MEDIA REACTION: ARAB SUMMIT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 000428 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B; RRU-NEA IIP/G/NEA-SA WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC SECDEF FOR OASD/PA USCINCCENT FOR POLAD LONDON FOR SREEBNY E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KPAO OIIP KMDR TC SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: ARAB SUMMIT ¶1. SUMMARY: UAE columnists and editorials viewed the Damascus summit somewhat positively, certainly more so than the impression one gets reading the front page headlines that declared it a flop. One writer said that holding the meeting despite U.S. efforts to derail it was, per se, a success. Another said that with American allies absent, the summit actually took up Arab issues, not the American agenda. The U.S. was heavily criticized for meddling, be it via efforts to isolate Syria or to undermine the conference entirely. Separately, one writer took Libyan leader Qadhafi to task for mocking the UAE's long standing interest in Iranian-occupied islands in the Persian Gulf. Another took rather vehement issue with a Syrian cleric who issued a fatwa against rulers delegating someone else to attend the summit. END SUMMARY. ¶2. Under the headline "What comes after the summit?" columnist Jaafar Mohammed Ahmed wrote 04/01 in "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000): "Some observers focused on the positive elements of the Arab summit while others focused on the negative ones. That the summit was convened at the scheduled time and place is a success in and of itself. Summit participants agreed that Arab multilateral relations were not strong and are in a difficult period. We hope the Damascus summit will be one major step forward in [the general objective of] fulfilling [the summit's] resolutions, overcoming internal Arab disputes and deterring foreign interventions that aim at intensifying Arab problems". ¶3. Under the headline "Who was the biggest absentee in Damascus summit?", Lebanese writer Saad Mehio wrote 03/26 in "Al-Khaleej": "Did we notice something that did not happen in the Damascus summit? The American agenda was absent, in contrast to previous Arab summits. Palestine became the summit's main issue instead of Iran, the Arab peace initiative with Israel is no longer proposed without conditions, and the summit succeeded in preventing the Lebanese crisis from blowing up the summit as Washington had hoped." ¶4. Under the headline "Why isolate Syria?", columnist Ahmed Omarabi wrote 03/31 in Dubai-based Arabic daily "Al-Bayan" (circulation 85,000). [Note: the "Arab country" referred to in paragraph two is, by implication, Saudi Arabia; the article everywhere uses the phrase "the Lebanese Armed Resistance" to mean Hizballah]: "Why does America want to regionally isolate Syria and besiege it politically? Because Syria is Iran's ally and Iran is the biggest supporter of [Hizballah], providing it with money and weapons, and Hizballah threatens Israel's security." "How do we perceive the alliance of an Arab country [Saudi Arabia] with America and Israel against [Hizballah], taking a hostile position against Iran that supports [Hizballah] and then expanding on this and going against Syria for its alliance with Iran in support of [Hizballah]? Arab countries should support resistance against Israeli occupation, such as Hizballah and Hamas, or at least take a neutral position. But to form an alliance with America - the greatest strategic partner of Israel - against Arab resistance is something unacceptable." ¶5. Under the headline "Americans and the Arab Summit's agenda", Dr. Mohammed Al-Saeed Idris wrote 03/26 in "Al-Khaleej": "Americans have worked since WWII to prevent unity in the Arab nation. They seek to abort the Arab League. Perhaps the American refusal to sign a collective free trade agreement with the GCC proves this". "The American slogan for Arab nations is "partition is the solution"; [it is] like the English one, "divide and conquer". The United States is the basic force behind the Lebanese crisis, [but] America wants us to think that Syria is the main hurdle in Lebanon. Likewise, regarding Iraq, where [they claim] Iran should be considered the main problem. What America really wants is for Arabs to ignore the American occupation of Iraq and the American scheme in Lebanon". ¶6. Under the headline "Arab nationalism in Washington's range", Bassil Abu Hamda wrote 03/31 in Dubai-based Arabic daily "Al-Bayan": ABU DHABI 00000428 002 OF 002 "Are not some American officials, like Dick Cheney and others, ashamed of inciting several Arab countries to boycott a summit whose only weapon was words, dialogue and understanding, while American armies are pouring rockets and missiles down on innocent citizens in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and other parts of the world? ¶7. A last-page column in Al-Ittihad 3/31 entitled "Al-Qadhafi's political flirting" by UAE columnist Nasir Al-Dhahiri read: "Arab audiences trust Qadhafi's wide knowledge and awareness of Arabs' situation, but this audience lately did not like what he suggested in his speech: resolving the UAE islands issue through an international court, because [according to Qadhafi] it is not in the Arabs' interest to be Iran's enemies just for some islands [claimed by] some Gulf countries, 80% of whose inhabitants have Iranian roots!" "Neither side can take this initiative seriously. We do not know what misleading research centers or even pro-Iranian organizations Qadhafi relied on for his assumption that 80% of Gulf inhabitants have Iranian origins." "Why is Qadhafi flirting with Iran at the expense of a UAE national issue?" ¶8. Under the headline "Issuing Fatwas to serve Damascus summit... Why?", Qatari writer Dr. Abdul Hamid Al-Ansari, wrote in his op-ed in "Al-Bayan": "General Syrian Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun issued a fatwa stating that every Arab leader is obliged to attend the Damascus summit unless has a medical excuse, or he will be sinful; [i.e. that] no leader should send someone to represent him." "Why do we need such weird fatwas and threatening religious statements? Why do we embarrass our leaders with such religious fatwas? Do such fatwas further Arab interests or Arab solidarity? Don't these fatwas offend the religion itself and the status of religious fatwas in the eyes of the Islamic audience? Don't these fatwas offend the status of the Sheikhs and the Islamic scholars [who issue them] especially after hearing that these scholars issue their fatwas according to political instructions they receive from the government? Using religion to serve politics is a dangerous thing." "These sheikhs propelled our youth to go to Iraq and fight the American occupier. These youth were later killed in Iraq and today these Sheikhs exempt themselves from their fatwas. These Sheikhs are the greatest sinners. This case resembles the religious situation that spread in Europe during the medieval ages under the hegemony of the church and its control in the lives of the Europeans." "The Damascus Summit does not need statements or fatwas condemning leaders; it is just an Arab summit like other previous summits that were not able to solve the smallest Arab problem. The problem is not in the summit; it is in the flawed Arab political body, with the exception of the Gulf, the only healthy part of the body." QUINN