US embassy cable - 03OTTAWA2149

UNCLAS OTTAWA 002149 
 
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; NORTH KOREA 
 
 
IRAQ 
1.   "Bush can't afford to go it alone" 
Columnist Carol Goar commented in the liberal Toronto 
Star (7/25): "On the one hand, there's pride. It would 
be humiliating for U.S. President George Bush, who 
dismissed the United Nations as ineffectual and 
irrelevant just four months ago, to turn to the 
international body for help now. On the other hand, 
there's politics. The president's approval ratings are 
slipping. Iraq has become a dangerous morass. Without 
money and troops from other countries, the U.S. stands 
little chance of stabilizing - let alone rebuilding - 
the hostile country it now occupies. At United Nations 
headquarters in New York, diplomats from around the 
world wait and weigh the odds. This could be the 
organization's best chance to prove that it is still 
capable of global problem solving. Or it could be a 
historic lost opportunity.... [I]n practical terms, 
Washington does have to go back to the U.N. if it wants 
help.... Bush has a choice to make. He can continue to 
flex his muscles on the world stage, with the support 
of a few embattled allies such as Britain's Tony Blair. 
Or he can admit he is in trouble. Both options have 
their risks.... Still, Bush's best bet, by any rational 
analysis, would 
be to swallow hard and ask for help. Even a superpower 
can't bring peace to a resentful, violence-ridden 
country.... It is unlikely that Bush will ever embrace 
the notion of multilateral engagement. Most of the 
time, the world needs America more than America needs 
the world. Nor is it probable thatBush will return to 
the United Nations willingly or contritely. The 
president of the United States doesn't bend or beg. But 
if Bush is smart - or if his chief political 
strategist, Karl Rove, is as shrewd as people say 
- he will agree to a new U.N. resolution on post-war 
Iraq. There are timeswhen pragmatism trumps pride." 
 
NORTH KOREA 
2.   "Mad moves" 
Editorialist Serge Truffaut wrote in the liberal Le 
Devoir (7/25): "Kim Jong-il demands...that the U.S. 
sign a pact of non-aggression, guarantee the continuity 
of the regime, which would mean granting impunity to 
the dictator and accept the principle that negotiations 
be conducted exclusively between Pyongyang and 
Washington. According to the signals sent by the Bush 
administration, the pact of non-aggression poses no 
problem. The rest however does.  Since the renewal of 
verbal hostilities between the two countries, 
Washington has always favored, and rightly so, regional 
talks. President Bush is adamant about South Korea, 
Japan, Russia and especially China being present at the 
negotiation table.... In order to try to conciliate the 
one-on-one Korea wants with the multilateralism 
Washington wants, China is proposing to mix bilateral 
meetings with multilateral discussions. One wonders if 
Chinese diplomacy is not closer to a labyrinth than to 
common sense. All that remains for us to do is to 
wonder if the fears expressed by the former Defense 
Secretary William Perry are founded or not. The latter 
 
SIPDIS 
said he was certain Korea would have eight nuclear 
bombs by the end of the year. If that is the case then 
the goose is cooked and has been cooked to the bone by 
a mad chef." 
 
CELLUCCI