Click
an area of the map for world news.
:
|
From the
February 2002 issue of
World Press Review
(VOL. 49, No. 2)
Iraq
Attack Anxiety
Joel
Campagna
Contributing Editor
On the eve of
a trip to Turkey in early December, U.S. Secretary of State
Colin Powell sent a message to Muslim states in the anti-terror
coalition when he stated that a military move against Iraq was
not in the cards. But the reaction among pundits and editorialists
in the Arab press was that Washington would inevitably aim its
anti-terror campaign at Saddam Hussein. “The talk now revolves
around not if a decision has been made to attack [Iraq], but
about when,” declared an editorial in Al-Quds al-Arabi
(Nov. 30). “It is an issue of timing, nothing more, nothing
less.” (See this month’s feature story, “Baghdad
in the Cross Hairs,” page 22.)
The deal struck in late November between Russia and the United
States to continue the U.N. “oil for food” program
for at least six months was viewed as a concession by the Russians,
who are opposed to sanctions against Iraq. The plan allows the
two countries to buy time in deciding how to deal with Iraq,
according to Raghida Dergham, U.N. correspondent for Al-Hayat
(Nov. 30). “This means that June 1 will be critical in
deciding the future of Iraq,” concluded Egyptian commentator
Muhammad Sid Ahmed in Al-Ahram Weekly (Dec. 6-12).
In a front-page column, Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al-Quds
al-Arabi (Nov. 28), said that, unlike during the Gulf War,
the Arab public is unified against a U.S. attack on Iraq. “Aggression
against Iraq will be a real earthquake that will shake the region,”
Atwan predicted.
Few commentators spared their criticism of the Iraqi regime.
Dergham wrote:“Baghdad would be mistaken to assume that
the near-consensus against an attack on Iraq means endorsement
of it continuing its present policy of saying ‘no’
while taking advantage of the erosion of the sanctions regime.”
Al-Sharq al-Awsat’s Dec. 2 lead editorial said:
“There is no doubt that the return of U.N. weapons inspectors
in exchange for gradual lifting of sanctions is the best guarantee
of Iraq’s well-being and its return to the community of
nations.”
Michael Young (Daily Star, Dec. 1) faulted Arab governments
for preferring a weak Iraq: “What Arab states must prove,
if only to reduce the periodic U.S. appetite for resolving issues
with a military jackhammer, is that they seek a genuinely new
policy in Iraq,” he wrote.
“Washington has behaved deplorably in Iraq, adhering to
a decade-old policy that is bankrupt. However, the Arab states
are aiding and abetting Saddam’s regime, even as they shed
crocodile tears for his broken people,” he continued, concluding:
“All there is is an insidious reluctance to rock the boat,
since too many Arab regimes fear that where Saddam goes, they
may soon follow.” 
|
|
|
