A rchive Date
[ 22-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[http://www.msnbc.com/news/813860.asp
World reaction to the Iraq debate
NBC News and MSNBC.com gauge reaction to the Iraq war with daily reports from a network of contributors from around the globe. Compiled by MSNBC.com’s Jennifer Carlile.
Fundamentalists hijack anti-war camp
March 21, 2003 / 11:24 AM ET
Anti-war and anti-American sentiment are on the rise in South East Asia. As large-scale protests against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq sweep across Indonesia, MSNBC.com contributor in Jakarta, Mulya Lubis says, “Every day in every city in Indonesia there are anti-war protests.” Lubis says that Islamic fundamentalists in the world’s most populous Muslim country say that Indonesians should “boycott American products and ask Americans to leave the country.” But, speaking for the majority of the Islamic community, he says, “We don’t want the war on Iraq to be hijacked by the fundamentalists to campaign for their own interests. We must make it clear that we aren’t defending Saddam. Saddam is not representing Islam. We aren’t against Americans, but we are against Bush administration for violating international laws.”
.........................................
Iraqi freedom from Saddam or sanctions?
March 21, 2003 / 10:44 AM ET
American troops engage in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” with the firm belief that they will liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s oppression. But, some people in the anti-war camp blame 12 years of U.N. sanctions on Iraq for the peoples suffering, not Saddam. Azman Ujang, executive editor of the Malaysian news agency Bernama, says that Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people is “propaganda by Bush and Blair. Most of the Iraqis still support their government. The people have suffered from the U.N. sanctions, not due to Saddam.” Ujang says that the Iraqi leader is not a threat to the international community because, “After his adventures in Kuwait, Saddam made his country poor and learned his lesson.” He adds that in Malaysia “110 percent of the government and people are against all wars.”
.........................................
Russian fears of nuclear warfare
March 21, 2003 / 10:12 AM ET
Russia’s unique geographical position between Europe and Asia has it worried that a war with unconventional weapons could seep across its borders. Russian political analyst and TV show host Alexei Pushkov says, “There is a lot of information that under some conditions an ecological catastrophe caused by chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction can reach Russia. People are afraid that Iraq may use biological weapons and that Israel or the United States will respond in a nuclear way. They are afraid that after this America will start other wars with Iran or North Korea that will lead to destabilization in Asia and that someone will use nuclear weapons.”
.........................................
World leaders react
March 21, 2003 / 9:58 AM ET
World leaders’ reactions to the start of war have been just as varied as, and in some cases in contrast to, those of their contingencies. MSNBC.com’s Reaction to U.S. attack on Iraq shows the pro and anti-war comments of heads of states and international organizations.
.........................................
Trigger-happy approach to Muslim world
March 21, 2003 / 9:26 AM ET
The Muslim world is having a hard time digesting the war on Iraq as anything but an attack on Islam. Pakistan’s English-language Dawn says that, concerning North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, “Washington has refrained from showing the same trigger-happy approach that it seems to reserve for Muslim countries,” and questions whether Muslim Iran will be the United States’ next target. “It (the United States) insists that its war on terror is not against the Muslim world. But going by the actual policies Washington is pursuing, Muslims the world over will accept such claims only with a big pinch of salt.”
.........................................
Containing the genie of war
March 21, 2003 / 9:12 AM ET
Many people in the Middle East see the start of the U.S.-led war on Iraq as “an imperialist strategy to control the Arab oil-rich region,” writes M. Agha in the Syria Times . But, he questions whether world opposition can stop the war. “The anti-war camp in the world should close ranks to stop the new war launched by Holaco (Tartar military leader who occupied Baghdad) of the 21st century. Bush has unleashed the jinni (genie) of war, but could he return it to the bottle?”
.........................................
Rejection of U.S. economic ideals
March 21, 2003 / 9:02 AM ET
Financial instability caused by the war may reach far beyond oil-price-hikes, as anti-American sentiment could cause countries to reject U.S. economic ideals. On the opinion page of The Jakarta Post , Muhammad Chatib Basri and Siti Budi Wardhani, Institute for Economic and Social Research University of Indonesia, write, “The U.S. attack on Iraq will provide ammunition to the anti-U.S. movement in our country. Opinions here include the rejection of economic reforms created and supported by the International Monetary Fund, perceived as an agency working for U.S. interests. It would not be surprising if the pressure to reject divestment, privatization and other economic reform programs intensified if the war proved to be long and drawn-out.”
Watch NBC News and MSNBC cable for more “World Reax” and complete reports on the Showdown with Saddam.
.........................................
Egypt blames U.S., Arab leaders
March 20, 2003 / 11:24 AM ET
Following the U.S. military’s targeted strikes on Iraq, demonstrations sprouted across the Middle East. Thousands assembled in Cairo’s Tahir square to protest against U.S. aggression and the Arab governments that failed to resist the war. Gamal Abdul Gawad Soltan, analyst for Al Ahram Strategic Center in Egypt, says “No-one expects that Arab governments could have prevented the war, but there is the perception that they could have at least done better — they could have showed a stronger position in resisting the war.” Abdul Gawad Soltan adds that starting the war one day before the Muslim prayer day was a mistake. He says that the emotional out-pouring will be much greater Friday because people will not have to work. “If it started on a Sunday people would have time to cool off during the work week,” he says adding that it also shows religious and cultural insensitivity.
.........................................
Mideast conflicts of interest
March 20, 2003 / 10:44 AM ET
As the U.S.-led war on Iraq began with less of a bang than expected, uncertainty filled the Middle East. In Jordan, which is home to many Iraqi refugees, the public desires freedom for the Iraqi people, but resents U.S. intervention in the region. MSNBC.com contributor in Jordan Courtney Kealy says, “Most people feel conflicted about the war. They must either put up with the bombing and the casualties in Iraq or put up with Saddam’s rule for a long time. An Iraqi man who fled to Jordan after the 1991 Gulf War said, ‘What’s worse for the children-a couple days of trauma or a life of it under such a horrible man?” Kealy says, “No-one wants the U.S. government in charge of an Arab country. They think that the U.S. has an almost colonialist desire for oil and power - but at the same time, they see the U.S. as the only power that can get Saddam Hussein out.” She adds that Jordan is preparing for the arrival of thousands of Iraqi refugees, and many fear that while the world is focused on Iraq, Israel will expel Palestinians from the West Bank and drive them into Jordan.
.........................................
Iraq invasion sets bad precedent
March 20, 2003 / 9:38 AM ET
As the military operation against Saddam Hussein’s regime eases into action, many in the Middle East are planning large-scale protests fueled by anger at a war they see as unjust. Fares Sanibani, Editor in Chief of the Yemen Observer says “People are glued to their television sets and there will be big demonstrations Friday.” Meeting with a group of intellectuals to discuss the war, Sanibani says that the majority of the Arab group believes that even if the United States has good intentions, it should not be allowed to depose of another country’s government through force. He says, “It goes against principle. Then China could do the same thing to Taiwan, or Saudi Arabia could do it to Yemen.” But, the minority who feel Saddam should be ousted from power ask, “Why didn’t the U.S. do it 13 years ago?”
.........................................
Life as normal in Israel
March 20, 2003 / 8:56 AM ET
Despite some fears that Israel will be hit by Iraqi missiles in a repeat scenario of the 1991 Gulf War, most Israelis are going about life as normal just hours after the start of the war. Reporter for the English news radio station Kol Yisrael in Jerusalem, Jackie Beecham says, “People are pretty relaxed. They don’t feel much of a threat. Some people are carrying gas masks with them today, but they are mainly middle-aged women and children. I think people are more worried about Palestinian attacks than an attack by Saddam.” Beecham says that although there is a little opposition to the war, in general Israelis are “very, very supportive” of it because “we have suffered because of Saddam and he is a big threat.”
.........................................
Turkey ruins U.S., E.U. relations
March 20, 2003 / 8:22 AM ET
Turkey’s parliament began debating a proposal to allow the U.S. military to use Turkish airspace in the war against Iraq on Thursday. The delayed measure falls far from Washington’s initial request to station 62,000 troops in the country and will not come with the large aid package originally proposed. Editorialist Ilnur Cevik harshly criticizes the Turkish government in the Turkish Daily News. Cevik begins his editorial writing, “This is the first administration in Turkish history that managed to ruin Turkey’s ties with the U.S. and the EU at the same time and in such a short time span.”
.........................................
Europe questions U.S. democracy
March 19, 2003 / 11:38 AM ET
Antiwar Europeans are shocked by the ultimatum given to Iraq and see it as a breach of international democracy and law. MSNBC.com contributor in Germany Anna-Marita Leibbrand says, “Now everyone blames Bush for trying to rule the world. Over the last 50 years Germans have learned how to run a democratically oriented country due to the Americans, but now we feel that our teacher doesn’t care to use democratic agreements anymore.” Leibbrand adds, “The U.S. administration has to learn that Germany is a friend, but a friend with an opinion. People have worked very hard to foster this friendship and it should be strong enough to last, but we must explain our position and both sides must continue to work to build on the relationship.”
.........................................
Saudi exile plan?
March 19, 2003 / 11:18 AM ET
According to Reuters news agency, an unnamed official said Saudi Arabia was proposing that Saddam Hussein go into exile to avert a U.S.-led war. However, Jamal Khashoggi, deputy editor in chief of Arab News, says that there were no plans for Saudi Arabia itself to give Saddam asylum, suggesting that in theory another country would step in. Khashoggi says that based on conversations with high-placed officials, the gulf kingdom would not be the country to offer Saddam refuge because “that is not the official position of Saudi Arabia.” Khashoggi adds that there was no major reaction to the ultimatum and that there was a feeling of “if it’s going to happen let’s get it over with.”
.........................................
Iraq’s neighbors prepare for exodus
March 19, 2003 / 10:49 AM ET
A U.S.-led war with Iraq could result in up to 600,000 Iraqis fleeing the country’s borders. An editorial in the Jordan Times explains the difficulties facing Iraq’s neighbors. “Floods of refugees from Iraq can be expected to cross borders into Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. Hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from the ravages of a military onslaught will certainly tax the capacities of Iraq’s neighboring countries to cope with their plight.” The editorialist warns that, “Camps are already erected to meet some of them, but no amount of preparedness will be enough if the volume of the exodus from Iraq reaches unmanageable proportions.”
.........................................
Israeli-Palestinian conflict undermined by Iraq
March 19, 2003 / 10:22 AM ET
Iraq fired dozens of Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War and many Israelis are again on edge. Gideon Samet, writing in Israel’s Haaretz Daily , chastises the United States for what he sees as clumsy diplomacy. “America’s guilt is weighty because ... Bush’s diplomacy created a grave crisis in the ranks of the same West it is trying to defend.” Samet puts the impending confrontation with Iraq in a regional context, placing particular emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “In the past year, he (Bush) and his senior advisers have not seemed determined to bring about the only positive turn that should concern us: a deal to end the Palestinian conflict. ... The desired change ... depends on whether after the war, Bush will prefer daring diplomacy over his reelection concerns.”
.........................................
Fundamentalism will feed off war
March 19, 2003 / 9:56 AM ET
Although the majority of people in the Middle East would not see an invasion of Iraq as a faith-based war, a U.S.-led attack could fuel Islamic fundamentalist movements, MSNBC.com contributor Jacques Hakim in Syria says. “There is a close understanding between the Islamic and Christian societies — where true Christians are. The popes and bishops are calling for peace. No one thinks of the U.S. or Europe as Christian states. Normal people don’t think this war has a religious character,” Hakim says. But he adds that Islamic fundamentalism will increase “because all people in the Middle East are religious and resentment will start — this will help the fundamentalists. They use everything to reach their aims.”
Watch NBC News and MSNBC cable for more “World Reax” and complete reports on the Showdown with Saddam.
.........................................
South East Asia braces for protests
March 18, 2003 / 11:20 AM ET
With a deadline set for the invasion of Iraq, and Saddam refusing to go into exile, South East Asia braces itself for massive street protests. In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, MSNBC.com contributor Michael Chambers says, “95-99% of Indonesians think the war is wrong regardless of religion. There has been a significant reduction in militancy since the Bali bombing, but many fear that it will increase again.” Chambers says, “Today (Tuesday) has been suspiciously quiet, but once war starts Thursday we’ll see action. Everyone’s hoping for big, peaceful protests.” Chambers says that if U.S. interests are attacked the “attacks will probably be by mobs not by terrorists. Of course, the average Indonesian doesn’t even know Iraq is a secular state.”
.........................................
Arabs doubt Bush’s ‘democracy’ talk
March 18, 2003 / 10:55 AM ET
As the 48 hour countdown to a possible invasion of Iraq continues, the Arab world asks: “What is the plan?” An editorial in the Jordan Times says, “beyond sheer propaganda on the ‘liberation’ of Iraq and some nebulous democratization process, we have heard nothing from Bush about an actual Iraqi government.” The editorialist writes, “No Jordanian, no Arab has ever bought, even for one single second, Bush’s blabbering about bringing democracy to this region. A democratic government in Baghdad would reflect people’s anger and revulsion against US policies, and translate it into policies.”
.........................................
Difficult France lacks democracy
March 18, 2003 / 10:31 AM ET
While the vast majority of French believe their country has taken the moral high ground against war, critics sight a lack of democratic discussion in France and say that the government’s primary drive is not for peace, but to prove itself against America. Steven Ekovich, professor of International Relations in Paris, says, “There’s no debate in France like there is in the House of Commons (in Britain) or between the U.S. congressional leaders and President Bush. There’s almost unanimity in France. We haven’t seen the democratic turbulence that’s so emotionally satisfying to people who like democracy.” Ekovich says, “France is indisputably the most anti-American country in Europe. It wants to reinforce its greatness by standing up to the super-power. It wants to be different and play a leadership role.”
.........................................
U.S.-British contempt for the U.N.
March 18, 2003 / 10:06 AM ET
Comparisons are being made between the U.S., Britain and Spain’s decision to bypass a U.N. vote on Iraq to European dictators’ contemptuous treatment of the League of Nations in the 1930’s. An editorial in Pakistan’s English language newspaper Dawn says, “The United Nations — founded by an American president and a British prime minister - now has lost all meaning for the power-wielding successors to Roosevelt and Churchill.” The editorialist says, “should this (war with Iraq) come to pass, America and Britain will be wholly responsible for the consequences of this crime.”
Watch NBC News and MSNBC cable for more “World Reax” and complete reports on the Showdown with Saddam.
.........................................
Israelis wait in missiles’ reach
March 14, 2003 / 10:33 AM ET
With memories of Saddam’s missiles raining down on them in 1991, and a possible war on the horizon, Israelis are wary of what lies ahead. Hirsh Goodman, Fellow at the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv says, “Most Israelis would prefer not to be in a war situation. But, if America goes to war, Israel could benefit from a regime change in Iraq — if it became part of the moderate Arab world.” Goodman added, “Palestinians are very worried that while the world has its eyes on Iraq, Israel will use harsh measures on the Palestinians. So, I think they will be more quiet.”
.........................................
U.N. isolated, not U.S.
March 14, 2003 / 9:38 AM ET
Although the United States has continued its diplomatic wrangling with reluctant Security Council members, President Bush has repeatedly said that the U.S. will go to war without U.N. approval if necessary. While some question the legitimacy of a U.S.-led war without U.N. backing, an editorialist for Israel’s Jerusalem Post puts the onus solely on the United Nations. “The U.N. is not just failing to stop an aggressor, but is actively thwarting the U.S. insistence on doing so.” The editorialist goes on to say, “In the aftermath of this debacle, the U.S. should simply rely upon ‘coalitions of the willing’, leaving the U.N. isolated and not the United States.”
.........................................
Change must come from within, not U.S.
March 14, 2003 / 9:12 AM ET
Some Middle Easterners feel that their leaders let their personal interests overshadow the concerns of the region. “The problem is that most Arab leaders think they have the best brain. Everyone wants to be the leader forever, including Saddam,” says MSNBC.com contributor Hisham Al Ashmawi in Egypt. “We have a very popular saying, from the Koran that “God will never change people unless they come and change themselves.” The U.S. can spend billions of dollars but it won’t change anything. Americans can’t come here and do miracles, because the people need to want to change themselves.”
.........................................
Human greed at fault
March 14, 2003 / 8:42 AM ET
Many war opponents throughout the Arab world put the blame squarely on the United States and Britain. But, on the comment page of the Gulf Daily News Les Horton says, “We cannot solely blame the U.S., Britain or other western powers for what is about to happen, for Arab leaders have failed miserably to bring to heel this troublesome neighbor.” Horton warns that all wars are fuelled by universal flaws in the human character saying, “Most of all the blame must lie with human greed, with the politics of economics, with blind dogma that pits one creed against another, with the ignorance and intolerance in which hatred breeds.”
.........................................
Bush and Blair’s auction for war
March 14, 2003 / 8:13 AM ET
As the United States and Britain lobby their case for war, many in the anti-war camp feel that, unable to convince others that this will be a just war, the U.S. and Britain are simply attempting to buy allies. An editorialist for South Africa’s Daily Dispatch writes, “There is something deeply obscene in American president George Bush and British prime Minister Tony Blair running a world-wide auction to buy support for war. If the offer of huge aid packages fails, they might bomb Iraq on Monday morning anyway.”
Watch NBC News and MSNBC cable for more “World Reax” and complete reports on the Showdown with Saddam.
.........................................
Turks refuse to rent land
March 13, 2003 / 9:48 AM ET
The Turkish parliament turned down a resolution to allow U.S. troops on its soil for a possible attack on southern neighbor Iraq in exchange for $30 billion in aid on March 1. But, with Tayyip Erdogan about to become prime minister and set up a new government this Friday, Turkey may vote in favor of the agreement after all. MSNBC.com contributor Sanar Yurdatapan in Turkey says, “Nobody here wants the war. Everyone, even the people who voted for Mr. Erdogan’s party, will be in shock (if the resolution is passed). Imagine that somebody wants to attack your neighbor. He will pay you rent to let him shoot from your balcony. He says ‘let me pass through your garden to get to my enemy’.” Yurdatapan likens such a situation to that which the United States is asking of Turkey.
.........................................
Pacifist Germans fear Bush
March 13, 2003 / 9:01 AM ET
Germany, which continues to reject any proposal that could automatically trigger war with Iraq, remains in pacifist camp largely “because of our history,” says Elmar Thevessen, Executive news director for ZDF, German Television Mainz. “We don’t want war anywhere anymore.” Thevessen adds that although Germans use the term “Americans” when speaking out, “it’s really a feeling of anti-Bushism,” that doesn’t extend to the American public in general. “The people are scared about what they hear from Bush, like saying God is giving the U.S. permission to go to war around the world.”
.........................................
Economic fallout of an Iraq war
March 13, 2003 / 8:48 AM ET
Governments and their constituencies everywhere worry about how the economic fallout of a war with Iraq would affect their countries. In Pakistan’s English language newspaper Dawn, Sultan Ahmed says that Pakistan will pay high rates for oil, shipping and war insurance, but warns there are no guarantees of what will happen in the post-war phase. “While we are paying the high price for a possible or imminent war, will we get a fair share of the returns from the post-war reconstruction in Iraq?” Ahmed asks.
Watch NBC News and MSNBC cable for more “World Reax” and complete reports on the Showdown with Saddam.
.........................................
Americans unscathed by Arab wrath
March 12, 2003 / 9:48 AM ET
While the majority of Middle Easterners express feelings of anger toward the Bush administration, their ire usually is not aimed at the American public. Leila Abdul Hamid Sharaf, a former member of Jordan’s parliament, says that there is “an intense sense of tension, frustration and deep hatred for the United States administration” on the Arab street, “in contrast to the positive feelings towards the American people and a special appreciation to the groups and the tens of thousands who demonstrated or expressed their opposition to the war.” However, “wrath against the U.S. government is universal.”
.........................................
U.S. war motivation in question
March 12, 2003 / 9:12 AM ET
War opponents around the globe are questioning the justification of the United States unleashing its massive military arsenal to disarm Iraq. In Mexico’s La Jornada, Wednesday’s editorial compares a U.S. strike on Baghdad with the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. However, La Jornada says there is a key difference between World War II and now: Whereas in World War II the U.S. could say it had been attacked and “there were clear, explicit, real motives, this time the White House has not been capable of articulating any argument to justify its bellicose delirium against Baghdad.”
.........................................
Powerlessness permeates the Mideast
March 12, 2003 / 8:38 AM ET
Feelings of helplessness permeate the Middle East as individuals feel that neither they, nor their leaders, have a voice in the international arena. Mansour Al Jamri, Editor in Chief of the independent Arabic daily newspaper Al-Wasat in Bahrain, says, “People in the Middle East feel powerless. They know this region is very unstable because there is no common policy between countries in the region to work toward a common interest. There have been many protests (against war with Iraq), but they know nobody can do anything. The U.S. is moving unilaterally despite what Arab rulers want, let alone what the Arab people want in this conflict.”
.........................................
Warnings of U.S. domination
March 12, 2003 / 8:12 AM ET
While the Bush administration says that it is waging war on global terror and ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, some claim that the United States is using such rhetoric to fuel its goals of global domination. China’s Peoples Daily says, “After the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the United States began a new round of powerful expansion, with the aim of expanding the U.S. spheres of influence to the whole world.” But, it warns that “only when the United States refrains from taking the road of pursuing global empire, can it avoid terrorists’ bombs or other forms of attacks befalling on its own territory.”
.........................................
Widening the U.S.-French rift
March 11, 2003 / 11:03 AM ET
As France tuned in to hear President Jacques Chirac’s televised interview Monday night, the vast majority of his citizens applauded Chirac’s stance against war. But some political leaders fear that if France vetoes a U.N. resolution authorizing war, the rift between the U.S. and France will not be as easy to mend as Chirac claims. Alain Frachon, Senior Correspondent of “Le Monde” says, “There are some within the Parliament who say that this is a special veto. This is something very dear to the Americans because it deals with their security, or so they think. And using the veto could lead to serious and lasting economic and commercial consequences.”
.........................................
Testing the relevancy of the U.N.
March 11, 2003 / 9:38 AM ET
President Bush’s determination to go to war with or without U.N. approval has many questioning the relevancy of the United Nations. An editorial in Britain’s The Guardian says, “The mutuality of interest upon which the U.N. has always rested still applies, possibly even more so now. Powerful though it is, the U.S. must recollect and embrace this basic fact of interdependence that it once understood well. Ironically, the sheer scale of post-war problems may force it to do so. A renewed imaginative commitment to cooperative internationalism is the only way ahead.”
.........................................
Europeans fail to fear Saddam
March 11, 2003 / 8:11 AM ET
As France and Russia threaten to veto a U.N. resolution authorizing war, and protests continue across Europe, it is obvious that Europeans and Americans see the issue of Iraq through different lenses. But why? Robert Kagan, U.S. leadership and foreign policy specialist in Brussels, Belgium says, “Americans think Saddam is dangerous, but the Europeans don’t feel threatened, since they don’t understand how nervous the average American is. They didn’t have 9/11. They like to say they lived with terrorism but their kind of terrorism is small-scale terrorism. Americans can easily imagine terrorists striking with weapons of mass destruction. There is this gap in understanding.”
.........................................
An Arab silver lining?
March 7, 7:18 AM GMT
Many in the Arab world believe that a U.S.-led war on Iraq could destabilize the region. But, cautions Jamal Khashoggi, deputy editor in chief of Arab News in Saudi Arabia, “If the war moves swiftly without much collateral damage the Iraqis will rise against Saddam’s regime on their own and they will receive the U.S. as their liberators.” Khashoggi does not buy the darkest predictions about the region. “I can imagine seeing the pictures on Al-Jazeera — it will have a cooling affect on the ‘Arab street’ altogether. But if the U.S. makes the same mistakes it made in Afghanistan, hitting civilian targets — for example, the wedding party— that will work against American aims in the area.”
.........................................
Israelis fear worse ahead
March 7, 3:19 PM GMT
Most Israelis say they fear they will be the target of a counter-attack by Iraq, as happened during the Gulf War in 1991. But they appear to harbor an even greater fear of what Saddam could be capable of if he isn’t stopped before he develops more powerful weaponry. Professor Amatzia Baram, an Israeli analyst on Iraq and the Middle East says, “If the United States doesn’t attack Iraq today, Saddam Hussein will transform the country into a nuclear power within two to five years.” At that point, Baram says, “he will become the master of the gulf, he will become the leader of the Arab world, there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East, and it may even reach New York.”
.........................................
Japan Times: What role for Tokyo?
March 7, 1:34 PM GMT
Some in Japan are unhappy with the low-profile their nation has taken in the crisis. With headlines focusing on nearby North Korea, and Japan’s constitution banning any sort of foreign military involvement, that may seem natural. But Makiko Tanaka, an editorial writer for the The Japan Times argues that “Japan’s government ... must stop prevaricating with the Japanese people: It should welcome and encourage debate about Japan’s defense posture without fearing that the U.S.-Japan friendship is so fragile that it will be destroyed.”
.........................................
Venezuela divided
March 7, 1:12 PM GMT
Although leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez voices anti-American sentiment and opposes a war with Iraq, the public is not necessarily marching with him in lockstep. In Caracas, MSNBC.com contributor Antonio Herrera-Vaillant says, “Chavez is one of the only heads of state to visit Saddam Hussein, so that has brought Venezuela under scrutiny. But, despite our government, the people are very pro-American.”
Vaillant notes that Chavez condemned U.S. military action in Afghanistan, too, “but the people were very supportive of the U.S. after 9-11.”
.........................................
Egypt’s Al Ahram: Onus on Iraq
March 7, 12:52 PM GMT
The editorial in Egypt’s state-controlled newspaper, Al-Ahram, argues that while “the Iraqi government has every right to feel that it is being subjected to a disgraceful show of double standards,” ultimately the onus is on Iraq to be pragmatic and avoid war. “Since it was the miscalculations of the Iraqi regime that brought Iraq to this point, it is the responsibility of the Iraqi regime to remove the Iraqi people from danger.”
.........................................
Unleashing terror
March 6, 3:19 PM GMT
In South East Asia many fear that a U.S.-led war on Iraq will not only destabilize the Middle East, but will have a tremendous, negative impact around the globe. Azman Ujang, executive editor of Bernama in Malaysia says, “Malaysians are totally opposed to the war. We don’t see any justification for it. There will be riots in Indonesia and elsewhere and tremendous instability. The economy will be unstable and it will unleash terror all over the world. ... People are not going to travel. Once you go to war in Iraq, whatever good will Malaysians have for Americans will almost be totally lost.”
.........................................
Chinese neutrality
March 6, 2:55 PM GMT
Although China says it is opposed to the second U.N. resolution authorizing war, China’s government may actually be struggling to remain neutral in the debate. China analyst James McGregor says, “The average person on the ground is somewhat supportive of America’s efforts to disarm Iraq. They appreciate the U.S. for taking care of a world problem. But the Chinese government tries to remain not aligned. When it comes down to it the government won’t oppose the US, but it won’t gain anything from acting like a lackey of the U.S. either.”
.........................................
UK elite deaf to opposition
March 6, 2:22 PM GMT
The vast majority of Britons oppose war with Iraq and question why Tony Blair and his Parliament are deaf to their concerns and protests. Jackie Ashley writes in the comment page of The Guardian , “We have an Americanized, historically warlike and pro-superpower political elite. …The political problem is that the rest of the country has moved on and changed. ...We are a mixed, liberal, skeptical lot, who don’t take to Bush and flinch from Christian fundamentalism almost as much as from the Islamic variety. We look at our ruling elite and we don’t recognize ourselves in them.”
.........................................
Selling war to the Arab world
March 6, 1:18 PM GMT
In the Middle East, people wonder what will happen to post-war Iraq and remain wary of U.S. politicians. Bashraheel Bashraheel, foreign editor of Al-Ayyam newspaper in Yemen, says, “Everyone worries that Iraq will be like Afghanistan where the Americans have withdrawn with only half the job done. Yemen has cooperated on the war against terror, but we haven’t seen any results for our cooperation. To gain support the U.S. should show less of Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, more of Powell, and should talk more about the democratization of Iraq, freedom, food and medical aid — that the Arab world would go for.”
.........................................
Cuban diatribe
March 6, 12:31 PM GMT
Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper, Granma International , offers a front-page diatribe against war, comparing the possible effects of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq to the devastation caused by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. It goes on to criticize Washington and its supporters: “Aznar has even started an international campaign to try to win, buy, or even issue threats in order to receive the votes of some nations.”
.........................................
Fears of turmoil
March 5, 2:38 PM GMT
Public fears in the Middle East that a U.S.-British led war on Iraq will lead to turmoil and economic depression are very much on the region’s mind. Rami Khouri, executive editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star, says, “I don’t think that people see this as a war against Islam, but they do see it as a politically motivated move by the U.S. and that war will serve Israeli interests as well as American. There is expectation of economic damage as in 1991, and a war with Iraq will greatly upset the balance of power in the region.”
.........................................
Adjust and capitalize
March 5, 2:15 PM GMT
Lebanon’s Daily Star opinion column says that Lebanon and Syria must learn how to benefit from the changes that are about to sweep through the Middle East.
“Lebanon and Syria, alone among Iraq’s close neighbors, face the greatest threat of being isolated on a geo-strategic limb if they do not quickly adjust to, and capitalize on, the new dynamic realities that are redefining this region and much of the world.”
.........................................
France stands firm
March 5, 12:45 P.M. GMT
“France will stand firm to convince the U.S. to change its stance,” Patrice de Beer, journalist for Le Monde, says, “but no one expects the Bush administration to change.” “Once war starts there will be massive demonstrations in Paris and around France,” he says.
“Even if people don’t believe they can change anything they will show that they are against the war — just like during the Vietnam War.”
.........................................
Idyllic dreams of war
March 5, 12:30 P.M. GMT
On the opinion page of Italy’s La Stampa Igor Mann says that no matter what good intentions President Bush has, nothing positive can be created by war. “Destroy Saddam the infamous dictator; install a legal, credible regime in Iraq; democratize the Middle East; eliminate terrorism; get rid of the recession. This is the dream of President Bush … and to realize this idyllic dream the United States has decided to use a terrible instrument of death: war.”
.........................................
For war
March 4, 1:55 P.M. GMT
In Kuwait, Mohammed El Jassem, Arab editor for Newsweek, says there appears to be little sentiment against war.
“One hundred percent of people in Kuwait are in favor of war. Since we have experience with Saddam, we realize that what Saddam says won’t happen — he won’t disarm or go into exile. Everyone is waiting for war, but the uncertainty is killing the country. Life is going about as normal, but we are afraid that Saddam will retaliate — people are afraid of nuclear warfare.
.........................................
Conflicting messages
March 4, 1:38 p.m. GMT
“The message from the U.S. is very contradictory — it is supposed to be the biggest proponent of democracy and yet it’s forcing the world to accept this war on Iraq,” says Indonesian sociologist Surya Kusuma. “Across the board, Indonesians are against the U.S. — not just radical Muslims, but everyone.
“But (President) Megawati Sukarnoputri is dependent on U.S. support. Megawati is manipulating the war on terror to gain military aid and financial benefits from the U.S. — this also sends conflicting messages to Indonesians. Things could get really really ugly if the war does happen. American interests in Indonesia would be boycotted and most likely attacked.”
.........................................
Russian strategists
March 4, 1:05 p.m. GMT
Lilia Shevtsova of the Moscow Carnegie Center says “the Russian public is quiet about the conflict with Iraq — they are more concerned with domestic development. But the intellectual and political classes are worried. About 70 percent of Moscow elite favor the French-German option of prolonging the inspectors work and putting international pressure on Saddam. Only 30 percent are with the U.S. Some of them think that a partnership with the U.S. is vital because the U.S. can help Russia’s entry into the WTO, guarantee its post-war presence in Iraq, give Russian companies entry in Iraqi oilfields, and ensure that the 7 billion in Iraqi debt gets returned to Russia. I think that if America goes to war with Iraq more and more people will jump on the bandwagon on the side of America.”
.........................................
Turks pay
March 4, 12:35 p.m. GMT
Ilnur Cevik’s editorial in the Turkish Daily News criticized the Turkish parliament for not allowing U.S. troops on Turkish soil. “Once again Citizen Osman is required to face the prospects of having to pay a massive price for the folly of those who failed to pass a parliamentary decision to allow American troops to deploy in Turkey and for Turkish troops to be sent to Iraq. ... So what will those who supported the anti-war movement do in Turkey. The ministers who voted for the rejection of military action, the deputies who helped them and the anti-war activists should now all chip in funds to help Citizen Osman who has to pay the bill for their campaign. ... Can they now stomach that?”
.........................................
Exile option?
March 4, 12:15 p.m. GMT
The Tehran Times’ opinion page says that Saddam’s exile would only be a success if Iraqis were given the opportunity to govern themselves without U.S. occupation. “The United States is determined to bring about changes in Iraq. Even if the U.N. opposes the move, Washington is not going to change its mind; it will resort to force even without U.N. authorization. Under the circumstances, Saddam’s resignation would be the best choice, but sovereignty belongs only to the Iraqi people and they must be allowed to decide their own future themselves.”
.........................................
War against Islam?
Feb. 28, 1:23 p.m. GMT
Sohail Iqbal, MSNBC contributor in Pakistan, says “The general population thinks this war by the U.S. on Iraq will be a war against Islam. There have been rallies around the country and the political parties are currently organizing a million-man anti-war march. But the people believe that (Pakistani President) Pervez Musharraf and his government will support the U.S. in any case. It will be like in Afghanistan with the government on one side and most political parties on the other side.”
.........................................
Good neighbors?
Feb. 28, 1:10 p.m. GMT
Mexican writer Guadalupe Loaeza says that she is sure Mexico will support the second U.N. resolution despite widespread public opposition to a possible war with Iraq. “Mexicans have a love-hate relationship with the United States. We depend on the U.S. in so many ways, have so many Mexicans living and working in the U.S., and there may be some financial benefits for us after a war. But Mexicans are completely against the war. It is very hard for President Vicente Fox to struggle with his convictions against U.S. pressure.”
.........................................
Italian suspicion
Feb. 28, 1:03 p.m. GMT
Vittorio Zucconi , editorialist and foreign correspondent for the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica, says, “In terms of government we’re one of several countries closely aligning ourselves with the U.S. We’re considered part of “new Europe” as opposed to France and Germany. But among the people there is this deep suspicion of U.S. motives. The problem is the U.S., not Iraq. No one gives a hoot about Iraq.”
Zucconi said the Vatican’s opposition to military action holds a lot of weight and that “there are a lot of al-Qaida cells in Italy and so the people have a big fear of terrorism as well.”
.........................................
Arabs resist
Feb. 28, 12:03 p.m. GMT
On the opinion page of the Syria Times, M. Agha says the Bush administration, along with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is pursuing a “policy of brute force and intervention in other state’s affairs.” “They want to disarm others while they possess all means of killing, terror and destruction. They want to be the only powers that press and terrorize others, and that monopolize all the world’s resources and riches without any opposition. The question is: Do these powers believe the Arab nation will keep on bowing to such dictators and hegemony for ever?!”
.........................................
Forced democracy
Feb. 28, 12:43 a.m. GMT
An editorial in Spain’s El Pais questions Bush’s ideological plans for democratizing Iraq. “Bush wants to write history, but it is improbable that he can control it. Already he assures us, with respect to al-Qaida, that ‘we are beating them and we are showing them the definition of the American justice.’ Is justice the reason that prisoners are being held in Guantánamo under dubious laws? Or what about the Patriotic Law that is subverting citizens’ rights in the United States?”
.........................................
Wooing skeptics
Feb. 26
As opposition to a war on Iraq remains strong around the globe, the United States and Britain have their work cut out for them convincing skeptics that Saddam has exhausted his opportunity to disarm peacefully. London-based MSNBC contributor Richard Walker shed light how the proposed second U.N. resolution may affect the British government and its public.
“The U.N. resolution is absolutely crucial for Tony Blair because there is a huge amount of pressure on the leadership of the party to de-link themselves from what is seen as a U.S. enterprise,” Walker said.
He said that if the second resolution is passed, “It will be significant for broad public opinion in Britain. For those who are undecided or willing to be led by political leadership it could turn out to be politically significant. Many have said today that they feel ready to be swayed from previous anti-war positions if there is a second resolution that is passed. A number feel they can live with action supported by a second resolution.”
.........................................
MSNBC.com correspondent Patralekha Chatterjee, in New Delhi, India, said that although there is no strong anti-war movement in India, the government’s official position is against using force on Iraq and many Indians don’t see Saddam as a huge threat.”
“Saddam is not seen as such a demon here as in other parts of the world — he is not seen as an Islamic fundamentalist. India is much more threatened by Pakistan than by Iraq. India has had business dealings with Iraq. Saddam was supportive of India on the Kashmir issue which everyone considers the main issue — so they don’t see him as so bad. People say why is the U.S. picking on Saddam Hussein?”
As an agreement to allow U.S. troops on Turkish soil waits for Parliamentary approval, Nicole Pope, a correspondent for
.........................................
MSNBC.com, commented on this situation in Istanbul, Turkey.
“The people are very, very angry with the government. There were protests in Istanbul today and a number of demonstrations over the last few weeks. I haven’t come across anyone in support of the war. But, some say it is something that Turkey had to do — not just economically, but politically. It was misleading in the U.S. press the way Turkey was seen to be haggling about money. Turkey is more interested in having a degree of influence in Iraq after Saddam’s regime is toppled.”
.........................................
In the Turkish Daily News, Ilnur Cevik asks the question, “Why won’t Turkey fight this war?”
“If our aim is to be in the region when important decisions are taken for the future of Iraq then we feel we should be in the game with everything we got. That means some Turkish divisions should enter combat along with the Americans and march on to Baghdad.”
.........................................
An editorial in El Pais says: “This text for war that Aznar prepared behind the back of the Spanish Parliament, which arranges for possible military participation alongside the United States, constitutes a very serious precedent and makes a mockery of democracy.”
.........................................
Pakistan’s English-language newspaper, Dawn, said that while Washington has focused solely on Iraq, it has brought the resentment of the Muslim world on itself by ignoring the Palestinian issue. “It is this pro-Israeli tilt that has earned Washington the ire of the entire Muslim world. Neglecting the Palestinian issue has caused it a terrible loss of respect in this volatile region and continues to fuel anti-American sentiments at a time when Washington needs all the support it can get in its war on terror.
No country, however powerful, can hold down an entire people through sheer force.”
.........................................
In Wednesday’s edition of Mexico’s La Jornada Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas weighs the economic benefits of siding with a war on Iraq against the moral problems of such action.
“Even if the Bush administration decided to grant us something, it would only be temporary visas for a few Mexicans. That number would be less than the thousands of industrious Mexicans who routinely cross the border without documents anyway, and a lot less, without doubt, than the number of Iraqis who will be killed by American bombs and shrapnel. How would Vicente Fox’s government explain to Mexico and to the world the moral of exchanging laborers for corpses and ruin?”
.........................................
In one of the few Chilean newspapers to mention the possible war with Iraq, Diario Cronaca carried the words of Professor Nelson Vergara Borquez:
“A national radio program invited its listeners to openly talk about the theme of a U.S.-led war on Iraq, and to discuss the position our country should have on the matter. The opinions shared could not be more conclusive. Every one of the great number of participants, save one, declared a determined refusal to the American position. And even a neutral position for our country was deemed unacceptable.”
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|