US embassy cable - 02HARARE1964

UNCLAS HARARE 001964 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/PD, AF/S, AF/RA 
NSC JENDAYI FRAZER 
LONDON FOR GURNEY 
PARIS FOR NEARY 
NAIROBI FOR PFLAUMER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL, PHUM, KPAO, KMDR, ZI 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION U.S./IRAQI STANDOFF; HARARE 
 
 
  1.   Under the headline "Will Bush attack Iraq?" the 
      August 25 edition of the pro-government weekly "The 
      Sunday Mirror" carried the following article in the 
      "Scrutator," the unsigned column written by publisher 
      Ibbo Mandaza: 
 
  2.   "U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to wage war 
      against Iraq is facing increasing dissent at home and 
      abroad.  Already, the entire Arab League. . .has 
      expressed strong opposition to any proposed military 
      attach on Iraq. . .  Furthermore, U.S. plans to isolate 
      Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein will now be damaged by 
      an economic and trade cooperation agreement between 
      Russia and Iraq concluded last Sunday.  While Russia 
      insists that the US$40 billion deal will not violate 
      the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq after its 1990 
      invasion of Kuwait, the agreement is certain to damage 
      relations between Moscow and Washington already cooled 
      by Russian plans to step up nuclear cooperation with 
      Iran, part of Bush's `axis of evil.' 
 
      "In general, most of the allies of the U.S. are 
      resisting the drum beating in Washington for 
      military action against Iraq, arguing that an 
      invasion cannot be justified without firm proof 
      that Iraq is developing weapons of mass 
      destruction.  On the other hand, such `proof' 
      cannot be forthcoming without the `weapons 
      inspection' by the UN, a step now forestalled by 
      the current war rhetoric against Iraq.  For, 
      Iraq would be foolish to allow `weapons 
      inspection' while the U.S. is preparing to 
      attack it.  However it is within Britain, the 
      U.S.'s closest ally, that there is growing 
      opposition, not only to the idea of attacking 
      Iraq but also to the foreign and security policy 
      of a super power that has grown so bellicose in 
      its unipolar self-indulgence, that it has become 
      blind to the contradictions that characterize 
      contemporary globalization.  Suddenly, even its 
      key allies are reminding the U.S. of the need to 
      adhere to the rules of the UN Security Council, 
      including, at least by implication, a warning 
      against the callous disregard for the 
      sovereignty and national independence of 
      (smaller) member states of the United Nations." 
 
SULLIVAN