US embassy cable - 02HARARE2133

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 002133 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/PD, AF/S, AF/RA 
NSC FOR 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. POLICY ON IRAQ; HARARE 
 
 
  1.   U.S. policy toward Iraq was the favored topic of 
      Zimbabwean op-ed writers over the Sept 21-22 weekend. 
      While none of the writers defended Saddam Hussein, 
      they were unanimously opposed to U.S. unilateral 
      action in Iraq.  Excerpts follow: 
 
  2.   Under headline "Bush, Blair playing games with 
      Saddam" the independent daily "The Daily News" (09/23) 
      carried the following op-ed by Tajudeen Abdul Raheem: 
 
      "President George W. Bush of the U.S. addressed 
      the United Nations General Assembly 10 days ago. 
      For a President infamous for mixing his tenses 
      and mauling the English grammar. . .the speech 
      was in clear English and delivered with a clear 
      intention of leaving no one in any doubt: The UN 
      must act decisively on Iraq or the U.S. will do 
      it for the UN, whether the UN likes it or not. . 
      .  For hawks. . .in his. . .administration and 
      his small band of cheerleaders internationally 
      (principally Tony Blair of Britain and Ariel 
      Sharon of Israel), it was the kind of no- 
      nonsense speech that they wanted. . .  Now that 
      Saddam Hussein seems to have swallowed his fat 
      ego and agreed that the weapons inspectors can 
      return to Iraq unconditionally Bush and his 
      British poodle, Blair, are unsure how to react. 
 
      ". . .The U.S. and the British have reacted to 
      Iraq's offer with incredulity, insisting that 
      Iraq is merely playing games and setting a trap 
      for the UN that would give it room to wriggle 
      out in the future after short-circuiting the 
      momentum for military action.  If anybody is 
      playing games it is Bush and Blair. . .  Bush 
      did not go to the UN for approval.  He went 
      there to inform them.  Not sure of the response 
      he would get, he made sure (like a good cowboy) 
      he held guns to their heads.  However, finding 
      the UN amenable to its demands on the weapons 
      inspectors, the Bush administration has been 
      shifting the goal posts since the UN triumph. 
      And whatever Saddam does, even if he opens his 
      bedroom and bunker to the inspectors, Bush will 
      still attack the country. . . ." 
 
  3.   Under headline "First Afghanistan, now Iraq, then 
      who?" the independent weekly "The Standard" (09/22) 
      comments: 
 
      ".We hold no brief for Saddam Hussein.  True, 
      Iraq, has been defying a host of UN resolution 
      dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, particularly 
      those regarding weapons of mass destruction. 
      But this defiance does not merit the fundamental 
      evil of regime change.  Why only Iraq when it is 
      common knowledge that Israel gets away literally 
      with murder! 
 
      ".In the eyes of the world, there could be yet 
      another dangerous precedent.  First Afghanistan, 
      now Iraq.  Which country next?  Where will it 
      all end?  Domino theory - knock them all down 
      one by one!  The U.S. must not see the world 
      from its selfish and parochial point of view. 
      The U.S. must stop trying to deceive the world 
      by claiming that getting rid of Saddam would be 
      in the interest of the Iraqi people and their 
      neighbors.  It is a load of crap. 
 
      ". . .The world was not found wanting when 
      people watched in horror and disbelief as the 
      World Trade Center fell to a vicious terrorist 
      attack.  Joseph Sullivan, U.S. ambassador to 
      Zimbabwe, said people understood that although 
      the attacks took place in the U.S., they were an 
      assault against the world.  Given this kind of 
      cooperation and collective memory, the U.S. must 
      not now act outside that world regarding the 
      Iraq problem." 
 
  4.   Under headline "Bush's Iraq war all about oil" 
      the September 22 edition of the independent weekly 
      "The Standard" carried the following opinion piece by 
      Ken Mafuka under his column "American Notes": 
 
      ". . .Saddam Hussein is guilty of the most 
      barbarous crimes against humanity.  He used 
      chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980 war 
      and later against the Kurds.  He is amassing 
      weapons of mass destruction. . .  He invaded 
      Kuwait and committed atrocities even against 
      babies there.  All this is true but the juicy 
      part is that he was encouraged by the U.S. and 
      was given `material help' against Iran.  Some of 
      the chemical weapons he used were devices made 
      from that material help he received. . .  It is 
      a sad story of being used for other people's 
      interests." 
 
  5.   Under headline "Assault on Iraq stinks of `global 
      evil' the government-controlled weekly "The Sunday 
      Mail" (09/22) carried the following opinion piece by 
      Tafataona Mahoso: 
 
      "In a cynical retreat from the agenda and values 
      of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the G-7 
      powers have gone back to their World Economic 
      Forum in Germany and the Bush-Blair 
      administrations have gone back to their efforts 
      to hide their dismal failure in Afghanistan by 
      claiming that the terrorism they went to 
      eliminate in Afghanistan has suddenly 
      transferred to Iraq. . .  Another war over oil 
      in the Middle East will be so devastating to 
      human life, marine life and weather that no kind 
      of reparations would begin to redress the 
      damage, even if they were offered.  The damage 
      would be so colossal that no one would know 
      where to start the restitution or 
      reconstruction. . ." 
 
  6.   Under headline "When will sanity prevail?" the 
      government-controlled weekly "The Sunday News" (09/22) 
      comments: 
 
      "As Western hawks circle over Iraq, there is a 
      growing worry that sole-superpower triumphalism 
      will finally prevail over the civilized tenets 
      of international law.  The bellicose cowboy from 
      Texas and his faithful sidekick from London have 
      pointed their guns at the people of Iraq, and no 
      one, it seems, is able to stop them.  There are 
      occasions in history when the use of force is 
      both right and sensible.  Our conscience tells 
      us that this is not one of them.  Make no 
      mistake, American and British troops will invade 
      Iraq before December.  Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair 
      will neither give dialogue a chance nor ask the 
      UN to send weapons inspectors to the Persian 
      Gulf state.  But if Iraq really has weapons of 
      mass destruction, why would the Bush Government 
      risk diplomatic suicide by going it alone 
      instead of presenting the evidence to the UN 
      Security Council?." 
 
SULLIVAN