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