Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003, pages 34, 64

European Press Reviews

 

American POWs Compared With Guantanamo Bay Captives

 

By Lucy Jones

The U.S.-led war on Iraq got off to a bad start—with dead Iraqi civilians and the bodies of American prisoners shown on television, and forces loyal to Saddam Hussain proving themselves capable of stalling the march to Baghdad. France's Le Monde on March 26 backed U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's complaint about the broadcast by the Al-Jazeera television station of Iraqi footage of American prisoners of war. Writing that Mr Rumsfeld is "one thousand times right," the paper said such pictures "smack more of political manipulation for propaganda purposes than of anything to do with journalism." Rumsfeld, it added, "would have been in a better position to defend the Geneva Convention if he applied it himself." The U.S. defense secretary, the paper asserted, "was foremost among the American officials who refused...to grant POW status to hundreds of men captured in the Afghanistan campaign" now being held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "All evidence shows," Le Monde said, "that only a tiny number of them had any links with al-Qaeda," and yet, "they are being held, totally illegally, in a judicial no man's land."

It is "absurd" for the U.S. to cite international law in complaining about the footage, Germany's Berliner Zeitung said on March 26."The defense minister of the country which has attacked Iraq in massive violation of international law cites precisely this international law at a time when it is becoming clear that the war is not quite going as he intended," the paper commented. While conceding that "without a doubt" the footage violated the Third Geneva Convention, the paper complained that the filming of the prisoners has received disproportionate coverage in some media compared to the fate of the Iraqi population.

 

Russian Arms to Iraq Scandal "A Diversion," Says Trud

In Russia, which opposed the war on Iraq, the accusations by U.S. President George W. Bush of Moscow selling arms to Saddam Hussain in breach of U.N. sanctions was seen as a way of diverting attention away from the failure of coalition forces' Blitzkrieg. "For the Bush administration," Trud said on March 25, "the easiest explanation for the fact that America's military machine has run into trouble in the sands around Iraqi towns is not the resilience of the Iraqi army and militia, but an external factor: outside help." Wrote the government daily Rossiyskaya Gazetaon the same day, "One simply has to blame one's failures on someone else." The March 25 Kommersant argued that "Washington has not presented any evidence that Russian arms have been sold to Baghdad."

 

Suicide Bombings as Terror Called "War Propaganda"

The German press questioned the condemnation by British and American commanders of the suicide bombing tactics being used by Iraqi forces. The March 26 Die Tageszeitung described as "war propaganda of the lowest kind" the idea that suicide bombing bears the hallmarks of a terror attack. "According to this definition, all Iraqi soldiers who fail to surrender straight away without a fight or who refuse to be slaughtered in open battle by a superior enemy are engaged in terrorist acts," it said.

"American and British troops are coming up against an enemy who does not want to play by the rules of the Pentagon's computer-animated simulations," wrote Sueddeutsche Zeitung the same day. "It was probably nothing but wishful thinking to expect Saddam Hussain to be so Ôfair' that he would allow himself to be bombed from power by an incomparably stronger enemy, according to the latter's script," it continued.

Argued the March 26 Die Welt, "Branding all Iraqis who put up resistance as bandits and terrorists will hardly put the allies' aim of winning the hearts and minds of an oppressed people, which is in deep trouble, back on track."

 

"No Convergence" Between Bush, Blair on Post-War Iraq

Even at the beginning of war, newspapers questioned what would be done with Iraq after a presumed coalition victory. France—still trying to repair the damage to its relationship with the U.S. and Britain after refusing to back the war—was urged by LibŽration on March 27 to "accept the fact of the invasion": "It would be a mistake by France and the others to block U.N. involvement in Iraq," said the newspaper. "So we must wish Ôgood luck' to Tony Blair," it continued, in his endeavors to "convince Bush to leave his imperial isolation and entrust the U.N. with managing the aid as well as the administration and reconstruction of Iraq." Concluded the paper, "This is the only way to prevent the open wounds of Iraq and the Middle East from becoming even more dangerously infected."

On March 28 Switzerland's Le Temps wrote, however, that Blair's trip to Camp David, outside Washington, had "failed to bring about the consolidation that the British prime minister had the right to expect with regard to both military strategy and the diplomatic and humanitarian field." Switzerland's Tribune de Gen?ve on the same day also saw "no convergence" between the views of Bush and Blair on post-Saddam Iraq. "The view from London," it said, "is that the U.N. must not be sidelined into humanitarian operations but must also participate in the reconstruction of Iraq." "Whereas," the paper continued, "there is every indication that America is not prepared to delegate" the running of the country "to an international organization."

The U.S. "occupation of Iraq" should be as "short as possible," wrote The Financial Times March 28. "It should then give way to U.N. civil authority, which should, in turn, pave the way for a multilateral force under U.S. leadership to handle security. But the U.N. would provide the umbrella and legitimacy for the constituent political process by which Iraqis would decide how to share power among themselves."

On April 8, following Bush's trip to Northern Ireland for more talks with his British counterpart on Iraq's future, Denmark's Information feared that post-war Iraq will become a "U.S. protectorate." "The occupying power won't just be responsible for Iraq's civil administration," the paper noted. "All humanitarian aid and rebuilding of infrastructure will take place under the supervision of retired U.S. General Jay Garner."

"Tony may do the thinking, he may doggedly present his arguments, but George runs the show," Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau wrote on April 8.The U.S. president had made a "gesture" by visiting the British prime minister, France's April 8 Le Monde conceded, but "London doesn't really seem to be able to influenceWashington with regard to the role which should be given to the United Nations during Iraq's reconstruction," it concluded.

Le Temps warned the same day that if the Americans choose not to cooperate fully with the U.N., "the U.S. will head for another war which will emerge from the inmost depths of Arab humiliation."

 

Coalition Has "Duty" to Find Weapons of Mass Destruction

The pulling down of statues of Saddam Hussain in Baghdad on April 9—just hours after U.S. troops moved into the Iraqi capital—provoked mixed reactions in Europe."Joy and Looting as Baghdad Falls," said the front-page headline on Italy's Il Messaggeroon the following day. "How the steamroller flattened the paper tiger," Madrid's April 10 El Mundo said. "The victorious army now has the moral duty to find those weapons of mass destruction and show them to the world," said the newspaper. By going to war, El Pais wrote April 10, Bush and Blair had advanced "toward a world in which everyone obeys the will of the strongest rather than the law." Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung pointed out the same day that many Iraqi, American and British lives were lost before people could celebrate what it called "their liberation from Saddam's rule." It also noted the absence of any right under international law to overthrow dictatorships "from outside." The April 10 Sueddeutsche Zeitung described scenes of Iraqi jubilation, but also the looting. "Liberation is not an act of the moment," it cautioned, "it is a process, because when the old collapses, new life does not automatically spring up from the ruins."

In Switzerland, the Tribune de Gen?ve on April 10 said that while we can all rejoice with the jubilant Iraqis, "it would be a mistake to believe that the many problems brought to light by this crisis have been resolved."America and Britain "have yet to prove that they are upholding in Iraq an international order from which everyone will benefit," it said, and that "their promises of a radiant future will be honored."

 

Bush Should "Cool Down" Regarding Syria

Washington's allegations that Syria possesses chemical weapons and provides haven to Iraqi fugitives and support for opponents to Israel led to speculation that Damascus may be next on the U.S. military hit list. "The U.S. is making hay while the post-war sun shines," wrote The Guardian on April 15. "[President Bashar Al-Assad] is vulnerable because of the loss of illegal Iraqi oil imports and a mounting sense of regional isolation," the British newspaper said. "The U.S. and Britain agree he would be taking risks if he allowed Arab fighters or weapons across his border or sheltered senior Iraqis—though U.N. backing for the war would have made such demands easier to enforce."European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana had "spoken plain common sense," it said, when he urged the U.S. to "cool down."

The LondonTimes of the same day, however, warned that "Syria would do well to heed American warnings." "The younger Assad came to power declaring his intention to change the inefficient and stifling regime…so far, the record is disappointing," said the newspaper. "The Ôshock and awe' visited on Baghdad," it continued, "reverberated far beyond Iraq: and Mr Assad would be wise to move now while the old guard remains stunned."

Lucy Jones is a free-lance journalist based in London.

< Prev		Next >