World of OpinionOn the war in Iraq:
The widespread idea that a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein would be easy and quick may have helped the propaganda objectives of the Pentagon, at least at the beginning, but it has backfired. Expectations of a brief war run so high that every day of delay now sounds like a defeat.
Even U.S. soldiers seem victims of that propaganda, for many expected a heroes’ welcome and have been rather disappointed to find that Iraqis, including Saddam Hussein’s enemies, consider them invaders. The reason behind this mistaken expectation might have been caused by intelligence agents. As any other agents, they might have underlined in their reports what their bosses wanted to hear. But … the U.S. military superiority is so overwhelming that … that mistake – fatal for less powerful armies – may turn into just a painful setback. Yet it would be unwise to rule out a more complicated scenario in which the U.S.-led forces would have to wage a long campaign not only in Iraq. … The ineptitude of the generals and the White House, coupled with reckless remarks against Syria and Iran, do not allow us to rule out this possibility.Folha De Sao Paulo, Brazil
On China’s negligence in responding to SARS:
One of the few things that authoritarian societies, such as China, ought to be able to do better than democratic ones apart from making the trains run on time is to control the spread of infectious diseases.
Experience in telling people what to do, where to go, and whom to mix with should come in highly useful. Alas, as the threat posed to the world by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) continues to gather force, something like the opposite truth is beginning to dawn. It now appears that China was disgracefully negligent in its response to the initial outbreak and spread of SARS, and was able to get away with it precisely because it lacks the checks and balances of an open society.
First observed five months ago in southern China, the deadly form of atypical pneumonia has now shown up in 16 countries, with Australia reporting its first (and, thankfully, cured) case yesterday. It has infected more than 1600 people, killing at least 61 including, tragically, the doctor who first identified SARS, Carlo Urbani. Quarantine restrictions have been put in place in Singapore and Hong Kong, and authorities in many other countries have ramped up travel restrictions and advisories the last thing that the airline and tourism industries needed, with the traveling public already understandably wobbly in the face of international terrorism and the war in Iraq. …
The correct response to that threat is international cooperation. …
On the U.N., NATO and the E.U.:
The central security organizations have already in a remarkable way adapted to the new threats against world peace.
NATO has, at least temporarily, been wounded by the Iraqi crisis, but at the same time, it has been transformed from a purely defensive alliance to one guaranteeing broader security. It has paved the way for new members and sought to strengthen its ties with Russia.
The joint foreign policy of the European Union is not very much to be proud of, but some progress is being made.
For the past month, the United Nations has appeared at its most divided, but under the leadership of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it has been reformed and streamlined.
Issues like preventative diplomacy and focused sanctions are on the agenda again. Humanitarian intervention is being talked about, too. Decisions are made to such an extent that no one can claim that it was better in former times.
Despite the concern about their effectiveness, these organizations must remain the mainstay in a stable world order. The focus should be on strengthening them, not circumventing or disavowing them.
On the tragedy of war:
The longer the war lasts, intensifies and affects densely populated zones, the more civilian victims there will be … bombs, although “intelligent,” sometimes miss their target.
And soldiers cede to panic in a hostile environment where it is difficult to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. …
The GIs are ordered to destroy an enemy determined to fight with all available weapons, including “human shields.”
They must also win the “the hearts and minds” of the people they are supposed to liberate.
Their military objective (to win the war) conflicts with their political objective (to install liberty). …
Collateral damage is not limited to Iraq. Each new blunder exacerbates the fury of the Arab world and feeds everywhere else an anti-Americanism, the ravages of which can be found in polls showing that one-third of French people hope for the victory of Saddam Hussein and his abominable dictatorship. …
We must distinguish the Iraqi people from Saddam’s regime, and American democracy from the dangerous politics of Bush. Even if it is made more difficult by more tragedies.