International Information Programs
Office of Research Issue Focus Foreign Media Reaction

January 30, 2003

January 30, 2003

STATE OF THE UNION:  BUSH SHOWS 'DETERMINATION' IN MAKING CASE FOR WAR

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

** President Bush's State of the Union address left overseas analysts with "no doubt" that he is prepared to go to war with Iraq; the question is not "if but when."

** While observers were relieved that the president made no official declaration of war, they recognized his effort to rally Americans and signal allies to get on board.

** Whether or not they agreed with the message, most were impressed by his "determination" and his "conviction" to "eliminate the Iraqi danger."

 

REGIONAL HIGHLIGHTS

 

EUROPE/NATO:  Bush credited with 'eloquent' speech; Iraq attack seen as near certain-- Dailies judged the tone of the president's speech "measured," "statesmanlike" and "brilliant," and even critical outlets applauded the lack of "provocative rhetoric."  Some writers saw "the conditions for presidential success or failure" clearly hanging on the two major themes addressed in "the speech of his life"--"an anemic economy and a turbulent world."  Acknowledging his resolve, a center-right German paper observed "nobody should believe that this president does not mean what he says."  If Bush backs down now, a centrist Russian daily declared, "he will suffer his worst political defeat."  Others noted his ability to "invalidate" critics' "accusations of unilateral imperialism."  Edinburgh's independent Scotsman, for one, asserted that "the justice of his cause has been strengthened by a show of patience few predicted."  Doubts remained, however, among those who opposed "the wrong war at the wrong time."  Skeptics in Britain, Canada, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Sweden and elsewhere, while crediting Mr. Bush's "oratory," were not convinced that he had made the case for war.  In this camp, the liberal Toronto Star counseled: "For all his determination, Bush has reason to tread cautiously and to build his coalition with care."

 

MIDDLE EAST:  Arabs see message as 'all threat'; Palestinian issue 'lost from Bush calculations'-- Most Arab media portrayed Bush's words as the complement to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's electoral victory and a green light for Sharon to embark on a "new era of wars and massacres."  London’s pan-Arab Al-Hayat vented that Sharon and Bush share "contempt for the Arab world."  Pessimistic even by Middle East standards, Saudi Arabia's English-language Arab News lamented that "one can only weep tears of bitter despair and wait for the war that must surely now come."  That said, the UAE's English-language Gulf News stood out with a more balanced editorial that noted Bush intends to consult the UN on pressuring Baghdad into compliance.  In Israel an analyst doubted that the president changed any minds, noting the lack of an "explainable strategy" to counter "pure evil, such as Iraq's." 

 

ASIA:  Bush's 'unilateralist' and 'hegemonic' policies leading to 'an angry world'-- Bush supporters called his speech "elegant and compelling," with Japan's moderate Yomiuri hailing its pledge to "no longer tolerate Iraq's unlawful acts."  Most dailies, however, agreed Bush's address was "tantamount to a signal for war" against Iraq and emphasized his "war-mongering, expansionist and dictatorial mentality."  Others called on the UN to "make a stand" so that war does not become a "tool for individual nations to get their own way."  Hong Kong's pro-Beijing Ta Kung Pao said that "if the U.S. pays no heed to objections" to war, "the international counter-terrorist alliance" will break up.  Some dailies saw a long-term U.S. "conspiracy to occupy the region" and alleged that "all self-respecting countries that dare to resist U.S. dominance" will ultimately meet Iraq's fate.  Several speculated on future U.S. moves, with a New Delhi paper predicting that the U.S.' "next targets will be Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria."  A Lahore daily noted the popular local belief that "Pakistan will be next."    

 

LATAM/CARIB.:  Most lament 'unavoidable' war and Latin America's 'absence' from agenda--  Writers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Jamaica concluded that the final verdict to wage war or not would be an "exclusive USG decision," upset that Bush "has proclaimed the U.S. power of deciding everything by itself."  They also worried this would set a precedent of pre-emptive strikes before "proof" of guilt is established.  Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo warned that it would be "catastrophic...if war is transformed into an automatic prevention mechanism against dangerous regimes."  Argentine writers disapproved of the president's "fiery allegations" and found him "determined to fulfill his mission in a messianic way."  Others complained that the administration, "blinded by the crusade against Iraq," has "ignored" Latin America.

 

AFRICA:  SA dailies troubled by 'unilateral' actions; say Africa will 'lose out' to war-- While the State of the Union has yet to capture significant editorial attention in Africa, several South African papers weighed in with predominantly negative assessments and nary a mention of the AIDS initiative.  The Afrikaans centrist Die Berger questioned the "credibility" of Bush's "bellicose" speech and viewed his readiness to proceed without the UN, "very worrisome."  Pro-government, Afro-centric Sowetan, ventured that with a war, "poor African nations are likely to be plunged into deep economic crisis."  The liberal Cape Times further insinuated that Bush's push for war has "probably added to the unfortunate [anti-American] sentiment in many countries."

 

EDITORS:  Irene Marr, Gail Hamer Burke, Ben Goldberg, Steven Wangsness

 

EDITORS' NOTE:  This survey is based on 121 reports from 54 countries, January 29-30.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "The President's Message: There Is Still Time To Avert War"

 

The liberal Independent took this view (1/30):  "President Bush's bellicose rhetoric concealed a separate message.  However convinced Mr. Bush may be of Saddam Hussein's guilt and however confident he may be that force is the only option, the American President is still working through the United Nations, and we are not quite on the brink of war.  This should reassure the Prime Minister as he travels to Washington, for it staves off the time when he will have to between the 'special relationship' and the unity of his party and Europe.  Yet is a far from comfortable situation.  Mr. Blair and his ministers have toughened their language in advance of the Camp David meeting so that it almost matches Washington's in its ferocity.  The stated intention is to increase the pressure to the point that Baghdad capitulates.  The more men and material that arrive in the Gulf, however, and the fiercer the U.S./British rhetoric, the more perilous the strategy of the 'credible threat of force' becomes.  Mr. Bush may not be quite ready to act without the UN, but the state of his union is grim, and increasingly impatient."

 

"Bush's Measured Message"

 

The independent Scotsman of Edinburgh editorialized (1/30):  "He was quiet, he was measured.  Tuesday night’s State of the Union address was delivered without bombast and with proper attention to issues that concern ordinary Americans....  He did not declare war, nor did he fulfil the caricature of an ignorant cowboy trampling on world opinion.  His condemnation of Saddam Hussein was based on failure to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors...not on some vague prejudice conceived at a ranch in Texas.  Far from ploughing ahead with military action, the president went to the UN and made the case for disarming Saddam Hussein.  Far from giving the hawks their head, he waited for the inspectors to report.  The justice of his cause has been strengthened by a show of patience few predicted....  Attention has focused on plans for Colin Powell to present the UN with evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Advance briefings turned Mr. Bush’s brief mention of 'links to terrorist groups' into the story of the day.  This is a distraction and a mistake.  A distraction, because the case for moving against Saddam Hussein should stand on its own merits.  A mistake, because such hints raise expectations...so Mr. Powell will disappoint if he produces anything less than a fireside chat between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.  While Iraq may have harboured members of al-Qaeda, there is no evidence of a link with 11 September.  Until now, Tony Blair has been careful to make that clear.  Mr. Bush would be wise to follow his example." 

 

"An Uneasy State Of The Union"

 

The independent Financial Times opined (1/30):  "It is not often that State of the Union addresses so clearly establish the conditions for presidential success for failure....  But on Tuesday night, in a somber tone that matched the national mood, President Bush gave a speech that confronted head-on the reality that, for all his political and electoral success of the last two years, his presidency now hinges on the twin challenges of anemic economy and a turbulent world....  The speech was designed to persuade the American people that his administration is on the right course on both fronts.  But any reasoned assessment leaves room for plenty of doubt.  Trotting out the same tired ideological remedies for a troubled economy will persuade few that this President Bush, for all his activism at home, has any firmer grasp on country's economic needs than the last one.  But it was inevitable, given the gravity of what the president had to say on Iraq, that the domestic part of it would sound flat.  His task on the foreign policy front was to present the most convincing case yet for the war against Iraq that seems increasingly inevitable.  Here Mr. Bush's domestic challenge is synchronous with his international one.  With many allies on board, the path for the U.S. is a relatively clear one; without them, it remains difficult politically and diplomatically."

 

FRANCE:  "White House Uses Iraq-al Qaida Connection To Justify War"

 

Correspondents Pascal Riche and Fabrice Rousselot wrote in left-of-center Liberation (1/30):  “If Tuesday evening George Bush brought the supposed link between Iraq and al Qaida back to the front of the stage it is simply because he has so far not been able to convince public opinion of the need to go to war with Iraq....  The State of the Union address did not reassure the American public...and Bush did not address one of the principal concerns of his fellow citizens: the economic impact of a war with Iraq.  According to polls, a majority of Americans are ready to support a military intervention against Baghdad even if they do not understand the reasons for it....  As for the international community, it has rarely been so close to war and so divided....  If Washington obtains the support of most of the European countries, it will be difficult for France to remain isolated.”

 

"Phase Two"

 

Jean-Jacques Mevel judged in right-of-center Le Figaro (1/29):  “Phase two was announced last evening from the Capitol: While war is still only a possibility, the month of February is gearing up as a political and diplomatic battleground where the U.S. intends to force the hand of those nations which do not want to participate in a military operation....  In the coming days, the White House public relations offensive will be in full swing, with a round a foreign visitors.  The aim is to convince a perplexed public that the U.S. is not the only one gearing up for war....  The list of ‘allies’ visiting Washington will grow to prove to the Americans that Europe has more to offer than a Jacques Chirac or a Gerhard Schroeder.”

 

"Bush Between The Sword And Economic Recovery"

 

Pascal Riche noted in left-of-center Liberation (1/29):  “The State of the Union message is always considered a test for a U.S. president.  Yesterday’s message was even more so, considering the stakes and the momentum for war it is seeking.  The writing...must have been especially delicate because the message was addressed to American public opinion, the allies, the Iraqis and the world at large."

 

GERMANY:  "Into The Security Council"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger held in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/30):  “It was no declaration of war in its true sense, but following Bush’s State of the Union address, nobody should believe that this president does not mean what he says or his resolve could be weakened by the clouded mood in the county or the opposition of the allies....  The moment of truth for the UN Security Council will come when the United States presents 'evidence’ of the continued violation of relevant UN resolutions by the ruler in Baghdad.  Then there will be no way round a decision, whatever this may be.  This will create problems for those in particular who say that the UN Security Council should have the final say...but who consider [Bush's] general approach to be wrong and dangerous.  Then they must say whether they consider the material presented to be credible or not....  Last year, Bush...focused attention on the subject of weapons of mass destruction.  Bush has now sharpened this question and turned it into a question of war.  His political fate and, what is more important, the future of global politics, will depend on how this question is answered or whether it is leading into a trap.”

 

"Bush’s Mission"

 

Washington correspondent Wolfgang Koydl filed the following editorial for center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (1/30):  “It is an old trick to use rhetoric if one has little to say in concrete.  The foreign policy part of President Bush’s address fell into this category.  The ideals that Bush proclaimed were so honorable, noble, and idealistic that the leader of the superpower sounded like a politician preaching global revolution....  But he left no doubt about the real goal.  The twilight of the gods has begun in Baghdad.  Saddam Hussein must go and his time is running up, irrespective of whether he will be driven out by a coup, by a war or be forced to go into exile....  But the fight will last...beyond George W. Bush’s term....  The loser is also clear: It is Europe....  The conflict with the United States has laid open the deep gap that stretches across the old continent...[and] has shed a light on the mutual distrust the Europeans still show among each other.  The United States took advantage of this feud, but did not widen it.  Germany and France are to blame for this, since they oppose not only the United States, but also their fellow Europeans."

 

"Step By Step"

 

Jacques Schuster noted in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (1/30):  “President Bush’s State of the Union address stands out from other statements concerning Iraq, because it clearly determines the next steps.  In clear words, the president prepared the Americans for war which, in his conviction, must be waged to eliminate the Iraqi danger.  But he has not taken unilateral steps, as many critics feared.  On the contrary, like Kennedy in the Cuban crisis, Bush includes the international community.  Washington wants to present material to the UNSC that will prove Saddam’s gambling with weapons of mass destruction.  This would not be necessary.  The UN is no tribunal and the Americans and British are no prosecutors.  It is up to Saddam Hussein to prove what happened to all the missiles and warheads which he owned until the end of the 90s.  Nevertheless, Bush is seeking support from the UNSC and its members who will now be forced to act.  Again he is invalidating the accusation of unilateral imperialism without allowing anybody to take the initiative out of his hand.  This is necessary in view of a tanker like the UN.  Without U.S. resolve, the inspectors would not be in Iraq.  We will remember Bush’s speech.  With it, he has initiated the beginning of the end of the Iraqi dictator.”

 

"Bush Unconvincing"

 

Holger Schmale noted in an editorial in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (1/30):  “George W. Bush delivered a speech that was good and bad at the same time.  It was good with respect to the tone, because it did not contain any provocative rhetoric.  No old Europe, no axis of evil, only a bit of missionary zeal…and it was good because Bush recognized the United Nations as the body that should deal with the Iraq conflict.  But it was also a bad speech, because it missed its prime goal.  The U.S. president had the goal of telling his doubting compatriots and a doubting world why the threat from Saddam can be eliminated only with a military strike in the near future.  But again Bush failed with this challenge.  This has its reasons, and they are not based on the president’s rhetoric skills but on the fact that this is a wrong war at the wrong time....  The only decisive question remains:  Why is an Iraq that is militarily weaker than in 1991 and better monitored today such a great danger for global peace that this problem can be resolved only with a devastating military strike?  As long as the United States is unable to explain this, there will be no second UN Security Council resolution for an attack.  And until then, George W. Bush can deliver many statesman-like speeches about freedom and justice that sometimes need to be defended by using force.  But without an answer to this decisive question these will be bad speeches.”

 

ITALY:  “George The Cowboy And The Weapon Of Compassion"

 

An analysis by Gianni Riotta in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera read (1/30):  “Bush sent a clear message and a subliminal message to the European partners and to the United Nations.  He made clear that America is ready to go to war even alone.  He did so with serious language...and a determination that leaves no doubts....  He announced that he would send Secretary Powell to the United Nations on February 5 to present again the accusations against Saddam.  He did not indicate whether Powell would release the final evidence on Baghdad’s chemical arsenal.  That seems unlikely, but the Secretary of State will, once again, ask for the support of the United Nations and the allies.  Without a ‘yes’ from them, America, however, will proceed alone, like President Clinton already did in the case of Kosovo.”

 

“The World Does Not Want To Accept The Single Judge”

 

A commentary by Giampaolo Pioli in La Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il Giorno conservative newspaper syndicate read (1/30):  “To disarm Saddam means destroying Iraq completely.  George W. Bush is ready for anything in order ‘to protect the United States,’ even to invade (Iraq) without U.N. approval.  If he does, he will win.  The United States is the only true world superpower, but by winning it will erase the current international strategic equilibriums and it will destroy the meaning of the United Nations.  The multilateralism and the international right defended by the United Nations will practically no longer exist.  The White House will become the only arbiter and the supreme judge of all international disputes.  This is what Europe, Russia and China, but also Arab nations in Africa, Asia and South America fear....  The war against terrorism in the wake of the September 11 attacks became a ‘global war’ immediately shared and supported by 90 countries.  Bush must be equally convincing regarding the war against Saddam Hussein.”

 

RUSSIA:  "No Way Back"

 

Yevgeniy Verlin and Nikolai Zlobin wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (1/30):  "The address bears out the view that the Administration has finally driven itself in an impasse and has no political leeway.   If Bush backs down and picks anything other than war, he will suffer his worst political defeat.  Bush said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, 'we will force him to do so.'...  Bush can't change that position without severely damaging his reputation....   The President's attempts to link the Iraqi dictator to the Al-Qaida terrorists were not convincing enough either....   To follow the White House's 'nuclear logic,' North Korea must pose a far greater danger than Iraq.  So why not start with Pyongyang?  Bush did not say how long the Americans are going to stay in Iraq and what their ultimate goals are in that region.   It looks like the President has no clear-cut plan of postwar activities in Iraq."

 

"Bush Didn't Come Up To Expectations"

 

Boris Volkhonskiy argued in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (1/30):  "President Bush did not come up to the expectations.   All hoped that he would finally come up with proof that Saddam Hussein's regime produces weapons of mass destruction and has links with Al-Qaida.   The President did not do that.  Instead, he said that Secretary of State Colin Powell will provide evidence to the UN Security Council."

 

"Baghdad Must Lay Its Cards On The Table"

 

Georgiy Mirskiy held in reformist Vremya MN (1/30):  "With anti-Americanism widespread in the world before the anti-Saddam campaign, Bush, through his policy, has made it reach an unheard-of point of intensity....   The inspectors won't be able to submit an all-is-clear report or rather they won't feel certain that what they say is true even six months from now.  This would be like getting back to Square One, with a majority in the UN Security Council claiming again that, since there is no convincing proof of Iraq's guilt, the use of force is unwarranted.  Bush would have to backdown and recall the armed forces.  It would spell a personal disaster making his re-election impossible.  Even worse, America would look like a 'paper tiger' in the eyes of the world, with all its stern warnings of 'preemptive strikes' against rogue states and international terrorists made worthless.  The picture will be quite different if it becomes clear on the basis of fresh intelligence that things are not exactly as the Iraqis are claiming them to be."

 

"Bush Out To Save Face"

 

Vitaliy Gan commented in official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (1/30):  "U.S. President Bush is trying to save face, as his skills and competence as a leader are being questioned more than at any time in the past one and a half years....  Most of his proposals are a remake of aborted initiatives from last year.  Rather than dotting the i's and crossing the t's, the address has given rise to more questions.  By attempting to embrace both internal and external problems, the White House seems to be seeking a way to ensure support for its foreign policy and leadership as a whole."

 

AUSTRIA:  "Bush’s World"

 

Senior commentator Ernst Trost opined in mass-circulation tabloid Kronen Zeitung (1/30):  “Contrary to his sometimes rather embarrassing spontaneous public appearances, Bush came across much more statesmanlike in his State of the Union Address.  We can share his assessment that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.  The question is though whether that is worth starting a war.”

 

"The U.S. Needs Allies"

 

Foreign affairs writer Martin Stricker stated in independent daily “Salzburger Nachrichten (1/30):  “The conclusive evidence that George Bush announced will be presented to the UNSC is supposed to bring around the group of skeptics opposed to military intervention....  Bush has left no doubt that--if necessary--he will launch a strike with a 'coalition of the willing.'  Still, the broader the coalition--which, ideally, should be backed by a UN mandate--the smaller the risks.”

 

"George Bush Is Fighting A War On Two Fronts"

 

Deputy chief editor Victor Hermann commented in independent daily Salzburger Nachrichten (1/29):  “With his State of the Union Address, George Bush tied to kill several birds with one stone....  The U.S. president needed to reassure the American domestic front.  No wonder, after all his ratings in the U.S. plummeted in recent weeks....  So he’s worried he might suffer the fate of his father, who failed to be re-elected because he didn’t pay enough attention to the U.S. economy....  Regarding the ‘Axis of Evil,’ Bush’s plan is probably to get rid of Saddam Hussein first and subsequently to tackle the problem of North Korea.”

 

BELGIUM:  "Saddam Presented As A Boogeyman To The Americans"

 

Catherine Mommaerts opined in financial L’Echo (1/30):  “George W. Bush has perhaps not yet declared war on Iraq, but, after his speech yesterday, there is no longer any doubt that he will....  Indeed, for President Bush, Saddam Hussein is evil personified....  But since the Americans are not really concerned by the Iraqi people’s daily hell, George Bush needed to find a shock argument that was likely to mobilize all Americans.  And what better argument could he have found than the trauma of September 11?  George Bush therefore called on people’s imagination to think about possible  hijackers who would carry biological or chemical cocktails supplied by Saddam Hussein....  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator....but that does not prove that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction that might threaten the United States....  George Bush has decided not to supply evidence until February 5 and to let the UN be the first to see it.  But if he wants to convince the French, the Russians, and the Chinese in the UN Security Council, he will have to supply a much more serious dossier than the simplistic speech he offered to the Americans yesterday night.”

 

"Nothing Will Stop War"

 

Foreign editor Jean Vanempten commented in financial daily De Financieel-Economische Tijd (1/30):  “Now that Bush is going to reveal evidence, the opponents to the war become cautious.  They have always insisted that the arms inspectors must be given all the opportunities and, on top of that, demanded a key role for the UNSC in the debate.  Today, they cannot but applaud that the evidence is finally surfacing.  Diplomatically, they cannot afford to wipe the final American argument from the table.  With the presentation of the evidence, the United States is taking a calculated risk.  The evidence must be convincing....  Even if the United States does not succeed in convincing the undecided countries, nothing will stop it from going to war alone....  “In this end game, the question no longer is whether there is going to be a war....  Next week, the world will know what has been driving the American President for months now--or the evidence...will disappoint the world.  In both cases, however, the time of wailing sirens in Baghdad does not seem far away.”

 

BULGARIA:  "A Step Away From Armageddon"

 

Socialist-affiliated daily Duma commented (1/30):  "Leave all hope behind!  This is what we should say to those who until yesterday were hoping that the war against Iraq could be avoided.  Bush shot dead this illusion with his State of the Union Address.  In an environment of growing skepticism among his own compatriots, the U.S. President only confirmed the impressions he made with his actions in the last several weeks--that public opinion as well as his European allies' opinion and the negative UNSC vote or veto cannot stop him from repeating his father's desert storm and from establishing a firm control over the second largest oil fields in the world."

 

CROATIA:  "Bush Is Going To War"

 

Foreign Affairs editor Jurica Korbler commented in Zagreb-based government-owned daily Vjesnik (1/30):  "Bush has, as he announced war against terrorism and outlaw regimes...embarked on a far more dangerous military operation than Vietnam.  There are numerous factors at play, among these the fear of what Saddam, knowing that his end is near, will do.  There is also the uncertainty of what the long-term reactions from the Islamic world will be, and what the war for oil will bring.  There is the question of how much force there will be for postwar reconstruction in Iraq, so that it doesn’t collapse, as has been the case in Afghanistan.  There is only one unanswered question left:  will cunning Saddam recognize at the eleventh hour that George Bush’s rhetoric is no longer the same as that of former American presidents who have been threatening him for years?  Or will he be content with the irony of destiny, which will make Iraq, based on alphabetic order, take over chairmanship of the UN Disarmament Committee in Geneva in May?  If, of course, he lives to see May.

 

CZECH REPUBLIC: "It Is Getting Close To The A Day"

 

Jiri Roskot comments in the center-left Pravo (1/29): "It was evident from yesterday's State of the Union Address presented by George W. Bush that the U.S. views the unwillingness of Baghdad to cooperate with the UN inspectors as a good enough reason for launching an attack against Iraq. The A Day (Airstrike Day) seems to be a short step away and Iraq may now be saved only by a coup in Baghdad. Washington claims that seeking further evidence against Iraq is a waste of time and it promises to present hard evidence provided by its intelligence services. If that is the case why has Washington not presented the evidence already? It would have certainly made their life easier. The answer, however, is that Mr. Bush has targeted Iraq long before addressing the UN Security Council. All the maneuvering which pretends that the UN is involved in resolving the Iraq crisis is only a way of pacifying the distressed world public after the U.S. presented its doctrine of preemptive attack. It is evident that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld already know the date of the A Day; and Tony Blair will be the next one to know on Friday, when he comes to Camp David."

 

DENMARK: "Statesman Bush Mobilizes International Support"

 

Center-right Berlingske Tidende carried the following analysis by D.C. correspondent Poul Høi  (1/30):  "Bush succeeded in mobilizing international support for the U.S.  Due to the fact that the statesman Bush rather than the cowboy Bush spoke yesterday, the skeptics became less skeptical and the hawks less hawkish."

 

"Mature Bush Leaves No Doubt About Iraqi Dangers"

 

Center-left Politiken carried the following analysis by political columnist, Adam Holm (1/30):  "A mature, well-considered man with his finger on the trigger.  An excellent speech, and even though Bush cannot be said to have been positively aggressive, he left no doubt that those who play with fire risk serious burns."

 

"Bush Admits International Community Unconvinced About War In Iraq"

 

Center-left Politiken asserted (1/30):  "In the midst of announcing a shameful tax relief that will make the rich richer, Bush admitted that the U.S. has yet to convince the world and indeed many American about the necessity of war in Iraq....   A war that is not endorsed by the UN would be deeply problematic." 

 

"Bush Should Present More Detailed Arguments"

 

Leading daily Helsingin Sanomat editorialized (1/30):  "President George W. Bush's State of the Union address made it fairly clear that the United States is on its way to war....  Bush was at his most convincing when he listed what Iraq so far had failed to explain.  UN arms inspector Hans Blix had dealt with the same aspect in the same spirit....  If it is still possible to avoid the war, hopes would have to be pinned on an Iraqi decision to listen to the warning and provide the information called for rapidly and straight out."

 

GEORGIA: "George Bush: I Will Defend Americans' Security and Freedom"

 

Georgia's independent liberal-opposition 24 Hours wrote (1/30): "The United States has already made the decision to go into Iraq.   Pundits andanalysts think now it's time to name the date, although the U.S. might launch a war undeclared.  President Bush appealed to his nation emphazing war on Iraq, as well as rehabilitation of the economy.  The president had to answer some tough questions from the Democrats and explain why his administration is not paying due attention to the welfare of the U.S. population.  'We have to build an economy that will accommodate everyone willing to work,' stated the President and deserved a standing ovation from the congressmen when he talked about the budget deficit and cutting government expenses."

 

IRELAND:  "Iraq, the U.S. and the UN"

 

The liberal Irish Times editorialized (1/30):  "As the world evaluates President Bush's stark warning to Iraq in his State of the Union address there was constructive interest in his decision to make U.S. intelligence evidence available to the United Nations....  Such evidence is essential if the U.S. is to make a credible case for an attack on Iraq....  Mr. Bush went on to say...'the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others'.  This is unacceptable because the U.S. is legally and politically interdependent with all the other nations in the UN concerning Iraq....  The (Irish) Government stated yesterday that if the U.S. takes its own action against Iraq permission on the use of Shannon [airport] would be reviewed by the Government....  This is a welcome acknowledgement of Ireland's commitment to the UN and...policy of military neutrality."

 

"Bush Builds Case For Link To al-Qaeda On Scanty Evidence"

 

Conor O'Clery argued in the liberal Irish TImes (1/30):  "[President Bush] delivered a stern message to the world that the die was cast and America would go it alone if needs be in its confrontation with the evil one....  Mr. Bush laid out all the assertions he has made before on Iraq's banned weapons programmes....  No one listening could be in any doubt that the strategic goal of the President is the elimnation of Saddam Hussein....  Mr. Bush had no incontrovertible proof of the existence of banned weapons.  Some of the evidence has been disputed by his own intelligence officials and by the UN....  President Bush focused the first half of his speech on an ambitious domestic agenda...which will dominate the next election....  Mr. Bush delivered his second State of the Union address at a time when his popularity at home and abroad has fallen below where it stood before September 11th.  For him the stakes could not be higher."

 

KOSOVO:  “Bush’s Strong Speech And The Lesson For Kosovo”

 

Pro-PDK Epoka e Re had the following editorial comment (1/30):  “The speech was serious and ample, not only for the situation and the topic treated, but also for the respect and appreciation of those it was addressed to. The speech of the President was the best example of the division of powers in the American democracy, and an example of their mutual respect....  The speech also aimed to win the support of the broader opinion for the future decisions of the President of the country. Under the current situation, it was indispensable too to win with proof the support of allies for the war against Iraq and Saddam’s regime.  Applauses and honors for the Presidents speech, given by those present in the hall demonstrated once again how proud the American state is. It was proven there again that in a plural democracy interest in homeland security is above partisanship. It was proven again how a President must be the symbol of unity and confidence for his citizens....  All this is a good chance for the Kosovar fragile democracy and its new institutions from which to learn and gain inspiration....  Many statesmen could have drawn lessons from the annual speech of President Bush.  In Kosovo too someone could have learned how to win broad support, not by hiding from others and denial, but through cooperation with all.” 

 

LITHUANIA:  "What George Bush Did Not Say"

 

Dalius Simenas opined in business daily Verslo Zinios (1/30):  "The President of the United States was trying to accomplish two goals--get the support of his fellow countrymen for the plans of war with Iraq and that of reviving the U.S. economy.  Meanwhile, analysts notice that one is not possible without another.  Sensing disfavourable attitudes, the U.S.President said that next week the U.S. administration will provide the UN information to prove that Iraq is seeking to hide the forbidden weapons from the inspectors, and moreover, the ties of this country with Al Qaeda net of terrorists....  The tax lowering plan is very impressive....  But the White House understands that this is only half of the work.  The other part is to solve the Iraq problem. The resolution of the conflict can be expected for the second half of February."

 

THE NETHERLANDS: "America, Iraq, And The Security Council"

 

Left-of-center Trouw in its editorial (1/30): "The State of the Union address did not include an ultimatum or a time line for a war...this is positive news because that means the government in Washington is continuing to follow the UN track...  It is also positive because war should be the last resort which can only be used after there is clarity about Iraq's weapon program....  The UN inspectors asked for more time and they should get that time... if the US has new evidence about Iraq having illegal weapons, then it is time to present those.... It could help the inspectors and force Saddam Hussein to be more cooperative."

 

"Rhetoric Versus Skepticism"

 

Influential liberal De Volkskrant held (1/30): "If Bush does not want to go to war alone then he has an entire world to win on his side.  A skeptical world that is.... Many countries have not yet reached the point of seeing war as absolutely necessary to get rid of the danger called Saddam... This is partly a matter of psychology.  Bush looks at the world differently then many of his allies do.  That has to do with the traumatic experience of September 11....  Bush's concerns are understandable - but this does not dismiss him from the duty to convince the skeptics in the world of the urgency of a war against Iraq.  Why now?  The weapon inspectors have not made any remarkable discoveries... inspections should be continued.  And pressure should be maintained.  But at this point there is no reason to use the ultimate resort: going to war.   Bush has not proven the necessity of a war."

 

NORWAY:  "An American Ultimatum"

 

Newspaper of record Aftenposten commented (1/30):  "For Europeans and Asians, and for an increasing part of public opinion in the U.S., it is not clear after the President’s speech that it is necessary for a military action right now.  On the other hand there is much greater support for the need to continue the campaign against international terrorism.  This happens with support from the UN and is within the rules of the international law.  It is unacceptable that a country of its own accord will look away from international law.  Bush has given a disquietingly clear signal that such a move is part of his plans.”

 

PORTUGAL:  "The State Of The Empire"

 

Mário Bettencourt Resendes, editor-in-chief of respected center-left daily Diário de Notícias, had this editorial comment (1/30):  "It was, once again, an impressive political spectacle and, as always, a solemn moment in American political life....   As was predictable, Bush spoke about the domestic economy and afterwards provided a diagnosis of the 'state of the empire'....   Regarding the [latter], the few doubts there were should have been dissipated.  Without hesitation, Bush took on the role of leader of the dominant power.  Missionaries of freedom and democracy, the U.S. has already worked out Saddam's fate.  On the 5th, Powell will go to the Security Council to satisfy the allies and execute the final push for a 'multilateral' action.  The lord of Baghdad can begin packing his bags."

 

ROMANIA:  "Romania's Choice"

 

Respected foreign policy analyst Bogdan Chirieac opined in leading independent  Adevarul (1/30):  “By the fact that President Bush announced that on February 5, [Secretary Powell] will bring the United Nations evidence against Saddam, and that he is not thinking now about a military solutions towards North Korea and Iran, it provides the Europeans with the opportunity to take the same side as the Americans.  President Bush thus manages to keep America away from losing the battle with its allies before winning the war with its enemies....  For Romania, the American-European ‘peace’ is welcome.  Bucharest would no longer have to make a difficult choice, like the one made last summer, between Europe and America, with regard to the International Criminal Court.  When NATO countries reach an agreement, Romania no longer has any problems in adopting the same line, regardless of the content of the UN final resolution.  This is because, before even being a UN member, Romania belongs, ever since being invited into NATO, to the Euro-Atlantic area.”

 

SPAIN:  "State Of War"

 

Left-of-center El País argued (1/30):  "With his State of Union speech, George Bush has put United States and the entire world in a state of war....  Bush revealed few plans and ideas for the postwar period.  The conflict between Israel and Palestine deserved only one sentence....  With his speech beating the war drum, Bush has tried to recover popularity...but he couldn't convince in the economic sphere....  Bush needs to win this announced war quickly.  This is ragbag of disturbing consequences."

 

"Final Phase Of The Iraqi Crisis"

 

Conservative ABC judged (1/30):  "The State of Union speech...has definitely opened the 'final phase' of the Iraqi crisis....  Bush will only submit to a vote [in the UNSC] if he can guarantee that  there will be no veto on the part of China, France or Russia.  On the contrary, he will go to war because he believes, and maybe he is right, that the previous resolution offers the necessary legal cover not to violate the UN Charter....  The war is everybody's failure, as Chirac says, but Saddam is to blame for the fact that we are in this situation."

"A Vague And Imprecise Hypothesis For An Immediate War"

 

Independent El Mundo judged (1/30):  "We can not find fault with the formal side of the speech.  It was brilliant, eloquent, an authentic piece of oratory of political theater that reached great intensity.  But it did not respond to the main question in a convincing way....  Now, when there are more than 150,000 Allied soldiers in the area close to the conflict, they talk again about the original idea that Iraq has close ties with the members of Al Qaeda....  This is the most sensationalist scenario that can be imagined for the U.S. public, generally little informed and very impressionable....  If the evidence is convincing--and above all concrete--Saddam will have to be forced to hand over or to destroy [the prohibited weapons].  Only supposing that he refuses to do that we should be in a 'casus belli,' but never in a situation of established facts as the Pentagon confirmed yesterday it is already working on in Iraqi Kurdistan."

 

SWITZERLAND: "No Declaration of War Yet"

 

An unsigned commentary posted on most influential Neue Zürcher Zeitung's website, asserted (1/29):  "As expected, the speech by the American president was not a declaration of war.  Instead, Bush used his State of the Union Address as a further step in a methodical effort to put together a united front for war against Iraq.  Additional steps will be following soon.  [...]  The speech placed major emphasis on economic issues, but within a few days, in the U.S. as elsewhere, Iraq will once again dominate the headlines and the political debate.  Although war is becoming increasingly likely, it will be a while until the irrevocable decision is actually made.

 

SWEDEN:  "A Message To The U.S. And Iraq"

 

Independent, liberal Stockholm morning daily Dagens Nyheter editorialized (1/30):  "Domestic policy may have been the main issue in President Bush's message, but not until he brought up Iraq, did his rhetoric heat up.  But the key issue, why Iraq and why right now, was not answered.  On the contrary the tune was the familiar one...and the resolve and preparedness to take unilateral action was quite evident....  Still a unilateral U.S. war is not unavoidable, there still is a chance that the Iraq crisis can be solved in such a way that the international system would work also when new threats are to be defused."

 

"A Message In Season"

 

The conservative Stockholm morning daily Svenska Dagbladet held:  "Standing ovations in Congress, a rise on the stock market, and increased voter support say more about reactions to President Bush's State of the Union message than some scolding by leading Democrats.  It obviously was a message in season....  President Bush laid no new claims on Iraq but made it crystal clear that the U.S. is prepared to counter Saddam Hussein's threats....  After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, crisis handling abroad has forced the ideologist George Bush to keep a low profile.  Against the background of shrinking political support and an upcoming presidential election campaign, Bush took the opportunity to push for compassionate conservatism.  General campaign rhetoric did not dominate his message, but rather issues that govern everyday life of people.  The ideologist is back."

 

TURKEY:  "The Speech Of His Life"

 

Fikret Ertan gives an early comment on the State of the Union address in Islamic-intellectual Zaman (1/29): “The rhetoric of President Bush at his State of the Union address is critically important to the whole world.  We will all see his approach to the Iraq issue.  The speech writers and editors include Michael Gerson who is a radical Christian, and Karen Hughes who is a former journalist as well as Bush’s confidant.  It seems the speech will predominantly work on two issues; American economy and Iraq. … Bush is not the best man of speeches and he was criticized for his remarks during his other public addresses.  But this time the State of the Union is considered as the speech of his life.”

 

UKRAINE: "Bush Called For War In The Name Of Peace"

 

Centrist Den said (1/30):  "In an attempt to avoid repeating the blunders of his father, whose economic policy was not very successful, and also listening to critics decrying lack of attention to domestic problems, George W. Bush started his address with economic issues.  But he concluded calling on the military to display resolve, confidence and faith in America."

 

"War Starts After The Fifth"

 

A front-page commentary in rightist Ukraina Moloda exclaimed (1/30):  "The U.S. is ready to start a war against Iraq in disregard of the world community's opinion.  The annual address by American President George Bush leaves no doubt: the U.S. can launch the war even without UNSC consent....  Bush emphasized that the U.S. will use all of its military might.  It's not ruled out that this includes nuclear weapons.

 

YUGOSLAVIA:  “We Will Disarm Saddam!”

 

Popular independent Belgrade-based Vecernje Novosti’s commented (1/30):  “Unlike last year’s address, after the attacks in New York and Washington, when he was hugely supported in the fight against terrorism and the axis of evil--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--as well as in the project of economic rehabilitation, this year the U.S. President is in a difficult position to encourage skeptical U.S. citizens that their country is on the right track. Bush devoted half of the speech to those Americans who are more concerned for the economy than for a new war and promised them $674 billion tax reductions and $400 billion for 10-year rehabilitation plans for the health system....  Bush clearly stated that America is ready to disarm Iraq with or without UN support....  While Bush delivered his speech, surrounded by strong security forces against terrorist attacks, in front of Capitol Hill citizens protested against war with Iraq.”

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL:   "Bush Has Already Pushed The First Button"

 

News division head Shmuel Rosner wrote in independent Ha'aretz (1/30): "Wednesday, echoing his speech of last year, Bush defined the 'black' side in his word 'evil.'  Talking about Saddam Hussein's regime, he said: 'If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.'  Like many American citizens, Bush is at pains to find any logic in his adversaries' actions.  From bin Laden's al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein's Iraq....  With no explainable strategy, there is only pure 'evil,' such as Iraq's, as viewed by Bush.  Wednesday, trying to explain why he would attack Iraq but be contented with talks with North Korea, [Bush] said that different threats require a different strategy.  But the President of the United States doesn't believe that North Korea's evil is different from Iraq's."

 

"Bush Is On His Way"

 

Washington correspondent Orly Azolai-Katz wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (1/30): "In his address on Wednesday, Bush left no doubt: he is prepared to go to war.  He aimed straight at the goal:  The elimination of the Baghdad regime and the disarming of Saddam.  Bush built tremendous military power in the Persian Gulf and will soon give the order to shoot.  Wednesday he looked and sounded more determined than ever--and focused....  He had said he would go to war even if he were to remain alone on the ground, but Bush does not commit political suicide.... Sharon kept his trump card--the evidence Powell will produce--for the last moment....  [Bush] is convinced that the evidence that will be presented next week is so frightening--in the required dose--that it will eliminate any possibility of extending the mandate of the UN inspectors.  In his hour-long speech, he created a snowball that has started to roll.  Bush effectively announced that America has reached the point of no return; Saddam must now move to his bunker."

 

EGYPT:. "Actions And Words"

 

Leading pro-government Al Ahram’s senior columnist Salama Ahmed Salama (also in English-language Al Ahram Weekly) (1/30): “While President Bush and his secretary Powell continue to insist that they remain amenable to a peaceful solution of the Iraqi crisis, the actions of the current U.S. Administration indicate only that the headlong desire to rush to war far outweighs any counsel to pursue an alternative route....  International pressure may be sufficient to ensure that the U.S. waits for two or three weeks for the inspectors to complete their tasks.  But military concerns about avoiding operations during the height of Iraqi summer meant that any postponement beyond that is unlikely.  This is what most Arab countries anticipate.... [However,] Arab countries are preparing for the coming storm in the most feeble manner, focusing all their efforts on warning Iraq, and urging it to surrender unconditionally to the United States.... The Americans are not concerned about hostile reactions in the Arab street; they are confident of the abilities of security apparatuses to deal with any repercussions.   They view the possible consequences in south Asia, though, with far less equanimity. A U.S.-led war in Iraq could easily result in the overthrow of the current regime in Pakistan and its replacement by a radical Islamic power...and could well tempt India to follow in America’s footsteps and launch a pre-emptive strike in a region bristling with nuclear warheads.  It is for these reasons that may believe the U.S. strike will be sudden, swift and decisive.” 

 

WEST BANK:  "Palestinians And The Fast Descent Towards War"

 

Abdullah Awad opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (1/30), "In his [State of the Union] speech, Bush likened the American involvement in Iraq with the American role during World War II, in which he claimed that such a role prevented the German Nazis and Italian Fascists from taking over the world. This is a clear sign that Washington has made up its mind to wage war against Iraq."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Is War on Terrorism Over?"

 

Abha’s moderate Al-Watan editorialized (1/30): “In his State of the Union address, before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, President Bush stated that the U.S. has eliminated many terrorist cells in Europe, Asia and the United States and arrested more than 3,000 suspected terrorists....  And many others are no longer a problem for the United States and its allies and friends....  Does he mean the United States has actually eliminated terrorism?  If so, how can the U.S justify the measures it adopted domestically and abroad on grounds of combating terrorism?... If the situation was as President Bush described, then he undermines the war on terrorism by declaring that it is no longer a present threat.  He also undermines the administration’s pretext to launch war on Iraq, because there would be no terrorists for Iraq to provide weapons of mass destruction.”

 

"Bush Is Determined On War"

 

Jeddah’s moderate Al-Bilad opined (1/30): “In his State of the Union address, President Bush confirmed Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and that the United States will disclose this information very soon....  The United States does not intend to provide time to reach a peaceful solution....  Bush beat the drums of war even after Baghdad showed maximum cooperation, creating an atmosphere for the inspectors to complete their work....  All this failed to satisfy the great United States, which spares no effort to complete its plans by colonizing Iraq.”

 

"A Night Of Fear Between Bush And Sharon"

 

London’s pan-Arab Al-Hayat ran a singed editorial by the paper’s deputy editor Abdulwahab Badrkhan (1/30): “The night of fear would have not been complete, but for Sharon and Bush to meet at one specific point, their contempt of the Arab world and its people.  President Bush exerted extra effort to express his concern regarding issues other than the portfolio of Iraq.  But his address was far from an address of peace, it was a war address a sort of address Sharon masters well and nothing else.”

 

"Double Whammy"

 

The English-language Arab News editorialized (1/30): “As for George Bush’s State of the Union address, one can only weep tears of bitter despair and wait for the war that must surely now come.  Compulsive optimists may say that it was nothing more than posturing designed for domestic consumption and which does not necessarily translate into immediate action. Yes it was designed for the home audience.  But there will come a point--a matter of weeks at most--when he has to be seen taking action.  He could have sounded a note of conciliation, building on it later. But this was all threat--and the trouble with threats is that you have to deliver sooner or later or look the fool. Bush has painted himself into a corner.  He has made it impossible for himself to climb down now.  From Israel, from Washington, a double blow to peace, a double blow to hope.”

 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:  "Bush's Speech Completes Sharon's Victory"

 

Sharjah-based pan-Arab Al-Khaleej editorialized (1/30): "Bush's State of the Union Address and Sharon's sweeping victory in the Israeli elections come at the same time and complete one another in the war against Arabs....  The war against the Arabs is the implicit name for the War on Terrorism.  The inspectors of the American president did not find any evidence against Iraq, so, instead, he tried to link Iraq with al-Qaida...to keep Iraq within the framework of his war against terrorism or else....  Bush's speech and Sharon's victory pave the way for a new era of wars and massacres."

 

"Bush Is Addressing You"

 

As part of two full pages of word-for-word analysis of the State of the Union address, Dubai-based business-oriented Arabic-language Al-Bayan editorialized (1/30):  "It seems that the Palestinian issue has been lost from Bush's calculations.  In his annual speech, Bush only spoke one sentence about the Middle East [Peace Process]....  This explains that the issue has become marginal to the American administration, which is busy mobilizing the entire world for a war against Iraq.  Washington's negligence represents a green light for Sharon to do what he wants against the Palestinians."

 

"Bush Throws Down Gauntlet"

 

The Dubai-based English-language Gulf News editorialized (1/30):  "Bush's comments on Iraq were eagerly anticipated.  Bush did not disappoint.  He took time to carefully lay out the areas of default, as if giving reason of an intention to wage war against Iraq, rather than making a declaration of war....  For Bush has every intention of deferring to the UN as he intends asking for a special meeting on February 5, by which time it is anticipated that he will have arrived at a decision on whether to implement war later that same month....  With Bush also promising the disclosure of secret intelligence at the meeting, to prove the charges he--and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--has been making, the pressure on Iraq is increasing."

 

TUNISIA:  "Bush Accuses Saddam Of Networking With Al-Qaida"

 

An editorial by deputy editor-in-chief, Manoubi Akrout in the independent French-language daily newspaper Le Quotidien stated (1/30):  "For attentive observers, the discourse of the U.S. executive did not contain any surprises pertaining to the 'axis of evil'....  [Bush] engaged [in his address] in a systematic discrediting of Iraq, going even countercurrent to the evaluation of the highest authorities in geopolitics whose reports corroborate the thesis that Iraq has no such link with Al-Qaida....  As for North Korea, the discourse was extremely reconciliatory....  It even divulges that the U.S. is ready to make concessions to avoid escalation and opt for a peaceful settlement of the crisis....  For Iran, the terms used are astonishing....  President Bush is merely requesting the Iranian population to rise up against the authority....  For Iraq, again, it was an 'all out attack' which does not move back in the face of any threat."

 

"To Avoid Another Afghani Scenario"

 

Editor-in-chief, Abdelhamid Riahi argued in the independent Arabic-language daily newspaper As-Shourouq (1/30):  "President Bush said...that his country will submit to the UN...the necessary proof of Iraq's possession of WMD and its networking with Al-Qaeda....  In fact, the world's disagreement with the U.S. emanates from the lack of concrete evidence and the fact that the U.S. administration is basing its accusations on mere hypothetical backgrounds....  The destruction that the Bush administration will bring to the region will not be a cake walk....  It will be a serious humanitarian disaster in Iraq....  Thus, the international community is advised to closely scrutinize the incriminating elements that will be divulged by this administration."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Preparing For Regime Change In Iraq"

 

C. Raja Mohan opined in the centrist Hindu (1/30):  "In declaring that Baghdad had "missed" the last chance to avert war by coming clean on its programs for weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, has signaled that war against Iraq is now inevitable. Acts of war are never easy for any leader. It involves careful weighing of all risks and benefits. In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Mr. Bush has made it clear that America has done its sums and is ready for a war to oust Saddam Hussein as Iraq's President. Mr. Bush has gone too far down the road into the military confrontation with Iraq to now walk back, by clinging on to a compromise on inspections. Countries like North Korea have already begun to take full advantage of the crisis in the Gulf.  Stepping back from the brink now would further weaken the international coalition that Mr. Bush has struggled to hold together.  There is profound scepticism across the world about the American ability to nudge the Middle East towards economic modernization, political moderation, and representative governments.  Yet, those who dismiss the motivations of the Bush Administration might be underestimating the sheer audacity that underlies Washington's project to remake the Middle East."

 

"Predictable Rhetoric" 

 

The centrist Asian Age stated (1/30): "President George W. Bush has virtually declared war on Iraq....  He discarded his rather dispassionate exterior for a chilling reminder that the U.S. had decided to wage war on Iraq regardless of world opinion. Casting himself in the cloak of the messiah, as he has often done since 9/11, he spoke of good and evil and made it apparent that his dispensation had assumed the onerous responsibility of deciding this moral question for the international community. He spoke of dialogue for peace with North Korea, and of war with Iraq, but failed to explain the distinction that obviously inspired different reactions from Washington....  War will be disastrous, not just for Iraq and the world but for the US as well.  The war on Iraq will deepen the division leading to more terrorism and violence from which the US will not be able to keep itself free. As it is, the Bush administration has converted the US into a tyrannical democracy where oppressive laws and measures are being enacted in the name of security....  The war, without UN sanctions, will create a precedent that can be misused over and over again. It is clear to all that the next targets will be Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria."

 

"The War Monger"

 

The pro-Congress Party Urdu-language Qaumi Awaz editorialized (1/30):  "There was absolutely nothing new in President Bush's address to the American people except the reinforcement of his war-mongering, expansionist and dictatorial mentality.  While reiterating his plan of aggression against Iraq on the basis of the ridiculous theory of 'threat to the U.S.,' President Bush made it clear that he wanted war for the sake of war, justified or unjustified. Even if Iraq is in possession of nuclear weapons, of which there is no evidence whatsoever so far, the US has no right to attack that country....  Given the US strategy, it is not only Iraq that is going to be the victim of the superpower expansionism.  All self-respecting countries that dare to resist US dominance will ultimately meet the same fate.... That said, Saddam Hussein is the victim of his own adventurism. By attacking Kuwait and threatening other neighboring countries, he virtually invited the US to set up its military bases in many Arab countries in the Gulf.  The Iraqi people now should decide whether they want Saddam's dictator ship to stay and let their own and other countries be ruined or they would make a new ruler to emerge and foil the US conspiracy to occupy the region."

 

NEPAL:  "War Over Iraq: When Not If"

 

Senior journalist M. R. Josse wrote in the centrist Kathmandu Post (1/29):  "America's preparation for war against Iraq is manifest...from its open support for Iraqi dissidents, as underscored by its backing for a conference on that theme in London last December....  Another indicator is that a Pentagon-based office has been created to help rebuild Iraq's schools, roads, hospitals and other critical building blocks of a civil society, in a post-Saddam Iraq....  If Saddam doesn't capitulate, war will come to Iraq if not by February end, at the most, a month or so later. The U.S. and Britain may make a virtue out of necessity and advertise that, following the UN inspectors' report to the UNSC, they are prepared to give...some more time to Iraq to respond to the host of serious unanswered questions raised by Blix on Monday.  My guess is that after the inspectors' February 14 report to the UNSC, the chips will rapidly begin to fall.  After a final attempt to obtain UNSC endorsement, perhaps lasting for a few weeks, the U.S. and Britain will go ahead with or without it.  Thus war seems likely in March--if Saddam doesn't change his still defiant stance."

 

PAKISTAN:  "Edging Towards War"

 

The Lahore-based leftist Daily Times held (1/30):  "President George Bush's State of the Union address has taken the United States, and the world, to the edge of war....  He kept referring to the opinion of the world, knowing full well that the world disagreed with his plan to attack Iraq without a formal endorsement from the UN Security Council....  Meanwhile, an angry world is trying to adjust to what America might do possibly in a month....  There is a subliminal message in the popular belief "Pakistan will be next."  It is that if Iraq can and will be invaded even when the world admits that there is no solid evidence of bio-terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against it, why should Pakistan be spared when there is mounting evidence of its "unofficial" complicity with the Taliban and Usama bin Laden? In the event, it is possible that Pakistan could be the only country in the region that might be adversely affected by a backlash against the American invasion of Iraq. The tragedy is that no leader in government is seized of this problem and nothing is being done to stave off the possibility."

 

 

 

IRAN:  "Bush To Use Speech To Gird America For Possible War "

 

The English-language pro-government Tehran Times noted (1/28):  "President Bush was to use his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night to prepare anxious Americans for a possible war with Iraq, as the White House says a new UN resolution to authorize force would be 'desirable,' but not mandatory....  Bush will face the task of convincing wary Americans that Iraq represents such a threat that U.S. troops may be required to attack that nation, 12 years after his father won the Persian Gulf War but left Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in power....  The most crucial part of the speech may well be about Iraq, with thousands of U.S. troops headed to the Persian Gulf and expected to be ready for combat soon if needed....  Aides said Bush would restate the U.S. case against Saddam--that he has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, is trying to build a nuclear bomb and has flouted a UN disarmament resolution by giving inspectors the runaround--and say that time is running out for him to comply."

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Acclaim But No Case"

 

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald editorialized (1/30):  "If George Bush's presidential back is against a rising wall of American public opinion, it was not evident at his State of the Union address on Washington's Capitol Hill yesterday. He tackled first the economy, the issue that has done more than any other to bite into his historically high approval ratings post-September 11. Predictably, Democrat members of Congress were less enthusiastic than their Republican counterparts in endorsing his low-tax remedies....  By the time Mr Bush built to the crescendo of his crusade against international evil in general, and Saddam Hussein in particular, however, Congress partisans were enthralled as one.  He presented the case against Iraq and for America's go-it-alone determination by cleverly implying that elements of evidence were new or by ignoring challenges to them, sometimes from internationally respected authorities.  That does not mean Saddam should be let off the hook. His disregard of UN conditions would test a saint's patience. Without satisfactory containment and internationally guaranteed assurances, the world should worry about his military capacity to wreak havoc outside Iraq as well as within.  But it does raise issues of whether Iraq poses "imminent danger" and whether Iraq's capacity for evil, particularly in sponsoring international terrorism, is matched by actions....  The Bush speech ratcheted up the prospects of imminent invasion."

 

"Showdown: Bush Builds Case For War "

 

The tabloid Adelaide Advertiser reported (1/29):  "The U.S. had fresh evidence that Saddam Hussein consorted with terrorists and sought to 'dominate, intimidate or attack' with WMD, President Bush has said.  In his second State of the Union address, Bush said the U.S. would present classified intelligence to the UNSC next week in an attempt to convince the world of the need to disarm Iraq by force....  Speaking to Congress and a global television audience, Bush presented a laundry list of Saddam's alleged offences, some of them newly revealed to the public.  He said intelligence sources had reported that thousands of Iraqi personnel were at work hiding documents and materials from the UN weapons inspectors....  For the first time since the September 11 attacks transformed him into a wartime president, Bush faces serious questions about his leadership.  Most Americans do not approve of his handling of the economy, polls show, and only a bare majority support his policies on Iraq--an area where the president enjoyed support of more than 80 per cent a year ago....  Citing intelligence sources, Bush renewed his assertion that Saddam aided and protected terrorists, including members of al-Qaida."

 

CHINA:  “Viewing Challenges To U.S. Government From The State Of The Union Speech”

 

Wang Jufang reported in the official popular Beijing Youth Daily (Beijing Qingnianbao 1/30):  “Analysts think that, at present, President Bush who assumed office two years ago is in a period when his domestic and foreign policies are questioned and challenged.  Whether or not President Bush, having given the State of the Union speech, will adopt effective measures to promote the U.S. economic growth and improve the U.S. diplomatic environment will determine if he will succeed in the presidential election in 2004.”

 

“Bush Has Brought The U.S. To The Edge Of War”

 

Zhang Xinghui commented in the official Communist Youth League China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao) (1/30):  “Bush’s State of the Union speech was given with the background that he is losing popularity in the U.S. and the policy towards Iraq is broadly opposed by Americans and people from other countries.”

 

“No Beating About The Bush”

 

Yan Qin noted in the official English-language China Daily (1/30):  “U.S. President George W. Bush would not find the world any closer to his war chariot after his well-crafted and rehearsed State of the Union address.  The case he made against Saddam Hussein remains shaky.  Mr. Bush even resorted to his imagination to create a sense of urgency, taking advantage of the September 11 havoc. ‘Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein,’ he told his enraptured audience.  Such imagination only serves to rouse fear and hatred. But it is just imagination. No rational decision should be based on mere imagination.  Make no mistake, borrowing one of his pet phrases, he is the one forcing a war on the Iraqi and U.S. peoples.  A war against Iraq at this point cannot be just. And the foremost victims cannot but be the innocent, both Iraqi and American.”

 

HONG KONG SAR:  "Bracing For War"

 

The independent South China Morning Post commented (1/29):  "President Bush braced wary Americans for a possible war with Iraq by saying in his State of the Union speech that Baghdad has shown contempt for UN disarmament demands....  The speech was seen as critical to Mr Bush's attempt to marshal backing for possible war and reassure Americans jittery about a weak U.S. economy.  There is a growing anxiety among Americans about going to war and UNSC members have urged the U.S. to use caution and give UN weapons inspections more time....  Bush made clear America was prepared to act to disarm Iraq with or without UN backing....  The lack of a clear link between Saddam and the September 11, 2001, attacks has hampered the U.S. case that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.  But Mr. Bush offered no new evidence of such a clear link in his speech."

 

"Words Of War That Lack Global Backing"

 

The independent English-language South China Morning Post said in an editorial (1/30):  "The security council, not the U.S., will decide the matter of compliance.  Its weapons inspectors, not America's, are in Iraq to search for evidence of illegal biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  Given Mr. Bush's strident tones and rhetoric yesterday, it would have been easy to think otherwise.  The American leader spoke as if he, not the UN, dictated global policy....  More alarming is that if Mr. Bush succeeds, there is no indication where the aggression will end....  The speech, although for an American audience, contained little of substance to stimulate the stalled U.S. economy. The president failed to address adequately the question of American health care, the most expensive in the world and unaffordable to a growing number of jobless and disadvantaged people.  Instead, he spoke incessantly of removing a foreign dictator--one of dozens around the world--and how Iraqis would become free and able to rule their own lives afterwards....  The UN must make a stand. Its arms inspectors have to be given time, and only if Iraq is found to be obstructive can other options be considered.  War cannot become a tool for individual nations to get their way."

 

"Reasons For War"

 

The independent English-language Standard editorialized (1/30):  "President George W Bush's state of the union message has further underlined his determination to deal with Saddam Hussein.  There was no suggestion in his speech of giving UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their job, but there was more aggressive talk of the need to disarm the Iraqi dictator.  Bush clearly expects the 'evidence' that Colin Powell will present to the United Nations on Wednesday to be conclusive in providing the so-far elusive proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and, more importantly, to demonstrate the link between the Iraqi regime and the terrorist al-Qaeda organization....  The U.S. believes these reserves give Iraq the ability to finance terror for years to come.  In addition, the U.S. aims to establish a democratic pro-Western government in Iraq that it hopes will instigate the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East and provide a bulwark against the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.  This is what the war is all about, not just about whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

 

"Powell's Itinerary Is For War, Not Peace"

 

The independent Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Journal remarked (1/30):  "A careful reading of President Bush's State of Union address, delivered on Tuesday, shows a war on Iraq is almost certainly inevitable.  In the roughly 60-minute speech, President Bush did not 'declare war' openly, but his determination to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and drive him out of office were obvious....  Powell's itinerary on February 5 will be to submit evidence to the Security Council, urging member states to support military action.... If the U.S. determines it will wage war, it will not need to wait for the Security Council's February 14 meeting.  In contrast, if it launches strikes after the meeting, the hegemonic image of the U.S. ignoring the UN resolution will be exposed.  The political shock will be huge, because it would mean that the U.S. is setting itself against the Security Council."

 

"Message Of Bush's State Of The Union Address"

 

The pro-PRC Chinese-language Ta Kung Pao said (1/30):  "Regarding the domestic economy, Bush put emphasis on promoting the US$670 billion tax-cut plan to stimulate the economy, so as to win support from the public and the Democrats, making it easier for his plan to be passed by Congress.  Bush attempted to push forward a massive economic plan to stimulate the economy to counter Democrats and many people who query his ability to tackle the economic issue....  Regarding Iraq, we have all along believed that the issue of weapons of mass destruction is entirely different from the issue of counter-terrorism.  The Iraq issue should be resolved peacefully under the framework of the UN....  If the U.S. pays no heed to objections domestically and externally and decides to wage war, the international counter-terrorist alliance formed after September 11 will split up.  In addition, launching 'pre-emptive' attacks against Iraq will set a bad example in the international community.  The principle of the UN Charter and the basic principles of the international law will be rudely trampled on.  In the meantime, a war on Iraq will trigger a new round of terrorist revenge.  Having blind faith in force will only get more force in return.  The U.S. and the world will become more unsettled."

 

JAPAN:  "Is U.S. War With Iraq Imminent? Why?"

 

Liberal Asahi editorialized (1/30):  "President Bush's State of the Union Address was far from easing world concerns and questions about a possible and imminent U.S. war with Iraq. At a time when U.S. military forces are building up in the Persian Gulf, the world listened attentively to the President's address so as not to miss a single word....  To attain its goal (of dealing militarily with Baghdad), the U.S. needs to contain a backlash from the Arab/Islamic world.  But it is certain that the Likud party's victory in Israel's election will dim the prospect of Palestinian peace. Undoubtedly, European nations were disappointed by Mr. Bush's curt remark concerning Middle East peace. The other day, veteran Democratic Senator Kennedy, citing the Declaration of Independence, said the U.S. should listen more humbly to the voices of other nations. The world has become increasingly concerned about whether the U.S. will rush into war with Iraq."         

 

"If You Are Compassionate, Mr. President"

 

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun maintained (1/30):  "In his State of the Union Address, President Bush stressed the need to prevent the recurrence of a terrorist attack similar to 9/11. But isn't it rather self-righteous for the U.S. to impose the fear of a second Gulf War on the Iraqi people in order to defend itself from terrorism. Bush was elected president in 2000 under the 'compassionate conservatism' slogan. If the President is as compassionate as he claims, he should better understand rising concerns among the Iraqis and exercise caution about the use of force."  

 

"President Bush Intensifies Warning Against Iraq"

 

The business-oriented Nihon Keizai editorialized (1/30):  "President Bush's State of the Union Address was intended for the American people and--this time-- for two foreign leaders:  Iraq's Saddam Hussein and DPRK leader Kim Jong-Il.  The President said if Iraq does not disarm, the U.S. would lead a coalition of nations to disarm Baghdad, while declaring the U.S. and the world would not yield to the North's nuclear brinkmanship. If these two leaders accept Mr. Bush's strongly-worded message in a serious manner, two crises will probably be resolved. The address reflected Washington's firm stance on the eve of a war with Iraq."  

 

"Bush Shows Firm Stance Toward Iraq"

 

An editorial in the top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri observed (1/30):  "President Bush's State of the Union Address clearly showed the U.S. would no longer allow Iraq's unlawful acts of defiance and deception to the world community. In the speech, the President gave a clear signal that the U.S. would lead a coalition of allies and friends to disarm Iraq, if Hussein does not disarm thoroughly. He made the speech at a time when the U.S. military is building up a 150,000-member force in the Gulf region.  It appears that the President has already been firmly determined to start action against Baghdad. The President's speech was not just Washington's ultimatum to Iraq but a declaration of its intention (to go to war) to those at home and abroad who are still skeptical about the righteousness of using force against Iraq."     

 

"President Emphasizes Employment Measures"

 

Liberal Mainichi stated (1/29):  "Although President Bush stressed...that his administration would boost the economy and create more jobs through tax cuts, it is not clear whether his message encouraged taxpayers and corporate managers because it lacked innovative ideas.  Although the President showed an 'aggressive' stance on foreign policy issues, his economic plan sounded 'passive.'"

 

INDONESIA:  “The Final Phase On Iraq Issue After Bush State Of The Union Address”

 

Leading independent Kompas commented (1/30):  “In fact, there was no real surprise form the speech because on one hand, Bush did not retreat from his enthusiasm to threaten Saddam Hussein, but on the other hand, he did not set a deadline either....  In the context of the latest development, people increasingly believe that the main reason for Bush’s plan to attack Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, more than a mere matter of weapons of mass destruction.”

 

”Bush, Candy and War”

 

Independent Koran Tempo declared (1/30):  “Unfortunately, Bush’s speech did not indicate any possible retreat form his war plans.  In addition to saying he would use full military power, he also distributed ‘candies’ to mobilize support from his own fellow citizens.  He strewed promises of economic improvement and medical care, a step to improve his popularity, which is already decreasing, in anticipation of next year’s elections.”  “The Final Phase on Iraq Issue After Bush State of the Union Address”

 

"Speech Could Trigger 'Radicalism And Extremism'"

 

State Islamic Institute academic Komaruddin Hidayat told government-owned Antara News Agency (1/29):  "President Bush's speech, which contains various remarks on Iraq and encourages war against the ruling regime there, could trigger radicalism....  Indeed, it is the right of every country to do everything to serve its interest, but that must be minimized....  It is feared that the U.S. Government's policy toward Iraq outlined in President Bush's speech could trigger radicalism and extremism in other parts of the world.  If the U.S. does not cautiously campaign for democracy, freedom, and human rights by waging war against a regime which the U.S. considers to be undemocratic, there could be opposite results in Indonesia....  The emergence of radical and extremist forces undermining democracy being practiced by the Indonesian people would eventually motivate the settlement of issues through a security approach....  With the security approach, the situation would again return to an authoritarian era and the main agenda of reform would instead suffer a 'setback.'...  That will happen if the U.S. mismanages democracy, freedom, and human rights which have become its jargon." 

 

PHILIPPINES:  "Bush's Ultimatum"

 

The editorial of the independent Philippine Daily Inquirer observed (1/30):  "Bush did not offer a surprise by easing pressure on Iraq to disarm....  He was even more hawkish.  He called on 'all free nations'...to join the United States in preventing 'sudden and catastrophic attacks' from terrorists....  Bush repeated...his unilateralist policy even more emphatically....  Bush was silent on the recommendation of the inspection team...that inspectors be given a few more months to continue their job....  Instead, Bush took off from the report of Hans Blix...which sharply criticized Iraq for failing to give pro-active' cooperation with the inspectors....  Bush drew a menacing picture of Saddam Hussein's arsenal...based on U.S. intelligence reports rather than on the U.N. inspectors' report.....  The speech was clearly aimed at winning wide international support for an early war and to overcome resistance by U.S. allies demanding more time for inspection.  The speech delivered a clear ultimatum: 'If Saddam...does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.' But how does he expect to cobble together such a coalition?"

 

"Quickly, Inexorably"

 

The independent Today remarked (1/30):  "These are times that call for the highest level of alertness.  Developments that could lead to a most horrible of wars are moving quickly, inexorably.  All over the world, voices of reason...are urging the United States not to act unilaterally....  Yet it is clear, from President Bush's State of the Union speech yesterday, that Washington has made up its mind about invading Iraq. The only question is when....  In the meantime, no message can be more compelling than that of the Pope, made two weeks ago, about war always having consequences, and about the myth of its inevitability....  There is yet a window to peace in all this rush....  Iraq can show its clear intent to comply with the UN resolution before February 5, when the U.S. says it will present before the Security Council 'what they (Americans) believe to be compelling proof of their case against Iraq.  Six days isn't a very comfortable window.  But who knows?  Stranger things have happened before."

 

"Crush Saddam"

 

University of the Philippines political science professor Alex MagnoIn opined in the independent Manila Standard (1/30):  "President Bush gave an elegant and compelling State of the Union Address yesterday....  The speech delivered a coherent framework for the Bush presidency: pushing its legislative agenda with an intellectual force rarely seen in years.  The attention of the world, however, was focused...on an indication of American resolve in dealing with...Saddam Hussein.  Bush did not disappoint his allies and please his critics.  In that...speech, it was clear that the Bush administration was determined to lead a coalition offensive...to force 'regime change' in Iraq -- with or without U.N. Security Council mandate....  Reluctant as we all may be to accept the costs of war, it is clear that war against Saddam is both just and necessary.  The rest of the world, anxious about the economic fallout...will probably remain unequivocal.  But the only hard resistance to U.S. action in Iraq will probably be limited to incurable anti-U.S. movements and utopian pacifist groups.  They are negligible."

 

"Imminent War"

 

Carmen Pedrosa judged in the independent Philippine Star (1/30):  "It is impossible not be aware of the palpable anxiety over the American president's State of the Union message Wednesday....  It was a forceful speech and left no doubt about America's intentions on Iraq....  There is almost no one who moves around in the knowledgeable news circle who would put his or her bet that there would be no war.  The only question is whether this could be after a second U.N. resolution that would allow the U.S. to strike in concert with others or on its own.  President Bush made it also clear that the decision to strike will not depend on other's approval. But some sources are predicting that the U.S. would get its wish for a second U.N. resolution."

 

SINGAPORE:  Can U.S. Win Peace Alone?"

 

Pro-government Straits Times editorialized (1/30):  "Even if United States President George W. Bush had personally planned it, he could not have done better. On Monday...Hans Blix told the Security Council that Iraq was not disarming. That provided the perfect setting for Mr. Bush to lay out his own case against Mr. Saddam Hussein's regime in his annual State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday. Unless Mr. Saddam has a sudden change of heart in the next few weeks, war is all but a certainty, as Mr. Bush is determined to overthrow him--with or without UN approval....  The U.S. can indeed invade Iraq without the help of allies, other than incidental help by way of bases or air space rights. The question is: Is it wise to act alone, without UN authorization? The U.S. can undoubtedly win the war alone, but can it win the peace alone? The occupation of Iraq will probably be prolonged, messy and costly....  This is a war that cannot be won in a few years, or without the cooperation of a number of countries, including Muslim nations in the Middle East, South Asia and South-east Asia.  Each of them would be hard-pressed to cooperate in the war on terrorism if the U.S. acted unilaterally on Iraq.  Mr. Blix's report should make it easier for the United States to make its case to the Security Council.... Washington must provide more evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, including hitherto classified intelligence information. There is too much at stake for the US to simply throw up its hands over its European allies and the UN, and march into Baghdad unilaterally."

 

SOUTH KOREA:  “Bush’s Dangerous Dichotomy”

 

Pro-government Hankyoreh Shinmun observed (1/30):  “President Bush’s January 29 State of the Union address demonstrated that there is no change at all in Mr. Bush’s negative view of North Korea....  In particular, his labeling of Iraq, Iran, and the North as ‘outlaw regimes’ posing the gravest danger to the U.S. and the world vividly illustrates his simple, dangerous, dichotomous worldview which can be summarized in the phrase, ‘I am good and you are evil'....  Although North Korea has violated the Geneva Accord and threatens world peace with its nuclear programs, the U.S. is partly responsible for the situation....  In addition, Mr. Bush’s sole emphasis on applying pressure on the North--not on holding dialogue-without mention of a security assurance or economic aid, clearly runs counter to opinion favoring dialogue, not only of the Korean people, but of the world.” 

 

THAILAND:  “Give UN Inspectors Time For Their Work”

 

The lead editorial in the independent, English-language Nation read (1/30):  “U.S. President George W. Bush stopped short of declaring war on Iraq in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday.  But he left little doubt that America is only days or week away from launching a ‘pre-emptive attack'....  Bush made his case for the removal of Saddam Hussein with little new evidence that the Iraqi dictator posed an imminent threat to the U.S. or the world, sticking instead to a broad reiteration of previous charges....  What the world wanted to hear was an answer to the question of why now?  Why diplomacy to curtail North Korea’s nuclear ambitions but an expensive, disruptive, bloody war to remove Saddam?  Nothing has emerged so far to justify an immediate attack on Iraq.  If Baghdad is not disarmed, Bush warned, it could start exporting weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.  But if that were the case then why didn’t Saddam sell the weapons before?  He’s allegedly had them since the mid-’70s, back when he was a U.S. ally.  Washington has still to explain clearly what the goal of the war would be.  Is it simple disarmament or regime change?  Or is it intended to be a catalyst for regime change in neighboring countries as well?…To his credit, Bush did in theory give Iraq one last chance.  He said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was preparing to present long-awaited evidence to the UN Security Council next week of Saddam’s weapons program.”

 

"Is War Approaching?"

 

Makowsky S. Cras (pseudonym) commented in sensationalist, business-oriented Thai-language Phujatkarn (1/30):  “In the State of the Union Address, President Bush said Iraq is a threat to America and a direct danger to the world community and that Iraq has an outlaw regime that seeks to possess nuclear and biological weapons....  Such words clearly uttered by President Bush indicate that Iraq is a clear and present danger and America is ready to confront it....  War is unlikely to be avoided now.  Such harsh words are tantamount to a signal for war.”

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Pre-Judged Guilt" 

 

The centrist Times Of India said (1/30):  "President George Bush's State of the Union address snuffed out the last lingering hope that Washington might yet reconsider, if not soften, its position on the threat of war against Iraq. With characteristic bluntness, the president announced that there was no alternative to war and the world was heading inexorably, sooner rather than later, towards a bloody denouement in the region.  On the face of it, the American gesture is nothing more than a belated acknowledgement that things have not gone as well on the PR front as Bush and his team might have liked. Notwithstanding doubts expressed by UN inspectors about Saddam Hussein's sincerity, the truth is that they have failed to unearth even a smoking gun that suggests that Iraq continues to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that the new American evidence will convince the sceptics.  For a country that prides itself on rule of law, the US has shown an unreasonable hurry to hang Hussein without a fair trial. In a week from now, the world will, hopefully, get to see the kind of evidence the prosecution has marshaled against the accused."

 

"Only War On His Menu" 

 

An editorial in the nationalist Hindustan Times read (1/30):  "President George W. Bush was not expected to set a timetable for the invasion of Iraq. But the tenor and content of the State of the Union address is entirely consistent with the idea of dislodging Saddam Hussein and 'disarming' Iraq that the Bush administration has been pushing ceaselessly for six months in the face of stiff international and domestic opposition. Without providing any details, the president spoke of evidence 'from intelligence sources, secret communication and statements from people now in custody' to suggest that Mr. Hussein is linked to Al-Qaeda. No smoking gun has yet emerged although UN inspectors have been searching high and low. But ranking administration officials have made it clear that they won't wait to find one. The absurdity of the proposition eludes Washington. It would appear that the Bush regime is keen to get at the Iraqi leader one way or the other. The US does not seem too keen on waiting for a UN consensus on Iraq."

 

"Preparing For Regime Change In Iraq"

 

C. Raja Mohan opined in the centrist Hindu (1/30):  "In declaring that Baghdad had "missed" the last chance to avert war by coming clean on its programs for weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, has signaled that war against Iraq is now inevitable. Acts of war are never easy for any leader. It involves careful weighing of all risks and benefits. In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Mr. Bush has made it clear that America has done its sums and is ready for a war to oust Saddam Hussein as Iraq's President. Mr. Bush has gone too far down the road into the military confrontation with Iraq to now walk back, by clinging on to a compromise on inspections. Countries like North Korea have already begun to take full advantage of the crisis in the Gulf.  Stepping back from the brink now would further weaken the international coalition that Mr. Bush has struggled to hold together.  There is profound scepticism across the world about the American ability to nudge the Middle East towards economic modernization, political moderation, and representative governments.  Yet, those who dismiss the motivations of the Bush Administration might be underestimating the sheer audacity that underlies Washington's project to remake the Middle East."

 

"Predictable Rhetoric" 

 

The centrist Asian Age said (1/30): "President George W. Bush has virtually declared war on Iraq....  He discarded his rather dispassionate exterior for a chilling reminder that the U.S. had decided to wage war on Iraq regardless of world opinion. Casting himself in the cloak of the messiah, as he has often done since 9/11, he spoke of good and evil and made it apparent that his dispensation had assumed the onerous responsibility of deciding this moral question for the international community. He spoke of dialogue for peace with North Korea, and of war with Iraq, but failed to explain the distinction that obviously inspired different reactions from Washington....  War will be disastrous, not just for Iraq and the world but for the US as well.  The war on Iraq will deepen the division leading to more terrorism and violence from which the US will not be able to keep itself free. As it is, the Bush administration has converted the US into a tyrannical democracy where oppressive laws and measures are being enacted in the name of security....  The war, without UN sanctions, will create a precedent that can be misused over and over again. It is clear to all that the next targets will be Iran, Saudi Arabia and even Syria."

 

"Inconclusive Report" 

 

The centrist Statesman opined (1/30):  "Neither did President Bush's annual state of the union address offer much in the way of evidence, although he tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda and listed significant amounts of anthrax, botulinum, sarin, mustard gas and other biochem agents that are supposed to have been part of President Hussein's inventory and remain unaccounted for.  Washington appears to have made up its mind, the worst case in recent times of pre-judgment, and is not seriously interested in the UN process.  Neither is Baghdad doing a good job of persuading the world that it is cooperating actively with the UN.  War looks increasingly likely, although Washington might give the inspections a little more time in an attempt to bring the UN on board for an invasion of Iraq.  It may not require the help of the international community in a military sense but the case is unanswerable that if a charge of international brigandry is to be avoided, it needs it politically and economically."

 

"The War Monger"

 

The pro-Congress Party Urdu-language Qaumi Awaz editorialized (1/30):  "There was absolutely nothing new in President Bush's address to the American people except the reinforcement of his war-mongering, expansionist and dictatorial mentality.  While reiterating his plan of aggression against Iraq on the basis of the ridiculous theory of 'threat to the U.S.,' President Bush made it clear that he wanted war for the sake of war, justified or unjustified."

 

 

PAKISTAN:  "Edging Towards War"

 

The Lahore-based leftist Daily Times (1/30):  "President George Bush's State of the Union address has taken the United States, and the world, to the edge of war....  He kept referring to the opinion of the world, knowing full well that the world disagreed with his plan to attack Iraq without a formal endorsement from the UN Security Council....  Meanwhile, an angry world is trying to adjust to what America might do possibly in a month....  There is a subliminal message in the popular belief "Pakistan will be next."  It is that if Iraq can and will be invaded even when the world admits that there is no solid evidence of bio-terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against it, why should Pakistan be spared when there is mounting evidence of its "unofficial" complicity with the Taliban and Usama bin Laden? In the event, it is possible that Pakistan could be the only country in the region that might be adversely affected by a backlash against the American invasion of Iraq. The tragedy is that no leader in government is seized of this problem and nothing is being done to stave off the possibility."

 

"President Bush's State Of The Union Address And International Situation"

 

Ataur Rehman commented in center-right Urdu-language Pakistan (1/30):  "In his hour-long address, President Bush could not say that Iraq has violated or committed material breach of the Security Council Resolution 1441.  Although he said that Saddam Hussein is being deceptive and we would not tolerate him any more, he desisted from saying in categorical terms that Iraq has violated the Security Council Resolution....  Iraq denies being in possession of any kind of WMD, while North Korea openly says that it will continue its nuclear program, despite the U.S. opposition.  However, Mr. Bush only gave a proposal to North Korea that if it wants to end international isolation and improve its deteriorated economy, it should shun nuclear ambitions.  One reason is that contrary to the Iraq situation, North Korea does not have a drop of oil; another is that it is not a Muslim country....  President Bush also commented on Afghanistan and proudly spoke of having rid the Afghans of suppression and won the war against "terrorism...." The President's address might have been prepared before the fresh fighting in Afghanistan, else had he referred to the fresh clashes, he could not have claimed a complete victory....  He found it fit to say only a small sentence about Israel and Palestine, meaning thereby that the Zionist state has been given a free hand to continue breaking previous records of barbarism and atrocities against Palestinians....  Not a word about Kashmir or the ever-increasing tension between Pakistan and India."

 

NEPAL:  "War Over Iraq: When Not If"

 

Senior journalist M. R. Josse wrote in the centrist Kathmandu Post (1/29):  "America's preparation for war against Iraq is manifest...from its open support for Iraqi dissidents, as underscored by its backing for a conference on that theme in London last December....  Another indicator is that a Pentagon-based office has been created to help rebuild Iraq's schools, roads, hospitals and other critical building blocks of a civil society, in a post-Saddam Iraq....  If Saddam doesn't capitulate, war will come to Iraq if not by February end, at the most, a month or so later. The U.S. and Britain may make a virtue out of necessity and advertise that, following the UN inspectors' report to the UNSC, they are prepared to give...some more time to Iraq to respond to the host of serious unanswered questions raised by Blix on Monday.  My guess is that after the inspectors' February 14 report to the UNSC, the chips will rapidly begin to fall.  After a final attempt to obtain UNSC endorsement, perhaps lasting for a few weeks, the U.S. and Britain will go ahead with or without it.  Thus war seems likely in March--if Saddam doesn't change his still defiant stance."

 

AFRICA

 

SOUTH AFRICA:  "Bush's Speech"

 

Afrikaans language, centrist Die Burger held (1/30), "The most important task Pres. George Bush had when delivering his state of the nation address to the American Congress was to strengthen the belief that Iraq poses a danger to world peace.  The question is now how successful he has been in this.  It seems that he did convince the majority of his own voters....   The address as such does not do much for the credibility   What could make matters easier for Bush is his government's promise that new facts...will be tabled at the Security Council soon.  Should these facts sound convincing, many doubters may decide to join him....  His speech stopped short of an open declaration of war on Iraq.  Bush once again made it clear that although he would prefer to work through the UN, he could also proceed without it.  This is very worrisome.  Granted, there is indeed a problem if the UN has become so weak that  it will try to stop essential action on the side of the international  community.  Iraq has however been kept in check through special sanctions since 1991.  If a war should really prove to be inevitable,  unilateral action could be more destabilizing in the long run than a UN that fails to reach agreement on Iraq."

 

"Africa Will Lose Out To War"

 

Assistant editor Mervin Gumede wrote in the pro-government, Afro-centric Sowetan (1/29):  "Poor African countries are likely to be plunged into deep economic crisis.  After...President Bush's bellicose speech...it now seems that a war is inevitable....  The Bush administration is clearly banking on a swift war.  It has made its intentions clear that any war it wages against Iraq would be designed not only to destroy weapons of mass destruction, but also to bring about 'regime change'.  The question facing Iraqis now is whether this will come about without the total dismemberment of the political infrastructure in that country....  There is concern that any post-war transition will take at least two years.  Opposition movements in Iraq are rightly concerned about any military occupation involving foreign forces.  Question is:  Can the country be stabilized without such a continued presence after Hussein has been unseated....  Concern is valid that the country may well be carved up by various factions and interests groups, if the United States pulls out before democracy is entrenched....  Unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq is also likely to bolster the al-Qaida movement....  The war is also likely irreparably to damage relations between the West and Arab nations.  The war is likely to postpone a peaceful settlement of the Palestine question even further....  A  unilateral U.S. war, would have long-term consequences for international  relations, especially if the United States goes to war, without widespread international approval.  The United States might win the war, but it will lose the moral high ground."

 

"Why War?"

 

The liberal Cape Times told readers (1/30), "It is now plain to see that the United States has moved to the edge of war with Iraq....  An increasingly wary world will want to know from Powell exactly what evidence the United States has that Iraq is indeed defying UN resolutions.  And, perhaps more significantly, it would want to know just how imminent a threat Iraq holds to the United States or other nations....  Bush's handling of this issue has sometimes left more questions than answers.  It has given rise to widespread speculation on the 'real' motive for going to war with Iraq, has damaged Bush's standing both internationally and at home, and probably added to the unfortunate anti-American sentiment in many countries.  Millions, the world over, remain unconvinced that the world will be a safer place after another Gulf War, and would like to know that he has good reason for plunging it into conflict."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

CANADA:  "Bush's Weak Case For War On Iraq"

 

The liberal Toronto Star editorialized (1/29):  "President Bush struggled mightily last night to rally skeptical Americans to an unpopular war in Iraq.  The State of the Union bully pulpit is a powerful one and he used it for all its worth.  But the relentless, sweeping ferocity of Bush's vow to fight Saddam Hussein's 'evil' and 'terrible threats'--plus earlier hints that Washington is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iraq and a firestorm of cruise missiles--suggest that the president is fighting his way out of a corner as he tries to persuade his country, and the world, that war is wise and necessary.  While Bush delivered a dire warning last night to Saddam to disarm, this was not the 'war speech' itself.  Bush will have to reappear before the American public before pulling the trigger....  Yet for all his determination Bush has reason to tread cautiously and to build his coalition with care.  Most Americans...put more trust in the UN to decide this issue, than they do in their own government.  The international community, if anything, is even more skeptical.  And the UN wants more time for its weapons inspectors to probe Saddam's potential nuclear, chemical and biological materials....  The inspectors should get that chance....  For despite his denunciation of Saddam....and the small mountain of 'evidence' he alluded to last night, Bush has made but an infirm case for rushing into a war that could isolate America, distract from the war on terror, inflame the Middle East, bring more suffering on the Iraqi people and encourage anti-American extremists."

 

"How Bush's Situation Echoes Bill Clinton's"

 

Toronto's leading Globe and Mail took this view (1/29):  "Like President Bush's speech, Bill Clinton's 1998 address to Congress focused on domestic issues.  More important, it also was made at a time when the United States was on the verge of attacking Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm.  Just as Mr. Bush did last night, Mr. Clinton vowed that Mr. Hussein 'cannot defy the will of the world.'...  In 1998, just as now, the United States had thousands of military personnel near Iraq...Britain sided with the United States, while France, Russia and China warned against attack.  Then as now, the White House said it would act unilaterally if it felt it must.... In 1998...Mr. Clinton contemplated using only air attacks to force Mr. Hussein to live up to his UN obligations....   This time, Mr. Bush is considering a full-scale invasion....  In other words, the stakes have grown massively....  But because Mr. Bush contemplates something as audacious as the conquest of Baghdad, the world demands assurance that American military actions won't end up being worse than the problem itself.  Americans seek further explanation of the White House's rationale no less than foreigners....  Yes, but there remains reason to be wary.  A war of the magnitude that the President now contemplates has to be approached with great care.  And he should bring international opinion along with him."

 

ARGENTINA:   "Latin America, The Big Absent (In The State of the Union Address)"

 

Ana Baron, Washington-based correspondent for leading Clarin observed (1/30): "Latin America was completely absent in President Bush's State of the Union Address... This is a proof, among many others, that Bush's only concern at this moment is putting an end to the Hussein regime. Bush seems to thing he has been 'chosen' to lead a new crusade against the empire of evil. And he is determined to fulfill his mission in a messianic way, even if he does not have the support of domestic and international public opinion or the Vatican's blessing.... Many analysts think one of the reasons why Bush wants to remove the Saddam regime is for the US to gain control of the Middle East oil.... Nevertheless, beyond the economic and geopolitical interests at stake there is something religious in George Bush's determined crusade against Iraq that blinds him.... However, his advisors are working in something more earthly. And they even expect to obtain the support from other countries in Bush's crusade against Saddam. This will be when Bush will seek Latin America's support, in spite of the fact he has totally ignored it since the September 11 attacks."

 

"Too Simple Words For A Complex Reality"

 

Oscar Raul Cardoso, international analyst of leading Clarin write (1/30): "Obviously, Bush wanted to find in his speech the statesmen's tone. But statesmen speak about justice and balance and, above all, about peace. And Bush...could only speak about a black or white world in which war is unavoidable and in which the domestic audience must accept a future society based on economic imbalance that will only favor the wealthy. Also, Bush is asking everyone to believe this only because he says so. Some of his words were incredibly simple. He said to Iraqis that their real enemies 'are not surrounding Iraq, but they are governing Iraq.' In this context, even the soundest allegations against the Hussein regime become inconsistent. Why would regular Iraqis believe that the over 100,000 armed men the US has in the region are better than Saddam's?... Yesterday's address only made more room to redouble a bet on suspicion: according to Bush, Iraq has ties with Al Qaeda."

 

"God's Commander-In-Chief Speaking"

 

Claudio Uriarte, left-of-center Pagina 12's international analyst, opined (1/29) "He went the closest he could to a war declaration without using the words 'declaration of war.'  Or, better said, it was a war declaration in anything except the name.  Because, after the fiery allegations launched yesterday by George W. Bush against Saddam Hussein and the solemn commitments assumed with Iraqis, Americans and even with the world in the dramatic climax of last night's State of the Union address, no return is possible for the U.S. president and his armies:  It has become politically impossible....  Bush emphasized he sought the support of the UN Security Council and the alliances he was willing to form to put an end to the danger.  But he stressed that, if necessary, the United States will go to war alone....  Did Bush meet his goals of adding consensus for war... amid an overall although not catastrophic but concerning decline in popularity? He probably did... Last night's address has probably been the most important address in his entire political career. Because after words like the words he used last night, only weapons can talk."

 

BRAZIL:  "Almost A War Declaration"

 

The lead editorial in center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo stressed (1/30), "If there were still any doubt about his project to attack Iraq, President Bush took care to dissipate it Tuesday night.  His reasoning for military action had almost no difference from a true, although informal, war declaration.  The stage of rhetoric threats is clearly over....  For the first time performing the role of the Armed Forces' Commander in Chief, he addressed the troops being sent to the Persian Gulf area in a classic exhortation on the eve of conflicts....  Bush could not have been more explicit on the political autonomy the U.S. attributes to itself.... The possibility that Washington might remove Saddam only by intimidation has become extremely remote."

"Rerun"

 

Political columnist Janio de Freitas commented in liberal Folha de Sao Paulo (1/30): "It is clear that to wage war or not will be an exclusive USG decision, without any consideration of the position the UNSC may have in this regard....  The most disturbing question is now this:  If the United States starts the war without UNSC endorsement, what will the other UN members do?....  Bush no longer speaks about a solitary action, but has proclaimed the U.S. power of deciding everything by itself....  Bush has said that the United States is free to attack wherever and whenever his administration wants.... The collective statement by 40 U.S. Nobel Prize winners against a U.S. attack in Iraq is a historical document.  It seems to indicate that anti-war reactions are going beyond anonymous street demonstrations and have begun to include influential voices."

 

"Bush Convinces In War, But Not In The Economy"

 

Liberal Folha de Sao Paulo international writer Marcio Senne de Moraes observed (1/30): "George W. Bush's address allows a double interpretation: by setting the date when the U.S. will reveal its alleged evidences that Saddam possesses arms of mass destruction, he has played the trump card of multilateralism; and by saying that the U.S. course cannot depend on other nations, he showed that his intention of overthrowing the Iraqi dictator will prevail with or without the UN's support.  However, Bush's targeted public was more the U.S. voters than the international community. Therefore he divided the speech almost equally between the U.S. current economic situation and his foreign policy, especially in an attempt to convince the audience on the need to disarm Iraq. He was successful in regards to the second part, but his economic proposals were not as much convincing."

 

"Vote Of Confidence"

 

Center-right O Globo held (1/29): "If President George Bush is sure that Saddam Hussein is hiding prohibited weapons, the best thing he could do is give more time to the UN inspectors....  The international community can't accept a new war in the Persian Gulf based only on suspicion and supposition. Bush argues that an attack to remove Saddam would be a legitimate defense against a country harboring terrorists.  Even if the diagnosis is true, the cure...is certainly worse than the illness.  It would be a catastrophe for the world...if war is transformed into an automatic prevention mechanism against dangerous regimes.... The world will be awaiting with even more attention to the work of the inspectors in search of a peaceful solution.  Bush should do the same--and wait."

 

MEXICO:  "War:  To Settle Scores"

 

Business-oriented Financiero told readers (1/29): "With his State of the Union address, President Bush confirmed to his nation and the world that he would launch a war against Iraq.  The only news is that Secretary of State Colin Powell will present alleged evidence to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, regarding the ways in which Baghdad has hidden its arsenal of weapons and its association with the terrorist network al-Qaida, as well as the phantom Osama bin Laden.  Let’s remember that at the end of last year Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly admitted that the USG lacked proof documenting links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida.  At the heart of this conflict, although the White House insists on denying it, is control over oil resources and a personal settling of scores that dates to 1991."

 

CHILE: "Bush's Address"

 

Leading-circulation, popular independent La Tercera editorialized (1/30): "President George W. Bush did not leave room for surprises.  The President seized the occasion to try to convince his allies and Americans about the convenience of disarming Iraq, while injecting optimism over the country's economic future....  His words did not leave much room other than a violent solution to the conflict with Saddam Hussein, regardless of what the international community decides....  It seems that Bush is following in his father's footsteps, who, because of being too busy with preparing for war, ended up neglecting the economy, which eventually lead to his defeat."

 

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:  "The State Of The World"

 

Independent, conservative El Caribe held (1/29): it stated that although everyone was eagerly awaiting President Bush’s State of the Union Address nothing new was said.  “What would have been innovative and revolutionary would have been if, having resolved the problem of the ‘axis of evil’…  President Bush…would have outlined and defended this time an ‘international coalition for the development and progress of developing nations.’  That announcement would have immediately reactivated confidence in international activity with more probabilities for success in terms of sustainability and justice than the threat of war that today looms over a good part of humanity.”  

 

JAMAICA:  "Banging The Battle Drums"

 

Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies, Dr. John Rapley commented in the moderate, influential Daily Gleaner (1/30):  "In his State of the Union address, United States President George W. Bush dispelled any doubts that war on Iraq is not imminent....  The U.S. administration has apparently made up its mind.  The fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell--normally a restraining influence on hawks in the U.S. cabinet--has been speaking more belligerently of late suggests that the war party has everyone in the White House on board.  Now, they must sway the American people and the international community.  Neither will be easy....  Constitutionally, Mr. Bush does not need the consent of Congress to go to war; politically, Congress and the public will rally behind him if he does launch an invasion.  Nonetheless, if the war is anything other than a resounding and quick success, sentiment will turn against Mr. Bush....  If the U.S. can actually back up its claim, it may well win over the skeptics.  Russia, which has been cool on war talk and holds a veto on the Security Council, hinted as much this week....  I have my doubts that the evidence will be sufficiently compelling.  Consequently, if international backing for the war fails to materialize, the U.S. will have to go it (largely) alone.  Mr. Bush has said he is prepared for that eventuality.  But in that event, the risk to American lives will probably rise sharply."

 

"The UN Is At Risk"

 

Opposition Senator and talk show host Bruce Golding argued in his opening comments of 'Disclosure' on the centrist, news-driven  HOT 102 FM (1/29): “I thought, objectively speaking it was a very  good speech…well crafted, and strategically structured to build consensus and get the American people squarely behind him before going to war with Iraq…The fact that the United States is now the world’s sole super power brings opportunities, but also an enormous threat.  If America decides to go to war, it no longer has to concern itself with what Russia thinks…I am not sure which kind of world I would rather live in, one with the tensions of the cold war, but with the balance of power that brings my main concern is the danger of undermining, compromising, and ultimately destroying the United Nations....  If another country decides to go to war, the UN will not be seen as the credible, influential, powerful body to deal with it.”

 

##

Commentary from ...
Europe
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Western Hemisphere
January 30, 2003 STATE OF THE UNION: BUSH SHOWS 'DETERMINATION' IN MAKING CASE FOR WAR



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.

Back To Top

blue rule
IIP Home  |  Issue Focus Home

yes'>  If the U.S. can actually back up its claim, it may well win over the skeptics.  Russia, which has been cool on war talk and holds a veto on the Security Council, hinted as much this week....  I have my doubts that the evidence will be sufficiently compelling.  Consequently, if international backing for the war fails to materialize, the U.S. will have to go it (largely) alone.  Mr. Bush has said he is prepared for that eventuality.  But in that event, the risk to American lives will probably rise sharply."

 

"The UN Is At Risk"

 

Opposition Senator and talk show host Bruce Golding argued in his opening comments of 'Disclosure' on the centrist, news-driven  HOT 102 FM (1/29): “I thought, objectively speaking it was a very  good speech…well crafted, and strategically structured to build consensus and get the American people squarely behind him before going to war with Iraq…The fact that the United States is now the world’s sole super power brings opportunities, but also an enormous threat.  If America decides to go to war, it no longer has to concern itself with what Russia thinks…I am not sure which kind of world I would rather live in, one with the tensions of the cold war, but with the balance of power that brings my main concern is the danger of undermining, compromising, and ultimately destroying the United Nations....  If another country decides to go to war, the UN will not be seen as the credible, influential, powerful body to deal with it.”

 

##



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.

Back To Top

blue rule
IIP Home  |  Issue Focus Home