World Media Watch for August 5, 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//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, USA--MOBILIZATIONS HINT AT DATE AND STRATEGY FOR IRAQ WAR (As the debate over a potential U.S. attack on Iraq continues in Washington and abroad, a subtle increase in the mobilization of Army combat troops is underway. This development offers a hint to the Pentagon's evolving Iraq strategy, with the specific units involved indicating that a conventional attack on Iraq could be slated for January or February, with a major thrust possibly coming from Turkey.)

2//Jane's Foreign Report, UK--WAR WITH IRAQ: FOREIGN REPORT HAS SOME PREDICTIONS (What if Annan fails? Our prediction: an operation will begin with massive air strikes in December followed by the insertion of special forces and the fomenting of local rebellions. . .)

3//Turkish Daily News, Turkey--SALAH: IRAQI TURCOMANS ARE PARTNERS OF OUR COUNTRY (Prime Minister of the Iraq Kurdistan Patriotic Union (PUK) Berham Salah visited Turkish officials to check the Turkish pulse on a probable U.S. military strike on Iraq and the aftermath after toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Salah, answering questions for the Turkish Daily News (TDN) stated that Turkey would one day realize that their government was not so bad. Salah called on Iraqi Turcomans to attend U.S. sponsored opposition meetings, since they were partners of the country..."We have no interest in getting in the middle of a conflict where we don't have a word to say. We certainly hope for a resolution through peaceful means...There are no American troops in Iraqi Kurdistan and no intensified troops.")

4//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong--GETTING SADDAM, PART 5: THE AFTERMATH (The scene, a future White House press conference. "Mr Bush, you have just successfully invaded Iraq. What are you going to do now?" "Why, I'm going to Disney World." If only it were that easy. .... But it is even more mystifying that there has been even less discussion of what happens if the United States achieves its goal. For the issue of what happens in and to Iraq after Saddam will certainly have regional and global repercussions. Indeed, Iraq could be the classic case of be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.)

5//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates-OPINION/GULF NEWS SAYS: AN INCOHERENT APPROACH (The statements from Washington do not indicate coherence of American policy in the Middle East. Bush has previously also sought removal of the Palestinian leadership. This desire for change by an ostensibly "honest broker" in the region's search for peace and stability calls into question the ultimate goals and validity of America's unilateral approach.)

6//The Daily Star, Lebanon--OPINION: WAR DRUMS BEAT AGAIN IN THE GULF - THIS TIME BAGHDAD MUST ACT WISELY (From the Arab Press Review/ A daily selection of views from the Arabic press, compiled and translated by The Daily Star)

7//Pravda, Russia--BUSH ALONE ON IRAQ (This situation is a great pity for Colin Powell, the soldier turned elder statesman, the rush of youth having mellowed, but also hardened, into a depth of wisdom rarely found even in career diplomats. Yet, when hawks are flying, doves must choose to lie low. And wait. The lifespan of a hawk is some eight years.)

1//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting 2 August 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=205579

MOBILIZATIONS HINT AT DATE AND STRATEGY FOR IRAQ WAR

Summary

As the debate over a potential U.S. attack on Iraq continues in Washington and abroad, a subtle increase in the mobilization of Army combat troops is underway. This development offers a hint to the Pentagon's evolving Iraq strategy, with the specific units involved indicating that a conventional attack on Iraq could be slated for January or February, with a major thrust possibly coming from Turkey.

(MORE)

2//Jane's Foreign Report August 1, 2002
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/fr/fr020801_1_n.shtml

WAR WITH IRAQ: FOREIGN REPORT HAS SOME PREDICTIONS

(SNIP)...The British left is now determined to make a stand. Why? Because from a leftist standpoint this could become an extension of the war started by Margaret Thatcher and the first President Bush supposedly to defend oil-rich Arabian sheiks; the idea that a Labour prime minister Britain should continue this war with the second President Bush is abhorrent to left-wingers.

One point in their favour is that unlike the wars in the Balkans or Afghanistan, this is a confrontation without a clear strategy and without an evident, realistic outcome.

[Thus, to head off any criticism of UK involvement in an attack on Iraq, which has come not only from the usual left-wing critics in Britain, but also from much-decorated retired army generals and ennobled retired diplomats], a new British strategy is unfolding. . . .The Bush administration is being urged to continue pursuing the diplomatic course as far as possible. In September, on the margins of the United Nations' yearly General Assembly meeting, the British hope that the US will sign up to a new mediation effort by the UN's secretary-general, Kofi Annan, whose reputation is rising.

What if Annan fails? Our prediction: an operation will begin with massive air strikes in December followed by the insertion of special forces and the fomenting of local rebellions. . . .

3//Turkish Daily News 3 August 2002
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/for.htm#f3

SALAH: IRAQI TURCOMANS ARE PARTNERS OF OUR COUNTRY
--Democracy will bring stability to the region
--No American troops in Northern Iraq

Burcun Imir, Ankara - Turkish Daily News

Prime Minister of the Iraq Kurdistan Patriotic Union (PUK) Berham Salah visited Turkish officials to check the Turkish pulse on a probable U.S. military strike on Iraq and the aftermath after toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Salah, answering questions for the Turkish Daily News (TDN) stated that Turkey would one day realize that their government was not so bad. Salah called on Iraqi Turcomans to attend U.S. sponsored opposition meetings, since they were partners of the country.

Q: You are on your way to Washington. What messages on behalf of your party are you taking to the United States regarding an operation on Iraq?

A: I will take the opportunity to consult with various U.S. government officials in the United States. We know that the debate on Iraq has reached a critical stage. We certainly want to know the status of the debate and to also to offer our perspectives on issues that effect our interests in Iraq.

(SNIP)

Q: You are saying "our country as Iraqis," but you also carry the title of Prime Minister. Is there a separate state in Northern Iraq? What are you going to be the Prime Minister of?

A: We have a regional government that came into existence after 1991, which administers the region of Kurdistan, or part of the Kurdistan region. Then Iraq withdrew its administrative powers from the region, we moved in to fill the vacuum. We have parliamentary elections, we have set up democratic institutions for the administration of that region. This experience of the Kurdistan regional government is an important and impressive story. In 10 years time, we have achieved remarkable success. Contrast what we have in the rest of Iraq, it is impressive. Let me remind you of some statistics. In 1991, in the PUK region, we had 191 doctors; in 2002 we have 732 doctors. In 1991, we had 504 schools, today we have 1,890 schools...

Q: Are you saying it fully deserves to be separated?

A: It has been in reality over the last 10 years de facto independent. We have been de facto separate from the Iraqi State. We are seeking a democratic Iraq to which we can rejoin. We know there is no prospect for a Kurdish state. We have no way of escaping the State of Iraq. The geopolitics of Iraq are such that it will be kept united. Our interest lies in rejoining Iraq, a democratic Iraq. Iraq is already divided. When change comes to Iraq, the irony is that some people speak of a recipe that will divide Iraq. They are absolutely, utterly wrong. A dictatorship, totalitarian rule, is dividing Iraq on ethnic terms; Kurds vs. Arabs, on sectarian lines, Shii vs. Sunni. We need to put this country back together if we want to live in peace and prosperity. How can we do that? Only through a democratic system of government at peace, first and foremost with the people of Iraq and with the neighbors.

(SNIP)

Q: In case of a war, will you able to contain your civilians?

A: The is no doubt that in any situation, like my boss Mr. Talabani always emphasizes, are interests are intertwined with our neighbors. We live in an integrated world. What happens in Suleymaniye or in Erbil, matters in Ankara, and these days, in Washington as well. We need to work closely with our neighbors to ensure that our region doesn't become disadvantaged by the conflict. That requires close cooperation and coordination. From a political point of view, we are very cautious. We have no interest in getting in the middle of a conflict where we don't have a word to say. We certainly hope for a resolution through peaceful means.

Q: Is there an intensified military presence in Northern Iraq and are there any American troops?

A: There are no American troops in Iraqi Kurdistan and no intensified troops. These are very sensitive, serious issues. We do not want to give anyone the pretext to harm defenseless, innocent civilians.

(SNIP)

Salah met with Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal and said that they discussed the current situation in Iraq and Northern Iraq.

Salah, answering a question about Iraqi Turcomans, stated that Turcomans were the partners of the country, saying, "Turcomans should attend the meeting regarding the future of our country."

Salah is expected to have further meetings with Turkish military authorities and Turkish intelligence. Salah, after his visits in Turkey, will go to the United States to consult with U.S. authorities in New York. PUK leader Jelal Talabani will attend the Washington meeting, set up by the U.S. government.

4//Asia Times Online Aug 3, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH03Ak01.html

GETTING SADDAM
PART 5: The aftermath
By David Isenberg

PART 1: A plan is hatched

PART 2: Military preparations

PART 3: Iraq prepares

PART 4: Voices of opposition

The scene, a future White House press conference. "Mr Bush, you have just successfully invaded Iraq. What are you going to do now?"

"Why, I'm going to Disney World."

If only it were that easy. In truth the United States faces grave difficulties, even after a successful invasion. It must have a successor regime ready to take over in Baghdad from Saddam Hussein. But assembling such a regime is no easy task, given the squabbling factions that make up the disparate Iraqi opposition.

Indeed, they mirror the Iraqi population itself, which is split between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds - all of which are further subdivided into competing clans and tribes. Turkey would not like a separatist Kurdish state on its borders, while the US cannot afford to prop up the Shi'ites as they could easily join Iran at a later stage.

It is strange enough that the United States may soon be going to war against Iraq mainly because it does not like its head of state. But it is even more mystifying that there has been even less discussion of what happens if the United States achieves its goal. For the issue of what happens in and to Iraq after Saddam will certainly have regional and global repercussions. Indeed, Iraq could be the classic case of be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Many outside analysts are starting to ask what about the day after the invasion? Does the United States have a workable plan for a post-Saddam Iraq? And, most important, does the US itself plan on sticking around long enough to build a new Iraq that is reasonably stable, peaceful, and democratic? Or will the Americans bug out after a few months or a year, leaving the job of putting Iraq back together again to the United Nations or to Europe or, perhaps even to Iran?

Considering the distaSte of the administration of George W Bush for "nation-building" and "peacekeeping", these are critical questions.

As Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in the Washington Post, "One gets a whiff of it in Bosnia, from which the Pentagon seemingly can't wait to extricate itself. And, more disturbingly, one sees it in Afghanistan, where the administration's aversion to nation-building and peacekeeping, and even to putting substantial numbers of troops on the ground to fight the war, is palpable. The Bush administration may have its reasons for limiting the US commitment to Afghanistan, but the effect so far has been to cast doubt on American willingness to stay anywhere for the long haul, including in a post-Hussein Iraq."

(MORE)

5//Gulf News Online Dubai:Sunday, August 04, 2002
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=59637

OPINION
GULF NEWS SAYS: AN INCOHERENT APPROACH

American President George W. Bush says that peace is possible in the Middle East. He also says that he is determined to see the leadership change in Baghdad despite serious concern over his plans to invade Iraq.

The statements from Washington do not indicate coherence of American policy in the Middle East. Bush has previously also sought removal of the Palestinian leadership. This desire for change by an ostensibly "honest broker" in the region's search for peace and stability calls into question the ultimate goals and validity of America's unilateral approach.

(SNIP)

Whatever the reasons behind Bush's desire to place the Iraqis under further hardships, it is clear that these are going to ultimately prove detrimental to the Arab world. If Baghdad's weapons programme is of concern here, rejecting its offer to allow inspections gives lie to America's stated desire of furthering security in the region. If the aim is to have leaderships in place pliant to U.S. and Israeli requirements, this again will not help encourage long-term security within the Arab world itself.

The Bush administration would be wise to heed the sentiments being expressed in the Middle East and elsewhere. Going it alone will not further anyone's interests.

6//The Daily Star Beirut, Saturday, August 03, 2002. Updated 08:30 AM +2GMT
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/03_08_02_f.htm

OPINION: WAR DRUMS BEAT AGAIN IN THE GULF - THIS TIME BAGHDAD MUST ACT WISELY

From the Arab Press Review/ A daily selection of views from the Arabic press, compiled and translated by The Daily Star

7//Pravda 2002-08-03
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/08/03/33785.html

BUSH ALONE ON IRAQ
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Despite Colin Powell's substantial acts of statesmanship and tremendous diplomatic skills, George W. Bush has allowed the hawks in his administration to isolate the USA from the rest of the world with an alarming alacrity and stubborn consistency.

The wide united front present during the Gulf War twelve years ago, when there was a semblance of normality in international politics after the so-perceived "Soviet threat" ceased to exist in the minds of the fearful (it never existed de facto), has long since gone. A decade of bullying has taken its toll but more than that, it is the hypocrisy behind US foreign policy which grinds down any would-be admirer.

(SNIP)

Surely George Bush's great buddy Tony Blair would bail him out this time? None of it. King Abdullah of Jordan has declared that during his visit to London this week, Tony Blair declared that he had "tremendous concerns" about an attack on Iraq and that he thought it was basically a "bad idea".

Yet George Bush pushes brashly and blindly ahead with statements like: "The policy of this Administration is regime change (in Iraq), for a reason: Saddam Hussein is a man who poisons his own people, who threatens his neighbours and who deploys weapons of mass destruction". Then less convincingly and with a pained expression on his face, "We're looking at all the options, the use of all tools".

Such sabre-rattling without having the faintest idea where the international community really lies on the issue (how many eyebrows in the Pentagon and White House will be raised by Blair's comments?) Washington walked straight into the trap which Baghdad lays down today: the invitation of officials to Baghdad to discuss the re-opening of the UN arms inspections. The idea begins to dawn that if the White House and the Pentagon allowed the State Department to do its job (and full credit must be given to Colin Powell for his humility, his resilience, his pragmatism, his tact and his acumen) the climate of fear and hostility currently reigning in international politics would long since have dissipated.

This situation is a great pity for Colin Powell, the soldier turned elder statesman, the rush of youth having mellowed, but also hardened, into a depth of wisdom rarely found even in career diplomats. Yet, when hawks are flying, doves must choose to lie low. And wait. The lifespan of a hawk is some eight years.

* * *

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

Newly Updated Internet Radio Listings at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical

* * *