This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000695 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, WHA/PDA 
WHITE HOUSE PASS NSC/WEUROPE 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: KPAO KMDR OIIP OPRC CA
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: IRAQ; UN; NORTH KOREA 
 
 
IRAQ 
¶1.   "The truth that Blix can't hide" 
The nationalist Ottawa Citizen opined (3/12): "The 
United States and Britain are angry with Hans Blix, the 
United Nations chief weapons inspector in 
Iraq, over the information he deliberately withheld 
from his most recent public report to the Security 
Council. And they're right to be. By keeping silent 
about Iraq's egregious defiance of the UN, Mr. Blix not 
only strengthened the hand of countries opposed to 
military action against Iraq, he further weakened the 
credibility and legitimacy of the Security Council 
he is supposed to serve.... Hans Blix may not have been 
able to bring himself to say so publicly last week, but 
the case against Saddam Hussein has been made. France, 
Russia and China should not stand in the way of a new 
resolution that would allow that enforcement action to 
begin. They should not stand in the way of truth." 
 
¶2.   "Bush losing the moral high ground" 
Columnist Richard Gwyn observed in the liberal Toronto 
Star (3/12): "...Today, the main concern of large 
numbers of people and of many governments is not to 
disarm Iraq but to disarm the U.S. That's, of course, 
impossible in the term's literal sense. No one can 
doubt that the U.S. possesses the military capacity to 
successfully invade Iraq almost by itself. 
Psychological disarmament, though, is quite another 
matter. It won't affect the political and military 
leaders; George W. Bush's self-conviction is absolute 
and adamant. But it may - just - affect American public 
opinion. A lot of people around the world, and an 
increasing number of governments, are acting as though 
it were possible to influence ordinary Americans and 
thereby to influence Bush.... The moral case...is 
tilting decisively against Bush. It's the absence of 
effective moral counter-arguments that explains why the 
international scene has changed so decisively so 
quickly. These days Bush is asking the world to trust 
him while he has failed to trust others. He's said 
almost nothing about moving to achieve an Israeli- 
Palestinian peace settlement after Iraq is conquered. 
He's promised to pursue democracy 
in post-war Iraq but he's not invited the U.N., or 
anyone, to help him achieve it. Quite simply, the U.S. 
is increasingly alone these days because it is alone. 
Once that was a good argument for rallying to the U.S. 
side, because without it the U.N. will be largely 
impotent and there'll be no-one to police the world's 
trouble spots. The counter case is that until the U.S. 
disarms - attitudinally, psychologically and 
temperamentally - better a world doing its best to 
function without it than one trying to keep in step 
with the Americans wherever they march. Today that case 
is the winning one." 
 
¶3.   "Prelude to war: Lies, deception and insincerity" 
Columnist Barbara Yaffe commented in the left-of-center 
Vancouver Sun (3/11): "...[A]n Iraq war was never about 
disarmament, except for the purposes of passing 
resolutions through the United Nations. The war for the 
president is about toppling Saddam. And he hasn't yet 
achieved that objective.... In this whole sordid 
process, possibly the most off-putting spectacle has 
been the performance of Mr. Bush. He has put himself 
forward as a reasonable individual, an oasis of 
determined calm amid chaos. This man, who will give the 
order to drop thousands and thousands of bombs on Iraq 
keeps repeating: 'I pray for peace. I pray for peace.'" 
 
UN 
¶4.   "Kofi's dithering shop" 
The conservative National Post commented (3/12): 
"...[I]t is the relevance of the United Nations itself, 
under Mr. Annan's leadership, that is at 
greatest risk of impairment. France is so desperate to 
thwart U.S. military plans that it is willing to veto 
any war resolution Washington puts before the Security 
Council, and thereby vitiate the 17 existing Iraq- 
related Security Council resolutions that the United 
States is seeking to enforce. Mr. Annan should be 
rallying other members of the Security Council around 
to the U.S. position. If the Secretary-General fails in 
this regard and the United States and Britain liberate 
Iraq without explicit UN approval, Mr. 
Annan may find that no one particularly cares what he - 
or the United Nations - has to say the next time an 
international crisis emerges." 
 
¶5.   "Turnabout at the UN" 
The centrist Winnipeg Free Press opined (3/8): "...The 
new resolution offered by the U.S. and its allies dares 
France and the others to claim that peaceful means of 
disarming Iraq have succeeded, which is obviously not 
the case. It shifts to them the onus of proving that 
Iraq's conduct is acceptable. In the interest of 
international peace and security, the main thing is 
that Iraq's aggression should not be tolerated. If Iraq 
is allowed to rearm and if economic sanctions are 
lifted, then Iraq will be excused from the consequences 
of its aggression against Kuwait. This will tend to 
reassure other heavily armed nations that they need 
fear no punishment from the UN if they follow Saddam 
Hussein's example and invade neighbouring countries. In 
the new resolution, the U.S. is making a further effort 
to conduct its operations against Iraq under the aegis 
of the United Nations. This is both principled and 
tactically wise. The U.S. public and the people of 
other nations much prefer the U.S. to get UN approval 
before it goes to war. President Bush will enjoy much 
better support at home and abroad if he acts with UN 
approval. The interests of Canada and other middle- 
sized countries are best served if the UN continues to 
provide a mechanism in which nations can unite their 
efforts to oppose aggression. Canada should join in 
urging Security Council adoption of this new 
resolution." 
 
NORTH KOREA 
¶6.   "Nuclear blackmail" 
The centrist Winnipeg Free Press commented (3/12): 
"...Mr. Kim needs a new sponsor and he sees the U.S. as 
the most likely candidate. Because it will not 
willingly subsidize his brutally oppressive and corrupt 
regime, his only recourse is nuclear blackmail. He 
worked that scam successfully with former president 
Bill Clinton; he is having less success with Mr. Bush 
and so can be expected to intensify his efforts to get 
the attention and the cash he craves. Mr. Bush should 
not do as Mr. Clinton did and submit to Mr. Kim's 
blackmail - whether the demand is unfettered aid or the 
abandonment of South Korea. Mr. Kim wants to deal only 
and directly with the U.S. This is not just an American 
problem, however; it is a United Nations one, although 
few of that organization's members appear to be as 
eager for a multilateral approach to North Korea as 
they are in demanding one for Iraq." 
CELLUCCI