This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 007157 
 
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 
PARIS FOR O'FRIEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON THE DAMASCUS MEETING ON 
IRAQ 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- A lead story in all papers today, November 3, 
focuses on the conclusion of the Damascus meeting, 
which was held yesterday to discuss the security 
situation in Iraq. The final communique stressed the 
unity and sovereignty of Iraq and called for the 
enhancement of a UN role. The communique also 
condemned the "terrorist" bombings and called for an 
end to the occupation and support for the Iraqi 
Governing Council. While in Damascus, Foreign Minister 
Muasher reportedly met with the Syrian President and 
stressed the need to help Iraq in its crisis. Another 
story dealt with the resistance in Iraq, reporting the 
downing of a U.S. helicopter, which killed 15 U.S. 
military men and injured 21 of them. Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
quotes Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as saying that 
this was a sad day for Americans in "a long and 
difficult war." 
 
On the domestic front, Prime Minister Faisal Al-Fayez 
began meetings with members of Parliament to discuss 
the Government's program during the next stage. 
 
A number of Editorial commentaries (November 2 - 3) 
focus on the anticipated outcome of the Damascus 
meeting. 
 
    Editorial Commentaries on the Damascus Meeting 
 
-- "An Initiative From the Neighboring Countries" 
 
Daily columnist Jamil Nimri write on the back-page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(11/02): "All efforts (during the Damascus meeting) 
should not all focus on reaching a consensus over the 
final communiqu, but should seek a real initiative 
that constitutes an alternative to the current U.S. 
policy. .. The U.S. forces should nowadays secure the 
situation inside the cities and on the roads and at 
Iraq's long borders with all countries. It is a 
predicament!? With this mission impossible, this 
arrogant administration can now begin to think of how 
it is preparing to open new fronts with Iran and 
Syria." 
 
Nimri concludes: "Yes, the time is appropriate to 
propose an alternative regional vision that is logical 
and rational per the current crisis. There should also 
be an exercise of a brave political dynamic that would 
force the United States to deal with it. It is not 
necessary that the initiative should be ready now, but 
the neighboring countries could work on it. A 
delegation of foreign ministers can be tasked with 
visiting Iraq and meeting different Iraqi parties and 
hold discussions with them. The delegation can also 
meet with international parties in order to ripen the 
vision of a proposal and a specific schedule that 
would end the occupation and build an alternative 
democratic Iraqi regime." 
 
-- "What is Required is Support for Iraq and Not 
Isolating It" 
 
Commenting on the Damascus meeting, daily columnist 
Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page of center left, 
influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour (11/02): "The 
security concern is not the only thing that will 
prevail during the meeting. Indeed, what is important 
is building sustainable relations with Iraq and 
exerting more Arab effort to support the Iraqi people 
in their efforts to get rid of the occupation, 
fundamentalism, terrorism, bombings and repressive 
regimes, and to establish their own independent state 
- a state that every Iraqi deserves just like all 
other peoples on earth. If this regional meeting 
contributes to those efforts, then it would have 
achieved real success. However, if this meeting 
remains a hostage to the concerns and agendas of each 
country, then Iraq will not benefit at all." 
-- "The Meetings of the Pan Arab and Regional 
Neighbors of Iraq" 
 
Influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour (11/03) 
editorializes: "What is noteworthy is that the 
Damascus meetings came after the increasing rate of 
escalation and resistance in Iraq. The Iraqi 
resistance is escalating and its operations are taking 
a new qualitative character of its own. Meanwhile, 
Washington is procrastinating in its response to the 
calls of the international community that stress on 
expediting an end to the occupation and transferring 
power in Iraq to the Iraqis and involving the United 
Nations in everything that deals with Iraq's future." 
 
The paper adds: "It is actually hoped that Washington 
will find in the results of the Damascus meetings what 
would help it and provide it with the ladder it needs 
to come down from the top of the tree, which it had 
climbed by waging a war against the will of the 
International community and the United Nations and by 
adopting policies that are unacceptable on both the 
regional and international level." 
 
Al-Dustour concludes: "It is really hoped that the 
different Iraqi parties inside and outside the 
governing council would find in the resolutions of the 
Damascus meeting what would help it to move ahead in 
rebuilding Iraqi institutions and to pass the 
difficult interim stage that Iraq is going through by 
expediting the preparation of a modern constitution 
for the county and organizing free and honest 
elections that would lead to a legitimate government 
that represents the Iraqis." 
 
             Editorial Commentary on Iraq 
 
-- "The Legitimacy of The Governing Council" 
 
Questioning the legitimacy of the Iraqi Governing 
Council, Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back 
page of independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab 
Al-Yawm (11/03): "When it reaches the point of 
considering the occupation as a representative of the 
Iraqis' hopes for democracy and freedom, why cannot 
anyone who gets appointed by that occupation be 
considered as a true representative and spokesperson 
for the Iraqi people?! This is the democracy that 
Bush's administration is seeking to impose on Iraq and 
to force the neighboring countries to deal with. This 
surely is a democracy that is totally different from 
what this administration and the U.S. media had talked 
about before the war." 
 
Udwan adds: "In other words, the partnership project 
that Colin Powell had announced on the eve of the 
invasion and occupation of Iraq had turned from a 
partnership with a democratic model in Iraq to a state 
of U.S. partnership with the Arab regimes to design a 
different fate for this country - a fate based on the 
equation of imposing security through absolute 
military force and resorting to appointed councils 
that speak for the Iraqis and even putting policies 
regarding their future, which violate international 
law. Such policies include the privatization policy 
and distributing tenders among companies owned by 
Cheney and Condoleezza Rice without the presence of a 
legitimate government in Baghdad and that of an 
elected legislative council that issues laws and 
legislatures." 
 
Describing what the United States is implementing in 
Iraq as "dictatorship in its worst form" and comparing 
it to the British colonization of India during the 
first half of the last century, Udwan concludes: "The 
remaining hope is for the people of Iraq to succeed, 
just as the Indian people did, in ousting the 
occupation and establishing democracy while 
maintaining the integrity of the Iraqi soil." 
GNEHM