What the international papers say

What the international papers say 

How the international press reacted after yesterday's speech by the US
secretary of state, Colin Powell, to the UN security council 

Staff and agencies
Thursday February 6, 2003 

Le Figaro (France) 
"Spielberg it wasn't. The hour was solemn. The directing was sober. In
a measured voice, and for 80 minutes, Colin Powell talked, using scary
words, pointing the finger at the loutish regime in Baghdad, showing
illegible slides, playing inaudible recordings, and trying to
demonstrate that war was inevitable. And what more did we, the public,
learn from this? Not much. 

"Colin Powell's task was to win over public opinion, which is broadly
hostile to war. He may have convinced the Minnesota rancher but the
European farmer will certainly continue to have doubts. So what? The
affirmation of American 'leadership' cares not a jot for differences of
opinion. It justifies every crusade."
Comment: Yves Thréard (in French) 

Libération (France) 

"Powell's long presentation convinced only those who were already
convinced, not because it was lacking in arguments, but because between
a raft of circumstantial evidence and actual proof there is enormous
room for personal conviction. In other words, political opportunity not
conscience will be the criterion upon which the speech is judged."
Comment: Gérard Dupuy (in French) 

Der Tagesspiegel (Germany) 

"It is not just America that has come to the conclusion that Iraq is
not cooperating, but also the peace-loving Swedish UN chief inspector,
Hans Blix. What does the UN want to do about it? 

"Powell's appearance has given new urgency to this question ... A mere
'Give the inspectors more time' is too feeble. The decision on war or
peace has, though, become no easier as a result of this historic sitting
of the UN security council. 

"And that is because worldwide unease, including in America, at the
prospect of a resort to arms is only marginally dependent on evidence of
the degeneracy of the regime in Baghdad. Almost no one disputes that
Saddam is brutal and dangerous. Controversy flares up rather over the
issue of whether the costs of a war, including civilian deaths and the
burden of years of occupation, are proportionate to its usefulness. 

"Powell was unable to answer this question. He cramped the room for
manoeuvre of the security council members. But he has not made the case
for war being necessary and unavoidable. So far." 
Der Tagesspiegel 

Die Welt (Germany) 

"In October 1962, the then US secretary of state, Adlai Stevenson,
presented photographs to the UN that showed that Kruschev had put
nuclear rockets on [Cuba]. 

"Colin Powell was unable to produce such conclusive facts. His evidence
did not have the power of an all-exposing document. Indeed, it could not
have ... More could not have been expected, even if the outcome
disappointed some listeners. 

"The most important evidence of Iraqi machination has in any case been
available for some time. It is Saddam Hussein himself. He is still
refusing to comply with resolution 1441 or to explain the whereabouts of
the Scud rockets and mustard gas grenades which he is known to have
possessed until 1998 and which are said to have been 'lost'." 
Die Welt 

Washington Post (US) 

"After secretary of state Colin Powell's presentation to the United
Nations security council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone
could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr Powell
left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the security
council's offer of a 'final opportunity' to disarm. 

"And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is
cooperating with a branch of the al-Qaida organisation that is trying to
acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe. 

"Mr Powell's evidence, including satellite photographs, audio
recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was
overwhelming ... the governments that have most strongly opposed action
in Iraq, including France and Germany ... have cynically argued that the
inspectors must uncover evidence proving what they already know, or that
it's too early to judge Saddam Hussein's cooperation. Mr Powell's
presentation stripped all credibility from that dodge." 
Editorial: Irrefutable 

New York Times (US) 

"The speech was vigorously argued and revealed an administration
determined to use all means to make its case. But some portions of Mr
Powell's presentation appeared stronger than others. The secretary
offered much evidence that Iraq has weapons programs to hide, the
primary justification for the administration's contention that military
action will almost certainly be necessary to enforce the United Nations
demands that Iraq disarm. 

"But Mr Powell did not appear to make an airtight case that the Saddam
Hussein regime is plotting with al-Qaida to attack the United States and
its allies, a main argument for the Bush administration's contention
that the Iraqi threat is so urgent that a potential military campaign
cannot be delayed." 
Michael R Gordon: Powell's Case Against Iraq: Piling Up the Evidence 

Los Angeles Times (US) 

"The United Nations risks irrelevance unless it promptly sets a date on
which it will use military force against Iraq if that nation does not
disarm. 

"Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State
Colin Powell methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
remains dangerous to his own people, Iraq's neighbors and, potentially,
the Western world. 

"We were not convinced of the al-Qaida connection. But we agree with
Powell that as long as Hussein has anthrax or chemical agents there's a
chance some terrorist will use them - and that it's irresponsible for
the United Nations to ignore Hussein's history. 

"The United Nations must then give Hussein one final chance to avoid
war - by complying or fleeing - and be ready to launch missiles, planes
and troops if he again disregards or disrespects the world's clear
disarmament demands." 
Editorial: UN - time for a deadline 

Pravda.ru (Russian news website) 

"The 'evidence' ... was [a] miscellany of obscure recordings which were
misinterpreted by the US secretary of state and risible satellite
photographs which bore a strange resemblance to those which had been
taken in Afghanistan two years before. 

"This presentation of 'hard evidence' is a tissue of lies, gossip,
misinterpretation, cynical manoeuvring and possibly even
misrepresentation, aimed at providing a case for a war against Iraq. 

"The UN security council is not a kindergarten or a scout camp. The
international community is not a class of primary school pupils to be
lectured in this way by an incompetent teacher. Were this the case,
Colin Powell would be the one to have a donkey's tail pinned to his
trousers when he turned around to illustrate his great case against
Iraq. 

"If people believe this report, they will believe that there are
fairies at the end of the garden. Colin Powell has managed to allow
himself and his image descend from a respected world-class diplomat to
some sort of confused, rambling and unconvincing Peter Pan." 
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey: Powell's Fairy Tales: Puerile and Patronising


The Russia Journal Daily 

"[Powell's] presentation reinforced Russia's belief that weapons
inspections must continue in Iraq, said Russian foreign minister Igor
Ivanov, who urged Baghdad to cooperate. 

"At the same time, Ivanov said: 'The information given to us today will
require very serious and thorough study. Experts in our countries must
get down to analysing it and drawing the appropriate conclusions from
it.' 

"He called on Baghdad to 'give the inspectors answers to the questions
that we have heard in the presentation by the US secretary of state'." 

"Of the 15 [UN security] council members, only the United States and
Britain have voiced support for forcibly disarming Saddam. Powell's
presentation didn't immediately appear to change opinions."
Russia calls for continued Iraq inspections 

Jerusalem Post (Israel) 

"Scratch everything we've said about secretary of state Colin Powell.
We love him. Powell's presentation to the UN security council was
masterful and devastating. He reduced any conceivable case for inaction
in Iraq to rubble. The case itself, not even counting what follows, was
a powerful example of American leadership and diplomacy. 

"After weeks of hounding to produce evidence, Powell trotted out if not
the crown jewels some awfully persuasive pearls. America spends billions
on what are antiseptically called 'national technical means', and rarely
has a chance to show the results. "One can imagine Winston Churchill
making a presentation like the one Powell made yesterday. It is not
necessary to imagine the war that came when those warnings were not
heeded, and that the League of Nations itself became a casualty of that
war. Saddam has lost his last chance. The question now is, will the
United Nations lose its as well?"
The UN's last chance (registration required) 

Dawn (Pakistan) 

"Hopes for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis seem to be rapidly
receding. This is an ominous development and comes despite a rising
crescendo of voices calling for more time to be given to the arms
inspectors to complete their job before launching any attack on Iraq. 

"It is clear that three out of the five permanent members of the
security council are deeply sceptical about the need for military action
against Iraq. While China and Russia have made their reservations about
any hasty attack known, it is France that has emerged as the most vocal
opponent of war. 

"There is still time for the US to pause and ponder. Washington must
heed the calls from all the divergent forces urging a peaceful solution
to the Iraq crisis and step back from the brink. The alternative could
be a cataclysm that would plunge the Middle East into utter chaos and
anarchy." 
Editorial: Dawn 

Hindustan Times (India) 

"It is now being said that the US is ready to use small nukes to bust
underground stores of armament. While the Americans are now engaged in
calculating the extent of 'collateral damage' - a euphemism for the loss
of human lives - as a result of such nuclear strikes, they are already
said to have decided on an 'acceptable' rate of civilian casualty. After
such cynical manoeuvres, American assurances about the war paving the
way for the establishment of democracy in Iraq will sound like a sick
joke. 

"It goes without saying that the reports will cause deep outrage and
consternation all over the world, including in the US. As it is, the
graph of anti-war sentiments is rising all the time, not only in the
countries that have formally expressed their opposition to the war, but
also in those that are supportive of America.'"
Editorial: Mushrooming crisis 

South China Morning Post 

"The United States, aided by a number of coalition allies, will soon
remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq by military force ... Once he
[Saddam Hussein] has nuclear weapons he will be much more difficult, and
perhaps impossible, to stop ... US military action against Iraq is also
justified by every country's 'inherent right of individual and
collective self-defence' as recognised by article 51 of the UN charter.
No security council authorisation is necessary for this. 

"To the extent that Mr Hussein finances, harbours, trains and arms
international terrorist groups which carry out significant terrorist
attacks on US targets, Iraq is substantially involved in those attacks.
US Secretary of State Powell has now itemised Iraq's 'substantial
involvement' with international terrorism, including al-Qaida." 
Dr Stephen Hall, associate professor of law at the City University of
Hong Kong: The legal basis for war against Iraq is water-tight
(registration required)