August 28, 2003
U.S.-UN BURDEN-SHARING IS THE WAY OUT OF THE 'QUAGMIRE'
** Burden-sharing is the
only way out of the Iraq "mess," but the world should not
"cynically rejoice" that the coalition has "failed" on its
** U.S. reluctance to let
the UN exercise "real power" hampers its ability to recruit support.
** In a change of tune,
Arab writers say engaging with the Iraqi Governing Council will help "end
'It is time' for America's 'traditional allies' to intervene-- Observers worldwide agreed the U.S. was
paying the price for its "doggedness" in not wanting to share
decision-making and for trying to win "peace on the cheap." The consensus was that the U.S. is in a
"quagmire of its own making" and must "radically rethink"
its policy. French and German papers,
however, judged it a mistake to
"cynically rejoice." Disaster
in Iraq would be a "triumph" for the "minor and major villains
of this world," said center-left Die Zeit. Iraq needs "peace enforcement,"
which South Africa's balanced Business Day defined as a "muscular
UN-mandated multinational force, under a strong central command." Skeptics complained along with Pakistan's
liberal Daily Times that the U.S.' "false pride and poisonous
prejudices will never allow" the UN to assume a leading role in Iraq.
Despite the White House 'SOS,' countries called to the rescue 'in
no hurry to move'-- Although the occupation
force was "acknowledging" that it needed outside assistance, the
U.S.' "inflexibility" about ceding control to the UN was hampering
its ability to convince other countries to pony up. Coalition papers were divided. The problem, according to Poland's
center-left Polityka, is that "very few" will want to share
the hardship with "no say."
While Denmark's left-wing Information demanded both an
"investigation" of the decision to go to war and a change of course,
centrist Weekendavisen declared it "high time" that the EU and
UN "get over their indignation."
Speaking for those with misgivings about sending troops, Turkey's
Islamist-intellectual Yeni Safak asked, "Why should we be the ones
to save the honor of the occupation forces?"
Arab support for Iraqi Governing Council could lead to an 'early
end' to occupation-- The attack on the UN compound--perceived as the work of
terrorists, not "the resistance"--may have prompted Arab writers to
rethink the Arab League's rejection of the council. Dailies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Lebanon and the UAE ran editorials arguing it would better for the Arab world
to "take action" and engage with the interim government than to leave
it as the "toy of the occupation."
The Arab move "to welcome the interim political system,"
declared the moderate Riyadh Daily, is in the "wider interest"
of the Iraqi people because it "will help" bring about "an early
end of the occupation." Sharing the
sentiment, Jordan's mass-appeal Al-Arab Al-Yawm held that until
"legitimate elections" take place, there is "no other way but to
become involved and deal with the current forces in power and not leave the
arena free for the Americans."
EDITOR: Irene Marr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report
is based on 108 reports from 52 countries, August 22-28. Editorial excerpts are listed from the most
"President Bush Cannot Ignore Much Longer The Realities Of
The center-left Independent asserted
(8/27): “Bush finds himself in the worst
of several very bad and threatening worlds.
In presenting his case for invading Iraq, he offered these arguments:
the danger that Saddam presented to his people and to the world, the suffering
of ordinary Iraqis, and the imperative, after 11 September, to root out
terrorism wheresoever it lurked.... It
hardly needs to be stated how far Bush is from attaining any of these
objectives.... In his public statements,
Bush has so far preferred the rhetoric of high principle to any acknowledgement
of the difficulties his administration now faces. But the (U.S. presidential) election
timetable presses.... With Labor Day and
the start of the long run-up to the 2004 election only two weeks away, national
security no longer seems the certain winner it did. Bush has a year at most to bring order to
Iraq--or find another election gambit that will please his increasingly
"Whistling In The Dark"
The left-of-center Guardian stated (8/26): “The tragic bombing of the UN headquarters in
Baghdad a week ago has regrettably not led so far to the radical rethink of the
Iraq situation which is so badly needed....
Paul Bremer, showed a depressing lack of vision with his message that
'you have to be willing to go on the offensive against terrorism--kill them,
before they kill you.' Vacuous bravado
in the 'bring ‘em on' spirit of Bush is cold comfort for the Iraqis--and for
the coalition’s own foot-soldiers who risk paying the price with their
lives.... To continue to talk of an
'underlying improvement' in the situation is to whistle in a very murky
"Terrorists Target Iraq"
The conservative Daily Telegraph commented (Internet
Version) (8/25): “The stakes for the
American-led coalition and its opponents have never been higher.... The relationship between the occupying powers
and the UN in Iraq is unlikely to change substantially.... The world body is too cumbrous an
organization to provide the leadership required to steer Iraq towards
stability. More important than extra
troops...is the need for improved intelligence on terrorist activities.... To encourage local co-operation on terrorism,
the coalition should give Iraqis a clearer idea of its exit strategy. They need to feel that, through the governing
council formed in July, they are gradually being given a greater say in their
own affairs. The transfer of power to a people crushed by decades of
totalitarian rule will always be fraught with uncertainties but there is no
other sensible option."
FRANCE: "The World
Alain Genestar opined in right-of-center popular weekly Paris
Match (8/28): “America’s bitter
victory in Iraq has been described a thousand times. The mistake made by the international
community, and by France, is to see nothing beyond this apparent failure and to
cynically rejoice, proving America wrong.
Even if the U.S. is not going at it right, it is trying to defend
freedom against an aggressor who wants total war, as proven by the attack on
the UN. We must remember and never
forget the original act of terror against the World Trade Center: the war
against the ‘World.’ This war is not a
war against America, but against a rich world of trade and against its
democratic partners.... This is a war
waged by an enemy without a face but with a vision: killing knowledge and
emancipation.... This is not blind
terrorism. Its goals are clear: whether we are French, American or Moroccan...Christians,
Jews or Muslims, we are all a target.
The U.S. is caught in a quagmire in Iraq. To join them under the banner of the UN is an
act of self-defense."
"Helping The U.S."
Jean-Claude Kiefer wrote in regional Les Dernieres Nouvelles
d’Alsace (8/27): “One of the cruel
lessons we can draw from the war in Iraq is that the fall of Saddam has
awakened religious and ethic antagonisms...turning Iraq over to all sorts of
Islamic terrorists. Four months of the
coalition’s presence has not been able to stop this. On the contrary it has helped some dubious
nations to lift their heads, like Iran...and Syria.... It is no coincidence if the U.S., in losing
its credibility in Iraq, is also losing its means to put pressure on those who
sponsor Palestinian terrorism and on Sharon’s government. It is time for America’s traditional allies
to intervene more actively. Not with the
idea of 'saving Private Bush,’ but by adopting a constructive policy. In other words they must stop brandishing
their UN-draped indignation and their finger-pointing ‘I told you so.’ Simply because the weakening of America will
lead to new isolationism. And this is in
no one’s interest.”
"The End-Results Of Force"
Bruno Frappat observed in Catholic La Croix (8/26): “The second war against Iraq is now
four-months old.... Of the initial
goals, only one has been achieved: getting rid of Saddam.... But what of everything else? Everyone is waiting with increasing
skepticism for tangible proof of the existence of WMD. Nothing to date has come to upset the idea
that this war objective was nothing more than propaganda and a pretext.… While
a dictator has been chased away, the liberation of the people of Iraq, its
freedom and prosperity has yet to be achieved.
The nature of insecurity has simply shifted. Iraq’s economic situation is disastrous. The basic needs of the people are not
met. Religious and ethnic communities
are fighting one another.... Terrorist
attacks are growing in numbers. The
occupying forces are paying the price for their presence.… The wager to use
force without legitimacy, is for the time being, a losing wager.”
“Bush And The Headache Of Security Issues”
Philippe Gelie wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro
(8/26): “Did President Bush
underestimate the magnitude of the task at hand in Iraq? This question is beginning to permeate the
political debate in the U.S.... The
recent declarations about the need for more troops from U.S. politicians are
not good news for President Bush.
Playing with the Army’s morale could have a very negative impact.…
Meanwhile Washington’s attempts to recruit new coalition partners are
stalemated at the UN because Washington’s strategy of burden sharing in Iraq
"In Iraq, A Question Of Power"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (8/25): “After having led a military operation
against Iraq without a UN mandate, the U.S. is now turning to the international
community to share the burden of reconstructing Iraq.... In fact Iraq is on the brink of becoming a
second Lebanon...and a sort of sanctuary for terrorist movements.... In order for the U.S. to get wider support
from countries such as India, Pakistan and Turkey, but also possibly France, it
needs a clear UN mandate."
"A Little Bit But Not Too Much UN"
Pascal Riche stated in left-of-center Liberation (8/22):
“With Tuesday’s suicide bombing the U.S. has taken stock of its
vulnerability. But it is still reticent
about sending more troops...and refuses to relinquish its control of
Iraq.... Publicly, Washington refuses to
acknowledge it is facing difficulties....
The Bush administration has little hope that France will send troops to
help: the price to pay, according to the State Department would certainly be
too high.… But Washington is facing a dilemma: the more unstable the situation
the higher the price to pay in exchange for international participation. Two months ago Washington’s allies were ready
to send troops to Iraq; today the risk for their soldiers has climbed.”
GERMANY: "End Of
Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg
judged (8/28): "For the U.S., the
moment of sobering calculations has come....
It is reassuring that President Bush reconfirmed in this situation that
he does not think of a quick withdrawal from Iraq, thus stealing away from his
responsibility. But this is no more than
a positioning of his views. The naïve
'quick-get-in, quick-get-out' scenario that Secretary Rumsfeld promised is
gone. The moment of realists has now
come. But if Bush wants to bring his
Iraq mission to a successful conclusion, he will only have two options: He either tells his compatriots that the job
in the Gulf will take longer and cost much more than has been admitted thus
far. Then he will have to send more
soldiers to Iraq and fill the war coffers.
Or, and this approach is wiser, Bush will find his way back to the UN
and asks the international community for assistance."
"The Super Helpless Power"
Josef Joffe contended in center-left, weekly Die Zeit of
Hamburg (8/28): "Nobody can take
away from the U.S. the bitter task of establishing security in post-war
Iraq. In New York it will have to act
more sensibly and more moderately than earlier this year in order to build the
right resolution to...make it palatable to the Europeans to take part [in a
mission in Iraq].... More is at stake in
Iraq than the hurt vanity of the unilateralists in Washington. The minor and major villains of this world
are looking to Iraq. A disaster would be
their triumph and the consequences would hit not just America."
"The Wrong Signal"
Right-of-center Schwaebische Zeitung of Leutkirch had this
to say (8/27): "Former Iraqi
intelligence service members are now supposed to help the U.S. occupiers in
security questions in Iraq. In any case,
this move sends the wrong signal. The
U.S. occupying authority is now acknowledging that it is almost unable to
guarantee law and order with its own activities in Iraq. In addition, it is adding fuel to the
distrust of the Iraqi civilian population against their occupiers who are now
searching for assistance among Saddam's feared agents. Instead of cooperating with Saddam's minions,
the Bush administration would have been better advised to internationalize the
occupation and to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis as quickly as
possible. Peace can hardly be won
otherwise, let alone with dubious figures."
"Unwilling To Change Course"
Centrist Darmstaedter Echo noted
(8/27): "Only the tone has changed,
but in the matter itself tough positions still have priority.... Even though the Bush administration must
realize that the Iraq war and its restructuring plan for the Middle and Near
East were too much militarily and politically, it has thus far not been willing
to really change course."
"The Bush Blues"
Washington correspondent Wolfgang Koydl wrote in
center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (8/26): "The latest attacks in Baghdad and
Jerusalem show...despite all its power, the U.S. needs allies...whether at the
UN or in Europe. Gradually this view has
spread among the hardliners in Washington, too, but they still have difficulty
admitting their mistake--be it out of pride, be it out of fear of losing face
among the voters.... Now it is coming
back to haunt the U.S. that it allowed the impression that a hyperpower like
America could restructure the Middle East and the fight international terrorism
within one term and very easily. Only
recently Bush strengthened this illusion when he said: 'We have one year and a
bit more in my term to make the world safer and we will make it.' Is this arrogance or scorn? A generational project cannot be measured
with the tiny ruler of individual terms."
Center-right Nordsee-Zeitung of
Bremerhaven (8/25) opined: "With
every day that passes the lack of a U.S. plan for post-war Iraq is becoming
more obvious--and the naiveté with which they entered the country as
Right-of-center Rhein-Zeitung of Koblenz argued
(8/25): "The Iraqi agents will not
be able to save the confused U.S. mission.
The British and Americans need a different caliber of support. It is totally illusory to believe that a few
allies will be able to stand the mission in Iraq. Bush and Blair will have to bite into the
sour apple and upgrade the UN. This is
the only way for the UN but also NATO to shoulder responsibility in Iraq. If this happens, the Bundeswehr will be
unable to stay on the sidelines. But
before this happens, the British and Americans must get down off their high
horse of an omni-powerful occupying force.
The great anti-terror coalition must be forged again. The murderous
gangs in Iraq must feel that they are confronted with almost the entire world,
including the Arab one."
"The Other America Lifts Its Head"
Vittorio Zucconi opined in left-leaning,
influential La Repubblica (8/28):
“The intervention in Iraq has reopened,from deep within American
history...the historical fault line...between the ‘pragmatic’ and ‘'idealist’
soul of the U.S.... The political
transformation according to our model of the entire culture and of Arab and
Muslim history and the civil and material building of Iraq from scratch...will
cost an incredible amount of money....
Finally, after many lies, we catch a glimpse of the enormity and the
ideological-idealist presumption of the commitment toward not only
nation-building, but world-building....
This seismic movement between the two souls that we are beginning to see
is a sign that times are changing in America.”
"If Chaos Triumphs Everyone Will Lose"
Gianni Riotta opined in centrist,
top-circulation Corriere della Sera (8/27): “The Americans went into Iraq with bold
confidence and many countries and the UN were reluctant to follow them or to
approve them.… Why can’t the United States pull out [of Iraq]? An imam in Baghdad answers:... ‘If they leave
today there will be a civil war.’ The
U.S.’ doggedness in not wanting partners in this undertaking is destined to
dissolve: Washington will not be able to
continue to pay the billion-dollar-a-week bill that the operation is costing
them for long. The UN understands that
the U.S. cannot be left alone to lose in Iraq: if chaos wins then we will all
lose--Americans, UN, Europeans.”
We Will Not Pull Out Of Iraq"
Paolo Mastrolilli noted in centrist, influential
La Stampa (8/27): “The peace in
Iraq is costing the U.S. more than the war.”
"Iraq, The Nightmare Of A Holy War"
Anna Guaita wrote in Rome’s center-left Il Messaggero (8/25): “Iraq: land of the anti-American Jihad. The drumbeat that is crossing Muslim
countries reminds one of the drumbeat that in the 80s turned Afghanistan into
the Mecca of all the fundamentalists who wished to fight for their faith. There, the invader to fight off was the
Soviet Union; in Iraq it’s the Anglo-American coalition. The democratic project
dreamt about by George Bush seems to have been relegated to the second row.”
RUSSIA: "Western Laws
Don't Apply In Iraq"
Sergey Sumbayev asserted in centrist army-run Krasnaya Zvezda
(8/26): "The Americans are not in
control of the situation in Iraq.
Admittedly, regime change is all they have managed to accomplish by now. But the new regime, the occupation
administration, has been unable to bring order into Iraqi life. It has been said that the norms of Western
Christianity or American society do not apply in Iraq. The Americans call this view racist and
belittling to Iraq's popular wisdom. In
fact, racism has got nothing to do with it.
It is just that Iraqis live in a somewhat different world, abiding by
its laws and traditions."
"Bush Looks For Cannon Fodder"
Dmitriy Suslov wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta (8/22): "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that he
sees no prospects for sending the Blue Helmets to Iraq now. That sounds like a realistic position. Indeed, Washington has denied the UN a role
in the security sphere in Iraq, preferring to recruit new members on a
bilateral basis.... Experts believe
that the Coalition force can only grow considerably if Washington cedes some of
its authority in Iraq to the United Nations.
How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in that is
"Solving The Iraq Crisis With The UN"
Markus Bernath argued in liberal Der Standard
(8/22): “What exactly could the role of
the UN in Iraq be? As was the case up to now, its role can only ever be as
strong as the U.S. government permits. However, de Mello’s death has put
Washington under pressure to take action.... A larger role for the UN in Iraq
could be perceived as a kind of atonement for past mistakes and an act of
political morality – if used cleverly, this could be an effective argument in
the UNSC Council, but in the chaos that is Baghdad, an operation based on this
kind of reasoning would not solve anything.… A new definition of the Unami
mission in Iraq, as it has been called since resolution 1500 last week, would
have to create a political counterbalance to the U.S. civil administration
under Paul Bremer. The important thing now is to reform the U.S.-British
occupation regime.… A larger role for
the UN would prompt more countries to send troops to Iraq, and thus ease the
burden for the U.S. Washington will
have to swallow this bargain.”
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: "To Go To Iraq, Or Not To Go?"
Military analyst Antonio Prlenda wrote in
Sarajevo's moderate Oslobodjenje (8/28):
"The very idea [of sending Bosnian troops to Iraq] was blessed by
the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina...but, in any case, it will not be an
easy decision. First, this would be the
first time Bosnia and Herzegovina sent an entire unit. Second, the peace mission in Iraq, from a
military standpoint, is more complicated than those in Afghanistan and Kosovo,
and third, it comes after a conflict that was supported by only a few European
capitals.... On the other hand, as a
full member of the UN that wants to become a member of the Partnership for
Peace as soon as possible, Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to prove that it is
capable not only of using the services of this organization, but of
participating in them as well. The
operation in Iraq is a good opportunity for that. One has to take into account the possibility
of B-H companies returning to Iraq for old and new business.”
"Bush In A Tight Spot"
Michal Musil opined in the center right Lidove
noviny (8/28): "President Bush
said on Tuesday 'There will be no retreat,' when he talked about the war in
Iraq.... Not too many Americans could
have applauded these words.... The core
of his current problems is his decision to fold the Iraq war into the big campaign
against terrorism. [None of the
reasoning]...was used to justify the war [has been proven true].... The only thing Bush can now hope for is that
the situation in Iraq improves."
"Weren’t We Better Off Under Saddam?"
Michal Musil mused in the center-right Lidove noviny
(8/25): "Despite the original
optimism of the allies [in the war against Iraq], Iraq, according to the U.S.
Civil Administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has turned it nto another battlefield
in the war against terrorism. This
cannot be what George Bush and Tony Blair dreamt about before the war. Saddam definitely deserved to be
overthrown. However, doubts remain about
the way it was done. After the
horrifying terrorist attack on the UN headquarters and the increasing number of
casualties among American and British soldiers, it is difficult to counter the
impression that today’s Iraq represents for the Americans, the British and the
whole world a greater threat than Saddam’s Iraq did."
"U.S. Fiasco In Iraq"
Left-wing Information commented (8/22): “The U.S. had lost
the peace in Iraq, now the UN must win it back.... We demand an investigation into the basis on
which Denmark went to war. A change of
course is needed which ensures that the UN takes control of the reconstruction
from the United States.”
"International Community Must Get Over
Centrist Weekendavisen judged (8/22):
“Acting alone, the United States cannot bring peace to Iraq.... It is high time that countries of the E.U.
and the United Nations get over their indignation that the U.S. decided to go
to war in Iraq without their blessing.
The fact of the matter is that their help is needed now.”
"Barriers Of Power"
Foreign affairs writer Ferenc Kepecs holds in
pro-government left wing Hungarian Nepszava (8/25): ”Regardless of who are behind the guerilla
attacks [against the American and British soldiers in Iraq] the fact is that
Bush and his team have been caught up in a trap. They now try to ease their
situation by seeking help from the UN, in other words from the other
powers. But the other powers are willing
to provide help [to the United States] on the condition that they also receive
a share of the ‘acquisition’ meaning the control over the oil reserves and the
reconstruction businesses in Iraq. As UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan put it ‘including the UN...would also mean sharing
responsibility and decision making’. Washington
has certainly been opposed to this, because Washington did not launch the war
earlier with the aim to do sharing [out on the ‘profits’] with others
later. But now, it seems, Washington has
to share [decision and responsibility with other UN countries]. America has believed its power to be
unlimited. But now America has bumped into the barriers of its [unlimited]
LATVIA: Another Kind of Terror
Aivars Ozolins, a columnist at the leading Diena editorialized (8/22): “The international community and specifically
the United States will have to find a solution to the vicious circle [and
realize] that reestablishing Iraq as a normal state is possible only with a
government elected by Iraqis; however, such elections are not possible while
basic order and security is not established in the country. United States doesn’t have a choice--this
contradiction has to be solved.…
Probably sooner or later the peace in Iraq will have to be ensured by
NATO, which is the only organization with the necessary military resources for
such mission.... There is no universal
and magic solution for the Iraq problem. However, the fewer chances terrorists
will have to create a permanent chaos in the country, the less their attacks
will be perceived as resistance to the occupation regime. For that sake, the
U.S. and occupation’s administration, with the possibly extensive support of
the United Nations and other international organizations, will have to work
even harder to reach the goal and hand over the governance of Iraq to the Iraqi
Influential liberal De Volkskrant has
this editorial (8/21): "The attacks at the UN headquarters and on the oil
and water pipes come down to a turning point for the Bush
administration.... Iraq was given the
status of being an experimental field of democratization for the rest of the
Arabic countries. However, the planned
democratization is not really materializing - not in Iraq and not in
Afghanistan. Both these countries deal
with chaos, violence, and sabotage. And the bad news is that the situation is
getting worse rather than improving....
In Iraq, the Americans are even facing the problem that they thought
their intervention would eliminate terrorism but in fact it is attracting
terrorism.... What now, President
Bush?... Preference should be given to
finding a solution in involving more countries in the reconstruction of
Iraq. But the condition is that Bush and
his administration should give these countries a say. After all, stability in Iraq is in
"Bush Alone In The Quagmire"
Erik Sagflaat commented in social democratic Dagsavisen
(8/28) : "President Bush rules out
an American withdrawal from Iraq, and will make Iraq a test case in the war
against terror. Al-Qaida has now
established itself in Iraq. That was not
the situation before the war.... Letting
the UN take command in Iraq is not a solution.
The organization simply does not have the necessary resources and
competence to lead a large-scale operation.
When the UN was in command in Somalia and during the first phase of
operations in the Balkans in the early 1990s, chaos among UN leaders caused a
catastrophe. NATO does have the
necessary competence, but as a defense alliance it has nothing to do in
Iraq. There is simply no alternative to
an American-led operation. The U.S. is
stuck in the quagmire on its own, and must help itself back onto dry
land.... On the other hand there is no
question that the U.S. can make the situation easier for itself. This requires that key players in the Bush
administration be less concerned about their loss of face, than in achieving
results in Iraq.”
"It Is Not Time For Lonely Sheriffs"
Robert Kussek opined in the Catholic weekly Tygodnik
Powszechny (8/27): “The tragic
bombing of the UN office in Baghdad has shown again that the situation in Iraq
has slipped out of control. President
Bush is shrugging off the most recent event saying that the attack in Baghdad
shows how desperate the terrorists are because of the unquestionable
achievements of coalition forces.... [In
a new UN resolution] the Americans demand that control over multinational
forces be exercised by Washington.... In
America there is already talk not to consent to bargaining with the UN and to
increasing the number of American troops up to 500 thousand. The critics of cooperating with the UN do not
realize, however, that without international help Iraq will, in fact, become a
second Vietnam. In the face of hatred
from the Iraqi people, economic failure and the influx of Islamic fanatics,
coalition forces do not stand a chance of restoring normalcy in Iraq.”
"Leaving Iraq Is Not A Solution"
Marek Ostrowski wrote in the center-left Polityka
weekly (8/30): "America must not be
persuaded to declare a victory and call it quits. One must not leave a broken country in chaos
with the prospect of terrorist threats, bloody vendettas, Islamic fanatics and
poverty. Not only for America, but also
for many countries it is very important what will happen next in Iraq; what
kind of government and order will be established there.... For France, Germany and Russia including perhaps
Arabic partners, who are still critical of America, joining the stabilization
process is possible only under the UN flag.
In the meantime, desperately seeking new allies, as a matter of fact the
Americans declare they are willing to include the UN in assisting in Iraq, but
only on their own terms and under their command. For the majority of partners, this idea is
unacceptable. Very few want to share the
hardship of occupying Iraq with the Americans without having a say about the
future of Iraq.... It looks like the
region and the world will be better off if this government is formed with the
help of the UN.”
PORTUGAL: "The Mission Of The UN Is To
Continue in Iraq"
In his weekly column in leading financial Diário
Económico, influential center-right analyst Prof. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa
noted (8/26): "The UN should stay in the country and for one very simple
reason: everyone already comprehended that the North Americans could manage the
military 'orders', but [they] are not sufficient to make peace and establish a
democratic regime in Iraq. And since
they can't [do so], the UN has to be the one to create a stable path toward
peace and democracy. In other words, an
Iraq governed by Iraqis and not by the Americans."
SERBIA AND MONTEGNEGRO: "The Terror"
Pro-government Politika carried an
opinion piece by its foreign editor Jaksic stating (8/22): “The Americans are repeatedly saying that
they will not withdraw from Iraq before the fight against terrorism is over and
the weapons of mass destruction are found, which is fine but hardly enough to
solve the tensions and conflicts. Strong
criticism of terrorism and principled support for a peace process are not
sufficient, but rather a much deeper understanding of causes of terrorism is
"The UN Should Lead The Normalization Of Iraq"
Independent El Mundo wrote (8/25):
"It is true that the UN needs to be reformed.... But while accepting this technicality we must
take into account that nowdays the United Nations is the only international
organization capable of stopping the unilateral ravings of the powers that
pretend to become the owners of the world... There are few opportunities to
come to an agreement, because the United States, in a high handed and
unjustifiable position, refuses to relinquish the power once conquered."
"The U.S. And The UN"
Centrist La Vanguardia asserted
(8/22): Washington should think it over
and conclude before it is too late, that the only possible solution out of this
mess is to reform the political harmony in the international community and
realize that what are now troops of occupation should become multinational
forces of pacification, under the United Nations."
"Weak Leadership In Turkey"
Cengiz Candar noted in the mass-appeal DB-Tercuman
(8/28): “Glossy statements cannot hide
the weak leadership and inconstancy of the Erdogan-Gul duo on Iraq. They are trying to arrive at a decision
through asking the Sunni Iraqi tribal leaders who have had ambiguous relations
with the former Baath regime, opinion research questions such as ‘should we go
to Iraq,’ and ‘if we do, how would you greet us?’ There is no substantial difference between
President Sezer and the government regarding foreign policy decisions. The president’s seeking international consensus
on Iraq under a UN license while the government is seeking consensus with the
Sunni Arab tribal leaders. It’s
interesting that those who think too little of the Iraqi Kurdish leaders,
almost respect a blackmailing by the Arab tribal leaders who warned that
Turkish troops would be treated like Americans in Iraq. Do you think countries with a firm vision of
future determine their foreign policy by consulting Sunni Arab tribal
Ismet Berkan noted in liberal-intellectual Radikal
(8/22): “Anyone who cares about Turkey’s
interests and well-being should take positive indicators of stability in Iraq
with joy, and view negative developments with sadness. Those who wish the U.S. to fail are basically
working against Turkish interests....
Turkey should do whatever it can to establish stability in Iraq, and
sending troops is only one of many options that Turkey can offer. Even prior to the debate about the deployment
of Turkish troops, the important thing is that Turkey must design a vision to
embrace all of Iraq. Turkey must also
realize that a stable Iraq is directly in its national interest.”
"Making Promises To The Occupier"
Mehmet Ocaktan argued in Islamist-intellectual Yeni Safak
(8/22): “The Turkish FM made a very unfortunate
statement by ruling out the possibility that the UN bombing could affect the
Turkish position about the deployment of troops in Iraq.... The U.S. has failed dramatically in Iraq, and
even U.S. allies are searching for ways to withdraw. Finally, the U.S. has turned to the UN to ask
for more military support.... Although
Washington has seen its occupation plan collapse, the aggressive policies of
the Bush administration have created new fronts for terrorism.... We need a clear explanation about the reasons
for the rush to send our troops to Iraq while the U.S. is looking for a UN
umbrella. Why should we be the ones to
save the honor of the occupation forces?”
UKRAINE: "Basic Instinct"
Anti-American oligarch-controlled Kievskii
Telegraph weekly held (8/25):
"It looks that not only the war isn't over, but it is just
starting. A rare day goes by without a
report on U.S, British and now Danish soldier being killed. Moreover, the Iraqi resistance to occupation
seems to have entered a new phase -- the one of kamikaze terrorists... At first
glance, targeting the UN office seems strange.... However, the strike on the
'blue flag' will also seriously bounce against the White House. First of all, together with inflicting daily,
albeit limited casualties, a large-scale terrorist attack against basically
civilian officials may turn the U.S. public opinion against Iraqi
campaign.... Besides, the death of UN
staffers will force the allies of the U.S. in the anti-Iraqi coalition
seriously review their plans to send their soldiers into the occupied
IRAQ: "Security Problem Has Attracted
International And Arab Attention"
A comment in Al-Nahdah affiliated with
the Iraqi Independent Democrats Grouping led by Adnan Pachachi, stated (8/27):
"The security problem arouses growing concern for the citizens. It is a
very legitimate concern, which has attracted increasing international and Arab
attention. The problem basically lies in
the political and security vacuum that has existed in the country since the
ouster of the former regime and the non-establishment of an effective Iraqi
national authority in the past few months....
It is a source of satisfaction and optimism that several positive
changes have occurred in the stands of the big powers and several Arab and
regional states. These changes serve
this goal and strengthen the tendency to expand the international umbrella and
enable the United Nations to play a bigger political role in the political
process in Iraq. It is expected that
these stands will result in the crystallization of a bigger political role for
the United Nations and the setting up of a timetable for Iraq's restoration of
its national sovereignty. In fact,
developing these Arab and international stands in this correct direction is in
harmony with the Iraqi national interest....
It provides opportunities and reliable mechanisms for tackling the Iraqi
issue at a low cost and spares the country the consequences of the treacherous
terrorist campaign that has escalated recently.
Therefore, the various political forces and quarters in Iraq are called
upon to push matters toward this direction."
"Attack On UN Very Consequential"
Pro-Khatami English-language Tehran Iran News
asserted (Internet version, 8/27): "The unprecedented attack on the UN
headquarters in Baghdad was not simply just another terrorist act.... But in a more strategic sense, the attack
could serve as another watershed event.
It has the potential to derail the U.S. occupation in Iraq, and,
furthermore, even reverse U.S. efforts to put pressure on regional countries to
modify their behavior. Or, on the other
hand, if it was proven that the bombing was carried out by extremist
'Jihadists,' it could serve as another Sept. 11, this time for the
international community and the UN itself.... What's more, in light of the fact
that most UN member countries opposed the U.S.-led war, now that the Americans
desperately are in need of international assistance to help in bringing
stability and security back to Iraq, the global community could tell Bush
"I told you so", thereby putting the UN on equal footing with the
U.S.-UK coalition in calling the shots in Iraq. Even if this scenario is a bit of a stretch,
at a minimum, the Baghdad attack could strengthen the hand of the UN in
Iraq. Last but not least, another
possibility should also be contemplated. The terrorist bombing of the UN
headquarters in Baghdad has the potential of becoming a turning point - a la
9/11 - this time for the international community and the United Nations. It could harden the views of the world body
against extremists throughout the world and drive Europe and the rest of the
world closer to the U.S. position on the so-called War on terrorism."
Columnist Magdy Sarhan observed in leading
opposition Al Wafd (8/27): “No
one understands the official Egyptian position on the Iraqi interim Governing
Council. At first officials at the
Foreign Ministry confirmed that Egypt does not recognize the Council and then
members of the Council visited Egypt by official invitation and met with
Egyptian officials.... The only
explanation is that there have been pressures and dictates on the Egyptian
will. After meeting Foreign Minister
Maher, the head of the delegation said, the visit and reception by Arab
counties denote open recognition of this council.... Strangely, this suspicious visit coincided
with a ‘fatwa’ (religious ruling) from Al Azhar prohibiting Arab and Islamic countries
from dealing with the Council.”
"The U.S. Looks for Mercenary Army"
Senior columnist Hassan Ragab opined in aggressive, pro-government
Al Akhbar (8/26): “To date, the U.S. has failed, despite Bush’s
announcements that 19 countries are participating, to find a new mercenary army
to serve in Iraq. Still there are only a
few thousand available and worse still is their quality.... The kind that joined only for money formed a
heterogeneous group, poorly equipped and trained, and with no common language.... The U.S. is trying so hard to secure a U.N.
recommendation for international participation without giving up any of its
authority--something rejected by most of the world.... The U.S. is pressuring Arab and Moslem
countries to participate but they reject especially given the worsening of its
position with the Palestinians. Will the
U.S. learn history’s lesson and abandon its imperialistic dreams?”
"Who Would Benefit From Terminating The
Role of the U.N. In Iraq?”
Pro-government Al Ahram’s political analyst Dr. Saied El
Lawendy concluded (8/25): “According to the French Le Figaro, it would not be
surprising to find that American hawks are the ones behind the bombardment of
the U.N. quarters in Baghdad... First,
if not to eliminate the role of the U.N., to minimize it to being a
humanitarian relief agency and thus to hell with the call of France, Germany,
Russia, and China for having the U.N. carry out the reconstruction of
Iraq... Second, to force the world to
send forces to stand, under American leadership, against Iraqi terrorism. The French paper hinted that such an
allegation is not improbable for accusations still hang over the American
Administration for September 11 events (if we don’t yet believe what the French
writer Meyssan wrote in his famous book ‘L’effroyable imposture’).”
"Bombing The UN Headquarters And Strategy
Of Burned Land In Iraq”
Pro-government Al Ahram contributor
Ashraf Abul Hol asserted (8/22): “The resort to the policy of burned land and
targeting foreign establishment is now understood. Its aims at: 1. Turning the lives of American soldiers
into hell and making the American Administration and public feel that the cost
of invasion is high and cannot be paid.... 2. Pushing the rest of the Iraqi
people to revolt against American occupation which caused the current
situation... 3. Pushing world public opinion to pressure their governments not
to send troops to Iraq... 4. Pushing international organizations, for example
the IMF and World Bank to refuse to finance reconstruction projects which the
resistance believes they favor the occupiers not the Iraqi people. Isolating the interim governing council and
letting every one knows that it is a toy in the hands of the occupation. Finally, attacking the U.N. quarters is totally
unacceptable and unwarranted. The U.N. is not party to the dispute and is not
responsible for the occupation of Iraq.”
"All Borders Are Open for Terrorists!"
Riyadh’s conservative, Al-Riyadh remarked
(8/28): "With all those huge amounts
of smuggled weapons and explosives, the Kingdom has not closed its
international borders with its neighbors.
Likewise, it has not closed its seaports or airspace, either to accused
states or organizations, but followed its policy of cleaning the hideouts of
terrorism cells.... Since we are
discussing terrorism and terrorists, we hope to become with the U.S. partners
of responsibility and work. We, too,
are open target for those powers....
Instead of spreading accusations, which disturb confidence. Take the issue of (Arab) elements
infiltrating into Iraq via the borders of the Kingdom, it may be true, but was
it with the knowledge of the Saudi government?... Therefore, we hope to develop basic points of
agreement in our war against terrorism and to consider it as a primary goal in
our joint work."
Riyadh's moderate English language Riyadh Daily commented
(8/26): "Undoubtedly, the Arab
initiative to welcome the interim political system is in the wider interest of
the Iraqi people, because it will help in the early end to the occupation. Iraq has been isolated for far too
long.... Without a political process
being initiated, Iraq would continue to remain isolated, something which the
Arab world surely does not want. The
council has so far maintained a united front despite its composition being far
and varied. Till such time as a more
widely accepted political course is adopted in Iraq, it holds some legitimacy
from the fact that it represents the country's diverse ethnic factions--whether
Sunni, Shiite or Kurd. Just as the UN
has 'welcomed' the council, the Arab world is also showing all signs of
embracing Baghdad's interim government.
It would surely be the right step toward preventing Iraq from further
JORDAN: "The Arab
Effort Towards Iraq"
Jamil Nimri held in independent, mass-appeal Arabic Al-Arab
Al-Yawm (8/25): “A delegation
representing the governing council of Iraq is arriving today in Jordan as part
of a tour in Arab countries.... To deal
with the council would be part of a more effective involvement of Arabs in the
Iraqi situation, whereas reject it would be simply one more addition to the
Arab performance so far, which is marked by negativity and passivity. Arabs must meet and connect with all Iraqi
parties within and without the governing council.... From now and until legitimate elections
determining who represents the Iraqis take place, there is no other way but to
become involved and deal with the current forces in power and not leave the
arena free for the Americans. The
American failure, whether it is deliberate or the outcome of shortsightedness
and foolishness on the part of the right-wing gang in the U.S. administration,
must force the Arabs to move and take action in order to look out for and
protect the effort underway in Iraq to mend the political system and speed the
process of placing power in the hands of Iraqis.”
"The Iraqi Resistance"
Urayb Rintawi wrote in center-left, influential Arabic Al-Dustour
(8/24): “We are driven by instinct to
take the side of the resistance, any resistance to any foreign occupation. Yet, we do not take the trouble to ask about
the nature of this resistance and the forces that are waging it.... We watch the news showing images of
operations launched by the ‘Iraqi resistance’ against the U.S. occupation. We feel ecstatic, because these operations
target an arrogant occupation and because they target the United States, for
which three quarters of the Arabs and Muslims have no affection.... Yet, we shiver at the thought that this
resistance comes from one of two sources: the remnants of the old regime and
its security and intelligence apparatus; and fundamentalist and extremists
forces that are inspired by the spirit of Taliban and the methods of al-Qaida.”
KUWAIT: "Saddam Behind The Attack"
Liberal Sami Al-Nesf wrote in independent Al-Anba
(8/23): “People who hate Iraq and the
Iraqis and want to cause a civil war in Iraq are the ones behind the attack on
the UN building in Iraq. Needless to say, it was Saddam and the criminal Baath
organization behind the attack.”
"Bombers Want An Iraqi Civil War"
Liberal Sami Al-Nesf wrote in independent Al-Anba
(8/23): “People who hate Iraq and the
Iraqis and want to cause a civil war in Iraq are the ones behind the attack on
the UN building in Iraq. Needless to say, it was Saddam and the criminal Baath
organization behind the attack.”
“De Mello And Terrorism”
Ayed Al-Manna wrote in independent Al-Watan (8/23): “Terrorists know that the UN is not a part in
the war to liberate Iraq. The UN did not
issue any resolution for that war. [UN
Representative Sergio] De Mello came to Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance
for the Iraqi people. Those who attacked
De Mello were targeting the organization he represented.… They believe that
they can force the UN to abandon its mission in Iraq and thus facilitate the
return of the oppressor to power."
"Fighting Real Enemies"
Fouad Mardoud wrote in government-owned Syria
Times (8/28): "One of
the...benefits of U.S. hardships in the region is that Americans should have
started to think about going back to the UN....
President Bush has to think about getting his country out of the mess he
has created. If he means to fight for
peace anywhere, he should begin at home, by fighting the war advocates within
"Exporting The Crisis Is The Easiest
Dr. Mahdi Dakhllalah, chief editor of
government-owned Al-Ba'th, editorialized (8/27): "Threats do not seem to be making a
problem for Syria as much as they are making one for the U.S. This certainly does not mean that Damascus is
careless about what comes from Washington...or about the worst possibilities at
time the 'worst' is present and ready to be implemented.... Certainly no one in the world nor in Syria
would accept being held responsible for the failure of the [U.S.] occupier in
achieving the stability they promised the Iraqi people.... This stand is Syria's real 'sin;' while
Syria's other 'five sins' listed in the Syria Accountability Act represent
ignorance of facts."
"The Goals and Motive Of Syria's Move
[Towards Iraq's Governing Council]"
Dr. Fayez Sayegh, an op-ed writer in
government-owned Al-Thawra, wrote (8/27): "Iraqis today desperately need official
and popular Arab backing to support their lives, regardless of the Arab and
international positions on the Iraqi Governing Council and questions about its
legitimacy and whether it represents the Iraqi people."
"The One Who Lacks Credibility Lacks
Khaled al-Ashhab, a commentator in
government-owned Al-Thawra commented (8/27): "The image of the U.S. occupation in
Iraq has become identical with image of the Israeli occupation in the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip in the simplest details of acts of repressions,
assassination and demolishing the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples'
infrastructures.... How can we believe
that the U.S., which occupied Iraq under the pretext of liberating it and because
of its WMD...has started to exert pressure on other countries to send forces to
Iraq. By this, the U.S. wants to
internationalize the crisis after it alone seized Iraq's wealth. How can we believe that the U.S. wants to
rebuild Iraq and establish democracy there?...
U.S. credibility isn't being tested anymore; rather it is at
rock-bottom. How can the one who lacks credibility ever gain unanimity from
others about the legitimacy of his words and deeds?"
"Is It A Security Or A Political Vacuum?"
Khalid al-Ashhab, a commentator in
government-owned Al-Thawra, wrote (8/23): "What is happening in
Iraq is not resistance, but rather a security vacuum that claims the lives of
American and British troops everyday.
U.S. and British military planners failed to estimate the size of this
vacuum.... The vacuum that has prevailed in Iraq since the U.S. occupation is
not a security vacuum. Rather it is a political vacuum that resulted from an
occupation that destroyed and replaced national legitimacy and set up a sham
representative council.... U.S. policy failed to legitimize occupation and fill
the political vacuum.... Iraqis need no
incitement to resistance. Nor do they need any U.S. recognition of the
legitimacy of their resistance, nor a correct assessment of this resistance's
magnitude. They only need an end to the
occupation, to cheating, looting, and deception. When this happens, they will know how to fill
the political vacuum and rebuild their country without US victims."
Nothing Can Stand Against The Will Of A People"
An analysis by editor Mustapha Ben Ammar in
independent French-language Le Quotidien stated (8/27): "The situation in Baghdad is getting
worse every day.… The coalition forces bear the entire responsibility. They
want to achieve peace through tanks rather than relying on the honorable forces
in Iraq, such as the ‘Hawza’. …Neither Bush nor his team want to acknowledge
that a people who went through all kinds of tests throughout history, is unable
to accept the hegemonic oppression of other powers - even the most powerful one
- even if it pretends to come as a liberator. Hence, we understand the
determination of the Iraqi people to struggle with all the means to resist the
occupation, without claiming to fight in the name of Saddam Hussein or the
Baathist party. Iraqis are fighting to
defend their nation and to preserve their dignity from all the
violations.…Americans don’t want to understand that no power can stand against
the determined will of the peoples.”
An editorial by director and editor-in-chief,
M’Hamed Ben Youssef, in independent French-language weekly newspaper Tunis
Hebdo stated (8/25): "By
striving to change the course of events and to revolutionize the mentality in
different Gulf countries...while security is not restored in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and Palestine and while international terrorism has still not been eradicated…and
without thinking to help out 'friends', Bush and his insane advisers are
heading for the abyss.... No one wants
to mortgage his future to the escalation of the rebellion in the totality of
the Arab-Muslim countries, where the hatred of the Iraq colonizers, rushing to
pump its petrol, is very obvious.”
UAE: "Who Will Save
Dr. Shamlan Al Eissa wrote in Abu Dhabi-based
semi-government Al Ittihad (8/27):
"These bloody conflicts in the different areas of Iraq raise
questions about the future of Iraq's stability.
Could security and stability be achieved without the foreign
existence? What are the powers that
could guarantee internal security and stability? Is there a power other than the coalition
that could stop the conflicts and establish security?... The coalition forces made many mistakes when
they entered Iraq, this is not deniable; but at the same time it (the Coalition
Provisional Authority) needs the support of the internal powers and parties in
order to govern Iraq and establish security and stability. Iraq's problem today is not the conflicts but
that the parties to the conflict have started using violence, terrorism, and
the language of bullets...instead of democracy, forgiveness, brotherhood, and
"Terrorism or Resistance?"
Dr. Shamlan Al Eissa wrote in Abu Dhabi-based semi-government Al
Ittihad on (8/24): Is what is
happening in Iraq today really an act of national liberation from a foreign
enemy? Or is it a series of disorganized
terrorist attacks that aim to expel coalition forces and return the previous
regime? ... The goal or aim of whoever
performs these acts of terrorism is definitely not the liberation of the
land.... Whoever wants to liberate a
land would focus on coalition forces directly and not kill translators and
humanitarian workers of the UN, Red Crescent, and other humanitarian
organizations who have come to rebuild Iraq and to build democratic organizations
on new foundations unfamiliar to the Arab World."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
"Disarmed, Democratic Iraq Will Be Foundation Of Mideast
The national conservative Australian (8/26) stated: “Australians helped win the war in Iraq and
we are obligated to help win the peace.
But we should do it in company with soldiers and civilian experts from
many other countries, working under the auspices of a United Nations
resolution.... A disarmed, democratic
Iraq will be a foundation for peace throughout the Middle East. The Islamic terrorists know this, which is
why they are now trying to disrupt the reconstruction effort.“
"Defusing Iraqi Time Bomb"
Defense writer Geoffrey Barker asserted in the business-oriented Australian
Financial Review (8/25): “Not
surprisingly the UN...is reluctant to increase its involvement in Iraq unless
the U.S. cedes more control to it in exchange for its backing. What concessions might be acceptable to the
Bush administration remain unclear....
Australia should use its claimed influence with the U.S. to publicly
encourage Washington to accept a greater UN role in Iraq…. The U.S.-Australia alliance should be a
two-way dialogue and not a relationship between the U.S. and its little Aussie
"Send Troops To Hold Iraqi Line"
Greg Sheridan, foreign editor, wrote in the national conservative Australian
(8/23): “The bombing of Baghdad's UN
headquarters has achieved its purpose, making it more difficult to get foreign
support.... The lesson is that you have
to stick with it when the going gets tough, and allies can help in fortifying
U.S. resolve. Our soldiers make
excellent peacekeepers, although we have far too few of them. An Australian peacekeeping contingent taking
sole responsibility for a small corner of Iraq would be the greatest
contribution we could make right now. “
"After Saddam The Real
Geoff Kitney held in the liberal Sydney Morning Herald
(8/22): “The critical challenge in Iraq
now is to end as quickly as possible the U.S. occupation and hand Iraq back to
the Iraqis. A critical step in this
process must be to internationalize the transitional period so that it is no
longer seen as a U.S. operation....
United Nations administration and NATO military force should be called
“Deterioration of Iraqi Security Conditions”
Ren Yujun commented in official Communist Party People’s Daily
“There is a wide divergence in views among Security Council
members. France, Germany and Russia all
clearly have conveyed the international community’s wish that the UN enjoy
broader decision-making powers.... But
the U.S. is not willing to share the decision-making with other countries.... Analysts believe that the Bush administration
must decide on this critical issue. It
is clear that the U.S. cannot win the battle to bring peace to Iraq
single-handedly, even if it was capable of winning the military war.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):
"UN Pays The Price For The U.S."
The pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News remarked
(8/22): "The terrorists who bombed
the UN headquarters were venting their anger on the UN rather than on the U.S.
and Britain. They used a terrorist
attack to stop the international community from 'helping' Bush. Their actions were irrational. Although the UN did not authorize the U.S.
and Britain to launch attacks against Iraq, it cannot take a hands-off position
in post-war Iraq.... The UN is actually
helping the U.S. clean up the mess in Iraq, which is easily misunderstood.... It is time for the U.S. to...consider
withdrawing its troops gradually and let the UN lead the reconstruction in
"Attack On UN Office, A Warning To The U.S."
Independent Suara Pembaruan commented
(8/25): “The U.S. should shorten their
occupation in Iraq and change their strategy to control Iraq by empowering the
interim government and the new Iraqi police.
The U.S. invasion toppled a regime regarded as the most brutal and
senseless in the 20th and 21st centuries, but it was with no small risk. In addition to the rise of Anti-American
sentiment, it has caused the death of many innocent people.”
"Failure Of Preemptive Strike
Independent Media Indonesia commented
(8/22): “The bombing of the UN offic and the suicide bombing in West Jerusalem
had the same target, retaliation. The
former was retaliation against the UN as it was seen as a U.S. lackey. And the second was retaliation against Israel
that has been the golden boy of the U.S.
So both pointed to the U.S. Look
also into previous terrorist actions beginning from the WTC, Bali, to Marriott,
and also the destruction of the expatriate housing complex in Saudi Arabia in
May, with the U.S. as the target. So it is true that the U.S. has become the
number one target of terrorists. We
condemn those relentless and indiscriminating terrorists but there is no smoke
without fire.… The ever-mounting terrorist actions and threats against the U.S.
indicate that the U.S. preemptive strike doctrine has failed. A country may be scared by a more powerful
one, but no individual is afraid of the U.S....
Therefore, before it is too late, President Bush must exercise
self-respect...and change his arrogant foreign policy, which only provides fertilizer
for those offended to resist with their own way, terrorism.”
"Peace On The Cheap"
The pro-government Straits Times
editorialized (8/28): "One reason
why American forces are finding it difficult to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan is
that their government is a cheapskate.
When it comes to winning wars, the Bush administration, like its
predecessors, has no qualms spending billions.
The 'military-industrial-congressional complex' always delights in
spending money on armaments. But when it
comes to winning the peace, the Bush administration, unlike many of its
predecessors, balks. And unfortunately,
there is no 'foreign aid-industrial-congressional complex' to see to it that
the decent thing is done. The result of
this tawdry approach to peace is already obvious in Afghanistan and Iraq."
"UN Bombing A Loss Of Face For U.S."
Supachai Payakkhan commented in mass-appeal, Thai language Daily
News (8/24): “The U.S. has two
options--either sending more troops and a great amount of money to reassure
others that its commitment will not waver, or swallowing its pride and pleading
for the UN’s leadership role in the restabilization and reconstruction of
"A Wounded UN Must Soldier On"
The lead editorial in top-circulation,
moderately conservative, English language Bangkok Post reported
(8/22): "Security for UN personnel
and facilities throughout the world will have to be upgraded. That will further stretch the 140,000 troops
America has in Iraq. That would not have
been such a problem if the Americans have given the UN a central peacekeeping
role. Then troops from other countries
holding out for a UN mandate would be forthcoming. Instead, the U.S. has been building its own
international contingent made up of troops from countries currying favor with
Washington.... Perhaps it is time the
U.S. rethought the UN option.…The Bush administration has been firmly opposed
to any idea of a new UN peacekeeping resolution on Iraq, but it is doing itself
a great disservice. For the UN, a bigger
role in Iraq might expose it to more attacks, but shying away will make it
irrelevant. This is something the
current U.S. government appears to want.
It is extremely short-sighted.”
"Waiting For Another Vietnam"
Columnist Deep K. Datta-Ray wrote in the
centrist Telegraph (8/27):
"As the United States prepares to send a new crop of soldiers on
one-year tours to another war zone, the question arises: will they too be
bedeviled by the fate of their predecessors?
More important, will they succeed in their mission? The answer to the latter is a resounding
'Yes'. Iraq is nothing like
Vietnam. The dissimilarities are
obvious. For one, Iraq is under U.S.
control to an extent Vietnam never was.
Another is that Baghdad capitulated after hardly putting up a fight. Clearly, Iraqis do not share the Viet Cong’s
visceral hatred of Americans. The feared
Republican Guard collapsed not because it did not have the stomach to fight,
but because Saddam Hussein was not worth fighting for."
"Moment Of Opportunity"
An analysis in the centrist Hindu by
Rajmohan Gandhi judged (8/26): “If the United States asks India and other
nations to support its effort to redesign the Middle East, and its global war
on terror, others hope that India will not let down countries that prize their
independence.... The people of Iraq, and of the world, must be informed that
the U.S.-British occupation is to be replaced by a temporary international
force commanding legitimacy under international law. Indians can be part of
such a force, with their expenses paid for by the Indian Government. A proposal from New Delhi for such a force in
Iraq would not only bring India to center -stage; it will help the world, and
Indians, see what India stands for.... India cannot accept the idea of one
nation as the master of the planet. Nor can India accept a permanent war
between the West and Islam, or the compulsion to side with one (either one)
against the other.”
"Wise Second Thoughts"
The nationalist Hindustan Times observed
(8/22): "The misgivings in Japan
about sending troops to Iraq after the attack on the UN office in Baghdad show
that India was right in turning down the American request in this respect.... The fact that the Americans had bypassed the
UN while launching their invasion had tainted the war right from the
start. Hence, India's insistence on a UN
mandate before it could agree to send its troops.... Fighting a war, especially on America's
behalf, will mean that all the other countries will become targets of Islamic
terrorists who are undoubtedly looking upon the conflict in Iraq in 'clash of
civilizations' terms.... Instead of
welcoming them as liberators, the Iraqis have been regarding the Americans as
unwanted guests at best and brutal invaders at worst.... If the rest of the world is unwilling to
help, it is because they do not want to get involved in a mess of America's own
"Pride And Prejudice In Iraq"
The Lahore-based liberal English Daily Times
editorialized (8/27): "One of the
most intriguing things said so far about the shambles in Iraq was a comment
last Thursday by the U.S. commander, General Abizaid, that 'We have over one
million people under arms in the United States of America and it didn’t protect
us from what happened on 9/11. So the
number of troops [in Iraq] is not the issue.
You have to have good, solid intelligence in a conflict such as this so
you can get at the terrorists.' His
emphasis, of course, is 'terrorism.'
This is the loyalty buzzword that the Bush administration hopes will
deflect the attention of the U.S. people from the fact that American soldiers
are being killed because the occupation force has failed to live up to the name
of the war which Bush dubbed operation 'Iraqi Freedom'.... The occupation of Iraq is a mess, and the
solution is for a UN force to take over, with a non-U.S. civilian Commissioner
in overall command. But the Bush
administration’s false pride and poisonous prejudices will never allow that to
"Mounting U.S. Casualties In Iraq"
Islamabad's rightist English-language Pakistan
Observer declared (8/26): "U.S.
and British forces are suffering increasing casualties in Iraq in recent months
as the Iraqi people have stepped up resistance against the alien occupation of
their country.... The situation in Iraq
has also generated a loud and clear message to the world community not to
contribute their troops for deployment in Iraq on the pretext of peacekeeping. Pakistan should particularly be mindful of
the Iraqi fighters' ferocity against occupation forces as well as their
collaborators. The massive explosion at
the headquarters of the UN, which had legitimized the U.S. occupation of Iraq
and Sunday's attack on Shiite cleric hardly leaves any doubt about the collaborators'
fate in Iraq."
"It Is Just The Beginning Of The
Ataur Rehman declared in the second largest Urdu
Nawa-e-Waqt (8/22): "The UN
was absolutely innocent until few days back.
It was praiseworthy that it refused to provide any justification to U.S.
attack on Iraq.... What befell the UN
was that sometime ago that it adopted Resolution 1500, recognizing U.S.
nominated Iraq governing council.... The
August 19 attack appears to be a lamentable consequence of the adoption of that
resolution. The Iraqi people and the
resistance movement in that country have made it clear to the world that anyone
coming in aid of American imperialism would be treated like Americans.... This should be an eye opener for Pakistan, as
America expects Pakistan to send it troops to Iraq."
SOUTH AFRICA: "Losing The War To
Allister Sparks, veteran newsman and political
analyst, commented in the Star (8/27): "The Bush administration's
problem is that it failed to understand and the difference between a
conventional war and a war on terrorism. The one is about firepower and
conquest, the other about winning hearts and minds.... In fact the Bush administration has shown
itself to be utterly hopeless at the business of winning hearts and
minds.... It is the Vietnam syndrome in
a different setting, with the one significant difference that this time the
growth of terrorism affects not only the American occupiers but the whole world
for jihadists know no boundaries.... Those permanent members of the Security
Council which strongly opposed the war on Iraq may resent this kind of appeal
from the U.S. [to Turkey, India and Pakistan for troops], but if they can
pressure Washington into accepting a genuine UN-mandated multinational force --
even if it is in a U.S. commander as the main contributing nation...it may be
the best that can be done to try to stabilize a rapidly worsening
"Historic Chance For New Iraq Mandate"
John Stremlau, head of the international relations department at
Wits University, wrote in balanced Business Day (8/26): "Chaos poisons prospects for public
backing of the U.S.-led occupation in both Iraq and America.... To counter escalating terrorism could mean a
doubling of the multinational force....
But an operation of this scale requires support from the UNSC.... What Iraq needs is peace enforcement, a
muscular UN-mandated multinational force, under a strong central command, as in
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor and elsewhere. Iraq poses a bigger challenge, but one that
must not be exaggerated. Iraq is not the
Vietnam of the 70s or the Afghanistan of the 80s.... Today's violence in Iraq is also not the same
as between the Palestinians and Israelis....
And while conditions of chaos may recall circumstances culminating in
the U.S. pullouts from Lebanon (1983)
and Somalia (1994), the stakes in Iraq are far higher."
BENIN: "Rethinking The Iraqi Issue"
Abraham Brahima opined in the independent,
French-language Le Republicain (8/27):
Faced with these major and repeated blows, the White House has sent out
an SOS, urging all the 60 European countries to send troops to the Persian
Gulf, notably to Iraq. At the moment,
the countries called upon for rescue are not in a hurry to move. Obviously, the
urban guerrilla warfare to which the GIs are confronted does not incite any
spontaneous rush to generosity. Operation Iraqi Freedom appears to be in an impasse
because the supposedly emancipated people are now turning against their
liberators.... Anyway, the most
important thing today is not fruitless discussions on whether the war was
appropriate or not. The major problem now is the future of this country and all
the regions, as well as the threats on the entire planet. What is necessary today in this region is
genuine involvement of the international community to open up the Iraqi problem
and tackle the major issue raised by terrorists and other resistance forces,
which is the war against the prolonged American occupation. "
"Expanded International Force For Iraq"
Lagos-based independent Daily Champion
commented (8/27): "The situation in
the post-war Iraq once more warns the world, particularly the big powers, that
to win a war is one thing, and to win peace entirely another thing. The totality is that war is always too high a
price. Much more fundamental to security
in Iraq is the urgency that the Iraqis should be allowed to run the affairs of
their country as soon as possible. In
postwar Iraq, the UN's assistance and cooperation would become invaluable in
the rebuilding of Iraq and maintenance of peace in Middle East generally. Whatever were the positions of the UN members
before and after the invasion, the unfortunate attack on the UN headquarters in
Iraq should serve the useful purpose of compelling a new UN resolution that
would authorize an expanded international force to provide security in
"Spare the World Further Tragedies"
Lagos-based Daily Independent
editorialized (8/22): "It is a rather ironic twist that the UN edifice
should be a target for the Iraqis in their attempt to vent their ire and venom
on the Anglo-American forces. Whereas UN ought to be perceived as a neutral
factor in the melee, given its refusal to support the Americans in the war
against Iraq, it now seems from this attack that Iraqi nationalism appears
contrary to this moral ground. We do not
support this extreme view.... Nonetheless, we cannot shy away from our
long-held argument that the events of last Tuesday represent a backlash of what
has now come to be regarded as the American misadventure and miscalculation in
Iraq.... The U.S. and Britain must spare
the world further tragedies that the Iraqi are bent on visiting on the land as
a result of Washington’s arrogant stay. They must withdraw from Iraq and humbly
admit a few lessons on the limits of power."
"UPDF Should Not Go To Iraq."
The independent Monitor editorialized
(8/22): "We might be about to see
yet another ill-advised and illegitimate deployment of our army abroad, this
time in the security hotbed that Iraq has become. This is what the second deputy Prime Minister
and Foreign Affairs minister, Mr. James Wapakhabulo, told a House committee on
Wednesday.... Even before you raise the
legal objections, our army already has its hands full at home. This army is stretched trying to contain
rebels of the Lord’s Resistance Army in northern and eastern Uganda. Peace keeping in Iraq is thus a luxury Uganda
cannot afford now. The other difficulty
one sees in this (mis)adventure is the international politics surrounding the
U.S. in Iraq. The Americans invaded Iraq
under what is increasingly looking like false pretences and against the
disapproval of the world community. By
sending troops to Iraq we will be endorsing an action that was judged illegal
and unwarranted in the court of international opinion. This is another mistake we cannot afford to
"Wait For UN Resolution"
The government owned New Vision observed
(8/22): "Uganda has agreed in
principle to a U.S. request to contribute peacekeeping troops in Iraq. Uganda has international obligations and
should be prepared to help Iraq return to stability. But Iraq is now in a political quagmire with
persisting resistance to the coalition forces.
The world community needs to play a greater role in the administration
of Iraq so that the coalition forces are not perceived solely as an American
army of occupation. The U.S. should now
invite the UN to join the administration as an equal partner. Uganda should not send peacekeepers to Iraq
until the coalition administration is formally recognized by a UN
CANADA: "Stand Firm"
Under the sub-heading, “Western nations must not
shrink from the escalating threats of terrorism,” the right-of-center Calgary
Herald observed (8/25): “The terrorist plan is manifest: inflame the whole
region, force out the U.S. and remake the Middle East, not as a constellation
of liberal democracies but as Islamic republics, nests of terrorism, a Taliban
culture with Saddam's efficiency. The West cannot tolerate such an outcome. If
we do not win today, we will have to fight again some other time. Fortunately,
the English-speaking people can draw inspiration from their own defining
moments, as when Abraham Lincoln took up the Confederate challenge or Great
Britain's years standing alone against Nazi Germany. Today is another such
moment, and it belongs to U.S. President George W. Bush. We must hope he can
keep the American people with him long enough to see that his vision, not the
default one, becomes reality.”
"U.S. Mired In A Mess Of Its Own
Contributing foreign editor Eric Margolis commented in the
conservative tabloid Ottawa Sun (8/24):
"These attacks show the U.S. has got itself into a truly awesome
mess in Iraq.... Bush has literally stuck his head in a hornet's nest in Iraq
and is now getting royally stung. He,
his scandalously inept national security advisers, and the media's so-called
'Iraqi experts' failed to comprehend that a U.S. occupation would be a
frightful, expensive, bloody mess--a disaster that was totally
predictable. Worse, the U.S. occupation
is clearly creating the kind of violence and car bomb terrorism that Bush used
as an excuse to invade Iraq.... When the U.S. finds itself unable to crush
Iraqi resistance, it will blame neighbouring Iran and Syria for 'fueling
terrorism,' and may attack them. Tehran
and Damascus thus have every reason to stir the pot in Iraq to tie down
American forces and make it less likely the U.S. will next invade them, as
neo-cons are urging."
ARGENTINA: "A President Hunting Votes"
Marcelo Cantelmi judged in leading Clarin
(8/27): "The fronts on which the U.S. fights today are not only those of
the official epic of a war on terrorism far away. In fact, there are other
enemies who are not in the ambush but much nearer the White House than what its
current inhabitant seems to admit. George W. Bush can write on his private
diary the already uncontrolled consequences of post-war in Iraq.... Although important, those enemies are not the
main ones or the only ones at this time. The problems posed by domestic economy...
are even more devastating for Bush's political stability and 2004 re-election
expectations. The combination of these foreign and domestic elements explains
why the president has attempted to recover initiative although it is hard to
say if he will be successful in doing so... Yesterday, Bush redoubled his bet
on war to attempt to recover the approval he had in the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks."
"U.S. Requests The UN More Troops In
Alberto Armendariz, daily-of-record La Nacion
New York-based contributor, wrote (8/22):
"In the past, the U.S. strongly resisted the idea of a new
resolution, which would give the UN a broader mandate, but of an essentially
humanitarian nature. Tuesday's terrorist attack against UN Headquarters in
Baghdad...seem to have changed the opinion of the Bush administration on this
issue. Particularly after Annan blamed the occupying forces for not ensuring
the mission's security in order to do their job.... Although U.S.
acknowledgement of the need to reinforce a UN mandate was welcomed by most UNSC
representatives, several of them pointed out that the inflexibility to cede
military control in Iraq is a continuing obstacle for a speedy approval of a
BRAZIL: "The War Continues"
An editorial in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo (8/28) stressed:
"To state that the war in Iraq is over seems to be more a convenience for
the Bush administration than an objective statement based on facts. The truth
is that the U.S. defeated Saddam Hussein, but this does not mean that it has
won the war. If the war's goal was to transform Iraq into a democracy allied to
the U.S., then success remains far away.... The Iraqi people do not seem
willing to become a U.S. ally. On the contrary, there are Iraqi citizens ready
to eliminate the invaders.... The costs of the operation are astronomical, and
the fact that there is no withdrawal timetable is already causing fear of an
out-of-control budget deficit in the U.S....
President Bush can either listen to his neo-conservative advisors and
maintain the current foreign policy, or adopt a less unilateral attitude and
enlarge the UN's role in areas such as Iraq. Common sense would recommend the
"The UN And The War
University Professor Ricardo Velez Rodriguez
held in independent Jornal da Tarde (8/27): "The murder of diplomat
Sergio Vieira de Mello was an affront to Brazil and the international
community. The terrorists' message was clear and direct: the fanatics of
Mohammed's Army do not recognize borders or international law. Anyone opposing
their intention of total domination must be simply eliminated.... I do not have
any doubt that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was legitimate, but it should have
been conducted with the UN support....If the neo-conservatives inspiring Bush
were less arrogant, they would have obtained UN support. The list of Mideast
governments supporting terrorists does not end with the Taliban or Saddam's
Republican Guard. The Americans are aware of this and their policy is aimed at
eliminating terrorism sources in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea....
We cannot be caught in the politically correct trap of those who want to
negotiate with terrorists."
"Iraqi Situation Worsens Global
Business-oriented Valor Economico
editorialized (8/27): "Despite the U.S. military presence, religious
radicals from several nationalities have been getting together in Iraq to fight
the Western occupation forces. The transition towards an Iraqi administration
is much more complicated than the White House and the Pentagon had
predicted.... Iraq is not on the way to democratization. Actually, it seems
more on the way to chaos.... Contrary to being safer, as Bush and Blair had
promised, the world is increasingly dangerous. New Yorkers' frightened reaction
to the recent blackout demonstrated that U.S. citizens do not feel safer in
their own nation now than before the invasion of Iraq; nor does the USG,
considering the escalation of measures restricting the entry of foreigners into
the U.S., such as the suspension of transit visas. Maybe the most dramatic
evidence of the resounding failure of the strategy invoked by Bush and Blair
for the military action in the Persian Gulf is the deterioration of peace
chances between Israel and the Palestinians."
"Iraq: Americans Put Their
Lives In Danger"
Left-of-center La Jornada commented
(8/26): “The Iraqi people have organized
a military resistance which aspires to liberate their country from foreign
oppressors; from the time that the U.S. president announced the end of military
operations (this invasion) has caused more than 70 casualties among the
Federico Reyes Heroles wrote in independent Reforma
(8/26): “The old hotel blows up. We all know that the possibilities of feeling
dread in Baghdad are infinite, but this time surprise is unavoidable. Death
reached one of the UN authorities that was trained to support human rights in
the midst of war. What is the goal of attacking the allies? The lack of a
reason makes us feel bad, it makes us feel sad because it destroys any
expectation of hope.… Probably there were not as many judgements before as now.
Those millions, who weeks ago praised Bush--Rambo that gets out of a
helicopter-- and Blair because of their daring and their courage, are now aware
of the falsehood created by the State Department and the CIA. Image displaces
reason, neither did they get Bin Laden , nor have they been able to get
Hussein. What follows?”
An editorial in La Paz's centrist La Razon
argued (8/21): "Suicidal terrorism has never before reached these
extremes...it is impossible to combat and is causing hundreds of victims every
year and its target is western civilization, above all the heart of the U.S.... If any act of terrorism is condemnable as we
affirm this is, the bomb which destroyed the UN office in Baghdad, killing its
main representative along with sixteen others, and injuring a hundred, is not
only condemnable, but savage.... Due to
the attack's abominable nature, the world's repudiation will be heard, and the
fundamentalists who did this will have only gained the contempt of the
The lead editorial in Cali-based El Pais judged (8/24):
“The attack on the UN Office, the daily killing of coalition soldiers, and the
blowing up of Baghdad’s aqueduct are all signs that things in Iraq are becoming
worse...in the logic of the terrorists, the UN is linked to the occupying
forces.... That is why when the governments of the U.S. and the U.K. ask UN
members to contribute soldiers and money for the work in Iraq they receive no
as an answer.... In the case of Iraq and in general in the Middle East, the
U.S. sooner or later will have to accept that they fell in a trap. The chance to avoid it was earlier...when
Washington and London decided to invade Iraq, ignoring the Security Council.”
"The U.S. And The Cost of Arrogance"
Government-owned, editorially independent La
Nacion argued (8/24): "It is
incomprehensible that a country as developed as is the United
States...continues to make enormous mistakes due to the rudimentary vision that
its leaders have of the world.... The
Bush administration has tried hard to show the world that U.S. power cannot be
countered. But the cost of this is
enormous. In addition to the loss of
young American lives and the cost of maintaining occupation forces, we must add
the deterioration of U.S. credibility as a result of the array of arguments it
made to prove it was necessary and urgent to attack Iraq. This imperial nonsense can cause a lot of
damage to the American people. Only they
can make the corrections that will allow the United States to regain moral and
political authority in the eyes of the world."
"An Imperative In Iraq"
Conservative, newspaper-of-record, El
Mercurio editorialized (8/22): "The recent terrorist attack against
the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad...leads us to believe the attacks will
persist. The Iraqi resistance has chosen
each target to frustrate the pacifying efforts of the British and the
Americans.... The U.S. and its allies must increase their efforts as an
occupying force to impose peace and give Iraq democracy. Failing to do so, or thinking that a
multinational U.N. force would impose peace, does not seem a reasonable course
of action.... The Anglo-Saxons should
double their political and financial efforts to achieve the goal they set at
the beginning of the conflict."
"Iraq, another Vietnam?"
Leading morning daily, Prensa Libre ran
an op-ed by staff columnist Alfred Kaltschmitt stating (8/21): "The Bush administration is worried
about what is happening in Iraq. This
war has resulted costly, difficult and complex… Everything leads one to believe that the
U.S. presence in Iraq will mean great political damage for Bush, who, facing
elections, will not look good when
criticized by his opponents. What is
worse: some say that Iraq has every
potential of turning into another Vietnam.”
ECUADOR: "The Language Of Horror"
Leading centrist El Comercio remarked
(8/21): “The world was shaken again by the horror and cruelty of
terrorism. It is an anonymous expansive
wave with invisible actors whose aim is to cause innocent victims the most
severe pain possible...it destroys the hope of a people who despite their
cultural differences wish to live in peace.
Although there is still no effective response from what is left of the
world order, it is not acceptable that the leaders who unilaterally unleashed a
war against Iraq or who wish to establish peace with weapons in Israel should
lead the world community in this demented hour.”
"Building Legitimacy And Repairing Cracks"
The lead editorial in the centrist,
business-oriented Jamaica Observer commented (8/21): "While the UN will have to re-evaluate
its security in Iraq, there is no room to retreat. Its work as honest broker in creating the new
Iraq is vital.... A critical need now is
to build trust among ordinary Iraqis for those who govern Iraq. Clearly, Mr.
Paul Bremmer and his Iraqi advisory group do not enjoy that trust...it would be
worthwhile for President Bush to reconsider his position and seek to bring the
United Nations to the centre of the management and restructuring of Iraq,
rather than, as is the case now, attempting to have the UN give legitimacy to
an essentially unilateral action.... It
is partially about building trust...more important it is about building real
legitimacy and repairing the cracks that the Iraq war created in the concept of
PANAMA: "Consequences Of Attack"
Conservative El Panama America stated
(8/22): “The attack gives some
credibility to those who think that behind international terrorism hides the
reason of the unreasonable --pure nihilistic chaos, the desire to enthrone evil
over the face of the earth, in the biblical sense of the battle between two
extremes.... Ironically it is the so-called 'Hawks' of President Bush and his
radical imperialism who come out strengthened.
More moderate positions...like those of France and Germany, are weakened
with these attacks, giving way to extremism like the Israeli’s and preventing
civilized dialogue and political solutions.
And perhaps this is what Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups are looking
for. Terrorism must be rejoicing for
creating with these brutal attacks a world where fear, religious and
ideological intolerance, distrust and xenophobia prevails...where liberty dies
in the hands of totalitarian security...that is the police state and warlike
world seen by travelers today, that contrasts with what existed five years
"Effectiveness Against Terrorism"
Conservative, business-oriented El Observador
observed (8/22): "This attack is a warning that the civilized world cannot
ignore. The targets are not only Israel
and the United States.... Anyone who
lends a helping hand has become a terrorist target.... A solution to the [Palestinian] problem will
deprive Islamic terrorism of its principal excuse. The other necessary element
is to have the UN assume a more direct, wide-ranging and executive role on all
the fronts against the war on terrorism.
The U.S. must recognize that it isn't the dominant power when it comes
to imposing peace. This action demands a
joint action by the civilized world coordinated by the UN."
"The Growth Of Iraqi Resistance"
Leftist La Republica stressed (8/22):
"The American demands that the number of occupation troops be raised
presents a grave problem for a good number of countries on the list those that
might provide the troops eventually. The
diplomatic moves even where there is no open pressure on various 'friends' of
the United States Government demonstrate the extent of the threat. As is known, even Uruguay is not at the
margins of these pressures and risks.... "The insinuations by [Uruguayan]
Defense Minister Yamandu Fau in the sense of sending Uruguayan troops to Iraq
must be examined in the light of the reality that is coming from the
intensification of Iraqi resistance."
VENEZUELA: "Bush’s Vietnam"
Mansilla Blanco commented in leading magazine Zeta (8/25) “The correlation of attacks against U.S.
military and civilian targets over the last two weeks...is a warning that a new
terrorist strategic is planning to destabilize George Bush’s plans.”