time to dissolve the united nations? by isi leible, page-8

Views from around the world.


London The Times (conservative), March 19: As of tomorrow, Britain will be at war with an Arab country that offers no threat to it or to anyone. British troops will be fighting an action which the United Nations would have declared unlawful if asked. Now we can only hope they win fast.
—Simon Jenkins

Lusaka The Post (independent), March 19: It is sad that the United States, a country that is prepared to punish others for not abiding by the United Nation’s decisions, is prepared to act in a lawless manner and attack Iraq….We demand that the world’s mighty superpower abandon its intention to attack Iraq. We also demand that it relinquish its attempts to turn the United Nations into a tool that only serves its interests. We make these demands because the bells tolling for Iraq today will tomorrow toll for the whole poor world and for the whole world….We are told Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and as such poses a global threat; we are told that the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime will lead to democracy and increased observance of human rights in the region; we are told that the removal of Saddam Hussein is not only a humanitarian duty but a moral one. But looking back, recalling what happened in the world in the past few decades, who fathered most of the coups d’état? Who trained the torturers in the most sophisticated techniques? Who trained the sinister culprits? Who armed them? Who supported them?



Tel Aviv Ha’aretz (liberal), March 20: The opponents of the war in Iraq are right: It is indeed a colonialist war. The Anglo-American decision to intervene in the domestic affairs of a Third World country, to disarm it and change its government, is a decision from another era. In the universal terms of equality between nations and cultures, and the supremacy of international law, it is impossible to justify such a war. It is an expression of a relationship of mastery by one part of the West toward part of the Arab world. Thus, it returns us to the conceptual world of 1956. It takes us back to the spirit of the Suez Campaign.

Madrid El Mundo (centrist) March 18: Only a miracle could prevent the war, since Bush demanded…not only that Saddam Hussein should leave the country in the coming hours but that the Baghdad regime should accept, without resistance, the entry of U.S. soldiers. These words only highlight the fact that Bush has never really been interested in the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. What he has always really wanted was Saddam Hussein’s removal and a U.S. protectorate in the region. It is a risky decision, and Bush may ruin his hopes of being reelected if the war grows complicated. Blair has already started to pay a high price.

Moscow The Moscow Times (independent, English-language), March 19: Russia had risked antagonizing the United States by vetoing the resolution or alienating France and Germany by abstaining. While [the U.S. decision to sidestep the United Nations] allows Moscow to save face in Washington’s seemingly unstoppable drive for war, it throws into question the last global checks on the might of the United States. Russia and the rest of the world now must ask themselves what was all the diplomatic wrangling for if the United States is going to be able to go ahead regardless of world opinion….Russia must keep up the pressure. Let’s hope that the United States starts listening, instead of…threatening to use its economic might against those that dare to defy its wishes.

Munich Süddeutsche Zeitung (centrist), March 19: Bush is abusing his power, as the U.S. president stands virtually alone and is now responsible for momentous decisions determining war or peace. Bush is also debasing some of the great American democratic traditions, which he should be upholding more than anyone else….Rarely in U.S. history has Washington taken upon itself to fabricate such an artificial cause as this war in Iraq….as much as the world would like to see an end to Saddam Hussein’s reign, this war really belongs to George W. Bush.
—Stefan Kornelius

Istanbul Milliyet (liberal), March 18: There is no doubt that the United States and Britain are both determined to attack Iraq without waiting for another U.N. resolution….We are currently facing a truly strange picture: Although the Turkish Parliament recently rejected a proposal authorizing U.S. troops to be stationed at Turkey’s military facilities, the Bush administration is even now stockpiling ammunition in Iskenderun and continuing to rent land in the region for logistical purposes. But if Turkey and the United States have failed to reach an agreement on such a proposal, why is the United States still continuing its military preparations within our territories?

Dubai Gulf News (independent), March 19: Bush’s actions have disregarded the powers of the United Nations, despite his protestations that he is revitalizing the institution. The worldwide power of the United Nations is dependent on the common principle of every country sharing in and accepting the results of the decision making process. The domineering disregard the U.S. has shown the Security Council will have terrible effects for many years to come.





New Delhi Outlook (independent), March 18: If Saddam Hussein refuses to quit; the triumph of the inevitable U.S. military action should not be in doubt. The question is not whether the United States will win, but how soon. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory which will not contribute to enhanced peace and security for the United States, Israel, and the rest of the international community. The world has nearly a billion Muslims. No world leader can afford to be insensitive to their feelings of hurt and anger. Ultimately, whether the world is spared the consequences of their anger is not going to depend on the autocratic rulers of the Islamic world on whose support the United States is counting for removing another autocratic ruler from power. It is going to depend on the perceptions and feelings of rage of the ordinary Muslims in the streets, mosques, and madaris.



Jidda Arab News (pro-government, English-language) March 18: The Security Council had been given two false choices: Either meekly to submit to the will of the United States or, by rejecting a U.S.-led proposal, reveal itself as powerless to stop the war. [U.S. Secretary of State Colin] Powell has gone on record as saying that the goal of this war is not only to remove Saddam, but to redraw the regional map as a whole. That he has the nerve, again and again, to talk in such language betrays an extraordinary arrogance, bolstered by a conviction that his government holds all the trump cards. This war—which is illegal according to international law and immoral by any standards—is about oil and America’s strategic dominance of the Middle East—no more, no less.

Bratislava Sme (independent), March 18: According to the U.S. president, [March 17] was supposed to be the “moment of truth” for the whole world. Instead, it was the “moment of truth” for the permanent and nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Everyone else’s turn will only come later.
—Marian Lesko

Singapore The Straits Times (pro-government), March 19: The Americans have a valid reason for being angry with President Saddam Hussein.…It is not because he had clandestinely acquired weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States and Israel—despite all the Americans’ fabricated evidence, so diplomatically and so embarrassingly exposed by the United Nations inspectors for what it was...It is not because he was hand in glove with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda—he was not… It is because he funded the acts of suicide terrorism against Israel and failed to grieve over the deaths of thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, 2001
—B. Raman

Kingston The Jamaica Gleaner (independent), March 19: After Bush’s ultimatum expires at 8 p.m. tonight…the war will begin….The war in Iraq is going to affect the Jamaican economy in many unfortunate ways, from high fuel prices to declining tourist arrivals. Even if we suspend judgment on the morality of the war, we must pray that it will be quick and decisive.

Ruwi Times of Oman (English-language) March 18: It is now fairly certain that the United States will lead a “coalition of the willing” to pulverize Iraq in a bid to overthrow Saddam Hussein….The war allies say that this is to end all wars. But the reality could be quite the opposite because following a so-called preventive war against Iraq, all warmongering countries can arrogate to themselves the power to invade weaker nations, not least their neighbors, on the principle of…preemption. The upshot will be that global arms race will intensify with the inherent danger of a profusion of wars and—with several nations in possession of nuclear weapons—the world scenario could be nothing less than nightmarish.

Damascus Syria Times (government-owned), March 19: Objective observers cannot believe the U.S. administration’s statement on the revival of the so-called road-map plan at a time when President George W. Bush himself continues to connive with the daily war crimes being perpetrated by the Sharon government….The 48-hour ultimatum given by Bush is tantamount to a declaration of war. This declaration is the worst move made by the leader of the only superpower, who is supposed to be a peacekeeper not a warmonger.
—M. Agha

Tehran Tehran Times (conservative), March 19: The dark shadows of war have fallen on the Persian Gulf, creating an abnormal situation in countries of the region. In the meantime, there is every indication that these countries are doing their best to avoid the serious repercussions that the outbreak of war could have on their countries….Undoubtedly, the outbreak of a U.S.-led war against Iraq would worsen the already critical situation in the Gulf states. This, in turn, could lead to an unpredictable development that would itself aggravate matters even further….It goes without saying that the U.S. insistence on attacking Iraq augurs an unclear future for the Persian Gulf.