[iwar] [fc:Survey.paper:.ANTI-TERROR.COALITION:.NATO,.EUROPE/EURASIA]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-09-21 19:12:03
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Cries.of.Holy.War.Echo.in.Mideast]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bin.Laden."too.poor".to.stage.US.terror.attacks,.Islamist.says]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200109220212.TAA32247@big.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Survey.paper:.ANTI-TERROR.COALITION:.NATO,.EUROPE/EURASIA]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

                          September 20, 2001
             ANTI-TERROR COALITION: NATO, EUROPE/EURASIA
 This survey is based on 141 editorials from 30 countries, September
                                17-20.
Countries are as follows: Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium,
Spain, Canada, Russia, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Turkey, Kyrgyszstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Albania,
Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland,
Ireland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.


MAJOR NATO COUNTRIES

Amid pledges of official backing for what many saw as an "inevitable
military response" by the U.S., editorialists debated the appropriate
parameters of European support.  There appeared to be a deepening
fault line between those pressing for "caution" and arguing against
"blind vengeance," and others who saw unalloyed Allied solidarity as a
"moral obligation" and a "matter of defending humanity as a whole."
In the first group--a majority, found mainly in centrist/left-leaning
papers--many urged Europe to send the message to Washington that "all
non-military methods be fully explored" and to "reinforce the case for
proceeding carefully."  In the latter camp--principally conservative
UK and Canadian media, but also several right/center-right papers in
France, Germany and Italy--most analysts were rankled by what one
termed "a spirit of Munich" shown by some political and media elite
under the "polite" guise of "having reservations," and by
"finger-wagging" against the U.S. for some of its policies.  Noting
that the Bush administration has thus far shown itself to be
circumspect, they found common cause with a leading Ottawa daily,
which argued that however "one may feel about particular policies of
the U.S...there can be no doubt that it is essentially a force for
good in the world," and deserves support.

OTHER NATO COUNTRIES

Sentiment continued to swing broadly.  Commentators urging caution
were the most numerous, appearing in the press in Hungary, Norway and
Poland.  Budapest's influential, liberal-leaning Magyar Hirlap
warned:  "Before something irrevocable happens, possibilities will
have to be analyzed carefully, things to do discussed thoroughly, and
instead of sudden anger, the voice of reason listened to."  But many
other observers in Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey,
and--notably, a leading broadsheet in Greece--were firm in their calls
for the world to stand united with the U.S. in the difficult fight
against terrorism.  Athens's independent, influential Kathimerini
observed:  "Prime Minister Simitis was extremely decisive and
categorical when he said yesterday:  'Our response is absolute:  no
compromise, no interaction with [terrorists].... The recent attacks
cannot remain unanswered....  Greece will participate in future
initiatives.'... Greece's position could not have and should not have
been any different."  The minority view--expressed in most Greek and
some Norwegian, Portugese and Turkish dailies--expressed alarm at the
prospects of a war being mounted in response to the September 11
attacks.  Their criticism of the U.S. and its policies was a prominent
theme.  While contending that a war against Afghanistan would not
eradicate terrorism and only harm more innocents, they did not offer
alternative solutions beyond vague suggestions that the world must
"rely on long-term countermoves."

RUSSIA AND EURASIA

From Russia, several non-official papers continued to advise Moscow to
"make the hard choice" and side with the U.S., seeing it as, among
other things, a way for Moscow to exert its "influence on the U.S.
operation" and not be marginalized in the "war-to-be" along its
southern border.  This opinion was voiced most forcefully and
consistently in reformist Izvestiya, which featured commentaries
calling on Moscow to ally itself with Washington "at least on the
issue of Afghanistan."  Others, including official Parlamentskaya
Gazeta, were deeply skeptical about Russia joining forces with the
U.S., worrying that Moscow could be pulled into a dangerous war.
Available editorial comment from Central Asian countries revealed deep
concern about a war possibly being launched in their neighborhood.
Kyrgyzstani papers, contending that "bombing is not a solution,"
worried that a flow of refugees from Afghanistan "could swamp
Kyrgystan."  Independent Advokat asked, "Is it really worth increasing
the number of deaths, putting the planet near the 'last line that
leads nowhere'?  Will those who lost relatives and close friends
really feel better if a third world war becomes the price for
vengeance?"  In Moldova, rightist papers focused on a trail of
weapons--allegedly produced in Transnistria--wending its way through
"Bulgaria, Israel, Iraq, Iran and other Arab states."  Literatura si
Arta warned:  "If the U.S. and other states have decided to start
fighting terrorists, they should start at the same time fighting those
who arm the terrorists.  The...plants that produce weapons in
Transnistria work day and night to supply with sophisticated weapons
all those who need them."  A daily in Turkmenistan, in stating firmly
that terrorism must be defeated, agreed with its country's leader who
advocated an international anti-terrorist coalition--perhaps led by
the UN.

REST OF EUROPE

Opinion was mixed.  The most vocal advocates for a strong response
against terrorism were found in most Romanian and some Irish papers,
and in media in Muslim-dominated Albania and Kosovo.  Tirana's
medium-circulation, centrist Dita, for example, stressed that
"millions of people throughout the world are Americans in their spirit
and mind....   Albanians have been and still are part of this
support.  We have our own special reasons to be such.  We are a
grateful people and we cannot forget that the decisive support of the
U.S. has been near us in the most decisive moments of our existence."
Another Tirana daily warned the Albanian government that it must be
sure that potential Arab terrorists are not being given shelter in the
country.  Other opinionmakers in Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Finland and
Sweden dwelled more on the need for the U.S. to be cautious in its
response to the terrorist attacks, with several noting that the world
had suddenly changed and that a need for greater international
cooperation has been born.


MAJOR NATO COUNTRIES

BRITAIN:  "Long War"

An editorial in the conservative Times read (9/20):  "Whatever action
America and its allies take against Bin Laden's Afghan lairs, that
will be a foretaste only of a vastly more ambitious campaign, waged
the world over....  In this campaign classic war-fighting may have an
occasional role only; terrorism's underground forces will be fought
where they operate and with methods that are anything but
conventional.  And it will be a long war....  The U.S. will judge
countries by their willingness to stay the same long course with it.
First and most uncomfortably in the frame is Pakistan....  But
Washington is clearly well aware that it would be wise not to rely on
Pakistan alone as its regional ally in this first, but in political
terms critical, test of strength against the terrorist Hydra.  And,
with the likely exception of Uzbekistan, the Central Asian republics
will be reluctant to co-operate militarily if Russia is against
it....  Paranoia about its 'near abroad' could inhibit Moscow from
acting accordingly.  The next task for diplomatic advocacy it to
convince even the ever-cautious Kremlin that the world is utterly
changed."

"Other Ways Of Winning"

An editorial in the liberal Guardian made this observation regarding
this weekend's EU special anti-terrorism summit (9/20):  "The message
for Mr. Bush is that all non-military methods must be fully explored,
too, if long-term success is to be assured and unpredictable, mutually
destructive consequences avoided.  Europe is not alone in this.  In
Russia, in the Arab world, and in Asia, a largely identical refrain
may be heard....  Japan and South Korea, the overriding preference in
Muslim Asia is for proactive diplomacy, for cooperative action via the
UN, and for joint investigatory, economic and financial measures.  The
Bush administration (or at least, influential parts of it) seems to be
listening....  The non-military way forward begins with a combined
diplomatic offensive of the kind now underway.  But to be effective,
yet more flexibility is required of the United States--such as
agreement for enhanced United Nations involvement....  When it comes
to legal process, the UN has the machinery for convening an impartial
tribunal along the lines of, or linked to the Hague court....  And if
all else fails, it is the UN's explicit authorization that must be
sought for any military action against Afghanistan itself.  Other
non-lethal weapons include the tracking and seizure of terrorist
funds....  Robust responses need not be measured only in rockets."

"The Voice Of Europe"

From an editorial in the independent Financial Times (9/20):  "A
military response is inevitable.  But the timing, the targets and,
above all, the objectives in the new war on terrorism remain
unclear....  Mr. Bush's Wyatt Earp rhetoric gives the impression of a
trigger-happy president....  In practice, the White House seems more
circumspect....  Europe's leaders should reinforce the case for
proceeding carefully--but not to the point of ruling out any action
that could risk civilian casualties.  The issue should not be whether
the retaliation should be proportionate, but whether it is precise if
it comes to commando strikes against Mr. Bin Laden's camps in
Afghanistan.  This will be the first phase of the war on terrorism.
The second will be a wider onslaught on the regimes which support
terrorism as well as their financial networks....  Europe will want to
have a say in this second phase; but EU leaders must realize that
their influence will depend on their commitment to the first military
phase of the war....  If European countries break rank they cannot
expect a fair hearing in Washington."

"There Will Be No Talking To Taliban While U.S. Seeks Vengeance"

An editorial in the centrist Independent read (9/19):  "That it has
not rushed to premature and merely symbolic vengeance is to the credit
of Bush and his security team.  But by designating the attack an act
of war and declaring the United States now to be at war against
terrorism, the administration is able to cloak the reasoning behind
any future military retaliation beneath that
all-purpose cover: 'intelligence considerations.'...  Perhaps, indeed,
Osama Bin Laden could be given up to the "Great Satan" of America in
return for recognition and food aid that would help fend off imminent
chaos in Afghanistan.  But the United States, and specifically
American public opinion, is not in a bargaining mood; it is after
vengeance.  For the Bush administration even to contemplate
recognition for the Taliban, let alone to grant food aid, would be
seen as a shameful betrayal of the 5,000 or more dead Americans....
The United States may one day have to negotiate with terrorists...but
the week after so heinous an attack is not the time for talking.  Nor
would the mooted offers come anywhere near meeting the U.S.
requirement of rooting out the terrorist threat.  It is reasonable to
question the tone of some of President Bush's language.  It is
reasonable, too, to advise extreme caution in the use of military
force, especially in so volatile a part of the world.  But it is not
realistic to hope for a peaceful resolution at so disadvantageous a
price."

"A Perilous Proposition"

The liberal Guardian opined (9/19):  "In response to last week's
attacks, the Pentagon is planning sustained military action on a wide
range of fronts.  Mr. Rusmfeld also seems to have no qualms about
ground warfare in Afghanistan or elsewhere....  Paul Wolfowitz is
equally gung-ho.... As the current crisis appears to move inexorably
towards military conflict, these senior leaders' words commit the
United States and its allies to an open-ended, unlimited warfare; they
suggest the battle will be prosecuted by all conventional means,
including ground invasion; they imply that the surrender of Bin Laden
by the Taliban to the U.S., UN, or a neutral country, even if it could
be negotiated, would not be enough to halt the coming offensive.  And
they state plainly that any country deemed to be supportive of any
terrorists in any way is not only a legitimate target; its government
is also subject to overthrow.  These are the sweeping parameters of
Mr. Bush's 'war on terrorism.'  Yet when it comes to defining the
specific military options that may be chosen to attain these ends, Mr.
Rumsfeld and his imitators fall silent....  The U.S. military's hard
options in Afghanistan, as opposed to politician's aspirations, range
from the deeply dangerous to the downright foolhardy....  Politicians
on both sides of the Atlantic should not misread opinion polls showing
broad public backing.  Military action may be unavoidable.  But they
have no blanket brief to place our troops, and blameless civilians, at
unending, uncalculated risk.  Whatever their expectations, whatever
their prior pledges, promises, and rhetorical flourishes, they have no
mandate to send our soldiers on missions that lack clear short and
long-term objectives, achievable targets, and workable exit
strategies."

FRANCE:  "The Risks Of Isolation"

Michel Schifres opined in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/20):  "There is
a whiff of what was once called the 'spirit of Munich' coming from
part of our political elite: it is the temptation to give in to
comfort. This attitude is politely being called 'having
reservations.'...  Everyone knows that America has made mistakes, that
Bush has sometimes gone too far, that no one is going to help the
United States with its eyes closed.  There is no need to insist on the
obvious.  To do so means that we hesitate to help the United
States....  Solidarity with the United States is not (only) a moral
obligation....  There is another more prosaic reason why we need to
help.  If today the United States is the master of the world, albeit a
vulnerable one, abandoning it would only exacerbate the situation:
[it] would be more vulnerable but also become more of a master.  To
let it act unilaterally will re-enforce its hold on the world.  Europe
must stand alongside the United States...to impose certain demands."

"Anti-Americanism And Imperialism"

Jacques Julliard opined in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel Observateur
(9/20): "I believe I have sufficiently denounced anti-Americanism to
end with this note: what is weighing on the world today, what is truly
a handicap for freedom, is not America's imperialism.  It is rather
America's inept diplomacy as well as the schizophrenia that juxtaposes
idealism, which is for domestic use, and the cynicism of its foreign
policy.  After all, it is the United States who created Pinochet,
Batista, the UCK, the Taleban, Bin Laden and others....  The time has
come for the United States to learn to live and to compromise with the
rest of the world."

"A Glimmer Of Peace"

Left-of-center Le Monde argued (9/20):  "Bush needs the support of
moderate Arab nations.  He will get it only if he manages to move
ahead on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict....  This 'window of
opportunity' must be taken advantage of....  Because Bush needs to
have moderate Arab public opinion on his side, he must press upon
Sharon to engage in a positive approach.  There is nothing as urgent
as getting that dialogue back on track."

"The Worst Is Not Certain"

Alain-Gerard Slama judged in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/19):  "While
the Foreign Ministry is sending out cries of alarm about the prospects
of a response from Washington, President Bush, his administration and
the American people are demonstrating a solidarity and determination
which should inspire Europe.  There are indeed risks involved in a
military operation....  It may be that, under the weight of strong
feelings, President Bush wrongly used the word  'crusade.'  But he was
right to point out that siding with the aggressors was siding with
fanaticism and against reason....  The worst is not certain, if
democracies remain firm and show unfailing solidarity."

"Sympathy"

Gerard Dupuy held in left-of-center Liberation (9/19):  "We must get
used to living with a new uncertainty: what is this new war the United
States claims to be preparing for?  The capture of Bin Laden, dead or
alive, will not be enough....  As its prepares for this new type of
war, the United States has for the time being the popular support of
Allied populations....  The United States which is in a position of
legitimate self-defense, is lucky to have at its disposal the choice
of weapons.  That choice will determine what the future will look
like."

GERMANY:  "Trapped By Terror"

Josef Joffe noted in a front-page editorial in center-left weekly Die
Zeit of Hamburg (9/20):  "Those responsible for the massacre are
hoping for an apocalyptic answer that would turn the entire Islamic
world from Algiers to Jarkata into their ally and thus set off a
'clash of cultures.'  That is the political trap, and the strategic
one is just as obvious....  Kabul is already destroyed.  Additional
bombs could do no additional damage.  Penalize Saudi Arabia for paying
protection money to terrorists?  In that case, the most important oil
sources would become inaccessible.  Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya?  They
all have blood on their hands, but even a superpower does not have
enough missiles for all of them.  The attack on the United States was
as horrific as the options available are few.  The smartest thing
would be to rein in just anger, forge coalitions, and bring the troops
into position.  And especially to investigate patiently until those
responsible are identified and can be held accountable--without
additional thousands of innocent people having to die in a retaliatory
attack."

"The Sources Of Global Terrorism"

Jochen Siemens noted in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter
Rundschau (9/20):  "Many measures are now necessary to get Islamic
terrorism under control.  One essential measure is achieve just peace
in the Middle East.  It will not convert fanatics, but it can avert a
clash of cultures and help find allies in the Islamic world in the
fight against terrorism.  A fight which the West alone will hardly
win."

"Guilt And Chance"

Wolfgang Koydl stated in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich
(9/20):  "It is certainly right that George W. Bush will try to do
everything to capture Usama bin Laden and call him to account.  He
will try to destroy his organization, but what will he have won in the
long run?  Ever day, thousands of Muslim children are born, and every
child can carry the flag of black terror--as long as the Middle East
conflict can be used as a political and religious instrument by
zealots such as bin Laden....  The United States must accept realities
[in the Middle East] which it has ignored thus far....  People in the
region consider the United States to be unfair and an instrument of
suppression.  Unfair, because the United States is deaf to arguments
and seems to support Israel blindly, and an instrument of suppression,
because it keeps a protective hand over the repressive regimes in the
region as long as they are considered partners....  If the United
States wants security, it must address the concerns of the people,
must help resolve the Palestinian conflict."

"America As An Excuse"

Christoph von Marschall argued in an editorial in centrist Der
Tagesspiegel of Berlin (9/20):  "We may only look at the preparatory
time for the attack on America, for instance, the period for the
training as a pilot, in order to realize that the terrorist attacks
cannot only be a reaction to the failure of the Camp David talks last
summer and the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada."

"Islam As The Imagined Enemy"

Sabine Rosenbladt judged in a front-page editorial in center-left
weekly Die Woche of Hamburg (9/20):  "The harder the U.S. military
strike turns out to be and the more innocent people die in it, the
better it is in the eyes of the Islamic terrorist network....  Do we
have to move from the Cold War straight into a new era of crusades
just because a handful fanatical mass murderers are eager to commit
additional massacres?"
"Trial Deserves Consideration"

Juergen Kramer commented on regional radio station Westdeutscher
Rundfunk of Cologne (9/18):  "The demand to try Osama bin Laden in a
neutral country deserves serious consideration....  If Schroeder's
phrase is right that the terrorist attacks on the United States were a
declaration of war on the entire civilized world, than this also means
that the civilized world should apply its norms if possible.
International law points to a civilized and effective answer beyond
war: the International [War Crimes] Tribunal....  It would be obvious
to establish a tribunal for the people responsible for terrorism....
The Americans should not be worried that bin Laden and Co. would be
treated mildly before such a court.  The Hague is evidence of this.
If the United States were satisfied with retaliation, it should not
inevitably be carried out through a war....  A criminal tribunal
provides retaliation, too.  In addition, an international tribunal
would demonstrate that the entire world stands behind the prosecution
of terrorism.  It would be a triumph for the civilized world to see
terrorism stand before such a trial.  This triumph would be greater
than every kind of bloody revenge."

"Bush Must Act With Circumspection"

National radio station DeutschlandRadio of Berlin (9/18) aired the
following commentary by Horst Klaeuser: "Bush must act with
circumspection....  But carpet bombing, burnt corpses in an Afghan
nursery--and the United States will be considered a murderer, and the
end of this coalition will come soon....  In this war today, it is not
a confrontation between states, and the decisions which the United
States has to make must reflect this new situation...  If the United
States recognizes this chance, subordinates its hegemonic claim to the
willingness for consultations with new partners, seizes the
opportunity and wonders why some parts of the world have been
developed such abysmal hatred against the United States, then some of
the saddest moments of history could turn into a historic moment for
global peace."

"A Peculiar Argument"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in a front-page editorial in
center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/19):  "Those who caution the
Bush administration against a retaliatory strike, because it would hit
innocent people and lead to...a rise in fanaticism in the Muslim and
Arab worlds are trying to prevent retaliation by means of a peculiar
argument: the mass murder was not really nice, but now Washington
should not commit further injustice.  As if that were the U.S. plan.
It does not appear that the U.S. government has limited the war
against Islamic terrorism to military means alone.  This war will be
fought in many places and with many weapons.  Those who confine
themselves to righteous indignation will have to decide whether they
want to help fight this war or whether they--in intentional or
unconscious solidarity with groups like the Taliban--want to help
perpetrators pass themselves off as victims."

"The Detested Friend"

Stefan Kornelius judged in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich
(9/18):  "Everywhere we can now hear minimizing, explaining theories
[for the terrorist attacks]: that the Islamic world considers the
deployment of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia an occupation of the holy
land and that U.S. protection of Israel does not take Palestinian
rights into consideration.  And this is enough to set off...blame
toward another nation:  America is preparing a boundless war, America
acts without restraint, blindly addicted to hatred.  This kind of
arguing has two effects.  It minimizes and it apologizes at the same
time.  But there is little to minimize in view of the monstrosity of
the crime that has taken place beyond all political, cultural, or
religious logic....  This simplification has its origin in an
anti-American instinct which ignores the complexity of U.S.
involvement in the world.  For instance, those who point to the fact
that the presence of the United States in Saudi Arabia is a religious
offense, ignore the wish of the Saudi ruling family for safety from
the outside and for a pillar of domestic stability which helps the
country protect itself from the attacks of a person such as Saddam
Hussein and from the implications of Islamic fundamentalism.  And it
ignores the strategic significance of a region, which is rich in
resources of oil."

ITALY:  "The Trap Of Proof"

An editorial in elite, classical liberal Il Foglio read (9/20):  "Bush
has obtained the international solidarity he wanted; a large coalition
has shaped up; stock markets are holding despite everything, security
measures in the airports have been taken, there is a truce in
Palestine.  And so, for God's sake [people say], why should we spoil
everything by deploying troops, missiles, planes, ships, with the risk
of causing new tensions in day-to-day life and a clash of
civilizations.  Why don't we start an investigation, why don't we find
the evidence against Bin Laden and ask for a regular extradition from
the Afghanistan government?  We need the proof, that is what we hear
so often.  But this is a trap."

"Why We Should Choose A 'Stars And Stripes' Italy"

An analysis by Mario Caccavale in Rome's center-right Il Tempo
observed (9/20):  "The war declared by Bush is not only against Bin
Laden, but against the entire obscure part of the world, against those
states and powers that use terrorist or criminal organizations in
order to settle accounts that would otherwise remain open....  Bush's
America has realized that, if we want to build a new international
order, we must reduce the space occupied by this obscure world, by
wiping out its financial and military networks and, and the same time,
by organizing more efficient defense systems.  No industrialized
nations, and even less so Italy, should hesitate vis-a-vis a mandatory
choice.  This is not a matter of being reserve Marines, or to
selfishly defend our own economic interests, but it is a matter of
defending humanity as a whole."

"The Anger Of All"

A commentary by Cesare De Carlo in La Nazione/Il Resto del Carlino/Il
Giorno conservative newspaper syndicate judged (9/20):  "Tolerance,
pluralism, freedom.  These are exactly the values that Islamic
fundamentalism intends to bury under the ruins of its devastation and
sink in the blood of so many innocent people.  The United States of
America is the most reliable interpreter of these values....  These
considerations help us understand why the rage of America has become
the rage of all of us."

"Bush: 'We Will Not Let Them Terrorize Us'"

Alberto Pasolini Zanelli filed from Washington in leading,
pro-government, center-right Il Giornale (9/19):  "The most
significant details are those we do not see....  Things are, indeed,
taking place outside the Rose Garden in the White House....  America
is not embarking upon a 'police operation' but a war....  While they
wait for the 'wide' strategy taking shape, the emotional pressure of
public opinion--which calls for a rapid and visible punishment of the
terrorists--will induce the president to authorize a blitz action."

"The New Western Priorities"

Marcel Dupont commented on the front page of Rome's center-right Il
Tempo (9/19):  "We hope that this tragedy suggests to the United
States that it shows 'humility.'  Not even the only superpower in the
world is able to control the world.  In order to punish the Talibans,
the White House must pay court to the Russians, the Pakistanis, the
Chinese and even the Iranians....  t is very important that American
pride does not prevent it from having the exact sense of a reality
that is much more complex than America thought before September 11,
2001."

"It Is A New War, Dirtier Than The Old One"

National Alliance representative Gustavo Selva opined in
pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (9/19):  "If we talk
about concrete commitments--that is sending troops, and not just
expressing verbal support--this does not mean we are 'American
slaves.'... In New York and Washington the terrorists have begun a new
war....  The first act of any war is to define alliances.  No
discussion about NATO support.  Now the key issue is the one
concerning the moderate Arab nations. Saying that Islam is terrorism
is a logical and political mistake."

BELGIUM:  "Let Us Remain Clear-Headed"

Chief commentator Benoit Degardin editorialized in the Sud Presse
group papers--conservative La Meuse/La Lanterne (9/20) and independent
La Nouvelle Gazette (9/20):  "Does the horror of these attacks
prohibit us from thinking, does it force us to blindly rally the Star
Spangled Banner?  The legitimate support which we can give to the
United States--which has been wrongfully and villainously
attacked--should not prevent us from pointing out that this country,
although a democracy, is also a country where there are several
injustices...where death penalty is being frequently used....  [One
should not forget] that terrorism would probably not have spread so
much and struck so hard if Washington had gotten more involved in the
Middle East crisis...that the blockade of Iraq, which Washington
stubbornly maintains, principally hurts innocent people...that there
is a great likelihood that the same will happen with the Afghan
population.  We must be thankful to the Americans for what they have
done for us last century.  And we fully share in the pain of these
thousands of families who were hurt by the madness of a few fanatics.
But let us remain clear-headed."

"Time For A Nuanced Initiative"

Political analyst Dirk Achten wrote in independent Catholic De
Standaard (9/20):  "It is very important now to launch a new peace
initiative in the Middle East.  That initiative must take into account
the aspirations of the Palestinians, strengthen the position of Yasser
Arafat against the radical extremist movements and curtail the
strategy of confrontation of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon....
In these times of crisis, it is crucial to send a nuanced signal to
one of the world's core areas of conflict - lest every Palestinian or
Muslim feels an outcast."

SPAIN:  "All Standing At Attention"

Left-of-center El Pais remarked (9/20):  "The United States is
bringing many governments to attention when in comes to standing
against terrorism. The Bush administration is taking firm steps
towards the construction of a wide coalition against terrorism and
more particularly against Afghanistan's Taliban regime....  The
cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians is something else the
United States has imposed....  The worsening of the conflict with the
Palestinians, given its enormous potential for polluting the political
environment, has become a major handicap to bringing together an
international alliance against terrorism."

CANADA:  "Blaming the U.S., whitewashing terror",

In the conservative "National Post" (9/19): "Sorrow and pity have
given way to excuses and equivocations.  Some commentators are now
explaining the terrorist attack against New York City and Washington
with the argument that the United States 'had it coming.' ... At the
heart of the propaganda campaign against the United States is a moral
equivalence conflating what is evil with what is merely imperfect.
...In 'Macbeth', Shakespeare reserved a special space in Hell for 'an
equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either
scale.' That thought provides some consolation as we watch our
television screens and see this shameful parade of apologists wagging
their fingers at the United States."

"What does he want?"

In the leading "Globe and Mail", under the headline and the subhead
"The attack on the World Trade Center may seem like an assault on
America.  But its real target is in the Muslim world", writer on
international affairs Paul Knox wrote (9/19):  "[T]he scale of last
week's atrocities in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania must not
blind us to the sources of Middle East-related terrorism, nor to the
true nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his ilk.
...What kind of political operator fails to claim responsibility for
his acts, much less link them to specific demands?  There are at least
three possible answers.  First, the attacks are staged in part to
avenge what the planners see as Muslim honour.  Second, as propaganda,
they are directed primarily at the Muslim world, enhancing their
organizers' stature and exposing the United States as a paper tiger.
Third, and most misguidedly, they aim to demoralize an America that
the perpetrators of terrorism see as vulnerable.  ...[F]or Washington,
a sustained victory against terrorism requires more than shutting down
the bin Ladens or punishing their protectors.  It means somehow
persuading the Muslim masses that the deafening voices of hate and
intolerance surrounding them are wrong, and that America is truly on
their side."

"Please don't blame the American victims"

 In the leading "Globe and Mail" (9/19): editorialised: "...The Cold
War misdeeds of the United States were dwarfed by the crimes of the
Soviet Union.  There was a good guy and a bad guy in that fight, and
the United States wore the white hat.  ...However Canadians may feel
about particular policies of the United States, from its stand on
global warming to its use of the death penalty, there can be no doubt
that it is essentially a force for good in the world, both as a beacon
of liberty and individual freedom and as a global policeman.  It now
faces a deadly enemy. The very least we can do at its time of sorrow
and need is to refrain from wagging our fingers."

"Canada's help: Who are we kidding?"

Jeffrey Simpson wrote in his regular "The Nation" column in the
leading "Globe and Mail" (09/19):  "Canadians worried about joining a
U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan should relax. ...  Te United States
perhaps, but not nice, gentle, peace-loving Canada.  Last week's
events brought one fact home to the government, and to 'garden-variety
Canadians' everywhere:  Moral equivalence and moral superiority are
disastrous guides in the face of premeditated attacks against an ally
and neighbour by those with contempt for the values Canadians hold
dear and have fought hard to defend."

"It's the U.S. foreign policy, stupid",

In the liberal "Toronto Star", under the headline editorialpage editor
emeritus Haroon Siddiqui wrote (9/19): "America is not the target of
terrorism because Islamic fundamentalists hate American democratic
ideals of freedom, liberty and 'all that we stand for,' as George Bush
has claimed.  Only if it were so.  The problem may be much bigger.
...Rather, it is due to American complicity in injustice, lethal and
measurable, on several fronts:  The Israeli Palestinian conflict...;
The decade-long American-led economic sanctions on Iraq...;  The mess
in Afghanistan...;  American strategic alliances with the military and
monarchical dictatorships of Algeria, Turkey and Egypt, as well as the
oil-rich Arab states....  [A] broad spectrum of the Canadain middle
class...is coming to the view that America needs...a more humane and
even-handed approach to the world."

I"Let's hope terror leads to change"

In the liberal "Toronto Star", under the headline , columnist Richard
Gwyn writes in his regular "Home and Away" column (9/19): "Ever since
the carnage in New York, it's become commonplace to remark that things
will never be the same.  ...But that same
'things-will-never-be-the-same' rule applies equally to the societies
from which the terrorists came.  ...[U]ltimately, the people of the
Middle East and of Muslim societies can only enter the global
mainstream by themselves. If they and above all their leaders start to
realize this, things really will never be the same again."

"Challenge"

In the conservative "Ottawa Sun", under the headline , the paper
editorialised (9/19):  "The terrorists who wreaked such devastation in
New York and Washington last week are no doubt smiling smugly as they
watch the continuing impact of their vile acts.  Stock markets have
trembled and shaken.  ...But don't be bullied out of making your
decisions by a group of madmen who think nothing of sending thousands
of innocent men, women and children to their deaths simply to promote
their own agenda.  The Bank of Canada here at home and the Federal
Reserve in the U.S. have shown they are willing to lead the way.
...Now it's up to each of us to take up the challenge."

Diplomatic impunity",

IIn the tabloid-style "Ottawa Citizen" (09/19): "... Canada has
diplomatic relations with all seven countries - Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria - on the U.S. State Department's
list of state sponsors of terrorism.  ...Terrorism can't be ended
unless we stop doing 'business as usual' with nations that finance,
train and harbour terrorists.  Canada can act - right now - to cut or
curtail diplomatic ties and review its aid to each.  ..." B)  Under
the headline "Dollars and sense on Wall St.", the paper editorialised:
"...One sure sign of the resilience of capitalism comes in reports
this week of Manhattan street-hawkers selling American flags to
grey-suited businessmen - at inflated prices.  Though some might find
dickering over the price of a flag unseemly at this time, it was
merely the law of supply and demand reasserting itself.  ...Much
better that than the lawlessness the terrorist would inflict."

"The old script is blowin' in the wind"

 tabloid-style "Ottawa Citizen" (09/19):Deputy Editorial Pages Editor
John Robson wrote: "...A few people got caught with the old script
that all Muslims deplore this savage act of just retribution for
brutal Yankee imperialism.  But Houchang Hassan-Yari of Kingston's
Royal Military College spoke for many Canadians:  'Those terrorists
are in hell now'.  And Khadija Haffajee, co-chair of a
Christian-Muslim dialogue group in Ottawa, nailed it: 'We all as
citizens condemn the heinous attacks against humanity'.  ...Another
useless part of the old script is not to respond because violence
simply begets violence.  They never said that about the mad bombers,
because they saw the Third World man as an automaton and only the
First World man as having an independent will.  That's all over.  We
know what kind of people these were, so we know they had moreal
choices, and made the wrong ones."

"Palestine holds the Coalition key"

Jean-Robert Sansfaton chief editorialist in the liberal
French-language daily Le Devoir writes (9/19): " As long as the U.S.
does not exert more pressure on its ally Israel and on the Palestinian
Authority...as long as Israel occupies the territories won by force in
1967, the Islamist extremists will have no difficulty finding
militants to fight Satan in the form of Israeli or American
citizens...Until this lasting peace comes to the Middle East, and that
peace will come one day, the Americans and their allies must  try
everything in order to stop, at least temporarily, the violence and
resume talks...The Americans no longer have any choice: they must
retake the leadership in trying to find an honorable solution to the
Palestinian problem. The success of the long fight against terrorism
depends on it."

OTHER NATO COUNTRIES

CZECH REPUBLIC: "There Are No Collective Guilts"

The right-of-center daily Lidove noviny notes in Jiri Loewy's column
(9/20): "President Bush took of his shoes following the Islam
tradition and only in socks entered one of  Washington's mosques
followed by a crowd of Muslim dignitaries. Into microphones and
cameras he then called on all Americans to behave with respect towards
their Arabian or other Muslim fellow citizens, because a terror isn't
Islam's sign.  ...The U.S. authorities showed very energetically that
they don't respect collective guilt and won't tolerate any wrong
doings in this sense."

"We Should Be Active and Cautious"

The right-center daily MF Dnes writes in an appeal by Cyril Svoboda,
Chairman of Christian Democratic Union-Czech People's Party (9/20):
"The U.S. threw all its energy into  revealing of culprits of the
terrorist attacks. ...It is already obvious now, that problem with
terrorism will not be solved by military measures definitely and that
it will not be a short-term conflict. ...Our human commitment and our
participation in different social and political processes in conflict
with a crime have to be as intensive as terrorists' keenness.
Everybody has to make decision by him (or her) self and not wait that
others will decide instead of him (her)."

"Are We in Danger?"

The leading daily MF Dnes's chief commentator Martin Komarek notes
(9/20): "When Interior Minister Stanislav Gross says, "Czech
intelligence services do not announce any danger of a terrorist
attack," this sounds funny. The U.S. secret services had not presented
any report about terrorist attacks either. Gross's statement only
makes sense if he is sure that the Czech BIS counter-intelligence is
much more professional than CIA. ...It is nice from politicians that
they do not want to spread alarm and assure the public that nothing
awful is being prepared. However, it would be much nicer if the
president or other senior elected officials and chairmen of democratic
parties made a special statement to the public. It might say:
"Everything seems to show that our nation has entered a long and
bloody war with terrorism. It is a fair war. It is a necessary war. If
we do not uproot terrorism, it will annihilate us. In this war there
will be a danger to the civilian population. We will really go to
extreme lengths to safeguard your security, but we cannot absolutely
guarantee it. ...This is the reality. Immediate danger is really not
big. But one cannot rule out that in the course of the war terrorists
will hit this country, too. ...Defense measure must not be taken for
the short run. The idea that the Temelin nuclear power plant will be
watched for a week or two and then we can go back to bed is absolutely
wrong. It is now the politicians' task to rebuild the whole security
system in the country. ...Let's hope they are working on it. We can
only hope so. They have not told us."

GREECE:  "The Greek Position"

The lead editorial of independent influential Kathimerini (9/20)
said:  "PM Simitis was extremely decisive and categorical when he said
yesterday:  'We have no trace of tolerance or understanding for
terrorists.  Our  response is absolute:  no compromise, no interaction
with them... The  recent attacks cannot remain unanswered...Greece
will participate in  future initiatives.'  Greece's differentiation
from skeptical tendencies  that appeared in Europe is related with
certain Greek 'peculiarities' such  as the 2004 Olympics and the
existence of an active terrorist group, 17  November.  These two
elements dramatically reduce Greece's margins for  maneuvering.  The
need for realism on the part of Greece's foreign policy  also triggers
from the fact that the Balkans have suffered the  consequences of
actions by Osama Bin Laden's mercenaries.  In light of the  above,
Greece's position could not have and should not have been any
different."

"Time for the UN"

The lead editorial in popular, influential and anti-American
Eleftherotypia (9/20) said:  "The UN is being activated around the
terrorist attacks of September 11, but hesitantly.  UN's only raison
d'etre is to prevent war operations and maintain peace.  The UNSC
sent  this message to the Taliban:  Implement Resolution 1333
immediately and  unconditionally.  In other words, the UNSC asks
Taliban to hand over Bin  Laden as a measure of appeasement.  The UN
must also assume exclusive  control of the [recent] terrorist attacks
affair, as peace is threatened.  The UN should control the relevant
negotiations between the U.S and  Afghanistan, since all UN members
stand against terrorism and want its  eradication.  UN members want
justice, but in a lawful manner and without  war operations.
Everybody knows that a war against Afghanistan will not  eradicate
terrorism."

HUNGARY:  "Concert"

Brussels correspondent Oszkar Fuzes judges in top-circulation
Nepszabadsag (9/19): "For the evolvement of, and failure to resolve,
the historical and current problems leading to terrorism, the Old
Continent is to blame at least as much as the New World. (Or even
more.) It is not Europe's merit, but rather its luck that the anger of
the Islamic fanatics is aimed at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
However, if Europe does something good now, it will be to its credit,
too, if this anger eventually abates."

"Faith, Lack of Hope, Hatred"

Socialist MP Gyula Hegyi concludes in influential, liberal leaning
Magyar Hirlap (9/19): "There are only two alternatives for the
wealthier part of mankind to achieve lasting security. Either we move
back into the fortress cities of the Middle Ages where the walls were
higher than the residential buildings. Or we try again to find a
common language for mankind."

"Instead of Weapons, Diplomacy"

Influential, liberal leaning Magyar Hirlap's editorial warns: "Before
something irrevocable happens, possibilities will have to be analyzed
carefully, things to do to be discussed thoroughly, and instead of
sudden anger, the voice of reason to be listened to. The world has it
good only as long as its responsible leaders do no forget the
experience of the historical past."

"The Catch of Striking Back"

Foreign affairs writer Laszlo Szale opines in influential, liberal
leaning Magyar Hirlap (9/19): "The fact that the authorization to do
"dirty jobs" was restored to CIA indicates that they see the
annihilation of the terrorist as the only useful solution. With that,
the threat coming from him would cease. Of course, terrorism would
not."

"For Speech to Remain Free"

Socialist MP Gyula Hegyi points out in independent Nepszava (9/19):
"If Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist succeeded in forcing
democracies to give up their fundamental constitutional principles,
they would win an undeserved victory over the free world."

THE NETHERLANDS  "Attacks in U.S. Force Europe to Integrate"

 Influential liberal De Volkskrant's Brussels-based correspondent
Geert Jan Boogaerts comments (9/18): "Suppose there is a fire in the
Middle East or in the Balkans. Which firemen should be called?
Solana... or do you prefer Powell? ... six months ago, the choice
would have been very easy: Powell of course... today, the answer is
less clear.... The European standpoint is very clear: tough and mild
simultaneously.  More international cooperation and larger trade flows
should result in a more just spread of wealth in the world - the only
way to fight poverty, "the breeding pool for terrorism." The
discussion between the Europe and the U.S. about the right approach
has hardly begun and the discussion will be intense.  The attacks in
the U.S. help Europe to discover its own identity. This does not seem
to be problematic.  Atlanticists, such as Blair, and Continentalists
such as Chirac and Schroeder are more or less on one line.  It seems
as if the terrorist attacks on the U.S. are beginning to show a
political impact in Europe....  The EU has lately been working very
hard and independently from the U.S. in places such as Macedonia and
the Middle East.  The U.S. was mainly absent there. Europe has
traditionally been an economic giant but a political midget - but this
status is changing in those areas.  Many diplomats, even from large
European countries, dare to say that European foreign policy has
become more important now than that of Germany, Great Britain, or
France.  Only six months ago, this would have been impossible...."

"War of Nerves"

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad has this editorial (9/14):
"The anti-terrorist 'campaign' of the Russian army in Chechnya
destroyed much... but never led to pacification.  . .  The years of
war by the Russians in Afghanistan was fruitless.  Would an action by
the U.S. against the Taliban in Afghanistan succeed any better? . .
.Old and new terrorists want that the social order which they attack
to be "unmasked," but resort to extreme measures.  Democratic nations
by contrast must continuously weigh how the means employed relate to
the fundamental values which they are specifically protecting.  The
American government is acutely conscious of this.  That is very
important.  It does mean however that the war on terrorism is, to a
great degree, a war of nerves."

""

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad's Marc Chavannes comments
(9/15): "President Bush-'I've got a job to do'-has this week grown
into his role with astonishing speed. . . .In scarcely four days he
has got the contours of a head of state who can bear the national
disaster, lead the mourning of a continent, and view the international
consequences.  [He has changed] from a salesman to a warrior and
leader."

"Where Does Such Self - Satisfaction Come From?"

Centrist Het Parool's political writer criticizes Dutch reactions
regarding the WTC attacks (9/18): "It began with the first comments of
prime minister Wim Kok, shortly after the attacks.  He expressed the
fervent wish that the American people would be able to react 'in a
dignified manner to this humiliation'.  That was not the moment for
the Binnenhof to advise Americans how to react.  It was superfluous
and especially inappropriate.... A chaotic debate by sundry talkers,
(like Sunday evening's "The Invisible Enemy" of NPS, Vara and VPRO)
does not help and only leaves an impression of greater confusion with
those who endured the discussion to the end."

NORWAY:  "Holy War"

Independent Dagbladet (0919) commentator Peter Norman Waage :..."While
Taliban declares war against Americans, the USA and all that it stands
for, the American President has stressed that it is not the Muslims
who are the enemy. It is Osama Bin Laden and his network of terror,
and possibly Taliban. 'Islam is peace,' he declared in a mosque in
Washington, after having read from the Koran. These are timely
words...the holy war that Taliban calls for, is an indication of the
fanatics' deadly belief that they alone are right."

"No World War III"

Independent VG (0919) commentator Jan Christiansen : ... "Systematic
"carpet bombing" of assumed bases of terror will most likely only harm
civilians, and increase the recruitment of terrorists....Therefore the
western world should rely less on quick retaliation - even if it
should not be completely discounted - and count more on long-term
countermoves."

"The Danger of a Holy War"

Social democratic Dagsavisen (0919) comments:  "When the Afghanistan
Taliban regime declares holy war, it is a challenge the world must not
accept... What will be decisive now is that the Muslim countries are
fully involved in the hunt for terror groups and the terrorists who
have been directly involved in the assaults against the WTC and
Pentagon... The fight against terror will not be easy to win... In
order to succeed at all, it is necessary that all countries are
involved...."

"Diplomacy and the Fight for World Opinion,"

In its lead edit, newspaper of record Aftenposten (0919) says: "The
Taliban regime's declaration of holy war against the USA and its
statement that Osama bin Laden will not be delivered if no evidence of
his guilt...is presented, is an irresponsible escalation of the
international conflict in the wake of the attacks a week ago...  Bush
gave a message that should (already) be clear for  inhabitants of
informed democracies, but which unfortunately is not  always so for
everyone, be they Americans or western Europeans: Muslims as a group
or as individuals must never be seen as responsible for the terrorist
actions... What Bush now needs in this fight against international
terrorism which we all hope succeeds, is the wholehearted support of
leaders and people who are generally skeptical to much of what the
U.S. stands for...."

POLAND:  "With Whom?"

Konstanty Gebert wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (9/20): "There is
much to indicate that a new caliber in international relations is
taking shape: a uniform front against all propagators of terror. Ben
Laden versus the rest of the world. This impression, however, is
wrong. First, the criticism of a planned operation against Afghanistan
is justified. Up to date the Americans have presented no hard evidence
that Osama bin Laden is really behind the massacre in New York and
Washington.... There is a justified concern that in their
well-understood yearning for revenge they will not wait for the
investigation to end. This, however, would seriously undermine the
moral and political credibility of a possible retaliatory action.
Finally, common Afghans who live under the terror of the Taliban
regime are not responsible for bin Laden. And their lives count as
much as the lives of those murdered in the WTC and the Pentagon. Any
departure from this principle would mean the triumph of the
terrorists."

"Fight With A Shadow"

Konrad Kolodziejski wrote in right of center Zycie (9/20): "In the
20th century, it all seemed much simpler. When conflicts broke out,
the parties were known. State terrorism is slowly waning today, and
there is no clear enemy like the Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The
enemy is a concrete person, who, staying in hiding, can terrorize the
whole world. A battle with him is like a battle with a shadow. We must
all learn the rules of such a battle."

"Pranksters"

Rafal A. Ziemkiewicz wrote in center-left Zycie Warszawy (9/20): "The
anarchists, who recently chose to call themselves anti-globalists,
eagerly echo Saddam Hussein saying that 'America got what it
deserved.' Truly, America is guilty because instead of consuming its
prosperity in peace, it moves into various parts of the world with
assistance. America is guilty because it does not suffice to have
democracy and freedom at home-it would like other nations to enjoy
those values too. It is guilty because it can be ready to send its
troops to remote parts of the world to defend people persecuted
there."

PORTUGAL:  "A Test for Europe"

Commentary by international affairs editor Teresa de Sousa in
September 20 influential center-left  P�blico: "Up until now, Europe
has done what it has to do.  Without hesitations, ambiguities or
divisions. ...  It was to underlining the impossibility of any middle
ground that the European allies in NATO took just three hours to make
the decision -- unprecedented in its half century of existence -- to
consider the attack on America an attack against all.  The European
response could not have been otherwise, independent of all the
semantic analyses of whether this was an act of terrorism or an act of
war.... "This time, it will be difficult to say that Europe failed its
first test, when it had to confront possibly the most difficult crisis
of the post-Cold War.  And it had to confront it at a time when its
relations with America were passing through a period of enormous
incomprehension.  The last few months offered almost daily proofs of
the worst fears of the Europeans regarding the Bush
administration....  The solidarity demonstrated by Europe this last
week could function in the future as one of the most decisive
instruments to convince the U.S. of the advantages of new rules of
international conduct.  As long as Europe is finally ready to
unambiguously assume its international responsibilities, along with
their inherent costs. But this is the most difficult and longest test,
that it has yet to pass.... "The EU will have to engage in the long
and complex task of reevaluating its political priorities.  The slow
efforts to give itself an autonomous military capacity will look
pathetic in the light of the worst international scenarios that are
brutally emerging from this crisis.  The slow steps in the direction
of a common foreign policy now appear tragically remote from
reality....  When they leave their meeting in Brussels, European
leaders will also have to understand that there is a transformed
public opinion awaiting them.  One that expects some capacity for
leadership and some political courage."

"Beyond International Law"

Commentary by Portuguese Attorney General JosT Souto Moura  in
September 20 P�blico: "[...] The September 11 attack -- given its
presumed aims, the country affected, the casualties, and the methods
used -- is unprecedented, and demolished the relatively clear
parameters within which we have become accustomed to thinking.  On the
one hand, the acts committed are difficult to fit within the
traditional definition of war or armed international
conflict,...mainly because, up to this point, it seems we are dealing
with an isolated occurence.  On the other hand, the dimension of the
catastrophe resists treatment as simply a matter of criminal law, even
if it is international. "Whether we are dealing with an act of war
that will be responded to in equally warlike terms, or with a
terrorist act that provokes or unleashes a war, or even with a crime
or crimes to be dealt with under international criminal law, a
decisive response is called for. "As to what the response can and
should be, there seems to be ample consensus that it should not be led
solely by the U.S.  In place of leadership 'of,' what is wanted is
leadership 'with' other states, as well as to see what the role of the
UN Security Council might be in all this. The United States of America
now has on its side not just those who could be called its allies in
geopolitical terms, but all those who are against international
terrorism.  By no means a small number. ... "Extirpating terrorism, of
whatever kind, demands the unhesitating punishment of those
responsible.  Because nothing, absolutely nothing, jusitifies a
strategy of terror."

"The Worst Ideas"

Column by (opposition Social Democratic Party) European Parliament
member JosT Pacheco Pereira in September 20 P�blico: "A week after the
terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, I am struck by the weak,
timorous and hesitant way that many Portuguese political leaders have
responded to what has happened.  The Prime Minister, as usual,
presented a bad example -- more negative than anyone because it came
from the top -- in a hypocritical speech, rhetorical in words but
frightened in actions, that objectively leaves the U.S. isolated.  But
he wasn't alone, he had lots of company in the absence of clear voices
mobilizing the Portuguese for a fight that is theirs, too.  The war
that is coming isn't about the Americans, it's about our way of life,
culture and civilization, against the intransigent 'spirit of death'
as a political instrument, and the interests that manipulate it."

"Our Home-Grown 'Kamikazes'"

''Bread and Roses" column  by commentator Ana S� Lopes in September 20
P�blico: "[...] Our home-grown 'kamikazis' who want a war, implacable
and inevitable, are mysteriously showing greater haste than the
unsuspected Colin Powell. Against whom, seems a trifling matter.
Against countries that harbor terrorists?  Obviously the war, as the
Americans and other democrats are already calling it, has to start
inside the United States itself, where the 'kamikazis' of the
barbarous September 11 were trained. With the invasion of Afghanistan
by the cavalry...one obviously expects a continuation of barbarity,
the spirit of a crusade, a spiral being prepared to follow with the
killing of innocent civilians and that could, if they want, reduce
everything to ashes.  Obviously the 'kamikazis', the war
fundamentalists, seem at this moment not to give a damn.  It's part of
the 'kamikaze' structure.  And now, even though someone said it
before, it's worth repeating: the images we saw on television on
September 11 were not reminiscent... of Pearl Harbor.  They were
reminiscent, obviously, of Hiroshima."

"What Kind of NATO is This?"

Daily "Direct Lines" column by senior journalist Lufs Delgado in
September 20 respected moderate-left daily Di�rio de Notfcias:
"[...Some] NATO allies, strangely enough, are not as committed as
Germany.... This raises the question of what sort of military and
defense alliance exists in the West.  That is, what kind of NATO is
it...that -- faced with new threats like terrorism -- wavers and sags
like Chamberlain before Hitler in Munich?  What does NATO want, having
invoked Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty last week and now setting out
doubts and problems for itself?  What kind of NATO is this, then?
Could it be that they want to send an emissary to Bin Laden to draw up
a peace treaty?  There can be no concessions to terrorism, and --
amazingly -- Mr. Laden and others must be shouting with joy over these
hesitations.  With a NATO like this, God help us."

TURKEY:  "How to fight against terror?"

Sami Kohen commented in mass appeal Milliyet (9/20): "Issues like
poverty, misery, social and economical inequalities, or disputes like
Palestine and Kashmir will continue to be on the world's agenda for
many years more.  Can we even consider these as reasons to justify
violence and terror? ... Certainly both countries individually and the
international community should seriously work on resolving the
issues.  This is a long-term thing.  In the short term, terrorism must
receive a response.  The fight against terrorism is a two-lane road.
The right approach is to use both."

"U.S. is reaping what it has sown"

Hikmet Cetinkaya argued in intellectual/opinion maker Cumhuriyet
(9/20): "The U.S. is only reaping what it has sown.  You can come to
this conclusion easily by looking at Afghan refugees or the people in
Middle East, where the U.S. has always supported backwards and racist
regimes. ...  In these countries the poverty has grown immensely and
the U.S. has turned into the prime enemy. ... The people of the Middle
East will create more bin Ladens unless the Palestine-Israel conflict
is resolved. ...  Moreover, where were the U.S. or Britain while
radical religious movements were expanding in a vast geography; from
Iran to Algeria, from Sudan to Egypt, from the Balkans to the
Caucasus, and from Central Asia to north Africa?

"The anti-terror formula"

Mehmet Ali Kislali averred in intellectual/opinion maker Radikal
(9/20): "The U.S. has been re-editing the low intensity conflict
doctrine since 1960.  Turkey learned this doctrine in its fight
against terrorism.  Now the U.S. is to apply low intensity conflict
principles in its declared war against terror as well. ...  The
initial signs coming from the U.S. boost the hopes that in this war,
the U.S. will not use any wrong strategies or tactics."

"Asymmetric threat"

Mass appeal Milliyet's columnist Guneri Civaoglu wrote (9/19): "The
FBI and the CIA have failed to stop the terrorist attacks because of
the U.S. Administration's changing intelligence policy.  Washington's
decision to cut the funds allocated for intelligence work and its new
strategy to use satellites rather than intelligence agents paved the
way for the recent violent attacks. ...  The U.S. and Europe should be
careful about creating a confrontation between religions. ...  Turkey
will have an important role in possible NATO operations since it is
the only Islamic country in the organization."

RUSSIA/EURASIA

RUSSIA:  "Russia May Have to Bear the Brunt of War"

Official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (9/20) stated in an item
by Vladimir Yermakov: "There is no guarantee that after a series of
missile attacks--ineffective, as predicted by all military
experts--and possibly a few daring raids by U.S. Rambos against the
Talibs, the Americans will not wash their hands of it, letting the
Russians do most of the fighting."

"Politicking"

Mikhail Vinogradov and Aleksandr Sadchikov reported on page one of
reformist Izvestiya (9/20): "With the Duma back in session, a new
political season officially opened yesterday.  The deputies--except
several LDPR members--rose to observe a minute of silence to honor the
victims of the U.S. tragedy.  In the follow-up discussion of world
issues, they, still unsure of their final positions, tried to say how
they felt about what was going on.  An official, referring to Russian
politicians, said, 'They don't do what they should do.  They do what
they can.'  Apparently, there is not much our elite can do. Most of it
is talk, confusion, and stupidity.  The President, vacationing in
Sochi, has stated that the main thing now is to 'develop approaches
and real mechanisms of cooperation' and he added that he was in touch
with world leaders.  Putin is no Bush.  His people have not been
through a tragedy of such a caliber, but he would do well to address
the public, setting a 'line' for politicians, the military, lobbyists,
and the nation at large."

"State Under Attack"

Maksim Sokolov contended in reformist Izvestiya (9/20): "America has
not been picked because it is good or bad.  It has been targeted
because it is the strongest in the world.  To attack the most powerful
state successfully and anonymously means to establish the principle of
the total uncertainty of power. Coming under attack is the very idea
of the state as possessing a monopoly of violence.  That makes all
states a target, never mind their internal politics or attitude toward
America."

"Moscow, Washington are Allies"

Maksim Yusin remarked in reformist Izvestiya (9/20): "The United
States' war-to-be against the Talibs and the Islamists' war of many
years against moderate regimes in NIS countries (and Russia) make up
one and the same conflict.  So whether the Americans and we like it or
not, from now on Moscow and Washington will objectively have to act as
allies.  They will at least on the issue of Afghanistan."

"Russia's Hard Choice"

Boris Volkhonskiy said in reformist business-oriented Kommersant
(9/20): "Russia faces a hard choice--it will have to support U.S.
actions, anyway. So it had better do that soon, while it can still
influence the U.S. operation and, in the longer term, the situation in
the world, particularly on its southern borders."

"Tragedy May Happen Again"

Sergey Sergiyevskiy pointed out in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(9/20): "Hitting the wrong target will only add to the suffering of
innocent people and to the confidence of the true culprits of the
American tragedy that they can get away with anything.  That promises
more tragedies."

"Russia May Become Chief Peacemaker"

According to Alan Kasayev in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (9/20):  "By
siding with the injured United States, Russia may hope to become the
chief peacemaker in Central Asia.  Elsewhere, too, its cooperation
with Washington would be taken as a signal that Russia is just as good
a prop as anyone."

"This Is No Way To Fight Terrorism"

Official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta ran this commentary
(9/19) by Yuriy Babichi:  "In a public opinion poll conducted by ABC
and the Washington Post, 86 percent voted for an adequate response to
terrorists, even if it spells a war.  Is this a way to solve the
problem of terrorism?  Hardly.  This problem has objective causes, the
principal one being a deep chasm between the well-being of the 'gold
billion' and the poverty of most of the rest of the world. If
extremism and international terrorism are to be eradicated, the world
must change to become fairer.  Besides, hasn't the United States
practiced state terrorism in relation to countries and regimes it
doesn't like?  Hasn't the United States, sparing no expense, nurtured
people like America's number-one enemy?  Hasn't the United States
encouraged Albanian separatists in Kosovo and Macedonia?  In light of
the above, the United States' attempts to impart...a global character
to its efforts to save 'American values' do not seem all too
promising."

"World Worried"

Aleksander Panarin opined on page one of reformist weekly
Literaturnaya Gazeta (#38, 9/19):  "The world is worried:  Its pride
wonder, what will the hegemon do now?  It is not the fear of
terrorists.  It is the hear of America's recklessness.  Everybody is
worried that the United States, which puts its reputation as the
hegemon and master of the world ahead of everything else, won't stop
at even bearing down on other countries, unleashing a new world war."

"How to Improve the World?"

Yuriy Borev emphasized in reformist weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta (# 38,
9/19): "Under the circumstances, the United States, as a powerful
civilized nation, can and must not only severely and mercilessly
punish those who are directly responsible for the atrocious terrorist
acts but also think up measures to ameliorate the situation in the
world.  Being less selfish will do it."

"What Role For Others?"

Boris Volkhonsky observed in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
(9/19):  "As an act of retribution nears inexorably, ever more
countries are wondering about their role in the operation, how their
involvement in fighting against countries that offer refuge to
terrorists in going to affect them and whether the act of retribution
will set a precedent, with the United States feeling free to go it
alone, bypassing organizations like the United Nations."

"Which Side Are You On?"

Leonid Gankin stated on page one of reformist business-oriented
Kommersant (9/19): "The United States' playing it tough makes it
impossible for other countries, Russia included, to be neutral in the
imminent conflict, even less so to influence it in any way."

RUSSIA/ EURASIA

KYRGYZSTAN:  .
2.  "Participation or neutrality in combating terrorism?"

Private daily "Vecherny Bishkek" (circ. 20,000) highlighted an
interview with Director of the Center for Social Studies of the Kyrgyz
Academy of Sciences Mr. Nurbek Omuraliyev, who said (9/20):
"Kyrgyzstan would hardly be able to participate in a big war.
However, in principle it can provide a transport corridor via
Kyrgyzstan and the Gorno-Badahshan province of Tajikistan for
shipments of weapons to the Northern Alliance...   Concerning the
flood of refugees our citizens worry about, it is doubtful that they
will be able to cross the state border, the high-altitude ranges and
canyons of the border areas."

3. Omuraliev further said: "In this case America is following
double-standards.  On the one hand it tries to observe the canons of
civilization and punish the terrorists only.  At the same time, it
doesn't exclude a so-called 'Asian way', where in response to a murder
of relative it is not a sin to retaliate against the whole family.
Targeted bombing is that kind of mixture of styles.  It is clear that
any bombing will hurt peaceful and innocent people...  Does it make
sense for us to offer independently, like Uzbekistan did, our
territory to Americans?  I think that we should act against terrorism
in coordination with our allies, first of all with Russia.  Though for
us neutrality is more acceptable."

"Kyrgyz People Worried about Possible Conflict Between the U.S. and
Afghanistan"

This headline opened the evening news program of independent TV NBT
(9/18).  Comment: "George Bush's ultimatum about possible bomb strikes
against Afghanistan has disturbed the whole world, including
Kyrgyzstan.  There is only one right decision to save the world from
apocalypse.  Bombing is not a solution.  A flow of refugees could
swamp Kyrgyzstan."  After a brief report from the human rights
activist Tursunbek Akunov's press-conference, at which he opposed
military actions, the reporter concluded: "Without clear evidence that
Taliban supports Osama Bin Laden, the USA shouldn't punish the whole
of Aghanistan."

"Terrorism in Central Asia.  Who is Backing it?"

Independent newspaper "Advokat" (circ. 20,000) introduced this article
with the words: "Analysts from our special services think that
unprecedented terrorist actions in the U.S. are directly connected
with the activation of different kinds of religious movements that
propagate ideas of Islamic fundamentalism and religious extremism."
After characterizing extremist Islamic organizations that act in
Central Asia the author concludes: "Unfortunately, there is no
efficient coordination system between (Kyrgyz) law enforcement
organizations and their counterpart organizations in the countries of
the region, or, in the light of the terrorist actions in the U.S.,
elsewhere in the world."

"Will Armageddon Start in Afghanistan?"

In the same issue of "Advokat" (circ. 20,000) military observer
Alexander Kim analyses different scenarios of U.S. military action
against Afghanistan, concluding that none is good (9/18): "The U.S.
President is powerful enough to stop the war against Afghanistan...
The whole world mourns for innocent victims.  But is it really worth
increasing the number of deaths, putting the planet near the 'last
line that leads nowhere'? Will those who lost relatives and close
friends really feel better if a third world war becomes the price for
vengeance?"

"American Tragedy: Those who live by the sword will die by the sword"

Under this headline the independent Kyrgyz language "Aalam" (circ.
8,000) combined front-page pictures of New York on September 11, 2001
and Iraq in January-February 1991, and printed commentaries on page 3
(9/18): "The September 11 tragedy that ruined a symbol of the U.S.
power and destroyed a part of Pentagon is a warning for the U.S.  If
it doesn't stop promoting its policy of force and continues a
revenge-inspired "crusade" against the East, New-York and Washington
may turn into Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  The only difference is that a
weapon of mass destruction will not be launched from abroad but from
the U.S. itself.  Who knows, maybe it's ready and is just waiting for
the right moment?"  On the second page the paper presented different
opinions of political figures and readers on the event.  Most opinions
are sympathetic to the U.S..   However, a member of Kyrgyz Parliament
(Turdubek Chekiev) states: "What happened is the result of America's
incorrect foreign policy.  America has pursued a policy of separation
and weakening of Muslim countries."

MOLDOVA:  "Arab Terrorists Load Their Guns In Tiraspol"

Alina Radu writes on the front page of pro-rightist Flux (9/20):  "Le
Monde" gives quotes from a report of the Public Policy Institute in
Chisinau, which includes data about sales of Transnistrian weapons in
Bulgaria, Israel, Iraq, Iran and other Arab states.  These states
bought missile launchers BM 21 RAD, anti-tank weapons SPG-9, and other
weapons produced in Tighina and Tiraspol (cities in Transnistria) at
"Electromas' and "Electroaparat" plants, as well as at the steel plant
in Ribnita, which partially belongs to "Itera" company, a subsidiary
of the Russian company "Gazprom."... After the recent events,
Transnistria attracts the world's attention as an uncontrolled
provider of weapons.  Even if Smirnov doesn't have customs stamps at
this moment, some unofficial data shows that Transnistrian mercenaries
collaborate with some air companies in Moldova which have transported
weapons, obtaining the custom stamp right in Chisinau."

"The Argument Of Cudgel"

Nicolae Dabija writes in the pro-rightist Literatura si Arta (9/20):
"If the U.S. and other states have decisived to start fighting
terrorists, they should start at the same time fighting those who arm
the terrorists.  The "death plants", the plants that produce weapons
in Transistria, work day and night to supply with sophisticated
weapons all those who need them and who pay: for several years
Transnistrian weapons, accompanied by a Moldovan customs stamp, have
been pouring to the Arab side."

TURKMENISTAN:  "The Time for Common Values"

The government-owned "Neytralniy Turkmenistan" and "Turkmenistan"
(9/17) published a lead article in which they commented on the tragic
events in the United States:  "Tuesday, the tragic day that brought
awful grief to the American people..., divided the world into past and
present.  In the past was left the fatal confidence in the limits of
evil power.  The present brought the piercing realization of a global
threat.  It became clear that international terrorism ... will not
stop at anything.  It would be a mistake, however, to think that this
has come to our attention too late. Hundreds of countries have joined
in one voice to condemn the horrible evil deed and spoke out for
uniting efforts in an uncompromising fight against evil. "And as
always, independent Turkmenistan is using its neutral status as a tool
to achieve universal agreement and understanding.  It is not by chance
that the Turkmen leader was one of the first to support the suggestion
of building an international anti-terrorist coalition.  Saparmurat
Turkmenbashi stated that only an organization acting under the aegis
of the UN, armed by clear goals, aims and functions is able to
confront world terrorism.... Real security is a global term.  An
attempt to build one's own welfare, isolated from the rest of the
world, is not only a utopian dream, but also antihumanistic. Still at
the daybreak of independence, Saparmurat Turkmenbashi stated that in
the new world order ... the earth must not bear these aggressors,
neither those overt nor those covert. "[In the meeting between the
President and U.S. embassy Charge] ...  it was also said that neutral
Turkmenistan, which gained respect and confidence from the
international community through its consistent peacemaking policy,
will became a reliable champion of the will of nations against all
forms of extremism and intolerance."

NON-NATO EUROPE

ALBANIA: "Why Albania?"

In its front-page editorial entitled medium circulation rightist
Republican Party daily "Republika," writes: Quote "The Washington
Post, one of the most prestigious American newspapers published
yesterday that American Intelligence Services and those of other
countries are investigating on "possible links between terrorist
attacks in the U.S. and people of Bin Laden in Albania." Due to this
news announced even on the "Voice of America," police in the outskirts
of Tirana searched some houses rented by Arab people. We do not give
rise to panic, because it is obvious that Albania is not a "source of
terrorism" nor "endangered by terrorism", but a very good way for all
those who want to "transport" this danger to Europe. The most
important question that demands an answer is: "Why should Albania be
involved in these investigations at a time when the Albanian public
was in mourning for the events in the U.S.? It is evident that this is
a gift from "the successful governance of these years." While we
have been boasted of the "establishment of public order" and lately of
"wiping out terrorist bases", Tirana authorities have allowed suspects
to harbor in the country. It is not a matter of days or weeks. It has
been years that people with false identity, alleged to have links with
the latest attacks in New York and Washington, have been sheltering in
Albania. What has our intelligence service done so far? We hear of
political legal proceedings, arrests of perpetrators, but never has
the intelligence service thought of these hidden people who work under
the disguise of "charity" or "religion."

"Why are we Americans?"

 is the title of the editorial in medium circulation centrist daily
"Dita." The piece holds, quote "Millions of people throughout the
world are Americans in their spirit and mind. They are Americans in
their pain for the victims of terrorist massacres in New York and
Washington. They are Americans in the solidarity with the U.S., the
first democratic superpower in human history. We can enumerate
thousands of reasons, which point to this unprecedented support of
citizens of this world regardless of race, religion and color. This is
the most profound condolence for the American people. Albanians have
been and still are part of this support. We have our own special
reasons to be such. We are a grateful people and we cannot forget that
the decisive support of the U.S. has been near us in the most decisive
moments of our existence.  It is worth recalling President Wilson and
his policy towards the protection of small nations, which saved
Albania from the chauvinistic acts of neighboring stat
es to wipe the country out of the world map. To continue with
President Clinton and his efforts to redeem Kosovo from the bloody
regime of Milosevic. It is not only the gratitude, but also many
interests of various areas that attach us to the U.S. It is worth
mentioning the great American-European project of Corridor 8 that will
be finalized in our country. Even if we were lacking such projects,
Albania has currently a democratic society, which refers to the U.S.
as the bastion of values of freedom and justice. Throughout centuries
and up to the 1990s, we have been prone to despotic regimes. We feel
twofold the importance of world order of freedoms, whose leaders are
the West, Europe and the U.S."

AUSTRIA:  "Dead or Alive"

Senior editor Hans Rauscher commented in liberal daily "Der Standard"
(09/20): "George Bush is not Teddy Roosevelt, and not Winston
Churchill either, but a provincial politician who appears to be
completely at sea these days. In the current crisis he has not (yet?)
managed to strike the right note or show a consistent line of thought.
Words of restraint on one day, a return to cowboy phraseology
("wanted: dead or alive") on the other. All those who, by majority
parliamentary decision, have declared their willingness to "take
military risks" (like the German Chancellor Gerhard Schr�der), will
hardly find this reassuring."

"Dangerous Illusions"

Foreign affairs writer Christine Domforth of the centrist daily "Die
Presse" wrote (09/20): "Surveillance alone is completely useless
anyway. The CIA and the FBI have collected tons of material in the
last years - also about Bin Laden and his supporters. In spite of it
all, they failed to raise an alarm in time. Just how safe the
terrorists must feel becomes clear when we look at the Palestinian
Hamas organization, which channeled its financial transactions through
Citybank, the biggest bank in the U.S. A comprehensive and complete
surveillance of financial transactions worldwide is quite impossible,
as it would risk paralyzing the global economy. In that case, however,
the terrorists would already have won."

"Much Talk, No Results"

Senior editor Christoph Kotanko stated in mass-circulation daily
"Kurier" (09/20): "The unanimity demonstrated by the new alliance
against terror still has to prove itself. It is a respectable
coalition that has formed here - from the U.S. and the E.U. to Israel,
China and Russia, to Saudi Arabia, even. They are all making similar
statements now, but what do they actually mean, when they condemn
terrorism. (...) The fight against terrorism is necessary - that is
the consensus after last week's shocking attacks. War has been
declared. But its direction is still not clear."

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: "Ultimatum"

Sometimes Muslim-leaning Sarajevo daily "Oslobodjenje" (09/20/01)
commented: "... The post-traumatic reaction from the White House,
besides cries for 'revenge' and 'war', included a request to other
countries to stand together with the U.S. in a planetary coalition to
fight against terrorism... Will Bush's effort only create a political
umbrella for unilateral acts of the U.S. or will this lead to
international consensus in the struggle against terrorism? American
public opinion is asking for strong revenge as soon as possible.
Retaliation targets are, first of all, Bin Laden and Afghanistan, and
that is even without presenting any convincing evidence. Anti-Islam
and anti-Arab reactions quickly sobered Bush and resulted in firm
pressure on Israel in order to stop the conflict. Without showing any
honest wish to find a just solution for Palestinians, the U.S. cannot
count on real support from Arab and Islamic countries, and without
that (support) there can be no effective struggle against terrorism."

BULGARIA:   "Killers with Leather Briefcases"

Bulgarian media reaction  September 19, 2001     Center-right daily
"Dnevnik" (9/19) writes: " Reportedly the  disgusting attacks of the
kamikaze group were preceded by heartless  trading of "bloody" stocks.
If it turns out to be true that some fanatic  has issued orders to
brokers from his bunker as part of his plan to  liquidate thousands of
innocent people's lives this will shatter our  perceptions of how far
a mass-killers network can go. The new weapon of  the extremists is
the same Gold Rush of the "corrupt" West against which  they claim
they fight, and this makes them even more dangerous.  Because behind
bin Laden's men with turbans we can see the silhouettes of well
dressed brokers with leather briefcases."

CROATIA:

Government-owned "Vjesnik" on September 20 carries a commentary by
Mihailo Nicota under the headline "Chance for Peace in the Levant."
Nicota writes:  "Have those who carried out the attacks against the
U.S. unintentionally initiated the end of conflicts in the Levant?
The shock provoked by the events in New York and Washington has
certainly changed both the Israeli and the Palestinian standpoints.
Suddenly, the war against terrorism has imposed itself as a new
priority in international relations, and both Sharon and Arafat want
to support it.  ...  This time, Arafat wants to be on the winning
side, even if it is, maybe, in opposition to the majority Palestinian
belief."

"Palestinians Must Get Their Own State."

Zagreb-based mass-circulation "Jutarnji List" on September 19 carries
a commentary by Gordana Grgas under the headline  Grgas comments:
"The West must start facing the deep causes of the terrorist attacks,
and the U.S. will have to take the leading role in it.  Washington,
forced by the pressing events of the moment, is already showing that
it knows the direction it has to follow.  It has looked for allies in
the Arab world and has transferred the entire weight of the current
negotiations to the first and most logical country, Pakistan.  ...
This means that this cannot and should not be an American 'crusade,'
nor can it be a unilateral American action.  It is rather a process
which will in the end knock out the arguments of those who are now
marking America and the entire wealthy West as the target of the
attacks, because it is being accused of all their problems and a bad
political reality."

"Whose War Against Terrorism Is It?"

Rijeka-based "Novi List" on September 19 carries its daily commentary
by Jelena Lovric under the headline Lovric writes:  "Certainly, there
must be a response to the mass crime committed in New York and
Washington.  However, without a strategy, certainly without a
long-term strategy dealing with the serious resolution of problems of
terrorism, the American retaliation will only speed up the spiral of
violence.  ...  Fear of hyper-terrorism, which was scattered a week
ago with the attack against America, is slowly turning into the fear
of America's reaction and the future moves of a badly wounded
superpower."

"Countdown."

Zagreb-based mass-circulation "Vecernji List" on September 19 carries
a commentary by Visnja Staresina under the headline  Staresina
comments:  "The Western allies should do everything they can so that
the war isn't understood as an anti-Moslem war.  The Taliban and bin
Laden are doing everything they can to portray it as such.  In order
to be successful, it is crucial to develop and preserve the Islamic
countries' trust.  The precondition for that would be America finally
behaving like a leading ally. And not like a threatening and dictating
leader."

"Terror and States."

Split-based "Slobodna Dalmacija" on September 19 carries a commentary
by Zlatko Gall under the headline   Gall writes:  "However, in this
global game - as the American liberal circles are saying -
international laws shouldn't in any case be turned into legislation
which would provide the only remaining musical power an alibi for
interventions anywhere where American strategic interests are
'endangered.'  Because, it is completely true that international laws
must sanction 'terrorist states' ('rogue states'), in other words
regimes which, through their support of terrorists, are trying to
destabilize or turn down the 'displeasing' administrations.  The
United States of America, which for over four decades has given
refuge, money and know-how to various 'contras,' who, through
terrorist activities too, has been trying to reshape the political map
of South American and the Caribbean Islands - should not be an
exception."

ESTONIA:  "Russia's Hard Choice"

The leading serious daily "Postimees" (9/19) reports: " Russia's
advice to the U.S. to first find the organizations who committed the
terrorist acts, and then, when striking back, trying to avoid civilian
victims, seems ridiculous in light of Russia's own reaction to
explosions in Moscow two years earlier that was immediately followed
by Russia's fierce bombing of villages and towns in Chechnya...  In
theory, U.S. prompt retaliatory action could greatly benefit Russia.
The U.S. would thus weaken the Taleban  while Russia itself  would
continue its arms trade with Iran and Iraq, and in this moral
confusion, the U.S. would have less enthusiasm about expanding NATO."

"Estonians Prefer to Remain on the Sidelines of Military Action"

The leading serious daily "Postimees" (9/19) carried an article about
a poll on Estonians' opinions about getting involved in military
strikes in Afghanistan:  "Only one third of Estonians as opposed to
one half of the non-Estonian population would support defense forces'
participation in U.S. and its allies' military strikes against
Afganistan. Aivar Voog, division manager of the Emor polling company
wrote, 'Estonians' military and historic background is different from
that of Russia; there's almost a total lack of successful military
campaigns. Therefore Estonians tend to have a more cautious attitude
in these matters.'  The support for a peaceful solution of the crisis
where the U.S. would demand extradition of terrorists and bring them
to justice is almost equally supported by the majority of Estonian and
non-Estonian respondents. Voog says: 'This can be explained by
memories of Soviet Army's long, bloody and failed Afghanistan war
experience.'"

"Half of the Estonian Population Fears an Economic Crisis Starting
from the U.S."

According to a poll ordered by the leading serious daily "Postimees"
(9/19),:"49% of  respondents fear a world economic crises. The fear is
more dominant in the age group 35-49 and among Estonians, who are more
pessimistic than non-Estonian inhabitants about the future. Indrek
Neivelt, Chairman of the Board of Hansabank, says, 'There are no
grounds for panic. The world's economic situation is not likely to
improve in the near future, but as an optimist, I do not see reason
for our people to get too concerned.'"

FINLAND:  A New Kind Of War

Finland's leading daily, independent Helsingin Sanomat (editorial
9/20) "Immediately after the terrorist strikes on September 11,
President George W. Bush said that it was 'more than terror attacks,
it was an act of war'. After the terrifying attack, Bush and Blair
made the right choice of  words. Their purpose was to signal that now
was not the time for judicial restraints and peacetime vacillation.
The goal was to get to signal the planners of the terrorist strikes,
that they would be stopped, whatever it would take. The laws of war
give the enemy a judicial and moral position, which is more protected
than what terrorists deserve.  Terrorists are not entitled to be
treated as POWs.  There may be a state or states that protect them,
and war can be waged against them.  They do not identify themselves
with any single state. In a war against terrorists victories can be
achieved, but no final victory.  Even a shrunken globe is far too
large to be freed from the entire phenomenon.  A peace treaty, or
other agreements, cannot be concluded. The battle against terrorism in
the long run has to be attacked constructively as well (such as the
war on poverty). Ultimately, Bush chose war rhetoric to point out to
the Americans that the task undertaken could take very long and call
for heavy material and human sacrifices.  He was right in this.
However, this is not a war, by the traditional definition."

Arab Leaders Must Take Sides

Independent Aamulehti editorial (9/20): "Events on Black Tuesday force
responsible Arab leaders choose sides. The path of mindless violence
chosen by fundamentalists leads to destruction."

"War on Bigotry"

Helsingin Sanomat, op-ed by senior international affairs commentator
Ollli Kivinen (9/20): "The United States promises a long and
multifaceted war against terrorism. It has the strong support of
allies, a battle against terrorism serves everybody's interests,
although people used to western superiority do not like to see this.
However, a war against terrorism is extremely difficult. The fight
against terrorism can be compared to another war, which is hard to
define and which differs from traditional warfare.  It is the war
against drugs, in which the West is on the losing side, and which
causes it more damage than political terror.  In terms of terror, the
essential question is simple, 'how can you wage war on terrorism
without giving rise to more terrorism'.  The worst prospect is the one
where the situation gets out of hand and becomes a permanent
confrontation between Christians and Moslems, and there are no winners
in that battle. The Western world, and especially the United States,
need to ask themselves some hard questions.  Why are the western
countries so bitterly hated in so many corners of the world?  The
importance of getting to the roots of evil has been referred to many
times during the past week.  However, blaming globalization is
one-sided and misleading, because it has brought good results also to
innumerous people in the poor and developing countries.  The first and
easiest task to carry out to fight fanaticism at both ends by the
right policy, Kivinen concludes, quoting Amos Oz who says that Satan
is personified in hatred and zealotry."

IRELAND:  Irish Reaction to the Attacks

Damian Byrne opines in the Irish Examiner (centrist daily c.64,000)
(9/20): "Standing up to be counted in this grave new world." (begin
excerpts): Now as George Bush struggles to assemble his global
coalition against terrorism to go 'smoke out' those bandits in
Afghanistan and bring them back 'dead or alive', shall we see Ireland
take a courageous and independent stand in our new role on the UNSC?
Or will we simply stand on the sidelines, moralizing, equivocating and
posturing, as the world's great repository of empathy? And should the
US unleash an act of retaliation upon Afghanistan every bit as
devastating in its effects on the horrific attacks on New York and
Washington, will our government call another National Day of
Mourning?"

""

Ann Cahill comments from Brussels in the Irish Examiner (centrist
daily c.64,000) (9/20) on the EU leaders meeting this week: "European
leaders wonder how to calm American outrage." (begin excerpts)
"Expressing solidarity with the US...European leaders emphasized the
common values they share with the US.  Now they will have to define
those values...They must also define terrorism since they have all
declared war on it.  ... It will be the ultimate test of Europe's
newfound independence in world affairs - whether they try to forge a
campaign for peace or fall in with a more spectacular war.

""

Independent contributor to The Irish Times (liberal daily c.119,000)
(9/20) John Pilger criticizes US harshly: "Islamic peoples are already
victims of US military and financial power: US fundamentalism is the
root cause of the horror inflicted Washington and New York" (begin
excerpts) "Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic
peoples have become its victims - principally the victims of US
fundamentalism whose power...is the greatest source of terrorism on
earth. ... The attacks last week came at the end of a long history of
betrayal of Islamic an Arab peoples..." (Note: his list starts with
the collapse of the Ottoman empire... and eventually he gets to spots
all over the earth, from Diego Garcia to Indonesia 1965-66 to world
poverty and he also blames the British for all this too.) (Note: this
piece was reported to be first published in zmag.org which we found is
today off line due to a virus- it is Washington state based.)

""

Of special note to you in Media Reaction: Kevin Myers, who writes a
daily op-ed column in The Irish Times (liberal daily c.119,000) (9/20)
entitled "An Irishman's Diary", pens another very strong statement:
(begin excerpts) "Your Irishman's Diary today comes from the
underground bunker, deep beneath the White House, where advice to the
US from journalists and politicians around the world is processed.
Teams of Opinion Catchers sift through the vast babble emanating from
everywhere to see if there is a molecule of sense in it. ... In
silence, an Opinion Catcher ... read a dispatch from Ireland reporting
comments of the prime minister there. ...He passed it to his
colleague. 'What do you think of that?'  He read it, plucked a few
hairs from his head and murmured: 'Chickening out already.  And it
hasn't even started yet'  ..What the Opinion Catcher had read was the
account of how the Taoiseach had said, within five days of the worst
terrorist atrocity in world history, that he thought it was unlikely
there would be any Irish military involvement in the war against
terrorism, and that he hoped not too many countries would be drawn
into it. ..(the opinion catchers) tried to work out how the prime
minister of a country which had three separate (terrorist)
organizations...all of them armed, all of them with seasoned killers
at their command, would have no military involvement in a war against
terrorism. ...Baffled, they tried to work how a leader who professed
friendship for the US could in the same breath seem to declare there
was no way that he intended to express it.  ...They couldn't
understand how the elected leader of a democracy hoped that not too
many countries would be involved in a war against terrorism, when
terrorism, not just the Islamic variety - was a world wide phenomenon
afflicting scores of countries, especially his. ... They couldn't
understand how Ireland...couldn't recognize that rare coincidence of
self-interest and political morality when it so happily occurs....
And by God, they're not  the only ones."

ROMANIA:

In the independent daily, "Independent," political analyst Horia
Alexandrescu underlined on September 20, 2001: "It is about time we
understand and accept that the whole world is truly in danger, and
that this is not just the Americans' war against those who brought so
much grief on them.  Instead it is, in the end, a fight of all
civilized people against world terrorism."

""

In the independent daily "Evenimentul Zilei," editorialist Cornel
Nistorescu wrote on September 20, 2001:
"The most important thing decided yesterday, for the first time in our
history, is the participation, side by side with NATO, with the status
of an 'ally.'  This is a decision that can play an essential part in
the process of Romania's final North Atlantic Alliance integration.
[...] Somewhere, a war will break out.  Theoretically, Romania will
take part in it.  But the hardest war must be carried on in our own
country.  It must be a war against prejudice, against a narrow minded
and selfish way of understanding things, against a cheap reaction such
as: 'what has this have to do with us?'."

""

In the pro-government daily "Dimineata," political analyst Stefan
Mitroi opined on September 20, 2001: "For the first time in human
history, civilization finds itself in the weird situation of
preserving its future by starting a conflict.  A conflict against
terrorism and terrorists, i.e. an enemy who although manifests itself
concretely, often takes abstract forms.  That is exactly why the
consequences of a war are unpredictable.  But this war, the war
against terrorism, is necessary!"

""

In the independent daily "Libertatea," editorialist Mihai Valentin
Neagu said on September 20, 2001: +"If the situation becomes explosive
and Romania has to put into practice its commitments, there won't be
any way to retract them or to make pessimistic statements.  From now
on, there is no turning back, unless we want to be left out of the
areas of interest of the great international military and economic
powers forever."

""

In the pro-government daily "Cronica Romana," political analyst George
Cusnarencu stated on September 20, 2001: +"One thing is unclear to
me:  If the Taliban are a bunch of primitives, savages, as the
Americans are describing them, if Bin Laden is a barbarian fanatic,
how did he manage to make all those speculations on the stock market?
It means the man is a genius and not only a terrorist.  It means that
his men are very smart, if they were able to laugh at all the
intelligence in the FBI and CIA.  And then, if these barbarians have a
financial empire, it means they are not stupid, they are not just some
primitives who take the goat out to graze in the mountains.  And
something else:  Where is bin Laden's fabulous fortune?  In the caves
in Afghanistan where he is hiding?  As I was saying, something is
missing here.  This information is intoxicating even more than cheap
alcohol."

""

In the pro-government daily "Cotidianul," editorialist Ileana
Malancioiu stated on September 20, 2001: +"The long term war against
an unseen enemy is full of traps, and it is not by accident that some
NATO member countries, such as Germany and France, want to participate
in the eradication of terrorism, but hesitate to send their troops to
Afghanistan.  For its part,  Pakistan's decision could be affected by
anti-government demonstrations, and break its promise to the Americans
and try to stay neutral, or to switch to the other side.  But,
whatever happens, George Bush won't be able to ignore the pressure put
on him by the population, to punish the terrorists through a war to
remember.  Even if that involves "collateral damage" of thousands of
victims from the civilians and the soldiers fighting the Taliban, who
are ready to declare 'the Holy War'.  The restrictions imposed on the
media by the American President are not good enough to calm us down,
because America is also a myth of freedom of expression, which we
won't be able to easily give up."

""

In the opposition daily "Romania Libera," political analyst Petre
Mihai Bacanu commented on September 20, 2001: +"The novelty of this
war is the coalition of western governments and of Russia against
terrorism, an international coalition almost, if we take into account
the NATO integration candidate countries. NATO's Article 5 defines
aggression, but also the 'one for all and all for one' principle, to
punish inhuman actions."

""

In the independent daily "Adevarul," economic analyst Gheorghe
Cercelescu wrote on September 20, 2001" "The world's great bankers
managed to stabilize the financial markets and to strengthen the trust
of the investors and of the population.  Thus, they prevented the
recession of the world economy.  If a global crisis doesn't occur, no
rapid comeback will take place, because the terrorist attacks in the
U.S. managed, according to western analysts, to postpone by months any
rebound of world economy.  The most important issue now is not the
impact of the tragedy in the United States, it is the problem of the
economic implications of the war against terrorism, which, as
President Bush stated, will be long and will affect large areas of the
planet."

""

In the centrist daily "Curierul National," political analyst Cristian
Unteanu opined on September 20, 2001: "Today's lone snipers, soldiers
of a group generically called 'international terrorism', apply the
same principles.  It is very obvious now that they want to unite the
world they belong to (being motivated by a variety of factors and
socio-economic elements, but also by the same kind of fanaticism in
faith, religious purity, and values) against a presumed enemy.  This
is a good logical thought, to the extent it still works, as we have
seen so far. Only this time, America is far from being alone.  It will
attack together with an entire coalition where, besides NATO members,
there are also, willingly or not, even states who once shared beliefs
opposite those of 'Satanic American imperialism'."

 SWEDEN:  "A Broader Security Policy,"

1. On September 20, the independent, liberal Stockholm morning daily
"Dagens Nyheter" editorialized on  stating that, "More than a week has
passed after the terrorist attack and the world is awaiting the U.S.
reaction. The Americans have the right to self-defense, but in the
long term the fight against terrorism also must include a fight
against poverty and oppression. Prosperity, freedom and democracy do
not guarantee that people will not resort to violence. However, if a
majority of the world population would have a reasonable living
standard, sympathy for fanatics and perpetrators of outrage likely
would disappear... "Let us hope that Western governments realize this.
Perhaps the prospect is greater now it so evident that the fight
against poverty also is linked to security policy."

"The World is Real,"

2. On September 20, the independent, liberal Stockholm morning daily
"Dagens Nyheter" ran an op-ed column by Annika Ahnberg, Chairman of
the Swedish Red Cross. It carried headline "and said: "We are at a
crossroad. We can choose to let hatred and the wish for retribution
lead us. Perhaps this is the road the U.S. will choose. The American
tradition is to show strength, to taka a tough line. Perhaps this is a
war that demands retalliation. I cannot judge this. But I know that
something else is needed, a United States of America that brings
itself to stretch out its hand for a global cooperation to fight
terrorism, but also to solve global problems... "A more explicit
determination to solve the global problems cannot replace a purposeful
struggle against, and dissociation from terrorism. But it might reduce
the power of attraction, which terrorist organizations apparently
have."

"The First Victory of the War,"

3. On September 20, the independet, liberal Stockholm tabloid
"Expressen" editorialized on stating that, "The terrorist attack
against the U.S. might result in a redrawing of the map in the Middle
East...But it is too early to tell what the long-term U.S. Mideast
policy will be from the terrorist war. From a rational point of view,
the result should be that the U.S. abandons its very pro-Israeli line
to secure support among the moderate powers in the Arab world... "The
tragedy in the U.S. has opened the possibility for a restart in the
Middle East. This is valid for Sharon and Arafat who now in respective
home ground can show a willingness to compromise without losing face.
And it is also true for the Bush administration that now definitely
will have to give up its passive position in the Mideast."

SWITZERLAND:  "The Logic Of Madness"

Philipp L�pfe, foreign editor of the center-left Tages-Anzeiger, one
of Switzerland's leading German-language dailies, commented (9/19):
"The terrorists are counting on the self-fulfilling prophecy of the
'war of the civilizations.'  They don't make any demands nor do they
send any letter taking responsibility for the attacks.  They believe
that the attacks will generate a devilish dynamic, in which more
innocent people will die in a U.S. counter-attack, an atmosphere of
ethnic cleansing vis-a-vis Muslims will develop, and their vague
thesis of a "satanic USA" will be confirmed. If this perverse
calculation works out, then the cowardly attack will have been
worthwhile in the eyes of the terrorists.  This logic of madness must
be taken into account.  Whoever wants to set fire to this world can
count on ethnic and religious prejudices.  However, if one fights for
a civilized coexistence of all cultures, one does not want to win the
'war of the civilizations,' one wants to avoid it."

YUGOSLAVIA (KOSOV):  "New World Order 'Again?'"

Independent Zeri had an editorial by its publisher Blerim Shala
(9/20): �The vision of the �New World Order,� carried by George Bush
in 1990, meant replacing the law of the jungle with the rule of law.
It meant resolving big problems politically and peacefully, it meant
collective resistance to military aggressions and equal treatment for
every person, regardless of the ethnic, racial of religious
background. It was the shortest and the most meaningful political
program at the beginning of the last decade of the XX century that
resulted from the West�s victory over the communist East in 1989.
George Bush has largely followed that program during the first
greatest post Cold War crisis � when Iraq occupied Kuwait. Such an
American reaction did not happen in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia
until 1995. After that, the idea of the �New World Order� remained
just as a reminder to the Bush�s political career, without any real
attempts to make operational that concept, which among others required
big changes in the organization, functioning and the mandate of the
UNSC, the highest instance of the international security. The horror
of September 11 (when 19 people of a terrorist network, inspired by
religious fanaticism, attacked America) will seemingly revive the idea
of George Bush. His son, George W. Bush will surely create a
multi-state, multiracial and multi-religious coalition against
terrorism. It is necessary to find a political solution to the
Palestinian problem. Yet the international security structure should
create a functional mechanism to face such challenges by changing the
UNSC radically.�

"A New Phase"

The leading independent Koha Ditore ran a comment by its correspondent
to Germany Beqe Cufaj (9/20): � Albanians in the Balkans and
especially those of Kosovo, should self-impose a censorship about what
was called so far liberation army. The Kosovar KLA transformed into
the KPC, the UCPMB has somewhat managed to demilitarize and obtain in
return internationalization and the following reforms; and there is
NATO in Macedonia after the agreement was reached with the NLA. After
all these moves, the Albanian and especially their political parties
(but also intellectuals who have influence in the public) should
really realize (and talk about it) that there is not much space for
any Albanian �liberation armies.� Every move or sign into that
direction would really be a hazardous game with very little room to
play in�� What the western diplomats see now as dangerous un then
Balkans are the so-called �chaotic groups� that release communiquTs
and make threats that could one day bear the handwriting of the type
seen in New York or Washington. In the end, perhaps I should pass a
message to some colleagues in Pristina (who are really eager to
discover who stands behind certain, new Albanian armies) from a
western diplomat I talked to yesterday. He told me that after the
terrorist attacks on America the Albanians, particularly their
leaders, cannot get out of trouble, even if they say that they �do not
stand behind the armed movements.� Now you have a chance and that is
that, together with NATO in Kosova and Balkans, you fight terrorism
and any armed organization � even if it is Albanian one!�

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XrFcOC/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Cries.of.Holy.War.Echo.in.Mideast]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bin.Laden."too.poor".to.stage.US.terror.attacks,.Islamist.says]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:47 PDT