|
World Media Watch
by Gloria R. Lalumia
BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.
* * *
1//The Guardian, UK--LABOUR MPs STEP UP PRESSURE ON LEADERSHIP (In a Commons debate of more than five hours, only a couple of government backbenchers offered unequivocal support. Critics delivered a sustained assault on the government's apparent readiness to go to war without public support, with the international coalition crumbling, and despite the risk of thousands of civilian casualties and the destabilisation of the Middle East.)
2//The Toronto Star, Canada--PM OPEN TO JOINING U.S.-LED ATTACK ON IRAQ ("If the Americans or the British have great evidence that Saddam Hussein - he's no friend of mine - is not following the instructions of the UN, if the proof is made of that, of course Canada will support an activity there," he said after a cabinet meeting. "But we're not there yet.")
3//The
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--PARLIAMENT WILL DEBATE TROOP DEPLOYMENT:
PM (Mr Howard was defending his decision not to recall
parliament before ordering troops to the Middle East to prepare for
a possible war against Iraq. He said there was no need because parliamentarians
had already had a number of opportunities to debate the issue and there
would be no commitment to war before parliament resumed. "Parliament
will be meeting on Tuesday week, on the 4th of February," Mr Howard
told ABC radio. "There is no way that a final decision on this
issue will have been made by then.")
4//The Hindustan Times, India--PAK RETALIATES, EXPELS FOUR INDIAN
OFFICIALS (Islamabad on Thursday ordered the expulsion of four Indian
High Commission officials and announced it would also ask India to
cut the strength of its mission by half. The expelled officials have
been given 48 hours to leave the country...Foreign Office spokesman
Aziz Ahmed Khan told state-run PTV that the measure was not retaliatory
but reciprocal...He added that India's move would vitiate the atmosphere
and increase tension in the region.)
5//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--GADDING WITH GADDAFI (Gaddafi's main problem with the US in the coming months will be his potential to integrate his chemical weapons capabilities with short-to-middle-range Scud missiles that are already part of Libyan arsenal. Another important issue is what is he going to do with those capabilities: pursue his newly-found pan-African aspirations, or his previous love affair with pan-Arabism any time in the near future.).
* * *
1//The
Guardian Thursday January 23, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880277,00.html
LABOUR MPs STEP UP PRESSURE ON LEADERSHIP
Defence secretary barracked by his backbenchers
Anne Perkins, Kevin Maguire and Ewen MacAskill
The extent of Labour opposition to war with Iraq was underlined last
night when 44 rebels forced a vote at the end of the defence debate
- 11 more than the 33 that voted against the government in November.
As a quarter of Britain's military personnel prepared for war, the defence secretary Geoff Hoon was left almost without support at the despatch box, repeatedly interrupted by Labour MPs, who had already confronted him at yesterday morning's weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour party.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair came under separate criticism for apparently seeking to silence opposition after party managers admitted they would try to block an anti-war statement tabled for next week's meeting of Labour's national executive committee.
In a Commons debate of more than five hours, only a couple of government backbenchers offered unequivocal support.
Critics delivered a sustained assault on the government's apparent readiness to go to war without public support, with the international coalition crumbling, and despite the risk of thousands of civilian casualties and the destabilisation of the Middle East.
They included the former armed forces minister, Doug Henderson, who warned of the dangers of going to war without popular support which he said would be "extremely dangerous for the relationship between our political institutions and our military institutions".
(MORE)
2//The Toronto Star Jan. 23, 2003. 07:27 PM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/
Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1043362889511&call_pageid=968332188492
PM OPEN TO JOINING U.S.-LED ATTACK ON IRAQ
'We're not there yet,' he cautions
OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien opened the door today to the possibility of Canada joining the U.S. and Britain in an attack on Iraq, if the two countries provide enough evidence that Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations.
"If the Americans or the British have great evidence that Saddam Hussein - he's no friend of mine - is not following the instructions of the UN, if the proof is made of that, of course Canada will support an activity there," he said after a cabinet meeting. "But we're not there yet."
Chrétien made the remarks after being asked whether he had told U.S. President George W. Bush in a telephone call that Canada would join a U.S.-led "coalition of the willing," after UN weapons inspectors report next week on whether they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix is to issue their findings Monday.
It was Chrétien's strongest comment to date on Canada's potential role in a conflict.
(MORE)
3//The Sydney Morning Herald January 24 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/24/1042911530169.html
PARLIAMENT WILL DEBATE TROOP DEPLOYMENT: PM
There was no way Australia would go to war against Iraq before February 4, Prime Minister John Howard said today.
Mr Howard was defending his decision not to recall parliament before ordering troops to the Middle East to prepare for a possible war against Iraq.
He said there was no need because parliamentarians had already had a number of opportunities to debate the issue and there would be no commitment to war before parliament resumed.
"Parliament will be meeting on Tuesday week, on the 4th of February," Mr Howard told ABC radio. "There is no way that a final decision on this issue will have been made by then."
Meanwhile, a senior United Nations official said today he was convinced
Australia and the United States had no predetermined position to attack
Iraq.
UN Under-Secretary-General Shashi Tharoor, who is in Sydney, said
he believed Australia, the US and Britain would wait until UN weapons
inspectors handed down a report on January 27 before they made a
decision to go to war.
(MORE)
4//The Hindustan Times Friday, January 24, 2003 | Updated: 00:04 IST
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_145153,0005.htm
PAK RETALIATES, EXPELS FOUR INDIAN OFFICIALS
Mubashir Zaidi, Islamabad, January 23
Islamabad on Thursday ordered the expulsion of four Indian High Commission officials and announced it would also ask India to cut the strength of its mission by half. The expelled officials have been given 48 hours to leave the country.
(SNIP)
The move came a day after India ordered the expulsion of four Pakistan High Commission staffers.
A Foreign Ministry statement issued on Thursday said three diplomats and a staffer of the Indian High Commission have been asked to leave since they were engaged in activities "incompatible with their official status".
(SNIP)
Foreign Office spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan told state-run PTV that the measure was not retaliatory but reciprocal.
"We will continue to reciprocate Indian decisions," he said. He added that India's move would vitiate the atmosphere and increase tension in the region.
5//Asia Times Online January 24, 2003
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA24Ak02.html
GADDING WITH GADDAFI
By Ehsan Ahrari
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent
strategic analyst.
Muammar al-Gaddafi - the erstwhile bad boy of North Africa and the rehabilitated gadfly of 1970s transnational terrorism - has been much in the news recently. Although it is Iraq, not Libya, that is about to be invaded by the United States, Libya and the US are still at odds - even though Gaddafi is reported to have supplied intelligence on al-Qaeda terrorist group to Washington.
Gaddafi's main problem with the US in the coming months will be his potential to integrate his chemical weapons capabilities with short-to-middle-range Scud missiles that are already part of Libyan arsenal. Another important issue is what is he going to do with those capabilities: pursue his newly-found pan-African aspirations, or his previous love affair with pan-Arabism any time in the near future.
(SNIP)
Given the fact that Washington is so focused on the "capability-based" analysis of potential adversaries these days, Libya has plenty to worry about. Provided below is an overview of its WMD capabilities.
(SNIP)
Washington's chief source of worry involving Libya is its ballistic
and cruise missile capabilities. At the present time, it has Scud-C
variant (550 kilometer range and 500 kilogram payload), and over
100 Scud-B missiles (300 kilometer range and 985 kilogram payload).
Of these, the Scud-Bs may pose a regional tactical threat, while
the Scud-Cs are capable of reaching Sicily and southern Greece. Libya
also has a 15-year-old program to develop al-Fatah missile (950 kilometer
range and 500 kilogram payload), and a variety of cruise missiles
in its inventory.
Given these capabilities, the question is what is the purpose of Libya's acquisition of WMD capabilities. There is no regional threat to its security; only the usual regional tensions and rivalries with Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Given that its neighbors do not have such WMD capabilities, the fact that Libya does makes one wonder about the reasons for acquiring these weapons. One reason might be that they represent a holdover from Libya's past aspirations to lead the pan-Arabist movement. Or perhaps they reflect a newly found desire to become a leader of the pan-African movement.
(SNIP)
Whether Libya ultimately returns to the Arab fold or remains interested in leading the pan-Africanist movement, the most significant issue is whether it would abandon its WMD capabilities. If not, it can very easily become a target of regime change that the Bush administration has incorporated as part of US national security strategy.
* * *
© 2003, Gloria R. Lalumia, insight@zianet.com
Radio
for Progressives at
http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical/radio.htm
