Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2003, pages 42-43

European Press Review

 

European Press Increasingly Comparing Iraq to Vietnam

 

By Lucy Jones

With almost daily attacks in Iraq claiming the lives of an increasing number of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers, the word “Vietnam” began creeping into Europe’s newspapers in October. “U.S.troops were in Vietnam for 10 years, and have only been in Iraq since March. How bad are things going to become?” Germany’s Markische Oderzeitung asked on Oct. 28, after a series of car bombs rocked Baghdad, claiming dozens of lives. “The security situation is catastrophic, and more aid organizations are just going to pull out,” the paper said.

“The situation in Iraq has gone awry,” wrote Bonn’s General-Anzeiger on the same day. “The attackers are getting support from Islamic terrorist circles. Even large sections of the Iraqi population are helping them,” it noted, “because the Iraqis see Americans not as liberators but as occupiers.”

“Iraq presents a two-fold vicious circle,” wrote the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of Oct. 27. “On the one hand, reconstruction and a more positive atmosphere cannot be achieved without re-establishing internal security, while at the same time, they are its prerequisites,” the paper said. “Iraq will neither be secure if the U.S. occupation continues nor if the U.S. left.”

 

Funds for Iraq Conditional on “Sovereignty,” Says Spain’s El Mundo

At the major conference held Oct. 23 in Madrid to raise money for the reconstruction of Iraq, donors pledged $13 billion, in addition to the $20 billion already promised by Washington. According to World Bank and IMF estimates, $56 billion is needed to get the country back on its feet.

“It should be pointed out that the U.S. has not yet decided if its $20 billion will go in hard cash or in the form of credits, and that other countries, like France, will not hand over a cent until sovereignty is completely returned to the people of Iraq,” Spain’s El Mundo wrote the following day. (By the end of the month, the U.S. Congress had acceded to the Bush administration’s insistance on aid being in the form of grants rather than loans.)

“Rather than a meeting of donors, the gathering in Madrid was a conference of moneylenders, wrote Spain’s El Pais the same day. “More than two-thirds of what was collected will have to be paid back.”

France’s Le Figaro said Oct. 25 that the U.S. ”wanted to wage war practically single-handedly and without the backing of the U.N.…But now,” the newspaper continued, “they don’t want to be left to carry the post-war burden alone.

Earlier, on Oct. 2, Germany’s Berliner Zeitung had urged the European Union to do more to help the reconstruction effort, dismissing the 200 million euros it had pledged as “practically nothing.” Nations should donate money to Iraq, it argued, regardless of whether they supported the war or not, as “it is in the interest of all states to reduce tension in Iraq.” But financial help should not be unconditional, the paper said. “A real say in Iraq,” it stressed, “is an essential condition for the flow of funds for reconstruction.”

 

Europeans “Buy Time” with Iran Nuclear Agreement, Says UK’s Guardian

On Oct. 21, during a visit by the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Great Britain, Iran announced a breakthrough with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been under observation, while the IAEA accuses Tehran of manufacturing weapons-grade uranium. Under the agreement, Iran will allow tougher U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities.

The accord was generally hailed as a success by the European press, not least because it was “proof” that the Europeans “can act together effectively on the international stage,” France’s Le Monde wrote on Oct. 23.

European “diplomacy and their promise to support [Iran’s] civilian nuclear program in the future…achieved more than Washington with its show of muscles,”Austria’s Kronenzeitung wrote the following day.

However, Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau pointed out Oct. 22, EU foreign ministers failed to obtain sufficient assurances on the suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program.

“Completely abandoning such an ambitious and costly enrichment program would represent a spectacular U-turn for which Tehran would probably demand a high price,” the paper noted. It predicted that Iran will try to play Europe off against the United States, and that this may lead to a renewed transatlantic rift.

Also on Oct. 22, Germany’s Die Welt voiced the opinion that Iran’s stance will provide no more than “breathing room,” warning that, “No threat will stop Iran from realizing its plans sooner or later.” The paper predicted that Tehran initially will comply with all requirements but may, quite legally, cancel any relevant treaties once it is about to build a nuclear bomb.

An article on the editorial pages of the UK’s Oct. 24 Guardian was of the same opinion. The news “does not mean Iran has discarded the nuclear military card. Instead,” it said, “both sides have bought some time.” The move should be interpreted as a pause while Iran considers whether to continue its weapons program covertly and how to gauge Western reactions, the paper added.

 

Headscarf Row in France Has “Divided Society,” Says Le Monde

A row has broken out in France over the wearing of headscarves in high schools after two female Muslim pupils were expelled for wearing hijab. The debate, wrote the Oct. 14 Le Monde, has “divided French society.”

A recently created official body representing France’s Muslims has been struggling to formulate a position on the issue, reported Le Figaro the same day.

The French Council of the Muslim Religion has “tried to offend neither the republic nor the principles of Islam,” the paper said, pointing out that while a communiqué put out by the council says that wearing the headscarf is a “religious precept,” it also “forcefully” asks for “the application of the principle of secularism.” “By talking about a ‘precept,’” it explained, “the authors of the communiqué wanted to avoid talking about the headscarf as an ‘obligation.’”

 

Chechnya’s Kadyrov “Does Not Represent His People”

“Chechnya has chosen Russia,” Russia’s Trud newspaper declared the day after the Oct. 5 victory of the pro-Russian candidate Akhmad Kadyrov in Chechen elections. But, as Nezavisimaya Gazeta pointed out the same day, Mr. Kadyrov’s victory comes as no surprise. “The main competitors were removed beforehand,” it pointed out, “whether by the courts, whether by persuasion or whether by an offer that was difficult to refuse.”

France’s Le Monde of Oct. 3 led with an interview with Aslan Maskhadov, the rebel leader who has been in hiding for four years. Elected Chechnya’s president in 1997, he is now a prime target of Russian military efforts in the region, who accuse him of having links to international terrorists. In the interview, Maskhadov scorned the Russian position in Chechnya, saying, “Anyone who thinks about it a little must see that Russia’s military adventure in Chechnya is a total failure.”

The rebel Muslim leader repeatedly denied any links between his organization and al-Qaeda, asserting that the separatist movement “has nothing in common with international terrorism.” Maskhadov also rejected the idea of allowing Chechnya to be an internationally administered entity within Russia. The Palestinian example, he argued, showed how ineffective such solutions can be.

“Nicholas I, Stalin, Putin: implacable continuity,” the newspaper editorialized. “The colonial war in the Caucasus is turning inexorably into an extermination of the local population.”

The Oct. 3 Moscow Times quoted a leaked Russian army report detailing Kadyrov’s systematic brutality on his way to election success, and Russia’s numerous efforts to help him. According to the Times, Kadyrov’s supporters have been extorting money from Chechen businesses and bureaucrats for months while soldiers terrorize voters. The article concluded by noting that some rebel fighters have moved into the neighboring republic of Ingushetia, and that the conflict in Chechnya is beginning to spill across its borders.

As Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote on Oct. 7, while Kadyrov “has been elected,” he “is not the president of his people.”

 

Attack on Syria “Deflects Attention From Arafat,” Says Le Monde

It did not go unnoticed in Europe that Israel’s Oct. 5 attack on Syrian territory occurred on the 30th anniversary of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. According to France’s Le Monde the following day, the attack deflected attention away from Yasser Arafat, who formed an emergency government on the day of the attack, headed by his prime minister-designate, Ahmed Qurei. Because of its emergency status, the paper noted, the cabinet would not require parliamentary approval. A Palestinian official told Le Monde, “The declaration of an emergency is designed to reaffirm the principle of a single Palestinian Authority and respect for the law, as our situation is very critical.”

According to Le Monde, that seemed to mean two things: Arafat is bracing for a possible Israeli expulsion order, and wants to ensure he tightly controls the Palestinian government and security services if that occurs; and he is giving himself a potential means to act against Islamist militants if their actions give Israel a pretext to banish him.

 

Why Bush Refusal to Cooperate With Sept. 11 Commission?

The European press covered reports that an independent commission set up by the U.S. Congress to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York appears to be on a collision with the White House, which is refusing to hand over intelligence briefings received by President George W. Bush before the attacks. “All executives resist scrutiny in some areas of government,” wrote The Financial Times in Britain Oct. 29, “but this case doesn’t look like one of those instances.”

The paper speculated that with campaigning for the next presidential election now getting underway, Bush cannot afford the slightest impression of a failure in leadership prior to the attacks.

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

< Prev		Next >