MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQI ELECTIONS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 000723

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 IRAQI ELECTIONS


Summary

-- Coverage of yesterday's elections in Iraq assumes a
major section of front-page reporting in all papers
published today, January 31. Majority of editorial
commentary in all papers discuss the "historic" event
and ponder the future of Iraq.

Editorial Commentary

-- "Iraq after the elections is not Iraq before the
elections"

Semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (01/31)
editorializes: "Iraq before January 30 is not Iraq
prior to that date. The first to realize this change
are the Iraqis themselves, who are now required to
unite and to preserve the Arabism of their country,
its unity and the coherence of their factions and
their sects, and not be subject to either the will of
foreigners and their designs and plans or the will of
the terrorists and extremists, because neither of
those parties wants what is best for Iraq and the
Iraqi people. Iraq's interest is known to the Iraqis
themselves first and foremost and not to anyone else."

-- "A memorable day in Iraq"

Daily columnist Mahmoud Rimawi writes on the op-ed
page of semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(01/31): "It will be noted in favor of the Iraqis
that, despite the severe frustration and all types of
threats and interventions, they were determined to
exercise their right to vote in a heroic defiance of
all those who sought to deprive them of deciding their
own fate.. The Iraqis have proved that independence
and democracy are two sides of the same coin. This is
because the absence of normal and sound political life
over more than four decades opened the door for
weakening the nation's independence and for the
occurrence of invasion and siege.. The claim that the
presence of an occupying foreign force is a pretext to
thwart the right to vote has been exposed as just that
- a pretext.. The presence of the occupation should
not impede the move towards establishing
constitutional structures. On the contrary, the
presence of a foreign force must not be confronted by
a political and constitutional vacuum, but rather by
the establishment of national structures and
administrations so that they would be prepared to
snatch back power from the foreign force and establish
a comprehensive national alternative once the foreign
force leaves."

-- "The losing bet in Iraq"

Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back-page of
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai
(01/31): "Daily news and developments should not make
us forget the basic issues. Iraq did not own weapons
of mass destruction when the U.S. President asked for
its disarmament and did not have any connection with
Al-Qaeda organization and therefore had nothing to do
with the 9/11 attacks.. The war that American
launched against Iraq was not legitimate. The
Americans did not go into Iraq as liberators but as
occupiers. The headline of the American and British
conduct in Iraq is represented by the atrocities
committed in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Basra.
Terrorism did not exist in Iraq before the occupation.
The war was not meant to oust the regime but rather
the state itself. The resistance would not have
achieved all this success had it not enjoyed popular
support. Some of the measures of the occupation
forces constitute war crimes in the true and legal
sense.. These are the basic issues in which light
Iraq before, under and after the occupation must be
judged.. The continuation of the American presence in
Iraq is not going to achieve the stability that
existed before. In fact, this presence perpetuates
and escalates the current state of insecurity..
America lost the war in Iraq and the occupation
authority is not a good winning bet. America has no
future in Iraq."

-- "Historic elections"

Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(01/31): "This description really does apply to the
elections that took place in Iraq yesterday, except
that one cannot discern which way the history of Iraq
is going to move from now on.. `The spring of
Baghdad' this time is happening over a river of
bloodshed. That is why one cannot determine whether
this historic day is going to shake the foundations of
the countries of the region, their security, stability
and identity or shake the foundations of the American
empire. The democratic lesson to be learned in
Baghdad is that this could be the beginning of
legitimate change, whatever this change may be, or it
could be the beginning of convoluted resistance,
ethnic or sectarian, against foreign armies that have
come across the oceans and the borders."

-- "The Iraqi elections"

Daily columnist Rakan Majali writes on the back-page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(01/31): "The elections that America is promoting as
being an Iraqi internal issue are a development
subject to the interests of the American plan for
hegemony over Iraq. Yet, one must acknowledge the
fact that legislative parliamentary elections or
presidential elections in the Arab world have also
become subject to the interests of the ruling
authority in all the Arab countries in the past few
decades.. It remains to be seen if the legislative
elections in Iraq effect change in Iraq, but it would
only constitute a change in the minor details unless
genuine initiatives towards ending the U.S. occupation
of Iraq arise. Other than that, any and all
developments are nothing more than an attempt to
beautify the image of the occupation."

-- "Blood, teas and ballot boxes"

Daily columnist Urayb Rintawi writes on the back-page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(01/31): "The Iraqi elections, unlike elections
anywhere in the world, open the door wide for the
unknown. The absence of certainty, which accompanied
preparations for the elections, is the master of
ceremonies now and will continue to be even after the
results are officially declared. We are facing a
project that has lost its political consensus.
Numbers and ratios will never succeed in giving
legitimacy to any institutions, laws and constitutions
that will come to pass.. The winners in the Iraqi
elections are not necessary the most popular. The
elections in Iraq were a compulsory event dictated by
America's arrogance. Most likely they will not be the
last such event. The most that we can hope for is
that this would mark the end of sorrows for the Iraqi
people and not the end of elections in Iraq."

-- "Iraq wins in the elections"

Center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(01/31) editorializes: "For the elections to take
place in Iraq yesterday in the manner that they did is
beyond all expectations.. Come what may, the
elections took place despite the security and
political chaos.. The importance now lies in how to
employ the outcome of the elections in preserving the
Iraq's unity, land and people, in preparing for the
departure of the foreigners, in establishing a free
and independent state capable of rising up again. The
elections are nothing but the beginning of a long,
difficult and unsafe road and it is the responsibility
of the Iraqis to protect and preserve Iraq as much as
it is the responsibility of all the Arabs to stand by
the Iraqis and see them through this stage safely and
securely."

-- "Iraq's path after the elections"

Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(01/31): "Elections in themselves are just a
political process that may not have any credibility in
as far as freedom and independence are concerned. The
most important thing however is the final outcome of
the elections and whether they lead to stability or
chaos. All possibilities exist in this case due to
the complicated situation in Iraq, the continued
presence of the occupation and terrorism, and the
attempt for intervention on the part of certain
neighboring countries and fundamentalist
organizations. The real measure of success for these
elections will not appear today or tomorrow or even in
months, because this measure is represented by a
national Iraqi government able to deal with the Iraqi
people as one independent unit, and not as Shiites,
sects and races, and able to achieve an acceptable
level of security and development within a short
period of time.. The path before Iraq stands at a
crossroads: either independence or civil war and
chaos. Iraq needs a well-aware and clean leadership
that achieves the objectives of the Iraqi people, and
not those of the occupation, the neighboring
countries, the sects or the races."

-- "Had the Sunnis not boycotted, the occupation would
have won"

Daily columnist Yaser Za'atreh writes on the op-ed
page of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-
Dustour (01/31): "Had it not been for the boycott of
the Arab Sunnis in the [Iraqi] elections, we could
have easily said that the outcome is the victory of
the occupation. This is because there is no
expectation whatsoever that any outcome would lead to
the formation of a government that would in turn tell
the occupiers to leave.. In all circumstances, the
election results are not going to give the Shiites the
right to rule Iraq. This is not because of the
absence of the Arab Sunnis, but because they will be
forming a government in a country residing under
occupation. Only active participation in evicting the
occupation and achieving total independence for Iraq
would grant the Shiites stature in the new Iraq.. In
short, the elections celebration yesterday was a
farce, designed to uphold the occupation and beautify
its ugly face."
HALE