MEDIA REACTION ON MIDDLE EAST

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 006350

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

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON MIDDLE EAST


Summary

-- The lead story in all papers today, August 8,
focuses on King Abdullah's visit to the region of
Ma'an in the south of Jordan and the people's
demonstration of "love and loyalty" for the King. All
major front-page stories today focus on domestic
issues, such as the government's decision to lift
custom duties on sugar and the Prime Minister's
encouragement of local industries to establish a sugar
refinery in Jordan. Some papers highlight the New
York Times article about the "secret" plan to start
withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Editorial Commentary

-- "What comes after the end of the American reform
project?"

Columnist Malek Athamneh writes on the op-ed page of
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(08/08): "The American project [for reform in the
Middle East] was never really a project in that sense
of the word. It did not have a real ideology that
stems from a living reality and facts on the ground,
but rather it was an echo of American illusions
brought forth by American campaigning. The American
project for reform is over, but what it has left
behind is far from over. New developments in the
region require a new vision with new ideas. The
Americans, more than anyone, are not nave, and as
such they must no doubt already be thinking of a new
project with new foundations that would serve their
interests. The important thing is that we, in our
turn, must prepare for genuine reform projects. The
failure of the American reform project does not mean
that we do not need reform, and while reform is not an
American objective in itself, it is a need imposed by
the inevitability of the natural evolution of human
societies.. Arab regimes have long been accused of
being isolated from the reality of their societies,
and they are required, for their own good, to bridge
the gap that exists within these societies. This does
not require American bridges. All it needs is for
these regimes to extend a hand to their societies."

-- "John Bolton is America's gift to a world that is
burning"

Columnist Lamis Andoni writes on the op-ed page of
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (08/08): "The
current analysis says that the U.S. foreign policy and
not [John] Bolton's ideas will be the deciding factor
in his performance as the U.S. representative to the
United Nations. Yet, Bolton's ideas are not
individual ideas, but rather spring from the neo-
conservative institution that controls the Bush
administration and that has given him the green light
to implement his organized mission of destruction of
international charters and agreements.. From the U.S.
viewpoint, Bolton completed his previous tasks very
successfully, since he achieved so much in the area of
removing the obstacles and the hurdles that stood in
the path of America's objective of preventing the
arming of unfriendly countries while the United States
liberated its allies from all constraints. The
question that must be asked is why would America need
such rudeness and aggressiveness against the United
Nations and international institutions, particularly
when these institutions have proven helpless in
stopping any American project. The answer is not
difficult. The U.S. strategy does not look at the
present only, but also the far future. Removing all
obstacles standing in the way of U.S. policy,
particularly proving its solo role in the world, is
part of its long-term strategy of preventing the rise
of any other competitive power for decades to come.
In view of this strategy, the existence of the United
Nations, even if it is under the control of the sole
political and military superpower, as well as the
continued presence of international charters, is
viewed as available means that could be used by rising
powers, foremost China, to challenge U.S. influence in
the future.. If Bolton's appointment to the United
Nations is America's message to the world of the
process of officially terminating U.N. decisions and
tasks, the message that is sent to the United Nations
by way of the appointment is even more serious. This
is because appointing an enemy of the United Nations
to represent the United States therein, which
essentially means a declaration of organized sabotage
inside the United Nations, marks an unprecedented step
to entrench the beliefs of extremist American right
wing that considers the United Nations an enemy and a
threat to the American identity."
HALE