Viewing cable 03OTTAWA659, MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ; AFGHANISTAN; TURKEY

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000659 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, WHA/PDA 
WHITE HOUSE PASS NSC/WEUROPE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO KMDR OIIP OPRC CA
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ; AFGHANISTAN; TURKEY 
 
 
IRAQ 
¶1. "Pope has zeal, but no answer on Iraq question" 
Columnist Marcus Gee noted in the leading Globe and 
Mail (3/6) that, "John Paul is dead against war and he 
is not afraid to say so.... To drive his antiwar 
message home, John Paul has met many of the leading 
players in the Iraq debate: British Prime Minister Tony 
Blair, Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, United 
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Italian Prime 
Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Spanish Prime Minister 
Jose Maria Aznar.... The Pope's surprisingly muscular 
intervention puts him at odds with the two 
devoted Christians who are leading the campaign against 
Iraq - Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair - and sets up a 
remarkable debate over the morality of the planned 
war.... Both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush believe just as 
strongly as the Pope that their course is the morally 
correct one. In fact, as opposition to the war has 
grown, both have begun framing their arguments in moral 
terms.... If war is the wrong answer, what, in the case 
of Iraq, is the right one? To this, Christ's Vicar has 
no good answer." 
 
¶2. "Ever new lines in the sand" 
Editorial page editor emeritus Haroon Siddiqui 
commented in the liberal Toronto Star (3/6): "Another 
week, another American rationale for hurtling toward an 
invasion of Iraq.... What we are witnessing in 
Washington is a dangerously ideological administration 
so bent on waging war that it would say just about 
anything to justify its holy mission." 
 
¶3. "The `evil axis' hits back" 
The liberal Toronto Star editorialized (3/5): "As U.S. 
President George Bush gets ready to crush Saddam 
Hussein, the rest of the 'axis of evil' are feeling 
Saddam's pain. But far from being cowed, North Korea 
and Iran seem determined to deny Bush the chance to do 
to them what he's about to do to Saddam. It's getting 
prickly out there. In Korea, the mercurial Kim Jong-il 
has countered a threat with a crisis. He has an illegal 
nuclear bomb or two, and is eyeing an assembly line.... 
Iran, too, is a worry. Tehran has a murky 
'peaceful' nuclear program that's getting murkier. It 
has rebuffed IAEA requests for better access to nuclear 
sites.... All the talk in Washington of 'taking out' 
Saddam's regime before it can arm itself with horror 
weapons has emboldened Korea, and tempted Iran, to 
shield themselves from attack by acquiring the very 
nukes Saddam lacks. Washington's aggressive doctrine of 
`pre-emptively' smashing regimes that pose no threat 
but in theory might risks inviting an arms race that 
can only damage U.S. interests. Having 
loosed this stampede, Bush must now try to rein it in. 
The campaign against terror remains America's chief 
priority. But getting North Korea to abandon its nukes 
and persuading Iran not to go down the nuclear road 
ought to be high on the presidential agenda. Higher 
than regime change in Iraq. Iraq is a problem. But 
Korea is a crisis. And Iran is fast becoming one. 
However Bush may loathe Pyongyang and Tehran, he needs 
to cool his moralizing, rein in his hawkish advisers 
and deploy skilled diplomats to engage these regimes 
in a dialogue to head off catastrophe. Toppling Saddam 
is a potentially fatal distraction." 
 
¶4. "Murky message hurts U.S. case for war in Iraq" 
Columnist Marcus Gee observed in the leading Globe and 
Mail (3/5): "Is the United States trying to disarm 
Iraq's Saddam Hussein, or trying to remove him from 
power? The simple answer: both. Washington believes 
that the only way to make sure he disarms is to oust 
him. That is why it is preparing to fight. But 
somewhere on the road to Baghdad, that message has 
become clouded, confusing U.S. allies and undermining 
the case for war.... Despite all the confusion in the 
wider world about regime change, the U.S. 
administration is quite clear in its own mind about its 
war aims, which have not changed a jot since the 
beginning. Disarmament is the goal and ousting Saddam 
Hussein the method. But by muddying the message, it has 
hurt its case." 
 
¶5. "Intolerable aggression" 
The centrist Winnipeg Free Press editorialized (3/6): 
"U.S. President George Bush has been expressing high 
hopes lately about the secondary benefits that may 
result from a military operation to disarm Iraqi 
dictator Saddam Hussein. These could include freedom, 
peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq and 
neighbouring countries, establishment of a democratic 
Palestinian state and peace for Israel. It is, however, 
far from certain that these results can be achieved 
through invasion of Iraq.... Results of that distant 
kind lie far beyond Mr. Bush's control. America and its 
allies should be conscious of both the dangers and the 
opportunities, but they should not decide between war 
and peace on the basis of hoped or feared results that, 
for the moment, can only be guessed at. Invasion of 
Iraq will cause death, injury and destruction of 
property, mainly for Iraqis but also for the invaders. 
That is a terrible course to adopt and many governments 
on the United Nations Security Council have been 
reluctant to agree to such a course. The other course, 
however, is far worse. The other course is to tolerate 
aggression.... Peace and security for all countries 
depend on effective means for stopping aggression.... 
The valid purpose for invading Iraq is to disarm Saddam 
Hussein. That is worth doing for itself and for the 
larger purpose of showing all would-be aggressors that 
aggression is not tolerated. If the action leads to 
general peace and contentment in the Arab world and the 
Middle East, so much the better, but George Bush should 
not count on it and he should not be surprised if his 
action produces unwelcome results that he can neither 
foresee nor prevent. The best possible result is 
compliance by Iraq with the requirements of the 
Security Council. Failing that, invasion to enforce 
compliance is a cruel necessity. If compliance is not 
enforced, then the invitation to aggression is issued 
and the nations of the world must brace themselves for 
the wars that will follow. " 
 
¶6. "The triple veto". 
Editorialist Serge Truffaut wrote in the liberal Le 
Devoir (3/6): "The last word still belongs to the chief 
inspectors who will present their report tomorrow. It 
is worth pointing out that France has insisted that the 
Blix expose be made in public and not in closed chamber 
as it was originally planned. Yesterday's gesture by 
the Berlin-Moscow-Paris axis had an immediate impact. 
Prime Minister Blair is more isolated than ever... By 
playing his pieces so unilaterally, the leader of the 
British government has gone beyond the point of no 
return. If Washington decides to go ahead without the 
support of the U.N., as Secretary of State Colin Powell 
has predicted, Blair will be forced to follow. This man 
who preferred action over the rule of law has put 
himself in the position to be hit by the boomerang 
effect." 
 
¶7. "Losing the PR Game" 
Columnist Ian MacDonald wrote in the conservative The 
Gazette (3/5): "...Once it made a choice of going to 
the United Nations rather than going it alone on the 
road to Baghdad, the Bush administration was committed 
to a diplomatic end game in the Security Council, a 
game it clearly does not control.... Meantime, world 
opinion counts. The worldwide anti-war demonstrations 
on Feb. 15 were also a reminder of the awesome power of 
the Internet.... Never before has such a well-connected 
movement demonstrated in such impressive numbers around 
the world on a single day.... But the worst moment for 
the Bush administration might have come when Iraqi 
deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz received an audience 
from the pope.... Perhaps the best policy for the 
United States would be to stand by in the Persian Gulf 
and keep squeezing Saddam until, piece by piece, he 
destroys all his weapons of mass destruction. Then, in 
the immortal words of the late Vermont senator, George 
¶D. Aiken, in the context of Vietnam, Bush could simply 
declare victory and pull out." 
 
AFGHANISTAN 
¶8. "What happened to Afghanistan's cash?' 
The conservative National Post opined (3/6): "When 
Afghanistan's Taliban regime fell in late 2001, there 
was a widely shared feeling that this was a victory for 
the Afghan people as much as it was for the United 
States and its allies.... In recent months, however, 
the world's attention has become increasingly focused 
on Iraq, and it appears the West is beginning to forget 
about Afghanistan.... Washington dropped the ball on 
Afghanistan a second time, just two weeks ago. In late 
February, Japan played host to a second 
conference on Afghanistan, this time to promote the 
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration...of the 
estimated 800,000 Afghan men who serve in the country's 
network of private armies. The United States pledged 
just $14-million for this crucial effort, compared to a 
promise of $42-million from Japan. This is 
unacceptable: The United States is both the 
world's richest country and the Western nation with the 
most to lose should Afghanistan collapse or fall back 
under the sway of Taliban-like extremists. 
Washington should be rounding up more generous funding 
for the DDR and other projects. It also must commit 
larger amounts itself. It would be fantastically short- 
sighted for the United States to spend tens of billions 
of dollars fighting a high-tech war in 2001 - only to 
see the benefits squandered because of a lack of follow- 
up humanitarian funding in 2003 and 
beyond.... It should be no small embarrassment to 
Western governments that Iran - a member of George W. 
Bush's 'axis of evil' - has actually turned into one of 
Afghanistan's most generous donors.... If the Western 
effort falters, and a political vacuum develops in 
Afghanistan, we can guess what the consequences will 
be.... In 1989, when the Soviet Union was kicked out of 
Afghanistan by U.S.-backed mujahadeen, the United 
States had the chance 
to help Afghanistan rebuild. Instead, Washington 
declared victory and abandoned the country - a move 
that left Afghanistan ripe pickings for the 
Pakistan-backed Taliban a few years later. We cannot 
allow history to repeat itself." 
 
TURKEY 
¶9. "Ankara's dilemma" 
Editorialist Serge Truffaut wrote in the liberal French- 
language daily Le Devoir (3/4): "The Ankara government 
intends to try again by presenting a second motion to 
Parliament.... To rally all the members of his party, 
Erdogan will obviously have to propose a motion with 
more potential gains than those promised so far by 
Bush. The dilemma is simple: either the government 
gives satisfaction to Washington and immediately 
alienates civil society, or it refuses and its chances 
of joining the European Union sooner will increase to 
Bush's great displeasure." 
 
CELLUCCI