MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001517

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARN, NEA/PA, NEA/AIA, INR/NESA, R/MR,
I/GNEA, B/BXN, B/BRN, NEA/PPD, NEA/IPA FOR ALTERMAN
USAID/ANE/MEA
LONDON FOR GOLDRICH
PARIS FOR O'FRIEL
USCINCCENT//CCPA, USCENTCOM REAR MACDILL AFB FL
STATE PASS TO AID

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ


Summary

-- Lead story in all papers today, March 12, focuses
on remarks of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld regarding the
participation of UK forces in a war with Iraq. Papers
characterized the flap over the comments as
"confusion" within the alliance.

Editorial Commentary

-- "What happened to America?"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back page of
semi-official influential Arabic Al-Rai (03/12):
"Many analysts have not yet determined who is more
dangerous to world peace and stability: Osama bin
Laden or George Bush. Some believe that both these
men are two sides of the same coin and that both of
them believe bloodshed and violence to be solutions
for problems. The only difference between them is
that one has more destruction and more dangerous means
than the other when it comes to eliminating innocent
civilians. It is astonishing that a democratic
country like America and a just and good people like
the Americans would sink so low and that America's
image would become so ugly as to suggest a force that
lacks righteousness, justice and lawfulness and that
dismisses world public opinion and that undertakes
adventures that could lead to the worst of
consequences."

-- "The current international order at the crossroads"

Columnist Salameh Ukour writes on the op-ed page of
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(03/12): "We can understand why France, Germany,
Russia, China and some other industrial countries
rejected the option to join a U.S.-led war against
Iraq. These countries want to protect the current
international order, its political, legal and security
establishments, its values and moral principles, and
its preservation of peace and stability in the world.
The Bush administration wants to replace the current
international order with a new order where all the
countries of the world and people are subject to the
most powerful country or empire, which is, of course,
the American empire.. What else could the destructive
American-British war against Baghdad and Iraqi cities
mean other than the killing of the Iraqi people, the
destruction of its civilian, economic and social
establishments, and taking this country back to the
Middle Ages? Is this the democracy, freedom and human
rights that the United States has always called for?"

-- "death is more dignifying"

Daily columnist Musa Hawamdeh writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(03/12): "Yes, we stand against the war and against
the madness of Bush and his administration, that has
yet to provide one bit of evidence that justifies its
aggression against the Arab world.. We are not
defending regimes and we are not taking sides, but the
idea of an American occupation is too much.. As for
those who believe America's arguments about Iraq's
possession of weapons of mass destruction and that
America wants to save the Iraqi people, then let him
look at the West where there are more nuclear weapons
than anywhere else, and then look at Israel, the proof
that America cares nothing for the freedom of Arabs or
their lives for that matter."

-- "The morals of `Old Europe'"

Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(03/12): "The European stand, led by France, Germany
and Russia, against the American-British hegemony
stems from the maturity and nobleness of European
political and social thinking. Old Europe, as the
U.S. Secretary of Defense calls it, learned lessons
from the past, and, after having paid a huge price in
the Second World War, both France and Germany realized
that war and violence cannot achieve peace, and that
peace can only be realized with political, economic
and social development, by achieving social well-
being, by ending military expansion, and by
eliminating colonialism. This advanced political
thinking is looked down upon by the U.S.
administration. For instance, the United States says
that France does not want to bear its `international
responsibility', as if this international
responsibility, in the eyes of the oil and military
manufacturing gang in the White House, is simply
calling for war and launching war on weak countries
that have strategic locations and resources."
GNEHM