Commentary From Around the World Shows Division Still Deep
<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