In article <1993Apr13.234600.14061@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:  |>Here is a press release from the United States Information Agency. |> |> Digest of Foreign Media Reaction from the United States Information |>Agency April 12 (1 of 3) |> To: National Desk |> Contact: Anne Chermak of the United States Information Agency, |>          202-619-6511 |> |>   WASHINGTON, April 13  -- Following is part one |>of a digest of foreign media reaction from April 1-12, compiled |>by the United States Information Agency: |> |>                   TERRORISM AND WORLD INSECURITY |> |>   In recent editorials, Iran was universally recognized as |>te source of the double threat of state-sponsored terrorism |>and Islamic extremism.  But beyond this fear and condemnation, |>journalists found little common ground that would compel both |>North and South, and Arab and non-Arab nations to work together |>to combat the global threat of terrorism.  For example, Egyptian |>and Algerian papers were in the forefront in charging U.S. complicity |>in the current instability in the Middle East.  Those commentators |>asserted that the United States had promoted Islamic fundamentalism |>during the Afghanistan War and had further added to regional |>instability by alternately encouraging Iraq and Iran.  The cads! The fact that this is precisely what the US was up to of course is not mentioned. It is a fact that Regan and Bush sold arms to Iran, it is also a fact that they supported and armed Iraq.  Still this is state dept propaganda so none too surprizing.  |>   India's papers weighed the pros and cons of helping the West to |>identify Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism, noting on the one |>hand that doing so could "bring ruination to Islamabad's Kashmir |>cause" but, on the other, could also bring India's security apparatus |>uncomfortably close to the CIA and the Mossad.  Arab papers continued |>to portray Iraq and Libya as being unfairly treated by the UN while |>Israel remains unpunished for resolutions which it has violated.  In the case of Lybia there is the problem that the US only decided that Gadffii ordered the bombing after it needed to make peace with damascus during the gulf war. One day the US is certain that its Syria, the next Lybia. For a strange reason the US will not provide evidence to Lybian courts for extradition proceedings. Faced with similar demands the USA would reject them as would any other country.   |>   Concerning Northern Ireland, President Clinton's message of |>consolation to the victims of the Warrington bombing was seen in |>British tabloids as signalling a tougher stance by the American |>government against violence by the IRA.  The word is "terrorism".   The problem is that after the behaviour of George Bush the USA has an image abroad as doing precisely what it likes and is in its own interests then comming out with a Dysney scripted sugary justification repeating a fitting combination of the words "freedom" "dignity" "democaracy" or of "terrorism" "dictatorship" etc as appropriate.  The USA could go quite far to mend the bridges with  Iran. The people there are rather pissed off because the USA first supported the Shah who they loathed and then supported Saddam when he mounted an unprovoked attack.  Hardly surprizing after the embassy hostage crisis but Iran is meant to be the country run by unreasonable bigots not the USA so if there is to be movement it would be easier for the USA to move.  First off they could recognise Iraqu's responsibility in initiating the Iran/Iraq war. Providing technical assistance to Iran to get it's oil production back up to capacity would also be a smart move, at the moment  Iran is above it's OPEC ceiling. If they had extra capacity they would use it and bring down the oild price further which is in our interests.  The Iranian clerics would have an interest in seeking a raprochment  simply because a permanent war footing is debilitating. They also need western technology.