Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
|
|
MAJOR NATO COUNTRIES Amid pledges of official backing for what many
saw as an "inevitable military response" by the U.S., editorialists
debated the appropriate parameters of European support. There appeared to be a deepening fault line
between those pressing for "caution" and arguing against "blind
vengeance," and others who saw unalloyed Allied solidarity as a
"moral obligation" and a "matter of defending humanity as a
whole." In the first group--a
majority, found mainly in centrist/left-leaning papers--many urged Europe to
send the message to Washington that "all non-military methods be fully
explored" and to "reinforce the case for proceeding
carefully." In the latter camp--principally
conservative UK and Canadian media, but also several right/center-right papers
in France, Germany and Italy--most analysts were rankled by what one termed
"a spirit of Munich" shown by some political and media elite under
the "polite" guise of "having reservations," and by
"finger-wagging" against the U.S. for some of its policies. Noting that the Bush administration has
thus far shown itself to be circumspect, they found common cause with a leading
Ottawa daily, which argued that however "one may feel about particular
policies of the U.S...there can be no doubt that it is essentially a force for
good in the world," and deserves support. OTHER NATO COUNTRIES Sentiment continued to swing broadly. Commentators urging caution were the most
numerous, appearing in the press in Hungary, Norway and Poland. Budapest's influential, liberal-leaning Magyar
Hirlap warned: "Before
something irrevocable happens, possibilities will have to be analyzed carefully,
things to do discussed thoroughly, and instead of sudden anger, the voice of
reason listened to." But many
other observers in Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, and--notably, a
leading broadsheet in Greece--were firm in their calls for the world to stand
united with the U.S. in the difficult fight against terrorism. Athens's independent, influential Kathimerini
observed: "Prime Minister Simitis
was extremely decisive and categorical when he said yesterday: 'Our response is absolute: no compromise, no interaction with
[terrorists].... The recent attacks cannot remain unanswered.... Greece will participate in future
initiatives.'... Greece's position could not have and should not have been any
different." The minority
view--expressed in most Greek and some Norwegian, Portugese and Turkish
dailies--expressed alarm at the prospects of a war being mounted in response to
the September 11 attacks. Their
criticism of the U.S. and its policies was a prominent theme. While contending that a war against
Afghanistan would not eradicate terrorism and only harm more innocents, they
did not offer alternative solutions beyond vague suggestions that the world
must "rely on long-term countermoves." cont. ... RUSSIA AND EURASIA From Russia, several non-official papers
continued to advise Moscow to "make the hard choice" and side with
the U.S., seeing it as, among other things, a way for Moscow to exert its
"influence on the U.S. operation" and not be marginalized in the
"war-to-be" along its southern border. This opinion was voiced most forcefully and consistently in
reformist Izvestiya, which featured commentaries calling on Moscow to
ally itself with Washington "at least on the issue of
Afghanistan." Others, including
official Parlamentskaya Gazeta, were deeply skeptical about Russia
joining forces with the U.S., worrying that Moscow could be pulled into a
dangerous war. Available editorial
comment from Central Asian countries revealed deep concern about a war possibly
being launched in their neighborhood. Kyrgyzstani
papers, contending that "bombing is not a solution," worried that a
flow of refugees from Afghanistan "could swamp Kyrgystan." Independent Advokat asked, "Is
it really worth increasing the number of deaths, putting the planet near the
‘last line that leads nowhere’? Will
those who lost relatives and close friends really feel better if a third world
war becomes the price for vengeance?”
In Moldova, rightist papers focused on a trail of weapons--allegedly
produced in Transnistria--wending its way through "Bulgaria, Israel, Iraq,
Iran and other Arab states." Literatura
si Arta warned: "If the U.S.
and other states have decided to start fighting terrorists, they should start
at the same time fighting those who arm the terrorists. The...plants that produce weapons in
Transnistria work day and night to supply with sophisticated weapons all those
who need them." A daily in
Turkmenistan, in stating firmly that terrorism must be defeated, agreed with
its country's leader who advocated an international anti-terrorist
coalition--perhaps led by the UN. REST OF EUROPE Opinion was mixed. The most vocal advocates for a strong response against terrorism
were found in most Romanian and some Irish papers, and in media in
Muslim-dominated Albania and Kosovo. Tirana's
medium-circulation, centrist Dita, for example, stressed that
"millions of people throughout the world are Americans in their spirit and
mind.... Albanians have been and still
are part of this support. We have our
own special reasons to be such. We are
a grateful people and we cannot forget that the decisive support of the U.S.
has been near us in the most decisive moments of our existence." Another Tirana daily warned the Albanian
government that it must be sure that potential Arab terrorists are not being
given shelter in the country. Other
opinionmakers in Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Finland and Sweden dwelled more on
the need for the U.S. to be cautious in its response to the terrorist attacks,
with several noting that the world had suddenly changed and that a need for
greater international cooperation has been born. EDITORS:
Katherine Starr and Diana McCaffrey EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 141
editorials from 30 countries, September 17-20. Countries are as follows: Britain, France,
Italy, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Russia, Czech Republic, Greece,
Hungary, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Turkey, Kyrgyszstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan,
Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland,
Ireland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Extensive excerpts are available upon request. MAJOR NATO COUNTRIES BRITAIN:
"Long War" An editorial in the conservative Times
read (9/20): "Whatever action
America and its allies take against Bin Laden's Afghan lairs, that will be a
foretaste only of a vastly more ambitious campaign, waged the world
over.... In this campaign classic
war-fighting may have an occasional role only; terrorism's underground forces
will be fought where they operate and with methods that are anything but
conventional. And it will be a long
war.... The U.S. will judge countries
by their willingness to stay the same long course with it. First and most uncomfortably in the frame is
Pakistan.... But Washington is clearly
well aware that it would be wise not to rely on Pakistan alone as its regional
ally in this first, but in political terms critical, test of strength against
the terrorist Hydra. And, with the likely
exception of Uzbekistan, the Central Asian republics will be reluctant to
co-operate militarily if Russia is against it.... Paranoia about its 'near abroad' could inhibit Moscow from acting
accordingly. The next task for
diplomatic advocacy it to convince even the ever-cautious Kremlin that the
world is utterly changed." "Other Ways Of Winning" An editorial in the liberal Guardian made
this observation regarding this weekend's EU special anti-terrorism summit
(9/20): "The message for Mr. Bush
is that all non-military methods must be fully explored, too, if long-term
success is to be assured and unpredictable, mutually destructive consequences
avoided. Europe is not alone in
this. In Russia, in the Arab world, and
in Asia, a largely identical refrain may be heard.... Japan and South Korea, the overriding preference in Muslim Asia
is for proactive diplomacy, for cooperative action via the UN, and for joint
investigatory, economic and financial measures. The Bush administration (or at least, influential parts of it)
seems to be listening.... The non-military
way forward begins with a combined diplomatic offensive of the kind now underway. But to be effective, yet more flexibility is
required of the United States--such as agreement for enhanced United Nations
involvement.... When it comes to legal
process, the UN has the machinery for convening an impartial tribunal along the
lines of, or linked to the Hague court....
And if all else fails, it is the UN's explicit authorization that must
be sought for any military action against Afghanistan itself. Other non-lethal weapons include the
tracking and seizure of terrorist funds....
Robust responses need not be measured only in rockets." "The Voice Of Europe" From an editorial in the independent Financial
Times (9/20): "A military
response is inevitable. But the timing,
the targets and, above all, the objectives in the new war on terrorism remain
unclear.... Mr. Bush's Wyatt Earp
rhetoric gives the impression of a trigger-happy president.... In practice, the White House seems more
circumspect.... Europe's leaders should
reinforce the case for proceeding carefully--but not to the point of ruling out
any action that could risk civilian casualties. The issue should not be whether the retaliation should be
proportionate, but whether it is precise if it comes to commando strikes
against Mr. Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
This will be the first phase of the war on terrorism. The second will be a wider onslaught on the
regimes which support terrorism as well as their financial networks.... Europe will want to have a say in this
second phase; but EU leaders must realize that their influence will depend on
their commitment to the first military phase of the war.... If European countries break rank they cannot
expect a fair hearing in Washington." “There Will Be No Talking To Taliban While U.S.
Seeks Vengeance” An editorial in the centrist Independent
read (9/19): “That it has not rushed to
premature and merely symbolic vengeance is to the credit of Bush and his
security team. But by designating the
attack an act of war and declaring the United States now to be at war against terrorism,
the administration is able to cloak the reasoning behind any future military
retaliation beneath that all-purpose cover: ‘intelligence
considerations.'... Perhaps, indeed,
Osama Bin Laden could be given up to the “Great Satan” of America in return for
recognition and food aid that would help fend off imminent chaos in
Afghanistan. But the United States, and
specifically American public opinion, is not in a bargaining mood; it is after
vengeance. For the Bush administration
even to contemplate recognition for the Taliban, let alone to grant food aid,
would be seen as a shameful betrayal of the 5,000 or more dead
Americans.... The United States may one
day have to negotiate with terrorists...but the week after so heinous an attack
is not the time for talking. Nor would
the mooted offers come anywhere near meeting the U.S. requirement of rooting
out the terrorist threat. It is
reasonable to question the tone of some of President Bush’s language. It is reasonable, too, to advise extreme
caution in the use of military force, especially in so volatile a part of the
world. But it is not realistic to hope
for a peaceful resolution at so disadvantageous a price." “A Perilous Proposition” The liberal Guardian opined (9/19): “In response to last week’s attacks, the
Pentagon is planning sustained military action on a wide range of fronts. Mr. Rusmfeld also seems to have no qualms
about ground warfare in Afghanistan or elsewhere.... Paul Wolfowitz is equally gung-ho.… As the current crisis appears
to move inexorably towards military conflict, these senior leaders’ words
commit the United States and its allies to an open-ended, unlimited warfare;
they suggest the battle will be prosecuted by all conventional means, including
ground invasion; they imply that the surrender of Bin Laden by the Taliban to
the U.S., UN, or a neutral country, even if it could be negotiated, would not
be enough to halt the coming offensive.
And they state plainly that any country deemed to be supportive of any
terrorists in any way is not only a legitimate target; its government is also
subject to overthrow. These are the
sweeping parameters of Mr. Bush’s ‘war on terrorism.’ Yet when it comes to defining the specific military options that
may be chosen to attain these ends, Mr. Rumsfeld and his imitators fall
silent.... The U.S. military’s hard
options in Afghanistan, as opposed to politician’s aspirations, range from the
deeply dangerous to the downright foolhardy.... Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic should not misread
opinion polls showing broad public backing.
Military action may be unavoidable.
But they have no blanket brief to place our troops, and blameless
civilians, at unending, uncalculated risk.
Whatever their expectations, whatever their prior pledges, promises, and
rhetorical flourishes, they have no mandate to send our soldiers on missions
that lack clear short and long-term objectives, achievable targets, and
workable exit strategies.” FRANCE:
"The Risks Of Isolation" Michel Schifres opined in right-of-center Le
Figaro (9/20): "There is a
whiff of what was once called the 'spirit of Munich' coming from part of our
political elite: it is the temptation to give in to comfort. This attitude is
politely being called 'having reservations.'... Everyone knows that America has made mistakes, that Bush has
sometimes gone too far, that no one is going to help the United States with its
eyes closed. There is no need to insist
on the obvious. To do so means that we
hesitate to help the United States....
Solidarity with the United States is not (only) a moral
obligation.... There is another more
prosaic reason why we need to help. If
today the United States is the master of the world, albeit a vulnerable one,
abandoning it would only exacerbate the situation: [it] would be more
vulnerable but also become more of a master.
To let it act unilaterally will re-enforce its hold on the world. Europe must stand alongside the United
States...to impose certain demands." "Anti-Americanism And Imperialism" Jacques Julliard opined in left-of-center weekly
Le Nouvel Observateur (9/20): "I believe I have sufficiently
denounced anti-Americanism to end with this note: what is weighing on the world
today, what is truly a handicap for freedom, is not America's imperialism. It is rather America's inept diplomacy as
well as the schizophrenia that juxtaposes idealism, which is for domestic use,
and the cynicism of its foreign policy.
After all, it is the United States who created Pinochet, Batista, the
UCK, the Taleban, Bin Laden and others....
The time has come for the United States to learn to live and to
compromise with the rest of the world."
"A Glimmer Of Peace" Left-of-center Le Monde argued
(9/20): "Bush needs the support of
moderate Arab nations. He will get it
only if he manages to move ahead on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.... This 'window of opportunity' must be taken
advantage of.... Because Bush needs to
have moderate Arab public opinion on his side, he must press upon Sharon to
engage in a positive approach. There is
nothing as urgent as getting that dialogue back on track." "The Worst Is Not Certain" Alain-Gerard Slama judged in right-of-center Le
Figaro (9/19): "While the
Foreign Ministry is sending out cries of alarm about the prospects of a
response from Washington, President Bush, his administration and the American
people are demonstrating a solidarity and determination which should inspire
Europe. There are indeed risks involved
in a military operation.... It may be
that, under the weight of strong feelings, President Bush wrongly used the
word 'crusade.' But he was right to point out that siding
with the aggressors was siding with fanaticism and against reason.... The worst is not certain, if democracies
remain firm and show unfailing solidarity." "Sympathy" Gerard Dupuy held in left-of-center Liberation
(9/19): "We must get used to
living with a new uncertainty: what is this new war the United States claims to
be preparing for? The capture of Bin
Laden, dead or alive, will not be enough....
As its prepares for this new type of war, the United States has for the
time being the popular support of Allied populations.... The United States which is in a position of
legitimate self-defense, is lucky to have at its disposal the choice of
weapons. That choice will determine
what the future will look like." GERMANY:
"Trapped By Terror" Josef Joffe noted in a front-page editorial in
center-left weekly Die Zeit of Hamburg (9/20): "Those responsible for the massacre are hoping for an
apocalyptic answer that would turn the entire Islamic world from Algiers to
Jarkata into their ally and thus set off a 'clash of cultures.' That is the political trap, and the
strategic one is just as obvious....
Kabul is already destroyed.
Additional bombs could do no additional damage. Penalize Saudi Arabia for paying protection
money to terrorists? In that case, the
most important oil sources would become inaccessible. Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya?
They all have blood on their hands, but even a superpower does not have
enough missiles for all of them. The
attack on the United States was as horrific as the options available are
few. The smartest thing would be to
rein in just anger, forge coalitions, and bring the troops into position. And especially to investigate patiently
until those responsible are identified and can be held accountable--without
additional thousands of innocent people having to die in a retaliatory attack." "The Sources Of Global Terrorism" Jochen Siemens noted in an editorial in
left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (9/20): "Many measures are now necessary to get Islamic terrorism
under control. One essential measure is
achieve just peace in the Middle East.
It will not convert fanatics, but it can avert a clash of cultures and
help find allies in the Islamic world in the fight against terrorism. A fight which the West alone will hardly
win." "Guilt And Chance" Wolfgang Koydl stated in center-left Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (9/20): "It
is certainly right that George W. Bush will try to do everything to capture
Usama bin Laden and call him to account.
He will try to destroy his organization, but what will he have won in
the long run? Ever day, thousands of
Muslim children are born, and every child can carry the flag of black
terror--as long as the Middle East conflict can be used as a political and
religious instrument by zealots such as bin Laden.... The United States must accept realities [in the Middle East]
which it has ignored thus far....
People in the region consider the United States to be unfair and an
instrument of suppression. Unfair,
because the United States is deaf to arguments and seems to support Israel
blindly, and an instrument of suppression, because it keeps a protective hand
over the repressive regimes in the region as long as they are considered
partners.... If the United States wants
security, it must address the concerns of the people, must help resolve the
Palestinian conflict." "America As An Excuse" Christoph von Marschall argued in an editorial
in centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin (9/20): "We may only look at the preparatory time for the attack on
America, for instance, the period for the training as a pilot, in order to
realize that the terrorist attacks cannot only be a reaction to the failure of
the Camp David talks last summer and the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa
intifada." "Islam As The Imagined Enemy" Sabine Rosenbladt judged in a front-page
editorial in center-left weekly Die Woche of Hamburg (9/20): "The harder the U.S. military strike
turns out to be and the more innocent people die in it, the better it is in the
eyes of the Islamic terrorist network....
Do we have to move from the Cold War straight into a new era of crusades
just because a handful fanatical mass murderers are eager to commit additional
massacres?" "Trial Deserves Consideration" Juergen Kramer commented on regional radio
station Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne (9/18): "The demand to try Osama bin Laden in a neutral country
deserves serious consideration.... If
Schroeder's phrase is right that the terrorist attacks on the United States
were a declaration of war on the entire civilized world, than this also means
that the civilized world should apply its norms if possible. International law points to a civilized and
effective answer beyond war: the International [War Crimes] Tribunal.... It would be obvious to establish a tribunal
for the people responsible for terrorism….
The Americans should not be worried that bin Laden and Co. would be
treated mildly before such a court. The
Hague is evidence of this. If the
United States were satisfied with retaliation, it should not inevitably be
carried out through a war.... A
criminal tribunal provides retaliation, too.
In addition, an international tribunal would demonstrate that the entire
world stands behind the prosecution of terrorism. It would be a triumph for the civilized world to see terrorism
stand before such a trial. This triumph
would be greater than every kind of bloody revenge." "Bush Must Act With Circumspection" National radio station DeutschlandRadio of
Berlin (9/18) aired the following commentary by Horst Klaeuser: "Bush must
act with circumspection.... But carpet
bombing, burnt corpses in an Afghan nursery--and the United States will be
considered a murderer, and the end of this coalition will come soon.... In this war today, it is not a confrontation
between states, and the decisions which the United States has to make must
reflect this new situation... If the
United States recognizes this chance, subordinates its hegemonic claim to the
willingness for consultations with new partners, seizes the opportunity and
wonders why some parts of the world have been developed such abysmal hatred
against the United States, then some of the saddest moments of history could
turn into a historic moment for global peace." "A Peculiar Argument" Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in a front-page
editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/19): "Those who caution the Bush
administration against a retaliatory strike, because it would hit innocent
people and lead to...a rise in fanaticism in the Muslim and Arab worlds are
trying to prevent retaliation by means of a peculiar argument: the mass murder
was not really nice, but now Washington should not commit further
injustice. As if that were the U.S.
plan. It does not appear that the U.S.
government has limited the war against Islamic terrorism to military means
alone. This war will be fought in many
places and with many weapons. Those who
confine themselves to righteous indignation will have to decide whether they
want to help fight this war or whether they--in intentional or unconscious
solidarity with groups like the Taliban--want to help perpetrators pass
themselves off as victims." "The Detested Friend" Stefan Kornelius judged in center-left Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (9/18):
"Everywhere we can now hear minimizing, explaining theories [for
the terrorist attacks]: that the Islamic world considers the deployment of U.S.
forces in Saudi Arabia an occupation of the holy land and that U.S. protection
of Israel does not take Palestinian rights into consideration. And this is enough to set off...blame toward
another nation: America is preparing a
boundless war, America acts without restraint, blindly addicted to hatred. This kind of arguing has two effects. It minimizes and it apologizes at the same
time. But there is little to minimize in
view of the monstrosity of the crime that has taken place beyond all political,
cultural, or religious logic.... This
simplification has its origin in an anti-American instinct which ignores the
complexity of U.S. involvement in the world.
For instance, those who point to the fact that the presence of the
United States in Saudi Arabia is a religious offense, ignore the wish of the
Saudi ruling family for safety from the outside and for a pillar of domestic
stability which helps the country protect itself from the attacks of a person
such as Saddam Hussein and from the implications of Islamic
fundamentalism. And it ignores the
strategic significance of a region, which is rich in resources of oil." ITALY:
“The Trap Of Proof” An editorial in elite, classical liberal Il
Foglio read (9/20): “Bush has
obtained the international solidarity he wanted; a large coalition has shaped
up; stock markets are holding despite everything, security measures in the
airports have been taken, there is a truce in Palestine. And so, for God’s sake [people say], why
should we spoil everything by deploying troops, missiles, planes, ships, with
the risk of causing new tensions in day-to-day life and a clash of
civilizations. Why don’t we start an
investigation, why don’t we find the evidence against Bin Laden and ask for a
regular extradition from the Afghanistan government? We need the proof, that is what we hear so often. But this is a trap.” “Why We Should Choose A ‘Stars And Stripes’
Italy” An analysis by Mario Caccavale in Rome's
center-right Il Tempo observed (9/20):
“The war declared by Bush is not only against Bin Laden, but against the
entire obscure part of the world, against those states and powers that use
terrorist or criminal organizations in order to settle accounts that would
otherwise remain open.... Bush’s
America has realized that, if we want to build a new international order, we
must reduce the space occupied by this obscure world, by wiping out its
financial and military networks and, and the same time, by organizing more
efficient defense systems. No
industrialized nations, and even less so Italy, should hesitate vis-a-vis a
mandatory choice. This is not a matter
of being reserve Marines, or to selfishly defend our own economic interests,
but it is a matter of defending humanity as a whole.” “The Anger Of All” A commentary by Cesare De Carlo in La
Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il Giorno conservative newspaper syndicate
judged (9/20): “Tolerance, pluralism,
freedom. These are exactly the values
that Islamic fundamentalism intends to bury under the ruins of its devastation
and sink in the blood of so many innocent people. The United States of America is the most reliable interpreter of these
values.... These considerations help us
understand why the rage of America has become the rage of all of us.” “Bush: ‘We Will Not Let Them Terrorize Us’” Alberto Pasolini Zanelli filed from Washington
in leading, pro-government, center-right Il Giornale (9/19): "The most significant details are those
we do not see.... Things are, indeed,
taking place outside the Rose Garden in the White House.... America is not embarking upon a ‘police
operation’ but a war.... While they
wait for the ‘wide’ strategy taking shape, the emotional pressure of public
opinion--which calls for a rapid and visible punishment of the terrorists--will
induce the president to authorize a blitz action.” “The New Western Priorities” Marcel Dupont commented on the front page of
Rome's center-right Il Tempo (9/19):
“We hope that this tragedy suggests to the United States that it shows
‘humility.’ Not even the only
superpower in the world is able to control the world. In order to punish the Talibans, the White House must pay court
to the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Chinese and even the Iranians.... t is very important that American pride does
not prevent it from having the exact sense of a reality that is much more
complex than America thought before September 11, 2001.” “It Is A New War, Dirtier Than The Old One” National Alliance representative Gustavo Selva
opined in pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (9/19): "If we talk about concrete
commitments--that is sending troops, and not just expressing verbal
support--this does not mean we are ‘American slaves.’… In New York and
Washington the terrorists have begun a new war.... The first act of any war is to define alliances. No discussion about NATO support. Now the key issue is the one concerning the
moderate Arab nations. Saying that Islam is terrorism is a logical and
political mistake.” BELGIUM:
"Let Us Remain Clear-Headed" Chief commentator Benoit Degardin editorialized
in the Sud Presse group papers--conservative La Meuse/La Lanterne (9/20)
and independent La Nouvelle Gazette (9/20): "Does the horror of these attacks prohibit us from thinking,
does it force us to blindly rally the Star Spangled Banner? The legitimate support which we can give to
the United States--which has been wrongfully and villainously attacked--should
not prevent us from pointing out that this country, although a democracy, is
also a country where there are several injustices...where death penalty is
being frequently used.... [One should
not forget] that terrorism would probably not have spread so much and struck so
hard if Washington had gotten more involved in the Middle East crisis...that
the blockade of Iraq, which Washington stubbornly maintains, principally hurts
innocent people...that there is a great likelihood that the same will happen
with the Afghan population. We must be
thankful to the Americans for what they have done for us last century. And we fully share in the pain of these
thousands of families who were hurt by the madness of a few fanatics. But let us remain clear-headed." "Time For A Nuanced Initiative" Political analyst Dirk Achten wrote in
independent Catholic De Standaard (9/20): "It is very important now to launch a new peace initiative
in the Middle East. That initiative
must take into account the aspirations of the Palestinians, strengthen the
position of Yasser Arafat against the radical extremist movements and curtail
the strategy of confrontation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.... In these times of crisis, it is crucial to send
a nuanced signal to one of the world's core areas of conflict - lest every
Palestinian or Muslim feels an outcast." SPAIN:
"All Standing At Attention" Left-of-center El Pais remarked
(9/20): "The United States is
bringing many governments to attention when in comes to standing against
terrorism. The Bush administration is taking firm steps towards the
construction of a wide coalition against terrorism and more particularly against
Afghanistan's Taliban regime.... The
cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians is something else the United
States has imposed.... The worsening of
the conflict with the Palestinians, given its enormous potential for polluting
the political environment, has become a major handicap to bringing together an
international alliance against terrorism." CANADA:
"Blaming the U.S., whitewashing terror", In the conservative "National Post"
(9/19): "Sorrow and pity have given way to excuses and equivocations. Some commentators are now explaining the
terrorist attack against New York City and Washington with the argument that
the United States 'had it coming.' ... At the heart of the propaganda campaign
against the United States is a moral equivalence conflating what is evil with
what is merely imperfect. ...In 'Macbeth', Shakespeare reserved a special space
in Hell for 'an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either
scale.' That thought provides some consolation as we watch our television
screens and see this shameful parade of apologists wagging their fingers at the
United States." "What does he want?" In the leading "Globe and Mail",
under the headline and the subhead "The attack on the World Trade Center
may seem like an assault on America.
But its real target is in the Muslim world", writer on
international affairs Paul Knox wrote (9/19):
"[T]he scale of last week's atrocities in New York, Washington and
Pennsylvania must not blind us to the sources of Middle East-related terrorism,
nor to the true nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his ilk. ...What kind of political operator fails to
claim responsibility for his acts, much less link them to specific demands? There are at least three possible
answers. First, the attacks are staged
in part to avenge what the planners see as Muslim honour. Second, as propaganda, they are directed
primarily at the Muslim world, enhancing their organizers' stature and exposing
the United States as a paper tiger.
Third, and most misguidedly, they aim to demoralize an America that the
perpetrators of terrorism see as vulnerable.
...[F]or Washington, a sustained victory against terrorism requires more
than shutting down the bin Ladens or punishing their protectors. It means somehow persuading the Muslim
masses that the deafening voices of hate and intolerance surrounding them are
wrong, and that America is truly on their side." "Please don't blame the American
victims" In the
leading "Globe and Mail" (9/19): editorialised: "...The
Cold War misdeeds of the United States were dwarfed by the crimes of the Soviet
Union. There was a good guy and a bad
guy in that fight, and the United States wore the white hat. ...However Canadians may feel about
particular policies of the United States, from its stand on global warming to
its use of the death penalty, there can be no doubt that it is essentially a
force for good in the world, both as a beacon of liberty and individual freedom
and as a global policeman. It now faces
a deadly enemy. The very least we can do at its time of sorrow and need is to
refrain from wagging our fingers." "Canada's help: Who are we kidding?" Jeffrey Simpson wrote in his regular "The
Nation" column in the leading "Globe and Mail"
(09/19): "Canadians worried about
joining a U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan should relax. ... Te United States perhaps, but not nice,
gentle, peace-loving Canada. Last
week's events brought one fact home to the government, and to 'garden-variety
Canadians' everywhere: Moral equivalence
and moral superiority are disastrous guides in the face of premeditated attacks
against an ally and neighbour by those with contempt for the values Canadians
hold dear and have fought hard to defend." "It's the U.S. foreign policy,
stupid", In the liberal "Toronto Star",
under the headline editorialpage editor emeritus Haroon Siddiqui wrote (9/19):
"America is not the target of terrorism because Islamic fundamentalists
hate American democratic ideals of freedom, liberty and 'all that we stand
for,' as George Bush has claimed. Only
if it were so. The problem may be much
bigger. ...Rather, it is due to
American complicity in injustice, lethal and measurable, on several
fronts: The Israeli Palestinian
conflict...; The decade-long American-led economic sanctions on Iraq...; The mess in Afghanistan...; American strategic alliances with the
military and monarchical dictatorships of Algeria, Turkey and Egypt, as well as
the oil-rich Arab states.... [A] broad
spectrum of the Canadain middle class...is coming to the view that America
needs...a more humane and even-handed approach to the world." I"Let's hope terror leads to
change" In the liberal "Toronto Star",
under the headline , columnist Richard Gwyn writes in his regular "Home
and Away" column (9/19): "Ever since the carnage in New York, it's
become commonplace to remark that things will never be the same. ...But that same
'things-will-never-be-the-same' rule applies equally to the societies from which
the terrorists came. ...[U]ltimately,
the people of the Middle East and of Muslim societies can only enter the global
mainstream by themselves. If they and above all their leaders start to realize
this, things really will never be the same again." "Challenge" In the conservative "Ottawa Sun",
under the headline , the paper editorialised (9/19): "The terrorists who wreaked such devastation in New York and
Washington last week are no doubt smiling smugly as they watch the continuing
impact of their vile acts. Stock
markets have trembled and shaken.
...But don't be bullied out of making your decisions by a group of
madmen who think nothing of sending thousands of innocent men, women and
children to their deaths simply to promote their own agenda. The Bank of Canada here at home and the
Federal Reserve in the U.S. have shown they are willing to lead the way. ...Now
it's up to each of us to take up the challenge." Diplomatic impunity", IIn the tabloid-style "Ottawa Citizen"
(09/19): "... Canada has diplomatic relations with all seven countries -
Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria - on the U.S. State
Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. ...Terrorism can't be ended unless we stop doing 'business as
usual' with nations that finance, train and harbour terrorists. Canada can act - right now - to cut or
curtail diplomatic ties and review its aid to each. ..." B) Under the
headline "Dollars and sense on Wall St.", the paper editorialised:
"...One sure sign of the resilience of capitalism comes in reports this
week of Manhattan street-hawkers selling American flags to grey-suited
businessmen - at inflated prices.
Though some might find dickering over the price of a flag unseemly at
this time, it was merely the law of supply and demand reasserting itself. ...Much better that than the lawlessness the
terrorist would inflict." "The old script is blowin' in the
wind" tabloid-style "Ottawa Citizen" (09/19):Deputy
Editorial Pages Editor John Robson wrote: "...A few people got caught with
the old script that all Muslims deplore this savage act of just retribution for
brutal Yankee imperialism. But Houchang
Hassan-Yari of Kingston's Royal Military College spoke for many Canadians: 'Those terrorists are in hell now'. And Khadija Haffajee, co-chair of a
Christian-Muslim dialogue group in Ottawa, nailed it: 'We all as citizens
condemn the heinous attacks against humanity'.
...Another useless part of the old script is not to respond because
violence simply begets violence. They
never said that about the mad bombers, because they saw the Third World man as
an automaton and only the First World man as having an independent will. That's all over. We know what kind of people these were, so we know they had
moreal choices, and made the wrong ones." "Palestine holds the Coalition key" Jean-Robert Sansfaton chief editorialist in the
liberal French-language daily Le Devoir writes (9/19): " As long as
the U.S. does not exert more pressure on its ally Israel and on the Palestinian
Authority...as long as Israel occupies the territories won by force in 1967,
the Islamist extremists will have no difficulty finding militants to fight
Satan in the form of Israeli or American citizens...Until this lasting peace
comes to the Middle East, and that peace will come one day, the Americans and
their allies must try everything in
order to stop, at least temporarily, the violence and resume talks...The
Americans no longer have any choice: they must retake the leadership in trying
to find an honorable solution to the Palestinian problem. The success of the
long fight against terrorism depends on it." OTHER NATO COUNTRIES CZECH REPUBLIC: "There Are No Collective
Guilts" The right-of-center daily Lidove noviny notes in
Jiri Loewy's column (9/20): "President Bush took of his shoes following the
Islam tradition and only in socks entered one of Washington's mosques followed by a crowd of Muslim dignitaries.
Into microphones and cameras he then called on all Americans to behave with
respect towards their Arabian or other Muslim fellow citizens, because a terror
isn't Islam's sign. ...The U.S.
authorities showed very energetically that they don't respect collective guilt
and won't tolerate any wrong doings in this sense." "We Should Be Active and Cautious" The right-center daily MF Dnes writes in an
appeal by Cyril Svoboda, Chairman of Christian Democratic Union-Czech People's
Party (9/20): "The U.S. threw all its energy into revealing of culprits of the terrorist
attacks. ...It is already obvious now, that problem with terrorism will not be
solved by military measures definitely and that it will not be a short-term
conflict. ...Our human commitment and our participation in different social and
political processes in conflict with a crime have to be as intensive as
terrorists' keenness. Everybody has to make decision by him (or her) self and
not wait that others will decide instead of him (her)." "Are We in Danger?" The leading daily MF Dnes's chief commentator
Martin Komarek notes (9/20): "When Interior Minister Stanislav Gross says,
"Czech intelligence services do not announce any danger of a terrorist
attack," this sounds funny. The U.S. secret services had not presented any
report about terrorist attacks either. Gross's statement only makes sense if he
is sure that the Czech BIS counter-intelligence is much more professional than
CIA. ...It is nice from politicians that they do not want to spread alarm and
assure the public that nothing awful is being prepared. However, it would be
much nicer if the president or other senior elected officials and chairmen of
democratic parties made a special statement to the public. It might say:
"Everything seems to show that our nation has entered a long and bloody
war with terrorism. It is a fair war. It is a necessary war. If we do not uproot
terrorism, it will annihilate us. In this war there will be a danger to the
civilian population. We will really go to extreme lengths to safeguard your
security, but we cannot absolutely guarantee it. ...This is the reality.
Immediate danger is really not big. But one cannot rule out that in the course
of the war terrorists will hit this country, too. ...Defense measure must not
be taken for the short run. The idea that the Temelin nuclear power plant will
be watched for a week or two and then we can go back to bed is absolutely
wrong. It is now the politicians' task to rebuild the whole security system in
the country. ...Let's hope they are working on it. We can only hope so. They
have not told us." GREECE:
"The Greek Position" The lead editorial of independent influential
Kathimerini (9/20) said: "PM
Simitis was extremely decisive and categorical when he said yesterday: 'We have no trace of tolerance or
understanding for terrorists. Our response is absolute: no compromise, no interaction with them...
The recent attacks cannot remain
unanswered...Greece will participate in
future initiatives.' Greece's
differentiation from skeptical tendencies
that appeared in Europe is related with certain Greek 'peculiarities'
such as the 2004 Olympics and the existence
of an active terrorist group, 17
November. These two elements
dramatically reduce Greece's margins for
maneuvering. The need for
realism on the part of Greece's foreign policy
also triggers from the fact that the Balkans have suffered the consequences of actions by Osama Bin Laden's
mercenaries. In light of the above, Greece's position could not have and
should not have been any
different." "Time for the UN" The lead editorial in popular, influential and
anti-American Eleftherotypia (9/20)
said: "The UN is being activated
around the terrorist attacks of
September 11, but hesitantly. UN's only
raison d'etre is to prevent war
operations and maintain peace. The UNSC
sent this message to the Taliban: Implement Resolution 1333 immediately
and unconditionally. In other words, the UNSC asks Taliban to
hand over Bin Laden as a measure of
appeasement. The UN must also assume
exclusive control of the [recent]
terrorist attacks affair, as peace is threatened. The UN should control the relevant negotiations between the U.S
and Afghanistan, since all UN members
stand against terrorism and want its
eradication. UN members want
justice, but in a lawful manner and without
war operations. Everybody knows
that a war against Afghanistan will not
eradicate terrorism." HUNGARY:
"Concert" Brussels correspondent Oszkar Fuzes judges in
top-circulation Nepszabadsag (9/19): "For the evolvement of, and failure
to resolve, the historical and current problems leading to terrorism, the Old
Continent is to blame at least as much as the New World. (Or even more.) It is
not Europe's merit, but rather its luck that the anger of the Islamic fanatics
is aimed at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. However, if Europe does
something good now, it will be to its credit, too, if this anger eventually
abates." "Faith, Lack of Hope, Hatred" Socialist MP Gyula Hegyi concludes in
influential, liberal leaning Magyar Hirlap (9/19): "There are only two
alternatives for the wealthier part of mankind to achieve lasting security.
Either we move back into the fortress cities of the Middle Ages where the walls
were higher than the residential buildings. Or we try again to find a common
language for mankind." "Instead of Weapons, Diplomacy"
Influential, liberal leaning Magyar Hirlap's
editorial warns: "Before something irrevocable happens, possibilities will
have to be analyzed carefully, things to do to be discussed thoroughly, and
instead of sudden anger, the voice of reason to be listened to. The world has
it good only as long as its responsible leaders do no forget the experience of
the historical past." "The Catch of Striking Back" Foreign affairs writer Laszlo Szale opines in
influential, liberal leaning Magyar Hirlap (9/19): "The fact that the
authorization to do "dirty jobs" was restored to CIA indicates that
they see the annihilation of the terrorist as the only useful solution. With
that, the threat coming from him would cease. Of course, terrorism would
not." "For Speech to Remain Free" Socialist MP Gyula Hegyi points out in
independent Nepszava (9/19): "If Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist
succeeded in forcing democracies to give up their fundamental constitutional
principles, they would win an undeserved victory over the free world." THE NETHERLANDS
"Attacks in U.S. Force Europe to Integrate" Influential liberal De Volkskrant's Brussels-based correspondent
Geert Jan Boogaerts comments (9/18): "Suppose there is a fire in the
Middle East or in the Balkans. Which firemen should be called? Solana... or do
you prefer Powell? ... six months ago, the choice would have been very easy:
Powell of course... today, the answer is less clear.... The European standpoint
is very clear: tough and mild simultaneously.
More international cooperation and larger trade flows should result in a
more just spread of wealth in the world - the only way to fight poverty,
"the breeding pool for terrorism." The discussion between the Europe
and the U.S. about the right approach has hardly begun and the discussion will
be intense. The attacks in the U.S.
help Europe to discover its own identity. This does not seem to be problematic. Atlanticists, such as Blair, and Continentalists
such as Chirac and Schroeder are more or less on one line. It seems as if the terrorist attacks on the
U.S. are beginning to show a political impact in Europe.... The EU has lately been working very hard and
independently from the U.S. in places such as Macedonia and the Middle
East. The U.S. was mainly absent there.
Europe has traditionally been an economic giant but a political midget - but
this status is changing in those areas.
Many diplomats, even from large European countries, dare to say that
European foreign policy has become more
important now than that of Germany, Great Britain, or France. Only six months ago, this would have been
impossible...." "War of Nerves" Influential independent NRC Handelsblad has this
editorial (9/14): "The anti-terrorist 'campaign' of the Russian army in
Chechnya destroyed much... but never led to pacification. . .
The years of war by the Russians in Afghanistan was fruitless. Would an action by the U.S. against the
Taliban in Afghanistan succeed any better? . . .Old and new terrorists want
that the social order which they attack to be "unmasked," but resort
to extreme measures. Democratic nations
by contrast must continuously weigh how the means employed relate to the
fundamental values which they are specifically protecting. The American government is acutely conscious
of this. That is very important. It does mean however that the war on
terrorism is, to a great degree, a war of nerves." "" Influential independent NRC Handelsblad's Marc
Chavannes comments (9/15): "President Bush-'I've got a job to do'-has this
week grown into his role with astonishing speed. . . .In scarcely four days he
has got the contours of a head of state who can bear the national disaster,
lead the mourning of a continent, and view the international consequences. [He has changed] from a salesman to a
warrior and leader." "Where Does Such Self - Satisfaction Come
From?" Centrist Het Parool's political writer
criticizes Dutch reactions regarding the WTC attacks (9/18): "It began
with the first comments of prime minister Wim Kok, shortly after the
attacks. He expressed the fervent wish
that the American people would be able to react 'in a dignified manner to this
humiliation'. That was not the moment
for the Binnenhof to advise Americans how to react. It was superfluous and especially inappropriate.... A chaotic
debate by sundry talkers, (like Sunday evening's "The Invisible
Enemy" of NPS, Vara and VPRO) does not help and only leaves an impression
of greater confusion with those who endured the discussion to the end." NORWAY: "Holy
War" Independent Dagbladet (0919) commentator Peter
Norman Waage :..."While Taliban declares war against Americans, the USA
and all that it stands for, the American President has stressed that it is not
the Muslims who are the enemy. It is Osama Bin Laden and his network of terror,
and possibly Taliban. 'Islam is peace,' he declared in a mosque in Washington,
after having read from the Koran. These are timely words...the holy war that
Taliban calls for, is an indication of the fanatics' deadly belief that they
alone are right." "No World War III" Independent VG (0919) commentator Jan
Christiansen : ... "Systematic "carpet bombing" of assumed bases
of terror will most likely only harm civilians, and increase the recruitment of
terrorists....Therefore the western world should rely less on quick retaliation
- even if it should not be completely discounted - and count more on long-term
countermoves." "The Danger of a Holy War" Social democratic Dagsavisen (0919)
comments: "When the Afghanistan
Taliban regime declares holy war, it is a challenge the world must not
accept... What will be decisive now is that the Muslim countries are fully
involved in the hunt for terror groups and the terrorists who have been
directly involved in the assaults against the WTC and Pentagon... The fight against
terror will not be easy to win... In order to succeed at all, it is necessary
that all countries are involved...." "Diplomacy and the Fight for World
Opinion," In its lead edit, newspaper of record
Aftenposten (0919) says: "The Taliban regime's declaration of holy war
against the USA and its statement that Osama bin Laden will not be delivered if
no evidence of his guilt...is presented, is an irresponsible escalation of the
international conflict in the wake of the attacks a week ago... Bush gave a message that should (already) be
clear for inhabitants of informed
democracies, but which unfortunately is not
always so for everyone, be they Americans or western Europeans: Muslims
as a group or as individuals must never be seen as responsible for the terrorist
actions... What Bush now needs in this fight against international terrorism
which we all hope succeeds, is the wholehearted support of leaders and people
who are generally skeptical to much of what the U.S. stands for...." POLAND:
"With Whom?" Konstanty Gebert wrote in liberal Gazeta
Wyborcza (9/20): "There is much to indicate that a new caliber in
international relations is taking shape: a uniform front against all
propagators of terror. Ben Laden versus the rest of the world. This impression,
however, is wrong. First, the criticism of a planned operation against
Afghanistan is justified. Up to date the Americans have presented no hard
evidence that Osama bin Laden is really behind the massacre in New York and
Washington.... There is a justified concern that in their well-understood
yearning for revenge they will not wait for the investigation to end. This,
however, would seriously undermine the moral and political credibility of a
possible retaliatory action. Finally, common Afghans who live under the terror
of the Taliban regime are not responsible for bin Laden. And their lives count
as much as the lives of those murdered in the WTC and the Pentagon. Any
departure from this principle would mean the triumph of the terrorists." "Fight With A Shadow" Konrad Kolodziejski wrote in right of center
Zycie (9/20): "In the 20th century, it all seemed much simpler. When
conflicts broke out, the parties were known. State terrorism is slowly waning
today, and there is no clear enemy like the Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.
The enemy is a concrete person, who, staying in hiding, can terrorize the whole
world. A battle with him is like a battle with a shadow. We must all learn the
rules of such a battle." "Pranksters" Rafal A. Ziemkiewicz wrote in center-left Zycie
Warszawy (9/20): "The anarchists, who recently chose to call themselves
anti-globalists, eagerly echo Saddam Hussein saying that 'America got what it
deserved.' Truly, America is guilty because instead of consuming its prosperity
in peace, it moves into various parts of the world with assistance. America is
guilty because it does not suffice to have democracy and freedom at home-it
would like other nations to enjoy those values too. It is guilty because it can
be ready to send its troops to remote parts of the world to defend people
persecuted there." PORTUGAL:
"A Test for Europe" Commentary by international affairs editor
Teresa de Sousa in September 20 influential center-left Público: "Up until now, Europe has done
what it has to do. Without hesitations,
ambiguities or divisions. ... It was to
underlining the impossibility of any middle ground that the European allies in
NATO took just three hours to make the decision -- unprecedented in its half
century of existence -- to consider the attack on America an attack against
all. The European response could not
have been otherwise, independent of all the semantic analyses of whether this
was an act of terrorism or an act of war.... "This time, it will be
difficult to say that Europe failed its first test, when it had to confront
possibly the most difficult crisis of the post-Cold War. And it had to confront it at a time when its
relations with America were passing through a period of enormous incomprehension. The last few months offered almost daily
proofs of the worst fears of the Europeans regarding the Bush
administration.... The solidarity
demonstrated by Europe this last week could function in the future as one of
the most decisive instruments to convince the U.S. of the advantages of new
rules of international conduct. As long
as Europe is finally ready to unambiguously assume its international
responsibilities, along with their inherent costs. But this is the most
difficult and longest test, that it has yet to pass.... "The EU will have
to engage in the long and complex task of reevaluating its political
priorities. The slow efforts to give
itself an autonomous military capacity will look pathetic in the light of the
worst international scenarios that are brutally emerging from this crisis. The slow steps in the direction of a common
foreign policy now appear tragically remote from reality.... When they leave their meeting in Brussels,
European leaders will also have to understand that there is a transformed
public opinion awaiting them. One that
expects some capacity for leadership and some political courage." "Beyond International Law" Commentary by Portuguese Attorney General JosT
Souto Moura in September 20 Público:
"[...] The September 11 attack -- given its presumed aims, the country
affected, the casualties, and the methods used -- is unprecedented, and
demolished the relatively clear parameters within which we have become
accustomed to thinking. On the one
hand, the acts committed are difficult to fit within the traditional definition
of war or armed international conflict,...mainly because, up to this point, it
seems we are dealing with an isolated occurence. On the other hand, the dimension of the catastrophe resists treatment
as simply a matter of criminal law, even if it is international. "Whether
we are dealing with an act of war that will be responded to in equally warlike
terms, or with a terrorist act that provokes or unleashes a war, or even with a
crime or crimes to be dealt with under international criminal law, a decisive
response is called for. "As to what the response can and should be, there
seems to be ample consensus that it should not be led solely by the U.S. In place of leadership 'of,' what is wanted
is leadership 'with' other states, as well as to see what the role of the UN
Security Council might be in all this. The United States of America now has on
its side not just those who could be called its allies in geopolitical terms,
but all those who are against international terrorism. By no means a small number. ...
"Extirpating terrorism, of whatever kind, demands the unhesitating
punishment of those responsible.
Because nothing, absolutely nothing, jusitifies a strategy of
terror." "The Worst Ideas" Column by (opposition Social Democratic Party)
European Parliament member JosT Pacheco Pereira in September 20 Público:
"A week after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, I am
struck by the weak, timorous and hesitant way that many Portuguese political
leaders have responded to what has happened.
The Prime Minister, as usual, presented a bad example -- more negative
than anyone because it came from the top -- in a hypocritical speech,
rhetorical in words but frightened in actions, that objectively leaves the U.S.
isolated. But he wasn't alone, he had
lots of company in the absence of clear voices mobilizing the Portuguese for a
fight that is theirs, too. The war that
is coming isn't about the Americans, it's about our way of life, culture and
civilization, against the intransigent 'spirit of death' as a political
instrument, and the interests that manipulate it." "Our Home-Grown 'Kamikazes'" ''Bread and Roses" column by commentator Ana Sá Lopes in September 20
Público: "[...] Our home-grown 'kamikazis' who want a war, implacable and
inevitable, are mysteriously showing greater haste than the unsuspected Colin
Powell. Against whom, seems a trifling matter.
Against countries that harbor terrorists? Obviously the war, as the Americans and other democrats are
already calling it, has to start inside the United States itself, where the
'kamikazis' of the barbarous September 11 were trained. With the invasion of
Afghanistan by the cavalry...one obviously expects a continuation of barbarity,
the spirit of a crusade, a spiral being prepared to follow with the killing of
innocent civilians and that could, if they want, reduce everything to
ashes. Obviously the 'kamikazis', the
war fundamentalists, seem at this moment not to give a damn. It's part of the 'kamikaze' structure. And now, even though someone said it before,
it's worth repeating: the images we saw on television on September 11 were not
reminiscent... of Pearl Harbor. They
were reminiscent, obviously, of Hiroshima." "What Kind of NATO is This?" Daily "Direct Lines" column by senior
journalist Lufs Delgado in September 20 respected moderate-left daily Diário de
Notfcias: "[...Some] NATO allies, strangely enough, are not as committed
as Germany.... This raises the question of what sort of military and defense
alliance exists in the West. That is,
what kind of NATO is it...that -- faced with new threats like terrorism --
wavers and sags like Chamberlain before Hitler in Munich? What does NATO want, having invoked Article
5 of the Atlantic Treaty last week and now setting out doubts and problems for
itself? What kind of NATO is this,
then? Could it be that they want to
send an emissary to Bin Laden to draw up a peace treaty? There can be no concessions to terrorism,
and -- amazingly -- Mr. Laden and others must be shouting with joy over these
hesitations. With a NATO like this, God
help us." TURKEY:
"How to fight against terror?" Sami Kohen commented in mass appeal Milliyet
(9/20): "Issues like poverty, misery, social and economical inequalities,
or disputes like Palestine and Kashmir will continue to be on the world's
agenda for many years more. Can we even
consider these as reasons to justify violence and terror? ... Certainly both
countries individually and the international community should seriously work on
resolving the issues. This is a
long-term thing. In the short term,
terrorism must receive a response. The
fight against terrorism is a two-lane road.
The right approach is to use both." "U.S. is reaping what it has sown" Hikmet Cetinkaya argued in intellectual/opinion
maker Cumhuriyet (9/20): "The U.S. is only reaping what it has sown. You can come to this conclusion easily by
looking at Afghan refugees or the people in Middle East, where the U.S. has always
supported backwards and racist regimes. ...
In these countries the poverty has grown immensely and the U.S. has
turned into the prime enemy. ... The people of the Middle East will create more
bin Ladens unless the Palestine-Israel conflict is resolved. ... Moreover, where were the U.S. or Britain
while radical religious movements were expanding in a vast geography; from Iran
to Algeria, from Sudan to Egypt, from the Balkans to the Caucasus, and from
Central Asia to north Africa? "The anti-terror formula" Mehmet Ali Kislali averred in intellectual/opinion
maker Radikal (9/20): "The U.S. has been re-editing the low intensity
conflict doctrine since 1960. Turkey
learned this doctrine in its fight against terrorism. Now the U.S. is to apply low intensity conflict principles in its
declared war against terror as well. ...
The initial signs coming from the U.S. boost the hopes that in this war,
the U.S. will not use any wrong strategies or tactics." "Asymmetric threat" Mass appeal Milliyet's columnist Guneri Civaoglu
wrote (9/19): "The FBI and the CIA have failed to stop the terrorist
attacks because of the U.S. Administration's changing intelligence policy. Washington's decision to cut the funds
allocated for intelligence work and its new strategy to use satellites rather
than intelligence agents paved the way for the recent violent attacks. ... The U.S. and Europe should be careful about
creating a confrontation between religions. ... Turkey will have an important role in possible NATO operations
since it is the only Islamic country in the organization." RUSSIA/EURASIA RUSSIA:
"Russia May Have to Bear the Brunt of War" Official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta
(9/20) stated in an item by Vladimir Yermakov: "There is no guarantee that
after a series of missile attacks--ineffective, as predicted by all military
experts--and possibly a few daring raids by U.S. Rambos against the Talibs, the
Americans will not wash their hands of it, letting the Russians do most of the
fighting." "Politicking" Mikhail Vinogradov and Aleksandr Sadchikov
reported on page one of reformist Izvestiya (9/20): "With the Duma
back in session, a new political season officially opened yesterday. The deputies--except several LDPR
members--rose to observe a minute of silence to honor the victims of the U.S.
tragedy. In the follow-up discussion of
world issues, they, still unsure of their final positions, tried to say how
they felt about what was going on. An
official, referring to Russian politicians, said, 'They don't do what they
should do. They do what they can.' Apparently, there is not much our elite can
do. Most of it is talk, confusion, and stupidity. The President, vacationing in Sochi, has stated that the main
thing now is to 'develop approaches and real mechanisms of cooperation' and he
added that he was in touch with world leaders.
Putin is no Bush. His people
have not been through a tragedy of such a caliber, but he would do well to
address the public, setting a 'line' for politicians, the military, lobbyists,
and the nation at large." "State Under Attack" Maksim Sokolov contended in reformist Izvestiya
(9/20): "America has not been picked because it is good or bad. It has been targeted because it is the
strongest in the world. To attack the
most powerful state successfully and anonymously means to establish the
principle of the total uncertainty of power. Coming under attack is the very
idea of the state as possessing a monopoly of violence. That makes all states a target, never mind
their internal politics or attitude toward America." "Moscow, Washington are Allies" Maksim Yusin remarked in reformist Izvestiya
(9/20): "The United States' war-to-be against the Talibs and the
Islamists' war of many years against moderate regimes in NIS countries (and
Russia) make up one and the same conflict.
So whether the Americans and we like it or not, from now on Moscow and
Washington will objectively have to act as allies. They will at least on the issue of Afghanistan." "Russia's Hard Choice" Boris Volkhonskiy said in reformist
business-oriented Kommersant (9/20): "Russia faces a hard
choice--it will have to support U.S. actions, anyway. So it had better do that
soon, while it can still influence the U.S. operation and, in the longer term,
the situation in the world, particularly on its southern borders." "Tragedy May Happen Again" Sergey Sergiyevskiy pointed out in centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta (9/20): "Hitting the wrong target will only add to the
suffering of innocent people and to the confidence of the true culprits of the
American tragedy that they can get away with anything. That promises more tragedies." "Russia May Become Chief Peacemaker" According to Alan Kasayev in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(9/20): "By siding with the
injured United States, Russia may hope to become the chief peacemaker in
Central Asia. Elsewhere, too, its
cooperation with Washington would be taken as a signal that Russia is just as
good a prop as anyone." "This Is No Way To Fight Terrorism" Official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta ran this
commentary (9/19) by Yuriy Babichi:
"In a public opinion poll conducted by ABC and the Washington
Post, 86 percent voted for an adequate response to terrorists, even if it
spells a war. Is this a way to solve
the problem of terrorism? Hardly. This problem has objective causes, the
principal one being a deep chasm between the well-being of the 'gold billion'
and the poverty of most of the rest of the world. If extremism and
international terrorism are to be eradicated, the world must change to become
fairer. Besides, hasn't the United
States practiced state terrorism in relation to countries and regimes it
doesn't like? Hasn't the United States,
sparing no expense, nurtured people like America's number-one enemy? Hasn't the United States encouraged Albanian
separatists in Kosovo and Macedonia? In
light of the above, the United States' attempts to impart...a global character
to its efforts to save 'American values' do not seem all too promising." "World Worried" Aleksander Panarin opined on page one of reformist weekly Literaturnaya
Gazeta (#38, 9/19): "The world
is worried: Its pride wonder, what will
the hegemon do now? It is not the fear
of terrorists. It is the hear of
America's recklessness. Everybody is
worried that the United States, which puts its reputation as the hegemon and
master of the world ahead of everything else, won't stop at even bearing down
on other countries, unleashing a new world war." "How to Improve the World?" Yuriy Borev emphasized in reformist weekly Literaturnaya
Gazeta (# 38, 9/19): "Under the circumstances, the United States, as a
powerful civilized nation, can and must not only severely and mercilessly
punish those who are directly responsible for the atrocious terrorist acts but
also think up measures to ameliorate the situation in the world. Being less selfish will do it." "What Role For Others?" Boris Volkhonsky observed in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
(9/19): "As an act of retribution
nears inexorably, ever more countries are wondering about their role in the
operation, how their involvement in fighting against countries that offer
refuge to terrorists in going to affect them and whether the act of retribution
will set a precedent, with the United States feeling free to go it alone,
bypassing organizations like the United Nations." "Which Side Are You On?" Leonid Gankin stated on page one of reformist
business-oriented Kommersant (9/19): "The United States' playing it
tough makes it impossible for other countries, Russia included, to be neutral
in the imminent conflict, even less so to influence it in any way." RUSSIA/ EURASIA KYRGYZSTAN:
.
2.
“Participation or neutrality in combating terrorism?” Private daily “Vecherny Bishkek” (circ. 20,000)
highlighted an interview with Director of the Center for Social Studies of the
Kyrgyz Academy of Sciences Mr. Nurbek Omuraliyev, who said (9/20): “Kyrgyzstan
would hardly be able to participate in a big war. However, in principle it can provide a transport corridor via
Kyrgyzstan and the Gorno-Badahshan province of Tajikistan for shipments of
weapons to the Northern Alliance…
Concerning the flood of refugees our citizens worry about, it is
doubtful that they will be able to cross the state border, the high-altitude
ranges and canyons of the border areas.” 3. Omuraliev further said: “In this case America
is following double-standards. On the
one hand it tries to observe the canons of civilization and punish the
terrorists only. At the same time, it
doesn’t exclude a so-called ‘Asian way’, where in response to a murder of
relative it is not a sin to retaliate against the whole family. Targeted bombing is that kind of mixture of
styles. It is clear that any bombing
will hurt peaceful and innocent people…
Does it make sense for us to offer independently, like Uzbekistan did,
our territory to Americans? I think
that we should act against terrorism in coordination with our allies, first of
all with Russia. Though for us neutrality
is more acceptable.” “Kyrgyz People Worried about Possible Conflict
Between the U.S. and Afghanistan” This headline opened the evening news program of
independent TV NBT (9/18). Comment:
“George Bush’s ultimatum about possible bomb strikes against Afghanistan has
disturbed the whole world, including Kyrgyzstan. There is only one right decision to save the world from
apocalypse. Bombing is not a
solution. A flow of refugees could
swamp Kyrgyzstan.” After a brief report
from the human rights activist Tursunbek Akunov’s press-conference, at which he
opposed military actions, the reporter concluded: “Without clear evidence that
Taliban supports Osama Bin Laden, the USA shouldn’t punish the whole of
Aghanistan.” “Terrorism in Central Asia. Who is Backing it?” Independent newspaper “Advokat” (circ. 20,000)
introduced this article with the words: “Analysts from our special services
think that unprecedented terrorist actions in the U.S. are directly connected
with the activation of different kinds of religious movements that propagate
ideas of Islamic fundamentalism and religious extremism.” After characterizing extremist Islamic
organizations that act in Central Asia the author concludes: “Unfortunately,
there is no efficient coordination system between (Kyrgyz) law enforcement
organizations and their counterpart organizations in the countries of the
region, or, in the light of the terrorist actions in the U.S., elsewhere in the
world.” “Will Armageddon Start in Afghanistan?” In the same issue of “Advokat” (circ. 20,000)
military observer Alexander Kim analyses different scenarios of U.S. military
action against Afghanistan, concluding that none is good (9/18): “The U.S.
President is powerful enough to stop the war against Afghanistan... The whole
world mourns for innocent victims. But is
it really worth increasing the number of deaths, putting the planet near the
‘last line that leads nowhere’? Will those who lost relatives and close friends
really feel better if a third world war becomes the price for vengeance?” “American Tragedy: Those who live by the sword
will die by the sword” Under this headline the independent Kyrgyz
language “Aalam” (circ. 8,000) combined front-page pictures of New York on
September 11, 2001 and Iraq in January-February 1991, and printed commentaries
on page 3 (9/18): “The September 11 tragedy that ruined a symbol of the U.S.
power and destroyed a part of Pentagon is a warning for the U.S. If it doesn’t stop promoting its policy of
force and continues a revenge-inspired “crusade” against the East, New-York and
Washington may turn into Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The only difference is that a weapon of mass destruction will not
be launched from abroad but from the U.S. itself. Who knows, maybe it’s ready and is just waiting for the right
moment?” On the second page the paper
presented different opinions of political figures and readers on the
event. Most opinions are sympathetic to
the U.S.. However, a member of Kyrgyz
Parliament (Turdubek Chekiev) states: “What happened is the result of America’s
incorrect foreign policy. America has
pursued a policy of separation and weakening of Muslim countries.” MOLDOVA:
"Arab Terrorists Load Their Guns In Tiraspol" Alina Radu writes on the front page of
pro-rightist Flux (9/20):
"Le Monde" gives quotes from a report of the Public Policy
Institute in Chisinau, which includes data about sales of Transnistrian weapons
in Bulgaria, Israel, Iraq, Iran and other Arab states. These states bought missile launchers BM 21
RAD, anti-tank weapons SPG-9, and other weapons produced in Tighina and
Tiraspol (cities in Transnistria) at "Electromas' and
"Electroaparat" plants, as well as at the steel plant in Ribnita,
which partially belongs to "Itera" company, a subsidiary of the
Russian company "Gazprom."... After the recent events, Transnistria
attracts the world's attention as an uncontrolled provider of weapons. Even if Smirnov doesn't have customs stamps
at this moment, some unofficial data shows that Transnistrian mercenaries
collaborate with some air companies in Moldova which have transported weapons,
obtaining the custom stamp right in Chisinau." "The Argument Of Cudgel" Nicolae Dabija writes in the pro-rightist Literatura
si Arta (9/20): "If the U.S.
and other states have decisived to start fighting terrorists, they should start
at the same time fighting those who arm the terrorists. The "death plants", the plants
that produce weapons in Transistria, work day and night to supply with
sophisticated weapons all those who need them and who pay: for several years
Transnistrian weapons, accompanied by a Moldovan customs stamp, have been
pouring to the Arab side." TURKMENISTAN:
"The Time for Common Values" The government-owned "Neytralniy
Turkmenistan" and "Turkmenistan" (9/17) published a lead article
in which they commented on the tragic events in the United States: "Tuesday, the tragic day that brought
awful grief to the American people..., divided the world into past and
present. In the past was left the fatal
confidence in the limits of evil power.
The present brought the piercing realization of a global threat. It became clear that international terrorism
... will not stop at anything. It would
be a mistake, however, to think that this has come to our attention too late.
Hundreds of countries have joined in one voice to condemn the horrible evil
deed and spoke out for uniting efforts in an uncompromising fight against evil.
"And as always, independent Turkmenistan is using its neutral status as a
tool to achieve universal agreement and understanding. It is not by chance that the Turkmen leader
was one of the first to support the suggestion of building an international
anti-terrorist coalition. Saparmurat
Turkmenbashi stated that only an organization acting under the aegis of the UN,
armed by clear goals, aims and functions is able to confront world
terrorism.... Real security is a global term.
An attempt to build one's own welfare, isolated from the rest of the
world, is not only a utopian dream, but also antihumanistic. Still at the
daybreak of independence, Saparmurat Turkmenbashi stated that in the new world
order ... the earth must not bear these aggressors, neither those overt nor
those covert. "[In the meeting between the President and U.S. embassy
Charge] ... it was also said that
neutral Turkmenistan, which gained respect and confidence from the
international community through its consistent peacemaking policy, will became
a reliable champion of the will of nations against all forms of extremism and
intolerance." NON-NATO EUROPE ALBANIA: "Why Albania?" In its front-page editorial entitled medium
circulation rightist Republican Party daily "Republika," writes:
Quote "The Washington Post, one of the most prestigious American
newspapers published yesterday that American Intelligence Services and those of
other countries are investigating on "possible links between terrorist
attacks in the U.S. and people of Bin Laden in Albania." Due to this news
announced even on the "Voice of America," police in the outskirts of
Tirana searched some houses rented by Arab people. We do not give rise to
panic, because it is obvious that Albania is not a "source of
terrorism" nor "endangered by terrorism", but a very good way
for all those who want to "transport" this danger to Europe. The most
important question that demands an answer is: "Why should Albania be
involved in these investigations at a time when the Albanian public was in
mourning for the events in the U.S.? It is evident that this is a gift from
"the successful governance of these years." While we have been boasted of the "establishment of
public order" and lately of "wiping out terrorist bases", Tirana
authorities have allowed suspects to harbor in the country. It is not a matter
of days or weeks. It has been years that people with false identity, alleged to
have links with the latest attacks in New York and Washington, have been
sheltering in Albania. What has our intelligence service done so far? We hear
of political legal proceedings, arrests of perpetrators, but never has the
intelligence service thought of these hidden people who work under the disguise
of "charity" or "religion." "Why are we Americans?" is the
title of the editorial in medium circulation centrist daily "Dita."
The piece holds, quote "Millions of people throughout the world are
Americans in their spirit and mind. They are Americans in their pain for the
victims of terrorist massacres in New York and Washington. They are Americans
in the solidarity with the U.S., the first democratic superpower in human
history. We can enumerate thousands of reasons, which point to this
unprecedented support of citizens of this world regardless of race, religion
and color. This is the most profound condolence for the American people.
Albanians have been and still are part of this support. We have our own special
reasons to be such. We are a grateful people and we cannot forget that the
decisive support of the U.S. has been near us in the most decisive moments of
our existence. It is worth recalling
President Wilson and his policy towards the protection of small nations, which
saved Albania from the chauvinistic acts of neighboring stat es to wipe the country out of the world map. To
continue with President Clinton and his efforts to redeem Kosovo from the
bloody regime of Milosevic. It is not only the gratitude, but also many
interests of various areas that attach us to the U.S. It is worth mentioning
the great American-European project of Corridor 8 that will be finalized in our
country. Even if we were lacking such projects, Albania has currently a
democratic society, which refers to the U.S. as the bastion of values of
freedom and justice. Throughout centuries and up to the 1990s, we have been
prone to despotic regimes. We feel twofold the importance of world order of
freedoms, whose leaders are the West, Europe and the U.S." AUSTRIA:
"Dead or Alive" Senior editor Hans Rauscher commented in liberal
daily "Der Standard" (09/20): "George Bush is not Teddy
Roosevelt, and not Winston Churchill either, but a provincial politician who
appears to be completely at sea these days. In the current crisis he has not
(yet?) managed to strike the right note or show a consistent line of thought.
Words of restraint on one day, a return to cowboy phraseology ("wanted:
dead or alive") on the other. All those who, by majority parliamentary
decision, have declared their willingness to "take military risks"
(like the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder), will hardly find this
reassuring." "Dangerous Illusions" Foreign affairs writer Christine Domforth of the
centrist daily "Die Presse" wrote (09/20): "Surveillance alone
is completely useless anyway. The CIA and the FBI have collected tons of
material in the last years - also about Bin Laden and his supporters. In spite
of it all, they failed to raise an alarm in time. Just how safe the terrorists
must feel becomes clear when we look at the Palestinian Hamas organization,
which channeled its financial transactions through Citybank, the biggest bank
in the U.S. A comprehensive and complete surveillance of financial transactions
worldwide is quite impossible, as it would risk paralyzing the global economy.
In that case, however, the terrorists would already have won." "Much Talk, No Results" Senior editor Christoph Kotanko stated in
mass-circulation daily "Kurier" (09/20): "The unanimity
demonstrated by the new alliance against terror still has to prove itself. It
is a respectable coalition that has formed here - from the U.S. and the E.U. to
Israel, China and Russia, to Saudi Arabia, even. They are all making similar
statements now, but what do they actually mean, when they condemn terrorism.
(...) The fight against terrorism is necessary - that is the consensus after
last week's shocking attacks. War has been declared. But its direction is still
not clear." BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: "Ultimatum" Sometimes Muslim-leaning Sarajevo daily
"Oslobodjenje" (09/20/01) commented: "... The post-traumatic
reaction from the White House, besides cries for 'revenge' and 'war', included
a request to other countries to stand together with the U.S. in a planetary
coalition to fight against terrorism... Will Bush's effort only create a
political umbrella for unilateral acts of the U.S. or will this lead to
international consensus in the struggle against terrorism? American public
opinion is asking for strong revenge as soon as possible. Retaliation targets
are, first of all, Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and that is even without
presenting any convincing evidence. Anti-Islam and anti-Arab reactions quickly
sobered Bush and resulted in firm pressure on Israel in order to stop the conflict.
Without showing any honest wish to find a just solution for Palestinians, the
U.S. cannot count on real support from Arab and Islamic countries, and without
that (support) there can be no effective struggle against terrorism." BULGARIA:
"Killers with Leather Briefcases" Bulgarian media reaction September 19, 2001 Center-right daily "Dnevnik" (9/19) writes: "
Reportedly the disgusting attacks of
the kamikaze group were preceded by heartless
trading of "bloody" stocks. If it turns out to be true that
some fanatic has issued orders to
brokers from his bunker as part of his plan to
liquidate thousands of innocent people's lives this will shatter
our perceptions of how far a
mass-killers network can go. The new weapon of
the extremists is the same Gold Rush of the "corrupt" West
against which they claim they fight,
and this makes them even more dangerous.
Because behind bin Laden's men with turbans we can see the silhouettes
of well dressed brokers with leather briefcases."
CROATIA:
Government-owned “Vjesnik” on September 20
carries a commentary by Mihailo Nicota under the headline “Chance for Peace in
the Levant.” Nicota writes: “Have those who carried out the attacks
against the U.S. unintentionally initiated the end of conflicts in the
Levant? The shock provoked by the
events in New York and Washington has certainly changed both the Israeli and
the Palestinian standpoints. Suddenly,
the war against terrorism has imposed itself as a new priority in international
relations, and both Sharon and Arafat want to support it. …
This time, Arafat wants to be on the winning side, even if it is, maybe,
in opposition to the majority Palestinian belief.” "Palestinians Must Get Their Own
State." Zagreb-based mass-circulation "Jutarnji List" on
September 19 carries a commentary by Gordana Grgas under the headline Grgas comments: "The West must start facing the deep causes of the terrorist
attacks, and the U.S. will have to take the leading role in it. Washington, forced by the pressing events of
the moment, is already showing that it knows the direction it has to
follow. It has looked for allies in the
Arab world and has transferred the entire weight of the current negotiations to
the first and most logical country, Pakistan.
... This means that this cannot and should not be an American 'crusade,'
nor can it be a unilateral American action.
It is rather a process which will in the end knock out the arguments of
those who are now marking America and the entire wealthy West as the target of
the attacks, because it is being accused of all their problems and a bad
political reality." "Whose War Against Terrorism Is It?" Rijeka-based "Novi List" on September
19 carries its daily commentary by Jelena Lovric under the headline Lovric
writes: "Certainly, there must be
a response to the mass crime committed in New York and Washington. However, without a strategy, certainly
without a long-term strategy dealing with the serious resolution of problems of
terrorism, the American retaliation will only speed up the spiral of
violence. ... Fear of hyper-terrorism, which was scattered a week ago with the
attack against America, is slowly turning into the fear of America's reaction
and the future moves of a badly wounded superpower." "Countdown." Zagreb-based mass-circulation "Vecernji
List" on September 19 carries a commentary by Visnja Staresina under the
headline Staresina comments: "The Western allies should do
everything they can so that the war isn't understood as an anti-Moslem
war. The Taliban and bin Laden are
doing everything they can to portray it as such. In order to be successful, it is crucial to develop and preserve
the Islamic countries' trust. The
precondition for that would be America finally behaving like a leading ally.
And not like a threatening and dictating leader." "Terror and States." Split-based "Slobodna Dalmacija" on
September 19 carries a commentary by Zlatko Gall under the headline Gall writes: "However, in this global game - as the American liberal
circles are saying - international laws shouldn't in any case be turned into
legislation which would provide the only remaining musical power an alibi for
interventions anywhere where American strategic interests are
'endangered.' Because, it is completely
true that international laws must sanction 'terrorist states' ('rogue states'),
in other words regimes which, through their support of terrorists, are trying
to destabilize or turn down the 'displeasing' administrations. The United States of America, which for over
four decades has given refuge, money and know-how to various 'contras,' who,
through terrorist activities too, has been trying to reshape the political map
of South American and the Caribbean Islands - should not be an exception." ESTONIA:
"Russia's Hard Choice" The leading serious daily "Postimees"
(9/19) reports: " Russia's advice to the U.S. to first find the
organizations who committed the terrorist acts, and then, when striking back,
trying to avoid civilian victims, seems ridiculous in light of Russia's own
reaction to explosions in Moscow two years earlier that was immediately
followed by Russia's fierce bombing of villages and towns in Chechnya... In theory, U.S. prompt retaliatory action
could greatly benefit Russia. The U.S.
would thus weaken the Taleban while
Russia itself would continue its arms
trade with Iran and Iraq, and in this moral confusion, the U.S. would have less
enthusiasm about expanding NATO." "Estonians Prefer to Remain on the
Sidelines of Military Action" The leading serious daily "Postimees"
(9/19) carried an article about a poll on Estonians' opinions about getting
involved in military strikes in Afghanistan:
"Only one third of Estonians as opposed to one half of the
non-Estonian population would support defense forces' participation in U.S. and
its allies' military strikes against Afganistan. Aivar Voog, division manager
of the Emor polling company wrote,
'Estonians' military and historic background is different from that of Russia;
there's almost a total lack of successful military campaigns. Therefore Estonians
tend to have a more cautious attitude in these matters.' The support for a peaceful solution of the
crisis where the U.S. would demand extradition of terrorists and bring them to
justice is almost equally supported by the majority of Estonian and
non-Estonian respondents. Voog says: 'This can be explained by memories of
Soviet Army's long, bloody and failed Afghanistan war experience.'" "Half of the Estonian Population Fears an
Economic Crisis Starting from the U.S." According to a poll ordered by the leading
serious daily "Postimees" (9/19),:"49% of respondents fear a world economic crises.
The fear is more dominant in the age group 35-49 and among Estonians, who are
more pessimistic than non-Estonian inhabitants about the future. Indrek Neivelt,
Chairman of the Board of Hansabank, says, 'There are no grounds for panic. The
world's economic situation is not likely to improve in the near future, but as
an optimist, I do not see reason for our people to get too concerned.'" FINLAND:
A New Kind Of War Finland's leading daily, independent Helsingin
Sanomat (editorial 9/20) "Immediately after the terrorist strikes on
September 11, President George W. Bush said that it was 'more than terror
attacks, it was an act of war'. After the terrifying attack, Bush and Blair
made the right choice of words. Their
purpose was to signal that now was not the time for judicial restraints and
peacetime vacillation. The goal was to get
to signal the planners of the terrorist strikes, that they would be stopped,
whatever it would take. The laws of war give the enemy a judicial and moral
position, which is more protected than what terrorists deserve. Terrorists are not entitled to be treated as
POWs. There may be a state or states
that protect them, and war can be waged against them. They do not identify themselves with any single state. In a war
against terrorists victories can be achieved, but no final victory. Even a shrunken globe is far too large to be
freed from the entire phenomenon. A
peace treaty, or other agreements, cannot be concluded. The battle against
terrorism in the long run has to be attacked constructively as well (such as
the war on poverty). Ultimately, Bush chose war rhetoric to point out to the
Americans that the task undertaken could take very long and call for heavy
material and human sacrifices. He was
right in this. However, this is not a
war, by the traditional definition." Arab Leaders Must Take Sides Independent Aamulehti editorial (9/20):
"Events on Black Tuesday force responsible Arab leaders choose sides. The
path of mindless violence chosen by fundamentalists leads to destruction."
"War on Bigotry" Helsingin Sanomat, op-ed by senior international
affairs commentator Ollli Kivinen (9/20): "The United States promises a long
and multifaceted war against terrorism. It has the strong support of allies, a
battle against terrorism serves everybody's interests, although people used to
western superiority do not like to see this.
However, a war against terrorism is extremely difficult. The fight
against terrorism can be compared to another war, which is hard to define and
which differs from traditional warfare.
It is the war against drugs, in which the West is on the losing side,
and which causes it more damage than political terror. In terms of terror, the essential question
is simple, 'how can you wage war on terrorism without giving rise to more
terrorism'. The worst prospect is the
one where the situation gets out of hand and becomes a permanent confrontation
between Christians and Moslems, and there are no winners in that battle. The
Western world, and especially the United States, need to ask themselves some
hard questions. Why are the western
countries so bitterly hated in so many corners of the world? The importance of getting to the roots of
evil has been referred to many times during the past week. However, blaming globalization is one-sided
and misleading, because it has brought good results also to innumerous people
in the poor and developing countries.
The first and easiest task to carry out to fight fanaticism at both ends
by the right policy, Kivinen concludes, quoting Amos Oz who says that Satan is
personified in hatred and zealotry."
IRELAND:
Irish Reaction to the Attacks Damian Byrne opines in the Irish Examiner
(centrist daily c.64,000) (9/20): "Standing up to be counted in this grave
new world." (begin excerpts): Now as George Bush struggles to assemble his
global coalition against terrorism to go 'smoke out' those bandits in
Afghanistan and bring them back 'dead or alive', shall we see Ireland take a
courageous and independent stand in our new role on the UNSC? Or will we simply stand on the sidelines,
moralizing, equivocating and posturing, as the world's great repository of
empathy? And should the US unleash an act of retaliation upon Afghanistan every
bit as devastating in its effects on the horrific attacks on New York and
Washington, will our government call another National Day of Mourning?" "" Ann Cahill comments from Brussels in the Irish
Examiner (centrist daily c.64,000) (9/20) on the EU leaders meeting this week:
"European leaders wonder how to calm American outrage." (begin
excerpts) "Expressing solidarity with the US...European leaders emphasized
the common values they share with the US.
Now they will have to define those values...They must also define
terrorism since they have all declared war on it. ... It will be the ultimate test of Europe's newfound
independence in world affairs - whether they try to forge a campaign for peace
or fall in with a more spectacular war. "" Independent contributor to The Irish Times
(liberal daily c.119,000) (9/20) John Pilger criticizes US harshly:
"Islamic peoples are already victims of US military and financial power:
US fundamentalism is the root cause of the horror inflicted Washington and New
York" (begin excerpts) "Far from being the terrorists of the world,
the Islamic peoples have become its victims - principally the victims of US
fundamentalism whose power...is the greatest source of terrorism on earth. ...
The attacks last week came at the end of a long history of betrayal of Islamic
an Arab peoples..." (Note: his list starts with the collapse of the
Ottoman empire... and eventually he gets to spots all over the earth, from
Diego Garcia to Indonesia 1965-66 to world poverty and he also blames the
British for all this too.) (Note: this piece was reported to be first published
in zmag.org which we found is today off line due to a virus- it is Washington
state based.) "" Of special note to you in Media Reaction: Kevin
Myers, who writes a daily op-ed column in The Irish Times (liberal daily
c.119,000) (9/20) entitled "An Irishman's Diary", pens another very
strong statement: (begin excerpts) "Your Irishman's Diary today comes from
the underground bunker, deep beneath the White House, where advice to the US
from journalists and politicians around the world is processed. Teams of Opinion Catchers sift through the
vast babble emanating from everywhere to see if there is a molecule of sense in
it. ... In silence, an Opinion Catcher ... read a dispatch from Ireland
reporting comments of the prime minister there. ...He passed it to his
colleague. 'What do you think of that?'
He read it, plucked a few hairs from his head and murmured: 'Chickening
out already. And it hasn't even started
yet' ..What the Opinion Catcher had
read was the account of how the Taoiseach had said, within five days of the
worst terrorist atrocity in world history, that he thought it was unlikely
there would be any Irish military involvement in the war against terrorism, and
that he hoped not too many countries would be drawn into it. ..(the opinion
catchers) tried to work out how the prime minister of a country which had three
separate (terrorist) organizations...all of them armed, all of them with
seasoned killers at their command, would have no military involvement in a war
against terrorism. ...Baffled, they tried to work how a leader who professed
friendship for the US could in the same breath seem to declare there was no way
that he intended to express it. ...They
couldn't understand how the elected leader of a democracy hoped that not too
many countries would be involved in a war against terrorism, when terrorism,
not just the Islamic variety - was a world wide phenomenon afflicting scores of
countries, especially his. ... They couldn't understand how Ireland...couldn't
recognize that rare coincidence of self-interest and political morality when it
so happily occurs.... And by God,
they're not the only ones." ROMANIA: In the independent daily,
"Independent," political analyst Horia Alexandrescu underlined on
September 20, 2001: "It is about time we understand and accept that the
whole world is truly in danger, and that this is not just the Americans' war
against those who brought so much grief on them. Instead it is, in the end, a fight of all civilized people
against world terrorism." "" In the independent daily "Evenimentul
Zilei," editorialist Cornel Nistorescu wrote on September 20, 2001: "The most important thing decided
yesterday, for the first time in our history, is the participation, side by
side with NATO, with the status of an 'ally.'
This is a decision that can play an essential part in the process of
Romania's final North Atlantic Alliance integration. [...] Somewhere, a war
will break out. Theoretically, Romania
will take part in it. But the hardest
war must be carried on in our own country.
It must be a war against prejudice, against a narrow minded and selfish
way of understanding things, against a cheap reaction such as: 'what has this
have to do with us?'." "" In the pro-government daily
"Dimineata," political analyst Stefan Mitroi opined on September 20,
2001: "For the first time in human history, civilization finds itself in
the weird situation of preserving its future by starting a conflict. A conflict against terrorism and terrorists,
i.e. an enemy who although manifests itself concretely, often takes abstract
forms. That is exactly why the
consequences of a war are unpredictable.
But this war, the war against terrorism, is necessary!" "" In the independent daily "Libertatea,"
editorialist Mihai Valentin Neagu said on September 20, 2001: +"If the
situation becomes explosive and Romania has to put into practice its
commitments, there won't be any way to retract them or to make pessimistic
statements. From now on, there is no
turning back, unless we want to be left out of the areas of interest of the
great international military and economic powers forever." "" In the pro-government daily "Cronica
Romana," political analyst George Cusnarencu stated on September 20, 2001:
+"One thing is unclear to me: If
the Taliban are a bunch of primitives, savages, as the Americans are describing
them, if Bin Laden is a barbarian fanatic, how did he manage to make all those
speculations on the stock market? It
means the man is a genius and not only a terrorist. It means that his men are very smart, if they were able to laugh
at all the intelligence in the FBI and CIA.
And then, if these barbarians have a financial empire, it means they are
not stupid, they are not just some primitives who take the goat out to graze in
the mountains. And something else: Where is bin Laden's fabulous fortune? In the caves in Afghanistan where he is
hiding? As I was saying, something is
missing here. This information is
intoxicating even more than cheap alcohol." "" In the pro-government daily
"Cotidianul," editorialist Ileana Malancioiu stated on September 20,
2001: +"The long term war against an unseen enemy is full of traps, and it
is not by accident that some NATO member countries, such as Germany and France,
want to participate in the eradication of terrorism, but hesitate to send their
troops to Afghanistan. For its
part, Pakistan's decision could be
affected by anti-government demonstrations, and break its promise to the
Americans and try to stay neutral, or to switch to the other side. But, whatever happens, George Bush won't be
able to ignore the pressure put on him by the population, to punish the
terrorists through a war to remember.
Even if that involves "collateral damage" of thousands of
victims from the civilians and the soldiers fighting the Taliban, who are ready
to declare 'the Holy War'. The
restrictions imposed on the media by the American President are not good enough
to calm us down, because America is also a myth of freedom of expression, which
we won't be able to easily give up." "" In the opposition daily "Romania
Libera," political analyst Petre Mihai Bacanu commented on September 20,
2001: +"The novelty of this war is the coalition of western governments
and of Russia against terrorism, an international coalition almost, if we take
into account the NATO integration candidate countries. NATO's Article 5 defines
aggression, but also the 'one for all and all for one' principle, to punish
inhuman actions." "" In the independent daily "Adevarul,"
economic analyst Gheorghe Cercelescu wrote on September 20, 2001"
"The world's great bankers managed to stabilize the financial markets and
to strengthen the trust of the investors and of the population. Thus, they prevented the recession of the world
economy. If a global crisis doesn't
occur, no rapid comeback will take place, because the terrorist attacks in the
U.S. managed, according to western analysts, to postpone by months any rebound
of world economy. The most important
issue now is not the impact of the tragedy in the United States, it is the
problem of the economic implications of the war against terrorism, which, as
President Bush stated, will be long and will affect large areas of the
planet." "" In the centrist daily "Curierul
National," political analyst Cristian Unteanu opined on September 20,
2001: "Today's lone snipers, soldiers of a group generically called
'international terrorism', apply the same principles. It is very obvious now that they want to unite the world they
belong to (being motivated by a variety of factors and socio-economic elements,
but also by the same kind of fanaticism in faith, religious purity, and values)
against a presumed enemy. This is a
good logical thought, to the extent it still works, as we have seen so far.
Only this time, America is far from being alone. It will attack together with an entire coalition where, besides
NATO members, there are also, willingly or not, even states who once shared
beliefs opposite those of 'Satanic American imperialism'." SWEDEN: "A Broader Security Policy," 1. On September 20, the independent, liberal
Stockholm morning daily "Dagens Nyheter" editorialized on stating that, "More than a week has
passed after the terrorist attack and the world is awaiting the U.S. reaction.
The Americans have the right to self-defense, but in the long term the fight
against terrorism also must include a fight against poverty and oppression.
Prosperity, freedom and democracy do not guarantee that people will not resort
to violence. However, if a majority of the world population would have a
reasonable living standard, sympathy for fanatics and perpetrators of outrage
likely would disappear... "Let us hope that Western governments realize
this. Perhaps the prospect is greater now it so evident that the fight against
poverty also is linked to security policy." "The World is Real," 2. On September 20, the independent, liberal
Stockholm morning daily "Dagens Nyheter" ran an op-ed column by
Annika Ahnberg, Chairman of the Swedish Red Cross. It carried headline
"and said: "We are at a crossroad. We can choose to let hatred and
the wish for retribution lead us. Perhaps this is the road the U.S. will
choose. The American tradition is to show strength, to taka a tough line.
Perhaps this is a war that demands retalliation. I cannot judge this. But I
know that something else is needed, a United States of America that brings
itself to stretch out its hand for a global cooperation to fight terrorism, but
also to solve global problems... "A more explicit determination to solve
the global problems cannot replace a purposeful struggle against, and
dissociation from terrorism. But it might reduce the power of attraction, which
terrorist organizations apparently have." "The First Victory of the War," 3. On September 20, the independet, liberal
Stockholm tabloid "Expressen" editorialized on stating that,
"The terrorist attack against the U.S. might result in a redrawing of the
map in the Middle East...But it is too early to tell what the long-term U.S.
Mideast policy will be from the terrorist war. From a rational point of view,
the result should be that the U.S. abandons its very pro-Israeli line to secure
support among the moderate powers in the Arab world... "The tragedy in the
U.S. has opened the possibility for a restart in the Middle East. This is valid
for Sharon and Arafat who now in respective home ground can show a willingness
to compromise without losing face. And it is also true for the Bush
administration that now definitely will have to give up its passive position in
the Mideast." SWITZERLAND:
"The Logic Of Madness" Philipp Löpfe, foreign editor of the center-left
Tages-Anzeiger, one of Switzerland's leading German-language dailies, commented
(9/19): "The terrorists are
counting on the self-fulfilling prophecy of the 'war of the civilizations.' They don't make any demands nor do they send
any letter taking responsibility for the attacks. They believe that the attacks will generate a devilish dynamic,
in which more innocent people will die in a U.S. counter-attack, an atmosphere
of ethnic cleansing vis-a-vis Muslims will develop, and their vague thesis of a
"satanic USA" will be confirmed. If this perverse calculation works
out, then the cowardly attack will have been worthwhile in the eyes of the
terrorists. This logic of madness must
be taken into account. Whoever wants to
set fire to this world can count on ethnic and religious prejudices. However, if one fights for a civilized
coexistence of all cultures, one does not want to win the 'war of the
civilizations,' one wants to avoid it." YUGOSLAVIA (KOSOV):
"New World Order 'Again?'" Independent Zeri had an editorial by its
publisher Blerim Shala (9/20): €The vision of the €New World Order,€ carried by
George Bush in 1990, meant replacing the law of the jungle with the rule of
law. It meant resolving big problems politically and peacefully, it meant collective
resistance to military aggressions and equal treatment for every person,
regardless of the ethnic, racial of religious background. It was the shortest
and the most meaningful political program at the beginning of the last decade
of the XX century that resulted from the West€s victory over the communist East
in 1989. George Bush has largely followed that program during the first
greatest post Cold War crisis € when Iraq occupied Kuwait. Such an American
reaction did not happen in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia until 1995. After
that, the idea of the €New World Order€ remained just as a reminder to the
Bush€s political career, without any real attempts to make operational that
concept, which among others required big changes in the organization, functioning
and the mandate of the UNSC, the highest instance of the international
security. The horror of September 11 (when 19 people of a terrorist network,
inspired by religious fanaticism, attacked America) will seemingly revive the
idea of George Bush. His son, George W. Bush will surely create a multi-state,
multiracial and multi-religious coalition against terrorism. It is necessary to
find a political solution to the Palestinian problem. Yet the international
security structure should create a functional mechanism to face such challenges
by changing the UNSC radically.€ "A New Phase" The leading independent Koha Ditore ran a
comment by its correspondent to Germany Beqe Cufaj (9/20): € Albanians in the
Balkans and especially those of Kosovo, should self-impose a censorship about
what was called so far liberation army. The Kosovar KLA transformed into the
KPC, the UCPMB has somewhat managed to demilitarize and obtain in return
internationalization and the following reforms; and there is NATO in Macedonia
after the agreement was reached with the NLA. After all these moves, the
Albanian and especially their political parties (but also intellectuals who
have influence in the public) should really realize (and talk about it) that
there is not much space for any Albanian €liberation armies.€ Every move or
sign into that direction would really be a hazardous game with very little room
to play in€€ What the western diplomats see now as dangerous un then Balkans
are the so-called €chaotic groups€ that release communiquTs and make threats
that could one day bear the handwriting of the type seen in New York or
Washington. In the end, perhaps I should pass a message to some colleagues in
Pristina (who are really eager to discover who stands behind certain, new
Albanian armies) from a western diplomat I talked to yesterday. He told me that
after the terrorist attacks on America the Albanians, particularly their
leaders, cannot get out of trouble, even if they say that they €do not stand
behind the armed movements.€ Now you have a chance and that is that, together
with NATO in Kosova and Balkans, you fight terrorism and any armed organization
€ even if it is Albanian one!€ ## |
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
IIP Home | Issue Focus Home |