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

071131Z Mar 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 AMMAN 001854 
 
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 SYRIA'S PULLOUT/US 
INVOLVEMENT 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, March 7, highlights 
developments in Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. 
Other stories focus on King Abdullah's visit to Saudi 
Arabia and the Jordanian government's plan to submit 
for endorsement a draft law that would regulate the 
work of professional associations in Jordan. 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "Timid step needs reciprocity" 
 
Centrist, influential among the elite English daily 
Jordan Times (03/07) editorializes:  "Syrian President 
Bashar Asad may have bought his country some time and 
deflected some of the mounting pressure on his 
government when he announced that Syrian troops will 
withdraw to the Beqaa area and the to the Syrian 
-Lebanese border..  Still, Damascus left major issues 
unattended to.  To begin with, there was no mention of 
a timetable for the Syrian withdrawal..  Second, by 
announcing that troop withdrawal means redeployment to 
Syria's border with Lebanon, Damascus makes it 
understood that its armed forces will stay put within 
proximity of major cities in Lebanon, ready and able 
to reenter the neighboring country whenever it deems 
that its own security is threatened.  At the same 
time, there was no mention of any withdrawal of the 
Syrian intelligence networks..  The Syrian president's 
move, again, can be viewed as spectacular and 
dramatic.  However, the ultimate move has not been 
made, and the results hinge on too many factors to 
enable clear assessment.  The one thing that can 
convince the Arabs and the world at large of the 
altruistic intentions of the United States is for 
President George Bush to lend an ear to Syria and 
assume a less belligerent posture.  It is a truism 
that democracy and the rule of law cannot be brought 
by the barrel of a gun." 
 
-- "America between principles and practices" 
 
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back-page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(03/07):  "The problem with the U.S. policy is that it 
has no credibility.  It rejects the Syrian 
`occupation' of Lebanon but allows itself to occupy 
Iraq; it calls for the freedom of people but takes the 
side of the occupying state of Israel; it raises the 
banner of international law but rebels against 
international legitimacy; it declares itself a 
defender of human rights but commits torture in Abu 
Ghraib and Guantanamo.  What is wrong is not in the 
principles that the United States is calling for but 
rather U.S. practices that contradict those 
principles.  Before the United States can promote 
these principles in the world, it must abide by them." 
 
-- "Lebanon and Othman's shirt!" 
 
Daily columnist Rakan Majali writes on the back-page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/07):  "It has become clear and without the shadow 
of a doubt that the killing of former Lebanese Prime 
Minister Rafik Hariri was part of the American scheme 
to start a confrontation between Syria and Lebanon.. 
At the same time, there is this demonstration that is 
happening today marking three weeks since Hariri's 
assassination, which means that there will be more 
demonstrations marking four, five, six, a hundred and 
even a thousand weeks since Hariri's assassination, 
until that time when America succeeds in achieving one 
of two things: a civil war or Lebanon's isolation from 
Syria and the Arab world..  It is clear that America 
has employed Hariri's killing to serve its political 
objectives.  That explains why it was upset by Syria's 
decision to withdraw from Lebanon, calling it 
insufficient and casting doubt on Syrian's 
intentions..  The repercussions and changes that have 
occurred in Lebanon since the assassination indicate 
who the beneficiary is." 
-- "Syria's withdrawal and the 1990 Iraqi scenario" 
 
Daily columnist Yaser Za'atreh writes on the op-ed 
page of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al- 
Dustour (03/07):  "The Syrian President presented a 
new vision for dealing with the Lebanese issue.  While 
it is clear that this was an attempt to get out of the 
crisis with the least damage, America's reaction and 
the position of some in the Lebanese opposition stress 
that this move is insufficient and that the hunt will 
continue.  (This is) because a  mere Syrian military 
withdrawal from Lebanon is not the objective. The 
objective is the full political and security 
withdrawal of Syria so that the military claws of 
Hizbollah will be clipped and its political presence 
eventually marginalized.  Nothing can stop this hunt. 
The issue is open wide so Washington, which is living 
in crisis in Iraq, may look for another outlet..  What 
needs to be said in this context is that targeting 
Syria in this manner does not mean that the American 
chain is made up of only two links, Iraq and Syria. 
What is happening with the greater Middle East project 
that is designed to reshape the region?  Do the 
leaders who are in collaboration with the targeting of 
Syria today really believe they are buying their 
safety?" 
 
-- "The Syrian army pullout" 
 
Columnist Kamal Rashid writes on the op-ed page of 
center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/07):  "The Syrian military withdrawal is) A 
measure that brought joy in Syria and Lebanon and all 
around the Arab and Muslim world, which means that it 
is a wise and sound measure....  No one exonerates the 
Syrians from their mistakes and unacceptable conduct 
in Lebanon and no one denies that Syria has borne a 
difficult load, exhausting itself and its army and 
those to whom it came originally to aid.   But the 
Syrian presence was not without willing partners.  It 
existed as a result of the Taif decisions and for the 
benefit of Lebanon.  The Syrian presence in Lebanon 
was not an occupation, but rather it came about as a 
Lebanese, Syrian and Arab benefit.  It existed to put 
out the discord in Lebanon and to protect the borders. 
It was an emergency situation that had to come to an 
end.  If America, France and the Security Council are 
calling this presence an occupation and are saying 
that Lebanon needs to be liberated, then what do they 
say about the American presence in Iraq and the 
Israeli presence in Palestine?" 
 
-- "The American democracy" 
 
Columnist Ibrahim Absi writes on the op-ed page of 
center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/07):  "I do not think there is anyone in this 
world who does not support President George Bush in 
his call for eradicating tyranny and oppression in 
this world..  Yet, how could the U.S. President and 
Washington set the rules of freedom and democracy 
within the internal affairs and civil society 
organizations of any country without directly 
intervening in the affairs of that country?  Would 
this intervention not be considered an aggression on 
freedom and democracy and the utmost form of 
oppression and tyranny?  What kind of freedom and 
democracy is this that Washington seeks to impose by 
force?  Could we really call it freedom and democracy 
or some sort of slavery and domestication that the 
United States is seeking to establish in the world to 
facilitate its hegemony and power over the world? 
Will America succeed in imposing this American version 
of freedom and democracy or do we have a date with new 
wars?" 
 
-- "Inventory" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Udwan writes on the back-page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(03/07):  "Achieving civil peace in Lebanon was a 
great accomplishment for Syria, and establishing 
security and stability there was just as important, 
and yet the Lebanese people were not the first in 
history to turn against the power that freed them from 
occupation or civil wars..  Security and stability 
come first, but dignity, freedom, political and human 
rights come before that..  The issue is not about 
conducting an inventory between Syria and Lebanon, who 
did what for whom.  It is simply a matter of standing 
with oneself and with the neighbor to determine the 
limits of freedom in the relationship between the two 
countries and the two people.  Syria did well to adopt 
its decision to withdraw, because this provides the 
suitable circumstances for the birth of new relations 
between the two countries." 
HALE