- The Washington Times - Saturday, March 22, 2003

Excerpts of editorials from newspapers around the world:

Algemeen Dagblad
President Bush and war
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands In defiance of opposing views in his own country and everywhere else, President Bush is religiously convinced war is the only remedy against the dictator of Baghdad. The theatrical negotiations in the U.N. Security Council, sharply waged, appear in retrospect to have had little meaning. It is disturbing that the United Nations only matters to Mr. Bush when it goes along with the plan-making in Washington, and is otherwise shoved aside as meaningless. This arrogant attitude, more than the conflict over how to disarm Saddam Hussein, explains the distance in large parts of the globe and the division in Europe. But Washington doesn't feel responsible for the consequences.
However sad this all is, it can't be seen as a big surprise. Ever since Mr. Bush became president after an unconvincing election result, he has been surrounded with advisers who can't be told anything by the outside world. The big question is what they will put on the agenda after Iraq: North Korea, Iran or other minor annoyances America wants to deal with.

Straits Times
So war it shall be
SINGAPORE It is just as well no second resolution was presented, as defeat would have placed the U.S.-led coalition in defiance of international will if it proceeded to invade Iraq regardless.
It is possible the war will be so one-sided and over so quickly the naysayers will be forced to shut up, and all is quickly forgotten. With America's superior arms, it is possible. It does not seem probable, however.
The bitter fights at the Security Council have cut deep. They were not about French pique and American muscle, but eventually were about the sanctity of the United Nations' assigned role to hold the peace among nations. Consensual decision-making is a vital part of that process.
A weakened United Nations is not in any country's interest, including America's. Now that war is a fait accompli, the United Nations owes it to itself to assert its authority in Iraq's postwar reconstruction phase and the treatment of refugees and prisoners of war. The United States should play its part in restoring the world body's battered prestige.

Asahi Shimbun
President Bush's war
TOKYO Regardless of the U.N. position, the United States has the strength to act alone. It is, after all, President Bush's war.
The international community is already divided. Anti-American sentiment has grown in the Arab world and is likely to destabilize governments traditionally friendly to the United States. Even if democracy is brought to Iraq, as the United States anticipates, it does not necessarily follow that a new government brought into being in Iraq through elections would be friendly to the United States.
Mr. Bush characterizes war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. But there is a danger it will increase terrorism instead.
Although there is no United Nations approval for war and no satisfactory plan for what Iraq will be like after Saddam Hussein, the world seems to be unable to stop the inexorable march to war.

The illegal U.S. war
OSLO The United States will go to war with Iraq without a U.N. mandate and without itself under direct threat.
While everyone says the war is preventative, it's an aggressive war, which as defined by the War Crimes Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, at the end of World War II, is a war crime itself.
We are therefore happy that Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has stated that Norway cannot and will not support the attack on Iraq.
The United Nations has always been a cornerstone of Norwegian policy, and there's no reason to change that just because the United States did not get its way with the U.N. Security Council.
President Bush cites Iraq for helping terrorists as a reason for war. The stance has been repeated so often that most Americans believe it.
Yet a bluff often repeated does not make it true, and the Americans have never proven the link.
Mr. Bush has long prepared for war, but he never thought he would get so little support or negative world opinion.
That's because the Bush administration's reasoning for war doesn't hold water. Suspicion of evil intentions isn't enough.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide