THE REST OF THE WORLD

I don't have anything particularly smart to say about Iraq, so I'll just note a few highlights from editorial pages around the world. Especially during a war, it is imperative to go to foreign sources for good commentary and information. You won't hear very much of value emanating from the echo chamber of CNN, for example. I'll put money on that.

Spain's El Pais continues its opposition to a war that it calls "illegal and immoral," lashes out at Aznar for refusing to provide a convincing case for Spanish participation in the effort, and laments the "paradox" of the situation: weapons inspection seemed to be working, but this is a war justified at least in part by the desire to disarm Iraq. The paper also hopes that the U.S. will use an appropriate level of force "against a relatively small country plagued by 12 years of sanctions and a dictatorial regime."

The Singapore Straits-Times lays the blame for war squarely at the feet of France.

French President Jacque Chirac's [sic] decision that France will say 'no, whatever the circumstances' was a marvellous piece of Gallic hauteur, but a disastrous act of diplomacy. Resolution 1441 - drafted and passed unanimously in November last year with France's active participation - had clearly threatened 'serious consequences' if Iraq failed to disarm immediately. If Mr Chirac did not mean this, why did his country vote for 1441? It is possible that if France, Russia and others had made it clear from the beginning that they were prepared to back the use of force, Iraq may well have disarmed by now. Peaceful disarmament could have been a possibility only if it had been backed up by a credible threat of force. Mr Chirac will have to live with the thought that the constant downplaying of the possibility of war may well have made war inevitable.

Several German papers also argue that French intransigence has helped to cause the current crisis. Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel blames both France and the U.S. but not equally: the French seem to have been more concerned with hemming in the U.S. than with hemming in Iraq; the price that France must pay is harm to the U.N., a body that exaggerates French power, and probably harm to the relationship with Germany, since both now realize that the French are interested in power politics more than international alliances. But the Tagesspiegel argues that the Bush administration has not played straight, either: it is really interested in a drastic remaking of the world order in the face of the increased threat of terrorism with WMD's. During his diplomatic wandering of the past few months, Bush has never attempted to defend that view outright. Now, according to the Tagesspiegel, he should. Without a larger dialogue, all we'll get is power politics.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung's Wolfgang Koydl argues that Bush's inability to convince allies of the justness of his cause in Iraq is "a defeat for America." Koydl argues that it actually should have been possible for the U.S. to convince allies (European and otherwise) that Saddam Hussein is the greatest hindrance to peace and stability in the Middle East. The reason for Bush's failures here, according to Koydl? Reciprocal mistrust. The Europeans don't believe any more that "the U.S. also acts in the interest of the world community when it acts in its self-interest." But Koydl issues a call for the renewal of trust, "otherwise, only Saddam has won."

Le Figaro's Charles Lambroschini raises doubts about the U.S.'s post-war plans in Iraq and the administration's "reverse domino theory" of the spread of democracy. Lambroschini recalls the British exercise in imperialism in the region in the early twentieth century and argues that Bush will probably learn the "lesson of empire," namely, "There is never a easy response to complex problems." Le Monde's Pierre Georges gives us an extended poetic metaphor linking the weather in France, the seasonal storm patterns from the Azores, and the upcoming war, but I really have no idea what to say about it.

Worth more attention, probably, are the editorials in Pakistan's Dawn and the Iran Daily. Dawn focuses on Bush's plans for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and worries that Bush will lose interest once the war with Iraq is over:

The fate of the new proposals following an attack on Iraq is also unclear. With Israel likely to call the shots following a war, there is no guarantee that an emboldened Tel Aviv will stick to its part of the deal. However, the most serious problem the new initiative faces is one of credibility. The Arab world will see the move not as a sincere attempt to resolve the thorny issue but as a cynical attempt to appease Arab feelings in the prelude to an attack on Iraq.

Washington must be reminded that Palestine is far too fundamental and emotive an issue for the Muslim world to be treated as a mere footnote to the invasion of Iraq.

The Iran Daily sends a curious message with its editorial today, "Focus on Development" (no direct link). After accusing the U.S. pundits and news media of preparing public opinion for future U.S. pressure on Iran (on WMD's and human rights), the paper notes that continued political openness and economic development will be the only way that U.S. "machinations" can be countered. The Daily worries that U.S. attacks on Iran's human rights record divide Europe and allow the U.S. to present a more unified front. Invasion seems less of a threat [or possibility] to these [Iranian] folks than economic pressure.

Let's hope that such moderate voices continue to have a hearing in Iran after a U.S. invasion and occupation of their neighbor. Iran may be the first critical test of the administration's "reverse domino theory."