FRANCE
FRANCE
Le Monde, Paris, Oct. 16: A month after George Bush's U.N. speech and four days after the vote by Congress which was supposed to pressure the Security Council, there is no consensus at the U.N. on a resolution authorizing the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. On the contrary, the U.N. is preparing for two days of anti-American protest during Wednesday and Thursday's debate on the Iraqi question.
Irritated that they were not consulted on the matter, the developing and nonaligned countries have decided to make heard a "voice of peace."
Organization of peace
"All this is happening as if the U.N. has been invited to declare war on Iraq," explained South African Ambassador Dumisami Kumalo on Tuesday. "The U.N. is an organization that was created for maintaining the peace. We are an organization of peace. We won't forget it."
The French-American struggle on finding a resolution came to a half-solution Tuesday, when the French ambassador suggested adding the clause, "including the use of force." Publicly, Colin Powell welcomed the "new ideas." But, in this game, certain diplomats are throwing in the towel.
JAPAN
Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, Oct. 12: In awarding the prize to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said it decided to honor "his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights and to promote economic and social development."
After last year's Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, hatred and conflicts have abounded in the world. Carter's winning the prize is all the more impressive under such circumstances.
Criticism of Bush
At the news conference to make the announcement, Gunnar Berge, the committee chairman, said that the award should be understood as criticism of the position taken by the Bush administration in calling for possible military strikes against Iraq.
While he was president, Carter was criticized as weak-kneed in his policy toward the Soviet Union and the occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran. But his approach was to try to resolve problems by directly talking with other leaders. That such an approach was lauded by a prestigious body bears witness that his policy of attempting thoroughgoing dialogue is crucial in conducting world diplomacy.
ISRAEL
Haaretz, Tel Aviv, Oct. 15: The report submitted to the cabinet on Sunday by Maj. Gen. Amos Gilead, the Israeli coordinator of activities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, on the poverty prevailing among the Palestinian population should serve as a warning to Israel.
His description, which documents a tragedy in the making, should be taken here as the writing on the wall, because even though it is the Palestinians' tragedy, it is also ours. Their society is collapsing but Israel's moral character is crumbling along with it.
Diplomatic steps
The coordinator's report demands measures to make life easier for Palestinian civilians. But Israel must also start preparing for far-reaching diplomatic steps with the aim of ending the intolerable situation in which millions of human beings languish under Israeli occupation.
SCOTLAND
The Herald, Glasgow, Oct. 16: Never fight a war on two fronts. This most basic of military rules is now being challenged by George W. Bush, the U.S. president, and Tony Blair, the prime minister. Following the terrorist atrocity in Bali, in which at least 180 people were murdered, military action against Iraq remains firmly on the UK-U.S. agenda.
New type of war
Tackling Saddam, far from being a distraction from the global war on terrorism, is being presented as an essential part of it. This is a new type of war, according to Mr. Blair, different from those the world has known before. Before the rule book is rewritten, however, it is worth considering whether we are being asked to trade one set of old certainties for new, more dangerous, uncertainties. ...
Terrorism is not a conventional foe. It respects no borders, no religion, no class, no creed, no color. Its armies dwell in the shadows, breaking cover only to hit a target and run. It is a modern scourge that simply cannot be dealt with by brute force alone. Cut off one of its heads and, like the hydra, two more shoot up in its place.
Steaming into Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or any other rogue nation will perpetuate anti-western feeling and supply fresh recruits for the terrorist cause. In short, the strategy to secure global peace being advanced by the U.S. and Britain in fact raises the spectre of endless war. Geographically, such a war would be impossible to prosecute. Economically, it would be disastrous. Morally, it would be little short of repugnant.
Safer world
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair appear sincere in their desire to make the world a safer place, yet the way they intend to achieve this looks set to have the opposite effect. In their war, there can be no real winners, only losers to greater or lesser degrees.
BRITAIN
Daily Telegraph, London, Oct. 16: Public funding of political parties is one of those old Westminster chestnuts; it never seems to get anywhere, but nor does it ever quite go away.
Neither of the main parties is ostensibly in favor, not because they really disapprove of it but because they know the public does. Yet all political parties are finding it increasingly difficult to raise money, partly because of the new rules on disclosure introduced in 2000, and partly because they are not very popular.
Nub of the problem
This last point is really the nub of the problem, as a new paper on the subject from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the Left-wing think tank that is close to the government, acknowledged yesterday in its very first paragraph.
"The major political parties," the paper argues, "play a central role in our democratic system and cannot be left to go bankrupt." But if enough people cannot be persuaded that a party is worth backing, why on earth should it not be allowed to go bust?