<a href=www.nytimes.com>Web March 30, 2003 By THE NEW YORK TIMES

More than a week and a half after the fighting in Iraq began, newspaper editorials around the world are as bitterly divided about the wisdom of the war as ever.

The following excerpts of editorial commentary — ranging from People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, to El Espectador of Colombia — are by turns damning and supportive of the United States and its role in the conflict.

The foreign-language editorials were translated by The New York Times or the BBC World Monitoring Service. Headlines were edited, but kept as close to the originals as possible.

The Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan)

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi had every reason to back the United States-led action in Iraq in that his decision reflected his desire to defend national interests during the crisis. The latest survey indicates that the majority of the public feels that the prime minister made the right decision.

Koizumi must continue to steadfastly support the United States in dealing with the current crisis. If necessary, he should directly appeal to the public for support.

In urging the public to support his decision, the prime minister has cited two reasons —Iraq's repeated violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring the country to scrap its weapons of mass destruction, and the significance of the Japan-U.S. alliance.

Over the past 13 years, Iraq has contravened 17 Security Council resolutions. The prime minister is correct in insisting that Iraq has disregarded, slighted and ridiculed the U.N. resolutions.

The eventual reply given to Iraq by the United States was use of force. Japan's support for the United States-led military action was the only viable choice, given Tokyo's alliance with Washington, which must fulfill a grave obligation to defend this country under the bilateral security pact.   March 25

People's Daily (China) The Pitfalls of Making A Pre-emptive Strike

The mutation of "pre-emptive strike" from a strategy to a reality is a tragedy for America and a misfortune for the world. In the fall and winter of 2001, America fought one anti-terrorist war — the Afghan War. In this assymetrical war, America easily overthrew the Taliban regime. As a result, it became smug and cocky and its ego swelled, and this was manifested in its moral conceitedness and militaristic tendencies...

After 9/11, a country capable of introspection should have examined its policies towards the Third World; it should have questioned its conscience: in international economic life, did it help the poor and suffering? Did it try its best to narrow the gap between North and South? Did it devote enough funds to assistance and development policy? Did it treat others equally in international life, and did it respect other religions and civilizations apart from Christianity? In the American intellectual community, and among thoughtful figures in the Republican and Democratic parties, these questions were considered, but these reflections never became a part of mainstream views, and they weren't strong enough to influence policy. On the contrary, America proclaimed itself to be a benign empire — a savior who decides who it wants to save and who it wants to punish. In international relations it adheres to a simplistic moral dualism. Wielding its extraordinary military strength, it believes it has the right to launch decapitation strikes against the leaders of rogue nations. Urged on by hawks, the American war chariot is carrying out a 21st century rampage.   March 29

Tishrin (Syria) The Responsibility Of Stopping Aggression

The scenes of round-the-clock fierce and devastating bombardment of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities and of human beings, installations and heritage draw a clear and accurate picture. The picture is that of a world in which the United States has abandoned international legitimacy and violated and undermined the principles and resolutions of the United Nations. The scenes of savage bombardment also reflect the real motives of the United States designs against Iraq and all the Arab countries. The United States wants to terrorize the people, control their wealth, and directly occupy their land in line with the growing Zionist schemes and their fatal perils on Arab identity, geography, and history.

In light of the course of events of this aggression on the Iraqi people and on their land, glorious history and resources it can be said that the current United States administration has fallen in the Zionist swamp. It has turned into the spearhead for colonialist projects that have been on the backburner for more than 100 years. The various former United States administrations were aware of the perils inherent in such projects so they disregarded them or refrained from implementing them. This was the case until this administration came to power through a suspicious judicial decision that raises thousands of questions. The situation changed after this administration came to power. The Zionist files and schemes were dusted and put in the offices of the White House that eventually found itself — in view of its structure and the mentality of those in charge — wallowing in the mud of these files and schemes...

It is worth noting here that what is being said about smart bombs that hit their targets accurately is nothing but a big lie. The best proof is the painful scenes that are unfolding in Baghdad. Thus, the United Nations is called upon to take serious action to restore balance to this world that is out of balance on the security and political levels by stopping the aggressive war on Iraq.   March 23

The Independent (Britain) A Severe Political Price To Pay If the ... Costs Of the Conflict Mount

A cakewalk was originally an African-American dance competition featuring a laid-back walking style, with a cake as the prize. Later it came to mean any easy task. Last week it was prominent in the lexicon of this war. This week it has been replaced by a less optimistic, if no less flippant, phrase, "blue-collar warfare", meaning the long, hard and dangerous slog of street-by-street fighting.

The implications of a long war are serious. The case for military action was sold with the implication that it would be short and relatively bloodless. Even on that basis, George Bush and his award-winning salesman Tony Blair could not persuade world opinion that it was necessary...

This newspaper opposed the decision to go to war, not from pacifism but because the potential benefits of removing a dictator and neutralising a theoretical risk of his arming terrorists were outweighed by the horrendous costs of war. We were prepared to accept that, had Saddam been assassinated in the first, opportunistic bombing raid and his subordinates come out with their hands up, the costs and benefits would have been more balanced. Now, however, those costs seem heavier than ever.

This is not simply a matter of the immediate human cost in death, injury, grief and fear. That will be multiplied by an unknown factor as it is translated into anti-American sentiment throughout other Arab and Muslim countries. In Iraq, meanwhile, it is becoming clearer that the feelings of the people towards their self-appointed liberators are more ambivalent than was allowed for in the world-view of the American right. That means the post-war situation in Iraq will be less tractable, and more expensive, than expected.   March 29

El Espectador (Colombia) Colombia Is Aligned

It is popular to say that the Colombian government was wrong to support the United States in its military attack on Iraq. It is true that both Mexico and Chile denied their support and expressed their belief in the need to give the U.N. inspectors in Baghdad more time. However, we believe that President Uribe made a practical decision that responds to the country's strategic interests.

Colombia, led by the government and its president, is currently waging a frontal attack on terrorism. Álvaro Uribe was elected by the majority of Colombians for this purpose based on the fundamental promise to promote a democratic security policy...

It would have been unusual to have taken an opposing position. Uribe did what he had to do in an international scene in which the global fight against terrorism and its thousand heads has become a world priority. Colombia came down on the right side: with the United States, Great Britain and Spain, which are the countries that, with deeds and not just words, are helping to fight terrorism. This is not always true of countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Germany or France.

It was the late Francisco Fernández Ordóñez, a Spanish foreign relations minister, who said that intellectuals believed that governments made decisions that are either good or bad. "They do not know," he said during an interview before his death, "that they actually make decisions between what is bad and what is worse." President Uribe has taken a bad decision — to support this absurd and cruel war — over one that would have been worse. Not to offer our solidarity to the United States at this point would have been a mistake, because today Colombia has in that nation its strongest ally in the fight against terrorism and drugs.   March 23

The Toronto Star (Canada) Canada Is Helping Ally, the United States

Canada's decision not to attack Iraq without U.N. approval is a watershed in our relations with allies, and a healthy assertion of independence. It repudiates "pre-emptive" war, and recommits us to the U.N.'s consensual approach to threats to peace. Some 70 percent of us support it.

Bush's war is unwise, ill-timed and reckless. It is damaging America's image, straining alliances and fanning fanaticism. The U.N. could have disarmed Saddam within months, without loss of life. Instead, we have a "pre-emptive" attack of dubious lawfulness, and an anarchic precedent.

Moreover, few believe ousting Saddam will put Al Qaeda out of business. If anything, a United States occupation of Iraq will create new recruits.

These are all good reasons for saying No to this war, and focusing on fighting terror. There is nothing anti-American or pro-Saddam about it.   March 26

The Mail & Guardian (South Africa) Enemies of Decency

In these times of helplessness, there are only so many words one can say about the wretched war being fought in the desert of Iraq and there only so many slogans that can be chanted in opposition to it.

But so horrendous is the catastrophe unfolding before us that we are all compelled to continue to utter our howls of outrage and persist with our loud condemnation, the only weapons the rest of us can use against the power of the so-called allied forces...

On other pages of this newspaper are tales of the misery that is unfolding in Iraq and reports about the casualties that will not be tabulated when the war is finally over: the truth, media ethics, international law and the national pride of many ordinary Americans who want nothing to do with the war but are now seen by the rest of the world as enemies of peace and decency.

There are tales of how the United States government, with the help of nauseatingly pliant media, has tried to sanitize its excesses by using techniques designed to give the whole expedition a Hollywood feel.

But war is war and no amount of perfumery will remove its stink. This war, in particular, has a particularly pungent stench about it. Whereas the Pentagon strategists had hoped to use the immediacy of live television to score psychological victories it has, instead, increased the anger of all decent human beings. This war has made us sick. That is why the opponents of the war should not now be throwing their hands in the air in proclamation of defeat.

The overwhelming disgust registered by millions around the world and the defiant stance taken by certain members of the G8 should present a ray of opportunity for progressive-minded people. They should continue to agitate against the war, but the debate about the post-war world order should start now.

When Bush and the hard men of the Pentagon proclaim victory over Saddam, they must know it is a hollow victory because they will have made enemies of all the world's decent people.   March 28

<a href=www.nzherald.co.nz>web30.03.2003 12.10pm

BOSTON - Tens of thousands of people have marched through the streets of Boston to protest the war in Iraq, the latest in a wave of peace demonstrations around the globe.

In what officials and historians said was the biggest protest in Boston in at least 30 years, thousands chanted "This is what democracy looks like" as they paraded through the elegant streets of America's education capital on Saturday (Sunday NZT).

The diverse crowd included not just students and faculty from New England college campuses but families and retired people - many of whom said the US-led war had triggered a political awakening in their souls.

"This war spoke to me as being wrong, unjust, immoral and certainly not what American values are all about," said Susan Hughes, a former member of President George W. Bush's Republican Party.

"Bush started this war to depose a dictator, but now we have an administration that is acting like the dictatorship we are trying to take out," the 46-year-old said as she prepared to march through Boston.

In Melbourne, protesters ripped up an American flag and accused Australian Prime Minister John Howard of betraying the rule of law by backing the war, local media reported.

In New York, a few hundred protesters, primarily pro-Palestinian and also opposed to the Iraq war, marched down Broadway from Times Square to Union Square in downtown Manhattan. Demonstrators waved large Palestinian flags and chanted for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian areas and against the war.

Last week, an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 people protesting the war marched along same route.

Earlier, tens of thousands rallied in France, Italy, Germany, and in the cities of Moscow and Budapest, to call for an end to the US-led invasion launched to rid Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Demonstrations in Europe followed similar anti-war protests in Asia and Africa, home to some of the world's biggest Muslim populations. Malaysian police used tear gas to break up an unauthorised protest, while authorities in Bangladesh rolled out barbed wire to keep marchers from the US embassy.

More than 10,000 people marched on the US consulate in Cape Town, South Africa.

In a rare move, Chinese police allowed 100 demonstrators to rally in a walled park in eastern Beijing today.

In Rome, small groups of protesters hung black sheets from the sides of 16 bridges spanning the River Tiber, some of them crossed by invaders and victors in past centuries.

In a symbolic gesture, around 30,000 people in Germany formed a human chain between the northern cities of Munster and Osnabrueck, a 35-mile route taken in 1648 by negotiators who ended Europe's Thirty Years War.

Police said more than 23,000 people took part in two separate marches in the German capital, culminating at the country's "Victory Column" in the Tiergarten park. A giant globe-shaped map of the world emblazoned with the slogan "No War" marked out the destination.

Police arrested 25 people who tried to block a highway leading to the US Rhein Main air base in Frankfurt during a protest by more than 1,000 people. Some 4,000 others formed a chain around the US European Command headquarters in Stuttgart.

Hundreds of protesters, some carrying Iraqi flags and posters of Saddam Hussein, gathered in Caracas, Venezuela, and chanted slogans against US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"This is an illegal war, it has no justification," said 18-year-old Muslem Fuad, a Venezuelan student of Syrian origin.

Bangladeshi protesters, mostly from the radical Islamic Constitution Movement, burned American flags and effigies of Bush.

Demonstrators called for Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be tried as war criminals.

Hundreds of Russian protesters gathered in front of the US embassy in Moscow, waving red banners and calling on the Kremlin to form an international coalition to oppose the US-led strikes and to help Iraq.

Thousands marched through Paris in the city's fifth protest since the war began, but organisers this time stepped up efforts to avert anti-Semitic violence after two Jewish youths were beaten up at a similar march last week.

<a href=www.zwire.com>Web March 29, 2003

Seattle, Washington (Sports Network) - The United States overcame a tenacious Venezuela defense and an uneven first-half performance to take a 2-0 win in Seattle at Seahawks Stadium. Second half goals from Jovan Kirovski and Landon Donovan gave the U.S. the win against one of South America's weaker nations, although Venezuela has played well of late. The national team next face rivals Mexico in Houston on May 8th at Reliant Stadium. The first half saw a stalemate for the most part, with Venezuela defending well in numbers despite allowing the U.S. a majority of play with the ball. Admittedly, it wasn't the best 45 minutes in the history of the game--the home side had decent play in the midfield from John O'Brien and DaMarcus Beasley, but the front duo of Kirovski and Brian McBride did not mesh well, and put together little problem for Venezuela. Kasey Keller was confident in the nets for the U.S., controlling his area well on crosses and loose balls. His stop on Daniel Noriega's low shot in the 30th minute was clear and away the best chance for either side, but Keller made it look relatively easy. Venezuela, as expected, defended in numbers and frustrated the U.S. attack, who could not put forth that last killer ball to unlock their opponents' defense. Halftime substitute Earnie Stewart was an instant spark for the U.S., coming in for Kansas City's Chris Klein. The three-time World Cup veteran showed he still can contribute on the international level, giving the home side a combination of hustle and class that the first half really lacked. His free kick led to the first goal; it found McBride, but his header was denied by the post. The rebounded was headed straight back onto the woodwork by Carlos Bocanegra, but the third bite at the cherry was slammed home by Kirovski in the 51st minute. Venezuela looked for an offside flag that wasn't given on the U.S. go-ahead goal. It was the first goal for Kirovski for the United States since 2000, with the Birmingham City attacker thought of as this country's biggest enigma--loads of talent, but little results in his career. Kirovski just missed getting a second goal, as his curling shot hit the crossbar with Venezuelan keeper Gilberto Angelucci beaten. He exited in the 60th minute for Donovan, whose individual effort for the United States' second goal was far and away the classiest moment of the game. Prior to Donovan's goal, the U.S. came close through a Stewart shot that went wide, McBride wasting an open net when he failed to control Beasley's pass six yards out, and a Stewart header off-target. In the 77th minute, Donovan took O'Brien's pass in the midfield, beat several defenders on the left side, and beat Angelucci coolly with a low shot to the far post. The San Jose Earthquake forward missed a chance for a second goal, as his first-time effort went straight to Angelucci, who blocked low. Substitutions late gave Edson Buddle and Nick Garcia some playing time, with the former becoming the 600th player to represent the U.S. on the national team level. Angelucci was sent off late, as he reacted to block Donovan's chip outside of the Venezuelan area with his hands. Keller maintained his national team record 29th clean sheet with a late diving save on Wilfredo Moreno's shot from an angle, his first action in the second half in front of his home state crowd.

Web

How does Scotland feel about the Iraq conflict? To find out, Alan Crawford sampled public opinion in one of the capital's streets

Venture beyond the hubbub of the High Street to the far end of South Bridge. There, with Old College on your right and a sex shop to your left, your journey into the capital's views on Iraq can begin.

Nicolson Street, leading into Clerk Street and its neighbour South Clerk Street, is rich in ethnic diversity, with a large transient student population. It is one of the capital's most vibrant thoroughfares, if fairly down-at-heel. And it's probably the best place to start when you're looking for a sample of opinions from across our near multi-racial society.

In Black Medicine Caf?, Manuela Mancini, a student from Rome, was more than willing to condemn the US and UK for their actions in Iraq.

'It's just bringing more death. They're masquerading as a noble war but they're just out to get more power,' she said.

Behind her, Lisa McIlwraith, a doctor from New Zealand working in Edinburgh, thought the allies' stated motives for invading Iraq, to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction and topple Saddam's regime, were disingenuous.

'It's to do with control of oil and not humanitarian issues, although that might be a positive outcome of the war,' she said. She believed Tony Blair was supporting Bush to try and bring a moderating influence to bear. 'Bush is essentially quite a dangerous man,' she said. 'While I don't agree with Blair, I do feel he's more concerned about people, the UN and the world.'

Up the street, near the Royal College of Surgeons, Dr Pyare Lal was unconvinced by the prime minister's arguments.

'This is an unneccessary war. It's not justified because it's not backed by a United Nations resolution. I think President Bush had already decided a long time ago he was going for Iraq, ' he said.

Lal, a surgeon originally from India, who trained in Edinburgh and now lives in London, said the military action looked like becoming a 'messy war'. 'The consequences will be more terrorists and more instability in the world.'

Adrian Stalker, principal solicitor with Shelter, remained undecided on the morality of waging war on Iraq, but added: 'I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.'

He did have a degree of trust in Blair's judgement, arguing that Tony Blair must have information suggesting British lives would be at risk without military action.

'That's certainly not the view of the people I work with,' he added.

Further south, outside the Empire Bingo hall, a couple of tattooed workmen had plainly not spent much time deliberating the conflict. 'I'm no bothered as long as it stays in Iraq,' one shrugged.

Across the street, in the RB Food Store, Mahmood Shahid had a stack of Stop the War leaflets by the till. 'I feel war is no solution. The proper way is to sit down and talk because this war is no good for anyone.'

Into Clerk Street, charity shops dominate and the street seems dirtier. John Raeburn, of Edinburgh, emerged from the Southside Community Centre and pronounced the war 'terrible'. 'They shouldn't be there. In the end Bush'll not give it over to the UN. He'll run it for a few years and fill tankers and tankers of oil.'

In De Niro's restaurant, chef Pedro Tang, from Venezuela, was angry at the anti-war protestors: 'People in this country should support the troops. If someone would ask me, I would fight against Saddam Hussein.' He pointed out that some 70% of Venezuelans live in poverty but the country is the fifth largest oil producer. 'We've got a guy there now, he's like a bloody communist.'

The road widens again in South Clerk Street and the shops become smarter. Doing up a shopfront are Edinburgh boys -- 'born and bred, like' -- Wayne Shennan, James Cameron and Nicky Sullivan.

'I'm all for it,' said Shennan. 'They should have been in there straightaway.'

'They've got to be up to something,' added Sullivan. 'But it was all sold to him by the British. I think the Arab league of nations should have more to do with it.'

by Stephen Johnson WebMemo #243 March 28, 2003 |

While the Bush Administration is busy rounding up Republican Guards in the sands of Iraq, an axis of mischief is taking shape in America’s back yard. Cuba is jailing dissidents and oil-rich Venezuela is telling South American neighbors that they will be the next target of American aggression.   It’s part of an effort to use the United States as a foil to breathe new life into a moribund Latin American radical movement in the wake of failed revolutions in the 1980s.  Key to its success is a convergence of forces between Middle Eastern rogue states, Latin American radicals, and various terrorist groups such as Colombia’s rebels.   Both Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and Venezuela’s autocratic president Hugo Chávez stand in solidarity with each other, and have courted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, as well the leaders of other rogue states such as Libya, Iran, and North Korea.   Cuba has faithfully denounced U.S. and U.N. attempts to disarm Iraq and exchanged biotechnology with both Iranian and Iraqi governments. Alcibíades Hidalgo, a former Cuban vice minister of foreign relations, wrote in the Washington Post that Castro used the Soviet electronic eavesdropping base at Lourdes, Cuba to spy on U.S. command centers during the first Gulf War--passing intelligence directly on to Saddam. Most likely similar efforts are under way now.   Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez was the first democratically-elected leader to visit Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War. He also reportedly corresponded with Muammar Qaddafi about strengthening ties between Middle Eastern and Latin American radicals and using oil as an economic weapon. This January, his Education Ministry announced scholarships for Venezuelan youths to study at Saddam University.   Ironically, cash-strapped Cuba never turned its Middle Eastern connection into much of an advantage. But last week when the United States acted to disarm Iraq, Castro used the distraction of distant war to crackdown on an opposition movement that has been growing ever since May 2002 when dissident Oswaldo Payá and his Varela Project collected more than 11,000 signatures for a petition to hold a referendum on Cuba’s one-party rule. Beginning March 19, the Castro government arrested more than two dozen independent journalists and 50 dissidents.   Meanwhile, Venezuela’s Chávez has been building an international network to support his “Bolivarian” agenda of exporting populist, authoritarian government to neighboring countries and defeat what he calls “savage capitalism.” Supporters include Cuban agents who allegedly hold advisory positions in top Venezuelan intelligence and police agencies, and Colombian narcoguerrillas who reportedly trained rural paramilitaries known as Bolivarian Liberation Forces (FBL) to act as a shadow army for Chávez in the countryside.   From the Middle East, Iranian and Iraqi engineers flew in recently to help Chávez restore Venezuelan petroleum production following a two-month strike by oil workers. At the same time, Chávez named himself head of the National Oil Council, a body he created to ensure direct presidential control of the state oil company and its revenues.   Outside the country, Chávez supporters seek to create unrest. Speaking in Santiago, Chile on March 24, vice-president José Vicente Rangel warned that, “What [America] did to Iraq can happen to any other nation.” A month ago, Hasil Rahaham, a Venezuelan Muslim with suspected ties to al Qaeda, arrived from Caracas and was detained at London’s Gatwick airport after a grenade was discovered in his luggage.   Chávez loyalists are also forming foreign solidarity groups patterned after the president’s militant neighborhood political action organizations known as “Bolivarian Circles”—similar to Cuba’s Revolutionary Defense Committees. A web page hosted in Sweden, “Red de Solidaridad con la Revolución Bolivariana,” lists contacts in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Spain, Uruguay, and even the United States.   While all this might seem like small potatoes compared to the challenge the United States now faces in the Middle East, such cancers have a way of metastasizing. Especially when polls suggest that Latin American publics distrust their own leaders to behave democratically and believe that Americans are uninterested in helping them solve their problems.   Siding with Saddam Hussein and other despots, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez are shepherding forces to confront the United States in its own backyard. The Bush Administration and Congress should not take this lightly. At the very least, these men could inspire or assist reprisals against America for disarming a friend and fellow dictator. Beyond that, they will struggle to subvert U.S. allies in the region.   Despite heavy commitments elsewhere, Washington should not hesitate to increase intelligence collection (especially toward Cuba and Venezuela), step up public diplomacy in the region, and work harder to encourage friendly democrats and ongoing reforms to keep this situation from undermining the security of the United States and of neighboring democracies and free markets in the western hemisphere.   Stephen Johnson is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.