HOME / international papers: What the foreign papers are saying.

Imelda's Footnote

By June ThomasPosted Monday, Feb. 19, 2001, at 9:30 PM ET

Friday's U.S.-British airstrike on Iraqi radar stations elicited a backfire of comment in the international press. Dawn of Pakistan summarized the reaction: "The opinion now emerging very strongly in international circles is that Washington's policy vis-a-vis Iraq is unreasonable, inhuman and smacks of political chauvinism."

RSS

Saddam Hussein's regime scored a PR win, many papers claimed. The Independent of London explained that Saddam "can use the sanctions as an excuse for his own incompetent and ruthless leadership in Iraq. He and his people have been given a common enemy. He must be delighted that Mr Bush is displaying a crude lack of subtlety this weekend. … Saddam Hussein is a murderous tyrant. Iraq and the world would be well rid of him. But by their action, George Bush and Tony Blair have made Saddam even more secure." Madrid's El País declared that airstrikes "kill innocent people, provide the dictator with excuses, and don't do anything except dangerously distance Washington and London from the rest of their Western allies."

Le Monde of France suggested that the president was "finishing his father's work," just as in India, a country familiar with political dynasties, a couple of papers speculated that Dubya bombed Baghdad to avenge dear old dad. The Deccan Herald called the strikes "a blatant instance of arrogant and arbitrary use of force" that "smacked of personal vendetta and that he is bent on taking revenge on President Saddam Hussein and the hapless Iraqi people only because they had branded erstwhile US President and his father George Bush a war criminal." An editorial in the Hindu declared:

The new U.S. President … has manifestly shown himself to be short on creative diplomacy at this moment by opting for sterile militarism, indeed ridiculous adventurism, as his first major foreign policy exercise. He has exposed himself to the inexorable criticism that he is perhaps more inclined than might be wise to complete the unfinished anti-Hussein agenda of his father.

Ha'aretz of Israel warned Bush that he now faces "a taut, potentially explosive, chain reaction scenario that was never a potential factor during his father's administration." The paper said Friday's actions will signal that the new U.S. administration is not disposed to flexibility on Iraqi sanctions "despite Arab and international pressures on Washington" and that Bush views Iraq as "an isolated and tightly-defined problem which should not be allowed to influence other issues in the Middle East." However, since Saddam has been a vocal supporter of the current intifada—and has sent $10,000 to the families of all the Palestinians killed since October—"any strike against Baghdad constitutes a dagger thrust straight at the heart of the [Palestinian Authority], and also a move which vexes the trend toward support for Iraq in Arab countries." Britain's Observer agreed: "The belief on the Arab street is that President Bush has used the pretext of Iraq upgrading its air defence to punish Saddam for the vocal and material support he is providing to the Palestinian intifada."

An editorial in the Khaleej Times of Dubai articulated the Arab world's frustration:

[T]he Western stand vis-a-vis Baghdad is seen as proof of its double standards because Israel, which continues to flout more UN resolutions than does Iraq, somehow never manages to appear in the coalition's cross-hairs. … The West's reluctance to lean on Israel to accommodate the Palestinians' just demands and its infinite patience with the Tel Aviv leadership's feet-dragging tactics, has destroyed what little goodwill remained from the Gulf War experience.

A handful of papers supported President Bush. ABC of Spain thundered, "Interpreting the bombing of Baghdad as the attack of an imperialist power against a defenseless nation is a cynical exercise in irresponsible demagoguery that gives a distorted picture of the situation." Britain's Sunday Telegraph ran an op-ed headlined, "Bush was asking for this," while the Sunday Times saw the bombings as a preventive measure:

Saddam Hussein will not be deterred by this weekend's allied airstrikes against his Baghdad defences from plotting further mayhem. But he may think twice before again testing the resolve of the new American president to keep him in check. … If [Bush] had not acted, Saddam's installation of improved radar missile technology would have led to a greater risk of allied air losses and an enhancement of his prestige in the Arab world. He would have taken a giant step towards asserting himself as a powerful military force again.

Fidel's worst nightmare: Until former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998, the bodyguards who accompany Fidel Castro on foreign trips were most worried about Cuba's leader being targeted by a sniper. Afterward, their worst nightmare was an arrest-warrant-toting lawyer. An "exclusive" interview with a 16-year veteran of Castro's elite protection squad, now in exile in Florida, published in Chile's La Tercera said that after Pinochet's detention, the Cuban government's "No. 1 priority became ensuring at all costs that the same thing didn't happen to Fidel." Besides better guns and increased manpower, the crack squad recruited Castro look-alikes to fool subpoena-servers.

A footnote in history: Proving that rehabilitation comes to she who waits, last week Imelda Marcos opened a museum in the Philippines showcasing some of her famous shoe collection. According to the South China Morning Post, when the former first lady and her husband President Ferdinand Marcos fled Manila in 1986, the 3,000 pairs of shoes she left behind (Britain's Independent put the count at 1,220 pairs) became a symbol of the dictatorship's wasteful excesses in contrast to the poverty of most Filipinos. Now Marikina, the nation's shoe capital, sees Imelda as "a patron of the shoe industry" and takes pride that half the shoes she left behind were Marikina-made. The Independent claims the city is "footwear-barmy. A pedestrian bridge is covered with two giant steel shoes, while a shoe statue stands outside the town hall, not far from Sandal Street and Slipper Street."

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

June Thomas is Slate's foreign editor. You can e-mail her at or follow her on Twitter.

COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:

And not one of those editorials questions Saddam's spending money on armaments and the military that he could be spending improving the health and well-being of his people.
Just another opportunity to slam the U.S. Maybe someday [when they come to us for help] instead of food and medicine and relief goods and dollars, we'll just send the news clippings of their insipid editorials

--Republican

(To reply, click here.)

Over 70 countries have normalized relations with Iraq, whether formally or otherwise, including China, Russia, France. They are now doing business with Iraq and ignoring the sanctions. This they are doing on a number of grounds--self-interest included. However, many of the countries who are ignoring the sanctions are doing so on humanitarian grounds. Too many people suffered as a result of sanctions--and Saddam was none the weaker.

Those strikes smack of vanity and arrogance, not just toward Iraq, but the Nations who are now dealing with Iraq. Don't think those Nations didn't read the sub-text of the strikes. America's out to pick a fight, justify its Disneyesque revised Star Wars system, and try to show the world who's boss. Well, the world isn't buying it. Besides, didn't Dubya run on the platform that America should concern itself with itself, and quit trying to be the world's police?

--Sarah T

(To reply, click here.)

Can someone explain to me why the British Government allowed the use of the Royal Air Force in the latest adventure against Iraq? What is in it for us except a possible terrorist reprisal and a pat on the head from nice uncle George? The current policy has been in place for 10 years and has not worked. No one gains from the exercise, except Saddam who can clearly bolster his position by positioning himself as the only Arab leader to stand up against the West. The UK was subjected to aerial bombardment for over five years during the Second World War. All that resulted in was a desire for revenge on the part of the British people which resulted in the laying waste of entire German cities by the RAF, which also had no discernable effect on the morale of the victims. Unlike the U.S., the people of the major cities of this country have been subjected to protracted aerial attack within living memory. It doesn't work, neither does a blockade/sanctions, we know that because we have been there. We should at least realize that. Being an ally, being a friend, can sometimes mean turning round and saying "look, we see what you are trying to do, but its not going to work". As the only American ally who is ever going to get involved in madness like this, surely our voice must carry some weight, which means we do not have to jump each time we are told to. That is not ingratitude, nor is it disloyal, its just sense.

--Martin

(To reply, click here.)

(2/20)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES