|Office of Research||Issue Focus||Foreign Media Reaction|
MAJOR NATO COUNTRIES
Several papers headlined Mr. Bush's call for "Bin Laden, Dead Or Alive." This, together with previous Bush remarks about a U.S.-led "crusade" against terrorism, led papers in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Canada to caution against provoking Arab/Muslim animosity toward the West. Said right-of-center France Soir, "If Bush sees the operation as a simple attack on a stagecoach, we can honestly wonder about his capacity to lead a war between good and evil." Many also stressed the "delicate strategic balance" that Mideast/Central Asian governments--"trapped between contradictory feelings: anti-Americanism and aversion to the Taliban"--must strike. Meanwhile, in gauging European solidarity, London's liberal Guardian reported a Guardian/ICM poll noting that "overall, there is five to one British support for military action." "There is no disputing the bottom line," said the paper, "On this one, Tony Blair is definitely speaking for Britain." A German daily argued that Berlin "should resist any participation in a military strike" against terrorist positions in Afghanistan without proof of Bin Laden's involvement. Once again, conservative UK and Canadian papers were the staunchest backers of a strong U.S. response. They strongly rebuked those who "mutter that military action will make bad worse" and criticized proponents of the "'give peace a chance' school of international relations." As Ottawa's National Post put it, "Bombing the crap out of some godforsaken desert theocracy may not be the answer, but hewing to the philosophy of 'visualize world peace' bumper stickers isn't, either." But even the Times of London tapped into the prevailing mood in advising the U.S. to "avoid rushing ahead with an ill-aimed or ineffective counter-strike."
OTHER NATO COUNTRIES
Commentaries continued to feature a wide range of sentiment. The cry for action to be taken against international terrorism again was loudest in--but not limited to--the conservative press. Reiterating that terrorism is an attack not just against America--but "everyone"--observers in The Netherlands, Portugal and Turkey stressed that "solidarity with the U.S." is "essential." Some, reminding their audiences of the uniqueness and "greatness" of America, had no doubt that it would prevail against terrorism. Many others, however, emphasized that while it is imperative to fight a winning war against this international threat, caution--"not revenge"--must rule the day. Opinionmakers in Finland, Poland, Portugal and Turkey were especially concerned that the "upcoming operation might eventually turn into a war between religions." More cynical voices in leftist and intellectual broadsheets in Finland, Portugal and Turkey tended to fault U.S. policies for at least bearing some responsibility for last Tuesday's events. cont. ...
Meanwhile, there was increasing focus on the potential role of Russia, particularly from the press in neighboring Poland. Warsaw's centrist Rzeczpospolita observed that Moscow "is in a fix.... It has a chance to be in one camp together with the West and the U.S., but to do so, it will have to verify all its dogmas so far. Among other things, it will have to admit that the real threat to Russia is not the West, enlarged NATO, EU or the American missile system. The real threat is the utterly different civilization which Russia borders."
In non-official media, reformist Izvestiya and centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta insisted that Russia, "as a civilized country with a grudge against international terrorism," must "side with the international community." Izvestiya expressed exasperation with what it saw as Moscow's equivocation. Referring to recent foreign ministry statements warning against "unilateral measures," the paper argued: "Under normal conditions, it would be okay to engage in...theorizing about a multipolar world. But with war declared, you have to make your position clear.... Once we turn away from the West, we will be left on our own." Others worried that "America's drive for retribution" could lead to its "erring on a global scale."
REST OF EUROPE/EURASIA
Consistent unqualified sympathy for the U.S. and support for a strong response against terrorism was found in media from several former Communist and non-NATO countries. Opinionmakers in Estonia, Moldova and Romania maintained that if an anti-terrorism alliance is not forged, "only terrorists would win." Several were moved to write paeans to the U.S. Bucharest's opposition Romania Libera averred: "Without this gendarme, who gives us money and ideas, we would have started fighting each other again, here in Europe, for different reasons." Swedish and Irish columnists echoed such thinking in their observations. Stockholm's liberal Dagens Nyheter, for example, insisted: "There should be no doubt. Without the U.S. defense of democracy and human rights, first against the Nazis and then communism, we would not have had freedom of speech to bring up such a remarkable debate. To blame these reckless terrorist attacks on the American victims, in this perspective, is indeed monstrous hypocrisy." The strongest words of concern regarding an impending U.S.-led "war" against terrorism emanated from other analysts in Estonia and Romania, who worried about Russia's participation and the possible repercussions for neighboring small countries. At the same time, the press in traditionally non-aligned nations such as Austria, Sweden and Ireland pondered how their policy of neutrality would figure into the fight against terrorism. Notably, Muslim voices in Kosovo had distinctly positive tones. Editorials in leading Pristina papers were fervent in their support for the U.S.--"the...savior of the Albanian nation and its liberator." They were also quick to point out that Macedonians have apparently done nothing to demonstrate their sympathy or support for the fight against international terrorism.
EDITORS: Katherine Starr and Diana McCaffrey
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 81 editorials from 29 countries, September 17-18.
Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.
BRITAIN: "Two Nations, One View--Public Opinion Rallies Behind The U.S."
The liberal Guardian reported (9/18): "Anti-Americanism in Europe? Maybe, but there is precious little sign of it in this morning's Guardian/ICM poll on the British public mood in the wake of the terror assault on America a week ago.... Overall, there is five to one British support for military action against those who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and three to one backing for action against states that protect them. Half of us even say that we are prepared to get into a war. Mr Bush, meanwhile, still scores a 76 percent approval rating over here for his handling of the crisis. Poll results like these always need an accompanying health warning; at such times, people want to pull together and to feel they are saying the right thing. That mood could change further down the line. But there is no disputing the bottom line. On this one, Tony Blair is definitely speaking for Britain."
"Good Guys And Bad Guys--Mr. Bush's World Map Is Redrawn"
The Guardian also had this editorial view (9/18): "In trying to assemble an international coalition to prosecute its 'war on terrorism,' the Bush administration is being forced to change the way that it thinks about the world. This could be a positive development of lasting benefit. Countries it has treated as implacable enemies, such as Iran, have shown unexpected sensitivity.... Washington's refusal to encourage Iran's moderates, and its recent renewal of unilateral sanctions, contrasts with Robin Cook's policy of tentative engagement.... Pakistan is another point of reference on the Bushmen's learning curve. Musharraf's regime has faced increasing isolation since its 1999 military coup.... This Western ostracism, although justified in many ways, has in tun encouraged fundamentalist and pro-Taliban forces within Pakistan. Yet the United States now needs its old Cold War client like never before.... If Bush had been more consensual and less confrontational in recent months, Putin might be a lot less wary of undertaking joint action now. Broadly speaking, the administration's sudden, urgent need of allies, in Asia as in Europe, sends a crystal clear message about the dangers of unilateralism.... The most far-reaching, enforced change in Mr Bush's global outlook may come in U.S. attitudes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since the crisis erupted, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has not ceased to exploit it.... Now his short-sighted bloodymindedness, in contrast to moderate Arab backing for the anti-terrorism coalition, could yet be the catalyst for a historic, overdue shift in U.S. Middle East policy."
"America's Anger Runs Risk of Inciting Much Wider Islamic Revolution"
The centrist Independent contended (9/18): "The apparently abortive effort by Pakistan to secure the handover to the United States of the world's most wanted individual ensures two things: That Washington will intensify its preparations for a military response and that the panicked uncertainty in and around Afghanistan will mount. There is not the slightest guarantee, however, either that duress will force the surrender of Osama Bin Laden...or that his surrender will solve a great deal beyond assuaging America's thirst for revenge. The identification Bin Laden has reduced to one simple target an exercise that is fraught with hard choices for every country concerned.... Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan.... Each in its own distinct way holds a part of the key not only to the success of any U.S. military operation, but to its aftermath.... The cumulative anger of the United States is currently too great for Washington to renounce the use of military force, while the regimes in the region are too fragile and too fearful--or dependent--on Islamic conservatism to be able to give up Bin Laden or to agree to a joint remedy themselves. The swelling exodus of refugees from Afghanistan, anticipating a US attack, and Pakistan's status as a Third World nuclear power add powerful, and lethally unpredictable, detonators to the mix."
"Speed Not Haste--Bush's Question Of Balance"
The conservative Times commented (9/18): "President Bush has vowed to strike back swiftly. Speed is important. However deadly the enemy, its legions are invisible. No one is sure what states are behind them or how many heads the Hydra truly has.... Against enemies that operate across borders and melt into the shadows of anarchic or outlaw lands, coalitions are hard to mobilize and harder to sustain. This is a serious matter; many countries will have to be actively involved against this transnational terror.... Once the first flush of horrified sympathy and common fear fades, America will have to contend, even among close allies, with the temptation to treat this monstrosity as a 'one-off.' It will be argued that patient intelligence and detective work will suffice to master these fanatics.... There will be muttering that military action will make bad worse.... America would look weaker, not stronger, if it were to rush ahead with an ill-aimed or ineffective counter-strike prompted mainly by the need to be seen to act. That could produce uproar across the Muslim world and splits within NATO.... If support for the United States wavered, Iraq could also seize the moment.... The West could find itself simultaneously engaged in conventional and guerrilla wars. The United States must decide early what help it needs, from whom, and for what purposes. Against stateless terror, states may not be the best targets.... The more concentrated the targets, the better.... Special forces operations that track down and kill individual terrorists will be more effective that hundreds of missile attacks. This puts a premium on base facilities, in Central Asia as well as the Middle East.... Moscow's support is now hugely important.... No strategy can be confined to a single country or region. These Islamist assailants have tentacles everywhere. To counter them, America's reach needs to be equally long.... No potential ally, not even Iran, should be neglected."
FRANCE: "The War Of Words"
Left-of-center Le Monde's editorial read (9/18): "The United States is considering a long drawn-out campaign.... It is difficult to ignore the fact that the United States has always refused to help Massoud, the man who embodied resistance against the Taleban. And while Saudi Arabia is considered an U.S. ally, the hypocrisy that has become evident these past few years is enormous. For this is where the financial support of Islamic radical groups comes from.... Such examples underscore to what extent America's policy in that region will need to change, if the words heard in Washington are to carry any meaning. On Sunday, President Bush spoke of a 'crusade.' But if this 'war' should directly affect moderate Arab countries, if it takes on the guise of a war between civilizations, it could well contribute to fulfilling Ben Laden's objective: a conflict between the Arab Muslim world and the West. This is exactly what must be avoided."
"The Sheriff And The Golden Calf"
Bernard Morrot judged in right-of-center France Soir (9/18): "Two surprising incidents happened yesterday.... One was the reopening of Wall Street in an atmosphere of near-hysteria.... The other unpleasant happening that needs to be noted is President Bush's metamorphosis into the character of a Western film sheriff as he spoke to the press...and called for Bin Laden, 'dead or alive.' The lightness of the apparent joke leaves us with a bad aftertaste as one thinks of the man responsible for the apocalyptic carnage and about the thousands of soldiers who will track him down and will probably never come back. If President Bush sees the operation as a simple attack on a stagecoach, we can honestly wonder about his capacity to lead a war between good and evil."
Pascal Odent held in communist L'Humanite (9/18): "The call by President Bush for a crusade as an answer to last week's terrorist attack is the worst possible approach. This is exactly what the perpetrators are waiting for. Because they are involved in a war against the West...all their wishes would be granted if American officials decided to answer with the same level of attack against civilians. The escalation would become the nightmare of nightmares for humanity: a conflict between civilizations."
GERMANY: "Europe Must Warn United States"
Bettina Vestring wrote in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (9/18): "With the decision from last Wednesday, the Alliance partners have issued a blank check to the United States. Even before they knew who was the author of the terrorist attacks, they said that retaliatory strikes are morally justified and allowed according to international law. With this decision, the European countries...have unconditionally subjected to the primacy of U.S. politics.... But the more often European politicians hear how President Bush is calling for a war, the more scared they are. A 'crusade' against the evil is the latest term the president uses. For Europeans--and for Arabs--these words conjure up the ominous picture of a Western religious campaign against Islam.... Bush's new campaign is extremely risky. The longer it lasts, the tougher the U.S. retaliatory strikes are, and the more comprehensive they are, the greater is the danger that the next generation of suicide attackers will take revenge. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is right when he warns that 'in the end, the reaction should not create more instability than prevailed before.' Other measures against terrorism are possible and reasonable. All Western countries...must rethink their arms export policy.... But in the eyes of the Americans such measures are not able to replace a retaliatory strike.... That is why the Europeans are now obliged to advise the United States to pursue a different policy. And the more the Europeans speak with one voice, the earlier Washington will listen."
Karl Grobe had this to say in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (9/18): "The collapse of Pakistan could be the first consequence of U.S. action in the region. But this would not be a simple change of power but the outbreak of a permanent and unresolvable crisis that goes far beyond the country's own border.... At issue is the use of means which do not create more trouble than has already been created. It is advisable to think it over again and again before taking action."
Heribert Prantl observed in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (9/18): "Chancellor Schroeder has asked for 'courage.' The careful checking of all options, the weighing of the possibilities and consequences of campaigns demand more courage than the blind embrace of action. So far, the United States has shown this courage. German politicians should have it as well.... One cannot rule out the military option, but it remains the ultimate measure."
"The New Contract With United States"
Nikolaus Blome commented in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (9/18): "President Bush is not likely to count on German tanks or paratroopers during his retaliatory strike. However, the Americans will insist on political solidarity on the day after the strike, solidarity without restrictions, just as if Germany, too, was waging war against the enemies of freedom. And that is why it is only half-true if the German government keeps stating that 'we are not at war.' Militarily, the statement is correct; no country has attacked us. Politically, however, the statement is false; everything our country stands for was hit in the New York attack. The biggest challenge for the German government will not be to organize parliamentary support for a probably marginal participation of the Bundeswehr in a military strike. The real task is to maintain the current and virtually comprehensive solidarity with the United States over time. And the Americans will keep reminding us of this fact for years.... At stake is nothing less than a new contract with the United States.... And we owe it not only to the New York victims to enter into this contract."
"Military Strike Under One Condition"
Business Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg judged (9/18): "Germany's political leadership is heading for difficult times. Very soon, the chancellor and his foreign minister could be forced to react to the appeal of the U.S. government to take part in military strikes against Afghanistan or other countries. But once this situation arises, the responsible officials must decide with a cool head.... The guiding principle can then only be: military strikes are a legitimate means to fight international terrorism if they are well-based, appropriate and efficient.... Military strikes against terrorist positions in Afghanistan are justified only if the United States present evidence of an involvement of Osama Bin Laden. If George Bush is unable to present this evidence, the German government must resist any participation in a military strike.... If the populations in Islamic countries such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who are now willing to cooperate, were of the opinion that the military strikes were arbitrary or unfair, they would revolt. The collapse of Washington's laboriously forged anti-terror coalition would then be the result."
ITALY: “From Iran To Sudan, America Is Weaving A Network Of Unusual Friends”
Guido Olimpo filed from Jerusalem in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (9/18): “ Washington is courting the Ayatollahs. And it seems that this time the Tehran regime has put aside its deep-rooted hostility against the 'Great Satan.’… Secretary Powell expressed interest in Tehran’s opening, while not forgetting deep differences.... But, faced with a new challenge, the United States is trying to avoid the opening of new fronts. And it is not an easy maneuver.... Washington is having some difficulties with its most faithful ally, Israel.... On the contrary, (good) surprises came from Libya and Sudan, two countries that are on Washington’s black list.”
"Bush Wants Bin Laden, 'We Will Catch Him, Dead Or Alive'"
Bruno Marolo filed from Washington in pro-Democratic Left party (DS) L'Unita' (9/18): "Catch him dead or alive. Bush talked like a Western sheriff and announced 'a new kind of war' against his number one enemy Osama Bin Laden.... It was not by chance that Powell talked about the need to give CIA agents the right to kill.... Now that the president wants Laden 'dead or alive,' the American Constitution gives him the right to revoke that ban.... Bush also reaffirmed that he wants to 'lead a coalition' against terror.... But it will take time to start up the terror coalition, all the more so since European governments seem reluctant to participate in military operations. But public opinion is urging the president to do something now. NSC Advisor Rice suggested that they would carry out a demonstrative action soon, followed by a much more massive crusade."
"Ruggiero To Meet Powell In Washington, Dispute Over Martino's Statements"
An article in Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (9/18), previewing Italian FM Ruggiero's meeting with Secretary Powell, stated: "Ruggiero's visit will focus on terrorism. It will also help clarify the idea in U.S. public opinion, prompted by Defense Minister Martino's recent statements that Italy would not participate in military efforts against international terrorism. Secretary Powell yesterday clarified, in response to a specific question on Italy's attitude by a U.S. journalist, that he does not believe this version of the facts and that, in any case, he would discuss the issue with Ruggiero."
"Washington Does Not Trust Italy "
According to a front-page story in pro-Democratic Left party (DS) L'Unita' by Fabio Luppino (9/18): "During yesterday's press briefing, Colin Powell was asked about Italy.... Washington heard the echo of Italy being its most faithful country. Or are there many Italies? PM Berlusconi from London was cautious, but then he said that the right word is 'war.' Foreign Minister Ruggiero invoked a great coalition, a UN role, and warned about the danger of a religious war.... Italian Defense Minister Martino was the most open to the possibility of an attack.... By doing so, Martino corrected the position expressed 48 hours earlier...that was judged too weak for a defense minister--and for the White House too."
BELGIUM: "Don't Add Violence To Violence"
Chief editor Pierre Lefevre held in left-of-center Le Soir (9/18): "The recent attacks against the United States are really unacceptable and the culprits must be hunted down, condemned, and punished. But one should not therefore add violence to violence. In this regard, President Bush's last statements are worrying.... If those who committed these barbaric acts must be punished, one should not pick the wrong enemy, neither the wrong target, nor the wrong stick. If this is a war, it must be waged against the terrorists, not against a religion, a civilization, or a country with innocent civilians. It must be waged with determination, but also with cleverness, without being driven into the spiral of violence which terrorists would like to drive us into."
"Not Clever Words"
Foreign affairs writer Axel Buyse in independent Catholic De Standaard remarked (9/18): "President George W. Bush was not very clever when he used the word 'crusade' during a short improvised statement. Many Arabs still react outrageously when they hear that term.... Whether (he used that word) consciously or not, the message must have hit the Arab world heavily. That message was not really an ointment on the already very tormented Arab soul. It is a fact that symbols play an exceptionally important role in this kind of blurred conflicts into which the West has been dragged up to its neck.... By using the word 'crusade,' the President used a symbol that is 'loaded' in Arab-Islamic eyes."
"U.S. Threat To Attack Could Have Far-Reaching Consequences"
Independent De Morgen remarked (9/18): "Much depends on further developments in this crisis. The U.S. threat to attack the countries that are believed to support terrorism will have consequences not only for those countries but also for unstable pro-Western regimes in the Middle East--which might be confronted with revolts. It is not unthinkable that the oil supply becomes threatened and that the price of oil skyrockets again. That would make the recession much deeper and more global. In the meantime, already the thought that such scenario may become reality has a paralyzing impact."
SPAIN: "Checkmated Afghanistan"
Conservative ABC commented (9/18): "The Taliban regime believes itself entitled to defy all humanity by refusing to extradite Bin Laden. They are wrong and will soon discover the advantage of handing over a man who for some time has been among the most wanted men in the world.... The Taliban regime must learn that it cannot continue to remain isolated and ignore the rest of the world."
"Pakistan Must Continue To Pressure Taliban Regime"
Independent El Mundo remarked (9/18): "Although foreseeable, the failure of the Pakistani diplomatic mission in Afghanistan is worrisome.... The Pakistani position in what is shaping up to be a long, cruel conflict is indeed delicate.... It is not in Pakistan's interest to become the target of the rage of the American colossus. On the contrary, it must continue working so that the reprisal is quick, efficient and, above all, so that it causes the fewest possible casualties."
"A Delicate Balance"
Centrist La Vanguardia said (9/18): "The attacks against Washington and New York have broken down the delicate strategic balance in Middle Asia, where each country plays its cards with declarations of condolence to the United States.... But many of the governments in the region are trapped between contradictory feelings: anti-Americanism and aversion to the Taliban. Religious and political influences can destabilize them. All this makes it more difficult to fulfil the American desire of forming a large international coalition that supports and legitimates even more the 'dirty and perverse' war.... Once again, the situation has its critical point in the Middle East, where Sharon's attacks against the Palestinians feed the feelings of the Arab population against the United States. If diplomacy fails, weapons will speak and their roar will shake the entire world."
CANADA: "Wanted: Dead Or Alive"
Political columnist Michel C. Auger observed in mass-market Journal de MontrTal (9/18): "This (dead or alive speech) is President Bush's first mistake since the start of what he chose to call a war, but it's a mistake that will cost him dearly. That's a shame, because all the headlines will carry those words instead of the very fine speech he made a few hours later at the Washington mosque, where he spoke of tolerance and reassured members of the United States' Muslim community.... But when he said he wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive,' just like in cowboy movies, Bush committed two mistakes. First, he will alienate the international community--especially the moderate Arab states whose support he desperately needs.... The declaration is also a mistake in the United States because it raises the bar very high: Nobody knows for sure if bin Laden will be captured. After all, the man has been wanted since Bush Senior was president... Recent history shows such a situation is dangerous for Mr. Bush. Popularity acquired during a crisis does not last forever."
"When Counterattacking, Restraint Is The Byword"
According to an editorial in the leading Globe and Mail (9/17): "Goading the enemy into an indiscriminate counterattack is chapter one in the terrorist handbook. It is just what the terrorists would like Mr. Bush to do. If he is wise, he will disappoint them."
"Make Sense, Not War"
Under the subheads, "What Canada should do" and "A different kind of threat to our security requires a different kind of international response", former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy opined in the leading Globe and Mail (9/17): "If an anti-terror initiative is to work, less-developed nations all over the world must be persuaded that we in the industrialized world view them as fellow victims of terror and not suspect them unreasonably as perpetrators. Canada must also look seriously to security issues at home.... However, there should not be a rush to judgment, with hasty decisions being propelled by the mood of the moment. There needs to be reasoned and open public debate. The issue of Canada's human security policy, must be the subject of a major parliamentary study."
"A Planet Behind A Country"
Michel Gauthier, editor-in-chief of Ottawa's only French language daily, Le Droit editorialized (9/17): "Even if rage and resentment are still in the hearts of the American people, its leaders have up to now been able to handle this crisis in an exemplary fashion and resist the temptation to hit rapidly and blindly. Sound decision. A precipitous military action against Afghanistan could only be a failure."
"The War Against The Enlightenment"
Under the subhead "Do away with the facile theory that Tuesday's attack was brought about by U.S. 'Imperialism' or its support for Israel", the conservative National Post (9/17): "The greater challenge will be getting commitments from Muslim nations that are besieged or influenced by Islamist constituencies--such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Algeria. These nations are close to the fissure between the pre- and post-Enlightenment worlds.... We do not doubt that it will be a long and frustrating contest. But we have every hope and belief that the side of enlightened civilization will prevail."
"Common Sense From Manley"
The conservative National Post judged (9/17): "Canada has for too long imagined itself the international Boy Scout that all countries and peoples can trust.... [Foreign Minister] Manley is more hard-headed than that. He knows we are at war and what that means. Canada needs to muster a proper diplomatic, financial, legal and military response to what took place last Tuesday. We hope Mr. Manley's resolve will stiffen the spine of those colleagues clinging to a world now lost."
"Peace Has Had Its Chance"
Under the subhead "The [the government-run] CBC is ground zero for the moral equivalence crowd", Lorne Gunter wrote in the conservative National Post (9/17): "I wondered how long it would take before Canada's foreign policy establishment and its palace organs, such as the CBC and Toronto Star, considered it seemly again to assert the 'give peace a chance' school of international relations in the face of last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The answer was: precisely 72 hours. By Friday morning, the CBC in particular had given over its airwaves to academics and pundits who questioned the wisdom of a military response and who cautiously advanced the premise that we, the West, with our insensitivity to the troubled peoples of the world, were just as culpable (or nearly so) as the murderers who plotted and launched the attacks.... Bombing the crap out of some God forsaken desert theocracy may not be the answer, but hewing to the philosophy of 'Visualize world peace' bumper stickers isn't, either."
OTHER NATO COUNTRIES
FINLAND: "War Against Terrorism, Not Revenge"
Leading Helsingin Sanomat ran this op-ed piece by Cmdr. Jyrki Berner of the Finnish War College (9/18): "Talking about revenge in connection with the consequences of the terrorist attack against the United States is wrong and misleading. If and when the United States with its permanent allies and the temporary anti-terrorism coalition it has rallied will resort to warfare, it is not revenge. All NATO summits over the past decade have pointed to the increasing threat of terrorism. Last week's strikes in New York and Washington show that the precautions taken have not been sufficient. Now terrorism is taken seriously everywhere and there is a resolve to bring to an end. Many European countries have not until now taken the threat seriously. It has mainly been regarded as a US problem. The present US leadership represents the so-called realistic view in international politics. Measures appear to be under highly responsible preparation, and they have received extensive international support. The United States is not about to start the operations alone, but with many countries that possess both the ability and the desire to prevent terrorism from spreading. If a strategic strike were directed against Finland, killing thousands of people and destroying a number of buildings, Finland would also carry out mobilization orders and activate its defense system, built as a result of progress of long standing and proven to function well in our conditions. Now that the United States has announced that it has been hit by measurers of war and intends to respond to them, Finns do not need to panic, because Finland would act in the same way in a corresponding situation."
"Innocent Blood For Innocent Blood"
Leftist Kansan Uutiset editorialized (9/18): "Finding and destroying the cells of modern terrorist organizations placed all over the world" is virtually impossible. Not everybody is convinced that Osama bin Laden is the main perpetrator. And if he is, so is the Taleban. Even in that case, war against Afghanistan would be not only uncertain but also morally questionable. While the Taleban are dictators, it would be the citizens of the country that would suffer the most. Innocent blood for innocent blood would only sustain the spiral of revenge."
HUNGARY: "World War"
Tamas Ronay opined in independent Nepszava (9/18): "There will be no world war, but it is a fact that the conflict is of global dimensions.... Let us not talk about world war, but rather about global cooperation and action against terrorism."
"From The Top Of The World"
Janos Desi stressed in independent Nepszava (9/18): "I believe that the leaders of the United States must show that democracy, freedom and all the principles that are worth believing in help to find the appropriate answer even in difficult moments like these."
THE NETHERLANDS: "Essential To Have Solidarity With The U.S."
Conservative De Telegraaf had this editorial (9/18): "Prime Minister Kok used remarkably clear words.... And it was about time for the PM to stand up and show leadership to the people with such difficult days ahead of us. He waited far too long, after his first somewhat hesitant performance immediately after the barbaric attacks on Washington and New York.... Full support to the United Staes is unavoidable. There is no reason to think that terrorism ends at the U.S. borders and skips Europe. Moreover, it is essential to have solidarity with the United States--the old continent that came to help time and again."
Influential NRC Handelsblad has this editorial (9/17): "Thousands of Afghans have understood the portents well, even without television, and have taken the route to Pakistan. With this the threatening war is relocating to Pakistan, which already shelters a few million refugees from Afghanistan and which is a tinderbox where Islamic radicalism can explode at any moment. The solidarity of the Pakistani government has international political significance. It illustrates that the United States can succeed in forging a high-level unified front. But at lower levels within Pakistani society that is less true."
NORWAY: "While We Are Waiting For War"
In Social Democratic Dagsavisen, Foreign Affairs Editor Erik Sagflaat commented (9/18): "While one searches for Osama bin Laden, it is important to not forget the top operating terrorism cells that exist and that are estimated to have contacts in more that 60 countries. The war against terrorists must be fought on a broad front. Without the close cooperation of Muslim leaders and Muslim countries, it will not be successful. One of the reasons that the planning and the attack against the United States was able to be carried out might be the huge reliance on technical tools and satellites for monitoring and tapping, instead of infiltration and direct human contact."
"An Israeli Mistake"
Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten observed (9/18): "Israel's massive attack against Palestinian areas last weekend is a reminder that there are hidden motives behind the almost unanimous condemnation of the terrorism threats against the United States one week ago.... In international law it is a fundamental notion that in a country's legitimate self- defense, there must be proportionally between an action and the response. The lastest actions by the Israelis are much too comprehensive, and they affect completely different people than the terrorists. With his tough line Sharon is destroying the possibilities for a lasting solution in the Arabic-Israeli conflict. This also puts the United States' desire for a unifed joint front and a cooperation against international terrorism in jeopardy."
POLAND: "Moscow In A Fix"
Slawomir Popowski wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (9/18): "Americans expect unequivocal declarations on Russia's participation in a joint anti-terrorist coalition which the United States is going to lead. They make it clear that assuming a neutral stance will not satisfy them-they will treat it, in the least, as sympathy with those who support terrorism. Thus Moscow got itself into a fix. It has a chance to be in one camp together with the West and the United States for decades, but to do so, it will have to verify all its dogmas so far. Among other things, it will have to admit that the real threat to Russia is not the West, enlarged NATO, EU, or the American missile system. The real threat is the utterly different civilization with which Russia borders."
"We Will Not Forget"
Maciej Letowski opined in center-left Zycie Warszawy (9/18): "Like the Americans, we have confidence in the prowess and wisdom of President Bush and his administration. It is good that he did not yield to the temptation of striking back at once, delivering blow for blow. It is a good thing that the best American experts...are working intensively on a plan to capture the terrorists and eradicate terror rather than just take revenge."
PORTUGAL: "God Bless America"
The daily "Direct Lines" column by senior journalist Lufs Delgado in moderate-left Diário de Notfcias read (9/18): "The New York Exchange opened to the sound of 'God Bless America'.... That's the greatness and power of the Americans. They elevate themselves at the worst moments, unite, sing heroic hymns and invoke God for the protection of the homeland. That's the way they are, and that's why America is the sole global power at the economic and military level. With or without partners, with or without help, with or without words of comfort, the United States has its own way--one that it likes to share with its allies, but one that it will take to the end with or without the world's blessing. Once and for all, let's understand the essential: Bush, along with his father's counsel...has at his side two of the best political and military strategists ever: Cheney and Powell."
"Tragedy And Punishment"
University of Coimbra international relations lecturer Prof. Ivan Nunes wrote in influential, center-left Público (9/18): "The West is in most cases indifferent to the humanitarian tragedy that afflicts the overwhelming majority of the population of the planet; in other cases--as in the Middle East, or in the zero-casualties war in Yugoslavia--the United States is an accomplice and a killer.... No society has ever impressed me as much upon arrival (in Chicago) as did America; no other country, even while at the same time containing the most unspeakable filth, fascinates and attracts me in the same way. The New World--despite the most terrible injustices.... The images of the Palestinians celebrating the barbarity are repugnant but--and because of this even more dramatic--perhaps understandable."
"We Are All Responsible"
University of Coimbra law professor and distinguished jurist Vital Moreira opined in influential, center-left Público (9/18): "Faced with the dimension of the tragedy, all rage is justified. But...the necessity of a decisive offensive against international terrorism is one thing...and a declaration of war, in the strict sense of the term, is another.... If you add to this the rhetoric of 'an attack on Western civilization,' a disquieting picture is created of a confrontation between the West (implicitly Christian) and Islam, from which nothing good can come. In this context, the use of the term 'crusade' to refer to the struggle against terrorism, as the ineffable American president and other leaders as irresponsibly imprudent and rude as he is insist upon saying, can only reanimate the most divine anti-Western fervor in the Muslim world."
"We Were All The Target Of The Suicide Attack"
Prof. Pedro Bacelar de Vasconcelos wrote in influential, center-left Público (9/18): "They speak of a 'war against terrorism' as if it were possible to eradicate iniquity and horror by force. No! NATO is not the terrain for this fight. Nor, much less, are the methods of infiltration and mercenary subornment that gave birth to abortions like Bin Laden and corrupted our democratic institutions. You fight terrorism with shared intelligence and international judicial cooperation. And, decisively, with tolerance, reason, and a less unjust distribution of the planet's resources.... Let NATO's European partners guarantee at least some 'proportionality' in revenge, and exhaust all means to capture the cowardly brain who saved himself from the sacrifice to which he also premeditatedly condemned the miserable material executors of his dark plan. Citizenship does not get used up with a skeptical and resigning vote. The citizens who in desperation stopped the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania from completing its criminal destiny have given us an example and a shining hope."
TURKEY: "The Land Of Timidity"
Mass-appeal Hurriyet's editor-in-chief Ertugrul Ozkok argued (9/18): "The terrorist attacks have also ruined the mentality which represents the whole world's future. Terror is a vicious act and absolutely nothing can justify it or minimize the crime. Therefore, those who see the current event as a blood feud between terrorists and the United States are deadly wrong. This is a concern to all of us. Terror is targeting everyone's ideal, i.e. living together in peace."
"Where Is Turkey Sitting?"
Nationalist Ortadogu carried this front-page op-ed (9/18): "Turkey must consider its own future and security first. Entering into an adventure along with the United States, in order to prove Turkey's loyalty will only hamper our future security.... There is a possibility that the upcoming operation might eventually turn into a war between religions. If this happens, there is no doubt that Turkey will be the prime enemy vis-a-vis the Islamic world.... Having said that does not mean we do not support a fight against terrorism. However, caution is a virtue. There is no need to be more royalist that the king."
"U.S. Will Learn, Too"
Mehmet Ali Kislali commented in intellectual/opinion-maker Radikal (9/18): "American public opinion will learn two things: How to fight against terrorism and the reasons for terrorism against the United States.... This is a struggle against an invisible enemy and therefore it is not that easy. It is like a long distance run, and there is no absolute victory.... The sources that harbor terrorists present a uniform picture. They are mostly the traditionalist and despotic regimes, which enjoy U.S. support.... The United States should also analyze the reasons it is hated so much by some people, and take measures to make policy adjustments accordingly."
"First Support, Now Advice"
Sami Kohen commented in mass-appeal Milliyet (9/18): "It seems the keen support and international solidarity right after the terrorist attacks are now replaced with caution and reservation.... After being encouraged by the international community, the Bush administration was just about to introduce its new strategy. Now, different voices are being heard.... Those who are advising U.S. common sense and suggesting cold-blooded acts are actually afraid of the possible consequences of U.S. intervention on themselves.... Some European countries, for instance, are worried about the wave of reprisal and violence that might come afterwards.... Some of their arguments may be justifiable. However, there is also a plain fact: Action must be taken against international terrorism."
RUSSIA: "Moscow Caught Unawares"
Georgiy Bovt commented on page one of reformist Izvestiya (9/18): "The United States' resolve to start a war against international terrorism...has caught Moscow unawares. Suddenly--much too suddenly for our strategists--Russia has had to decide where it stands on what the Americans may do next in the zone of its vital interests. Over the last few days the Russian Foreign Ministry has come up with well-rounded statements on 'the futility of using unilateral measures to ensure national security in the globalization age.' Under normal conditions, it would be okay to engage in that sort of exercise, theorizing about a multipolar world. But with war declared, you have to make your position clear. Any attempt at mediation between Western democracies and Islamic mullahs is doomed.... Militant Islam, implacable, is out to destroy our civilization. Once we turn away from the West, we will be left on our own, facing medieval bigotry, there being no third option."
"Talibs Sign Their Own Death-Warrant"
Vladimir Dunayev remarked in reformist Izvestiya (9/18): "By offering refuge to Bin Laden and Co., the former madrasah students have signed their own death-warrant, with America undertaking to carry it out after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington."
"Russia Must Identify With West"
Lidiya Andrusenko mused on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (9/18): "As a civilized country, one with a grudge against international terrorism, Russia should side with the international community. The Americans, it seems, won't settle for the Russians offering diplomatic and political support, expecting from them more serious, including military, participation in the conflict. Even the Americans' NATO Allies have been iffy. Without a doubt, we must identify with the West, not with the United States. I wouldn't blame Russia for being slow and 'inadequate.'"
"Egocentrism Hard To Cure"
Yelena Ovcharenko said in reformist youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (9/18): "Acts of retribution take time to prepare. Haste makes waste. Washington admits that, in word. But the Americans' mentality, egocentrism, and hunger for revenge, contrary to logic, may reduce that time to just a few days. In trying to please the public, won't the authorities err on a global scale again? Strikes may be carried out as soon as tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. This would come as more evidence that egocentrism takes more than last Tuesday's nightmare to cure."
"There's No Stopping America"
Vadim Poegli noted on page one of reformist youth-oriented Moskovskiy Komsomolets (9/18): "Nothing, neither victims among the peaceful population in other countries nor the possibility of their own losses will stop the Americans in their drive for retribution. America, it seems, has braced itself for something comparable to its wars in Korea and Vietnam."
"Let the Americans Grieve Their Dead"
Nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (9/18) had this to say in a piece by Leonid Nikolayev: "Killing thousands of people in a terrorist act deserves stern condemnation, a deep sympathy and a severe punishment. But when we are invited to commiserate over the loss of a 'symbol of faith' in the form of a center of worldwide commercial speculation, the exploitation of man and the plunder of Russia, especially when we are invited to take part in acts of retribution against the defamers of 'American values,' we must realize that over the past 15 years, we have time and again been dragged into celebrating American holidays and victories. Bruised, robbed, and humiliated, we have felt out of place out there. Now with the Americans in grief, we are being invited to share it with them. But the Americans have brought it upon themselves. In that sense, it is their grief, not ours."
AUSTRIA: "Islam And Democracy"
Senior editor Hans Rauscher commented in liberal Der Standard (9/18): "Perhaps the solution is to approach these countries and their culture by discussing with them the advantages of political freedom and democracy and not to focus so much on cultural differences and religious views.... A leading columnist in Egypt lamented that the United States had squandered the love and admiration it had earned as the advocate of freedom and democracy.... Part of the 'long war' the United States now intends to wage against terrorism, should be a return to these concepts."
Senior editor Livia Klingl opined in independent, mass-circulation Kurier (9/18): "The alliance of the prudent gives us reason to hope that the wounded United States will not resort to uncontrolled acts of revenge, but opt for a minutely planned punctual intervention, which, naturally, is much more difficult to carry out than a mere 'hitting back' at questionable targets without lasting effect.... The fact that America did not immediately retaliate is a victory of cool reasoning over understandable emotions."
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: "(Un)justified Fear"
independent Oslobodjenje insisted (9/18): "The United States has the right, even the obligation, to punish the perpetrators, but they have to keep a minimum of common sense, although it is not easy to do so in this situation. Innocent people must not be punished, only because they belong to the same religious group as the terrorists.... Anybody, who is linked with this evil...should be afraid of American retaliation. But, this is not the reason for the whole Islamic world, which also decisively condemned this insanity, to live in fear, or even worse, to be collectively punished."
Independent Oslobodjenje also pointed out (9/18): "When the Serb fascists killed 20,000 Srebrenica residents in 48 hours, in the middle of Europe, the bastards from cozy European cabinets were mute. An average American ate his popcorn watching a baseball game...and the White House had its usual calm weekend. When America is in flames, people, from Sarajevo to Brookline, stand still for three minutes. God forbid that Srebrenica and New York ever happen again--the biggest world crimes within the last 50 years. We are all the same before God. Unfortunately, before...frustrated politicians, Ahmet from Srebrenica and John from Manhattan are not the same."
BULGARIA: "Giant On Clay Feet"
Center-right Dnevnik observed (9/18): "Now America recognizes that the attacks were a blow against the American way of life, favoring freedom at the expense of security and that this will change. This means that the Western citizen's freedom will be restricted. Weren't the attacks, however, a reaction against the appropriation of the whole freedom by one single nation, one civilization, values, and way of life at the expense of the freedom of any other nation, civilization, values and way of life? Instead of looking for ways to eradicate terrorism we should better look for ways to eradicate the reasons for its outburst."
"Crime Is Called War"
Center right Dnevnik also held (9/18): "Modern terrorism is not a military problem. It is not a political problem only either, and we should not just wait for the politicians to resolve it. Terrorism has economic lobbies and is connected to economic interests. Wasting $40 billion on arms that will be used for retaliation, no matter how humane the initial intentions seem, will create a new link in the chain of attacks and retaliations, which will jeopardize thousands of innocent lives."
"Is A New World Order Beginning?"
Center-left, stridently anti-Americam Monitor asserted (9/18): "Now after President Bush declared war on international terrorism, what will the agenda be for what until recently was a chaotic and self-satisfied U.S. imperial policy? What will the new world order be? Isn't the hyperpower taking on too many hard-to-fulfill tasks--to unite the civilized world against terrorism, to control the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, to deter its strategic opponent, China, to manage the Middle East conflict, to balance its relations with Western Europe, to enforce peace in the Balkans, and to play a sophisticated game with Russia in the field of strategic weapons?"
CROATIA: "Condemnation Or Revenge Or: Why War Is Inevitable”
Mass-circulation Jutarnji List ran this by Inoslav Besker (9/18): “These are some of the reasons why, despite the trembling pope, the line of revenge stands much more chance than the line of law, why the blow will be struck before the verdict, and why the verdict will be made before the hearing of the evidence. These are the rules of the game in the world in which equality is good as long as it doesn’t hurt financial interests. That’s why there are states which have to be subjected to international tribunals and which are barbarian if they resort to the logic of revenge and collective guilt.… Bush’s party colleague, Republican Senator Helms, has more than once requested that the United States punish even those states which ratify the International Criminal Court Agreement, and the United States has openly refused its support. That’s exactly Milosevic’s reasoning in The Hague. That’s exactly the Talibans’ reasoning. And that’s exactly the reasoning of some people on our side.”
ESTONIA: "When The Clock Is Ticking"
An editorial in the leading serious Postimees held (9/18): "How and if the possible conflict between terrorists and civilized world will influence relations between Russia and Estonia, only time will tell.... At least in statements, both Russian politicians and media have demonstrated during the last week that they belong to the democratic and civilized world."
"There Is Only One Way To Fight Terrorism"
Kalev Stoicescu, former Estonian Ambassador to the United Staets, wrote in second serious Eesti PSevaleht (9/18) : "If the anti-terrorism alliance is not forged or doesn't work out, only terrorists would win from it. It would be hypocritical of any civilized country to think that 'those things cannot happen to us.' Only destroying terrorists, wherever they are and whatever that will cost, can destroy terrorism."
"Afghani People Forced To Go To Allah"
Toomas Alatalu wrote in mass circulation tabloid "+htuleht" (9/18): "The Superpower has decided to destroy Enemy Number One....thousands of innocent Afghans are suffering and they have not deserved it. ... Afghans have not invited anyone in their country and it is difficult for them to understand why the rest of the world keeps punishing them. They are so behind in their development but their self-confidence is high-they have never surrended to foreigners and they are ready to die on the battlefields now."
IRELAND: " An Irishman's Diary"
The liberal Irish Times ran this by Kevin Myers (9/18): "Osama Bin Laden is an Islamic fascist who loathes the West, democracy, Christianity, Judaism. His every project is about the taking of human life. Of course he loathes the United States. Why wouldn't he? The United States is the primary defender of world freedom. That freedom is one we enjoy.... How a visceral hatred of the United States has become so chic, so commonplace in Irish bien-pensant circles is a true mystery to me.... Nor does it explain the frequency with which we not merely tolerate lies about the United States, but actually revel in them: such risible canards as that the United States armed Saddam, that U.S. policies are causing Iraqi children to die of hunger, or that U.S. policy in the Middle East has been totally one-sided.... Their leader, Osama Bin Laden, is not a 'victim.' Nor are his deranged followers.... Nor is their decision to kill themselves a measure of a supposedly 'Muslim devotion to a cause, but merely another example of cultic suicide.... To be sure, there are inconsistencies, failures, inadequacies in many U.S. policies; this is because the U.S. government is composed of human beings. But I would far rather have U.S. policy with all its weaknesses than have to endure the sanctimonious posturing of the professional US-bashers of Irish life.... More than human beings perished in last week's attacks; so too did the fence beneath us....In the coming conflict, no doubt mistakes will be made--though I would trust a regime which includes such heavyweights as Powell, Cheney and Rice to make as few as humanly possible. All the United States wants to know now is that when the going gets tough, as it truly will, it will not be treated to vapid holier-than-thouisms from beyond its shores. It needs to know who its shoulder-to-shoulder friends are."
"How The U.S. Helped Create A Monster"
The centrist Irish Examiner ran this op-ed by John Clarke (9/18): "So did the CIA help create a monster? Bin Laden probably would have turned against them and the American system anyway. Maybe the aid and the arms given during the 1980s helped to delay the evil day when bin Laden would go to war against his former benefactors.... In looking back on the turbulent period of the 1980s, one is reminded of the emotion of the time in some political circles in the United States."
KYRGYZSTAN: “Will Kyrgyzstan Grant its Territory for Strikes Against Afghanistan?”
Independent Pyramida TV noted in its report (9/17) that “Kyrgyzstan is one of the countries whose territory and air space can be used for strikes against Afghanistan.” A reporter interviewed people on streets. Though condemning terrorism and sympathizing with the U.S., none supported the idea of Kyrgyzstan’s direct involvement in U.S. retaliation. Responses included: “The Kyrgyz people will not like it…;” "Today someone else is bombed, tomorrow we will be…;” “Kyrgyzstan should maintain neutrality…;” “We should avoid any direct involvement.” The journalist reported that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan had already expressed their support for the U.S., and that Uzbekistan was ready to offer its territory for anti-Afghanistan actions. “The official position of Kyrgyzstan is still unclear,” said the journalist, and Deputy Foreign Minister Asanbek Osmonaliyev was shown saying: “We haven’t been asked for any kind of support yet… Kyrgyzstan’s leadership will make the final decision… Decisions can’t be made on the base of emotions. We hope that the decision of the American government will be balanced. Our decision will be based on the level [sic] of Kyrgyz-American relations and interests of Kyrgyzstan and its allies.”
MALTA: "Fighting Evil"
An editorial in the English-language Malta Independent held (9/18): "Unless one understands the very nature of the evil that produced such a massive terrorist attack, one still risks getting enmeshed into a war that nobody wants, and that is in nobody's interest.... In our opinion, those who take such decisions must first examine the very nature of the people who committed such an unspeakable crime. And beyond them, the very nature of evil.... To combat evil, the world cannot use similar and opposite doses of evil. It must go deeper than that: eliminate all that causes cries of injustice, and that which drives people to desperation, understand that at the end, there is no avoiding a straight fight with evil.... As long as it is not a fight which fights evil with evil, or which kills innocent people unnecessarily, it is a noble fight and a just one."
MOLDOVA: "Side With Antiterrorist Coalition, Or Be Between Hammer And The Anvil"
Petru Bogatu emphasized in pro-rightist Tara (9/18): "Three years ago we wrote in a article that there are networks of some international terrorist groups in Moldova, a fact that was confirmed later by the Moldovan Security and Information Service. I guess that these groups act just as in Romania and in other Balkan states. They subsidize, not necessary directly, sometimes through mediators, one kind of mass media, politicians, and opinion makers to promote and support an anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-democratic spirit in society. In these circumstances the Republic of Moldova can not avoid its implication in the big confrontation with global terrorism. Chisinau will have to take a stand."
ROMANIA: "We Must Combat Terrorism"
In the pro-government Azi, political analyst Octavian Andronic opined (9/18): "The most terrible question about the terrorist attacks on September 11 is: What kind of ideology...what philosophy planted in [the terrorists'] minds a decision that was maintained throughout the entire period of preparations? Whoever has control of such a weapon will, undoubtedly, be extremely hard to annihilate. But it will be highly necessary to do it."
"Sigh, The Great Powers Will Forget Us Now"
Independent National's editorial stressed (9/18): "It is obvious that the volcano of terrorism is far from having calmed down. It is just as obvious that a very important amount of budgets will 'melt down' in investments for the anti-terrorist fight. The great powers will start forgetting about the smaller countries, and the series of facilities and support they were generously granting us until now will cease. As long as they need money to defend themselves, they cannot afford to do charity work. And this is understandable. In other words, nothing will be as it used to be. History sighed deeply, and with an unjust convulsion, it changed its robes."
"Don't Forget The U.S.' Stabilizing Role"
Political analyst Nicolae Prelipceanu commented in opposition Romania Libera (9/18): "Those who oppose the idea that the United States is the world gendarme are forgetting that without this gendarme, who gives us money and ideas, we would have started fighting each other again, here in Europe, for different reasons; they are forgetting that the different ethnic or religious groups would have been able to detonate at least a part of the huge quantity of nuclear explosives which currently exist in several countries throughout the world."
SLOVENIA: "World's New Subordination"
In the view of left-of-center Delo (9/18): "Would the...countries of the world... [join the United States in war] if the United States was not the only remaining world superpower?... Is a crusade under American flag really the only right path?... Among the myriad of questions, the crucial one may be whether it is at all possible to uproot the evil that is rooted as deeply as it was demonstrated by last Tuesday's attack. The question whether the group of terrorists...is a consequence of unjust international relationships that even the most effective attack cannot eliminate may be as important. And further...will the war declared by the United States--to which the developed countries have been subordinated because of their feeling of helplessness or solidarity, the less developed countries for tactical reasons and profit, and undeveloped countries because of their fear of American rockets--become a role model for resolving of all problems in the 21st century? Will present-day terrorists very soon...be replaced by some other objectives and interests, which the 'civilized world' led by the United States will try to accomplish in its never ending fight with the 'less civilized worlds?'"
SWEDEN: "Beyond Right And Left"
Lliberal Dagens Nyheter's editorial held (9/18): "The Swedish government and the political establishment has reacted forcefully on the terrorist attack with a clear moral compass.... There was no hesitation that Sweden chose the side of democracy against terrorism, that the attack against the United States was also an attack against us. But just as in other countries, a gruesome polarization has in the Swedish debate along only too well known lines.... Some leftist opiononmakers went totally astray and described the well-considered mass murder of office workers with international roots as a logical answer to American foreign policy. All the better that they are quite alone in their distorted views.... Most people who often voice criticism of American culture and influence in the world were capable of separating a democratic debate and unprovoked terrorism against innocent individuals.... In peaceful, privileged Sweden there should be no doubt. Without the U.S. defense of democracy and human rights, first against the Nazis and then communism, we would not have had freedom of speech to bring up such a remarkable debate. To blame these reckless terrorist attacks on the American victims, in this perspective is indeed monstrous hypocrisy."
"Bush Has Crossed A Rhetorical Line"
Conservative Svensksa Dagbladet ran this analysis (9/18) by foreign editor Lars Ryding: "Many of [Bush's] statements during this national trauma certainly will become classic quotes, both from a positive and a negative point of view. But when he announces that the American people should prepare for a 'long crusade to liberate the world of evil-doers,' he arouses association to the the most anti-Muslim past of Christianity. His proclamation undermines previous assurances that collective blame must not be given Muslims in general. President Bush, who often refers to the Wild West, run the risk of becoming the subject of the old indian allegation: White man speaks with a forked tounge."
"Our Policy Of Non-alignment Not A Problem In Fight Against Terrorism"
Independent, liberal tabloid Expressen featured this an op-ed article (9/18) by Per Eriksson of the Swedish Defense Research Agency: "Sweden should support a resolute action against the terrorists who committed the crimes in the United States. Otherwise we run the risk of ending up in the same group of states with Iraq. Swedish support would not violate Sweden's security policy of non-alignment in peace aiming at neutralty in war."
UZBEKISTAN: Media Treatment
Coverage by Uzbekistan's state controlled-media of the September 11 terrorist attacks has lessened in recent days. On 9/18, official print media here carried no analysis or opinion pieces on the continuing U.S. investigation of or possible responses to the attacks. Uzbek dailies instead carried only brief, factual notes on the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. On 9/17, Uzbek State run television networks took the same approach, with far less prominent coverage than over the weekend. Television networks ran voiced-over CNN, Reuters and other international reports in the middle of evening news programs, rather than as lead items.
YUGOSLAVIA (KOSOVO): "America At War"
Leading independent Koha Ditore had this comment (9/18): "A new war against Bin Laden and his fanatics is in fact a rare chance for drawing a line in the Islamic world between those who are with America and those who are against America.... The war in Afghanistan cannot happen without a ground intervention no matter the limitations it will have.... The Russian experience in Afghanistan is apparently under very close scrutiny and the Americans are carefully seeking allies for this intervention. From that aspect, the new and old allies of America are strangely trying to profit from the situation that has been created.... Westerners should clearly pressure those in the Balkans who want to profit from the political vacuum created after the terrorist attacks in America. If nothing else than at least to preserve a strategic status-quo that would not allow one to misuse the situation--this would be the lowest price to be paid by those who have decided to stand by Washington and the West."
"Games Without Borders"
Independent Zeri ran an editorial by its publisher Blerim Shala (9/18): "According to some Macedonian newspapers--but also from the statements of some officials of the Macedonian government--Ali Ahmeti and the NLA are really a unique phenomena. At the same time the NLA is very good with the CIA, NATO and Osama Bin Laden. I n their grotesque attempts to profit from the American anger, Skopje is launching new accusations against Ali Ahmeti and the NLA. According to them, the NLA and Ali Ahmeti are the representatives of Bin Laden who have oddly followed any recommendation given by America, Western Europe and NATO so far. Perhaps it is worthless to tackle with these paradoxes, but the fact that NATO spokesman in Skopje, Mark Leighty has seen it worth to deny those allegations shows that it is about a very dangerous game. This accusation comes from those who, according to NATO, have broken the cease-fire in Tetovo, those who opposed any kind of the deployment of NATO troops after the 'Essential Harvest,' those who are trying to find hundred ways to complicate or even block the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement implementation."
"The New War Has Started Counting Battles"
Pro-LDK Bota Sot ran this editorial (9/18): "From the first seconds, Albanians have unhesitatingly stood by America--the double savior of the Albanian Nation and its Liberator. This means that since then, we Albanians must start counting the battles of the New War--a war against international terrorism, against the enemies of the Mankind, against the proven enemies of our national being."
"Undecided Albanians Should Make Decision--With Bin Laden Or With Washington"
Pro-PDK Epoka e Re argued (9/18): "Millions of Albanians who protest to honor the victims and share the pain with America (for the tragedy of September 11) are not fundamentalists. But there were Albanians, very few of the fortunately, who besides they did not protest and honor (as 8 million of Albanians did) they even drank to the attack on America!!!! Yes, this is true. 'Those with beards' and wit a 'different Koran' in their lessons said this: 'They did it well to America. They did it in the name of God.' It is cowardice to hide this truth. We all know that a 'minority' of their kind is trying to alienate the image and objectives of Albanians. If we do not stop these dangerous tendencies today (in the framework of the long war that America is going to wage against the international terrorism), among ourselves, tendencies that are fundamentalist, anti-Albanian and anti-western, then one day we would be also identified with fundamentalists. The disease should cured at its very start."