US embassy cable - 03HARARE274

UNCLAS HARARE 000274 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/PDPA FOR DALTON, MITCHELL AND SIMS 
NSC FOR JENDAYI FRAZER 
LONDON FOR GURNEY 
PARIS FOR NEARY 
NAIROBI FOR PFLAUMER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL, PHUM, ZI, KPAO KMDR 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION POWELL EVIDENCE AGAINST IRAQ; 
HARARE 
 
  1.   Under headline "Powell fails to prove case against 
      Baghdad" the pro-government daily "Daily Mirror" 
      dedicated its February 7 editorial to dismissing 
      Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony against 
      Iraq, saying, Powell's presentation was "flawed" and 
      "did not have any shred of evidence."  Excerpts: 
 
  2.   "United States Secretary of State Colin Powell's 
      theatrical presentation of what he said was 
      evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass 
      destruction was unconvincing to say the least. 
      It was full of assumptions and presumptions, and 
      therefore the United Nations should not sanction 
      war against a sovereign nation, Iraq, on the 
      basis of Powell's flawed presentation.  To say 
      the truth, Powell did not have any shred of 
      evidence, he was just whipping emotions.  Armed 
      with data from the Iraqi defectors, spy 
      satellites and telephone intercepts, his 
      presentation lagged far behind the expectations 
      of the world, real evidence that would justify a 
      war. . .  Logically, if the U.S. has no hidden 
      agenda, it should agree to increase the 
      capabilities of monitoring and collecting 
      information on Iraqi territory.  Political 
      decisions should be based on facts and evidence, 
      and definitely not on egocentric beliefs.  Who 
      says the `so-called evidence' cannot be 
      concocted, especially in this age of high 
      technology?  As for the photographs of what 
      Powell called weapons sites and mobile weapons 
      factories, why is it that the information had 
      not been presented to the U.N. arms inspectors 
      for verification? 
 
      "We believe it is folly for Powell, who is not 
     in Iraq, to accuse the Iraqis of hiding biological 
     and chemical weapons when the U.N. inspectors, who 
     are practically scrounging for proof in that 
     country, have not found any shred of evidence 
     since.  It should be noted that weapons of mass 
     destruction are not like an aspirin tablet that 
     you can hide in your pocket.  They are weapons 
     that cannot be concealed easily.  Without wanting 
     to pacify Iraq, its response has been more 
     convincing.  Since the Gulf War numerous 
     inspections have been conducted but no weapons of 
     mass destruction have been found.  So, could the 
     assertion by Iraq that Powell's presentation was 
     `unrelated to the truth' be truth.  Powell's 
     presentation, created two camps, with Britain, as 
     expected, supporting the U.S. while China, Russia 
     and France are insisting that there was need to 
     find convincing evidence. . .  It should be asked: 
     to what extend do the nature and scope of the 
     threat justify the recourse to war and how does 
     the U.N. make sure that the considerable risks of 
     such intervention are actually kept under 
     control?" 
 
SULLIVAN