RIYADH, 9 March 2003 — Gulf newspapers yesterday blasted the United States for trying to force the UN Security Council into authorizing a war against Iraq, saying the credibility of the United Nations was on the line.
“The danger here is (if) a big power succeeds in forcing the Security Council, entitled to preserve international peace and security, toward approving a declaration to invade Iraq, a sovereign nation, without any convincing justification,” Al-Bilad daily said.
“This would certainly mean the collapse of the international organization” as happened to the League of Nations in the 1930s, the daily said in an editorial after chief UN arms inspectors reported Friday to the world body.
“How can the international community (still) respect itself if it approved the invasion and occupation of Iraq, while Israel stubbornly challenges international resolutions without any move from the US administration?” it asked.
The United States, Britain and Spain are trying to push through a resolution in the Security Council that would give Iraq a deadline of March 17 to prove that it has fully disarmed, or face war.
But Al-Watan newspaper said the role of the Security Council must not be only to provide cover for US decisions to wage war.
“The (credibility of the) Security Council is indeed on the line. It is not the credibility that America is demanding. It is the international credibility that should be a real protector of world peace and security in a just and fair way that stands the testimony of history,” the paper said.
In the United Arab Emirates, Al-Khaleej daily saw Washington and London “trying to hold-up” the United Nations and warned of “the assassination of international legitimacy”.
Dubai’s Al-Bayan newspaper said US President George W. Bush had revealed his “contempt for international legitimacy by declaring that he does not need the United Nations to launch military operations against Iraq.”
In Qatar, Al-Raya newspaper said it was up to the Security Council to choose between “the law of the jungle”, meaning the behavior of Washington and London, and “respect for international legitimacy”.
