June 10, 2004
IRAQ UNSC RESOLUTION: A 'VAST' INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS
Pro-resolution papers say the "big diplomatic victory" creates
a "chance for positive change."
Cautious dailies term the new resolution a "window for hope"
but no "panacea."
Naysayers assail the resolution as a "smokescreen."
Developing world critics demand the U.S. "relinquish its
stranglehold" over Iraq.
From 'occupation to cooperation'-- Papers cited the U.S.' "conciliatory and
pragmatic tone" to explain the "obvious success for President
Bush" in the UNSC. Conservative
dailies such as the Australian hailed the resolution's passage as a
"major step towards an independent and democratic Iraq," while
liberal outlets said the "important breakthrough" highlighted
"encouraging signs" of Iraq's "gradual normalization." Euro and Asian observers noted the "new
climate of understanding among the powers" that will "pave the way
for greater international involvement" in reconstruction, asserting that
the U.S. and Britain are "moving from unilateralism to
'The key struggle remains on the ground'-- Numerous analysts emphasized that the solution
to the "whole sorry saga" of Iraq "will be played out on the
ground, not at the UN." Spain's
left-of-center El Pais reflected widespread opinion that the
resolution is a "window for hope" but no "panacea." The "raging security crisis" was
one of the "enormous problems" that Iraq still faces; Germany's
center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine warned that "the security
situation will not ease just because the UN adopted a resolution." Since Iraq remains a "fragile
country," moderate Arab papers such as Lebanon's centrist Al-Anwar
backed the resolution's approval of an "interim phase with a mixture of
sovereignty and occupation"
A 'fig leaf' to create the 'fiction of an equal
partnership'-- Leftist skeptics judged
that the resolution consecrated "nonexistent Iraqi sovereignty" for a
government that "sorely lacks democratic legitimacy." Bangladeshi and Argentine writers said the
"handpicked government of appointees" consists of "Washington
government-influenced New Straits Times scorned the "cloak of legitimacy"
the resolution purported to give a situation where the "U.S. will be
calling the shots." Other dailies
noted the resolution "fails to clarify who is ultimately responsible for
ensuring domestic security."
The U.S. should transfer 'all power in Iraq to the UN'-- Muslim, African and Latin analysts stressed the
"need for the U.S. to withdraw its troops." Tunisia's independent Ash-Shourouq
blasted Iraq's continuing subjection to "direct colonization and the most
oppressive of military forces," while Ghana's government-owned Daily
Graphic urged the creation of an "all inclusive multinational force
under UN authority" to maintain security.
Argentina's financial El Cronista opined that the U.S. has
"lost the moral authority to put Iraq in order," joining other papers
that sought to give a "central role to the UN." Pakistan's centrist News alleged the
"mere farce" of a resolution proves the U.S. "never intends the
Iraqis to get full power."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. This report summarizes and interprets foreign
editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Government. This analysis was based on
92 reports from 38 countries over 5 - 10
June 2004. Editorial excerpts from each
country are listed from the most recent date.
"The Way Ahead"
The conservative Times commented (6/10): "The UN resolution is important not only
for bestowing international legitimacy on the new interim government.... It also brings to an official end the pointless
bickering among the Western allies over the future of Iraq, much of which
appeared to be motivated by political pride and pique among those who opposed
the war in the first place.... As the UN
vote showed, what matters is greater prosperity and stability in the region. For both, democracy is a prerequisite."
"A Fragile New Consensus, A Resolution
Lacking Clarity--But At Least The UN Is Back"
An editorial in the center-left Independent read
(6/9): "This is a thoroughly
positive development, one of very few pieces of unmitigated good news since the
whole sorry saga of the war in Iraq began....
The resolution is a constructive start to what will still be a difficult
and uncertain period in Iraq.... The
real test of that will be not the words of approval that Iraq's newly chosen
president and ministers are uttering now, but what happens after 30 June, when
real power is set to pass into the interim government's hands. Will the violence against U.S. and foreign
forces then subside, or will the insurgency continue and find a new target in the
"Welcome UN Success"
The conservative Daily Telegraph declared (6/9): "America and Britain can be rightly
pleased with the outcome of their diplomatic efforts at the UN.... The key question is how the interim
government will perform in its brief period of office before elections to a
transitional national assembly next January.
Here, inevitably, security is the prime concern.... Diplomatic success in New York is welcome,
but the key struggle remains on the ground in Iraq."
The left-of-center Guardian opined (6/9): "The latest resolution could be no
different to its still-born predecessors.
It is unlikely to make Iraq a safer place for foreign troops to operate. Nor will it alter Iraqi perceptions about the
nature of the occupation. But if it
works, it could give more credibility to Washington's case that real
sovereignty will be transferred to Baghdad at the end of this month and that in
turn increases the likelihood of a stable sovereign government emerging from
the whole sorry saga."
FRANCE: "Chirac And Bush
Opposed On The Iraqi Debt"
Luc de Barochez wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro
(6/10): “The UN resolution on Iraq,
which was heralded as a victory for American diplomacy, has not changed the
nature of the transatlantic debate....
Behind the scene at the G-8, the number one subject of discord is the
Iraqi debt.... President Bush pleaded in
vain in favor of almost totally erasing the debt, a proposal opposed by
France.... Another bone of contention
revolves around NATO’s military involvement in Iraq. France is extremely reserved over this
"Armistice At The UN"
Bruno Frappat opined in Catholic La Croix (6/10): “The other war, the diplomatic war over Iraq
is coming to an end.... The unanimous
vote on the UN resolution is an obvious success for President Bush. In fact, things are going rather well these
days for the U.S. president. Three
planned events, D-Day, the UN vote and the G-8 have offered him an avalanche of
positive results. Another unplanned
event, former President Reagan’s death, is also giving the American people an
opportunity to show patriotic fervor.
Will this positive atmosphere last?
The reunion at the UN happened because everyone made concessions. But by asking for NATO’s involvement in Iraq,
is President Bush not opening a new diplomatic 'front'?”
Patrick Sabatier wrote in left-of-center Liberation
(6/9): “It has been a while since
President Bush enjoyed such glory.... He
will be able to enjoy the beaches of Sea Island...after having convinced all,
including Chirac, to stop all criticism of the occupation of Iraq. Everyone has
accepted to vote for a UN resolution which grants President Bush’s endeavor the
international legitimacy which he lacked so cruelly, at the start of the
operations. The liberation of the Italian and Polish hostages confirms his
political success. It would be ridiculous not to be pleased with the resolution
and the liberation of the hostages. It is just as ridiculous to think that a
resolution will resolve the Iraqi crisis as if by magic. The solution will be
played out on the ground, not at the UN....
Four tests await the players, before and after June 30. Will the process
be able to survive car bombings, kidnappings and assassinations? Will the
Iraqis see in this new government something other than a puppet government?
They can see through the supposed 'sovereignty’ which has been granted to their
government, and they know that power is in the hands of those who carry the
weapons, whether it is the Americans or the anti-American resistance fighters.
Will the new government survive the contradictory forces of ethnic rivalry? Or
will it let Iraq become another Lebanon? Finally, and this may be the toughest
test, will President Bush know how to resist the double temptation of every
occupying force: will he impose his law or give up and withdraw his troops,
once his re-election is secured, leaving Iraq open to a new dictatorship,
and/or a civil war?”
"UN Resolution Unites International Community"
Jean-Louis Turlin noted in right-of-center Le Figaro
(6/9): “France could not be more
demanding than the new Iraqi authorities. But the positions it fought for at
the UNSC were most probably instrumental in reaching the final agreement."
Patrick Sabatier noted in left-of-center Liberation
(6/8): “The leaders meeting at the G-8
are set on not giving the impression that their summit is a board of directors
meeting of the ‘World Company'.... The
only concrete objective of the summit seems to be to give the impression that
world affairs are in the hands of well-educated leaders, although they do not
agree on anything.... President Bush,
the host, in order to be re-elected, needs to prove that he has not turned the
U.S. into a nation to be avoided like the plague. As for his guests, it is not
in their best interest to be on poor terms with the U.S. We can therefore bet
they will agree to sign one of those soporific final press releases promising
to work for peace and democracy....
Their desire for a consensus will be a substitute for the fact that
there is no consensus (because of President Bush’s policy.) Iraq will be the
bone of contention proving this postulate. The G-8 summit will be taking place
while in New York the UN will vote on a smokescreen resolution. It will
consecrate an nonexistent Iraqi sovereignty, which the Iraqis cannot exercise
because they cannot ensure the country’s safety without the coalition
forces.... But necessity will prevail.
Diplomacy’s role is to bring imperfect answers to issues that are practically
unsolvable, by marrying necessary compromises with unavoidable hypocrisy, in
order to move forward on the road to the possible.”
GERMANY: "Wind At His
Business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg
editorialized (6/10): "Bush is
flying in a good tail wind since the UN approved the U.S. resolution on
Iraq. He is now trying to use this
momentum and demands a stronger NATO role in the crisis region. Bush is selling it as an opportunity to end
the quarrel of the recent year, but finding a solution for the logistic
problems of the occupation force seems to be his first priority. His partners will not help him out of this
scrape. It is less a matter of political
will, but capacity. The alliance might
have more members after the recent expansion, but only Germany, France, Italy
and Spain are able to deploy troops, theoretically speaking. NATO cannot even achieve its goals in
Afghanistan and it cannot close the gaps in Iraq as long as its partners must
beg for every single helicopter in an operation. The coalition must bear the responsibility it
took when it started the war and increase the number of its troops to stabilize
the country. The war opponents cannot do
more than offering symbolic support, e.g., by training the Iraqi forces. But they should not do less either. To close ranks with the U.S. in Iraq would
not just be a message to NATO, but also to the Arab world."
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger said in center-right Frankfurter
Allgemeine (6/9): "One year
after Saddam Hussein's ouster and an occupation regime that created a long
shadow but only a few highlights, the UN is back in business, from which it was
pushed out by Washington, even though the UN itself did not always do a
brilliant job. Iraqization makes
progress and--this is probably the most important aspect--America takes on a conciliatory
and pragmatic tone, thanks to the high cost that have now resulted in political
consequences. Contrary to all disaster
forecasts, the future for the country is not that bleak. But the security situation will not ease just
because the UN adopted a resolution....
There will continue to be forces that are planning to destroy a future
perspective with violence against the occupation troops and terror against the
Iraqis under the disguise of national resistance. UN envoy Brahimi said it would take years
until Iraq will have mastered all challenges.
Since this is probably not exaggerated, Iraq needs assistance from its
neighbors, the creditors, and the UN.
And this is something Brahimi also said:
He even stressed the stabilization need by using the term 'urgent.' The unanimous adoption of the UN resolution
is, therefore, a welcome beginning."
"Avoiding Clear Answers"
Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich stated
(6/9): "In Baghdad, it could soon
become obvious that the new UNSC resolution has a flaw: It avoids a clear answer to the most
controversial aspect. While the
Americans want to keep the last word on the operation of their forces in Iraq,
countries like France advocated granting the Iraqi transition government a
right to veto large-scale military missions.
The resolution now provides for cooperation between the U.S.-led
coalition and the government in Baghdad in all security-relevant
questions. But what does this mean in a
dispute? What should be valid if the Americans want to reconquer a city from
the hands of a militia leader, while the transition government is opposed? Then it will become obvious that the
sovereign is still the U.S. And this
insight could rekindle the revolt among the Iraqis."
"Carte Blanche For The Occupation Power"
Roland Heine judged in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung
(6/9): "The Iraq resolution is a
certificate of poverty for the members of the UNSC. It is certainly right that the Iraqis are
unable to create peace in their own country, and a civil war, for which the
U.S. would be responsible, cannot be in the interest of the war opponents. But
especially because President George W. Bush is faced with a confusing situation
and needs the UN, the majority in the Security Council should have avoided
granting the occupiers a carte blanche.
Did they, out of delight about the fact that the colossus has finally
moved, ignore the fact that this movement was only a minimum movement? This is possible, but the main interest is
probably to strike deals. The U.S. is
obviously about to correct its practice for awarding large-scale contracts for
Iraq. This means that companies from
nations that rejected the war should get a chance to take part in the
reconstruction business in Iraq."
Pierre Simonitsch opined in left-of-center Frankfurter
Rundschau (6/8): "In the end,
all sides involved will celebrate the UN resolution as a victory.... Now the opponents of the war...are trying to
make the best from the faits accomplis.
But rarely before did UN decisions influence the course of history. They frequently served as a fig leaf. The goal of the Iraq resolution is to
legitimize the Iraqi transition government…and the stay of the multilateral
force under U.S. command. What the U.S.
has accepted as amendments are only retouchings. The draft is based on the fiction of an equal
partnership between the U.S. and Iraq. But how can an elected Iraqi government
whose survival depends on occupation forces pursue a sovereign policy?.... What is pleasing is that the U.S. again seeks
a consensus in the UNSC. The attitude of
the Iraqis will show whether the resolution will reach its goal. [If not] the individual ethnic groups can be
mobilized with the push on a button if their leader see their position
"Struggling Over Nuances"
Center-right Lausitzer Rundschau of Cottbus judged
(6/8): "At least in the diplomatic
arena, peace will return with respect to Iraq.
In the UNSC, all sides involved are now only struggling over nuances.... The basis for this agreement is the hope that
the people in Iraq will succeed in a relatively brief period of time in taking
their fate into their own hands. But all
sides overlook the fact that it will not be enough to oust a dictator and rely
on the self-healing forces of a downtrodden country. The main issue is allegedly to pave the way
for the people in Iraq to create a future based on self-determination. But as a matter of fact it is becoming
obvious that no one wants to engage himself in Iraq any longer. What has now begun is that all sides want to
escape their responsibility as quickly as possible."
Center-right Thueringer Allgemeine of Erfurt said
(6/8): "Compared to the ideal views
of the Americans, these are only makeshift programs. None of the interim rules for the Iraqi
government...can guarantee a peaceful future to the country. The fact that within two weeks, the U.S.
declared its willingness to rewrite the draft for a UN resolution four times,
conveys the certainty that time is really pressing. By June 30, President Bush wants to leave the
front lines. At least in the presidential election campaign, he can then pass
on responsibility for all the things that happen afterwards to the Iraqi
government. That is why it even seems to
be possible that the French demand will be included in the UN resolution to
give the Iraqis a say over the operations of the remaining international forces
in the country."
ITALY: "A Timed
Vittorio Zucconi commented in left-leaning, influential La
Repubblica (6/10): “If in Europe
there remains the sense--or the illusion--that France, Germany and Russia
forced Bush to bow his head and to finally accept UN control over the U.S., the
events of the last week are being read by Bush’s entourage in the exact
opposite manner. The [Sea Island] summit
is being sold and talked about as ‘the vindication’ of a president who survived
a year of trying times and horrors, which he exited as the owner of the world,
on the threshold of an ‘American century.’...
Bush’s real enemy is no longer France, Russia and the UN; it’s this
timed victory, this success, which is dictated by deadlines and formal
appointments within which there are explosive charges that the UN’s unanimous
resolution did not defuse. The UN and
Europe did not give Bush a blank check.
Terrorism has not surrendered.
The timelines remain. The
calendar to transform a fake regime into an electoral government is still
lingering in the shadows.... The fact
that Bush obtained the UN’s imprimatur, but not NATO troops, both legitimizes
and binds him. He will no longer be able
to violate the mandate to govern Iraq.
He has tied the others to him, but he is now also tied to the others. The essential thing for Bush is that this
timed victory doesn’t explode in the next five months--until the presidential
elections, in order to obtain a few more votes.”
"Bush’s About Face And The Return To The Rule Of Law"
Bernardo Valli noted in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica
(6/9): “The road to Baghdad is long and
tormented. Along the path, which is filled with ambushes, in order to make it
on time and not alone with only a few allies or faithful or reluctant subjects,
Bush has sought a vast and official international consensus, and he obtained
it. His success is undeniable. He will make the June 30 appointment...with a
new image. He will no longer appear like a president who, overestimating the
possibilities of a powerful America, launched himself into an adventure that he
is not able to exit; but as the commander of a coalition who has been endowed
with a clear mandate by the UNSC, which is the holder of international
legality. I wouldn’t be shocked if Bush decided to personally attend the
[transfer of power ceremony] in Baghdad on June 30. He would transform that day
into a personal triumph before the November elections.... The Security Council’s resolution must be
accepted with satisfaction also because it signals a return to the
international rule of law. The U.S. president diverged from it, he turned his
back on it, but he had to return to it in order to obtain the consensus that
will lead him down the road to Baghdad. He realized that he couldn’t make it
alone. And with an abrupt turnaround, due more to need than to conviction, he
dedicated himself to bringing about a multilateral consensus.... His imperial interpretation of power has been
Stefano Silvestri held in leading business-oriented Il Sole-24
Ore (6/9): “The definitive approval
of the new resolution on Iraq and the liberation of the three Italian hostages
are more than a happy coincidence: they are the tangible signs of the much
sought after positive turnaround in the handling of the crisis. It came thanks
to the precise and ongoing military and political engagement of the coalition
forces, which opened to the return of the UN and to the recognition of Iraqi
sovereignty. This in turn gave way to the re-establishment of a common
European-American front against terrorism and gave the new Iraqi government the
necessary instruments to bring about peace....
Significant progress has been made even though the situation on the
ground is not all that clear and a great deal will depend on the credibility
and the effectiveness of the new Iraqi government. For example, it will have to
demonstrate to the Iraqis that it is not a puppet of Washington, without
cutting off cooperation that remains essential for security and
reconstruction.... We don’t know how
things will turn out, but in the meantime the international system seems to be
working better than it did yesterday. And that’s already something.”
"New Resolution On Iraq, Voting Today"
Ennio Caretto observed in centrist, top-circulation Corriere
della Sera (6/8):
“John Negroponte announced that the resolution would be voted on by
today and added that he was ‘very optimistic.’ Bush has reached his objective,
which was to begin the G8 summit tomorrow with a resolution in hand, as a
crowning of the political shift that took place last week in Rome and Paris,
and to go from a state of occupation to cooperation with Iraq. His success
could very well facilitate a compromise with the allies on the reform plans in
the Middle East, which is contested by a part of Islam.... The debate at the UN began on the trail of
the interventions of Annan and Brahimi....
According to the White House, if the resolution is approved it will
produce immediate results. Three countries, that are still not engaged in Iraq,
have supposedly already offered 4,000 men to the force that will protect the UN
in Baghdad, and that will work alongside the Anglo-American forces.”
"The World Won’t Change In One Day"
Boris Biancheri wrote in centrist, influential La Stampa
(6/8): “The U.S. and Great Britain have
presented a new draft resolution to the UNSC and the general feeling is that it
will be approved soon.... It is
primarily the result of a change in relations between the U.S. and countries
like France and Germany.... Naturally,
everyone had to yield something--the Americans in the first place, who had to
resign themselves to seeking a multilateral approach that they had so disdained
earlier. The French, Germans and Russians had to corroborate what happened and
legitimize the presence of the coalition as well as an interim government that
was in large part established by Washington....
It seemed impossible even to those who opposed the war to abandon Iraq.”
RUSSIA: "The Kremlin
Helps The U.S. 'Win' In Iraq"
Yulia Petrovskaya wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta (6/10: "The resolution
puts a formal limit to the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf. This is a key element that made it possible
to settle differences in the UN Security Council.... The consensus on Iraq will help the U.S.
leader achieve the necessary propaganda effects in the war on terrorism and
plans to reform the Middle East, implying more regime changes there.... The Kremlin can hardly believe in the Iraqis
having gained all sovereign rights and Bush blindly following UN Security
Council resolutions. For Moscow the
important thing to do now is to keep down its serious differences with America
on nuclear cooperation with Iran and thestate of democracy in Russia.... Russia is really concerned over the conflict
spilling across the Iraqi border and the export of 'Iraqi terrorism' to
Chechnya. But by identifying with
Washington at the top level, Russia lets itself be drawn into the crisis,
becoming a 'legitimate target' for the Iraqi resistance."
"Nobody Wants To Say No"
Sergey Merinov stated in official government-run
Rossiyskaya Gazeta (6/10):
"None of the Security Council members said no or abstained. But that
does not mean that the hard-won 32-point resolution has removed all
problems or won't cause new ones."
"U.S. Blitzkrieg In UN"
Andrey Zlobin commented in reformist Vremya Novostey
(6/9): "The new UN resolution will
help Paris and Moscow save face, as they are trying to keep up with the
settlement process in Iraq, wresting tiny concessions on the text. Washington has won a big diplomatic
victory. It has done it, which goes for
the subject of the resolution (the U.S. troops will stay in Iraq, but will no
longer be called occupation) and the timing.
Adopting the resolution before June 30 makes the provisional government
internationally legitimate. So, coming
to the summit on Sea Island, U.S. President Bush must feel like a leader with a
consistent strategy on Iraq. Bush has
showed to the American voter that he can act in league with the UN."
"Power Hand-Over Unconvincing"
Maksim Novikov contended in official government-run Rossiyskaya
Gazeta (6/9): "It does not look
all that optimistic when it comes to the promised prosperity of Iraq under the
interim government. Many experts are
inclined to see the Allawi cabinet as lacking in independence and credibility,
which makes the sovereignty transfer look unconvincing. Paradoxically, with the foreigners proposing
to transfer control over the armed forces to the local government, as enshrined
in a UN resolution, cabinet members openly vote for U.S. control."
"New Resolution To End Divided World Into Winners And
Sergey Strokan commented in business-oriented Kommersant
(6/8): "It is not whether the new Iraqi government has the veto
right. It is who is in the
government. Iraq's future depends not on
the resolution, but on who takes the upper hand in the fight for power in that
country and how tolerant they will be of the foreign presence, military,
economic and humanitarian. Also, it may well be that, as they stay on, the U.S.
troops, using all sorts of pretexts, will refuse to change the way they have
been acting to this day. And this is
what will most probably happen. When UN
resolutions cause problems instead of helping the United States, the UN, so it
seems, ceases to exist, with no one paying much attention to it. No doubt, the new UN resolution on Iraq is
important as it will virtually put an end to the world having been divided into
winners and losers, the peace party and war party, since the beginning of the
Iraq war. It must help the world feel
like one whole. But all that will be of
little consequence to Iraq itself."
AUSTRIA: "The UNSC Has
Yielded To Reason"
Martin Stricker observed in independent
provincial Salzburger Nachrichten (6/9):
“The compromise shows that the U.S., and the European anti-war camp
alike opted for a more pragmatic approach this time.... No one would want Iraq to succumb to chaos,
nor to become the center of an autonomous al Qaida region. The new unity at the
UN will not save Iraq over night. Stability would finish off the terrorists.
Therefore, they will bomb and kill, in order to hold their ground. Still, their
chances at success have become smaller.”
"Faith Is Not Enough"
Gudrun Harrer wrote in liberal Der Standard
(6/9): “With all due respect for the
UNSC resolution on Iraq, the fact remains that it does not say anything on how
things are going to progress in Iraq. Thus, it does not seem likely that the
former anti-war camp is now prepared to participate in a mission to stabilize
Iraq. Nor will the resolution lead to the re-integration of even a single rebel
fighter. At least, though, the new Iraqi government has been given something
akin to international legitimacy.”
BELGIUM: "The UN
Codifies The Transfer Of Power In Baghdad"
Baudouin Loos asserted in left-of-center Le
Soir (6/9): "Observers will
probably speak of another American diplomatic victory: indeed, it is unanimous
that the UNSC was expected to vote the Resolution on the transfer of power in
Iraq last night.... The Bush
Administration has every reason to be pleased, since its short term objectives
have been reached. On the one hand, an Iraqi interim government that includes a
majority of exiled Iraqis--Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is actually a CIA contractor--will
take over in three weeks with the UNSC's approval. And on the other hand,
occupation forces will keep their autonomy.
But the fact remains that this 'transfer of sovereignty' is not likely
to enjoy popular support. Indeed, it is very likely that a large part of the
Iraqi population will consider its new government, which sorely lacks
democratic legitimacy, with great distrust. The expression 'full sovereignty'
that Washington and London are using for the transfer of power will be met with
skepticism in Iraq. But it is true that faultfinders have been considering for
a long time that the expression 'full sovereignty' was mostly meant for worried
American and British public opinions. On the contrary, optimists will point out
that Germany and Japan became democratic while they were being militarily
"Good News For The Iraqis"
Gerald Papy remarked in independent La Libre
Belgique (6/9): "The consensus
on the new UN Resolution on the transfer of power in Iraq is a turning point in
international relations. It marks a kind of reconciliation among big countries,
with the U.S. and Great Britain on one side, and France, Russia, China, and
Germany--those opposed to the war--on the other. Their disagreement on the
Iraqi question over a year ago had led to one of the worst crisis in recent
transatlantic relations.... The vote of
the UN Resolution does not mean that, tomorrow, French, Russians, and Americans
are going to work together in Iraq. But at least, the dialogue has been
restored. The analysis of the
negotiations that took place to reach this outcome shows the long way the U.S.
and Great Britain have come, moving from unilateralism to multilateralism,
which was yesterday an obstacle for them and now serves their interests. It is
sad that one had to wait for the political and military situation in Iraq to be
bogged down before they made that philosophical turnaround. It does not mean
that the United States will never make similar mistakes again, but at least
Iraq is henceforth on better bases."
"The D-Day Truce Is Over"
Catherine Mommaerts held in financial L'Echo
(6/8): "In early 2003, U.S.
President George W. Bush considered that he could ignore the UN and his
European partners that were opposed to the war in Iraq. But today, almost three
weeks from the transfer of power to the Iraqis, violence still prevails in a
country that is on the brinks of the abyss. Bush therefore needs the UN and the
support of the international community to try to get out of a quagmire that is
increasingly difficult to justify domestically.... Because, although international issues
traditionally do not matter much in U.S. elections, George Bush's falling
popularity as a result of the situation Iraq does not bode well for him. The
Europeans--to begin with the French, the Russians, and the Germans--are fully
aware of this, and they took advantage of their position of strength to impose
some 'improvements' to the proposed UN Resolution.... But these countries are also fully aware of
the fact that, without the 150,000 coalition soldiers in Iraq, that country
would fall into a chaos whose shock wave would spread to neighboring countries
before inevitably hitting Europe. This awareness will not lead these countries
to send troops to Iraq, even through NATO--and the Bush Administration knows
this very well--but it will lead them to be more open to Washington's requests
for economic and political assistance in Iraq."
"Burying The Hatchet"
Center-right Dnevnik stated (6/8): "It looks like June is about to turn
into the month when the hatchets will be buried.... So far so good. France, Russia and China will agree to the
new UN resolution through clenched teeth....
With only a few months before the presidential elections in the U.S.,
some people in 'old Europe' are secretly hoping that the resolution will help
John Kerry win the election, but it is not clear how they would respond if he
does and next year demands that the Europeans send troops and money to
Iraq. The hatchets may be buried, but no
one has smoked the peace pipe."
IRELAND: "UN's Role Restored"
The center-right Irish Independent
declared (6/10): "The unanimous
UNSC vote on the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government is a
sign of great hope for the country, the region, and world order.... It does send out two enormously important and
welcome signals. President George Bush and his critics have reached a
compromise; and the role of the UN has been restored. The compromise favors the
U.S.... It means, in particular, that
control of the security forces has been left somewhat vague. In practical
terms, the U.S. will of course insist on retaining considerable freedom of
action. At least equally unclear is what
will replace the U.S. forces when they leave Iraq. Mr Bush envisages some
ill-defined role for NATO. Of greater
consequence is the question whether, within some reasonable timescale such as
12 months, reconstructed Iraqi forces will be capable of keeping order. Such a prospect appears remote at present.
Violence is widespread. At least one major city is in rebel hands. But
political progress, spurred by popular desire for a peaceful settlement, could
transform the scene. The interim
government, though unelected, has shown evidence of independent
thinking.... Not long ago Mr Bush displayed
almost open contempt for the UN.
Evidently he has now been brought to recognise its value. That is a
massive step forward.”
"Opportunities In Iraq"
Influential independent NRC Handelsblad editorialized
(6/9): "The new Iraqi resolution
turned out to be a document that brings sovereignty for the Iraqis and internationalization
of the military operation. Compared to
the first draft, this UN resolution turned out to be a document the coalition
partners, who care about a multinational cause, should not be ashamed of. In
this respect, the Netherlands can be relieved at the eve of deciding on
extending its mission in Iraq.... It is
worth noting that opponents of the war--France, Germany, and Russia--support
the resolution. This alone is a reality
and a huge step forward, which cannot be ignored.... Even though these do not remove the disgrace
of the American misdeeds in the Abu Ghraib, the key reservations against
extending the military mission in Iraq have been removed.... Reconstruction is a joint responsibility; if
the resolution emphasizes anything then this is it. To stay in Iraq under these rules is not a
shame. There are risks, but the
resolution offers countries which have troops in Iraq a better opportunity to
handle things their way and not the American way. And that is through peacekeeping."
"Iraq: A New Chapter"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant stated (6/10): "The new UN resolution is an important
breakthrough in the Iraqi crisis. Even
though there was a global UN mandate for the U.S.-led military forces, this mandate
has now been detailed and more precisely defined.... In the negotiations about the draft text, the U.S. showed more willingness to
make concessions than it has in the past.
This indicates some shifts in Washington. The White House came to realize that UN
assistance is inevitable to cope with the enormous problems in Iraq. A not unimportant side effect is that
President Bush made himself less vulnerable in the election campaign to being
blamed for having damaged the U.S. with his unilateralist policy."
"Unity About Iraq Required"
Centrist Algemeen Dagblad editorialized (6/9): "The UN resolution on Iraq is a good
basis for a new chapter in the not so pretty book on Iraq. The Dutch cabinet
will decide to extend the Dutch mission in Iraq on Friday.... Parties which had expressed doubts about the
extension, such as labor party PvdA and Democrats D66, should not allow
emotions about the American misconduct and sometimes bold actions influence
their decision. The Iraqis want the Dutch to stay and the Netherlands makes a
good contribution to stability and safety in al-Muthanna.... It is very important that the three coalition
parties fully support the Cabinet's decision."
NORWAY: "A Way Out Of
The Mire In Iraq"
Erik Sagflaat commented in social democratic Dagsavisen
(6/9): "The new UN resolution
points to a possible way out of the mire. Maybe the only one possible. But
there are enormous problems to be overcome. The Kurdish dissatisfaction and
threats about breaking away from Baghdad do not bode well.... The temporary government is well received and
supported by a great majority of the Iraqis. However, there are strong forces
in Iraq and the surrounding region that would like the democracy process to
fail.... The Americans came as occupants,
and have by their conduct also made it certain that they are perceived as
occupants and oppressors, not as the liberators they wanted to be.... The U.S. has accepted that it must continue
to bear the majority of the burden in Iraq. But this they brought upon
themselves when the Bush administration decided to cross the UNSC and start a
war on their own, based on false assumptions."
POLAND: "Good And Bad
Joanna Krawczyk opined in right-of-center Zycie (6/9): “Mixed news came from Iraq. The depressing
and tragic news was that Polish soldiers were killed on a dangerous
mission.... But good news arrived on
that very same day. First, a Pole abducted [a week ago] was rescued. Second, we
have a UN resolution that will create a new Iraq, will change the role of the
international troops, and, undoubtedly, will offer a serious chance for
positive change in the region.”
SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO:
"If Only The War in Iraq Were Not Going On"
Gordana Logar commented in independent Belgrade-based Danas
(6/5-6): "President Bush should not
be reprimanded for using his trip to Normandy for the current policy
needs.... His speech last week at the
Air Force Academy, when he compared the war against terrorism with WW II,
indicated that he will talk with his French, German, Russian and other allies
about the Iraqi war and new arrangements through the UN. There are more indications that the U.S. will
cooperate more closely with Moscow, Paris and Berlin and that they will be
offered good projects in the reconstruction of Iraq.... The American public and official Washington
are discussing WW II with due respect.
In addition, debates on whether this is a good or just war are occupying
the American public, as well as the dilemma on whether America went too easily
to war.... The relations between the
U.S. on the one side and France and Europe on the other side are much stronger
than the sporadic conflicts which will be overcome at the moments of serious
SLOVENIA: "More Sand
In The Eyes"
Middle East correspondent Barbara Surk argued in left-of-center Delo
(6/10): "Brahimi's favorites were,
one after another, crossed off the list of candidates for the interim Iraqi
government. Even before the new
resolution on Iraq was passed by the Security Council, the new Iraqi government
had nullified its contents. After [the
resolution] had been passed, the representatives of the international community
and the leaders of the occupation coalition were welcoming their concurrent
support for Iraqis, rather than toasting a united Iraq. They overlooked the fact that no one had
applauded them in Baghdad, Falujah, Mosul, Basra, Najaf, Irbil, and
Sulaymania.... Iraq is crying for
national, rather than international, legitimacy.... By blessing the interim Iraqi government and
sealing the symbolic end of the American occupation, the international
community has just thrown sand in the eyes of the Iraqis."
SPAIN: "Much Better
Left-of-center El País maintained (6/9): "The new Iraq resolution is an advance
from the critical situation suffered by the Arab country.... It's above all a window for hope, but very
far from being...the panacea some want to see.
It does not contain...the conditions Rodríguez Zapatero set for keeping
troops in Iraq, which does not contradict Spain's favorable vote once its
soldiers have been repatriated.... The
end of 2005 is then the hour of truth for Iraq, and the possibilities of this
resolution will be tested on the road.
For the moment, both besieged Bush and Blair can breath easily after the
unanimous approval of the turnover of powers.... Bush can show off before the G-8 a united
front of the West and Russia after the gravest international crisis in a long
time. The immediate trial by fire for the
UN agreement is on Iraqi soil.... The
hurdles race has only started."
"Unanimity In The UN Iraq Resolution"
Independent El Mundo declared (6/9): "The resolution is a victory of Powell's
arguments over unilateralist Rumsfeld....
The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, by announcing his support for
the resolution, tried to make up for time wasted without the government getting
any international political capital for its decision to withdraw troops from
Iraq. He affirmed that we have
'triggered' the agreement, but it is not clear the use of triggering for the
union of two parties that don't need our services anymore and are not going to
recognize the ones rendered.
Paradoxically, Zapatero's Government is voting for a resolution
that...does not fulfill any of the two conditions he set and supports the
presence of troops, although ours are not there anymore. The control of time in diplomacy is essential
and Spain has not been able to exercise it: Aznar's government went to the U.S.
aid too early, and Zapatero's recognizes that it 'went ahead in time' by
withdrawing troops. Now, Spain is not
going to get anything out of either.
Even worse, both mistakes will cost us very dear."
"The New Iraq"
Conservative ABC opined (6/9): "If the course of the negotiations to
close this resolution showed anything, it was that the role the world demand of
the UN, that of peacemaker and worldwide legislator, still depends on the coincidence
of interests of the five permanent members of the UNSC.... To obtain peace and defeat terrorism, the
best political instrument is democracy, and its extension to all the regions in
the world should be the main objective of this new climate of understanding
among the powers.... The UN resolution
must also build a victory for the millions of Moslems that are fighting for the
democratization of their states, whose aspirations for freedom and progress are
the first victims of violent fundamentalism."
"A Decisive June"
Centrist La Vanguardia editorialized (6/8): "[T]he vote in the UNSC on a new Iraq
resolution, which could happen in the
next few hours, represents a magnificent opportunity to weld old cracks and
heal old wounds. Irrespective of how the
situation in Iraq evolves, it is evident that the zone of the Middle East and
Central Asia constitutes the focal point of the world crisis or, at least, that
which could have the gravest consequences for the international
community.... In the short term new UN
resolution would follow an announced agreement...in which nine militias...have
agreed to dissolve.... But on the other
hand, it id difficult to find in history a U.S. Administration as unpopular in
Europe as this one."
"A Resolution That May Make Zapatero Look Bad"
Independent El Mundo stated (6/8): "If Aznar was judged by the results
produced by his political commitment to Bush, Zapatero should also be measured
by the objective consequences of the withdrawal of troops before June 30.... Taking into account what happened in the last
weeks, it seems that it would have been more sensible to wait until the end of
June before making the decision. This
would have given huge room for maneuver for our diplomacy, which could have
even politically capitalized on the new resolution. And this would have saved the affront by the
U.S. of elevating Morocco to 'preferential ally,' thus facilitating the
rearmament of the Moroccan regime....
The rapprochement between France and the U.S leaves the [Spanish] government
in an uncomfortable position, bordering on isolation."
SWEDEN: "End Of The
Conservative Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet
editorialized (6/10): “Let us hope that
in a few years this (UN resolution) will stand out as the decisive turning
point.... It may be the end of the
beginning on the path towards democracy for the Iraqis.... What is important now is that Iraq turns into
a country where living conditions are decent.
It is therefore gratifying that the UN Security Council has managed to
unite on part of the path towards this goal.”
"Bury The Hatchet"
Liberal Stockholm-based Dagens Nyheter
opined (6/10): “The fact that the UN
finally managed to unite on a resolution on Iraq might be an important step in
the right direction.... The
long-standing grudge must be buried, and even among those who opposed the war
there should be a willingness to win the peace.
But the world will not be totally accommodating. Europe, with the exception of Great Britain,
has not, for example, even hinted at the possibility of contributing additional
or new troops. Military responsibility still
rests with the U.S. But the unity seems
to be alarmingly momentary, and there is nothing which indicates that this
recently gained unity will withstand any severe strains. There is nothing that says that this is not
just another expression of the Bush administration’s wish to put into practice
‘multilateralism à la carte.’ “
EGYPT: "Mending Fences
Mohammed Sid-Ahmed observed in leading, pro-government Al-Ahram
(6/7): "Bush's attempt to mend
fences with his European critics and involve the UN more closely in the
decision-making process in Iraq, as evidenced by letting UN special envoy
Lakhdar Brahimi influence the selection of the new Iraqi interim government, is
closely related to Bush's desire to clean up his image prior to the November
presidential election.... This may not
serve Bush, as China has joined France, Russia, Germany and Spain in demanding
a fixed date for the withdrawal of the US-led multinational occupation forces
in Iraq. Disagreements remain between
the US, France, China and Germany over a proposal before the UNSC, with the latter
group demanding the insertion of language granting Iraq full sovereignty after
the June 30 deadline to transfer power....
If a deal cannot be reached regarding full sovereignty...the only
acceptable alternative to foreign occupation is a UN peacekeeping force
answerable to the UNSC."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Iraq
The pro-government English-language Arab News held
(6/9): "The unanimous support for
last night’s UN Security resolution on Iraq is the first time since the
invasion that the outside world has spoken with one voice on the country’s
future. It must be hoped that this is the start of a continuous process which
will give Iraqis the backing and strength to seize their own destiny and
rebuild their country as a peaceful and pluralist state.... The subtle adjustments to the wording of the
resolution are however less important than the understandings that have been
reached among world leaders, understandings which hopefully be reinforced at
the G-8 Summit.... President Bush’s
administration has come a long way from its assertive mood of a year ago.
Washington has had to accept that Iraq is not the straightforward task it
fantasized. The French meanwhile, who have been most consistent in their
criticism of Washington and by extension coalition policy, have accepted that
there is no further point in saying what is wrong. Now is the time step in and
see what can be done better.
Nevertheless, it is already being argued that even with this vote, Paris
and Moscow are not prepared to become more involved. It must be hoped that this
is wrong. The only solution that is going to work is one that is
multilateral.... As the political
process gathers pace, the security situation, dire though it still is, will
assume a secondary importance. The men of violence who are struggling to
destabilize Iraq have flourished in the power vacuum caused by the coalition
occupation and its endless blunders. Their very existence is challenged by the
emergence of a workable political consensus among Iraqis themselves. The killing
will not stop and the violence may even increase. The hope must now be,
however, that as long as Iraqis stay resolute and the international community
stands firmly behind them, the resentment against an unchecked, ill-prepared
and ill-informed occupation force which has been the main reason for the
violence will ebb away."
"The Future Of Iraq And The Security
Makkah’s conservative Al-Nadwa
editorialized (6/9): "Iraq’s
independence will not fully materialize when the UNSC approves a resolution
that would give back Iraq its sovereignty.
Iraq still needs full control of its security and armed forces. But as long as Iraqis still prefer to have
coalition forces in to keep the peace in the country, the cooperation should be
conducted in a framework that guarantees Iraq’s sovereignty. This is exactly what the UNSC has discussed
and put in the proposed report. It is
our hope that this becomes the first step towards a more active role of the UN
in the future of Iraq and the region."
The elite, English-language Jordan Times declared
(6/10): "The unanimous adoption of
Resolution 1546 on Iraq by the UNSC marks a turning point in the Iraq
conflict.... The adoption of the
US-British-sponsored resolution demonstrates that there is a meeting of minds
by all the major players in the council on how to restore full sovereignty to
the Iraqi people and their legitimate government. The Iraqis are now on the
threshold of regaining not only sovereignty and considerable control over the
deployment of forces within the country but also full control over oil
revenues.... The stage is now set for
the restoration of security and normalcy within the country, especially in the
wake of the agreement to disband all militias operating on Iraqi soil. With the
resolution of the Iraqi situation now at least within view, the Middle East may
at last be able to breathe a sigh of relief."
Sovereignty With Deficient Decision"
Rafiq Khoury commented in centrist Al-Anwar (6/10): “There is no short way for a quick move from
occupation to sovereignty, neither in Iraq...nor in Palestine. There should be an interim phase with a
mixture of sovereignty and occupation before reaching total independence and
governments elected by their people.
This is why the resolution that was issued by the Security Council over
security in Iraq is extremely important.
There is no doubt that the resolution is not perfect...but it is a
roadmap towards the future of a new Iraq:
A national convention, elections next December, an elected Government, a
constitution, a referendum over the constitution, then elections that would
complete this political process.”
"Iraq’s Future Must Be Underwritten By Law And Order"
The moderate English-language Daily Star stated
(6/10): “The UNSC voted unanimously to
endorse a resolution that will determine the future of Iraq.... The Security Council vote, and euphoria on
the part of the G-8 group of industrial nations are proof, if more were needed,
of the responsibility the developed world must shoulder to put Iraq on a stable
footing and on the path to peace and prosperity.... U.S. President Bush owes a debt to the men
and women of the interim government who have accepted responsibility for
presiding over Iraq’s rehabilitation. It
is Bush’s turn to do all in his power to ensure they succeed.... The U.S., especially, and the G-8 and the
UN--must supply material and tangible assistance to immediately institute a
strong, responsible and independent judiciary.
This mission is a doubly urgent one because the interim government will
dissolve itself by the end of January 2005 to hold democratic elections for a
new government. The promise is both
unique and tantalizing, both for Iraq and the region. Firm foundations of law and order are a
prerequisite--to take the first bold steps into what is bound to be a
precarious election period without such foundations would be courting
disaster. And, like the promise, a
disaster for Iraq will be a disaster for the entire region.”
"UN Mandate On Iraq May Not Mean Much"
The semi-independent, English-language Gulf
Times held (Internet version, 6/10):
"While the new Security Council resolution on Iraq...has attracted
international praise, many Iraqis remained skeptical about whether it would
have any real effect on the security and economic problems they are
facing..... Many ordinary people there
reportedly feel that the resolution fails to give Iraq full independence and,
consequently, will not end the violence.
For President George W. Bush, who had contemptuously dismissed the UN a
year ago, the 15-0 Security Council vote was a 'great victory' for
Iraq.... And, of course, the world is
united in its desire for a better future for the Iraqi people and its desire to
make the best of today's realities....
[But] if the suggestion is that the resistance is now illegitimate
because the U.S. and UK have Security Council backing, the corollary would be
that prior to the vote the resistance was legitimate and the occupation was
not.... In reality, the UN vote was not
about the legitimacy or otherwise of what has happened, it was about doing
whatever the Security Council could to bring peace and stability out of
chaos.... Whether it will make much
practical difference to the tide of events is doubtful. That was underscored yesterday when President
Bush urged NATO to play a role in Iraq.
Clearly, the allies have taken on a larger task than they realized and
are desperate to spread the burden.
However, it is doubtful whether the new legitimacy provided by the UN
vote will be sufficient to persuade France and Germany to agree to a NATO
deployment in Iraq."
TUNISIA: "Is It A
Raouf Khalsi opined in independent French-language Le Temps
(6/9): “With this resolution on the
transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, will the UN embrace, at this stage, a real and
decisive role in regard to international relations?.... The UN seems to be assuming a crucial role
that responds to the desires of the U.S.--and not the role recommended by Old
Europe.... Undoubtedly, the final
version of the project requires that the Iraqi government and the multinational
force maintained after June 30 cooperate on the questions of security, including on sensitive offensive operations. Let’s be
reminded simply that in the name of the international law of interference,
these ‘sensitive offensive operations’ were, some time ago, relegated to the
blue helmets mandated by Boutros Ghali. The mess, which resulted, could be
described as worse than the holocaust: a genocide of Bosnians. And who stopped
this genocide? Well, simply the U.S. army. As part of this new equilibrium of
terror...it is important that the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis not result
in emptying the country of its natural resources and causing the upsurge of a
certain religious radicalism.... This
Iraq, the cradle of civilization, has to be protected from itself. It is
important to build its sovereignty on a real federal system of government,
which has virtually been the essence of its formation from the beginning, and
its ethnic diversity that existed before the Baathist centralists devoured Iraq
with its totalitarian machine. Iraq will remain for a long time a fragile
Nourredine Haloui concluded in independent French-language Le
Temps (6/7): “Conscious that it is
trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, the U.S. is doing everything possible to get out
of it by looking for guarantees to maintain order in this country. Washington is trying hard to show to the
international community that it made the right decision in invading Iraq. Yet,
despite the important military presence...the coalition has not managed to
impose their law. On the contrary, for more than one year now, the law of
violence is prevailing.... The reality
is different. Instead of establishing democracy, freedom and respect for Human
Rights as they promised, Americans have acted in a totally different way.... After the tortures exerted on the Iraqi
prisoners with the approval of high ranked military officials, one wonders if
is it still possible to trust U.S. leaders?....
President Bush’s effort to make up for it by trying to rally Europe is
useless.... It is only by giving a
central role to the UN that he will gain back the trust of the Arab world and
the majority of the international community.
By trying to suppress the Abu Gharib’s scandal...and persisting in
unclear discussion on the return of power to the Iraqis in accordance with
democratic rules and in a transparent manner, the U.S. administration will
never reach a real success."
"Contradictory And Misleading"
Radhia Ziadi wrote in independent Arabic-language Ash-Shourouq
(6/5): “The position of the
representative of the new Iraqi government in the Security Council was
contradictory and misleading; on the one hand he calls for full sovereignty for
the Iraqi people, and on the other hand he considers that Iraq cannot survive
without the assistance of the coalition forces in Iraq. This statement is also contradictory because
it comes from a group that for many years targeted real Iraqi sovereignty--its
nation, its organizations and its wealth. This group used all illegal means
necessary to subject the country to direct colonization and the most oppressive
of military forces. Hence this call seems foolish. How can the Iraqi
Representative call for a return to sovereignty after he gave it away to his
Reaches An Important Tipping Point"
An editorial in the national conservative Australian read
(6/10): “Those who have been feasting on
every setback in Iraq are going to have to swallow some good news. The
unanimous acceptance by the UNSC of Resolution 1546 - the blueprint for the
political future of Iraq, co-sponsored by the US and Britain--is a major step
towards an independent and democratic Iraq. Perhaps just as important, it is a
sure sign the international community is slowly putting behind it the divisions
opened up by the war.... When Reagan
proposed that the Soviet communist empire should, and could, be replaced by
democracy, he was ridiculed by intellectuals of the Left, as well as by
"realists" within the conservative intelligentsia. The fact we see
the same response now to George W. Bush's plan to seed democracy in the Arab
world does not mean his mission, too, will succeed. But it is not a bad
"Better Late Than Never"
Tony Parkinson maintained in the liberal Melbourne Age
(6/10): “The unanimous resolution passed
on Tuesday by the UNSC pretty much consigns to historical debates the strategic
split among global powers that both complicated and compromised the liberation
of Iraq. That the UN took 14 months beyond the deadline to achieve this
solidarity of purpose is regrettable--but better late than never. The symbolism
is self-evident. The UN will now be pivotal to the rehabilitation of Iraq, as
it should always have been.... From
today, the project to see post-Saddam Iraq through a traumatic political
evolution has the undiluted imprimatur of the world body. This was way overdue.
For George Bush, Resolution 1546 represents a much-needed breakthrough.
Full-spectrum international support has been the missing link, politically and
diplomatically, in the US mission.... It
need hardly be said that the Security Council resolution will not, of itself,
quell the raging security crisis in Iraq. The puerile notion that the UN can
sprinkle some magic dust to resolve the world's ills has been long
discredited…. Psychologically and politically, however, a direct, unambiguous
UN role should have positive effects over time.”
Michael Fullilove held in the liberal Sydney Morning Herald
(6/8): “Recent weeks have seen several
overdue but welcome shifts in U.S. policy, including the involvement of the UN
in the selection of the Iraqi interim government and the application of a
lighter touch in trouble spots such as Falluja. This trend must accelerate: the
times require skilful and subtle statesmanship. The current imbroglio is
saddening to those of us who are instinctively sympathetic towards the
U.S.: the great democracy's mistakes are
corroding the massive international goodwill built up towards her between D-Day
and September 11.”
CHINA: "Operation In
Iraq Faces Bumpy Road"
The official English-language newspaper China Daily
concluded (6/10): "Yesterday's
unanimous adoption by the United Nations Security Council of the U.S.-British
resolution on Iraq sent a united message to the world that the international
community supports the transfer of full sovereignty to Iraq's new interim
government and an end to the formal military occupation of Iraq by the end of
June.... Hopefully the resolution will
serve as a good start to revive Iraq's sluggish post-war reconstruction. Adoption of the resolution also gives
legitimacy to the new caretaker government and boosts its international stature
as it struggles to win acceptance and cope with a security crisis at
home.... The United States therefore
gained its much-needed UN support for its extended stay in Iraq. By obtaining the UN mandate, Washington
circumvents being relegated to a legal no man's land with regard to Iraq's
reconstruction. History cannot be
undone, but this does not mean what happened in the past will become justified
with the passage of time.... Though
approval of the resolution demonstrates the UN's role in dealing with
international affairs cannot be ignored, a rocky road remains for the UN to
restore its authority by giving the Iraqis a peaceful, stable and self-governed
country and playing a part in safeguarding the international rule of law.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):
"UN Resolution Offers Hope To Iraqi People"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post
observed (6/10): "The unanimous
adoption by the UNSC of a new resolution on Iraq will not provide a magic
solution to the country's many problems.
No resolution could. But the
agreement reached by the 15-member states after weeks of intense negotiations
marks a crucial--and most welcome--turning point. It gives the long-suffering people of Iraq a
rare glimmer of hope after decades of dictatorship and more than a year of war
and occupation.... The security
council's seal of approval will also pave the way for greater international
involvement in the rebuilding process, from the provision of peacekeeping
troops to stepping up humanitarian aid.
Already, NATO and the European Union have reacted positively to the vote.... The resolution at least ensures that there
will be a huge political backlash should the U.S.-led multinational force
embark on major military operations in defiance of the new government. It is to be hoped that this deterrent will
mean any such actions will be taken only with the consent of the new sovereign
power.... The interim government will
not be able to solve these problems before elections in January. But it must at least ensure the environment
is sufficiently safe for those polls to take place."
JAPAN: "We Need To
Support Iraq By Strengthening International Cooperation"
Top-circulation moderate Yomiuri editorialized (6/10): "We welcome the new UN resolution as a
pledge by the international community to strengthen its unity. The global community needs to do its utmost
to rebuild Iraq because stability in the postwar nation will contribute to
peace in the Middle East. Under the
current circumstances, it is inevitable that the U.S. will control the
multinational force. Washington needs to
work closely with the Iraqi interim government in order to gain the Iraqi
people's understanding of the leading role by the U.S. in the multinational
"Start Of Uncertain Future"
Liberal Asahi said (6/10):
"Although the UNSC has unanimously adopted a new Iraq resolution, a
gap still remains between the U.S. and Europe.
Washington's failure to respect the sovereignty of Iraq risks
undermining international unity and alienating France and Germany. The U.S. must learn a lesson from the failure
of its war on Iraq in order to ensure the success of reconstruction
"France, Germany And Russia Should Cooperate In Iraq
Conservative Sankei opined (6/10): "We welcome the new UN resolution as a
symbol of restored international cooperation.
We also hope that the resolution will accelerate the reconstruction of
postwar Iraq. It is regrettable, though,
that France, Germany and Russia remain negative about participating in a
multinational force. The international
community will not support or respect the three nations if they seek business
opportunities in Iraq without cooperating in reconstruction efforts. Their endorsement of the new Iraq resolution
entails a great responsibility for the UN-mandated multinational force."
"Substantial International Cooperation Needed"
Liberal Mainichi editorialized (6/10): "Although the new UN resolution might
not be perfect, we welcome its endorsement as a significant step to bring about
peace and stability in Iraq. To promote
the rebuilding of the postwar nation, it is important that the U.S. and U.K.
reflect on the 'failure' of their Iraqi occupation, and that other UN Security
Council members--France, Germany and Russia--make a substantial commitment to
the restoration effort."
"Interim Government Can Claim Victory"
Top circulation, moderate Yomiuri's Cairo correspondent
reported (6/9): "The latest UN
resolution on Iraq pays due respect to the Iraqi interim government by
acknowledging that the Iraqi people have some degree of authority over a
U.N.-mandated multinational force. The
transitional government can claim that 'full sovereignty' has been given back
to Iraq and hence address concerns held over limited power by Grand Ayatollah
Sistani and certain anti-American Iraqi people.
However, with the resolution unclear about the scope of authority
accorded to the interim government, and the strong reaction of Kurds to the
resolution's failure to mention the Basic Law stipulating their right to
self-governance, the resolution might cause internal dispute within the
"Discontent Rising With New Resolution"
Liberal Mainichi's Cairo correspondent observed (6/9): "The new UN resolution fails to clarify
who is ultimately responsible for ensuring domestic security in Iraq. Militant groups waging an anti-occupation
struggle will certainly be opposed to the resolution, claiming it is designed
to allow the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq.
It is unlikely that the resolution will help stabilize internal safety
MALAYSIA: "The Cloak
Of UN Legitimacy"
Government-influenced, English language daily New Straits Times
had this to say (6/10): "After
weeks of negotiations and four major revisions to the text, the United Security
Council voted yesterday in favor the American and British resolution endorsing
‘the formation of a sovereign Interim Government of Iraq’. In the context of resolutions on Iraq, where
consensus has been extremely difficult to achieve, the unanimity of the
decision was significant. Nowhere was
this more apparent than in the contentious issue of control of the U.S.-led
coalition forces, re-labeled the 'multinational force' in the resolution. Despite the cloak of legitimacy that the
resolution seeks to give...there is no masking the fact that the U.S. will be
calling the shots. It is not likely to
change the perception of the nature of the occupation, as the multinational
force is not about to become more international and less American. Iraqis will have little actual sovereignty,
at least not while the multinational force 'shall have the authority to take
all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and
stability in Iraq.' Certainly not when
there is going to be the biggest U.S. embassy in the world operating in Baghdad
rather than larger international involvement, including that of the UN in the
rebuilding of Iraq."
"Still On A Knife-edge"
The government-influenced English-language New Sunday Times
editorialized (6/6): "Equally
important is the need for the U.S. to withdraw its troops, as both Washington
and London have conceded at the UN. If
there is one necessary condition in the creation of self-rule for Iraq, this is
it. The U.S. invasion and occupation of
Iraq has succeeded in uniting Iraqis in their hate towards the U.S. In the eyes of most Iraqis, American forces
have long since ceased to be nation-builders and instead are occupying forces
that knock down their homes, bomb their mosques and abuse and humiliate their
fellow citizens. The occupation, like
others throughout history, has generated a growing popular resistance that
cannot be defeated militarily. The UN
should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for an international group of
peacekeepers until the new Government is able to carry out its own military and
security operations. This government should
have authority over the economy and oil revenues, as well as the right to set
terms for the operation of foreign troops on its soil. Washington should announce that it will pay
reparations towards the rebuilding of Iraq to compensate for the devastation
wrought by the invasion and occupation."
"'Partnership' In Iraq Just A Small Step"
The moderate New Zealand Herald editorialized (Internet
version, 6/10): "The UNSC's
unanimous adoption of a resolution charting Iraq's path to self-government and
self-determination bore grim testimony to that country's parlous state. So
desperate is Iraq's plight that divisions and bitterness prompted by the United
States-led invasion simply had to be consigned to the past. Compromises needed
to be made.... Tellingly, however, the
White House retains power which, if misused, will render the newfound
international unity worthless. The key aspect of debate at the UN was the
degree of control that Iraq's interim Government would have over major U.S.-run
military operations after it takes office on June 30. Regrettably, the chain of
command set down in the resolution is oblique.... Left unsaid was what would happen if there
was a major disagreement between the American military command and the Iraqi
leadership. This very situation has already happened. American commanders
ignored the qualms of Iraqi leaders when they launched their ill-conceived
attack on Fallujah.... And there might
yet be another Fallujah if the U.S. deems it essential. At European behest, an
attempt has been made to provide a safeguard against such excess. The
resolution gives the interim Government the right to order American troops to
leave at any time. This, however, is an empty gesture. If the Iraqi
Administration is to survive a destabilising terrorism campaign, it will do so
only with American military backbone. And if there were to be another Fallujah,
the damage to the interim Government's reputation would be so severe as to make
a belated ejection of the Americans virtually irrelevant. All, however, is not
necessarily lost. The unanimity at the UN indicates a corner has been turned.
The U.S. has displayed a new willingness to countenance the opinions of its
critics. For once, confrontation was absent....
Iraq's future may not be so bleak if Washington remains willing to
respond to the international community, rather than plough its own,
SINGAPORE: "Baby Step
The pro-government Straits Times opined (6/10): "A world polarized by the Iraq tragedy has
cause to be grateful for the unanimous adoption by the United Nations Security
Council.... The fact that France and
Germany, and to a lesser extent Russia, joined the other 12 members in
endorsing a process of Iraqis deciding their own fate--albeit a long, uncertain
process--can mean that reconstruction and healing can begin where waste and
hate have prevailed. The unanimity
should restore to the UN the considerable role it ought to be playing in
helping the broken country back on its feet.... The UN alone has the moral
standing to act on a member country's behalf without having its bona fides
questioned.... Especially welcome is the
French agreement on the resolution after opposing as a matter of principle what
it called an illegal war. It should mean,
perhaps, that Europe ex-Britain and America could begin to repair their bruised
relationship. This is no romanticized
figment about a fraternity of nations, but is essential to consolidating the
rational world's forces and talent in facing common dangers.... That said,
there should be no illusions that putting the UN's imprimatur on the interim
Iraqi government is anything but a baby step.
U.S. President George W. Bush called the 15-0 agreement a triumph for
the Iraqi people. He can be permitted
some extravagance at a time of mounting personal discomfiture, but the truth is
that the anarchy will worsen before Iraq can be stabilized.... Securing civil order is thus the critical
role the government and the coalition command have to share. For the moment, the Iraqi people should not
be too concerned about the inchoate sovereignty granted. Without an army and the security apparatus,
and the power to reinforce border control, the concept is relative.... Elections for a transitional government are
to be held at the latest by January next year, and a full-status government is
to be installed a year after that, following another round of elections. The test of the UN resolution is to ensure
the right conditions on the ground for these events to happen."
VIETNAM: "Not Easy To
Give Up That Oil Reserve"
Thanh Hien wrote in official Ha Noi Moi, run by the local
government of Hanoi (6/5): "On June
1, the U.S. and Britain submitted to the UNSC a modified draft resolution on
restoring sovereignty for Iraq after June 30.... In fact, the draft resolution does not offer
any hope for the Iraqi people to change their lives. It is just another dying effort by Bush to
win some support from the international community for the U.S.' wrongful plan
of occupation. The final draft
resolution once more affirms the insincerity of the U.S. government. How can Iraqis govern their own country while
U.S. troops are still present everywhere there and all the power of the new
government is limited to the minimum level?"
The Kolkata-based centrist Telegraph editorialized
(6/10): "Pulling out of a conquered
country is always a messy business....
The duration of the U.S. dominance of Iraq is inversely related to the
mess the U.S. will leave behind. It is
evident that the establishment of the rule of law is a distant dream in
Iraq. One major reason for this is the
U.S.'s own violation of the rule of law--and even some of the rules of war--in
the way the U.S. occupying forces and protem administrative set-up have
conducted themselves.... Officially, the
transfer of power will take place in Iraq on June 30.... But a UN resolution will in no way alleviate
the miserable conditions in which the Iraqis live today. There is no guarantee that a new regime, more
humane and more representative of the popular will than the tyranny of Mr.
Saddam Hussein, will be able to bring to Iraq a modicum of peace and establish
conditions which provide the hapless people of Iraq with the basic amenities
for existence and survival."
PAKISTAN: "UN Iraq
Resolution And Its Implications For Pakistan"
Second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt held (6/10): "This is the first time in the last two
years that the U.S. has given importance to Security Council member countries,
especially Russia and France, and accepted repeated amendments in its draft of
the resolution. That is why the new resolution has not only recognized the UN
authority, but has given importance to Iraqi sovereignty to the extent that the
resolution gives importance to Iraqi government's opinion in the event of any
major military action by coalition forces....
America wants to achieve its objectives through UN, Russia, China,
France and Muslim countries. The Iraqi
resistance has distressed coalition forces....
Pakistanis are not willing to allow their army to help the coalition
forces in Iraq in their bid to crush the resistance of their Muslim brethren
and become a target of their (Iraqis) bullets.... Currently the Parliament is in session, the
government should place the issue of military dispatch to Iraq before the
parliament so that it could be debated.
In the light of the opinion of parliamentarians we should convey our
regrets to America with the demand that it should ask for Pak military in
"Security Council Resolution And Iraq's Future"
Ataur Rehman wrote in second-largest Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt
(6/10): "This is kind of consensus
resolution in which no one member could prevail upon the opinion of
others. However, if you go deep in the
text then you smell compromise rather than consensus.... Pakistan being a non-permanent member of the
Security Council voted for the resolution. Pakistan's permanent representative
to UN Munir Akram has given an incomprehensible statement that if Iraq's
interim government unambiguously requested then Pakistan could consider
dispatching its troops to that country.
This interim government is not in any manner a representative of the
Iraqi people and it does not have any authority over U.S. military
actions. Why should we offer helping
hand to American military against our Iraqi Muslim brothers? Pakistan should not send it troops to Iraq on
any pretext. Principally and morally
America has been defeated in Iraq, why should we provide backing to it."
"UNSC Vote On Iraq"
The center-right national English-language The Nation
remarked (6/10): "While Mr. Tony
Blair has described the resolution as an 'important milestone for a new Iraq',
the strong resistance put up by the Iraqis signals a marked difference between
the coalition's and the people's definition of sovereignty. With prolonged occupation turning into
humiliation for the U.S., the only way to restore peace there is for U.S.
forces to withdraw and leave the Iraqis to decide their own destiny."
"UN Resolution On Iraq"
Karachi-based center-left independent national English-language Dawn
held (6/10): "The consensus reached
among Security Council members on the new resolution on Iraq is a welcome
development.... But those who are today
resisting the occupation--like Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr and Ayatollah
Sistani--do not seem in a mood to cooperate with the new provisional government
(PG). The PG, like the Interim Governing
Council (IGC), consists of men loyal to the U.S. ... The resolution is a well-meaning document,
and seeks to extricate America out of the Iraqi quagmire. But one doubts if the provisional government
will be able to deliver what is expected of it."
"UNSC Resolution On Iraq"
The centrist national English-language The News
(6/10): "When the new interim
government in Iraq assumes its role as the 'sovereign' authority in the
country, it will become starkly clear what the U.S. was molding through this
resolution. It never intends the Iraqis
to get full power, and wants to retain its indispensable 'military' and
'organizational' persona to maintain harmony in the country. This also highlights the U.S. intentions of
not leaving the Iraqi soil on, before or even after the due date, i.e., January
2006. It is obvious that the hype
created by the U.S. president regarding the dawn of democracy in Iraq may turn
out to be a mere farce."
"U.S.-Britain New Resolution At UN"
Populist Urdu-language Khabrain declared (6/7): "In the new resolution before the UNSC,
the U.S. and Britain have given Iraqi Interim Government the authority to ask
America to withdraw its forces from the country.... It would have been better if the newly
nominated Iraqi Prime Minister Alawi would not have expressed the desire for
keeping the coalition forces in Iraq after June 30, 2004.... This fact cant be overlooked that Mr. Alawi
is just a nominated prime minister with no real authority in his hands, thus he
can't speak against America.... The U.S.
and Britain's effort for working on a respectable exit from Iraq shows that
both the countries have felt their mistake of the Iraq invasion. Both the countries should be given
opportunity to find this exit; it is possible that they might be able to take
some important decisions to compensate for their mistakes."
Resolution On Iraq"
The independent English-language Daily Star commented
(6/10): "The UNSC has voted to
endorse the U.S.-U.K.-sponsored resolution outlining the terms of the end of
the formal occupation of Iraq and the transfer of sovereignty to an interim
government on June 30 of this year. To
the extent that the U.S.-U.K. alliance now appears to have understood that it
must act through the UN in order to gain legitimacy, and that consensus was
reached, this was a welcome event. There
is a long way to go. The interim
government is by no means representative, and it remains to be seen how
smoothly the transition from a handpicked government of appointees to a
democratically elected Iraqi government will go."
"Rays Of Hope For Iraq"
Independent English-language News Today observed
(6/10): "At long last, we see rays
of hope for Iraq getting back its full independence and sovereignty following
unanimous adoption of a UN resolution. The resolution in fact is a roadmap for
return of the war-ravaged and strife-torn country to return to an era of peace
and stability. As the UN has stepped
into the scene, it is time for all divisive forces inside Iraq to support its
initiatives because the world forum is now the lone credible institution on
which Iraqis can repose their faith and confidence. Bangladesh, considering all
aspects, has welcomed the current developments with regard to restoration of
sovereignty of Iraq. It is time for the Iraqis to stay calm without being
provoked by any vested group and support the moves by the UN"
GHANA: "Is The U.S.
Stuck In Iraq?"
A.B.A. Fuseini observed in the government-owned Daily Graphic
(6/7): “Given the setbacks suffered by
the coalition with the withdrawal of Spanish Honduran and other nations troops
from Iraq and the acceleration of the tempo and scope of the insurgency
resulting in mounting coalition casualties, the U.S.-led coalition as presently
constituted, does not appear capable of putting the resistance down as speedily
and effectively as possible and creating the peaceful and stable environment
required for democracy and development to flourish. The U.S. must be prepared to relinquish its
stranglehold over Iraq, cede more power to the Iraqis and the UN and thus
facilitate the formation of an all inclusive multinational force under UN
authority. Such a return of the UN from
a position of strength and legitimacy, would among others help stabilize the
situation and provide a safe passage for coalition troops to exit the
country.... In a world of varied and
sometimes conflicting interests, the pursuit of unilateral measures anchored on
the narrow interests of the U.S. without taking on board the interest and
aspirations of others, cannot be successful let alone be sustainable. A policy based on the trading of compromises
help and the balancing of interests would help build trust and consensus for
common international action with the U.S. as active participants, if not the
Sovereignty In Limbo"
Abuja-based independent Daily Trust concluded (6/10): "Battles contribute to the aftermath of
wars, but the strategies for ending them have far more decisive long-term
impacts on the warring countries' post conflict prospects. The question of how best to end wars should
therefore preoccupy political leaders, military strategists and historians far
more than why and how wars break out.
The UK/U.S. leaders are currently paying the price for their failure to
work out viable strategies for disengaging their forces from Iraq; but there is
a profound message in that for the Iraqi resistance. The task of rebuilding Iraq begins in earnest
with the expulsion/withdrawal of the occupiers, when the resistance forces
would have to become constructive.
Unless they work out viable strategies for transforming their insurgency
accordingly, they would seriously jeopardize their domestic and external
support bases. It behooves them
therefore to conduct themselves even now in consonance with the Iraqi people's
hallowed traditional values and collective aspirations".
CANADA: "Building A
The conservative National Post commented (6/10): "The UNSC resolution approving Iraqi
self-rule, passed unanimously on Tuesday, bodes well for Iraq. It is also a
significant victory for the U.S.--even if the new political structure it
heralds is not what the Bush administration envisioned when it invaded in
2003.... Given the hash the UN has made
of things in Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan and the Congo, we were also gratified to see
that the Security Council was prevented from appointing a UN bureaucrat as
chief foreign overseer of Iraq's transition to full democracy. Instead, the
Iraqi President, Prime Minister and Cabinet will be largely responsible--as
they should be. The Americans would have preferred different people be selected
to head Iraq's new interim government....
Since it is Iraqis who have to live with these choices, it is
undoubtedly best that the nearest thing Iraq has to a representative government
get the last word.... Still, things
could have been much worse. At the very least, it now appears that Iraq will
avoid the slide into anarchy that, until recently, many predicted would be its
Serge Truffaut maintained in liberal Le Devoir (6/8): "In the days leading up to the celebrations
commemorating D-Day, the White House hoped that the deadlock on Iraq would be
resolved.... During the press conference
held by presidents Bush and Chirac, more than one observer noted that the
latter's reference to the 'precarious situation' in Iraq had somewhat irritated
the former. To the point where he abruptly ended the conference.... For 24 hours, it was believed that the speech
given by Chirac the next day represented a warming of relations between the two
heads of State.... Until it was learned
that representatives from Germany, China and Russia, as well as, obviously,
France, had asked for clarification on certain aspects of the resolution
drafted jointly by the US and Britain and submitted to the UNSC.... The French ambassador...was requesting veto
power be given to the Iraqi Interim Government, effective June 30. The
diplomat, along with several of his colleagues wanted, and still wants the
sovereignty of Iraq to be full and complete....
At the same time, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Iraqi Prime
Minister Iyad Allawi struck a deal....a 'coordinating authority' will be
created to work with the multi-national force. This gives the military much
more leeway than hoped for by the Élysée....
The amendment proposed by France was not selected.... Given the present state of affairs, it is
highly likely that the resolution will be adopted. At the very least, it is
certain that no veto will be given. And just as certain that some members will
abstain. In short, the mood of the world's leaders is tepid."
ARGENTINA: "Bush Makes
Concessions And Obtains UN Unanimous Support For Iraq"
Ana Baron concluded in daily-of-record La
Nacion (6/9): "Yesterday, after
tough and tense negotiations, the UNSC unanimously approved a resolution
granting Baghdad the sovereignty and control over its financial and natural
resources, oil included, as of June 30. The resolution legitimizes the Iraqi
government taking office on that day, which will be appointed by the U.S. and
controlled by it, provides detailed information related to the stages leading
to elections in January 2005, and sets forth that the occupation forces'
mandate will expire when the political process is over. President Bush sighed
in relief. With a slumping popularity rate and his credibility damaged, this
resolution will provide him with some valuable maneuvering margin on a domestic
and international level.... On an
international level, the resolution will enable Bush to continue speaking of
how important it is to democratize not only Iraq but also the whole Middle
East.... Nonetheless, the U.S. had to
make a series of military concessions in order to get the UNSC
approval.... France and Germany managed
that the resolution set forth that the new Baghdad government would have the
right to ask the multinational force to withdraw from Iraq. This is a key
point. The Iraqi governments, both the current and the next one, are Washington
puppets, but through this resolution the European countries will be able to add
their influence on those non-representative regimes. Vis-a-vis the U.S.
weakness due to the chaos in Iraq, Paris and Berlin know well to what extreme
they can use this tool."
"Iraq Is Not D-day"
Financial El Cronista opined (6/7): "Last weekend, the allied countries
during the World War II celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Allied forces'
landings in Northern France on June 6, 1944....
Many political analysts in the U.S. and the UK attempted to establish a
parallel between those days and the current situation in Iraq.... But it is not the same. From the intellectual
and historic viewpoint, the Nazi regime cannot be compared with the Hussein
regime in Iraq.... Sixty years later,
George W. Bush and Tony Blair have demonstrated their inability to predict
that, among other options, the country could face its current war of
guerrillas. The U.S. and UK still have time to correct their mistakes and
settle the situation...which will only be solved when the international
community, led by the UNSC, intervenes in the country. The U.S. has lost the
moral authority to put Iraq in order, and it should realize of the need for
expanding its mission to other countries."
Sovereignty To The Iraqi People”
Oscar Clemente Marroquin said in left-of-center La
Hora (6/9): "Yesterday
President Bush had tremendous success by obtaining a unanimous approval by the
UNSC...to return full sovereignty to the provisional authority of Iraq on June
30.... The UN has the opportunity to
rescue its trampled reputation and to restore the rule of law...something that
the U.S. shattered when Bush, Blair and Aznar decided to go to war without a
favorable resolution by the UN’s Security Council."
"Bush’s Many Defeats"
Haroldo Schetemul commented in leading Prensa
Libre (6/6): "The 60-year
celebration of the arrival of allied forces in Normandy was not precisely
satisfying for President Bush.... The
image of U.S. forces emerging as a super power after World War II is not the
same now.... The scandal of tortures
inflicted upon Iraqi prisoners followed him to Europe.... The scenery does not seem positive for Bush. Six months away from the elections (Bush) is
in a tight spot.... There is no political
solution, unless Bush realizes his mistake and he immediately transfers all
power in Iraq to the UN.”
A commentary in third-largest, left-leaning Noticias
read (6/7): "Although the picture
in Iraq is not yet sufficiently clear, at least there are encouraging signs of
its gradual normalization and internal pacification, which will
fundamentally depend on the degree to
which its sovereignty and political independence are restored.... For now it is up to the UNSC to approve a
second resolution which will legitimize the new government and request the
deployment of an international force, under U.S. command, to maintain the
country's security. Completing this step
does not signify an automatic end to the crisis, but it will be the beginning
of the end."