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

311026Z Jan 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 000723 
 
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 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQI ELECTIONS 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Coverage of yesterday's elections in Iraq assumes a 
major section of front-page reporting in all papers 
published today, January 31.  Majority of editorial 
commentary in all papers discuss the "historic" event 
and ponder the future of Iraq. 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "Iraq after the elections is not Iraq before the 
elections" 
 
Semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (01/31) 
editorializes:  "Iraq before January 30 is not Iraq 
prior to that date.  The first to realize this change 
are the Iraqis themselves, who are now required to 
unite and to preserve the Arabism of their country, 
its unity and the coherence of their factions and 
their sects, and not be subject to either the will of 
foreigners and their designs and plans or the will of 
the terrorists and extremists, because neither of 
those parties wants what is best for Iraq and the 
Iraqi people.  Iraq's interest is known to the Iraqis 
themselves first and foremost and not to anyone else." 
 
-- "A memorable day in Iraq" 
 
Daily columnist Mahmoud Rimawi writes on the op-ed 
page of semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(01/31):  "It will be noted in favor of the Iraqis 
that, despite the severe frustration and all types of 
threats and interventions, they were determined to 
exercise their right to vote in a heroic defiance of 
all those who sought to deprive them of deciding their 
own fate..  The Iraqis have proved that independence 
and democracy are two sides of the same coin.  This is 
because the absence of normal and sound political life 
over more than four decades opened the door for 
weakening the nation's independence and for the 
occurrence of invasion and siege.. The claim that the 
presence of an occupying foreign force is a pretext to 
thwart the right to vote has been exposed as just that 
- a pretext..  The presence of the occupation should 
not impede the move towards establishing 
constitutional structures.  On the contrary, the 
presence of a foreign force must not be confronted by 
a political and constitutional vacuum, but rather by 
the establishment of national structures and 
administrations so that they would be prepared to 
snatch back power from the foreign force and establish 
a comprehensive national alternative once the foreign 
force leaves." 
 
-- "The losing bet in Iraq" 
 
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back-page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(01/31):  "Daily news and developments should not make 
us forget the basic issues.  Iraq did not own weapons 
of mass destruction when the U.S. President asked for 
its disarmament and did not have any connection with 
Al-Qaeda organization and therefore had nothing to do 
with the 9/11 attacks..  The war that American 
launched against Iraq was not legitimate.  The 
Americans did not go into Iraq as liberators but as 
occupiers.  The headline of the American and British 
conduct in Iraq is represented by the atrocities 
committed in the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Basra. 
Terrorism did not exist in Iraq before the occupation. 
The war was not meant to oust the regime but rather 
the state itself.  The resistance would not have 
achieved all this success had it not enjoyed popular 
support.  Some of the measures of the occupation 
forces constitute war crimes in the true and legal 
sense..  These are the basic issues in which light 
Iraq before, under and after the occupation must be 
judged..  The continuation of the American presence in 
Iraq is not going to achieve the stability that 
existed before.  In fact, this presence perpetuates 
and escalates the current state of insecurity.. 
America lost the war in Iraq and the occupation 
authority is not a good winning bet.  America has no 
future in Iraq." 
 
-- "Historic elections" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(01/31):  "This description really does apply to the 
elections that took place in Iraq yesterday, except 
that one cannot discern which way the history of Iraq 
is going to move from now on..  `The spring of 
Baghdad' this time is happening over a river of 
bloodshed.  That is why one cannot determine whether 
this historic day is going to shake the foundations of 
the countries of the region, their security, stability 
and identity or shake the foundations of the American 
empire.  The democratic lesson to be learned in 
Baghdad is that this could be the beginning of 
legitimate change, whatever this change may be, or it 
could be the beginning of convoluted resistance, 
ethnic or sectarian, against foreign armies that have 
come across the oceans and the borders." 
 
-- "The Iraqi elections" 
 
Daily columnist Rakan Majali writes on the back-page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(01/31):  "The elections that America is promoting as 
being an Iraqi internal issue are a development 
subject to the interests of the American plan for 
hegemony over Iraq.  Yet, one must acknowledge the 
fact that legislative parliamentary elections or 
presidential elections in the Arab world have also 
become subject to the interests of the ruling 
authority in all the Arab countries in the past few 
decades..  It remains to be seen if the legislative 
elections in Iraq effect change in Iraq, but it would 
only constitute a change in the minor details unless 
genuine initiatives towards ending the U.S. occupation 
of Iraq arise.  Other than that, any and all 
developments are nothing more than an attempt to 
beautify the image of the occupation." 
 
-- "Blood, teas and ballot boxes" 
 
Daily columnist Urayb Rintawi writes on the back-page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(01/31):  "The Iraqi elections, unlike elections 
anywhere in the world, open the door wide for the 
unknown.  The absence of certainty, which accompanied 
preparations for the elections, is the master of 
ceremonies now and will continue to be even after the 
results are officially declared.  We are facing a 
project that has lost its political consensus. 
Numbers and ratios will never succeed in giving 
legitimacy to any institutions, laws and constitutions 
that will come to pass..  The winners in the Iraqi 
elections are not necessary the most popular.  The 
elections in Iraq were a compulsory event dictated by 
America's arrogance.  Most likely they will not be the 
last such event.  The most that we can hope for is 
that this would mark the end of sorrows for the Iraqi 
people and not the end of elections in Iraq." 
 
-- "Iraq wins in the elections" 
 
Center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(01/31) editorializes:  "For the elections to take 
place in Iraq yesterday in the manner that they did is 
beyond all expectations..  Come what may, the 
elections took place despite the security and 
political chaos..  The importance now lies in how to 
employ the outcome of the elections in preserving the 
Iraq's unity, land and people, in preparing for the 
departure of the foreigners, in establishing a free 
and independent state capable of rising up again.  The 
elections are nothing but the beginning of a long, 
difficult and unsafe road and it is the responsibility 
of the Iraqis to protect and preserve Iraq as much as 
it is the responsibility of all the Arabs to stand by 
the Iraqis and see them through this stage safely and 
securely." 
 
-- "Iraq's path after the elections" 
 
Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(01/31):  "Elections in themselves are just a 
political process that may not have any credibility in 
as far as freedom and independence are concerned.  The 
most important thing however is the final outcome of 
the elections and whether they lead to stability or 
chaos.  All possibilities exist in this case due to 
the complicated situation in Iraq, the continued 
presence of the occupation and terrorism, and the 
attempt for intervention on the part of certain 
neighboring countries and fundamentalist 
organizations.  The real measure of success for these 
elections will not appear today or tomorrow or even in 
months, because this measure is represented by a 
national Iraqi government able to deal with the Iraqi 
people as one independent unit, and not as Shiites, 
sects and races, and able to achieve an acceptable 
level of security and development within a short 
period of time..  The path before Iraq stands at a 
crossroads: either independence or civil war and 
chaos.  Iraq needs a well-aware and clean leadership 
that achieves the objectives of the Iraqi people, and 
not those of the occupation, the neighboring 
countries, the sects or the races." 
 
-- "Had the Sunnis not boycotted, the occupation would 
have won" 
 
Daily columnist Yaser Za'atreh writes on the op-ed 
page of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al- 
Dustour (01/31):  "Had it not been for the boycott of 
the Arab Sunnis in the [Iraqi] elections, we could 
have easily said that the outcome is the victory of 
the occupation.  This is because there is no 
expectation whatsoever that any outcome would lead to 
the formation of a government that would in turn tell 
the occupiers to leave..  In all circumstances, the 
election results are not going to give the Shiites the 
right to rule Iraq.  This is not because of the 
absence of the Arab Sunnis, but because they will be 
forming a government in a country residing under 
occupation.  Only active participation in evicting the 
occupation and achieving total independence for Iraq 
would grant the Shiites stature in the new Iraq..  In 
short, the elections celebration yesterday was a 
farce, designed to uphold the occupation and beautify 
its ugly face." 
HALE