|
Almost two-thirds of British voters believe that an attack on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is not justified at the moment, an opinion poll showed yesterday.
And 90 percent of those polled for the Daily Telegraph fear that military action against Baghdad will result in more September 11-style attacks on the West.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been labeled "Bush's poodle" because of his unstinting support for US President George W. Bush's tough line on Iraq. He also faces rising opposition from within his own Labor Party over the issue.
The poll followed reports that maverick British parliamentarian George Galloway had met Saddam, who was quoted as telling him: "We will never surrender."
Saddam was said to have announced that he "would implement all UN resolutions on Iraq and admit weapons inspectors without hindrance."
The reported offer was swiftly rejected by Britain with a Foreign Office spokesman telling reporters: "This changes nothing."
In another development, few of Washington's allies appear as keen for a war with Iraq as Australia.
But as Baghdad threatens to cancel lucrative Australian wheat imports, an increasing number of critics are wondering why Canberra has taken such a hawkish stance and are calling on the conservative government to tone down its "Rambo" rhetoric.
"We need a considered approach, not a hot-headed one. The hot-headed one is costing Australia very dearly," Simon Crean, leader of the opposition centre-left Labor Party, said yesterday.
Labor says it would be unjustifiable if what it calls the government's "Rambo-like" talk costs the wheat industry $A800 million (US$430 million) in annual sales.
Meanwhile, more Arabs reject "arrogant" US moves to hit Iraq.
Gulf Arabs yesterday blasted President George W. Bush's threats to strike Iraq, saying their opposition stemmed from anger at perceived US arrogance.
Bush's threat to strike Iraq, for its alleged development of mass destruction weapons, is seen as further proof of what Arabs believe is Washington's disregard for Arab lives and sovereignty.
(China Daily August 13, 2002)
|
