By Gamal Nkrumah America's friends complained about not being consulted. Others condemned US President Bill Clinton for ordering last Thursday's military strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Many commentators felt that Clinton's decision was a diversionary tactic to shift public attention away from the "Monica-gate" affair. Most Western governments and many non-Western ones officially applauded the strikes. Others, including some of America's staunchest allies, gave guarded responses. However, there was an obvious divide between the official line and public opinion as expressed in the international press and media. Many voiced concern that the strikes might generate greater violence and possible reprisals. Britain's Financial Times summed up the world's apprehensive mood. "The US counter-thrust may well prove to be warranted by intelligence evidence that its enemies were preparing further attacks and acquiring weapons of mass destruction. But, as the broader consequences emerge, including widespread popular condemnation in the Middle East, it only becomes clearer how far the US has to go to douse the resentment on which the terrorists feed." Officially Japan declared acceptance. The Japanese media, however, reflected an anxious mood as Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi promised to step up security around US facilities. "However strong its military might and however sophisticated its intelligence ability may be, the US cannot fight international terrorism single-handedly," warned an editorial in the Japanese mass circulation Yomiuri Shimbun last week. Australia, Britain and Israel gave "whole-hearted backing" for the "punitive measures", as British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the strikes. Australian Prime Minister John Howard called the strikes "perfectly legitimate defensive acts". French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin said any country whose nationals had been killed in terrorist attacks could not be expected to remain inactive. Suspended British Labour Party MP for Glasgow Govan Mohamed Sarwar warned: "I think it would be wrong for us to be accusers, judge and jury. We should try to know the facts." Sarwar, Britain's only Muslim MP, was on his way to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, to investigate the pharmaceutical factory destroyed by the American attack. Sarwar's highly publicised visit to Sudan deeply embarrassed British authorities because the British government was one of the few to fully back the strikes. Sarwar, a self-made millionaire of Pakistani origin, is suspended from the Labour Party and faces charges of electoral fraud, attempting to obstruct justice and breaking the laws covering election expenses. Sarwar is aware that most British Muslims are very angry for the US attacks on Muslim nations. Moreover, Sarwar believes that he has been victimised because of his public criticisms of British foreign policy which, he claims, has reduced Britain to a "lackey and proxy of the US". Even in official circles, there was some consternation that Britain was neither consulted nor shown evidence that the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory bombed by the Americans produced weapons of mass destruction. "The evidence, as I understand it, has not been produced by the US to its allies," said Donald Anderson, hairman of the House of Commons all-party committee. "When we go out on a limb, as we have done, the US... should tell us the evidence they have." In London, British Muslim demonstrators set the Union Jack and an effigy of Clinton on fire near the American Embassy. There were similar scenes in other European capitals and Asian countries with Muslim majorities like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan. Moscow emerged as one of Washington's most vociferous critics. Russian President Boris Yeltsin said he was "outraged" and resoundedly condemned the American strike and questioned the timing -- a week before Clinton is due to visit Russia. Yeltsin expressed indignation that Washington did not consult its allies -- including Russia. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said the strikes were neither "legitimate nor balanced. The international community, the UN Security Council and the UN secretary-general should have been notified." China, with perhaps an eye on its own restless Muslim secessionist minority in Xinjiang Province that borders the Muslim central Asian republics, condemned the "brash" and "unilateral" strikes. "Bombing and firing missiles at one or two places would not end world terrorism," a Chinese Foreign Office statement cautioned. Most Asian leaders did not condone the strikes. "If they wish to strike back, then do so. But launching missile strikes against innocent people is an act of cowardice," warned Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes joined the fray, accusing Washington of violating the UN charter and international law. "A powerful nation should not exercise its strength against smaller and weaker countries. There is no need to react to violence with violence as the situation would then cross all limits, making a mockery of international law. In our opinion, whatever the arguments may be, a nation cannot violate the sovereignty of another," Fernandes explained. However, India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee later stressed that New Delhi strongly condemns "international terrorism". Perhaps the most serious consequence of the strikes is the suspension of food aid and humanitarian relief flights to the famine-stricken regions of southern Sudan and to Afghanistan where food shortages are endemic. European countries urged their nationals and relief workers to depart from Afghanistan and Sudan. Lt. Col. Carmine Calo, who worked for the UN Special Mission for Afghanistan, was shot dead in Kabul only hours after the strikes were delivered. Calo's death highlighted the fact that US punitive measures may fuel anti-American militancy around the world and attests to the capacity of the Islamist militants for retaliation.
