an area of the map for world news.
World Press Review is a program of the Stanley Foundation.
December 2001 issue of World Press Review
(VOL. 48, No. 12)
War on Terrorism
NIN (independent political weekly), Oct. 11: America’s
war against Afghanistan is seen by our public with mixed feelings....Having
faced terrorism at home, we have naturally and sincerely joined
[the]...anti-terrorist coalition....On the other hand, as a
country that was cruelly bombed by Americans two years ago,...we
naturally cannot be part of those who would wildly applaud...the
same Americans because they bomb a poor, starving, bigoted people
under the pretext of war against world terrorism.
SANTIAGO El Mercurio
(conservative), Oct. 8: The war has begun. For the time
being, it is focused on precise objectives....The risks of escalating
the conflict are extremely high....As the president of the republic
has said, we stand against terrorism, but more specifically
we stand beside the United States,...[which] has sought to create
a broad coalition,...the start of a new climate of cooperation
and unity in a world shaken by the violence.
BEIJING China Daily (government-owned),
Oct. 9: Terrorism is the common enemy of the entire human
race. It has constituted a serious threat to world peace and
stability. The fight against international terrorism will be
a tough and long-term task that requires the coordinated efforts
of all countries. To this end, consensus should be reached that
the United Nations should play an important role in the global
efforts to fight international terrorism.
VILNIUS Respublika (independent),
Oct. 11: The war in Afghanistan is already accepted by the
Western community. But it looks as if the war could be extended—neighboring
Pakistan is boiling over. If allies of the Taliban took over
there, there could be serious difficulties for the rest of the
world, since Pakistan has the nuclear bomb.
BUENOS AIRES Página 12 (center-left),
Oct. 9: Were it not so tragic, so pitiable, a smile would
be in order upon observing images that show U.S. airplanes dropping
parachuted boxes of “humanitarian aid” to defenseless Afghans.
These images, yes, are curiously [broadcast], unlike those displaying
the damage wrought by the bombardments, which according to the
“official story” (the only one we are allowed to hear), only
strike military targets and not the civilian population.
CHRISTCHURCH The Press
(conservative), Oct. 9: The initial attacks give optimism
that the United States does have an intelligent strategy in
place. Above all, it realizes that military action must be quarantined
as an attack only on terrorists and their backers, and balanced
by humanitarian measures. To do otherwise would further foster
a culture of hatred that would breed more Bin Ladens.
SOFIA Demokratsia (Union
of Democratic Forces), Oct. 9: The insufficient and uneven
democratic development of nations seems to be the main cause
[of terrorism]....The terrorist wishes to wreak havoc in the
civilized world. This desire is accompanied by a strong wish
for self-destruction and spiritual annihilation. The very development
of civilization will transfer terrorism to space. By hitting
space telecommunication systems, extremists could disturb the
functioning of developed societies.
JAKARTA Kompas (independent),
Oct. 9: Even if Osama bin Laden were caught, this would
not necessarily put an end to terrorism. As long as its root
[is] not properly taken care of, there will always be more Osamas....The
root of the problem is injustice. Especially injustice in the
HAVANA Granma (Communist
Party weekly), Oct. 14: It’s not a war against terrorism,
which could and should be waged in a faster, more effective,
and lasting way. That opportunity was within reach. But now
it’s a war...whose military operations will make terrorism much
more complicated and difficult to eradicate. It’s a remedy worse
than the illness itself.
HARARE The Sunday Mail (government-owned
weekly), Oct. 7: The causes of this war are not difficult
to find. The Muslim hatred toward America is [a reaction to]
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East....If the Americans could
not bomb Viet Cong guerrillas in their foxhole tunnels, it is
going be tougher to bomb Bin Laden out of those bald-headed
mountains, which have no easy roads for “special forces” to
OSLO Aftenposten (conservative),
Oct. 9: If Bush wins, it is imperative that he avoids sliding
into a religious war..., a clash of civilizations, but manages
to play on the disgust of the average person over the death
of innocent fellow beings to terror. He must ally himself with
these feelings against Osama bin Laden, who wishes to draw him
into a war between Islam and Christianity. —Nils Morten Udgaard
NEW DELHI The Economic Times
(conservative), Oct. 9: That both the United States and
Bin Laden recognize there is a propaganda war to be fought is
not in doubt. What is important is for the United States to
recognize—as Bin Laden almost certainly does—that the propaganda
war is far more important than the military one. For a U.S.
military victory would be at best short-lived if Bin Laden succeeds
in convincing the average Muslim that Islam and the West cannot
ROTTERDAM NRC Handelsblad
(independent), Oct. 9: The war against terrorism is not
a new crusade. But extremist Muslims...see things differently.
They are at war against the unbelievers, the half-believers,
and those who have fallen away. The unbelievers—that is us,
the West. The half-believers are the countless Muslims whom
the fundamentalists believe they can win over. They belong,
in the majority, to the camp of peace and reason.
CAIRO Al-Ahram (semi-official),
Oct 9: Our wish is that the United States win the fight
against terrorism. However, we do not want this war to create
new generations of terrorists, who would be crueler and more
atrocious than their predecessors. The announcement by the United
States that this war could widen to include other areas is very
dangerous, since it will confuse right with wrong and lead to
more hatred and animosity.
SINGAPORE The Straits Times
(independent), Oct. 9: The broader war on terrorism has
to be fought on many fronts— financial, diplomatic, political,
and psychological....Recognizing this, governments should not
allow themselves to be distracted by the military strike, spectacular
though it may be. They must continue to eliminate networks in
their midst, cooperate on intelligence matters, and monitor
financial transactions to starve terrorists of funds.
AMMAN Al-Ra’i (pro-government),
Oct. 5: The question is what will happen if and when and
after the Taliban are destroyed? Will Afghanistan be better?
Will it have a new leadership? But more important, we should
realize that the existence of the Taliban and even worse groups
like Al Qaeda is the direct result of [U.S-supported] domestic
repression of Islamist groups in Arab countries....The solution
to all these problems is this: The new “cold war” against terrorism
cannot be one of bombs and missiles but of diplomacy, economic
support and investment, and the elimination of the sources of
terrorism (such as poverty and repression).
DAKAR Walfadjri (independent),
Oct. 9: Arab countries allied with the United States are
keeping silent since the strikes in Afghanistan, which [conveys]
the embarrassment felt by leaders caught between anti-American
public sentiment on the one hand, and a strategic and financial
dependence on Washington on the other.
JERUSALEM Hatzofeh (right-wing,
religious), Oct. 8: The Americans, the only superpower,
believe in the primitive idea that murder is revenge. They also
haven’t heard that “one makes peace with one’s enemies.”....You
don’t speak of terrorists—instead you drop explosives on them....The
Americans are responding correctly, in a fit manner, a fine
and measured reaction. Exactly as we need to behave with respect
to our “Bin Laden.” We need to applaud and learn from him. Omri
Sharon [Ariel Sharon’s son], please wake up your dad and turn
the television on for him.