MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ, ARAB SUMMIT, REFORM

UNCLAS AMMAN 002273 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 TSOU SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KMDR JO SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ, ARAB SUMMIT, REFORM Editorial Commentary on Arab Summit -- "The big absence of reform" Chief Editor Taher Odwan writes on the back page of independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm (03/29): "Unlike the Tunis and Algeria summit meetings, the issue of democratic reform is absent from the Khartoum summit. This is an indication that the American and European pressures that appeared during 2003 and 2004 have stopped. The Arab regime, despite its weakness and division, seems today in a better position than what it has been over the past few years, and the absence of Arab leaderships from the Khartoum summit is part and parcel of this feeling of reassurance. Of course, the failure of the foreign reform pressures on Arab countries was not the result of the strength of the Arab regimes, but rather one of the results of the American failure in Iraq, the failure that was the product of the Iraqis' resistance to the occupation and to the American project. The outcome of this failure ended up benefiting Iran in the issue of its nuclear weapons, as well as in strengthening its influence in Iraq. In return, many writers and analysts concluded that the Arab regimes were the biggest losers from the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The reality of the situation, however, shows that these regimes have acquired a precious trophy, namely the end of international pressures on them for reform and democracy.. Today, as American and European pressures and calls for reform ease, Arab countries have now come face to face with the need to fulfill those pledges they made to themselves in terms of 'reform from within'. Otherwise, the solution will come, sooner or later, by orange intifadas that invite foreign intervention. This is because when an ill person does not find a remedy for his illness in his own homeland, he starts to look for it in other countries." Editorial Commentary on Democracy Promotion -- "About the American call for `reform'" Columnist Lamis Andoni writes on the op-ed page of independent, centrist Arabic daily Al-Ghad (03/29): "Recent speeches by the U.S. President were void of reference to Washington's commitment to `spread democracy in the Arab world'. It is as if the United States has gone back to its old policy of providing security and stability rather than entrenching democratic regimes in the region. The absence of the call to democracy in the Arab world in President Bush's speeches is not surprising in view of the American reaction to the victory of Hamas and that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The American press started to warn of giving fundamentalists access to power and rule if Washington continues to `push towards free elections in Arab and Muslim countries'. True, the results of the elections have affected the American political speech, but hesitancy appeared as a result of the basic nature of the American program to spread democracy. Going back to the intellectual thinking that prevailed after 9/11, we find that expanding the prevalence of democracy in the region had aimed to diminish the expansion of political Islam movements, not to support democratic and representative institutions in the Arab world. There is a difference between the two. While entrenching democratic freedoms leads to the rise of secular trends by strengthening political pluralism, the policy that Washington and its adopted yielded quite the opposite. It practically encouraged the oppression of and extraordinary laws against Islamic movements. Washington used two tools in its democracy campaign. The first was financing governments and non- governmental organizations to expand the role of women, change education curricula and create new media forums. The second was pressuring governments to represent war on terrorism policies through arbitrary measures and extraordinary rules that in effect represented a violation of human rights and even the constitutions of concerned countries. As for the financing, and although part of it was used to support training projects, its main aim was to establish non- political civil society that is not involved in national and Islamic issues, like Palestine and Iraq, and even local issues that demand genuine struggle and conflict with reality, like cost of living, corruption and the effective demand for genuine political reform.. The second tool that the United States used and continues to use is originally undemocratic. When Washington talks about supporting democracy in the Arab world, it is in effect talking about establishing forces that think like it and support its policies in the region, since it concluded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that its allied regimes have failed to uproot terrorism from their societies.. The outcome was completely and by all measures the opposite. Anti- America movements became more popular, Al-Qaeda expanded its operations, and the rate of opposition to the U.S. policy in the region increased. Will Washington reconsider its calculations and will it backtrack from its projects? Will it settle for supporting the regimes or will it try to attract the Islamic movement? What is confirmed is that Washington does not always learn from its mistakes. It does not study the failure of its policies in the region, but rather focuses on implementing them. Revision, if there is one, does not include Iraq, Palestine, or even its dictates to other countries." Editorial Commentary on Iraq -- "Resistance is the core issue" Daily columnist Nahed Hattar writes on the back-page of independent, mass appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al- Yawm (03/29): "The famous American journalist Thomas Friedman suggests to the United States to deal a devastating blow to Iran. How? By withdrawing immediately and fully from Iraq. The Iraqis - the free and the fighters - will then have one enemy, Iran, and will unite against this enemy and defeat it, or Iran will drown, like the Americans did, in the Iraqi quagmire. Under pressure of this crisis, many Americans show wisdom and present sound strategic proposals, while their President, Bush Jr., continues to parrot the silly statement of 'victory against terrorism' in Iraq. Is this a phenomenon of the divide between the American intellectual and political movement on one hand and the stationary American presidency on the other? Or is this stationary position a political cover for dealing with alternative ideas and opinions? Anyhow, they all boil down to the idea of withdrawal from Iraq, be it speedy or gradual.. There are no amazing secrets to the developments of the Iraqi issue. The scene is very clear. The American project failed in Iraq and now it must be shut down. The American policy in the field in the inflicted country is centered around exit arrangements. The American forces are withdrawing from the streets, diminishing their presence and focusing on avoiding losses, and they are moving in general not towards 'victory' but towards confinement. The American project is not a colonialist occupation, and although removing the Iraqi threat to Israel was one of the secondary objectives of the American aggression on Iraq, its main purpose was to remove the Saddam 'Berlin wall' and establish a stable comprador Iraqi state that allows heavy American investment in Iraqi oil. This plan fell through completely. And since the investment of Iraqi oil will not be possible before 10 or 15 years, Washington has nothing to lose if it leaves the quagmire now. On the contrary, it will cutting back its losses." HALE