MEDIA REACTION ON MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001576

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

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ


Summary

-- Lead stories in all papers today, March 1, focus on
domestic issues, including Parliament's rejection of
the temporary law for the Higher Media Council and the
King and Queen's business trip to Europe. A lead
story in Al-Dustour highlights Arab conflict over
U.S.' Initiative for a Greater Middle East as
presented in the failure of the Arab League to agree
on a draft project to be presented at the upcoming
Tunis summit meeting on the Initiative.

Editorial Commentary on Iraqi Constitution

-- "The constitution to Destroy Iraq"

Daily columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(03/01): "This draft [of the Iraqi constitution] is a
recipe for civil war and not a document for
transitioning into a stable and safe Iraq.. The draft
seems to have been distinctively written with a
Kurdish pen. The draft constitution, in points (d)
and (e) drives a very serious wedge for a conflict
between the Arabs and the Kurds. Point (d) postpones
a decision on the fate of `disputed' areas until after
the general census is done; if the majority in subject
area is Kurdish, then it belongs to the district of
Kurdistan. Point (e) states that `effects of
arabization and demographic change that were affected
by previous Iraqi governments' are to be removed! If
we take the Kurdish armed control of these areas into
consideration, then this constitutes a clear
invitation for ethnic cleansing against the Arabs in
those areas before a general census is to take place.
Is it logical for a temporary constitution to contain
such text? This is a recipe for civil war, not for
the security, stability and unity of Iraq.. We have
always been sympathetic with the right of Kurds who
have suffered oppression, not to mention the Halabja
massacre that shocked everyone. But in my view, the
Kurds' historical right in Iraq, Turkey and Iran lies
in the establishment of a state of their own. With
international circumstances the way they are, dividing
them between their countries, and with the reality of
their current citizenship to these three countries not
likely to change, then it is not right for Iraq to be
made to suffer the consequences of the Kurdish problem
and be divided and destroyed as a result."

Editorial Commentary on the Initiative for a Greater
Middle East

-- "What comes after rejecting `reform' coming from
without?"

Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(03/01): "The Arab world, with all its political,
cultural, official and popular components, has never
agreed on anything as it has on rejecting the Greater
Middle East project proposed by the U.S.
administration as a tool for democratic reform in the
Arab world.. There are three major incentives for
rejecting the American project led by three political
and cultural entities in the Arab world. The first
stance stems from a cultural-ideological rejection of
the concept of democracy and political pluralism and
respect for the opinions of others, is based on the
illusion of knowing the truth and having supremacy of
opinions, and is represented by Islamic parties,
nationalists and some other leftist groups that are
opposed to all proposals put forth by the United
States. The second stance is that of the official
Arab regime that is afraid for its political gains and
privileges from foreign pressures and wants to defend
oppression and the absence of freedoms and pluralism
by pretending to defend so-called `Arab
distinctiveness' from foreign change. The third
stance is that of neo-liberal democratic leftist
groups in the Arab world, myself included, who believe
that democracy, pluralism, public freedoms, justice
and development are the only way to bring reform to
the Arab world, but who are confident that the United
States could never be a credible leader on this path..
Rejecting reform from without is the right thing to
do, but it must not be the conclusion. Political and
cultural reform, which we understand as inclusive of
political pluralism, launching public freedoms,
combating corruption, educating society and
strengthening the self-making abilities of the Arab
world, is demanded by the Arab world. The Arab world
should not remain stuck in this currently-standing
dual state of absence of freedoms due to
totalitarianism on one hand and foreign occupation on
another."

-- "The American democratic project . why not?

Columnist Mohammad Subeihi writes on the op-ed page of
semi-official influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (03/01):
"Most of the opposition to the American project for
democratic reforms in the Middle East are not innocent
or nationally-driven. They mean to defend the
dictatorships and the oppression of freedoms and
political rights of the Arab citizens. It is clear
that ruling regimes and parties in many parts of the
Arab world have mobilized writers to attack the
American project under the pretext of hidden American
intentions for hegemony that range from claiming the
unsuitability of western democracy for our societies
to saying that democracy cannot be imposed from
without but from within.. It is not a secret that the
American project is receiving the support of many of
the intellectuals and political figures, not because
it is American, but because oppression and
totalitarianism have led the learned political sector
to a stage where it accepts an alliance with the devil
in order to rid itself of the corruption and
oppression that is eating away at Arab societies. The
common denominator between the American project and
the political reality of the Arab people is that
democracy and pluralism, the sharing of authority and
the elimination of corruption are the only means to
protect Arab societies from religious extremism.
Thus, many Arab political regimes would bury their
heads in the sand if they can count on Arab societies'
antagonism towards this project and ascribe its
failure to its having come from America. In truth,
the project enjoys significant support from the elite,
although some would not say so out loud for fear of
accusations of treason and treachery. If the United
States teams up its project with an attempt to rein in
Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and
designating a major role for the United Nations in
Iraq, then it would reap landslide support for its
project for democratic reform in the Middle East."

-- "America spreading democracy . God have mercy!"

Columnist Bassam Umoush writes on the op-ed page of
semi-official influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (03/01):
"The U.S. administration allocated tens of millions of
dollars for spreading democracy in the Middle East..
Where was the United States on this noble objective a
hundred years ago? Where was it when dictatorships
oppressed people, bombed cities, built prisons and
built scaffolds? Where was it when an Arab regime
used dangerous weapons against its own people? How is
the United States going to supply us with canned
democracy when it is occupying Iraq? Is its unlimited
support for a foreigner regime that has come unto the
lands of the dear Middle East and kicked the people
out of Palestine not contradictory to American
democracy?.. Yes, we do want democracy in the Middle
East, but what America is exporting is the disease not
the medicine."
GNEHM