• Military

• WMD Menu

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

USIS Foreign Media Reaction Report

03 October 1997

TOTAL'S CONTRACT WITH IRAN: A CHALLENGE TO 'PAX AMERICANA'?

The announcement on Sunday by the French energy company, Total, that a
consortium it leads
had signed a 2ドル-billion contract with Iran to develop a major gas
field in the Persian Gulf moved
editors in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America to conclude
that a "major
confrontation" was in the making between the U.S. and the EU over
trade sanctions against Iran.
At issue are sanctions outlined in the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions
Act--also referred to as the
D'Amato act-- which would require President Clinton to impose
sanctions on any foreign country
investing more than 40ドル million a year in Iran or Libya's energy
industries. Paris's right-of-center
Le Figaropredicted a particularly dire situation: "Between the U.S.
and Europe, we are in for a
war with commercial and political repercussions." A majority of
commentators focused on what
they said was the "center of the debate": international objection to
what they perceived as the
U.S.' imposition of "extra-territorial" legislation in contravention
of international laws of
commerce. Without exception, analysts railed against what they saw as
U.S. attempts to
"legislate to the world." "The arrogance with which the U.S. tramples
on international law and
the WTO...cannot be accepted," intoned left-of-center Frankfurter
Rundschau. A number of
observers saw in the French-led consortium's deal-making with Iran a
challenge to the world's
remaining superpower and its "Pax Americana." Moscow's reformist,
business-oriented
Kommersant Daily judged that "suddenly..both Europe and Russia [are]
flaunting their
independence from the Americans. America's striving for domination
does not endear it to
Europe and prompts the Europeans to form a united opposition front."
In Cairo, pro-government
Al-Ahram contended that the French company's move "took courage" and
that this "French
defiance should be an example to all countries" that must deal with
America. One daily in
Islamabad implored Muslims the world over to "take a unified
action...to reject U.S.
extra-territorial legislation on Muslim and non-Muslim countries
alike." A few media voices
targeted their criticism at more than just the U.S., seeing
"opportunism" as the deciding factor for
all nations--including the Europeans--as they pursue their foreign
policy and economic agendas.
Other commentators examined the possible courses President Clinton
might take to head off a
full-fledged "trade war" between the U.S. and the EU over Iran. Many
agreed with Paris's
right-of-center Le Figarothat this was the dilemma facing the U.S.
president: "To punish Total
means to enter into a major crisis with Europe.... To do nothing would
mean recognizing
America's weakness." A number of analysts joined London's liberal
Guardian in its call for
"calm diplomacy" and compromise between the trading partners. Several
pundits held out hope
that a solution would be forthcoming. Others, however, were far less
sanguine. Ankara's
pro-Islamic Zaman, for example, insisted that America will not bend on
its policy toward Iran.
Only a minority of observers addressed what one referred to as "the
main question: What to do
with Iran, which is suspected of being involved in terrorism?" A few,
concluding that the U.S.
policy of isolating Iran has been a "failure," endorsed the EU's
"critical dialogue" policy of
limited engagement with Tehran. But more acknowledged that really
"nobody knows how to
deal with a provocative state like Iran that challenges the
international community."
This survey was based on 42 reports from 18 countries, Sept 29-Oct 3.
EDITOR: Diana McCaffrey and Kathleen Brahney

To Go Directly To Quotes By Region, Click Below

Europe
Middle East
East Asia and the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean

 
EUROPE
FRANCE: "What To Do With Totalitarian States" 
Pierre Beyleau observed in right-of-center weekly Le Point (10/4):
"For his first diplomatic test,
Ambassador Rohatyn is stepping on tricky ground.... He will need all
his business experience to
avoid a major conflict between Europe and the United States over
Total's contract with Iran....
But Felix Rohatyn may be reasonably optimistic: Washington has been
sufficiently vague to
leave the door open for a compromise.... The main question remains:
What to do with Iran,
which is suspected of being involved in terrorism? The West is again
confronted with the
dilemma it faced with the USSR. Does trade with totalitarian nations
help these nations to
change or does it re-enforce the regimes in power? In the case of
Iran, no one has an answer.
But everyone, including the United States, has a clear idea of their
own interests."
"Iran: Europe Scores A Few Points"
Right-of-center Les Echos editorialized (10/2): "Madeleine Albright
has acknowledged the
limitations of U.S. influence in the contract between Total and Iran,
thus underscoring the partial
failure of Washington's unilateral containment policy toward Iran....
Europe's pragmatism when
its comes to its policy toward Iran is comparable to Washington's
pragmatism toward communist
China. This should lead to some soul searching across the Atlantic."
"A Step Against The Pax Americana"
Jean Daniel wrote in left-of-center weekly Le Nouvel
Observateur(10/2): "The United States has
given Algeria reason to hope and continues to isolate Iran.... In
approving the Total contract, the
French prime minister has taken a step against the Pax Americana."
"Dilemma For The U.S." 
Mouna Naim speculated in left-of-center Le Monde (10/1): "If the
United States decides against
imposing sanctions, it will have set a precedent which other companies
will put to good use. On
the other hand, if Washington decides to take action against Total and
its partners it will be a
'causus belli' with the European Union. Neither of these two
possibilities is satisfactory for
Washington.... The United States is convinced that imposing a
quarantine on Iran will push
Iran's regime toward democracy.... To date, this strategy has not been
successful."
"U.S. Is Isolated" 
Pierre Haski pointed out in left-of-center Liberation (10/1): "The
United States is finding itself
isolated.... At the center of the debate is the notion of
extra-territoriality, rather than the contract
itself.... This first test of the D'Amato law is, in fact, having a
boomerang effect, and the United
States has decidedly lost the first round. It is now in the
uncomfortable position of having to
decide for or against imposing sanctions.... The debate over the
'morality' of Total's contract
has...taken a back seat to the controversy over the U.S. legislation."
"America's Bluff" 
Pierre Rousselin argued in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/1):
"Washington is beginning to realize
that the use of economic sanctions is not a strategy but a bluff....
To punish Total means to enter
into a major crisis with Europe.... To do nothing would mean
recognizing America's weakness....
Caught in this embarrassing position, Washington has opened an inquiry
to buy some time....
Meanwhile everybody is watching, especially Mohammed Khatami, who
can't help rejoice."
"The Challenges Of The Persian Deal" 
Left-of-center Le Monde editorialized (9/30): "With this deal Total is
challenging the United
States...and exposing itself to U.S. sanctions. But beyond Total, what
is in the making is a
confrontation between Europe and the United States, because the
D'Amato legislation goes
against international laws of commerce.... Europe believes that by
maintaining a certain level of
cooperation with Iran it can force Iran to be more transparent....
Hence Europe's 'critical
dialogue' with Teheran, which Washington disapproves of.... Whatever
the U.S. reaction,
Washington will have to deal with the questions raised by the Total
contract: how to deal with
Iran and how to justify the right it has taken of unilaterally
imposing international sanctions."
"A Transatlantic Wrestling Match" 
Jean-Jacques Mevel wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/30): "Between
the United States and
Europe we are in for a war with commercial and political
repercussions. In terms of foreign
policy, the United States cannot disregard the Total contract because
Tehran is proclaiming it as a
triumph against the United States. But the diplomatic costs could be
very high."
"Total Challenges Washington" 
Alexandra Schwartzbrod wrote in left-of-center Liberation (9/30):
"Total, supported by the
French government in its endeavor, has taken the risk of provoking a
new diplomatic conflict
between Europe and the United States.... But if France has given its
support, it is obviously
because it has more to gain than to lose.... The D'Amato sanctions,
according to Total, will have
very little impact on the company, while future oil deals with Iran
are in the making. This in turn
has the American oil industry up in arms because it does not fully
agree with Washington's
intransigence." 
"Total Ignores The D'Amato-Kennedy Law"
Elisabeth Rochard wrote in centrist La Tribune (9/29): "Total has done
it again. It just signed a
2ドル billion contract with Iran.... The threat of the D'Amato-Kennedy
law does not seem to bother
Total President Thierry Demarest: 'The D'Amato law has not been
acknowledged by either Paris
or the European Union.... Our position is very simple: by working in
Iran we are not doing
anything that goes against any international law.'" 
GERMANY: "Declaration Of War" 
Martin Winter had this to say in an editorial in left-of-center
Frankfurter Rundschau (10/1):
"Whatever happens in this row about the U.S. sanction policy on Iran,
one thing is clear:
Nobody will be happy about it. The contract between Total...and
Tehran...is enormously
burdening the climate between Europe and the United States. The
demonstrative support by
French Premier Jospin and the brusque rejection of Washington's
demarches have had the effect
of a declaration of war in the U.S. capital.... 
"There is no doubt that Washington must be blamed for the confusing
situation. The arrogance
with which the United States tramples on international law and the
World Trade Organization to
enforce its policy on other countries...cannot be accepted....
Congress will make this case a
litmus test on whether President Clinton is serious about his policy
towards Iran. This test will
create a fix for the president, because Russia and Malaysia are
partners in the deal. He will
certainly not want to create problems with Russia nor stir up emotions
in Malaysia, which is
increasingly distinguishing itself as anti-American mouthpiece in
Southeast Asia.... There is still
time to agree on an informal settlement that would allow all sides to
save face. The question is
whether Clinton has the necessary courage and the necessary strength
to do so."
BRITAIN: "War Dance In The Gulf" 
The liberal Guardian had this op-ed page commentary by diplomatic
editor Ian Black (10/1):
"Bill Clinton is firing the opening salvos in what could be a new
transatlantic trade war, though it
is only the latest installment in the old and long-running story of
America's obsession with
truculent men in turbans.... There is room for flexibility. Calm
diplomacy can avert a full-scale
trade war.... One likely solution would be for President Clinton to
waive his right to punish
Total, extract a cosmetically tougher EU line and deny Tehran a
significant tactical victory. If
cool heads reign on both sides of the Atlantic, it should be possible
to avoid the commercial
equivalent of a shooting war--and keep the real baddies firmly in
their boxes."
ITALY: "From Moscow To Tehran, The Smell Of Good Business Is Back"
Provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio contended (10/2): "The wind
of `European counterattack'
against U.S. 'diktats' raised by the Total-Iran oil deal--a sign of
political opening in grand style
from Paris to Tehran--has brought euphoria also in Italian circles,
which are traditionally on the
front line when it comes to 'critical dialogue' with the Ayatollahs'
regime. Notwithstanding U.S.
threats and the sanctions called for by the D'Amato bill, experts of
Middle East affairs foresee a
revival of European initiatives after the 'big chill' which culminated
in the withdrawal of EU
ambassadors from Tehran. The same observers note that it is a question
of which other European
nations will follow Paris in its resumption of economic relations with
Iran.... As for Italy,
everybody is aware of the positive feeling towards Tehran both on the
part of Prime Minister
Prodi and Foreign Minister Dini, a feeling which sometimes has exposed
Rome to Washington's
rebukes but which has also favored national economic interests.
Pushing towards a 'dialogue' is
not only Total...but several other companies, from the French Elf
Aquitaine to British-Dutch
Royal Dutch Shell, to Spanish Respoil. And, obviously, the Italian
Eni. But not only oil
businessmen are pushing for a `dialogue.' `At the present time,'
Italian Foreign Ministry sources
point out, 'the obstacle remains the German position, which is bound,
for the sake of
consistency, to the verdict on the Mykonos case.' But according to the
same sources,
negotiations are under way for the return of EU ambassadors, in such a
way as to resume normal
relations while at the same time sparing humiliation to the Bonn
representative."
"Diplomatic War"
Ennio Caretto filed from Washington for centrist, top-circulation
Corriere della Sera (10/1):
"The Total case...has kicked off a diplomatic war, almost a second
Gulf War, but among allies
this time.... France's determination...may still prompt the United
States to reflect. Last night,
White House spokesman McCurry made a partial retreat, saying that the
issue 'is being examined
and it will take some time to decide.' But the Republican majority in
Congress insists that the
Europeans 'should be taught a lesson.'... President Clinton,
therefore...may be forced to intervene
and impose the lightest sanctions among those at his disposal. In this
case, the European Union
would resort to the WTO, and we would shift from diplomatic to trade
war. A compromise
seems unlikely." 
"Dangerous Confrontation In The Making"
Leading business daily Il Sole 24-Ore had this from New York (9/30):
"The United States is
ready to take action against the French oil company, Total...but this
will happen only after an
investigation is carried out. In brief, this is the position taken by
the American State Department
after the 'challenge' launched by Total against the so-called D'Amato
Act.... The makings for a
dangerous confrontation between France--and in the last analysis the
European Union--and the
United States are all there. It is now up to the United States to make
the next move."
"Serious Quarrel Over Total"
According to PDS (leading government party) L'Unita (9/30): "It is a
quarrel again between the
United States and France.... The quarrel is a serious one and risks
projecting its negative effects
into relations between Washington and the old continent for a long
time. The Americans have
made the fight against terrorism their battle cry in the Middle East
and accuse Europe of being
willing to do business with suspect regimes at any cost...hence the
'critical dialogue' with Iran....
Europe has never accepted (the D'Amato Act's principles) and state
that the Americans are free to
impose sanctions, but that they cannot...punish those which do not
conform. Hence its appeal to
the WTO.... This is an all out fight. Clinton, on the basis of the
D'Amato Act, can choose
between two sanctions in a list of six.... At stake are relations
between Europe and Iran. Tehran
is inviting the Europeans to send their ambassadors back." 
RUSSIA: "Europe, Russia Flaunting Their Independence"
Gennady Sysoyev said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
Daily(10/2): "President Boris
Yeltsin yesterday condemned the United States' attempts to block the
(Iranian gas) deal. He said,
'We have signed this document and we will not back down.' Suddenly,
Iran has become a kind of
catwalk, with both Europe and Russia flaunting their independence from
the Americans.
America's striving for domination does not endear it to Europe and
prompts the Europeans to
form a united opposition front." 
"New Fight Brews" 
Boris Vinogradov observed in reformist Izvestia (10/2): "It seems like
a new fight is brewing
between Europe and the United States, similar to the one that broke
out last year over the
Helms-Burton act. Washington has its ambition, and Europe its prestige
and dignity, on the line.
But there is no absolute unity among the Europeans, as only Belgium
and Spain have officially
voiced their unqualified support for the French. Others prefer to
wait-and-see."
"Gazprom, Total Not Scared" 
Aleksei Portansky wrote in a reformist Izvestia's weekly supplement,
Finansoviye Izvestia (10/2):
"If Total has already expressed its attitude toward the threat of
(U.S.) sanctions, saying that it is
not afraid, Gazprom has so far refrained from comments. From what its
representatives say
unofficially, it appears that the Russians basically identify with the
Europeans in rejecting outside
pressure. But, since the Americans have not announced an investigation
into the Gazprom case,
Moscow apparently does not want to provoke them. The opinion in
Gazprom is that U.S.
sanctions are unlikely to hurt it in any serious way."
"U.S. May Have To Face EU" 
Reformist Izvestia ran this comment (10/1) by Boris Vinogradov:
"During a Gore-Chernormyrdin
session in Moscow recently, the U.S. vice president said that the gas
contract, along with Russia's
other contracts with Iran, was an undesirable element of international
politics. Viktor
Chernomyrdin and Boris Yeltsin were just as tough, replying that
Russia will remain true to its
commitments and felt free to choose its economic partners by itself.
Foreseeing Washington's
negative reaction (to the gas deal), Moscow made its position known
and later, during President
Chirac's visit to Russia, demonstrated 'full coincidence' of views
with France. Should the United
States use sanctions against Total and its partners from Russia and
Malaysia, it would have to
face the EU and political implications in relations with its Atlantic
partners and allies."
BELGIUM: "Clinton's Choices"
In independent Le Soir (10/1), Pierre Lefevre remarked: "So far, the
threat of has sanctions
remained theoretical. Bill Clinton, for instance, turned a blind eye
to the Canadian and Turkish
contracts with Iran and to Italian contracts with Cuba. 
"But Total's investment, a 2ドル-billion contract, can hardly remain
unnoticed. It even looks like a
provocation.... This issue comes at a very bad moment for Bill
Clinton. The U.S. administration
is torn between two approaches toward Iran. On the one hand, it is
tempted to take advantage of
the accession to power of a moderate religious man, Mohammed Khatami,
to improve its
relations with Teheran. Big U.S. companies, excluded from Iranian and
Iraqi markets, long for
normalization. On the other hand, showered with reports of Iran's
attempts to acquire nuclear
weapons, the White House must pretend to turn the screws. The Total
contract will force it to
take a stand." 
CANADA: "Commercial War?"
Montreal's liberal, French-language Le Devoir argued (10/1): "The
controversy surrounding the
contract signed between Total and Iran brings back almost point by
point, the confrontation that
the construction of the Euro-Siberian pipeline between Europe and
ex-USSR had created, in
1982, and that the Americans had lost.... Since last Sunday,
Europeans, Russians and
Malaysians stand together and firm against the measures foreseen by
Washington.... In
Washington the industrials have not stayed outdone. The American
Chamber of Commerce has
let known that it was against any punitive measures that never
work.... Faced with of this
roadblock, it seems clear that the Total affair will find a rapid and
without doubt happy
conclusion.... An American spokesperson has opened a door.... Putting
aside the coercive
elements of the D'Amato law, James Rubin has put the emphasis on a
necessary 'concerted
action' to deal efficiently with the Iranian regime. Nice formula,
that will allow to avoid a
commercial war and, and to save the face of everyone." 
NORWAY: "U.S. Is Not The UN" 
Conservative Aftenposten held (10/1): "The United States and its
allies are once again on a
collision course. The core of the dispute is quite uncomplicated: The
United States claims to
have the right to impose its own laws on other countries to protect
American national and other
important interests.... The critics of this U.S. practice have good
arguments. America has set
the limit for acceptable investments in Iran at 40ドル million. Anything
above 40ドル million is
therefore immoral and unethical support for a terrorist regime. This
dollar-and-cents morality
does not hold water. We suspect that this is not a question of ethics
but of American economic
interests.... The United States may be the only remaining superpower,
but that does not give it
the right to act as a world legislator, police and moral guardian. The
UN can pass sanctions on
behalf of its member countries. The United States can do the same on
behalf of its states. But the
United States must realize that it is not the United Nations." 
"Total Opportunism" 
Independent tabloid Dagbladet commented (10/1): "On Sunday, the French
oil company, Total,
signed a 2ドル-billion contract to develop a gas field in Iran. A
spokesman for the U.S. Department
of State says that the United States will impose sanctions on Total
because the company is in
violation of an American law prohibiting major investments in Iran and
Libya.... The U.S. habit
of passing laws and applying them beyond their own territory is far
from unproblematic. No
matter how one feels about the regimes in Iran, Libya and Cuba, the
U.S. role as a self-appointed
world police on its own terms reminds us of Ayatollah Khomeini's
self-appointed police
authority on Islamic terms.... Total, and thereby France and the EU,
is bluntly and without shame
demonstrating the principles the West now operates by: neither freedom
of speech nor human
rights, which benefit us all, count when economic interests are at
stake."
SPAIN: "Total Challenge" 
Liberal daily El Pais editorialized (10/1): "It would be absurd and
dangerous for the United States
and the European Union to get involved in a new trade war over the
announced investment of
the French oil company Total in Iran. 
"Heretofore, the United States has never applied the D'Amato law....
These confrontations are
always damaging for all of the parties and even more so at this moment
because the United
States and EU are in the middle of general trade negotiations.... The
Total case can't be seen as
isolated. It can aggravate the bad relations between the United States
and France...and in any
case, the Europeans will see American sanctions as an insult not just
to a French company but
to the whole EU.... It would be better if the United States--the
President and the Congress--use
the margin of maneuver within the law to do nothing.... Beyond this
case, it's evident that the
U.S. pretension to impose unilaterally its own laws on international
trade is totally intolerable."
SWEDEN: "Threat Against Trade"
Conservative Svenska Dagbladet held (10/2): "The reason for the
(Iran-Libya) sanctions act is
said to render more difficult the financing of terrorism. This may be
true, but since the law only
includes Iran and Libya, it primarily is an attempt to impress a
domestic audience. From the
point of principle--whether the United States has the right to use a
sanction and confiscatory
policy to force other countries to dance to the tune of Congress--the
motives for the act lack
interest. The United States has no such right. The law is just an
unpleasant combination of
protectionism and misguided foreign policy.... And a (U.S.-EU trade)
conflict only will
strengthen the forces within the EU that speak about trade blocks with
protectionist overtones....
The United States must bear in mind its responsibility. There are no
winners of a trade war but
the protectionists on both sides of the Atlantic."
"Business Deals With Iran"
Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter maintained (10/1): "U.S. companies
are compelled to
refrain from making business deals with Iran...but the U.S. efforts
not to let others invest in the
state of the mullahs are not very respected internationally.... French
Prime Minister Lionel
Jospin does, however, express the views of many Europeans when
contesting the U.S. right to
enforce its law upon the rest of the world. But what to do? Nobody
knows how to deal with a
provocative state like Iran that challenges the international
community."
TURKEY: "No Chance That There Will Be Pliancy In U.S. Policy" 
Fikret Ertan wrote in pro-Islamic Zaman pro-Islamic (10/1): "The
assignment of Martin Indyk,
the founder of 'double isolation' policy, as an undersecretary for
Middle East affairs is another
sign of America's determination to isolate Iran. Indyk is officially
still the ambassador to Israel,
but he already bid his farewell and departed Israel. In the near
future he will be confirmed by
Senate and will become one of the most powerful officials responsible
for Middle East affairs.
Indyk is very influential in the Clinton administration's foreign
policy. Dual containment, which
was his decision and was confirmed by the administration, been in
application since May 1993.
The whole idea of this policy is to keep Iran and Iraq under a very
strict control and pressure.
Since he has been assigned to a more powerful position and has never
mentioned a change of
policy, there is no reason for him to change the policy of 'dual
containment.' During the
application of this policy, America was left alone from time to time
or had arguments with the
European countries, but never thought of changing its policy. Now, it
will argue about Total
with France and will try to make France to accept Total and will try
some sanctions, but will
never change its mind. 
"America is determined to isolate Iran and Iraq. It is doing its best
on this subject. Due to the
composition of the...Clinton administration the pliancy with Iran and
Iraq will be possible only if
these countries accept America's wishes. Since this is not possible,
there is no chance of pliancy
with these countries. And no one should expect any until the end of
the Clinton administration."
 
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Europe Mobilizes For Total War" 
A senior columnist for the national, business-oriented Australian
Financial Review (10/2)
commented, "The 'Total trade war' arrived fully loaded, almost as if
Total and its political
supporters and opponents quickly acknowledged that this was one worthy
of a real punch-up....
Canberra feels just as strongly about American extraterritorial laws.
Total's move and its instant
backing from Paris and Brussels deserve vocal support from Canberra if
Australian companies
are not to continue to be told by Washington where they can and can't
do business."
INDONESIA: "EU Blasts U.S. Sanctions" 
The government-oriented, English-language Indonesian Observer opined
(10/3): "It looks as if
sanctions will remain a key instrument of U.S. policy for the
foreseeable future.... There is no
overriding logic to the U.S. sanctions policy.... Much of the impetus
behind the Middle East
sanctions policies is purely domestic, the momentum sustained largely
by the Israeli lobby. The
considerable economic costs to the United States of this policy have
not deterred President
Clinton and Congress from pursuing it. The costs of targeting Iran,
Libya and Syria in terms of
U.S. trade reached an estimated 7ドル billion, including a loss of jobs
in the neighborhood of
300,000 to 350,000." 
"U.S. Should Not Over-React"
Independent Suara Pembaruan commented (10/1): "In terms of
international economics and
energy, France and Iran have achieved something dramatic....
Therefore, the United States had
better detach these matters from political enmities and see this
cooperation among Iran, France
and Malaysia in the proper perspective. The United States need not be
skeptical and over-react,
but should be realistic and tolerate these regional developments,
particularly Iran's offer to
restore the ties, frozen since 1970s."
 
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: "French Example For Whole World"
Ibrahim Nafie wrote in pro-government Al-Ahram (10/1): "The United
States threatened to take
action when a French company took enough courage, defied the White
House...and made a deal
with Iran.... The French company does not recognize U.S. authority
over the world...and is
certain that it has not violated any international law.... On the
other hand, the pretexts of the
American administration do not seem logical...because the whole world
knows that the core of
weapons of mass destruction in the region is Israel.... This French
defiance should be an
example to all countries. Will France succeed?"
MOROCCO: "U.S. Imposing Legislation On Entire World"
El Arbi Mefdal wrote in opposition, leftist Assiyassa Al Jadida(10/2):
"The signing of the big
gas deal between Total and Iran has ignited intense anger in
Washington. This deal is a major
challenge to the D'Amato law, which violates international law and
imposes U.S. legislation on
the entire world. The deal has sent Washington into a crisis and has
reunited the European
Union, with Eastern and Western nations both firmly against the U.S.
position.... Washington
will be compelled to swallow the D'Amato law, or it will be subject to
ridicule, with all its
interests at stake." 
 
SOUTH ASIA
PAKISTAN: "U.S. Threats Of Sanctions Against France"
Rightist English-language Pakistan Observer said (10/3): "One was
expecting that the Clinton
administration might change its attitude in dealing with Iran
following the election of a moderate
president in Tehran. Unfortunately, however, the latest decision
points to the fact that
Washington is pushing Iran towards radicalization. A decision to
impose sanction on Total
would play into the hands of hard-liners in Tehran and seriously sour
transatlantic relations. It is
also counter-productive in political terms, since it creates tension
between Europe and the United
States.... Muslims should take a unified action, in line with the UN
Charter, to reject U.S. extra-
territorial legislation on Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike."
"Paradoxes Of Perversity"
In the editorial view of the radical, pro-Iran Muslim (10/3): "The
latest arm twisting by the
United States against France's determination to go ahead with an
oil/gas pipeline with Iran could
lead to a France-U.S. rupture with concentric effects throughout
Europe, especially Germany
which is trying to come out of the 'guilt complex' imposed upon it by
'Zionism.'... The
Muslim-Third World, Asia and especially Japan-China could take a cue
and stand up to arrogant
arm twisting by the U.S.-Zionists."
 
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA: "A Clash Between Two Policies" 
Ruben Guillemi wrote in leading Clarin (10/1): "From Paris to
Washington, the first sparks
between two opposing policies regarding the Iranian Islamic regime
started yesterday: the
inflexible American D'Amato law, that punishes businessmen who make
important investments
in the Persian nation, and the 'critical dialogue' of the European
countries, which favor political
and commercial relations. The third protagonist is the Iranian
government that took over last
August, which, pressured by the urgent need for capital, is facing a
slow opening that is well
regarded by Western eyes. The United States and Europe fight over this
slow reform to prove it
is the best example of the success of their own policies. But since
yesterday, Paris and
Washington have taken the dispute to the verge of arm wrestling....
Although the United States,
France and Iran speak fundamentally in political terms, the core of
the crisis is millions of
dollars: those lost by an Iran that has one of the most generous oil
fields while its economy is
collapsing, and those lost by world industry, unable to invest in that
country, the second-largest
world reserve of oil and gas. The dilemma faced by Washington
vis-a-vis its European allies is:
how much longer can the pressure of growing oil demand be resisted?
President Clinton is
walking a dangerous tightrope, with a diplomatic crisis hovering on
one side, industrial pressure
on the other, and to his right, the roaring domestic front, not
willing to allow the president make
concessions to the Islamic regime." 
BRAZIL: "The U.S. Intention To Legislate To The World"
Center-right O Estado de Sao Paulo editorialized (10/1): "There are
two very important issues in
this impasse, but of different natures. The first involves the
relationship between morality and
politics. It was not difficult, in Washington, to find justification
for maintaining normal
commercial relations with China, despite the accusations of human
rights violations by the
Chinese government. It was said that if economic relations were
closer, it will be easier to
promote the defense of these rights. It was considered a convincing
argument, especially due to
the size of the Chinese market. The second issue involves
international relations. Two centuries
ago the French government supported 13 North American colonies in
their rebellion against
England. 'No taxation without representation', said the settlers,
refusing to obey the laws
approved without their participation. French, Russians and Malaysians
have already discovered
that this slogan...is not valid outside the United States." ##
For more information, please contact:
U.S. Information Agency
Office of Public Liaison
Telephone: (202) 619-4355
10/3/97
 # # #