VZCZCXRO4386
OO RUEHDE RUEHDIR
DE RUEHAD #0428/01 0970436
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 060436Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0722
RHMFIUU/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHZM/GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1266
RHBVAKS/COMUSNAVCENT

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