with the Philippine army. But if it’s training, it’s on-the- job training. As in Afghanistan, the U.S.-led force has smashed and scattered the enemy. Likewise, in Georgia and other former Soviet republics, U.S. troops are training and equipping local forces to clean out al Qaeda and its kindred movements.
From their perch in Djibouti, U.S. intelligence agents and military taskforces are conducting operations in and around Yemen (recall the Predator strike on al Qaeda commanders in November 2002), monitoring terrorist activity in the lawless lands of eastern Africa, reminding the Sudanese and Libyans that there’s a new sheriff in town, and intercepting suspicious ships transiting the vital waterways around the Horn of Africa. One of those ships was a North Korean vessel loaded with SCUD missiles bound for Yemen. Although the ship was allowed to continue to its destination, the episode sent an unmistakable message to North Korea and its ilk: America is watching and can strike at will.
Yet all of this was little more than background noise as the United States waged and won two major military campaigns in the span of eighteen months. Like some twenty-first-century posse, U.S. Special Forces rode into Afghanistan on horseback, the Marines by helicopter. The warplanes came from the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean, the former Soviet Union and the continental United States. The Taliban promised another Vietnam, a replay of the Soviet’s Afghan nightmare. But what the world witnessed was liberation in its fullest sense, as this
119 improbable taskforce rewrote military history and helped Afghanis take their first steps toward freedom in a generation.
Then, before a new government was even installed in Kabul, the United States swung its sites to Iraq and began assembling an invasion force like no other. Once called into action, it moved across the sands and skies of Iraq like lightning across the heavens. Saddam promised a Stalingrad, a Mogadishu. He wanted oil fires and mass casualties to show the world that the allies were no different than his thugs. But what the world has witnessed is the power of restraint, the shock and awe of a military juggernaut limited only by the conscience of a moral people. From the airmen and sailors using their missilery like a sniper’s rifle to the Marines and soldiers sharing food with Saddam’s victims after destroying his armies, America’s finest have risked their own lives to limit the bloodshed.
Saddam’s Baathists have done the very opposite. Cribbing their battle plan from bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Arafat’s al Aqsa Martyrs, they marched noncombatants in front of tanks, used school buses and pregnant women as time bombs, and converted holy sites into missile sites. Yet none of this deterred the liberators of Iraq. Instead, they fought harder and plunged deeper. Could it be that every fake surrender, every suicide attack, every atrocity, reminded the Americans of the men who planned and executed September 11?
In all of this, one recalls what an awestruck Churchill observed in the middle of World War II: "With her left hand," he marveled, "America was leading the advance of the conquering Allied armies into the heart of Germany, and with her right, on the other side of the globe, she was irresistibly and swiftly breaking up the power of Japan." Such is the reach of a wounded America.
But to paraphrase Churchill after North Africa, Iraq marks not the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning. The next test for the Bush Doctrine is literally as close as next door.
To the west of Iraq, the Syrian government grants office space in downtown Damascus to Hamas. Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, controlled by Syria, is a training ground for Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The State Department concludes that Syria serves “as the primary transit point for the transfer of Iranian-supplied weapons to Hezbollah.” And as the Iraq war crescendoed, Syria sent military supplies and volunteers to rescue Saddam’s dying regime. Damascus could send far worse in the months ahead—guerillas, suicide bombers, poisons.
A recent State Department report called Iran “the most active state sponsor of terrorism” on earth. Tehran provides Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad and others with funding, training and weapons. Contrary to the critics, these organizations aren’t just “Israel’s problem.” Hezbollah does advocate the elimination of Israel, a strong U.S. ally, but it’s worth noting that prior to September 11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group on earth (Louis Freeh, statement to committees of the U.S. Senate, May 10, 2001.) In fact, a full year before the attacks on Manhattan and Washington, the FBI arrested 23 members and supporters of Hezbollah—in suburban North Carolina of all places. And in February of 2003, eight people with ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad were arrested in Florida.
Simply put, al Qaeda is just one branch of a global terror network with roots virtually everywhere. Even so, the Iranian and al Qaeda branches have grown closer since 2001.
120 Western officials have evidence that Tehran has provided safe haven and safe passage to al Qaeda. And during the war in Iraq, Tehran slipped hundreds of members of its Badr Brigade across the border. We can’t be sure of what they will do inside Iraq, but we can be sure of what they won’t do—help the United States and the United Kingdom build a democratic, pluralistic Iraq.
Inside Iran, the mullahs are racing to build a nuclear bomb. A year ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concluded, ominously, “The nexus between weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist states that have those weapons—and that have relationships with terrorist networks—is a particularly dangerous circumstance for the world.” We may soon see just how dangerous.
Of the nineteen men who attacked the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, fifteen were born and raised in the cloistered wealth of Saudi Arabia. It was a Saudi millionaire who trained them and indoctrinated them, and many of them took their first taste of his poisoned brand of Islam in Saudi-supported schools. These schools dot the Muslim world; they are producing tomorrow’s bin Ladens by the thousands; and they are graphic evidence that the current Saudi regime is no friend to America. Like Pakistan’s government in 2001, Saudi Arabia’s leaders must be called to task and given a choice: either change the behavior of your regime or face the consequences.
However, those consequences don’t necessarily translate into full-blown warfare. Yes, the terror masters have watched the U.S. military destroy in five weeks the nightmare regime that the Taliban took five years to build. They have watched intelligence agencies, Special Forces, and pilotless planes systematically dismantle a global terror network spanning sixty countries and six continents. They have watched a divided, ambivalent America coalesce behind a mission and burden that other nations and prior administrations refused to accept. They have witnessed the flexibility and fury of preventive war. But they have also watched U.S. bombers drop JDAMs, while U.S. cargo planes drop MREs. They have watched America reward its friends with aid and warn its enemies with harsh words. They have watched Washington shrug off the diplomatic doublespeak and doom-saying. And soon, they will witness yet another expression of American might.
When the last of Saddam’s regime is defeated—it’s important to remember that battles are still underway in and around Mosul and Saddam’s hometown of Tikrit—thousands of Americans will quietly withdraw from the land of Mecca and Medina. They will join the quarter-million U.S. troops already in Iraq, take up long-term residence on the borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and thus begin the next phase in the War on Terrorism. Blending the surprise and lethality of traditional warfare with the tension and stalemate of the Cold War, what lies ahead is something altogether different—a colder, harsher strain of conflict.
America is well suited and well rehearsed for this “colder war.” In fact, we have been practicing it for months, if not years. Since September 12, 2001, the United States has been on guard, alternately showing restraint and resolve, the clenched fist of war and the open hand of friendship. Of course, this is not the first time America has called on its political and military leaders to be ambidextrous: Recall the long test of wills with Moscow that began with a humanitarian airlift into a divided Berlin, spawned a war in Korea that still hasn’t ended, cracked open the door to Doomsday in Cuba, and ended with celebrations in a united Berlin.
121 As before, the United States will menace the enemy, even while rebuilding the cities and society of a liberated Iraq. America’s very presence will change the behavior of Iraq’s neighbors. And one way or another, the United States will replace these enemy regimes with something better. If you doubt this, just take a look at what’s happening in Baghdad—or try to find the Taliban in Kabul or Kandahar, a Soviet armored division in Berlin or Budapest. For that matter, try to find the Soviet Union on a map.
Simply put, just as regimes come in many forms, so too do the tools of regime change—from coercion and cold war to colder war and combat. The enemy is learning that the Bush Doctrine, like its author, is flexible and audacious enough to employ any of these tools.
This article originally appeared on National Review Online.
Alan W. Dowd is a writer and assistant vice president at Hudson Institute. The author of more than 150 articles, he is a frequent contributor to The Washington Times, The World and I, The American Legion Magazine, American Outlook, National Review Online and other national publications.
122
End of the Beginning Hap Jitters, of the SF Gate Staff Friday, April 18, 2003
Here are some pictures that have stayed in our mind since the fall of Baghdad:
Click to View Full Size
The toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad's al-Firdos Square (reported by the Chronicle's John Koopman) was the defining image of the war, at least for most American media outlets. Elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East, the defining image from that day was taken during a quick, impetuous moment when Old Glory was draped over the statue face. Oops.
Of course, archaeologists and historians have their own defining images.
Suddenly the Bush administration got their long-hoped-for liberation exultation. Jubilant Iraqis danced and cheered. It was PR nirvana -- for a day, anyway. Until the looting got underway.
(Speaking of jubilant, how many local TV announcers have you heard pronounce that word as "joo-byoo-lant?" Same ones who say "Calvary" when they're talking about troop movements, not Easter.)
123 Newspapers printed "Baghdad Falls" over pictures of Saddam's sorry statue but no one wants Baghdad to fall. That would mean anarchy. And did.
The Chronicle's Michael Macor lensed a memorable picture of a boy standing amid the flames of chaos. Let's hope he grows up and runs across it while he's browsing these archives from his comfortable Baghdad home on his ultra-thin, wireless Zippium 3000 laptop supercomputer, built from all-edible components, powered by moonlight and laughter. Designed and manufactured in Iraq.
Removing Saddam took longer than 48 hours. It took weeks. But it was done. Quelling this storm of lawlessness and looting may take weeks. But it too will be done.
Lacking evidence their infamous native son was even alive, the men of Tikrit avoided the opportunity to stage a "mother-of-all-battles" last stand, preferring to take a vacation in the country just before Marines arrived. When they returned two days later, their storied ancient land had perhaps more future than past.
Three weeks into the Attack on Iraq and we're watching the families of POWs on one side of the TV screen while they're watching the other side of the screen which shows their sons and daughters being rescued live via satellite video phone. "Is that him? Hit rewind on the TiVo. There, freeze it. No, OK, fast-forward to real time..." We may never catch up to these all-too-real times. But we're recording them and we'll get around to re-living the highlights. Real soon.
124
Fallen Baghdad will stand again.
Like combat, anarchy is strenuous. Peace isn't just desirable, it's natural, the rule not the exception. It will prevail in Iraq.
Demonstrators and ruffians have taken over the streets, thousands cry out against George Bush, against American imperialism, against their fellow countrymen on the other side of the street who are waving the flag and shouting back. So which Baghdad are we talking about? The one in the desert or Baghdad by the Bay?
Being free is groovy. Becoming free can kill you. Is it even worth it?
Fully Engaged Hap Jitters, of the SF Gate Staff Friday, April 4, 2003
Lenses looking for subjects found the Face of War among the grieving in Baghdad. Whose bomb killed their beloved? No one knew for certain. We know it was brutal, if not smart.
125 Nothing came easy. Iraqi soldiers, regular and irregular, kept rising up for one more 'final' battle, as if in a Schwarzenegger movie. People who merely wanted to live -- often mothers with their children -- fled the cities. For some, there was no escape.
On the home front, anti-war activists' methods mellowed. But the dogs of war -- or "Chawgs," as Carl Nolte informed us -- had long been loosed and no sandstorm or firestorm or yoga be-in would hold them back.
Heroes all: Jessica Lynch, a young woman whose contemporaries are shopping for prom dresses, kept fighting as those around her fell... "Mohammed" an Iraqi lawyer, who happened to see her being slapped around by her captors as she lay in hospital, determined to rescue her... The special ops commandos who snatched her from that hellish hospital, where it seemed likely she would have been subjected to an amputation or worse.
Battles all over, too many to keep track of. Every day the war-summary map filled up with arrows and little marching men. Zoom in close, where the smell of smoke and deep dread mix, and you see they aren't little, they don't march much and they aren't all men.
No matter when they return or how, the men and women who are fighting this war deserve gratitude and admiration unqualified by our reservations about the righteousness of their mission. On this can we agree?
126
If modern weapons themselves looked as hideous as the results of their deployment, all-volunteer armies would be much smaller. But very scary.
When he gets back home, don't ask Chronicle photographer Michael Macor to cover any air shows, please. If he hears one more chopper blade beating... As for setting suns, he'd like one with lots of blue above AND below it.
Don't tread on me. Don't tread near me. Basically, ma'am: treading anywhere -- not a great idea at this time.
What two-word command was going through this Marine's mind at the moment this photo was taken? Hint: it's not "semper fi."
Hell Week in Eden Hap Jitters, of the SF Gate Staff Friday, March 28, 2003
Embedded reporters and photographers during the first full week of combat in Iraq have given us a fractured hall-of-mirrors view of the campaign.
Click to View Full Size
127 A week ago, many of us weren't so much thinking about a "seven days war" as we were a seven hours war. Then 'he' showed up (or someone who looked a lot like him). Heading into Week 2 we're trying hard not to think "quagmire."
You must admit that some measure of courage is required to face down a line of police and angry drivers in a downtown San Francisco intersection.
Then you see a photograph like this and realize what a full measure of courage requires.
Of course, our superior technology would easily win the day. Wire-guided missiles and 'Warthog' jets would wipe out their tanks while our Tomahawks chopped off their heads of state. And technology did win the day. The second day.
The next day, they came out to fight.
They didn't fight fair and we were oddly shocked. Suddenly we, the Patriots, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies (formerly known as the Redcoats), were swatting back scruffy "irregulars" who dressed as civilians, didn't march in proper columns and hid behind oil derricks. All hell started to break loose.
128 On toward Baghdad. Marines in a desert, ready to roll over Saddam -- say, have ya seen'm? -- and they are taking prisoners, most of them combatants, we trust.
None of us could see the Big Picture. But the growing heap of small pictures reminded us, uncomfortably, of "Apocalypse Now." "This is the end," sang the Doors. "We are much closer to the beginning," sang Donald Rumsfeld.
Sand blasted smooth, young faces only recently liberated from acne.
Now Jamie Maddock knows why they call him "sapper." You call upon a sapper to crawl around and poke the sand to unearth land mines. If the land is sea and the man is a dolphin, call him Sapper Flipper.
Best-case scenarios had the Iraqi people rising up everywhere to welcome the coalition troops, shoving the evildoers in their midst onto the firing line. Welcome to Iraq, where worst-cases get worse.
Wars always get worse before they get better because they can only get better when they get over. Right now, based on what we've seen, we feel proud that our troops are acting with precision, bravery and discretion. As they advance, many Iraqis will welcome them as liberators. And many will revile them -- us -- for killing their
129 mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Neither war nor life has got any easier since nine eleven aught-one, has it? Nor is it likely to.
Our soldier sons and daughters are now immersed in danger, surrounded by fear, targets of hate. They did not come in peace and the world may not be safer when they finish.
But, if they succeed, Iraqi children born today may grow up grateful for their sacrifice. That might not be sufficient justification or comfort but it could be all we get.
130
Sunday, April 13, 2003 ANALYSIS Plan for democracy in Iraq may be folly Experts also question U.S. ability to reform entire Middle East
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Now that the Bush administration has won the shooting war in Iraq, it has begun the far more challenging mission of transforming a brutal tyranny into a democracy, and then lighting the fire of political reform throughout the entire Middle East. Numerous experts describe the campaign as among the most ambitious political experiments ever attempted. Many insist it is dangerous folly. "Democracy has emerged at times where it had never existed before," said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who has written extensively on the spread of democratic movements. "But Iraq lacks virtually every possible precondition for democracy. And the possibilities in the other Arab countries may be even lower." He said, for instance, there's not a large, entrepreneurial middle class, almost no experience with free elections and neither a free press nor an open economy practically anywhere in the region. Murhaf Jouejati, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said it was obvious that most Iraqis were thrilled at throwing off the yoke of oppression, but that the looting and chaos that has followed provide an ominous sign of the kinds of violent forces the war has unleashed, and how hard it will be to contain them. "There has not been a single day of democracy in Iraq in its history," he said. "It is still a tribal and clan-oriented society. Democracy needs a social infrastructure that does not exist at all in Iraq, or elsewhere in the region." Nevertheless, President Bush and administration officials have stated repeatedly that their aim was not only to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein, but also to leave behind a robust democratic government and an open society along American lines. That will be just the seed, they have argued, for a flowering of democracies throughout the Arab world. But the region consists of dictatorships and monarchies where -- aside from a brief flirtation with political pluralism in Lebanon years ago -- no successful democracy has ever taken root. And now it is seething with resentment against America for what many Arabs perceive as a colonialistic intervention in Iraq -- a view shared even by some friendly Arab governments. INTERNAL PRESSURE Judith Kipper, the director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations in New
131 York, said that there was, in fact, growing pressure for change in the region, largely from the exploding numbers of frustrated young Arabs with few prospects of good jobs or the kind of education that could provide one. Experience has shown, though, that this has never translated into a yearning for a Jeffersonian upheaval, she said. "There is a real craving for something better -- to have jobs, entertainment, education," she said. "But they don't want Western-style democracies. Absolutely not. We should get it out of our heads that their societies are going to start looking like us." David Ransom, a diplomat who spent his career in the Middle East and was U. S. ambassador to Bahrain during the Clinton administration, said that open elections, if they could actually be staged, might produce even grimmer results, because many alienated Arabs would choose fundamentalist regimes if given a chance. "I firmly believe that even if we could get democracies there, we aren't going to like the results," said Ransom, now a scholar at the Middle East Institute. "I spent 30 years looking for grassroots democratic movements in the Middle East and I didn't find any." Added Diamond, "This is going to be a long hard struggle. Nothing will go quickly." Even some Bush administration supporters have raised serious questions about the prospects for democracy, and the extent of American tolerance. "I'm a skeptic about the ability to transform Iraq into a democracy in any realistic period of time," Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser under President Bush's father, said in a recent speech to the Norwegian Nobel Institute. He stressed the lack of functioning civic institutions and the bitter divisions among Iraqi religious and ethnic groups as obstacles to any sort of political pluralism. "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win?" Scowcroft asked. "What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over." THREATENING THE STATUS QUO Even some of America's staunchest Arab allies have bridled, because their own monopoly on power might be threatened by a push toward U.S.-style free elections and thriving political opposition. "The idea of imposing democracy from outside is not supported by Egypt or any Arab country," said Osama el Baz, a top adviser to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid. THE ASIAN EXAMPLE Bush has responded to the skeptics by pointing to America's success half a century ago in nurturing democracy among its World War II foes, Japan, Germany and Italy. And one of the administration's principal ideologues, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, has compared the Middle East to East Asia, where a sort of reverse domino theory took hold after the Vietnam War, spreading democracy rather than communism. "It's very important for people to understand this idea that Arabs are not capable of democracy is nonsense," Wolfowitz said on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. "I remember hearing that Koreans weren't capable of democracy, and that was a myth you heard for a long time. The Koreans have demonstrated they can do it. Many people have done it in the latter part of the 20th century. It's time for the Arabs to do it now." But many experts say the analogy with Asia, which has grown over the past half-century from
132 one of the most despotic to one of the most democratized regions in the world, undermines rather than supports the administration's arguments. Catharin Dalpino, an Asia expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that before democracy took root in East Asia, a solid foundation had been established: there was an educated middle class in each country, generally open economies reliant on trade, growing prosperity, a lively press and some experience with free elections and pluralism, at least at a local level. Each country had a generally able civil service, too. Importantly, she added, the movements took years to develop. "We have this belief now in a pop-up democracy," said Dalpino. "We think the fall of the Berlin Wall is the model all the other countries will follow, that democracy is just waiting to happen once you remove all the things that get in the way. It requires special conditions, and even then there are different kinds of democracies that we may not like." Diamond said that Iraq lacked nearly all the qualities that made most Asian countries fertile ground for democratic development: Illiteracy among adults is now estimated at more than 40 percent; the Iraqi population is young, with some 40 percent under age 15, but joblessness, even before the war, was pervasive; the middle class has lost its buying power and seen its lifestyle eroded; the economy, which is all but closed to foreign trade, is wholly reliant on oil income, with no entrepreneurial class. A CONTROLLED ECONOMY In fact, Ransom said, throughout the oil states of the Middle East, and especially in Iraq, the economies are even more firmly state-controlled than were the old Soviet-bloc nations during the Cold War, stifling investment and entrepreneurs. "The truth is almost anything you did in Iraq would be better than what they had," said Shibley Telhami, who holds the Anwar Sadat Chair in the department of government and politics at the University of Maryland. "But going from that to talking about democracy presents a lot of challenges. Nothing is impossible, but it doesn't seem likely to me. There is so little to open the way." David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University, in Washington, said that even in the most recent Asian success story, China, the economy has been transformed by capitalist innovations, while the government has maintained a rigid, one-party communist political system. The Chinese Communist Party devised a model in the 1980s that opened portions of the economy to foreign investment and trade, which eventually created an explosive boom and enormous wealth. The Beijing government has used prosperity as a means of staving off demands for greater political openness, but Bush has rejected that approach because of his insistence on democratic change. LOOKING TO IRAN To some supporters of the Bush plan, if not the president himself, Iran demonstrates the desire for reform and change in the region. A nascent reform movement, led in large part by students frustrated by government oppression and a lack of economic opportunity, has gained momentum over the past few years, with occasional outbreaks of civil unrest in opposition to the ruling mullahs. But experts also say this is a poor model, too, in part because of the slow evolutionary pace of change -- in contrast to Bush's whirlwind campaign in Iraq. Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran and a strong supporter of democratic reform, said there are clear signs of a
133 grassroots movement in Iran, and that American intervention would probably hurt, not help. "It would backfire if it were too overt," he said. "This has to happen through the Iranian people themselves or it could reverse." Mostly Shiite Iran is also far more homogeneous than Iraq, which is bitterly divided along ethnic and religious lines. Ransom compared Iraq with Northern Ireland, except there are three feuding groups -- the Kurds, the Sunni Muslims and the Shiite Muslims -- rather than two. "In the long term, I think if despite everything you developed a model that inspired public confidence, then there is a possibility," said Telhami. "But the long term is nothing but a series of short terms. When you light a fire, you don't know where it will spread and whose house it will burn down."
DEMOCRACY IN THE ARAB WORLD ALGERIA: Multiparty state with elected parliament and president. The National Liberation Front, the dominant party since independence from France 40 years ago, won the 2002 parliamentary elections, which were marred by violence. In 1991, fearing the fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front would be elected, the army aborted the final round of elections, which sparked a bloody insurgency. BAHRAIN: Became a constitutional monarchy in 2002 as part of reforms that paved the way for the first legislative elections in 30 years. Women voted and ran in the October election, which secularists narrowly won. Most power still resides with Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. EGYPT: President Hosni Mubarak's security apparatus and National Democratic Party have almost absolute control over the elected parliament. Mubarak periodically stands as the sole presidential candidate in referendums in which voters can choose yes or no. These always produce an overwhelming yes vote. JORDAN: King Abdullah II has virtually absolute power. An elected parliament has not met since 2001, although Abdullah promises parliamentary elections later this year. KUWAIT: Politics are controlled by Emir Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah and his family. Kuwait pioneered among Arabs in electing a parliament, in 1963, but the emir regularly dismisses national assemblies. Women are barred from voting or running for office. LEBANON: Elections are regular and lively, but are circumscribed by a power- sharing agreement meant to prevent a resurgence of the 1975-90 sectarian civil war. Legislative seats are apportioned equally to Christians and Muslims. The prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and the president a Christian. Syria wields great influence over Lebanese politics. LIBYA: Moammar Khadafy has held absolute power since a 1969 military coup. MOROCCO: King Mohammed VI appoints the prime minister and members of the government following legislative elections. He can fire any minister, dissolve parliament, call for new elections or rule by decree. Parliamentary elections held in September were praised as clean and fair. The Socialist Party won a majority of seats, but conservative Islamic parties did well. OMAN: Sultan Qaboos became chief of state by overthrowing his father in 1970. His family has ruled for about 250 years. There are no political parties or elected legislature. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY: President Yasser Arafat is under growing pressure to share power after four decades of sole control. The post of Palestinian prime minister was recently created. QATAR: Expected to have parliamentary elections in two or three years. It held the first
134 municipal elections in 1999, with women fully participating. Al- Jazeera satellite TV station, the freest network in the Arab world, is based in Qatar. SAUDI ARABIA: Crown Prince Abdullah rules on behalf of ailing King Fahd. There is no elected legislature. The royal family is under pressure to reform. The government recently allowed international rights monitors to visit for the first time, and Abdullah proposed that Arab states encourage broader political participation. SYRIA: President Bashar Assad wields near-absolute power, disappointing those who had hoped the young, Western-educated physician would open up politics after taking over in 2000. SUDAN: President Omar el-Bashir has been in power since a 1989 coup. Recently he moved to lessen the influence of fundamentalist Islamic leaders, but democratic reform is not on the agenda. TUNISIA: A republic dominated by a single party, the Constitutional Democratic Assembly, since independence from France in 1956. Opposition parties have been allowed since 1981. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Federation of states, each controlled by its own emir and family. YEMEN: President Ali Abdullah Saleh presides over largely feudal society. Although it has a constitution, an elected parliament and a lively press, power rests with the military and tribes. Source: Associated Press E-mail James Sterngold at
135
June 2003 issue
Bird's Eye Radek Sikorski
Rise Up, Return, Rebuild
As I write this in early April, the situation in Iraq remains unresolved. Saddam Hussein's militia--the fedayeen--takes pot shots at coalition troops and supply lines hourly but, so far, this seems more likely to prove an irritant rather than a prelude to full-scale guerilla war. Whatever its ultimate military significance, however, the resistance that coalition forces have encountered shows that at least some Iraqis are willing to fight and die for the Baath regime. Of course, little doubt exists that coalition forces will eventually get Baghdad firmly under control and face only sporadic resistance in outlying areas. A number of Iraqis will then cooperate in creating a new government. At that point it's important to ask which people, institutions, and laws must be uprooted and which accommodated if Iraq is to become a liberal democracy.
Fortunately, we have recent experience in replacing autocracies with democratic rule: Less than 15 years ago, communist regimes ruled all of Russia and Central Europe. Today, all but a few nations have the fundamentals of free society: elections, a press that enjoys at least a moderate degree of liberty, and private economic activity. In Central Europe in particular, the people saw communism as a system imposed on them by outsiders. Nationalism thus worked in favor of democratic and free market tendencies. Arab societies are different, of course, but parallels exist: Serbia is a rather close European approximation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. There too, a ruthless dictator justified his tyranny with nationalist appeals, invaded neighboring countries, and ultimately fell as a result of Western military intervention. Today, a relatively democratic government runs the country. In March, however, a former member of Milosevic's security apparatus assassinated Serbia's democratically elected Prime Minister; a tragic illustration of the old order's resilience.
Three major lessons emerge from the Central European experience. For regime change to result in liberal democratic order, a nation must remove the old regime from power, remember its crimes, and dismantle the social infrastructure that supported it. This will be hard for the citizens of Iraq, but not impossible.
First and, perhaps, most obviously, a liberated Iraq will not only require the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but also of the people who supported his regime. The
136 transition from dictatorship to democracy in Central Europe has worked in many cases, and its success--in terms of vitality and stability of the democratic order--has been greater the more thoroughly the communists were kicked out of government. Democracy is now least reversible in the former East Germany not only because that country has been integrated into the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union, but also because the East German civil service, police force, and army were thoroughly cleansed of former communist officials. Leaders of the STASI, East Germany's secret police, even stood trial for shooting people trying to escape over the Berlin Wall.
Most countries in Central Europe have helped to create this new order by remembering the crimes of their previous communist governments. In Hungary, a House of Terror museum now has its home in the building where the communists tortured their political opponents. In Poland, the Institute of National Memory prosecutes communist-era crimes, and the law forces informers for the communist secret police to declare themselves if they want to run for parliament or be appointed to public office. In the Czech Republic, employers can easily verify whether employees worked for the secret police. In Lithuania, the former KGB office houses a museum to Soviet-era persecution. In East Germany, the state opened secret police files and showed how badly the communist government had damaged the economy and the environment.
Thanks to such actions, former communists are forced to flee from their records. They serve as heads of state and government in many parts of Central Europe, but they won elections there by convincing voters that they had changed. All over the region, you would be hard-pressed today to find anyone who would admit to have been a believing communist. I once asked a member of Gorbachev's politburo, a former head of the Ideology Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whether his loss of faith in the system was gradual or if a specific event made him tip. "Do you take me for a fool?" he replied. "I never believed in any of that garbage." In a few more years, some will have us believe that anti-communists ran the Evil Empire.
But things get worse the further east one travels. In Russia, symbols of the old regime, such as the Lenin mausoleum in Red Square, have been left standing and, correspondingly, most of the media toe the authorities' line. Over a decade after communism's demise, there is a country in Europe--Belarus--where the former KGB is still proud to call itself the KGB, with "comrades" and death squads to match. In the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, the same hacks who oppressed their people during the Cold War do it with even more gusto, now that the Soviet Party Control Commission no longer threatens them with surprise inspections.
Building a liberal society on the ashes of a totalitarian dictatorship does not involve simply removing officials and remembering what they did, but also dismantling the social infrastructure that supported them. The threat to democracy in Central Europe today comes not from the average ex-communist, but from the old-boy network yearning for its past glory days. When former members of the Communist Youth League dominate the commanding heights of the economy as well as the judiciary, army, and police, a country can have every outward manifestation of a democratic order, and very little genuine political competition. The corruption scandals which now shake Poland show how difficult it is to make democracy work when the people who are supposed to run the system of checks and balances have greater loyalty to their old
137 "comrades" than the institutions they nominally serve. When businessmen see that more money can be made by bribing members of parliament than by inventing a new product, they spend more time cultivating their political connections than running their businesses. And the sight of former communists prospering politically and financially is deeply demoralizing to those who staked their lives on resisting those very people.
Justice doesn't have to work perfectly for society to operate smoothly, but it needs to prevail most of the time. For civic virtues to flourish, public life must reward the good rather than the ruthless. Iraq could follow one of many paths. Fifteen years hence it could be like East Germany--decisively, if not perfectly, integrated into democratic institutions. Or, it could continue along the same lines as Uzbekistan: A ranking member of Saddam Hussein's army or security apparatus could take over and continue things much as they have been for the past 30 years.
In a country where democratic traditions are weaker than in Central Europe, in which the ruling party is indistinguishable from a criminal racket, it would be a mistake to expect liberty to blossom as soon as the tyrant falls. Iraq needs democratic colonization on the East German model. Fortunately, there is a group of people who can fulfill the role of the West German civil servants and businessmen who took the new states under their wing when the Honecker regime gave up the ghost in the East: the expatriates.
The Iraqi diaspora, spread all over the world, is the only group of Iraqis who have experience with democratic life, who know the rules of the globalized economy, and who are largely untainted by collaboration with Saddam and his thugs. Bringing back expatriates to rebuild the country is working in Afghanistan; it should be tried in Iraq. The returning émigrés will not be liked--East Germans don't like the Wessis, the citizens of West Germany, very much--but they are the only group that can foster a cultural and political transformation. In the months to come, we should judge the success or failure of an Arab democracy by the number of Iraqis who vote with their feet to return to their country to take important roles in reconstructing it as a peaceful, liberal, and democratic society.
—Radek Sikorski is a former Polish Deputy Minister of Defense and heads AEI's New Atlantic Initiative.
138
Economic Shock Therapy--A Prescription for the Middle East? Lessons of Post-communist Transformations
Start: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:00 PM
End: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:30 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Summary
Economic Shock Therapy—A Prescription for the Middle East? Lessons of Post-communist Transformations
Along with far-reaching political reforms, the countries of the Middle East need to restructure their economies. Peace and security in the region will largely depend on whether they succeed. Europe’s new democracies went through a similar experience more than a decade ago during the transition from communism to democratic capitalism. On April 15, Leszek Balcerowicz, twice Poland’s deputy prime minister, the architect of its successful economic shock therapy, and a patron of the New Atlantic Initiative, delivered a speech about what those transformations can teach us about the Middle East.
The communist bloc was not an economic monolith. East Germany, for example, was considered much more successful than more eastern parts of the Soviet Union. When communism crumbled and the post-communist states began economic reform, they did not start on equal footing. Significant differences were present in the levels of inflation, share of agriculture in GDP, foreign debt, and dependency on trade with Russia. After more than twelve years of transition, these differences have increased even further. The most successful post- communist countries--such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland--are those that took the greatest risks and introduced the most radical market-oriented reforms in the shortest time possible. The reform process has a more detrimental impact on the general population when carried out slowly without sufficient determination. In general, people living in countries that chose gradual reform are not only worse off, but are more dissatisfied with their situation.
Iraq’s present condition is no more difficult than that of the Central European countries twelve years ago. Iraq has high inflation, variable rates of exchange (official versus unofficial), one dominant economic sector, rationing of foodstuffs, and a large percentage of young people. All of this is similar to what the first post-communist Polish government inherited in 1989. Central European and Baltic countries could share these experiences with the Iraqis, especially with regard to the privatization of small and medium-sized enterprises.
The reform process in Iraq will undoubtedly cause discontent among the Iraqis. Radical reforms will alter the social hierarchy and hit those who took advantage of a corrupt regime. These people will protest the most and they will do so loudly Those who will profit from the
139 reforms will be busy getting on with their lives and will not have the time to stage any counterdemonstrations. Since free media did not exist in Saddam’s days, the new media will use and misuse the freedom of the press. The media will look for sensational news and focus on the negative results of economic reforms, rather than benefits. The development of professional journalism is crucial for how the Iraqis will view their economic transformation in a few years’ time.
It is important not to underestimate the influence of the past. In free Iraq, former Ba’athists might still win elections. As in Central Europe, these forces have the networks, organization, and money to achieve political victories. Establishing a very limited state is the best way to avoid a revival of Saddam’s cronies. Such a state would be less likely to fall victim to powerful interest groups. The Iraqis need to devise their plan of action and use the upcoming months of postliberation euphoria for economic shock therapy. They should start by launching a dollar- based currency board and should avoid direct taxation. They should also introduce management contracts for the oil industry while it remains in public hands.
140
Political War Can Remove Terror Masters in Syria and Iran
By Michael A. Ledeen Posted: April 14, 2003
ARTICLES The Australian Publication Date: April 14, 2003
The battle for Iraq is drawing to a close, but the war against terrorism has only just begun.
As President George W.Bush has said since the first days after the September 11 attacks in the U.S., this will be a long war, involving many terrorist organisations and many countries that support them.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was never the most threatening of those countries. That dubious honour belongs to Iran, the creator of modern Islamic terrorism in the form of Hezbollah, arguably the world's most lethal terrorist organisation.
And then there is Syria, which has worked hand-in-glove with Iran to support Hezbollah both in its terrorist garb (Hezbollah trains in the Bekaa Valley in Syrian-occupied Lebanon) and its political and philanthropic costume, in which Hezbollah members sit in the Lebanese parliament.
Today, both Iran and Syria are engaged in a desperate terrorist campaign against coalition forces in Iraq.
And neither country has been reluctant to announce its intentions. Just over a week ago, for example, the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad incautiously told an interviewer that just because Iraq was conquered did not mean the coalition had won. He said the enemies of Britain and the U.S. would have to be patient, just as they were in Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, driving the U.S. and Israel out of the country by means of terrorist attacks.
And Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, announced publicly that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq would be even worse than that of Hussein, arguably the man most hated by Iranians.
Their strategy of a second Lebanon was worked out over many months, and in the run-up to the coalition invasion both Syria and Iran facilitated the movement of terrorists into Iraq.
The joint strategy seems counter-intuitive to those who believe it is next to impossible for Sunnis and Shi'ites to co-operate, and that Iran could never co-operate with the Hussein regime. But both Syria and Iran have good reason to contest the coalition victory. Assad and Khamenei have both heard Bush's reference to the Axis of Evil, and they have studied the many White House statements over the past 18 months. They have concluded that once the coalition victory in Iraq is consolidated, they are next on the hitlist.
141 So the Syrians and the Iranians are going to fight now in Iraq. They are not going to send their armies against us, but rather a swarm of terrorists, from Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al- Qa'ida, Ansar al-Islam and the rest of the jihad mafia.
Meanwhile, warnings in recent days from U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have signalled something quite new in the U.S.'s war against terrorism. The State Department and the CIA have until recently argued in favour of a sort of strategic engagement of both Damascus and Tehran. Top diplomats and intelligence analysts had maintained the U.S. and Syria had common interests in fighting terrorism, since Osama bin Laden had condemned the Assad family's secular tyranny. And despite Bush's harsh condemnations of Iran (an unelected regime defying the Iranian people's clearly expressed desire to be free), the State Department had continued to work for better relations with the mullahs.
But when both Powell and Rumsfeld come out swinging against the mullahs and the Assads, it is safe to assume they have solid and abundant information to show the "second Lebanon strategy" is being implemented.
So we can forget about the happy dream of being able to destroy the Baathist regime in Iraq, democratise the country and then turn our attention elsewhere. We are in a regional struggle, and we are compelled to deal with it.
Now what? The short answer is: regime change.
It is impossible to win the war on terrorism so long as the regimes in Syria and Iran remain in power. The good news is that both are vulnerable to political attack.
The soft underbelly of the Syrian regime is the very place Bashar Assad hailed as the model for the terrorist campaign against the coalition, namely Lebanon. The world knows Lebanon is a military colony of Damascus, and that despite its parliamentary fig-leaf, it is governed by the Syrian intelligence service.
We should unleash the full panoply of political weapons on behalf of Lebanese freedom: a vigorous human rights campaign, attention to the many stories of brutality and abuse coming from the lively Lebanese diaspora, political observers at every Lebanese election, demands for shutting down the infamous terrorist training camps in the Bekaa Valley, and investigations into the state of religious freedom.
Meanwhile, big brother should get similar treatment. Assad should be forced to account for the occupation of Lebanon. Perhaps one of those sanctimonious judges in Belgium or The Hague might have a look at the domination of Syria by an unelected regime from a minuscule sect.
I do not believe the Syrian people welcome dictatorship any more than the Iranians do, and the Iranians have made clear their hatred and contempt for the vicious mullahcracy that has wrecked their country over the past 23 years. In Iran, we have a seemingly irresistible political card to play: give the people the same sort of political support we gave the Yugoslavs under Milosevic, the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs under the Soviet empire, and the Filipinos under Marcos. We, and the Iranian people, want a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy. There is even a suitable leader for the transition period: the late shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, widely admired inside Iran despite his refreshing lack of avidity for power or wealth.
142 As Bush has said, this war has a variety of targets and requires a variety of strategies. No one I know wants to wage war on Iran and Syria, but there is now a clear recognition that we must defend ourselves against them. They are an integral part of the terror network that produced September 11. Left undisturbed, they will kill us in Iraq and Afghanistan and mount new attacks on our homelands.
But unlike Iraq, there is no need for a military campaign. Our most potent weapons are the peoples of Syria and Iran, and they are primed, loaded and ready to fire. We should now pull the political lanyards and unleash democratic revolution on the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran.
Michael A. Ledeen is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The War against the Terror Masters.
143
The War against the Terror Masters By Michael A. Ledeen Posted: January 2002
The War against the Terror Masters is a riveting guide to the terrorist crisis. Michael A. Ledeen explains in startling detail why the United States was so unprepared for the September 11 catastrophe; the nature of the terror network we are fighting--including its state sponsors; the role of radical Islam; the enemy collaboration of some of our traditional Middle Eastern "allies"; and, most convincingly, what America must do to win the war.
An examination of the rise of the international terror networks, and the past and current efforts of our intelligence services to destroy the terror masters in the U.S. and overseas, Ledeen's book also visits countries in the Near East and describes the terrorist cancer cells in each. Revelations include: how the terror network survived the loss of its main sponsor, the Soviet Union; how the FBI learned from a KGB defector--twenty years before Osama bin Laden's murderous assault on
September 11--of the existence of Arab terrorist sleeper networks inside the United States; and St. Martin's Press much more. (Washington)
Michael Ledeen, having worked in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Hardcover Council on international terrorism, is uniquely qualified to tell this story. ISBN: 0-312-30644-X
Summary
The War against the Terror Masters
By Michael A. Ledeen
This book assesses America's failure to defend itself from terrorism and outlines a plan for future success based on taking the battle to the state supporters of terrorism. The author argues that American exceptionalism that spurred the United States to its many past victories will drive America to triumph in the war on terrorism. Although always a reluctant warrior, America pursues total victory once drawn into the fight. In this war, America must topple the regimes of the terror masters to eliminate the threat of terrorism
Michael A. Ledeen, who holds the Freedom Chair at AEI, is also the author of Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away, 1996 and Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely Today as Five Centuries Ago, 1999.
If we look back at the long history of terrorist assaults against Americans and American targets and read the hate-filled rantings of the terrorists and the leaders of the terror states, it seems utterly incredible that our government did not realize what was under way. We really did not need sensitive intelligence to recognize the steady growth of the terrorist threat. We might not know the cave address for Osama bin Laden on a given date, but anyone who followed Middle East affairs knew that he was a true fanatic, had lots of money, and had trained numerous followers quite prepared to die for their mission--which was to kill as many Americans as they could. That knowledge should have driven us to act, and the decision to act would have driven the intelligence people to do their jobs. But there was no such policy commitment from our leaders and, without a
144 mission, the intelligence community was doomed to failure.
The primary failure was thus political, a lack of will to fight a real war against the terror masters. Without a policy commitment, the spies and the analysts took it easy, thereby closing the vicious circle. There was no policy to drive the intelligence, and the intelligence was insufficient to drive policy.
Other causes were lodged deep in our national psyche. Like few before us, we Americans have only a very limited interest in the world outside our shores. We tend to our own affairs, and we have done it so successfully that we are the first people in history to believe peace is the normal condition of mankind. That is one of the two major reasons why we are never ready for the next war. Every time a war ends, we demobilize, believing war itself has been defeated. September 11 revealed that we had once again let down our guard, despite years of terrorist attacks against Americans within and beyond our borders. We just ignored the terrorists and concentrated on the abundant good news.
The other reason we are never ready for war is our radical egalitarianism and our belief in the perfectibility of man. We think all people are fundamentally the same, and, having turned the study of history into a sanitized hymn to the wonders of multiculturalism, we are reluctant to accept Machiavelli's dictum that "man is more inclined to do evil than to do good." Throughout this generation of political correctness, it has been singularly bad form for anyone in America to suggest that there are some truly evil people, and even some thoroughly evil regimes, whose hatred of us is so intractable that "live and let live" will not do. It has to be "kill or be killed."
So we are vulnerable. The other guy always gets the first shot. But he had better get us with that bullet, because we have an amazing capacity to draw together and to postpone our craving for personal success and private satisfaction until the common good has been safeguarded and advanced. Just ask the Germans or the Japanese or the Soviets, or Mullah Omar and the other fallen leaders of the ruined Taliban, all of whom grossly underestimated our enormous capacity to rapidly unite to accomplish a national mission.
Few of us, before September 11, imagined that the American people would react with such vigor, such coherent rage, such determination to destroy the evildoers. Until then, many of us believed, feared, or suspected that our will had been sapped, that our great wealth had made us thoroughly self-indulgent and indolent, and that we might well fail such a test.
The Nature of War
The conventional mantra that the war on terrorism will be a new kind of war, unlike those we have fought in the past, is right about some of the details--we have several opponents, not one, and we will have to fight at home as well as abroad--but it mistakes the pieces for the whole. Our enemies are the terror masters--the rulers of the countries that sponsor terrorism, and the leaders of the terrorist organizations. We must therefore destroy the terrorist organizations and bring down the terror regimes.
This is a very old kind of war, and as luck would have it, it perfectly suits our national character and our unique military and political genius. This is a revolutionary war, reminiscent of the eighteenth century, the very kind of war that gave us our national identity. While we will have to act quickly and urgently against secret terrorist organizations and kamikaze fighters, our ultimate targets are tyrannical regimes, and our most devastating weapons are the peoples they oppress.
145 We will require different strategies in each case. We will need one method and set of tools to bring down Saddam Hussein, and a very different approach to end the religious tyranny in Iran. But the mission is the same in each case: Bring down the terror masters.
There are those who say we are fighting a shadowy, elusive enemy, but they are wrong. None of the terrorist organizations could flourish without state support. Once the terrorists are deprived of safe havens, training camps, sources of travel documents, the use of diplomatic pouches, and really secure communications, they will be easier to eliminate.
This kind of war comes naturally to us; we are an awesome revolutionary force. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture and cinema, to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence--our existence, not our policies-- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
Behind all the anti-American venom from the secular radicals in Baghdad, the religious fanatics in Tehran, the minority regime in Damascus, and the multicultural kleptomaniacs in the Palestinian Authority is the knowledge that they are hated by their own people. Their power rests on terror, recently directed against us, but always, first and foremost, against their own citizens. Given the chance to express themselves freely, the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian people would oust their current oppressors. Properly waged, our revolutionary war will give them a chance. You need only listen to the screams of the Middle Eastern tyrants to prove to yourself that they fully understand the import of the struggle. When the Iranian terrorist leader Rafsanjani announces to the entire Islamic world that President George W. Bush has "the brain of a sparrow inside the body of a dinosaur,"--as he did in late February 2002--you know he is scared.
We will succeed, for we excel at destroying tyrannies. The great democratic revolution of the last quarter of the eighteenth century bears an American trademark, and the entire twentieth century shows the awesome power of our revolutionary energies. Again and again we were dragged into war: by the Kaiser into World War I, by Tojo and Hitler into World War II, by Stalin into the Cold War, by Saddam Hussein into the Gulf War, and by Osama bin Laden into the war against terrorism. Each time our enemies chose the time, place, and circumstances under which the war began. They had all the advantages, and we have tossed them all (except al Qaeda, which will soon be tossed) onto history's trash heap of failed lies. We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail . . . totally. Ask Mikhail Gorbachev.
Lessons from Machiavelli
As we wage this war, we should constantly remind ourselves of the basic rules of political and military conflict, as laid down five hundred years ago by Machiavelli. They are as true today as they were at the beginning of the modern era:
1. Man is more inclined to do evil than to do good.
Do not fall for the fashionable line that all people are the same. They are not. Societies with a majority of good people are rare, and are constantly threatened by the evil-minded world outside. Peace is NOT the normal condition of mankind, and moments of peace are invariably the result of
146 war.
Since we want peace, we must win the war. Since our enemies are inclined to do evil, we must win decisively and then impose virtue on their survivors, so that they cannot inflict further evil upon us.
2. The only important thing is winning or losing.
Do not worry about how the world will judge our strategy. Just worry about winning. Machiavelli tells us that if you win, everyone will judge your methods to have been appropriate. If you lose, they will despise you.
3. If you have to do unpleasant things, it is best to do them all at once, rather than to do a long series of little ones.
Strike decisively, get it over with. Don't listen to the diplomats, who will always say that we can achieve our goals with a little bit of nastiness and a whole lot of talking.
4. It is better to be more feared than loved.
We can lead by the force of high moral example. It has been done. But it is risky because people are fickle, and they will abandon us at the first sign of failure. Fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater.
5. The world is in constant flux.
Therefore, we must never relax, never believe that we have a winning strategy. Things can change in a millisecond, and we must constantly watch for changing circumstances, and be ready to adapt to the new conditions.
6. Luck can wreck the finest plans.
Machiavelli played cards whenever he had the chance, and he knew that a bad run can defeat the finest player. Machiavelli ruefully admitted that the best one can hope for is to have good luck about half the time. But that should be enough for us because we are a hell of a lot stronger than our enemies.
America's military capacity and history of martial success foretell a victory in this war. Just as in previous conflicts, this one requires determination for total victory and elimination of the terror masters.
The War against the Terror Masters By Michael A. Ledeen Published by St. Martin's Press 262 pages ISBN: 0-312-30644-X, cloth, $24.95
147
A Peaceful Approach to Regime Change By David Frum Posted: April 11, 2003
ARTICLES National Post (Canada) Publication Date: April 5, 2003
So--what's next? The question may seem premature: Allied troops have barely begun, let alone won, the battle for Baghdad. Yet already you hear anti-war critics demanding to know who will replace Iraq in the Bush administration's gunsights. These critics fear that the administration is determined to launch an endless sequence of wars to reshape the whole Middle East.
But while reshaping the region is very much on the administration's mind, more wars in the region are not. Instead, the administration's long-range thinkers are planning three different approaches borrowed from the recent past to the area's three most troublesome states--and all three approaches are non-military.
For Iran, the approach might be compared to the approach the United States and other democratic states took to Poland in the 1980s. In Poland, as in Iran, an economically incompetent authoritarian regime ruled over an increasingly angry population. In Poland, as in Iran, there rose up a mass opposition movement against the regime: Solidarity in Poland, the student democratic movement in Iran. Back in the 1980s, the United States and its allies never confronted the Polish communists directly. Instead, they imposed stringent economic sanctions on the regime--and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for its covert newspapers and radio stations and to support the families of jailed or exiled activists.
Western governments followed the fates of Solidarity's leaders --and demanded answers when any of them were arrested. Publicity deterred the Polish communists to use murder and torture as weapons of repression. And as the regime's economy disintegrated, the Polish communists were compelled first to open negotiations with Solidarity, next to permit Solidarity to compete in semi- free elections, and finally to step aside for a Solidarity government. Fourteen years later, Poland is a democratic state and a staunch NATO ally.
For Syria, think Libya. In the 1980s, Libya was an audaciously aggressive terrorist regime, just as Syria is now. After a Libyan attack on a West Berlin disco killed three American soldiers and wounded four dozen more, Ronald Reagan ordered a massive bombing attack on Tripoli, the Libyan capital. The 1986 raid was followed by a painful series of covert attacks on the Libyan regime that shattered Muammar Gaddafi's nerve.
Syria has already suffered the first in a coming series of U.S.-administered shocks. Last week, American special forces sabotaged the oil pipeline that runs from Iraq to Syria. Through this pipeline there used to flow up to 200,000 barrels a day of illegally smuggled oil, which Syria resold at a large profit. The income from smuggled oil was one of Syria's most important sources of hard currency. Was--but is no more.
148 A postwar Syria will be surrounded on three sides by powerful enemies: Turkey, Israel, and a Western-oriented Iraq. Isolated, economically squeezed, vulnerable to terrible retaliation if it misbehaves: Under those circumstances, the rulers of the Syrian state may remain the same nasty bunch they are today. But it's a fair bet that they will become much better listeners.
As for Saudi Arabia, it shares more than a set of initials with South Africa. Like Saudi Arabia, apartheid South Africa claimed to be a staunch Western ally. Like Saudi Arabia, South Africa was governed by an ideology that many people in the Western world found repugnant. Like Saudi Arabia, South Africa claimed that greater democracy would plunge the country into chaos.
Through the 1980s, Western states used South Africa's desire to be accepted as a full member of the world community as a lever to force change. For its policy of racial discrimination, South Africa was barred from international sporting competitions, shunned at the United Nations, and picketed by liberal-minded people worldwide.
Religious discrimination plays the same role in Saudi ideology as race discrimination played in South Africa's. In May 2002, two Filipino Christians, Benjamin Diaz and Danilo de Guzman, were sentenced to 150 lashes for the crime of possessing a Bible. (They were finally deported instead.) In January 2002, three Ethiopian Christians reported to their embassy that they had been arrested, suspended in the air, and flogged with a metal cable for taking part in a Christian worship service. The Hyatt Regency hotel in Mecca is the only hotel in the Hyatt chain that will not rent rooms to Jews.
As long as the Cold War raged, Western governments did not dare put much pressure on South Africa, which was after all an important source of gold and other valuable resources. As long as Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, the Saudis enjoyed a similar immunity from international scrutiny. But soon Saddam will be gone--and with him, Saudi immunity.
The war in Iraq is coming to its finale. The process of peaceful change in the Middle East is only beginning. And what do you bet that the people who now oppose the war on terror won't like peaceful change one whit better?
David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.
149
Upcoming Events
Iraq: What Lies Ahead Black Coffee Briefings on the War in Iraq
Start: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 9:00 AM
End: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:30 AM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Victory in war has been achieved; victory in peace seems less certain. AEI will conclude its war-time series on Iraq with a look at the mistakes of the past and the challenges for the future. Will the Department of State snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Will the Security Council hold the Iraqi people hostage in order to assert "international" control? And what about the Iraqi people themselves? How will they recover from the terror of Saddam’s rule and the trauma of war?
Newt Gingrich, AEI senior fellow, will discuss military victory and diplomatic defeat--the imperative to transform the Department of State. Charles Krauthammer, nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post, will discuss stepping back and assessing the big picture. Sally Satel, AEI resident fellow, will speak about the psychological impact of the war.
Please join us at 9:00 a.m. on April 22 for analysis of military actions in Iraq, hard-hitting analysis, thoughtful criticism, and free-flowing strong black coffee.
Apr 15, 2003
Iraq: What Lies Ahead Black Coffee Briefings on the War in Iraq
Start: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 8:30 AM
End: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:15 AM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Victory is assured in Baghdad, but key figures from the Ba’athist regime-including Saddam and his sons-remain at large. Will we find them in Tikrit, or have many fled to Syria? How has the Arab media portrayed the war and does that harm American political ambitions to reshape the Middle East? And what of European public opinion, now that images of liberation flood the western media? Notwithstanding the collapse of Saddam and his statues, the hard work of regime change remains ahead. What has been done to ensure security and address humanitarian concerns? Timely analysis of the rapidly advancing military campaign and planning efforts for the post-war environment will be essential for understanding events as they unfold, as well as making the necessary policy decisions.
150
Why We Need a Democratic Iraq By Reuel Marc Gerecht Posted: March 17, 2003
ARTICLES The Weekly Standard Publication Date: March 24, 2003
In Europe, the United States, and the Middle East, it has become commonplace to hear doubts, if not derision, expressed about the wisdom of the Bush administration's abetting the creation of a democratic Iraq. Most of the folks who think Iraqi democracy a lame idea are of course also opposed to the war, and would no doubt be against it even if they thought Iraq's various people-- Shia and Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Turkomans, and Christians--could form a democratic union. If the Iraqi people had had a long, glorious parliamentary tradition before Saddam Hussein, liberal antiwar critics like Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (a tenacious supporter of Chinese dissidents) might be a little less quick to suggest that this war would be immoral. Critics such as former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski would of course have no such problem. Among the antiwar "realists," stability and the comity of leaders are the beginning and end of foreign affairs. The coming war in Iraq has already proven too unsettling to the world order they know and love.
But one can also detect even on the pro-war side an anxiety about America's assuming a serious democratic mission civilisatrice in the Middle East. There has been a distinct carefulness in the language of many senior Bush administration officials whenever the "d-word" comes up. The boldness of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz--"If we commit . . . forces, we're not going to commit them for anything less than a free and democratic Iraq"--has not often been repeated. Do a Lexis-Nexis search for the words "democracy" and "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," and you will see that Rumsfeld appears more comfortable juxtaposing "free" or "liberated" with Iraq.
Parsing the sentences of senior administration officials, of course, can be misleading and unfair. Until the presidential speech on February 26 at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner, President Bush had not clearly and forcefully put his mandate behind the democratic franchise in a post-Saddam Iraq. And even in that speech the president seemed careful not to overuse the word, preferring to describe an Iraqi society liberated from totalitarian crimes rather than one primed by America to enjoy the freedoms unique to democracies. Such distinctions are indeed quite similar to those made by many pro-American Iraqi exiles, who believe the United States' primary role is to liberate them from tyranny, not to instill in them democratic virtues or monitor for long those virtues' postwar application.
And any reservations senior U.S. officials may have about deeply committing America to the implantation of democracy in Iraq will likely be reinforced by the worker-bees at the State Department and the Pentagon, who will be directly responsible for policy on the ground. Foggy Bottom, which has never been wild about the war, does not appear to be bubbling with enthusiasm about the possibilities for the Arab world's first democracy. Our traditional "allies" in the Arab world--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan--aren't fans of this war, and State naturally absorbs the reservations of the officials with whom it deals. American diplomacy always inclines toward
151 preserving the status quo, and the Bush administration since 9/11 has adopted an approach to the Middle East--the Axis of Evil doctrine, the War on Terrorism, and the advocacy of greater individual liberty and democracy--that is enormously unsettling to the dictators and kings of the region, particularly to those aligned with us. Also, bureaucrats naturally think more about the problems and potential blame, than about the potential glory, that attaches to any situation. And it is easy to imagine what could go wrong in Iraq.
The Pentagon's brass has similar biases and concerns, in addition to worrying about soldiers' getting killed by Iraqis displeased with the postwar political order. And to the extent that the Central Intelligence Agency will play a role, particularly a policy role, in a liberated Iraq, its preferences will likely be even more undemocratic. In the early 1990s, the CIA threw its weight behind by the coup-plotters of the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group rich in ex-military men. The INA's coup d'état fell apart in 1996, but the CIA's preference for the organization--for hard-nosed military types over democratic dreamers--remained. Though central intelligence director George Tenet may be in favor of a democratic Iraq, the foreign contacts and inclinations of the clandestine service, to which Tenet is always attentive, will probably work distinctly the other way.
In other words, the soldiers, diplomats, and spooks may well fight a rearguard action against the president's vision of a democratic Iraq, and the usual countervailing forces higher up, particularly within the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, may not decisively weigh in against the skeptics, because they, too, may have debilitating doubts. A "Free-Officer" governing council of anti- Saddam military men may start to look like the ideal provisional government--and we will soon discover that the entire Iraqi army, especially at the senior levels, is composed of anti-Saddam patriots. Such an arrangement would allow the Americans to leave quickly--and senior administration officials keep hinting that they really would like to be out of Iraq within "months, not years."
In theory, this arrangement wouldn't abort the ultimate democratic objective, particularly if such a council included well-known pro-democracy civilians, and the "Free Officers" issued heartfelt pro- democracy proclamations. Hoping for the best, America could depart, confident that it had left Iraq a vastly better place (true) and that it had allowed the Iraqi people, or at least more than one of them, to determine the country's political future (also true). Privately, if not publicly, many within the administration--and the realpolitik crowd outside in America, Europe, and the Middle East-- would be enormously relieved, believing Washington had actually left Iraq and the Middle East in a stable state, certainly more stable than it was with Saddam Hussein in power. America might not actually have left Iraq "free and democratic," but the administration could plausibly argue that it had really only promised to put Iraq "on the road to democracy." The New York Times's Thomas Friedman and the Washington Post might huff and puff, but it's hard to see the antiwar Democrats in Congress getting much traction on the issue. Final score: realpoliticians 1, neoconservative democratic idealists 0.
There are, however, two main problems with a scenario along these lines. First, it's a decent bet that President Bush will not go along with it. He will have bucked the bureaucracies to go to war in Iraq, particularly the Department of State. He could well buck them again if they start to make arguments for a withdrawal from Iraq before it is evident that democratic institutions have a fighting chance there. The Reaganite evolution of George W. Bush since 9/11 suggests that the president sees "regime change" in Iraq in a profoundly philosophical way. If so, then pro- democracy Iraqi exiles who want the United States to transfer power to them prematurely, and
152 senior U.S. officials who want to exit Iraq within months, have already lost their battles.
Second, and more important, advancing democracy in Iraq is the only way Washington can avoid that which the realpoliticians most fear: instability, or the "Lebanonization of Iraq." This is so primarily for one reason. When the U.S. armed forces demolish or dissolve the Republican and Special Republican Guards corps, Washington will irretrievably destroy the old Ottoman political order in Mesopotamia, under which Sunni Arabs rule and Shia Arabs acquiesce. In modern Iraq, 60 to 65 percent of the population has humbled itself before 20 percent of the population. Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sought, in part, to overturn this age-old Sunni-Shia arrangement-- what Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami has called, "the social contract of the Arab world"--in his war of revenge and liberation against Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Khomeini failed because his Revolutionary Guards could not overcome Saddam's Republican praetorians.
The United States will have no such problem. When the Republican Guards crack apart, the Shia quiescence in Iraq, which has lasted since the British put down the Shia-led "revolution of 1920," will be over. (It in fact briefly ended in 1991, when the southern Shia region of Iraq led the rebellion against Saddam. When American tanks race through this Shia heartland on their way to Baghdad in the coming Gulf War, the defecting Shia Arab soldiers will likely pick up where their dead brothers stopped in 1991.)
The deconstruction of Baathist Iraq's officer corps, which is overwhelmingly Sunni in its upper reaches, will follow, assuming Washington doesn't try to intervene and save it. If Washington does do this--in the mistaken belief that the Iraqi officer corps is essential to preserve law and order in the country, or because surrounding "allied" Arab Sunni states beg it to--it's a good bet that U.S. officials will unleash the internecine strife they most fear. Any transitional government in Iraq that includes as its core Sunni military officers, be they native "Free Officers" or returning exiles, will likewise probably light the fuse of Shia Arab resentment. Violent resistance is sure to follow.
In other words, Washington must advance a democratic arrangement whereby the Shias can assume a political and military role that their numbers and social, cultural, and commercial prominence have long warranted. The Kurds, who have been even more abused than the Shias under Baathist rule, are also much more likely to respect a democratic regime that diminishes the power of the Sunni Arabs who've been lording it over them for decades. They will be much more likely to begin the integration, however slow and fitful, of their independent militias into a national army when they see that the Sunni Arab officer corps has been gutted and that Kurdish military men may aspire to high rank. The United States ought to ensure that Kurdish officers become senior officers as quickly as possible in any reconstituted Iraqi army. Ditto for the Turkomans and Christians. Ditto of course for the Shias.
The Sunni Arabs as a bloc may object to any democratic arrangement that so reduces their authority. The habit of authority is centuries old among them. Their habit of abusive use of power dates back way before the coming of the Baath and Saddam Hussein in 1968. Yet, the Sunnis too have been terrorized by Saddam's totalitarianism. They know how he successfully attempted to keep their loyalty by playing the minority-solidarity card. They must surely fear that the Kurds and the Shias--especially the latter, who live among them in greater numbers throughout much of Iraq, including Baghdad--will want revenge for the years of Saddam's barbarism.
Denied control of the Iraqi military--which in its rank and file is majority Shia--the Sunni Arabs will have nowhere to turn for protection but to a vigorous democratic, federal system that protects minority rights and allows them considerable control of their lives in areas where they
153 predominate. In a post-Saddam Iraq, the Sunni Arabs could well be among the most committed democratic-nationalists, underscoring the Iraqi identity over ethnic and religious loyalties. The United States should encourage them to move in this direction by superannuating the senior grades (try colonel and up) in the officer corps, and massively shrinking the size of the army, which has preyed on civilian rule throughout the modern history of the country.
Iraq's awful modern history is working in Washington's favor. The country's Shia Arabs do not yet have a ruling identity (they will, of course, quite quickly acquire a rebellious one). The Shia urban classes have never thought of themselves as rulers. Shia artists and intellectuals, who have greatly defined Iraq's culture, at least those bits of it not pulverized by Saddam, don't yet have any pretensions or post-Saddam grand designs. Intellectually, the diaspora may well own the Iraqi mind, and that diaspora appears to have reasonably strong democratic reflexes.
The main Shia religious institutions in Iraq, meanwhile, are in terrible shape, battered by Saddam's secret police for decades. They, too, will have to figure out who they are and who are their flock. Their centuries-old aversion to politics, which was integral to their traditional faith and demanded by their Sunni overlords, may come to an end, perhaps quite quickly. Yet it is by no means clear that a return of political activism among the Shia, last seen during the 1920 rebellion against the British, would lead to fundamentalism or other dictatorship-friendly beliefs. The Iraqi Shia clergy were in the past an intellectually diverse group. That diversity will probably return, and with it serious debate about the propriety and purposes of political Islam. There may well be few Iraqi clerics who would want to emulate clerical Iran, where mullahs no longer are esteemed by the common man.
Nor is it clear that the radical Shia groups that defied Saddam's rule--principally the clandestine guerrilla Dawa organization inside Iraq and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) headquartered in Tehran--will have significant followings in Iraq once Saddam is gone.
In sum, the Shia Arab identity is in flux. It could become democratic or dictatorial. The United States and its Iraqi friends--and among the truest of these is the Shia exile Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, the leading Iraqi pro-democracy umbrella group--have an enormous opportunity to encourage the Iraqi Shia Arabs to make the right choice. If they do so, no other force in Iraq, or outside the country, will likely have the strength to fell Iraqi democracy.
And on a grander scale, "the social contract of the Arab world" will no longer imply the domination of one people, one political party, one tribe, or one family over others. This is certainly the best, and may be the only effective, defense against the disease that struck us on 9/11. And if the administration is worried about the imminent prospect of clerical Iran's going nuclear, it ought to do all it can to ensure that the Shia Arabs lead the way to Iraqi democracy. A democratic Iraq could conceivably accelerate a similar spirit inside Shia Iran, where the ruling clergy has so far successfully corralled the desire for freedom. If the Iranians, who consider themselves vastly superior to the Iraqis, look westward toward a successful democratic experiment, they may react with widespread shame and hope--for Iranians, essential revolutionary ingredients. Washington has very few non-military options for preempting a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic in Iran. It shouldn't waste this one.
Nothing transcendent will ever come from Iraq, however, unless Washington takes the mundane preliminary step of destroying the current Iraqi officer corps. There are many other things that the United States must to do to clear the road to Iraqi democracy, but none is more essential or urgent.
154 If the Bush administration attempts to leave Baghdad before finishing this task--and it seems naive to believe that the officer corps and army can be purged and rebuilt in "months"--then the odds are good that modern Iraq's sad, violent history will not end with the death of Saddam Hussein. We can be certain that Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, will make us pay again in blood and tears for our fear of overturning the old order.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
155
American Public Opinion on the War on Terrorism
(updated April 11, 2003)
INDEX The War on Terror to Date 2 What Constitutes Success in the War on Terror 8 Too Tough/Not Tough Enough on Afghanistan 11 A Broader War? 13 >>War With Iraq: The Build-Up 19 >>War With Iraq: The Invasion Begins 31 >>Too Tough/Not Tough Enough on Iraq 36 “Rally Round The Flag” Effect 38 North Korea’s Threat 39 What If? Hypothetical Questions About the War on Terror 42 >>Preemptive Strikes: Reactions to the Bush Doctrine 45 >>President Bush’s Ratings 48 >>Congress’s Ratings 52 Trust in Government After 9/11 54 Investigations of the Terrorist Attacks 57 Military Tribunals 62 Personal Reactions to 9/11 67 New York City 78 >>Civil Liberties After 9/11 79 >>Voicing Views About War with Iraq 89 Attitudes Toward/Of Arab Americans 92 Immigration 96 Terror Warnings 100 Media Performance on War on Terror/Iraq 102 The Economy 106 The Stock Market 109 Views About Assassinations 111 >>United Nations 114 >>International Opinion 116 Key Dates 126 Other AEI Studies 128
Suggested Readings 129
American Enterprise Institute compilation
[Page 1]
156