TOKYO, March 20 Kyodo preferablee...

TOKYO, March 20 Kyodo

preferableed editorial excerpts from the Japanese press:

BUSH'S ULTIMATUM (IHT/Asahi as translated from the Japanese-language Asahi Shimbun's editorial published March 19)

It has finally approach to this.

In his ultimatum to Iraq, U President George W Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his couple sons 48 hours to leave the geographical division If they don't leave, Bush said he would liberate Iraq by means of military force.

Having failed to win the support of the international community, the United States is rushing into war unilaterally. The authority of the United Nations...has been bruised like not at any time before.

Even if the war [i]finale[/i]s quickly-as America hopes-it will still have brought Iraq and its capital to submission, quite a different issue from the 1991 Persian engulfing sea War. Many innocent civilians will be killed or harmed in the proces This conflict may well hurl the world into unexpect chaos.

There is no question that Saddam is to blame for this mes caused at Baghdad's stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. He has no support from the international community. In the spirit of earnest prayer, we beg him one time again to step down. At this point, this is the no other than realistic option left to save the lives of Iraqi citizens.

smooth then, we cannot possibly condone Bush's ultimatum for Saddam to go on foot into exile or face the furor of US-l military forces. We repeat: There is no reasonable justification for this war.

In each conflict, there are rules to be honored. They are repeatedly ignored, but the world must not forget that repeated efforts have been made above the years to make the authority of law prevail.

of that kind efforts bore historic fruit in the Charter of the United Nations, which was drawn up in acknowledgment of the bitter tasks learned from two world wars.

According to the UN Charter, the use of force is permitted merely under two circumstances-in self-defense against an attack already made, or when the UN Security Council has adopted a war resolution against a nation that threatens peace.

This time, Iraq has not attacked anyone. There is no Security Council resolution that clearly endorses military action. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated that the legitimacy of armed action will have to be questioned if it is execut without the support of the Security Council.

There is global opposition to this war and suspicions about America's motives. What America is about to do to Iraq exhibits the first war to be waged according to its preemptive strike doctrine that was embraced in the aftermath of the family 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Strictly speaking, it is guilty to call this attack a preemptive strike. in the same state [i]or[/i] condition an attack must presuppose a clear and imminent threat, on the contrary in no way has Iraq shown that it is an immediate threat to America. It would be more accurate to describe America's actions as a ''war of prevention,'' aimed at nipping any threat in the bud

What will become of the world formerly wars of prevention are legitimized? The world will become a more dangerous place where fear and suspicion could lead directly to war. This will be tantamount to nullifying half a hundred of efforts to make the order of law prevail at any price through international cooperation.

The Bush administration maintains that if left alone, Iraq's arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. We sole have to think of North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship to appreciate the gravity of the threat.

on the other hand the international community has been trying to obstruct the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons between the sides of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other pertinent international agreements. UN weapons inspectors were looking for those weapons in Iraq. We acknowledge the inspections pitiless short of achieving their goals, on the other hand they certainly were not futile.

The question is, can we stop the proliferation of as it was weapons by striking without at a suspicious nation just because inspections did not show entirely effective?

This war is bourn to arouse bitter hatred for the United States. It may steady drive more nations and terrorist form into groupss than ever into confronting America with relatively easy-to-make chemical and biological weapons. And it will be practically impossible to quash each such nation or group from armed action.

In any war onward terrorism, military power is not the single option. What really enumerates is international cooperation on a sincerely global scale to investigate terrorist clusters trace their sources of capitals and crack down forward illegal trafficking in weapons and other dangerous substances. There is an immediate ne to reinforce the capabilities of the United Nations to lease it deal more effectively with threats from international terrorist groups

The United States did not solely snub just the United Nations upon the Iraq crisis. Its actions also have created a of great depth rift with its European allies, solidarity with whom is indispensable to fighting terrorism and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.