MEDIA REACTION U.S. POLICY ON IRAQ; HARARE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 002133 SIPDIS DEPT FOR AF/PD, AF/S, AF/RA NSC FOR JENDAYI FRAZER LONDON FOR GURNEY PARIS FOR NEARY NAIROBI FOR PFLAUMER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PHUM KPAO KMDR ZI SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION U.S. POLICY ON IRAQ; HARARE ¶1. U.S. policy toward Iraq was the favored topic of Zimbabwean op-ed writers over the Sept 21-22 weekend. While none of the writers defended Saddam Hussein, they were unanimously opposed to U.S. unilateral action in Iraq. Excerpts follow: ¶2. Under headline "Bush, Blair playing games with Saddam" the independent daily "The Daily News" (09/23) carried the following op-ed by Tajudeen Abdul Raheem: "President George W. Bush of the U.S. addressed the United Nations General Assembly 10 days ago. For a President infamous for mixing his tenses and mauling the English grammar. . .the speech was in clear English and delivered with a clear intention of leaving no one in any doubt: The UN must act decisively on Iraq or the U.S. will do it for the UN, whether the UN likes it or not. . . For hawks. . .in his. . .administration and his small band of cheerleaders internationally (principally Tony Blair of Britain and Ariel Sharon of Israel),it was the kind of no- nonsense speech that they wanted. . . Now that Saddam Hussein seems to have swallowed his fat ego and agreed that the weapons inspectors can return to Iraq unconditionally Bush and his British poodle, Blair, are unsure how to react. ". . .The U.S. and the British have reacted to Iraq's offer with incredulity, insisting that Iraq is merely playing games and setting a trap for the UN that would give it room to wriggle out in the future after short-circuiting the momentum for military action. If anybody is playing games it is Bush and Blair. . . Bush did not go to the UN for approval. He went there to inform them. Not sure of the response he would get, he made sure (like a good cowboy) he held guns to their heads. However, finding the UN amenable to its demands on the weapons inspectors, the Bush administration has been shifting the goal posts since the UN triumph. And whatever Saddam does, even if he opens his bedroom and bunker to the inspectors, Bush will still attack the country. . . ." ¶3. Under headline "First Afghanistan, now Iraq, then who?" the independent weekly "The Standard" (09/22) comments: ".We hold no brief for Saddam Hussein. True, Iraq, has been defying a host of UN resolution dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, particularly those regarding weapons of mass destruction. But this defiance does not merit the fundamental evil of regime change. Why only Iraq when it is common knowledge that Israel gets away literally with murder! ".In the eyes of the world, there could be yet another dangerous precedent. First Afghanistan, now Iraq. Which country next? Where will it all end? Domino theory - knock them all down one by one! The U.S. must not see the world from its selfish and parochial point of view. The U.S. must stop trying to deceive the world by claiming that getting rid of Saddam would be in the interest of the Iraqi people and their neighbors. It is a load of crap. ". . .The world was not found wanting when people watched in horror and disbelief as the World Trade Center fell to a vicious terrorist attack. Joseph Sullivan, U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, said people understood that although the attacks took place in the U.S., they were an assault against the world. Given this kind of cooperation and collective memory, the U.S. must not now act outside that world regarding the Iraq problem." ¶4. Under headline "Bush's Iraq war all about oil" the September 22 edition of the independent weekly "The Standard" carried the following opinion piece by Ken Mafuka under his column "American Notes": ". . .Saddam Hussein is guilty of the most barbarous crimes against humanity. He used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980 war and later against the Kurds. He is amassing weapons of mass destruction. . . He invaded Kuwait and committed atrocities even against babies there. All this is true but the juicy part is that he was encouraged by the U.S. and was given `material help' against Iran. Some of the chemical weapons he used were devices made from that material help he received. . . It is a sad story of being used for other people's interests." ¶5. Under headline "Assault on Iraq stinks of `global evil' the government-controlled weekly "The Sunday Mail" (09/22) carried the following opinion piece by Tafataona Mahoso: "In a cynical retreat from the agenda and values of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the G-7 powers have gone back to their World Economic Forum in Germany and the Bush-Blair administrations have gone back to their efforts to hide their dismal failure in Afghanistan by claiming that the terrorism they went to eliminate in Afghanistan has suddenly transferred to Iraq. . . Another war over oil in the Middle East will be so devastating to human life, marine life and weather that no kind of reparations would begin to redress the damage, even if they were offered. The damage would be so colossal that no one would know where to start the restitution or reconstruction. . ." ¶6. Under headline "When will sanity prevail?" the government-controlled weekly "The Sunday News" (09/22) comments: "As Western hawks circle over Iraq, there is a growing worry that sole-superpower triumphalism will finally prevail over the civilized tenets of international law. The bellicose cowboy from Texas and his faithful sidekick from London have pointed their guns at the people of Iraq, and no one, it seems, is able to stop them. There are occasions in history when the use of force is both right and sensible. Our conscience tells us that this is not one of them. Make no mistake, American and British troops will invade Iraq before December. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair will neither give dialogue a chance nor ask the UN to send weapons inspectors to the Persian Gulf state. But if Iraq really has weapons of mass destruction, why would the Bush Government risk diplomatic suicide by going it alone instead of presenting the evidence to the UN Security Council?." SULLIVAN