International Press Coverage of the War on Terrorism and the September 11 terrorist attacks
The world press on the September 11 terrorist attacks and the war on terrorism
Home | Africa | Americas |Asia | Europe | Middle East Special report: International views and press coverage of the war on terrorism and the terrorist attacks

One Year Later: The initial outpouring of sympathy and support for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was without precedent. And it will likely not be seen again soon. In the year since, support for U.S. policies in the opinion pages of newspapers and magazines around the world has steadily dwindled. Today, the U.S. administration's determination to unseat Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and to launch preemptive strikes against any regime that poses, or might pose, a threat to American ascendency in world affairs has alarmed much of the international press. Shock, sympathy, and grief have largely been replaced by cynicism, mistrust, and anger. In this special report, we review the past year's coverage of the war on terrorism in Africa, the Americas (excluding the United States), Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Africa: Across the continent, African leaders and commentators expressed outrage about the attacks and extended their sympathy to the American people. But as the initial shock faded, many African writers found a new worry: the signals from Washington indicating what the United States might do to retaliate. “America needs to be mindful of a knee-jerk reaction, the kind whose efficacy history has shown to be doubtful, and whose consequences can boomerang,” wrote William Pike in his Sept. 14 editorial for Kampala, Uganda's New Vision (government-owned). In a Sept. 14 editorial, Nigeria's This Day (independent) expressed its “reservations about Bush's reference to punishment for those responsible. That sentiment may be difficult to suppress. But,” it noted, “This is hardly the time to contemplate or waste emotions on vengeance.” David Le Page, editor of Johannesburg's liberal Daily Mail and Guardian, argued that “War of any kind is unlikely to make Americans much safer... The sins of the United States over the past half-century have been many.” In order to fight terrorism, Le Page concluded, “The United States must revolutionize its relations with much of the world.” John Kamau, in a Sept. 18 opinion piece for Kenya's Daily Nation, echoed this sentiment: “No war, whatever our feelings, will silence the terrorists' resolve to strike once more. The United States must get its foreign policy act together and stop living in the ivory tower of politics, where it listens only to itself or its blue-chip equals. Time has come for it to sit down with its traditional archrivals (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Cuba) and settle for peace.” The day before, Gambia's Independent—after first running an editorial expressing the paper's condolences—had expressed a similar view in more strident terms. On Sept. 17, the Independent reported a sermon from the influential imam of the State House Mosque in Banjul, Alhajie Abdoulie Fatty, in which he argued that “America is suffering the consequences of the use and abuse of that country's power... Only years of pent-up anger and frustration of those oppressed by U.S. foreign policy could result in such an attack.” As the weeks wore on, and the anticipated U.S. strikes against Afghanistan did not happen, most African newspapers—with the notable exception of South Africa's—dropped the story in favor of pressing local issues. Mohammed Haruna, a columnist for Abuja, Nigeria's Daily Trust, led the retreat with an Oct. 3 column titled “Season of Hyperbole.” “For the citizens of much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America,” Haruna argued, “Sept. 11 represented pretty little change in their lives: [They remain] nasty, brutish and short—thanks in no small measure to... the U.S. government's record of commitment and support to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry, and unimaginable genocide.” On Sunday, Oct. 7, 2001, Nairobi's The Daily Nation (independent) ran a column by Magesha Ngwiri. “Apparently,” he wrote, “The United States is not going to pulverise Afghanistan any time soon.” Ngwiri could not have known that as his column appeared on Nairobi's newsstands, U.S. warplanes were closing in on Afghanistan. What he, and indeed, what nobody knew, is that the U.S.-led offensive would drive the Taliban out of two-thirds of Afghanistan in a few short weeks. The air strikes against Afghanistan revived the issue in the African press. Johannesburg's liberal Mail and Guardian—which had argued that the United States should “revolutionize its relations with much of the world” in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks—focused on the “Rage [and] protests from Kabul to Indonesia” in its top headline for Oct. 8. Meanwhile, Tanzania's The Express scoffed at attempts by U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to insist that this was not a war against the Muslim world. Over the following weeks, most African papers that continued to cover the war in Afghanistan were critical of the U.S. strikes. Weekly protests against the war dominated headlines in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, and Nigeria. But as the cliché goes, “Nothing succeeds like success.” Following the overnight rout of the Taliban in mid-November, even the most vociferous critics of the U.S. campaign—Johannesburg's Daily Mail and Guardian perhaps first among them—soon began taking a more positive view of the war. By Nov. 21, The Daily Mail and Guardian was celebrating the “liberation” of Afghan women. The cheers were short-lived. African editorialists raised eyebrows at talk of an “axis of evil.” And when reports of the “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes crossed African editors' desks close on the heels of protests against the United States at the Johannesburg Summit in mid-August, incredulity changed to outrage that the United States seemed to have learned nothing from the September 2001 terrorist attacks.
Further Reading:
Treatment of Prisoners Exposes America | Gitau Warigi, The East African (independent), Nairobi, Kenya , Jan. 27, 2002.
Ghana: Terrorism Is Not “Payback” | Free Press (independent weekly), Accra, Sept. 14-20, 2001.
Zimbabwe's Fears | Busani Bafana, World Press Review correspondent, Harare, November 2001 edition.
Zambia: Justice, Not Revenge | Chama Nsabika, The Post (independent), Lusaka , Sep. 21, 2001.
Kenya: Asking the Bitter Question | John Kamau, Daily Nation (independent), Nairobi, Kenya , Sep. 18, 2001.
Gambia: A Lesson to Be Learned | D.A. Jawo, The Independent (independent), Banjul , Sep. 17, 2001.

Return to top | More African News

The Americas: Newspaper editors in Latin America and Canada devoted special editions to the unprecedented events in New York City and Washington. “Y Ahora, Que Pasara?” [“And now, what will happen?”], asked the editors of La Plata, Argentina's conservative Diario El Dia, as they nervously observed the United States moving closer to war. The editors of Mexico City's centrist Excélsior were perturbed by the difficulties of fighting against “an unspecified enemy” and editors of Mexico City's leftist La Jornada focused on Noam Chomsky's analysis of the situation. On Sept. 16, Buenos Aires' leftist Página 12, also ran an opinion piece from Noam Chomsky alongside an opinion piece by Atilio A. Boron arguing that “War is Institutionalized Terrorism.” By Sept. 17, Página 12 was suggesting that Washington should “Compromise with Reality.” Meanwhile, at the other end of the political spectrum, Brazil's conservative O Estado de São Paulo urged Brazil's government to sever economic links with Lybia and Iraq following the attack. In a rousing Sept. 19 editorial, “The Battle Against Terrorism,” Buenos Aires' conservative La Nación also came out in support of an unstinting global effort to eradicate international terrorism. And José Gramunt de Moragas, in an Op-Ed piece for La Paz's conservative La Razón, denounced drug lord Evo Morales and “racist” Felipe Quispe for their comments that “the United States deserved it.” As Canadians lined-up for hours, waiting to give blood to aid survivors, Toronto's The Globe and Mail (centrist) devoted nearly all its coverage to the disaster, while cautioning against anger “misdirected” at Muslims in its Sept. 14 editorial. On Sept. 17, as the United States moved closer toward announcing what shape its military response would take, The Globe and Mail's Barrie McKenna pronounced the “Anti-Terrorist Coalition More Theory than Fact.” “From Canada to China,” McKenna argued, “Just about everyone agrees that terrorism is a scourge that must be eradicated. A lot less clear is what steps countries are ready and able to take to fight terrorism.” The Cuban press expressed even greater reservations. Randy Alonso Falcón, writing for Havana's Juventud Rebelde, went so far as call the events “pretexts for expanding the political hegemony and reactionary policies that began when this administration came to power.” But World Press Review Havana correspondent Nick Miroff found that Cubans, regardless of the political beliefs, were grieving for the attacks' victims. The Canadian press initially gave the U.S. and British air strikes against Afghanistan its full support. Even the editorial page of The Toronto Star (liberal), which is normally critical of U.S. policy, lined-up in support of the U.S. position. In an Oct. 8 editorial, The Toronto Star hailed the Bush administration for delivering food aid to Afghans while striking at the Taliban. And though the details of a proposed Canadian anti-terrorism bill proved immensely unpopular when—to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's chagrin—they were leaked to the press, concern over civil liberties did not shake the Canadian press' support for the war against terrorism. On Oct. 20, as Chrétien met with Asian leaders for the Asian Pacific (APEC) summit in Shanghai, The Toronto Star urged the participating leaders to “show global solidarity” and to “discard the pre-cooked communiqués drafted by their bureaucrats.” On April 18, two U.S. F-16 pilots returning to base came across Canadian forces conducting live-fire exercises in Afghanistan. The pilots requested, and were denied, permission to attack. One dropped a 250-kilogram, laser-guided bomb anyway. Four Canadian soldiers were killed. The Canadian press was outraged by the U.S. response—“We play with toys that kill people,” a senior U.S. military official reportedly shrugged. On May 21, Canada announced that it would withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. Latin American newspapers greeted news of the war in Afghanistan with grim resignation. Early in the conflict, Mexico City's centrist Excélsior, though it lent its support to the war on terrorism, hoped that the next news would not be of more civilian deaths. Buenos Aires' conservative La Nación wrote that this war is completely different from those of the 20th Century and must not be allowed to turn into a “clash of civilizations.” Likewise, Bolivia's conservative La Razón, in an Oct. 8 editorial, expressed worries that the conflict might still be perceived as a religious war. Even Latin America's leftist press tempered its usual criticism of U.S. policy immediately following the attacks. Buenos Aires' Página 12, normally an acid critic of U.S. policy, on Oct. 8 could only fault the United States for its avowed efforts to contact more “unsavory characters” in the covert battle against terrorism. A few weeks later, however, Página 12 was suggesting that the U.S. campaign was motivated by designs on Central Asia's hydrocarbon reserves. At press time, in early October 2002, there Canadians were debating the merits of U.S. plans to attack Iraq. In the last week of September, a group of leading Canadian intellectuals, including Margaret Atwood, Anton Kuerti, and David Suzuki, signed a statement calling President Bush “the greatest threat to world security.” One of them called Bush “a thug.” Margaret Wente, a columnist for The Globe and Mail, could not let this stand. In her Oct. 1, 2002, column, she shifted the focus to Saddam Hussein and his search for nuclear weapons. As Wente's column went to press, Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham backed U.N. action against Iraq, but warned against unilateral U.S. action against Iraq, saying that such a move would risk “destablizing world order and possibly destroying the credibility of the United Nations itself.” This view found a sympathetic ear in the Latin American press. Mexico City's independent Reforma, for example, ran an Oct. 1 op-Ed piece from French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, in which he affirmed the importance of disarming Iraq, but warned that “an action that sets regime change as its aim would contradict international law and would create a dangerous precedent.” Further Reading: Ultimatum for Iraq Views from Beirut, Warsaw, Lima, Santiago, Milan, Sofia, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Oslo, Karachi, Istanbul, London, and New Delhi
A Pretty Face for the United States | Roger Ricardo Luis, of Havana's Granma Internacional, takes a dim view of U.S. attempts to improve its image abroad.
Fear of Flying: An Israeli Look at U.S Air Safety | Elisa Ben-Rafael, World Press Review correspondent, Jerusalem, Israel
One Year Later | Jidda, London, Tehran, Johannesburg, Jakarta, Toronto, Jerusalem, Moscow, Cairo, Manila, Singapore, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Karachi, Sept. 11, 2002.
What Went Wrong? | Views from Bangkok, Jidda, São Paulo, Barcelona, Milan, Hong Kong, London, Tehran, Auckland, Vienna, Cairo, Moscow, Ramallah, and Baghdad, June 5, 2002.
Washington Spurns the International Criminal Court | Comment from Tokyo, Beirut, Paris, Singapore, London, Fortaleza, Madrid, Mexico City, Calgary, and Karachi, July 2002 issue of World Press Review.
The Pentagon's Nuclear Contingency | Views from Beijing, Moscow, Syndey, Oslo, Paris, and Rotterdam, May 2002 issue of World Press Review.
Closing the Borders | Mónica Verea, Voices of Mexico (quarterly journal), Mexico City, Mexico, January-March 2002.
Guantanamo's New Guests Get Little Attention in Havana | Nick Miroff, World Press Review correspondent, Havana, Cuba, Jan. 22, 2002.
The Taliban, the CIA, and Oil | Pamela Mewes, Rocinante (monthly newsmagazine), Santiago, Chile, October, 2001 issue.
Buenos Aires: Searching for Answers | Susana Reinoso, La Nación (conservative), Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sep. 20, 2001.
Costa Rica: The Lessons of Horror | Jorge Arroyo, La Nación (centrist), San José, Sep. 14, 2001.
Colombia: America Reaps What it Sowed | Antonio Caballero, Semana (centrist newsmagazine), Bogotá , Sep. 14, 2001.
Brazil: The Limits of Solidarity | Dora Kramer, O Estado de São Paulo (conservative), São Paulo, Sep. 14, 2001.
Game Over | Naomi Klein, The Globe and Mail (centrist), Toronto, Canada , Sep. 14, 2001.
Peru: Barbarity or Civilization | Federico Salazar, Gestión (business-oriented), Lima , Sep. 13, 2001.
Chile: A New Kind of War | El Mercurio (conservative), Santiago, Chile, Sept. 13, 2002.
Argentina: Total Solidarity with the Victims | La Nación (conservative), Buenos Aires, Argentina , Sept. 13, 2001.
Feeding on Horror... and Mistakes | Carlos Basombrío Iglesias, Ideele (monthly magazine of the Legal Defense Institute), Lima, Peru , Sep. 13, 2001.
Kalashnikov Culture | Martin Regg Cohn, The Toronto Star (centrist), Toronto, Canada, April 11, 2001.

Return to top
| More American News

Asia: Asian newspapers, like their counterparts around the world, initially responded to the terrorist attacks on the United States with shock, horror, and sympathy. Front-page articles on the tragic incident and condemnations of international terrorism dominated front pages across Asia. As the days passed, however, editorials—from India, Taiwan, China, and Japan, for example—began to take a more inward approach, trying to assess their own vulnerability in light of what had occurred in the nation believed to be the world's only superpower. Chinese papers, which are normally critical of a perceived American “hegemonistic attitude,” feared that the attacks would bring an already fragile world market to global economic depression. Predominantly Muslim countries, like Indonesia and Pakistan, condemned the terrorist acts, but hoped that the United States would reflect on why it was targeted so viciously, learn from its mistakes, and react rationally. “Act With Caution,” urged the editors of Singapore's Straits Times on Sept. 13, 2001. Beijing's Renmin Ribao, watching the events in the United States with alarm, wrote “The Whole World Now Faces a Danger Greater than it Ever Did During the Cold War.” The next day, The Taipei Times suggested that China could learn from the attacks by softening its line on Taiwanese independence. And Taipei's Liberty Times, in a Sept. 14, 2001, editorial, wrote, “Not only have the Americans lost faith in their intelligence agencies, but the rest of the world has too.” In a Sept. 13, 2001, editorial headlined, “Doomsday for the United States,” Karachi, Pakistan's The News wrote, “The attacks must provide an occasion for the U.S. establishment to pause and think about whether the hard line they have adopted is proving to be in their best interests. The desperation of the attackers, whoever they are, indicates that [they] were so strongly driven and angry at the Americans that they not only stopped caring for their own lives, they did not consider claiming the lives of thousands of other victims. If America was preparing and waiting for an Armageddon, it has now happened.... “The rest of the world should review its policies on all flashpoints: the Middle East being at the top of the list, followed by South Asia where Kashmir and Afghanistan provide justification to hundreds and thousands of militants to adopt violent ways to seek justice, after having lost all hope that they would ever get their rights through peaceful means. These militant groups also have their roots in frustration born out of injustice. Unless the world leaders put their heads together and seriously try to find a way to end this bloodletting, we can expect to see more Black Tuesdays, making lives of the people around the world insecure. If ever there was a wake-up call for the world to resolve simmering issues, this one has been the loudest and the costliest.” Two days later, Mukhtar Ahmad Butt, writing for Karachi's Urdu-language Daily Jang, echoed The News' calls for a diplomatic approach: “The solution of terrorism is not more terrorism [war?] as it gives birth to terrorism and the ripple continues to widen. My sincere advice to Bush and the Americans is not to be emotional or to talk of revenge but think carefully and coolly over the tragic incident and then come to a well-reasoned conclusion.” As bombs began falling on Afghanistan, the atmosphere in neighboring Pakistan became increasingly explosive. As Asma Jahangir put it in the Oct. 1, 2001, issue of Pakistan's centrist Dawn, “The horror and terror of Sept. 11 have now turned into moments of suspense and worry.” Refugees began pouring into the country. Violent, daily demonstrations against U.S. strikes against Afghanistan strained Pakistani society. Indeed, after Friday prayers on Oct. 12, 2001, violent anti-U.S. demonstrations erupted from Indonesia to Nigeria. By Oct. 13, 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was apparently concerned enough about the unrest in Pakistan to write an Op-Ed piece for Peshawar's left-wing The News. Blair had reason to be concerned about the messages coming from the Pakistani press. On Sept. 26, Peshawar's left-wing The News reported that a man was shot in a mosque. A rash of shootings in mosques were reported the following week. On Sept. 25, 2001, sectors of Pakistan's power grid temporarily failed. These events took on a sinister overtone in the Pakistani press. An Oct. 8, 2001, editorial from Peshawar's left-wing Frontier Post contended that the killings made Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's regime seem “pathetically helpless and paralyzed,” decried the “Talibanization” of the Pakistani government, and seemed to suggest that the Pakistani intelligence agencies were indirectly to blame for the spate of shootings. These criticisms seemed particularly sharp at a time when Musharraf is allotting himself greater powers. The News chided Musharraf's moves to indefinitely extend his tenure as chief of army staff and to shore up his power by promoting more loyal generals. Musharraf already granted himself an indefinite tenure when he named himself president. But, The News allowed, Western support for Musharraf's government since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has “made General Musharraf's continuance as leader of Pakistan almost a fait accompli, at least until the world again turns its screws on Pakistan to demand a civilian, democratic set up. And that is not going to happen any time soon.” On Sept. 26, 2001, the editors of Dawn expressed their irritation with the “Western media reporters converging on Pakistan” and their “overboard” coverage of the situation in the country. On Oct. 8, 2001, Javed Jabbar, also writing for Dawn, returned to the theme of Western media bias in an article titled, “Missing: Global Muslim Media.” But the Western media were not the only news outlets focusing on Pakistan. If Pakistan's English-language press seemed increasingly subject to the tensions rending the country, the more widely read Urdu press seemed almost strident in its criticisms. On Oct. 1, 2001, Lahore's pro-government Daily Jang ran an opinion piece from retired general and former army chief of staff Mizra Aslam Beg. “To declare Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization's involvement in the terrorist attack without proper in-depth investigation is simply unjust,” Beg argued. “It indicates that the United States had already decided to carry out actions against Afghanistan and was only waiting for proper time. Its strategy, and objective is not difficult to understand.... If the United States is to achieve world primacy, it is vital for it to strengthen the southern front of Eurasia (Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran) to check a likely alliance of China and Russia.... Pakistan faces very high risks today,” Beg concluded. “We find ourselves between the devil and the deep blue sea. Our allies must realize the delicate position of Pakistan, both internally and externally, as they ask for our cooperation in the fight against terrorism.” As Daily Jang urged the United States to make its evidence against Bin Laden public, The Hindu, a conservative Chennai newspaper, was sufficiently rankled to publish an opinion piece by Sitaram Yechury on Oct. 13, 2001. “Once the initial shock and hysteria [following news of the Sept. 11 attacks] gave way to reason,” Yechuri wrote, “It became clear that the United States was using, in a diabolic way, this human tragedy to further its imperialist hegemony worldwide and to invoke a more draconian domestic rule by curtailing democratic rights and freedom in the name of combating terrorism.” Yechury, after arguing that the U.S. hunt for Osama bin Laden was really a hunt for Afghanistan's petroleum resources, concluded, “It is chilling to realise that it is such cold-blooded pursuit of economic interests and profits that defines U.S. maneouvres in the region and its attacks on Afghanistan. That all this should happen in the name of grieving the death of nearly 7000 innocent American lives is plain cruelty. The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the United States as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States.” Others in the Indian press took up the cry that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan was really about U.S. designs on Central Asian oil. Outlook India, an independent New Delhi weekly, led the charge with a Nov. 21, 2001, cover package. By Jan. 12, popular opinion, as reflected in the subcontinent's press, had become so enflamed that The Frontier Post's editorials bore headlines like “Bush on a Rampage.” Indeed, those who worried that the war in Afghanistan would spread throughout the volatile region were nearly proved right when India and Pakistan came dangerously close to a nuclear war over Kashmir in the spring. Though both sides cooled their rhetoric temporarily after frantic, high-level diplomatic intervention, near-constant violence continues to keep the spectre of war between the two nuclear powers alive today. As the United States sought to crack down on unstable regions that might provide a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, considerable attention focused on southeast Asia. Southeast Asian countries witnessed some of the biggest anti-U.S. demonstrations as the United States began its war in Afghanistan. Terrorist attacks continue to be attempted against U.S. interests in the archipelago nations of the region. Suspected militants with ties to Al-Qaeda continue to be arrested. But much of the attention focused on The Philippines, where U.S. troops returned to aid the Philippine battle against the vicious Abu-Sayyaf rebel group. They were met with a mixed reception, World Press Review correspondent Marites Sison reported on Feb. 19.
Further Reading: Singapore: Anti-Terror Strategy Needs a Rethink | Kumar Ramakrishna, writing for Singapore's Straits Times, argues, "Winning the war on terrorism will require much more creativity and vision than is being displayed at the moment."
One Year Later | views Jidda, London, Tehran, Johannesburg, Jakarta, Toronto, Jerusalem, Moscow, Cairo, Manila, Singapore, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Karachi, Sept. 11, 2002.
Why Bush Wants to Attack Iraq | Giridhar Stinivasan, Business Line, (financial), Chennai, India, Sept. 3, 2002.
Amitav Ghosh: Writing Through Turmoil | Sheela Reddy, writing for the independent New Delhi magazine Outlook, interviews acclaimed Indian writer Amitav Ghosh about the intersection of political violence and literature.
Shukria Barakzai Dawi: Out from Under | Tekla Szymanski profiles the editor of Afghanistan's first women's magazine.
Anti-Terrorism Legislation in The Philippines: A Plot of Its Own | Paulynn P. Sigam, CyberDyaryo (Internet publication), Manila, The Philippines, Sept. 4, 2002.
“Quick Fix from America” | Chay Florentino Hofileña, Newsbreak (independent, biweekly newsmagazine), Manila, The Philippines, Aug. 5-18, 2002.
The United States Bombs Afghan Wedding | Views from Johannesburg, Copenhagen, Bangkok, Jakarta, and Tokyo, September 2002 edition of World Press Review.
The Philippines: No More Excuses |
Marites N. Sison, World Press Review correspondent, Manila, The Philippines, August 2002 edition of World Press Review.
Where We Go From Here | Najam Sethi, The Friday Times (independent weekly), Lahore, Pakistan, May 31-June 6, 2002.
The Sorrow of the War in Kashmir | Mark Baker, The Age (centrist), Melbourne, Australia, June 4, 2002.
India and Pakistan: Cooling of Tensions | Views from the Indian and Pakistani press.
International Press Reacts to U.S. Intelligence Failures, New Terror Warnings | Views from Bangkok, Jidda, São Paulo, Barcelona, Milan, Hong Kong, London, Tehran, Auckland, Vienna, Cairo, Moscow, Ramallah, and Baghdad.
Washington Spurns the International Criminal Court | Comment from Tokyo, Beirut, Paris, Singapore, London, Fortaleza, Madrid, Mexico City, Calgary, and Karachi.
The Delusions of Dictatorship | The Age (centrist), Melbourne, Australia, May 3, 2002.
The India-Pakistan Standoff and the U.S. Agenda | Ejaz Haider, The Friday Times (independent weekly, Internet edition), Lahore, Pakistan , Jan. 11-17, 2002.
SAARC: All Talk | Dia Ganguly, World Press Review correspondent.
Near Boiling Point | Debora Kuan, World Press Review assistant editor, February, 2002 edition.
India: Raising the Stakes | Shishir Gupta, India Today (centrist weekly newsmagazine), New Delhi, India, Jan. 7, 2002.
Pakistan's Refugee Plan | The Nation (conservative), Lahore, Pakistan.
The Rise of the Warlords | Seno Joko Suyono and Zuhaid-El Qudsy, Tempo (independent), Jakarta, Indonesia , Dec. 2, 2001.
Bangkok: The Fortunes of War | Sukyanya Hantrakul, World Press Review correspondent, Bankok, Thailand, December 2001 edition.
U.S. Alliance With Pakistan Leaves Indian Commentators Uneasy | Sreeram Chaulia, (independent online), New Delhi, India , Nov. 27, 2001.
A “Synchronized” Recession | Jairam Ramesh, India Today (weekly newsmagazine), New Delhi , Nov. 26, 2001.
Mission: Afghanistan | Nadeem Iqbal, Inter Press Service (international news agency), Rome, Italy, Nov. 21, 2002.
Getting News in Uzbekistan | Yana Bey, Tashkent, Nov. 14, 2001.
APEC, the United States, and the War on Terror | MGG Pillai, (Internet newspaper), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Nov. 5, 2001.
Trust, But Verify | Devendra Mishra, The Hindu (conservative), Madras, India, Oct. 23, 2001.
Who Elected You, Mr. Osama? | Farish A Noor, (Internet newspaper), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct. 10, 2001.
A Never-Ending Injustice | Krisnadi Yuliawan and Zaenal Dalle, Gatra (weekly magazine), Jakarta, Indonesia , Sept. 22, 2001.
Jakarta: Best Sellers Amid the Grief | Koran Tempo (independent), Jakarta, Indonesia, Sept. 19, 2001.
Terrorism... or Merely Blowback? | Lincoln Wright, The Canberra Times (centrist), Canberra, Australia, Sept. 19, 2001.
Pakistan: Adding to Our Burden | The Nation (conservative), Lahore, Sept. 19, 2001.
Thailand: The United States Is Forever Changed | Kavi Banthai, Nation Sudsapda Weekly (leftist), Bangkok, Sept. 17, 2001.
Osama Bin Laden: CIA's Toy Gone Awry | Ranjit Bhushan, Outlook (independent weekly), New Delhi, India, Sept. 17, 2001.
Taiwan: In a Crisis, a Country Must Unite | Liberty Times (liberal), Taipei, Sept. 14, 2001.
Singapore: Act With Caution | The Straits Times (independent), Singapore, Sept. 14, 2001.
Philippines: America's Awakening | Art A. Borjal, The Philippine Star (independent), Manila, Sept. 13, 2001.
China: Serious Threat to Civilization | China Daily (government-owned), Beijing, Sept. 13, 2001.
No Distinction Among Terrorists | The Island (independent), Colombo, Sri Lanka, Sept. 13, 2001.

Return to top | More Asian News
Europe: European publications rushed to express their grief and solidarity with the United States following the news of the September 2001 terrorist attacks. “We Are All Americans,” Paris' liberal Le Monde uncharacteristically proclaimed in its top headline on Sept. 12, 2001. And though the headline sparked controversy in France, Le Monde was in good company. Similar articles from appeared in European newspapers from across the political spectrum. As the initial shock of the disaster gave way to grief, fear for the future crept into the commentary from the European press. Days after the attacks, Bratislava, Slovakia's independent Narodna Obrodna looked pessimistically at the future: “What happened on Tuesday in America continues to cause grief today. Sadder still is the premonition of what might happen tomorrow. Sept. 11, 2001, will enter the books not only as the day of the bloodiest terrorist attack in human history. Horrible though it is to consider, all indications are that war broke out that day. The fronts on which this war will be waged are still not clear or identifiable... One can hardly predict what will happen next, but it is quite obvious that the fuse of a new great war is already burning.” Le Monde expressed similar fears, coupled with doubts as to whether Bush was capable of handling the crisis. In a Sept. 16, 2001, piece, “We Are Sitting On a Volcano,” analyst Frédéric Lenoir wrote, “...Two big illusions went up in smoke on Sept. 11: The illusion of an impermeable American sanctuary against military attacks or terrorist attacks against its vital centers, and, above all, the illusion of a new world order under the control of the United States.” Lenoir was not alone. The Sept. 12, 2001 editorial in Barcelona's centrist La Vanguardia drew similar conclusions, as did Perica Vucinic, editor of Belgrade's independent weekly Reporter. With few exceptions, European editorialists proffered their support to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. But they also stressed that the war would not be won if Afghanistan alone. An Oct. 3, 2001, editorial in London's Independent suggested that “Mr. Bush Will Have to Deal More Forcefully with Israel.” In the Nov. 19, 2001, edition of the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, commentator Wolfgang Günter Lerch likewise stressed the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Fighting terrorism... means defusing conflicts that are seen as part of the backdrop to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.... Especially in the Arab world, practitioners of political violence often cite [the Israeli-Palestinian] conflict as justification for their actions,” Lerch wrote. Others in Europe also looked to the West's ambiguous record on respect for human life and human rights as a cause of the terrorist attacks. “[Osama bin Laden] is a terrorist, we just frighten people,” Matthew Parris sarcastically remarked in the Oct. 20, 2001, edition of London's conservative Times. The editors of the independent Belgrade weekly NIN took a similarly trenchant view in their Oct. 11 leading article: “America's war against Afghanistan is seen by our [Serbian] public with mixed feelings. On one hand, having faced terrorism at home, we have naturally and sincerely joined the international anti-terrorist coalition, because Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist cannot be our friend, ally or protégé. But on the other hand, as a country that was cruelly bombed by Americans two years ago, who had not even consulted the U.N. Security Council before their ‘humanitarian intervention,’ we naturally cannot be part of those who would wildly applaud those same Americans because they bomb a poor, starving, bigoted people under the pretext of war against world terrorism. Our view of terrorism differs from the American one. In Kosovo, those who we considered terrorists [ethnic Albanian rebels] were American allies.” As early as November 2001, the tone of European coverage had changed completely. Whereas only months earlier Le Monde had proclaimed, “We Are All Americans,” by Nov. 24, 2001, the headline had changed to “America Unloved.” By the summer of 2002, The Bush administration’s escalating barrage of bellicose rhetoric toward Iraq and its rejection of the International Criminal Court had strained Washington’s relations with its European allies and unleashed a new wave of intense anti-American sentiment in the European press. By Aug. 6, 2002, George Monbiot was writing for London's Guardian that the United States “has become openly contemptuous of other governments and prepared to dispose of any treaty or agreement that impedes its strategic objectives.... To accept that the United States presents a danger to the rest of the world would be to acknowledge the need to resist it. Resisting the United States would be the most daring reversal of policy a British government has undertaken for over 60 years.”
Further Reading: Ultimatum for Iraq | Views from Beirut, Warsaw, Lima, Santiago, Milan, Sofia, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Oslo, Karachi, Istanbul, London, and New Delhi.
Bombs Away, Belgrade | Vladmir Skosyrev, writing for Moscow's Vremya MN, reports on a joint U.S.-Russian operation to spirit 800 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium out of the former Yugoslavia.
On Liberty and Security | "The guarantees given to liberties are not applied automatically," writes Le Monde's Sophie Body-Gendrot. "It is up to the citizens to be vigilant."
Eleven Filmmakers Deal With Sept. 11 Shockwaves | Le Monde reports on a commemorative film produced by 11 filmmakers from around the world, each producing a short film 11 minutes, nine seconds, and one frame long.
Leaving the Door Open for Extremists | "Across Central and South Asia, the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan has led to growing instability and political crises in every country," reports Ahmed Rashid.
John Wadham: Defender of Rights | Rachel S.Taylor, World Press Review associate editor.
The Blair Dossier | Sarah Coleman, World Press Review contributing editor, Oct. 3, 2002.
Schröder Beats Bush in German Elections | Tekla Szymanski, World Press Review associate editor, Sept. 26, 2002.
Sept. 11's Collateral Victims | Gregory Schneider, Hélène Despic-Popovic, Pierre Hazan, Alexandra Schwartzbrod, Libération (left-wing), Paris, France, Sept. 10, 2002.
One Year Later | Jidda, London, Tehran, Johannesburg, Jakarta, Toronto, Jerusalem, Moscow, Cairo, Manila, Singapore, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Karachi, Sept. 11, 2002.
Where Are We Now? | Milan Vodicka, Mlada Fronta Dnes (independent), Prague, Czech Republic, Sept. 9, 2002.
Europeans Are Wiser | PM Nilsson, Expressen (liberal), Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 4, 2002.
Power Won't Lead to Victory | Jean-Claude Casanova, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, July 30, 2002.
The Logic of Empire | George Monbiot, The Guardian (liberal), London, England, Aug. 6, 2002.
Anti-U.S., Go Home! | Benoît Duteurtre, Le Figaro (conservative), Paris, France.
Directors' Dialogue | Jacques Mandelbaum, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, May 15, 2002.
Joint Council for Profit | Respublika (independent), Vilnius, Lithuania, May 29, 2002.
What Went Wrong? | Views from Bangkok, Jidda, São Paulo, Barcelona, Milan, Hong Kong, London, Tehran, Auckland, Vienna, Cairo, Moscow, Ramallah, and Baghdad.
Washington Spurns the International Criminal Court | Comment from Tokyo, Beirut, Paris, Singapore, London, Fortaleza, Madrid, Mexico City, Calgary, and Karachi.
European Response to Powell's Visit to the Middle East | Sarah Coleman, World Press Review associate editor, April 12, 2002.
When Journalists Became Targets | Robert Fisk, The Independent (liberal), London, England, Feb. 23, 2002.
America Killed the Olympics | Kapital (independent conservative weekly), Sofia, Bulgaria, March 2-8, 2002.
Vietnam's Ghosts Haunt the War in Afghanistan | Rupert Cornwell, The Independent (centrist), London, England, March 5, 2002.
On Turkey’s Shoulders | Sami Kohen, Milliyet (liberal), Istanbul, Turkey, Feb. 27, 2002.
The Pentagon’s Nuclear Contingency | Views from the international press.
Straight, Like a Sheriff | Milan Vodicka, Mlada Fronta Dnes (independent), Prague, Czech Republic, Jan. 31, 2002.
The Ghost of Somalia | Niklas Ekdal, Dagens Nyheter (liberal), Stockholm, Sweden , Jan. 24, 2002.
The 'Sleepers' Are Among Us | Gerhard Bitzan, Die Presse (conservative), Vienna, Austria, Jan. 19, 2002.
Europe's Shared Security System | Nick Hopkins, The Guardian (liberal), London, England , Jan. 10, 2002.
Peace Is Still Possible | Gustavo de Aristegui, El Mundo (centrist), Madrid, Spain.
The Birth of the New World | Denis Jeambar, L’Express (centrist newsmagazine), Paris, France, Dec. 20, 2001.
The Good Fight Against Terrorism... and Capitalism | Alain Touraine, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France
“Post-War” Takes on New Meaning in Germany |Eric Jansson World Press Review correspondent, Berlin, Germany, Nov. 25, 2002.
America Unloved | Alain Frachon, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, Nov. 24, 2001.
A New Partnership or Another Political Bargain? | Elena Chinyaeva, Transitions Online (Internet publication), Prague, Czech Republic, Oct. 19, 2001.
The Need to Negotiate Again | The Independent (liberal), London, England, Nov. 5, 2001.
The End of a Dream | Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France
Can Pakistan Strangle the Taliban? | Peter Popham, Independent on Sunday (centrist), London, England, Sept. 16, 2001. Popham is the paper’s correspondent in Islamabad.
Linking Saudi Arabia with Terrorism: The Anti-Saudi Media Campaign | Uthman al-Rawwaf, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Oct. 30, 2001.
Trail of Terror | Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist (weekly), London, England , Oct. 27, 2001.
Good Terror, Bad Terror | Gisela Dachs, Die Zeit (liberal weekly), Hamburg, Germany, Oct. 25, 2001.
Osama’s Library | Lisbeth Lindeborg, Dagens Nyheter (liberal), Stockholm, Sweden, Oct. 25, 2001.
Tajikistan: Condemning the War | Michael Winiarski, Dagens Nyheter (liberal), Stockholm, Sweden, Oct. 15, 2001.
The United States Is Performing a Balancing Act on a Razor's Edge | Chavdar Kisselinchev, Monitor (nationalist), Sofia, Bulgaria, Oct. 9, 2001.
September 11 and the Concept of Superpower | Perica Vucinic, Belgrade, Serbian and Montenegro, Oct. 4, 2001.
The Saudi Connection | Ali Laïdi, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France , Oct. 4, 2001.
Italy: A New Publishing Environment | Beatrice Cassina, World Press Review correspondent, Milan, Italy.
Metropolis Madness | Nilay Karaelmas, Radikal (liberal), Istanbul, Turkey, Sept. 16, 2001. Karaelmas is World Press Review’s Ankara correspondent.
A Long Lasting War Against Terrorism | Theo Sommer, Die Zeit (liberal weekly), Hamburg, Germany , Sep. 27, 2001.
War Erases Differences | Gerard Dupuy, Libération (left-wing), Paris, France, Sept. 26, 2001.
Paris: Turning to Books | Alain Salles (with Ariane Charton and Vanessa Postec), Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France, Sept. 22, 2001.
London: Trash Has the Final Word | Boyd Tonkin, The Independent (centrist), London, England, Sep. 22, 2001.
Reacting to a Situation Beyond Imagination | Michel Guerrin, Le Monde (liberal), Paris, France , Sept. 22, 2001.
Among Bin Laden's Followers | Tiziano Terzani, Corriere della Sera (centrist), Milan, Sept. 18, 2001.
From High Ground, A Hard Fall | Sibylle Hamann and Otmar Lahodynsky, Profil (weekly newsmagazine), Vienna, Austria, Sept. 17, 2001.
Only Europe Can Bridge the Gap | Anna Diamantopoulou, Eleftherotypia (liberal), Athens, Sept. 16, 2001.
Wide Coalition Against Terrorism | El País (liberal), Madrid, Spain, Sept. 14, 2001.
Lowered Flags Curse Evil | Mehmet Y. Yilmaz, Milliyet (liberal), Istanbul, Sept. 14, 2001.
Poland: Over Before it Starts | Czeslaw Milosz, Rzeczpospolita (centrist), Warsaw, Poland , Sept. 14, 2001.
Bosnia: A Final Lesson? | Senad Pecanin, Dani (independent weekly), Sarajevo, Sept. 14, 2001.
This Time, There Were Cameras | Blake Morrison, The Guardian (liberal), London, England, Sept. 14, 2001.
A Moral Calculation: Terror Is Never Innocent | Milan Ivkosic, Vecernji List (pro-government), Zagreb, Sept. 13, 2001.
The New World Disorder | Serge July, Libération (leftist), Paris, France, Sept. 13, 2001.
Yugoslavia: Terror's End and Our Own | Ljubodrag Stojadinovic, Politika (centrist), Belgrade, Sept. 12, 2001.
Lithuania: Crossroads in Ruins | Ricardas Gavelis, Respublika (independent), Vilnius, Sept. 12, 2001.
England: Into the Unknown | Kevin Myers, Daily Telegraph, (conservative), London , Sept. 12, 2001.
After the Terrorist Attacks: European Responsibility | Martin Winter, Frankfurter Rundschau (liberal), Frankfurt, Germany, Sept. 13, 2001.
This Is How the 21st Century | Adam Michnik, Gazeta Wyborcza (liberal), Warsaw, Poland , Sept. 11, 2001.
Germany: Where Is the Enemy? | Michael Maier, (Internet publication), Berlin, Sept. 7, 2001.
Afghanistan: Surviving the Winter on Mulberries | Andreas Rüesch, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (conservative), Zurich, Switzerland, May 5, 2001.

Return to Top | More European News

Middle East: Excerpted coverage from Middle Eastern newspapers. Editorial | Samir Ragab, Al-Gomhouriya (pro-government), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 12, 2001. Excerpt: "It is the duty of us all to cooperate and fight this terrifying phenomenon that threatens safety of everyone, young and old. The innocent victims of yesterday’s attacks in the United States should motivate Americans and non-Americans alike to re-evaluate [their common] situation and work out a new framework for the interconnection of peoples worldwide." Terrorist? Moi? | Gerald M. Steinberg, The Jerusalem Post (conservative), Jerusalem, Israel, Sept. 16, 2002. "The devastating attacks against New York and Washington have divided the world into terrorists and their opponents—and there is no more middle ground. "For decades, [Yasser] Arafat and the Palestinian leadership have directed and participated in terror and in incitement against Israel and America in the official media, the mosques, and schools. To give Arafat a 'kashrut certificate' before he acts definitively to end the reign of terror and incitement would be a moral travesty and unacceptable outrage in Israel and in the United States." Editorial | Galal Duweidar, Al-Akhbar (pro-government), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 14, 2001. Excerpt: "It’s true that some anarchist terrorist organizations seek to incite trouble and shake stability all over the world. But there are some countries, managed by terrorist governments, whose policies and strategies are based on terrorism without any regard for the laws, treaties, or resolutions of international law. Israel is a typical example of such states where terrorism has become a profession... There is no difference between the bloody terrorism that targeted the United States, and the daily brutal and oppressive acts against the innocent Palestinians..." What Comes After the Attack on the United States? | Ibrahim Nafie, Al-Ahram, (pro-government), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 14, 2001. Excerpt: "While we fully appreciate America's situation as it faces this terrorist aggression which threatens all human values, the magnitude of the event, the number of casualties, and respect for the innocent victims means we should take time to investigate the issue properly. Calls for prompt retaliation and yielding to feelings of rage and pain will take us away from the truth, and will jeopardize the lives of even more people. Americans would be making a mistake were they to rush into attacking countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Libya. The world’s lone superpower is expected to act wisely and try to tackle the matter impartially. It is definitely in the Middle East that United States' moral credibility is being tested, especially amid the bloody atmosphere of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It cannot be denied... that the United States' limitless support of the abominable role played by [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has stirred feelings of hatred. The First World War of the 21st Century | Ephraim Reiner, Ha'aretz (liberal), Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 9, 2002. Excerpt: Until the New York morning hours of Sept. 11, everyone knew in what direction the world was headed—toward a unified world without borders. Capitalist free-market economic thinking had spread over the face of the globe and was overcoming every barrier—historical, cultural or religious. The superstructure (to borrow a Marxist term) of that capitalist free-market economy would be the rule of law under a parliamentary democratic regime. The first world war of the 21st century, even if it is supported by a coalition embracing the governments of all Western nations and even if a number of Muslim countries participate in it (in whatever fashion), will produce mighty shock waves in the West. The ideological and political forces that have loudly protested the injustices of the global economy will not stay silent in the face of the horrors of global warfare.... The war between the world's two civilizations will actually tear apart Western civilization—unless the West does the only sensible thing and distinguishes (as Israelis do) between its military objectives and its political and economic goals. American Nightmare | Salama Ahmed Salama, Al-Ahram (government-owned), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 13, 2001. Excerpt: "This tragedy compels us, first and foremost, to feel compassion for its victims. It forces us, too, to contemplate its implications with regard to America's international stature. In spite of its overwhelming might, the United States has proved itself incapable of preserving its own peace and security. Indeed, it has managed to turn the love and admiration that peoples around the world once felt for America as a champion of liberty, democracy and self-determination, into universal suspicion and mistrust, a transformation that is the result of Washington's misuse of power and abuse of the moral foundations upon which it built its civilization. "And the danger of this tragedy, which has already cost innumerable lives, is that it may be just one link in a far longer chain of attacks against American interests. It would be equally disastrous for the White House to unleash its wrath in a spate of retaliatory operations, or for a nation such as Israel, which has been waiting for the opportunity, to manipulate the tragedy for its own ends. In America's case, a loss of patience at this critical time would invariably entail a loss of sound judgment." Editorial | Al-Ahram (government-owned), Cairo, Egypt, Oct. 9, 2001. Excerpt: "With the outbreak of the first war of the 21st century, our wish is that the United States should win the fight against terrorism. However, we do not want this war to create new generations of terrorists, who would be more cruel 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. We believe that once the military campaign against Afghanistan is over, the international community should explore a new mechanism to deal with the situation." Editorial | The Jerusalem Post (conservative), Jerusalem, Israel, Oct. 19, 2002. Excerpt: "The United States seems to think that supporting Israel's war on terror risks fracturing the coalition. In reality, the greater risk to the coalition is the escalation in the conflict that insufficient U.S. support for Israel will bring." Which Islam do we need? | Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Oct. 21, 2001. Excerpt: "Which [interpretation] of Islam do we heed? That which is promoted by extremists and sees a fundamental conflict and violence? Or one in which peace and loving your neighbor is promoted? Do we want to live as birds in gilded cages or birds free to fly? ...Muslims and Arabs have a great opportunity right now to promote vigorously the fact that Islam is a religion of life and goodness. We want an Islam that recognizes the individual rights of beings, respects differences and allows others to live in freedom. We do not want the religion to be interpreted as something forceful, compulsionary. It is important that we proclaim this to the world." Editorial | Al-Wafd (opposition), Cairo, Egypt, Oct. 22, 2001. Excerpt: "It is no secret, at least not at present, that America's war in Afghanistan was planned even before the September events ever took place. America's goal is to control the oil-region of Central Asia, or at the very least share this control with both China and Russia. A world which endorses America's actions is indeed one without a conscience."
Dear George | Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post (conservative), Jerusalem, Israel, Oct. 29, 2002. Excerpt: I know that even we aren't acting as if Arafat is our bin Laden, because you don't talk about negotiating with Bin Ladens, you just kill them. We're not even treating Arafat as our Taliban, because you've decided to get rid of the Taliban and we're still trying to reform Arafat. But the only chance we have of reforming Arafat is if you don't take away our stick. Throwing us to the wolves won't keep the coalition together; but stopping us from ensuring quiet will certainly help break it apart. Mohamed Wahib al-Sayed, Columnist, Al-Ahram al-Messa'i (governement-owned), Feb. 13, 2002. Excerpt: One is surprised at the number of times Bush used the term 'war' in his recent State of the Union speech, and even more surprised at the applause he had received every time the word was used. It bodes ill that his audience, Congressmen and Senators alike, are in such a vengeful mood, since it is they who are entrusted with correcting the president when he is wrong. That the entire U.S. administration has gone astray augurs bad for the entire world, which could be transformed into a huge battle zone. Editorial | Al-Ahram Weekly (government-owned), Cairo, Egypt, Feb. 14, 2002. Excerpt: "Singling out members of the international community on a strictly unilateral and subjective basis as members in an 'axis of evil' will not bring an end to acts of violence. In fact, it will increase the anti-American sentiment that has been brewing in this part of the word. "The U.S. administration, hawks and doves alike, must realize that Arab sympathy, aroused by the tragedy of Sept. 11, is fading quickly. The world is reeling in horror at the way the United States has lashed out, striking Afghan villagers, starving Iraqi children, and allowing Israel to demolish Palestinian houses and murder activists and bystanders wholesale." Welcome to the Third World, Mr. Bush! | Abeer Mishkhas, Arab News (pro-government), Jidda, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 9, 2002. Excerpt: It seems that America’s image as "the land of the free" doesn’t appeal to George Bush. Obviously he’s jealous of the way Third World governments are able to behave. Plus who wants to defend freedom when power seems so deliciously pampering? Why not try some of the methods practiced in other parts of the world? If someone says here that the American government has always presented itself as the protector of human rights and democracy in the world, my only answer would be that doing the same thing over and over becomes boring and the desire for change becomes very tempting. So while Bush tries his hand at new laws and rules that make life next to impossible to all "non-citizens" in America, one wonders how much of the original picture of the US, defender of human rights and democracy, will remain after the war on terrorism is over.
Further Reading:
Ultimatum for Iraq | Views from Beirut, Warsaw, Lima, Santiago, Milan, Sofia, Jerusalem, Tokyo, Johannesburg, Oslo, Karachi, Istanbul, London, and New Delhi.
Arab Press Reaction to U.S. Plans to Attack Iraq | Extended excerpts from Arab newspapers in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Amman, Jerusalem, Algiers, and London.
The Saber and the Quran | Morocco's political elite is worried that moderate and radical Islamists may join forces. Officials in Morocco and the United States are investigating possible links to Al-Qaeda.
Our Lost Innocence | Ahmad al-Ruba’i, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Sept. 11, 2002.
One Year Later | views Jidda, London, Tehran, Johannesburg, Jakarta, Toronto, Jerusalem, Moscow, Cairo, Manila, Singapore, Tokyo, New Delhi, and Karachi, Sept. 11, 2002.
Fear of Flying: An Israeli Look at U.S Air Safety | Elisa Ben-Rafael, World Press Review correspondent, Jerusalem, Israel.
"New York Is Part of Us" | Ronen Tal, Yediot America (U.S. supplement to centrist Yediot Aharonot), Tel Aviv, Israel, Sept. 6, 2002.
Spin Unspun | Abdalla Hassan, Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 26, 2002.
The Arab System Transforms the Palestinian Issue from a Question of Liberation into an Issue of Terrorism | Amin al-Mahdy, Al-Hayat (pan-Arab), London, England, Sept. 9, 2002.
Israeli Response to U.S. Plans to Attack Iraq: Cautious Cheers | Tekla Szymanski, World Press Review associate editor, Sept. 20, 2002.
Televised News Broadcasts from the Middle East on Sept. 11, 2002 | Presented in partnership with WorldLink Television
The Reasons for the Enmity and Hatred | Mahmoud al-Tohami, Al-Alam al-Youm (independent, financial), Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 1, 2002.
War or Peace? | Seyyed Mustafa Tajzadeh, Ryoodad (online, reformist), Tehran, Iran.
Viewpoints: Washington Weighs War with Iraq | Views from Nairobi, Christchurch, Sydney, Bridgetown, Singapore, Cairo, Mexico City, Stockholm, Sofia, Beijing, Colombo, Karachi, Paris, Manama, Lagos, and São Paulo.
Reformists' Setback | Shahram Sokooti, World Press Review correspondent, Tehran, Iran
Mixed Messages on Mideast Policy | Views from Budapest, Athens, Bridgetown, Amman, Tel Aviv, Singapore, and New Delhi.
Bush: A New Member in Likud | Nahum Barnea, Yediot Aharonot (centrist), Tel Aviv, Israel, June 25, 2002.
International Press Reacts Strongly to Bush's Speech on Middle East | Views from 23 newspapers in 22 cities around the world, June 28, 2002.
The View from Baghdad | Andrew Hammond World Press Review correspondent Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq May 10, 2002.
In a Narrow Place | Andrew Hammond World Press Review correspondent Cairo, Egypt, April 16, 2002.
Violence Escalates in the Middle East | Views from the international press.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Eclipses Bin Laden Videotape in Arab Media | Andrew Hammond World Press Review correspondent, Cairo, Egypt
Bush Can Fool No One | Iman Ahmad, Al-Thawrah (Internet publication of Iraq’s ruling Baath Party), Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 29, 2001.
A Ruthless Ramadan | Joharah Baker, Palestine Report (Internet publication), Jerusalem, Nov. 28, 2001.
A Question of Time
| Al-Quds al-Arabi (Palestinian expatriate), London, England, Nov. 19, 2001.
Jihad for Whom? | Uthman Mirghani, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Oct. 24, 2001.
Between the Ballot and the Bullet: Egypt's War Against Terrorism | Andrew Hammond, World Press Review correspondent, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. 14, 2001.
Two September Days | Elisa Ben-Rafael, World Press Review correspondent, Jerusalem
Critical in Cairo | Andrew Hammond, World Press Review correspondent, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. 13, 2001.
The Arab Press Sends Mixed Messages | Joel Campagna, World Press Review contributing editor
The Anti-Saudi Media Campaign | Uthman al-Rawwaf, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Oct. 30, 2001.
Dear George W. Bush | Shaul Tzedakah, Yediot Aharonot (centrist), Tel Aviv, Israel, Oct. 25, 2001.
Arab Press Eyes War on Terrorism with Unease | Joel Campagna, World Press Review contributing editor
Al-Jazeera, The Pride of Qatar | The Times of India (conservative), New Delhi, India, Oct. 10, 2001.
Dangerous Delusions | Rime Allaf, The Daily Star (independent, English-language), Beirut, Lebanon, Oct. 3, 2001.
Why it would Pay the West to Cultivate Saudi Public Opinion | Jonathan Aitken, The Daily Telegraph (conservative), London, England, Oct. 1, 2001.
The United States Should Re-Examine its Policies First | Dr. Fayiz Rasheed, Al-Hayat Al-Jadedah (pro-Palestinian Authority), East Jerusalem, Palestinian National Authority, Sept. 21, 2002.
Algeria: Rethinking the Variables | A. Bahmane, El Watan (independent, French-language), Algiers, Algeria, Sep. 19, 2001.
Undefined Terminology in the Cooperative Effort to Fight Terrorism | Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, Al-Sharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned), London, England, Sep. 17, 2001.
Turkey: Lowered Flags Curse Evil
Mehmet Y. Yilmaz, Milliyet (liberal), Istanbul, Sept. 14, 2001.
Condemnation and Compassion | Muhammad Naji Amayrah, Al-Ra’i (pro-government), Amman, Jordan, Sept. 13, 2001.
Israel: The Beginning of the End of Terror | Yael Paz Melamed, Ma’ariv (centrist), Tel Aviv, Sept. 13, 2001.
Does America Read the Signs? | Yasser Al-Zaatra, Al-Hayat (Saudi-owned, Arabic-language, pan Arab), London, Sept. 13, 2001.
A Barbaric Act | Palestine Report Online (independent weekly Internet publication of the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center), Jerusalem, Sep. 12, 2001.

Return to top | More from the Mideast