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.”
##