VZCZCXYZ0010
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAM #2273/01 0881125
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 291125Z MAR 06
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9241
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0311
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 1211
RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUMICEA/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//CCPA// IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS AMMAN 002273 
 
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 TSOU 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO
 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ, ARAB SUMMIT, REFORM 
 
          Editorial Commentary on Arab Summit 
 
-- "The big absence of reform" 
 
Chief Editor Taher Odwan writes on the back page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(03/29):  "Unlike the Tunis and Algeria summit 
meetings, the issue of democratic reform is absent 
from the Khartoum summit.  This is an indication that 
the American and European pressures that appeared 
during 2003 and 2004 have stopped.  The Arab regime, 
despite its weakness and division, seems today in a 
better position than what it has been over the past 
few years, and the absence of Arab leaderships from 
the Khartoum summit is part and parcel of this feeling 
of reassurance.  Of course, the failure of the foreign 
reform pressures on Arab countries was not the result 
of the strength of the Arab regimes, but rather one of 
the results of the American failure in Iraq, the 
failure that was the product of the Iraqis' resistance 
to the occupation and to the American project.  The 
outcome of this failure ended up benefiting Iran in 
the issue of its nuclear weapons, as well as in 
strengthening its influence in Iraq.  In return, many 
writers and analysts concluded that the Arab regimes 
were the biggest losers from the ongoing conflict in 
Iraq.  The reality of the situation, however, shows 
that these regimes have acquired a precious trophy, 
namely the end of international pressures on them for 
reform and democracy..  Today, as American and 
European pressures and calls for reform ease, Arab 
countries have now come face to face with the need to 
fulfill those pledges they made to themselves in terms 
of 'reform from within'.  Otherwise, the solution will 
come, sooner or later, by orange intifadas that invite 
foreign intervention.  This is because when an ill 
person does not find a remedy for his illness in his 
own homeland, he starts to look for it in other 
countries." 
 
      Editorial Commentary on Democracy Promotion 
 
-- "About the American call for `reform'" 
 
Columnist Lamis Andoni writes on the op-ed page of 
independent, centrist Arabic daily Al-Ghad (03/29): 
"Recent speeches by the U.S. President were void of 
reference to Washington's commitment to `spread 
democracy in the Arab world'.  It is as if the United 
States has gone back to its old policy of providing 
security and stability rather than entrenching 
democratic regimes in the region.  The absence of the 
call to democracy in the Arab world in President 
Bush's speeches is not surprising in view of the 
American reaction to the victory of Hamas and that of 
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The American press 
started to warn of giving fundamentalists access to 
power and rule if Washington continues to `push 
towards free elections in Arab and Muslim countries'. 
True, the results of the elections have affected the 
American political speech, but hesitancy appeared as a 
result of the basic nature of the American program to 
spread democracy.  Going back to the intellectual 
thinking that prevailed after 9/11, we find that 
expanding the prevalence of democracy in the region 
had aimed to diminish the expansion of political Islam 
movements, not to support democratic and 
representative institutions in the Arab world.  There 
is a difference between the two.  While entrenching 
democratic freedoms leads to the rise of secular 
trends by strengthening political pluralism, the 
policy that Washington and its adopted yielded quite 
the opposite.  It practically encouraged the 
oppression of and extraordinary laws against Islamic 
movements.  Washington used two tools in its democracy 
campaign.  The first was financing governments and non- 
governmental organizations to expand the role of 
women, change education curricula and create new media 
forums.  The second was pressuring governments to 
represent war on terrorism policies through arbitrary 
measures and extraordinary rules that in effect 
represented a violation of human rights and even the 
constitutions of concerned countries.  As for the 
financing, and although part of it was used to support 
training projects, its main aim was to establish non- 
political civil society that is not involved in 
national and Islamic issues, like Palestine and Iraq, 
and even local issues that demand genuine struggle and 
conflict with reality, like cost of living, corruption 
and the effective demand for genuine political 
reform..  The second tool that the United States used 
and continues to use is originally undemocratic.  When 
Washington talks about supporting democracy in the 
Arab world, it is in effect talking about establishing 
forces that think like it and support its policies in 
the region, since it concluded in the aftermath of the 
9/11 attacks that its allied regimes have failed to 
uproot terrorism from their societies..  The outcome 
was completely and by all measures the opposite.  Anti- 
America movements became more popular, Al-Qaeda 
expanded its operations, and the rate of opposition to 
the U.S. policy in the region increased.  Will 
Washington reconsider its calculations and will it 
backtrack from its projects?  Will it settle for 
supporting the regimes or will it try to attract the 
Islamic movement?  What is confirmed is that 
Washington does not always learn from its mistakes. 
It does not study the failure of its policies in the 
region, but rather focuses on implementing them. 
Revision, if there is one, does not include Iraq, 
Palestine, or even its dictates to other countries." 
 
             Editorial Commentary on Iraq 
 
-- "Resistance is the core issue" 
 
Daily columnist Nahed Hattar writes on the back-page 
of independent, mass appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al- 
Yawm (03/29):  "The famous American journalist Thomas 
Friedman suggests to the United States to deal a 
devastating blow to Iran.  How? By withdrawing 
immediately and fully from Iraq.  The Iraqis - the 
free and the fighters - will then have one enemy, 
Iran, and will unite against this enemy and defeat it, 
or Iran will drown, like the Americans did, in the 
Iraqi quagmire.  Under pressure of this crisis, many 
Americans show wisdom and present sound strategic 
proposals, while their President, Bush Jr., continues 
to parrot the silly statement of 'victory against 
terrorism' in Iraq.  Is this a phenomenon of the 
divide between the American intellectual and political 
movement on one hand and the stationary American 
presidency on the other? Or is this stationary 
position a political cover for dealing with 
alternative ideas and opinions?  Anyhow, they all boil 
down to the idea of withdrawal from Iraq, be it speedy 
or gradual..  There are no amazing secrets to the 
developments of the Iraqi issue.  The scene is very 
clear.  The American project failed in Iraq and now it 
must be shut down.  The American policy in the field 
in the inflicted country is centered around exit 
arrangements.  The American forces are withdrawing 
from the streets, diminishing their presence and 
focusing on avoiding losses, and they are moving in 
general not towards 'victory' but towards confinement. 
The American project is not a colonialist occupation, 
and although removing the Iraqi threat to Israel was 
one of the secondary objectives of the American 
aggression on Iraq, its main purpose was to remove the 
Saddam 'Berlin wall' and establish a stable comprador 
Iraqi state that allows heavy American investment in 
Iraqi oil.  This plan fell through completely.  And 
since the investment of Iraqi oil will not be possible 
before 10 or 15 years, Washington has nothing to lose 
if it leaves the quagmire now.  On the contrary, it 
will cutting back its losses." 
HALE