MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ ELECTION AND US AND

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 000772

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 IRAQ ELECTION AND US AND
THE MIDDLE EAST


Summary

-- Lead story in all papers today, February 1,
highlights King Abdullah's remarks during an exclusive
interview with CNN vis--vis the Iraq election and
regional developments. Major stories continue to
highlight the aftermath of the Iraq election.

Editorial Commentary on Iraq Election

-- "The elections' relative success"

Daily columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back-page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(02/01): "Abstinence on the part of the Sunnis is not
an option now. One must acknowledge the fact that
history does not move backwards and that there will
not be Sunni hegemony in the political system. This
past is dead and gone, and the Sunnis must join the
rest of the components of the Iraqi people in order to
forge a new, fair and balanced partnership. One can
find many faults with the elections, but the people
went to the ballot boxes to underscore the democratic
and peaceful option for the new Iraq. It is the
option of the majority of Iraqis and it will
definitely lead to the end of the occupation. The
Sunnis' option to resist and thwart the political
process puts them not only against the Americans, but
also against two thirds of the Iraqi people. As for
their option to take part in the political process,
this would put them with the majority of Iraqi people
against occupation and for independence and
stability."

-- "The occupation scenario and the elections"

Daily columnist Rakan Majali writes on the back-page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(02/01): "The U.S. administration and President
George Bush consider the elections a success because
they reaffirm their proposals and their justifications
for invading Iraq.. Whatever the case may be, the
elections comprise a domestic affair of Iraq at the
end of the day, even if they were held under dubious
American circumstances. They could be the start of
the coming together of all the political forces in
Iraq towards restoring a free and united Iraq and
putting an end to the occupation."

-- "The Iraqi election determines Bush's standing
domestically and abroad"

Daily columnist Yaqoub Jaber writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(02/01): "The Iraqis did not vote only on the fate of
their country, but also on the internal and external
standing and leadership of President George Bush..
While Bush claimed that his reelection was an
expression of popular support for his policy on Iraq,
he find his political power waning if the elections
fail to put forth a stable government in view of the
escalation of resistance.. The elections may lead to
the establishment of a stable government in Iraq,
which would strengthen Bush's international standing
and his position as the president who managed to
promote democracy in the Middle East. Most observers
argue, however, that violence is going to increase
after the elections and that resistance activities are
going to escalate.. With or without elections, the
United States is finding itself in trouble and wishes
to find an honorable way out."

-- "About the Iraqi election and the extensive
participation"

Daily columnist Yaser Za'atreh writes on the op-ed
page of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-
Dustour (02/01): "Looking at the issue of voting and
its percentage, it is futile to view with confidence
any numbers put forth by people who are completely
biased in favor of the election process and who
naturally would do everything they can to give these
numbers a certificate of excellence in order to
confirm the correctness of their political path. The
[election] process, from A to Z, was a process
controlled by the occupation and those cooperating
with it.. The voting percentage does not mean much,
because those who boycotted did not do so except out
of a firm conviction. More significantly, the
majority of those who boycotted represent a sect that
is not only a fourth of the Iraqi people, but also a
sect that cannot be marginalized or ignored,
particularly when it is leading the resistance against
the occupation; a resistance did more to force the
hand of the occupation to undertake the elections than
those cooperating with the occupation.. George Bush
and the neo-conservatives must now bring in a new
charm to their arrangement in the next stage. The
election, which was their promotional material for the
past few months, is over, and now they have to rid
themselves of the accusation of being occupiers, and
that is at a time when their forces are still in the
country."

-- "The region after the elections"

Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm
(02/01): "There is a prevailing illusion in the
political arena in most of the countries of the region
that the United States wants to strengthen the status
quo and stability and preserve the prevalent rules of
the political game that have existed since the rise of
the independent Arab states. In fact, these rules are
being overturned, starting with the Iraqi experience,
and the process of redrawing the geo-political map is
now at hand following the Iraqi election."

-- "Iraq: winning hearts and not the media"

Columnist Rana Sabbagh writes on the op-ed page of
independent Arabic daily Al-Ghad (02/01): "The U.S.
administration and Britain, along with all the
international and most of the TV satellite channels,
have exaggerated the `ceremony of democracy' and have
portrayed the process as proof for all those who
doubted that the Iraqis, followed by the Arabs, can
pick the fruits of democracy and reform planted by the
West. It would have been better for Bush and his
allies to show greater caution and not put too much
make-up on the face of Iraq, lest expectations rise
too high and then crash due to developments on the
ground. The most important thing about the next stage
is the effort that will be exerted to achieve
legitimate political reconciliation between the Iraqi
parties that boycotted the election and those that
took part in it. It behooves the world, particularly
the countries that opposed the war, to unite and
cooperate in order to make sure that Iraq does not
deviate from the track of democracy in the future and
that the occupation forces leave and give Iraq's
sovereignty back to the Iraqis.. Many of us, leaders
and people, can learn from the experience of the
recent Iraqi election vis--vis the expansion of
popular participation in the decision-making process
and respect for opinions and basic human rights. It
is sad that, while the Iraqi people and the
Palestinian people have exercised their right to vote
under difficult political, social and economic
circumstances and in the face of the guns of Israeli
and American occupation forces, some Arab leaders
continue the race to hold on to their seats and to
forge the will of the people using legal loopholes and
submission, instead of listening to the will of the
people and the ballot box. It is better for us that
we take matters into our own hands when it comes to
reform and development, instead of wasting time and
leaving our future in the hands of a West that will,
without a doubt, impose that future on the Arab region
in the service of its own interests."


Editorial Commentary on US and the Middle East
-- "Arabs on the hot stove"

Chief Editor Usama Sharif writes on the back-page of
center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(02/01): "This is truly the age of contradictions.
Some of us are against the Iraq elections because they
take place under the occupation, while others see in
them a way out of the occupation. Many of those who
were offended by the Iraqi people's participation in
the elections had kept their silence when the Iraqis
were suffering from the abuse of their leaders. Some
of us are against the peace settlement with Israel,
while others have no problem paying the price if peace
is established. We are against America at the popular
level but officially we are America's closest allies.
We are against Iran because it has designs over Iraq,
but we support its right to develop its nuclear
reactor because it threatens Israel. We are against
the west when it criticizes us, but sing the praise of
its democracy and wish it for ourselves. We are
against calls for reform imposed from outside because
they are suspicious, but we support the enemies of our
enemies because of joint interests.. Who are we and
what do we want? It is time to face ourselves and to
salvage what is left of our existence, because the
awaited awakening will not come to pass until we stop
breaking the looking glass, which reflects our
ugliness. It is time to admit that the ugliness is in
us."

-- "Promoting democracy and freedom a la Condoleezza
Rice"

Daily columnist George Haddad writes on the op-ed page
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour
(02/01): "In her first meeting with State Department
employees, the new U.S. Secretary of State,
Condoleezza Rice, said that `history calls upon the
United States to implement the bold agenda that was
proposed by President George Bush for spreading
freedom and democracy in the world'. Rice also
anticipated the prosperity of democracy even in the
infertile land of the West Bank, Iraq and
Afghanistan.. Yes, in this overwhelmed region, there
is some disease, ignorance and poverty and even some
terrorism; there is also some convenient absence of
freedom and democracy and some totalitarianism and
horrific ill distribution of wealth. Yet, all these
backward and horrible phenomena are, upon reflection
and careful consideration, the results of forcibly
imposed situations, in which parties that benefit from
their continuation of these phenomena take part.
These parties are: the external party, represented by
the plans of colonialists and the Zionist invaders,
and the internal party, represented by the local
pillar of political institutions and religious and
sectarian sectors.. The new Secretary comes along
with pre-polluted ideas that bring the joy of victory
to no one but those responsible for Zionist lies and
promotions, which seek to deform facts, falsify
realities and clean the records of invaders, usurpers
and occupiers of atrocities committed in terms of
invasion, murder and destruction. What is worse is
that this Secretary is ruling on these falsifications
armed with the ideas of promoting freedom and
democracy. We agree with Madame Secretary that
`history calls upon the United States to work
promoting freedom and democracy', provided that there
is a realization and an awareness that usurpation and
occupation have nothing to do with freedom and
democracy, but are rather the opposite."
HALE