World Media Watch for July 24, 2002

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 Independent, UK--BLAIR: EUROPE MUST END HOSTILITY TO US (The call comes amid a rift with Britain's EU partners France and Germany over plans to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein... Mr Blair says: "If the time comes for action, people will have the evidence presented to them. [Saddam Hussein] is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in particular a nuclear capability.")

2//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, USA--SYRIA, ISRAEL AND U.S. IRAQ STRATEGY (The Israeli government has threatened strikes on military targets in Syria in response to further cross-border attacks by the Hezbollah militant group. Israel is trying to make clear the internal risks Syrian President Bashar Assad will face if his country's military capabilities are destroyed. This also would serve U.S. interests by helping to neutralize the Syrian threat before a possible campaign against Iraq.)

3//The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia--CONTRARY KIWIS SNUB BIG FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS (New Zealand says it will not join a United States-led assault on Iraq, declaring the days of Wellington "being an echo of Washington or London" are over..."We make decisions independently. We do not believe being a country of only four million people deprives us of that right."..."There is a bit of truth in the claim we think we are so far away from the rest of the world we can be a bit extreme, and it irritates the hell out of Canberra. But this is not a wayward government, the government reflects what the populace thinks.")

4//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--CHINA'S MILITARY MIGHT (Missing from these debates is any detailed discussion of Chinese strategic thinking. There is an assumption that Chinese leaders would not dare to use force while the military balance is against them. This is a flawed and dangerous assumption.)

5//Pakistan News Service, Pakistan--ISLAMIC SECTIONS OF CONSTITUTION NOT TO BE TOUCHED, ASSURES MUSHARRAF (The leaders of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal however rejected the proposed constitutional amendments package and warned it would be main cause of rift between the President and political parties after the October general elections... The memorandum said that it was insulting that one person with the help of some of his colleagues bounded the whole nation and the coming generation into constitutional limits and deprived them from their basic rights.)

6//TheNewsmexico.com, Mexico--BRAZILIAN LEFTIST PARTY PLANS ROAD SHOW TO U.S. (Brazil's leftist Workers' Party, whose candidate Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva is giving international investors the shivers, will present its economic platform to U.S. bankers and investors in a road show in the United States, the party said in a statement...Lula's rise in the polls, to 34 percent of those intending to vote, caused a backlash in Brazil's markets, even though his support has not risen to the absolute majority needed to avoid a runoff.)

* * *

1//The Independent 24 July 2002 01:24 BDST
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=317842

BLAIR: EUROPE MUST END HOSTILITY TO US
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Tony Blair has warned the European Union that the continent will become a "superpower" only if it reforms itself and ends its hostility to the United States.

The call comes amid a rift with Britain's EU partners France and Germany over plans to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein.

In an interview with Prospect magazine, exclusive extracts from which appear in The Independent today, Mr Blair says: "My challenge to Europe is this: if we want to have greater sway and greater power, then instead of complaining about America, we've got to face up to what we need to do ... Some of the criticism of America comes from an irritation with their huge superpower status. If we pool our sovereignty in a way that gives us a strong voice and, if we improve our defence capability, we will be the strategic partner that America needs and wants."

Mr Blair says: "If the time comes for action, people will have the evidence presented to them. [Saddam Hussein] is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in particular a nuclear capability."

(MORE)

2//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting 23 July 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=205402

SYRIA, ISRAEL AND U.S. IRAQ STRATEGY

Summary

The Israeli government has threatened strikes on military targets in Syria in response to further cross-border attacks by the Hezbollah militant group. Israel is trying to make clear the internal risks Syrian President Bashar Assad will face if his country's military capabilities are destroyed. This also would serve U.S. interests by helping to neutralize the Syrian threat before a possible campaign against Iraq.

Analysis

Syria is coming under increased pressure over its policy toward Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah. A recent U.N. report on Syrian policy in Lebanon criticized the Lebanese government's unwillingness to assert its authority over the southern part of the country, and by default permitting Hezbollah to continue cross-border attacks against Israel. Syria's deputy ambassador to the United Nations criticized the report as "one-sided," daily newspaper Al Hayat reported.

Syria exercises substantial control over the Lebanese government and apparently has decided to support Hezbollah operations in southern Lebanon. For example, the Sunday Times of London reported the weekend of July 20 that Syrian President Bashar Assad recently ordered his officers to use the military's arsenal to supply Hezbollah directly. This announcement has put the Syrians on a collision course with the Israelis.

The Times also reported that Israel has now delivered three warnings to the Syrian government concerning Hezbollah's operations. Two were transmitted through the United States, the other through Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The last warning was the most ominous. The Israeli government reportedly told the Syrians that if Hezbollah again attacks a target inside Israel, retaliation will be taken against military targets in Syria. Specifically, Israel would attack an armored brigade in southern Syria from the air, followed by artillery fire and perhaps an air-mobile assault. The goal would be the complete destruction of a Syrian brigade containing up to 100 tanks.

(SNIP)

The Israelis clearly feel that Assad does not understand the risks he is running. That is why they have signaled to him so explicitly, virtually revealing the broad outlines of their operational plan. This serves a psychological purpose as well, emphasizing the imbalance between the military powers of the two countries. Israel is saying that it does not need the element of surprise to have its way with Syria's army.

(SNIP)

However, possible future U.S. military operations against Iraq also must be factored into the situation. As it currently plays out, the United States has two geographical platforms from which to stage an operation against Baghdad. Turkey is the most important but also the most reluctant. Jordan is seemingly more willing, but this option poses logistical problems.

Both also have beef with Syria. At various points in history, the Syrians have moved against the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan. The Turks, charging Syrian meddling in the affairs of the Kurdish ethnic group, threatened war against Syria several years ago. Neither country is prepared to play Washington's game unless the threat from Syria is neutralized.

(MORE)

3//The Sydney Morning Herald July 24 2002
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/23/1027332377280.html

CONTRARY KIWIS SNUB BIG FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS
By Louise William, Herald Correspondent in Auckland

New Zealand says it will not join a United States-led assault on Iraq, declaring the days of Wellington "being an echo of Washington or London" are over.

The move appears to further isolate Australia over its support for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

New Zealand's stance, which echoes serious concerns in Europe over Washington's intention to extend the war on terrorism, highlights a growing divergence between the two neighbours who forged the Anzac tradition at Gallipoli.

While the Howard Government is lining up with the Bush Administration, New Zealand's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff said: "We acknowledge the reality of the balance of power in the world. But the days when New Zealand was an echo of London and Washington are over.

"We make decisions independently. We do not believe being a country of only four million people deprives us of that right."

(SNIP)

"New Zealand would not send forces into Iraq unless there was clear evidence of links between the regime and terrorism. Despite the best intelligence work, no link has been drawn.

"This is not to suggest we have a high regard for Saddam Hussein - we absolutely do not. However, we think there is a range of different responses. United Nations arms inspectors need to be readmitted, there needs to be targeted sanctions against Iraq," he said, referring to humanitarian concerns that broad sanctions are hurting Iraqi civilians.

New Zealand is drawing a clear distinction between the war in Afghanistan, for which its special forces troops were deployed alongside other allied troops, and further pre-emptive US military strikes.

While the Australian and New Zealand military remain committed to coming to each other's aid, New Zealand recently moth-balled the combat wing of its airforce. It is also fiercely proud of its anti-nuclear policy, which prevents visits from US warships and has excluded New Zealand from the ANZUS security arrangement with the US since the mid-1980s. Australia, on the other hand, has pursued closer military ties with the US.

Australian diplomats have privately belittled New Zealand as a "rebellious younger sibling", only able to stand on lofty principles and ideals because Australia, is taking responsibility in the real world.

One New Zealand defence source said: "Mostly what I find in Canberra is a flat statement is we don't pull our weight, which - in military terms - we do not.

"There is a bit of truth in the claim we think we are so far away from the rest of the world we can be a bit extreme, and it irritates the hell out of Canberra. But this is not a wayward government, the government reflects what the populace thinks."

(MORE)

4//Asia Times Online July 24 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DG24Ad02.html

CHINA'S MILITARY MIGHT
A question of strategy
By Stanley Chan

(SNIP)

It would seem that China's military is not quite so hollow after all.

The above question, and the likely replies to the question, touch upon elements missing in many criticisms of the Pentagon's report, and which the report itself only touches on indirectly. Missing from these debates is any detailed discussion of Chinese strategic thinking. There is an assumption that Chinese leaders would not dare to use force while the military balance is against them. This is a flawed and dangerous assumption.

Furthermore, these debates do not include any analysis of the broader political context, specifically of political will on the part of either China, Taiwan, or the United States. A discussion of political will is essential for putting the military balance in context.

Why counting beans is not enough

When examining strategic writings by Mao Zedong, which are still influential within the Chinese strategic community, one discerns several important themes. They are:

- Political motivation is more important than technology and material factors in determining who ultimately wins the war.

- The enemy's camp is often not monolithic. Individuals and groups within the enemy camp are often poorly motivated, and can be weaned away.

- Given patience and time, an adversary with an advantage in numbers and material resources can eventually be defeated.

These themes have been reflected in Beijing's strategies since 1949. For example, despite an overwhelming material disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States, Beijing intervened in the Korean War to defend what it believed to be a core national-security interest. They are also reflected in Beijing's nuclear strategy. Beijing has never sought to match either the Soviet or the US nuclear stockpile, settling on a relatively small stockpile on the assumption that the threat to destroy a handful of cities in either the United States or the former Soviet Union would provide effective deterrence.

How does all this relate to the cross-Strait military balance?

While various Chinese analysts acknowledge some of the material advantages held by the United States, they also cite the fact that the Taiwan issue is not a core security interest for the US, and that the US is casualty-averse. The US would never, they therefore conclude, risk thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of casualties to defend a country that most Americans cannot point to on a map. When they view the Taiwanese military, Chinese analysts are dismissive of both its motivation and its competence, seeing it as no more capable than the Nationalist Chinese armies they defeated more than 50 years ago. Moreover, the island's political and economic elite is seen as vulnerable to seduction by the growing economic ties across the Taiwan Strait. In the end, it is determined, Taiwan's elites would never sacrifice their lives to defend an island they never really considered home.

An imbalance of political will

For Chinese strategists, whatever material advantages Washington and Taipei might have do not compensate for the lack of political will. The leadership within both Taipei and Washington can be co-opted and/or deterred.

Their arguments are not without merit. Critics in Washington, and elsewhere, who pooh-pooh Chinese military capabilities, and who complain that the above views probably only represent a small faction of China's military leadership, often are the embodiment of the dismissive analyses by Chinese strategic analysts. Whenever a high-profile report on the "China threat" is produced, the critics are dismissive. But when forced by events, such as US President George W Bush saying in front of national TV that he would "do whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, the critics start screaming "back off, we are getting in over our heads". In the end, those who scream the loudest about China not being a threat in reality are often quite fearful of China - but don't want to admit it.

This contradictory position can be explained by:

- An ideological hostility toward the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and various elements of the "military industrial complex".

- A desire to avoid contentious issues within the bilateral US-China relationship.

- A general, and in some cases willful, ignorance of Taiwan's modern history, and its unusual external and internal political conditions.

The result of all this is an unspoken lack of political will among many US-based defense and foreign-policy analysts to defend Taiwan. This lack of will at times leads them to dismiss Chinese military capabilities in order to avoid a confrontation over an issue they are at most indifferent to.

In this environment, strong political will on China's part, combined with a lot of patience, makes up for its limited military capabilities. China need not match US or Taiwanese capabilities. Beijing merely needs to create enough tension and fear among elements of the US foreign-policy elite to get them to argue against supporting Taiwan in any potential cross-Strait crisis.

In the end, the various analyses of the cross-Strait military balance say less about the military balance and more about how individual critics view US-China relations, and right-of-center groups within the US political establishment.

5//Pakistan News Service Updated on 2002-07-23 13:26:45
http://www.paknews.com/top.php?id=1&date1=2002-07-23

ISLAMIC SECTIONS OF CONSTITUTION NOT TO BE TOUCHED, ASSURES MUSHARRAF
MMA rejects amendments package

ISLAMABAD, July 23 (PNS): President General Pervez Musharraf on Monday assured the key religious leaders of the country that Islamic sections of the constitution were not being amended and any change would be brought according to the views of all segments of the society, including different political groups.

During a meeting with the leaders of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an alliance of six hard-line Islamic parties, the President empathetically refuted the impression that a secular system had been imposed in the country.

"The Islamic sections of the constitution would not be touched upon. Pakistan is an Islami State and no step against Islamic teachings would be taken," the President assured the participants.

(SNIP)

The meeting was a part of the consultative process initiated by the military government to seek opinion on the proposed constitutional package.

The president also assured the MMA leaders that all political and religious parties of the country would be allowed to contest October 10 general elections.

Gen Musharraf said the proposed constitutional package was not final and it would be reviewed at the conclusion of a nation-wide debate going on at the moment. Expelling the impression that the government was unilaterally bringing amendments in the constitution he said, "We are inviting people to listen to their views on the package with an open mind."

Final decision on the package, he said, would be taken keeping in view the suggestions and proposals made by different quarters and with the aim to establish real and durable democracy in the country.

The leaders of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal however rejected the proposed constitutional amendments package and warned it would be main cause of rift between the President and political parties after the October general elections.

The six member delegation of the alliance presented a memorandum to the president which said that Supreme Court has no authority to give the president authority for "writing a new constitution."

The memorandum said that it was insulting that one person with the help of some of his colleagues bounded the whole nation and the coming generation into constitutional limits and deprived them from their basic rights.

MMA also rejected the constitution of National Security Council and termed it a bid to give constitutional cover to army's interference into state affairs. It also opposed the graduation condition for the candidates and said it will limit the people choices and basic rights.

(MORE)

6//TheNewsmexico.com Tuesday, July 23, 2002
http://www.thenewsmexico.com/noticia.asp?id=31068

BRAZILIAN LEFTIST PARTY PLANS ROAD SHOW TO U.S.
AFP - 7/23/2002

SAO PAULO - Brazil's leftist Workers' Party, whose candidate Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva is giving international investors the shivers, will present its economic platform to U.S. bankers and investors in a road show in the United States, the party said in a statement.

Party president Jose Dirceu's U.S. visit begins Monday with meetings in New York. In Washington, he is slated to meet Inter-American Development Bank President Enrique Iglesias.

The five-day visit seeks to "establish a broad-ranging discussion with those investors and to address miscues about the Workers' Party and its platform," according to the statement.

Lula's rise in the polls, to 34 percent of those intending to vote, caused a backlash in Brazil's markets, even though his support has not risen to the absolute majority needed to avoid a runoff.

(SPIN)

The Workers' Party is out to convince analysts their fears are misplaced. Given the party's labor union roots, analysts are concerned that as president, Lula would not follow a sound fiscal policy or meet Brazil's debt commitments -- despite his statements to the contrary.

Also to ally investors' fears, Lula has selected Senator Jose Alencar, a 70-year-old multimillionaire, to be his vice presidential running mate. Alencar owns Brazil's biggest group of textile companies and is from the center-right Liberal Party.

* * *

© 2002, Gloria R. Lalumia
insight@zianet.com

More at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *