US embassy cable - 03OTTAWA2104

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 002104 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, WHA/PDA 
WHITE HOUSE PASS NSC/WEUROPE, NSC/WHA 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: KPAO, KMDR, OIIP, OPRC, CA, TFUS01, TFUS02, TFUS03 
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ; AFRICA; ICC 
 
 
IRAQ 
1.   "Fallout from Iraq" 
The centrist Winnipeg Free Press observed (7/8): 
"...Mr. Bush's reasons for going to war may be 
questioned more and more sharply, as next year's 
presidential election approaches, if popular support 
for the Iraq invasion ebbs and poor performance of the 
U.S. economy saps confidence in the president's 
leadership. In such a context, a conclusion that Mr. 
Bush unwittingly misled the country could be a further 
blow to his political support." 
 
2.   "A casualty of war" 
Under the sub-heading, "Exaggerating Saddam's sins was 
foolish and unnecessary," the nationalist Ottawa 
Citizen editorialized (7/11): "...If Mr. Bush knowingly 
cited false intelligence, his credibility is profoundly 
damaged. If he believed in the intelligence because his 
subordinates misled him, the credibility of the entire 
administration is damaged. The ones who 
benefit from the controversy are those who seek to 
delegitimize the deployment of U.S. power. The next 
time Mr. Bush sounds the alarm about a mad dictator or 
terrorist organization, critics will ask why they 
should believe him.... As we and others argued from the 
beginning, Saddam's fetish for ugly weapons was only 
one of the reasons why he had to go. Liberating 
millions of Iraqis, and trying to light the spark of 
democratization and reform in the Arab world, were - 
and still are - worthy goals." 
 
3.   "Small Lies" 
Editorialist Mario Roy wrote in the centrist La Presse 
(7/12):  "It has now been proven that 10 Downing Street 
and the White House lied about Iraq. Lied on relatively 
minor points. But that is not what it important.... The 
unilateralism of the American offensive, its real 
justification which was to launch a new and dangerous 
preventive strike strategy, the lack of post-war 
planning and consequently the present situation in 
Iraq...which was predictable and had been predicted by 
the international community tends to give credence to 
an almost brutal thesis: the Bush administration is not 
fit to govern such a big, influential, powerful 
nation.... This administration is showing itself to be 
unable to correctly absorb the long term shock of 
September 11, the toughest ever taken by the Americans 
since the Civil War. Add to this the economic 
quagmire...and you reach a wish, a prayer, a necessity: 
George W. Bush must not be reelected in 2004." 
 
AFRICA 
4.   "Blame America for conflict in Liberia" 
Writer Gerald Caplan observed in the leading Globe and 
Mail (7/11): "...The Bush administration now believes 
it needs Africa to combat terrorism, as a giant market 
for American products, and for its abundance of high- 
quality oil. It needs Liberia to be stable. But after a 
century of American-backed regimes and corporations, 
the Liberian people also need to become a nation 
again - an enormously difficult and expensive project. 
Mr. Bush should intervene not out of great humanitarian 
motives, but out of basic accountability. For damages 
knowingly incurred, his country owes Liberians 
compensation in full." 
 
5.   "Trip to Africa" 
The conservative Saskatoon StarPhoenix commented (7/8): 
"...While campaigning, Bush complained about how the 
U.S. was overextended overseas. Yet, since being 
elected, he has used the U.S. army more than any other 
president since the Vietnam war but so far has been 
unsuccessful at destroying al-Qaida, catching its 
leaders or even corralling Saddam Hussein. Despite 
this, his stock continues to be high with Americans. 
One wonders, however, how long that can continue. As he 
hops through five African nations this week (adding the 
likes of Senegal, Uganda and Botswana to the list of 
countries - unlike Canada - to which he's had a state 
visit), Bush must hope he can deflect attention from 
the final leg of his current mandate.... The 
continent is awash in small and medium arms. Basic 
family and community infrastructures have been 
destroyed by war and disease. Both conditions have 
been made worse by Bush's decision to stop aid to 
groups advocating birth control (and hence battling 
AIDS and promoting of women's rights in Africa) 
and his withdrawal from global efforts to curb small- 
arms trade. He has further alienated would-be democrats 
by trying to coerce countries (all of 
the Caribbean, for example) which refuse to exempt the 
U.S. from terms of the International Criminal Court. It 
would be dangerous to underestimate the determination 
of Americans to carry the war on terror to a decisive 
conclusion. It would be equally dangerous to believe 
that an American president can indefinitely get away 
with riding the economy into the ground, alienating 
allies and allowing U.S. interests and GIs to get 
picked off one at a time without delivering tangible 
results. Bush's African trip promises to be the 
harbinger of an interesting year." 
 
6.   "Going into Liberia" 
The leading Globe and Mail opined (7/4): "The United 
States appears poised to send troops into Liberia at 
the head of a multinational peacekeeping force. 
President George W. Bush says he will not be hurried 
into a decision, but the longer he waits the more dire 
the humanitarian crisis grows.... As the Liberian 
violence escalates, the flood of refugees poses yet 
another threat to regional stability. And here's a 
point made by several U.S. experts: Chaos, violence and 
the lack of economic opportunities create a 
prime breeding and recruiting ground for killers and 
terrorists, as the Americans found in Somalia. All of 
this adds up to a compelling case for a U.S.-led rescue 
mission. And the sooner the better." 
 
7.   "'George Bush, save Liberia'" 
Columnist Marcus Gee commented in the leading Globe and 
Mail (7/4): "In a world ablaze with anti-Americanism, 
the Liberians' plea for U.S. intervention is more than 
just a curiosity. It is a golden opportunity.... A 
forceful intervention in Liberia by the world's 
superpower would demonstrate that the United States is 
genuine when it says that it stands for human rights 
and democracy.... If Mr. Bush listens to his allies and 
does the right thing in Liberia, it will help show that 
his country is indeed a benevolent - not just a self- 
interested - superpower. If he doesn't, skepticism 
about American motives will only rise. The UN's Mr. 
Annan put it best: All eyes, he said, are on the United 
States." 
 
ICC 
8.   "U.S. speaks loudly and carries a big stick to 
dodge international court" 
Columnist Jonathan Manthorpe wrote in the left-of- 
center Vancouver Sun (7/10): "...Having failed to 
convince much of the world that the International 
Criminal Court, established a year ago in the Hague, is 
a dangerous piece of political tomfoolery, Washington 
has moved to arm-twisting and bribery to limit the 
court's effectiveness. The administration of President 
George W. Bush, with the backing of Congress, intends 
to withdraw military aid to about 37 of its allies 
because they refuse to exempt American servicemen and 
women from possible prosecution by 
the ICC.... If the reaction to America's attempt to 
protect its people is over the top, so too is 
Washington's analysis of the dangers of the 
international court. The Rome treaty is full of 
safeguards - many injected by the U.S. - against 
frivolous, politically inspired prosecutions. 
Moreover, the court is designed to function only in 
those areas where national governments are unwilling or 
unable to act. The court is staffed by highly qualified 
judges and prosecutors, none of whom wants to waste 
time or effort on anti-American witch hunts. The 
court's concern is systematic abuses of human rights in 
places where local people have no other recourse to 
justice. So its focus is on places like the Balkans, 
Congo, Burma and West Africa. It would be a travesty if 
this valuable effort at justice-without-borders was 
undermined because of hysterical political 
campaigns on both sides." 
 
CELLUCCI