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