- The Washington Times - Friday, August 22, 2003

Excerpts of editorials from newspapers around the world:

La Repubblica

The bombing in Baghdad

ROME — If the attack on the U.N. building carries Saddam’s signature, it could be a calculated warning to the United Nations, a body that has now recognized the Anglo-American occupation and is becoming more involved in it.

But there’s another possible explanation. Hitting the U.N. representatives was intended to show that the Americans are inept occupiers, that they can’t guarantee security, water and electric power. They are not even able to protect their guests. It was a bloody taunt from an invisible Saddam to President Bush.

The fact that a suicide bomber may have carried out the attack on the U.N. is alarming. It is not typical of the Iraqi regime, which never counted among its ranks religious fanatics ready to sacrifice themselves. The Ba’ath was … a secular party, rabidly anti-clerical.

Even if in the last few years Saddam was seen in mosques proclaiming jihad, he never became a fundamentalist.

But in recent weeks, Iraq has been a target for those who want to hit America, among them, Islamic terrorists. For them, this is a unique opportunity: America is no longer remote, it’s now within their range.

The Guardian

Bombing the United Nations

LONDON — If there is any organization in Iraq about which it can be said unequivocally that it is there to help, it is the United Nations. The bombing of its Baghdad headquarters [Tuesday] is thus doubly a tragedy, both for those who lost their lives — including the U.N.’s most senior envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello — and for the people of Iraq, whose future was as much a target in the attack as was the world body.

It is also further and startling evidence of the vulnerability of the occupation regime to what appear to be new tactics by the diverse saboteurs who have harassed it from the start and who may have more recently been joined by extremists coming from outside. …

Sen. John McCain said in Baghdad [this week] even before the U.N. headquarters were hit that more American troops might be needed, an expansion that would be deeply unpalatable to the Bush administration. If more troops are needed, American or British, they will no doubt be found. The ultimate solution, however, has to be an Iraqi one. Real security can only be achieved by the coalition forces and the Iraqis working in tandem, in policing, in intelligence and, eventually, in military action. In its efforts to expand the Iraqi police and lay the basis for a new Iraqi army, the occupation regime has recognized this truth, but there is unhappily a long way to go.

Yet there is another side to these events. They are not likely to lead to a general repudiation of the occupation, and may even stiffen Iraqi support for the Americans and British, albeit in a despairing way. Whatever the imperfections of the project to bring stability and normality back into Iraqi life, it can be presumed to be still preferable to the chaos and bloodshed which is all that the spoilers have to offer.

China Daily

Don’t cry, America, innovate

BEIJING — World economic restructuring has meant that many countries play changing roles in production. But now, with some U.S. manufacturers claiming bankruptcy and dismissing employees, many Americans are blaming China for the crunch their country is feeling.

However, the charge is unfounded. What is happening in the United States is simply part of the larger restructuring phenomenon. …

The world’s labor-intensive industries naturally migrate to locations where abundant labor is available, and low wages are a major factor in cutting production costs. …

China has become a part of the global production chain, whether others like it or not. …

Americans railing at mass layoffs may forget they are enjoying the comfortable prices and good quality of China-made products themselves. …

The cure for the problems of U.S. industry is not to erect trade barriers, but to resort to innovation to enhance its competitiveness. …

China and the United States have common interests. Their roles are decided by their different economic endowments. … Unfair charges can do nothing but hurt normal trade relations between the two sides.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide