Just in case anyone was wondering what to make of Colin Powell's 'evidence' 
presented to the UN to make a case for war, here are a collection of responses from around the world.  USeful material to save for a critical skills class...



>
> What the international papers say
>
> How the international press reacted after
> yesterday's speech by the US secretary of state,
> Colin Powell, to the UN security council
>
> Staff and agencies
> Thursday February 6, 2003
>
> Le Figaro (France)
> "Spielberg it wasn't. The hour was solemn. The
> directing was sober. In a measured voice, and for 80
> minutes, Colin Powell talked, using scary words,
> pointing the finger at the loutish regime in
> Baghdad, showing illegible slides, playing inaudible
> recordings, and trying to demonstrate that war was
> inevitable. And what more did we, the public, learn
> from this? Not much.
>
> "Colin Powell's task was to win over public opinion,
> which is broadly hostile to war. He may have
> convinced the Minnesota rancher but the European
> farmer will certainly continue to have doubts. So
> what? The affirmation of American 'leadership' cares
> not a jot for differences of opinion. It justifies
> every crusade."
> Comment: Yves Thréard (in French)
>
> Libération (France)
>
> "Powell's long presentation convinced only those who
> were already convinced, not because it was lacking
> in arguments, but because between a raft of
> circumstantial evidence and actual proof there is
> enormous room for personal conviction. In other
> words, political opportunity not conscience will be
> the criterion upon which the speech is judged."
> Comment: Gérard Dupuy (in French)
>
> Der Tagesspiegel (Germany)
>
> "It is not just America that has come to the
> conclusion that Iraq is not cooperating, but also
> the peace-loving Swedish UN chief inspector, Hans
> Blix. What does the UN want to do about it?
>
> "Powell's appearance has given new urgency to this
> question ... A mere 'Give the inspectors more time'
> is too feeble. The decision on war or peace has,
> though, become no easier as a result of this
> historic sitting of the UN security council.
>
> "And that is because worldwide unease, including in
> America, at the prospect of a resort to arms is only
> marginally dependent on evidence of the degeneracy
> of the regime in Baghdad. Almost no one disputes
> that Saddam is brutal and dangerous. Controversy
> flares up rather over the issue of whether the costs
> of a war, including civilian deaths and the burden
> of years of occupation, are proportionate to its
> usefulness.
>
> "Powell was unable to answer this question. He
> cramped the room for manoeuvre of the security
> council members. But he has not made the case for
> war being necessary and unavoidable. So far."
> Der Tagesspiegel
>
> Die Welt (Germany)
>
> "In October 1962, the then US secretary of state,
> Adlai Stevenson, presented photographs to the UN
> that showed that Kruschev had put nuclear rockets on
> [Cuba].
>
> "Colin Powell was unable to produce such conclusive
> facts. His evidence did not have the power of an
> all-exposing document. Indeed, it could not have ...
> More could not have been expected, even if the
> outcome disappointed some listeners.
>
> "The most important evidence of Iraqi machination
> has in any case been available for some time. It is
> Saddam Hussein himself. He is still refusing to
> comply with resolution 1441 or to explain the
> whereabouts of the Scud rockets and mustard gas
> grenades which he is known to have possessed until
> 1998 and which are said to have been 'lost'."
> Die Welt
>
> Washington Post (US)
>
> "After secretary of state Colin Powell's
> presentation to the United Nations security council
> yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could
> doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass
> destruction. Mr Powell left no room to argue
> seriously that Iraq has accepted the security
> council's offer of a 'final opportunity' to disarm.
>
> "And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam
> Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the
> al-Qaida organisation that is trying to acquire
> chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe.
>
> "Mr Powell's evidence, including satellite
> photographs, audio recordings and reports from
> detainees and other informants, was overwhelming ...
> the governments that have most strongly opposed
> action in Iraq, including France and Germany ...
> have cynically argued that the inspectors must
> uncover evidence proving what they already know, or
> that it's too early to judge Saddam Hussein's
> cooperation. Mr Powell's presentation stripped all
> credibility from that dodge."
> Editorial: Irrefutable
>
> New York Times (US)
>
> "The speech was vigorously argued and revealed an
> administration determined to use all means to make
> its case. But some portions of Mr Powell's
> presentation appeared stronger than others. The
> secretary offered much evidence that Iraq has
> weapons programs to hide, the primary justification
> for the administration's contention that military
> action will almost certainly be necessary to enforce
> the United Nations demands that Iraq disarm.
>
> "But Mr Powell did not appear to make an airtight
> case that the Saddam Hussein regime is plotting with
> al-Qaida to attack the United States and its allies,
> a main argument for the Bush administration's
> contention that the Iraqi threat is so urgent that a
> potential military campaign cannot be delayed."
> Michael R Gordon: Powell's Case Against Iraq: Piling
> Up the Evidence
>
> Los Angeles Times (US)
>
> "The United Nations risks irrelevance unless it
> promptly sets a date on which it will use military
> force against Iraq if that nation does not disarm.
>
> "Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday,
> Secretary of State Colin Powell methodically
> demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
> remains dangerous to his own people, Iraq's
> neighbors and, potentially, the Western world.
>
> "We were not convinced of the al-Qaida connection.
> But we agree with Powell that as long as Hussein has
> anthrax or chemical agents there's a chance some
> terrorist will use them - and that it's
> irresponsible for the United Nations to ignore
> Hussein's history.
>
> "The United Nations must then give Hussein one final
> chance to avoid war - by complying or fleeing - and
> be ready to launch missiles, planes and troops if he
> again disregards or disrespects the world's clear
> disarmament demands."
> Editorial: UN - time for a deadline
>
> Pravda.ru (Russian news website)
>
> "The 'evidence' ... was [a] miscellany of obscure
> recordings which were misinterpreted by the US
> secretary of state and risible satellite photographs
> which bore a strange resemblance to those which had
> been taken in Afghanistan two years before.
>
> "This presentation of 'hard evidence' is a tissue of
> lies, gossip, misinterpretation, cynical manoeuvring
> and possibly even misrepresentation, aimed at
> providing a case for a war against Iraq.
>
> "The UN security council is not a kindergarten or a
> scout camp. The international community is not a
> class of primary school pupils to be lectured in
> this way by an incompetent teacher. Were this the
> case, Colin Powell would be the one to have a
> donkey's tail pinned to his trousers when he turned
> around to illustrate his great case against Iraq.
>
> "If people believe this report, they will believe
> that there are fairies at the end of the garden.
> Colin Powell has managed to allow himself and his
> image descend from a respected world-class diplomat
> to some sort of confused, rambling and unconvincing
> Peter Pan."
> Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey: Powell's Fairy Tales:
> Puerile and Patronising
>
> The Russia Journal Daily
>
> "[Powell's] presentation reinforced Russia's belief
> that weapons inspections must continue in Iraq, said
> Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, who urged
> Baghdad to cooperate.
>
> "At the same time, Ivanov said: 'The information
> given to us today will require very serious and
> thorough study. Experts in our countries must get
> down to analysing it and drawing the appropriate
> conclusions from it.'
>
> "He called on Baghdad to 'give the inspectors
> answers to the questions that we have heard in the
> presentation by the US secretary of state'."
>
> "Of the 15 [UN security] council members, only the
> United States and Britain have voiced support for
> forcibly disarming Saddam. Powell's presentation
> didn't immediately appear to change opinions."
> Russia calls for continued Iraq inspections
>
> Jerusalem Post (Israel)
>
> "Scratch everything we've said about secretary of
> state Colin Powell. We love him. Powell's
> presentation to the UN security council was
> masterful and devastating. He reduced any
> conceivable case for inaction in Iraq to rubble. The
> case itself, not even counting what follows, was a
> powerful example of American leadership and
> diplomacy.
>
> "After weeks of hounding to produce evidence, Powell
> trotted out if not the crown jewels some awfully
> persuasive pearls. America spends billions on what
> are antiseptically called 'national technical
> means', and rarely has a chance to show the results.
> "One can imagine Winston Churchill making a
> presentation like the one Powell made yesterday. It
> is not necessary to imagine the war that came when
> those warnings were not heeded, and that the League
> of Nations itself became a casualty of that war.
> Saddam has lost his last chance. The question now
> is, will the United Nations lose its as well?"
> The UN's last chance (registration required)
>
> Dawn (Pakistan)
>
> "Hopes for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis
> seem to be rapidly receding. This is an ominous
> development and comes despite a rising crescendo of
> voices calling for more time to be given to the arms
> inspectors to complete their job before launching
> any attack on Iraq.
>
> "It is clear that three out of the five permanent
> members of the security council are deeply sceptical
> about the need for military action against Iraq.
> While China and Russia have made their reservations
> about any hasty attack known, it is France that has
> emerged as the most vocal opponent of war.
>
> "There is still time for the US to pause and ponder.
> Washington must heed the calls from all the
> divergent forces urging a peaceful solution to the
> Iraq crisis and step back from the brink. The
> alternative could be a cataclysm that would plunge
> the Middle East into utter chaos and anarchy."
> Editorial: Dawn
>
> Hindustan Times (India)
>
> "It is now being said that the US is ready to use
> small nukes to bust underground stores of armament.
> While the Americans are now engaged in calculating
> the extent of 'collateral damage' - a euphemism for
> the loss of human lives - as a result of such
> nuclear strikes, they are already said to have
> decided on an 'acceptable' rate of civilian
> casualty. After such cynical manoeuvres, American
> assurances about the war paving the way for the
> establishment of democracy in Iraq will sound like a
> sick joke.
>
> "It goes without saying that the reports will cause
> deep outrage and consternation all over the world,
> including in the US. As it is, the graph of anti-war
> sentiments is rising all the time, not only in the
> countries that have formally expressed their
> opposition to the war, but also in those that are
> supportive of America.'"
> Editorial: Mushrooming crisis
>
> South China Morning Post
>
> "The United States, aided by a number of coalition
> allies, will soon remove Saddam Hussein from power
> in Iraq by military force ... Once he [Saddam
> Hussein] has nuclear weapons he will be much more
> difficult, and perhaps impossible, to stop ... US
> military action against Iraq is also justified by
> every country's 'inherent right of individual and
> collective self-defence' as recognised by article 51
> of the UN charter. No security council authorisation
> is necessary for this.
>
> "To the extent that Mr Hussein finances, harbours,
> trains and arms international terrorist groups which
> carry out significant terrorist attacks on US
> targets, Iraq is substantially involved in those
> attacks. US Secretary of State Powell has now
> itemised Iraq's 'substantial involvement' with
> international terrorism, including al-Qaida."
> Dr Stephen Hall, associate professor of law at the
> City University of Hong Kong: The legal basis for
> war against Iraq is water-tight (registration
> required)
>
> Collated by Mark Oliver, John Hooper and Gwladys
> Fouche
>
>
>