US embassy cable - 04AMMAN1576

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001576 
 
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 MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead stories in all papers today, March 1, focus on 
domestic issues, including Parliament's rejection of 
the temporary law for the Higher Media Council and the 
King and Queen's business trip to Europe.  A lead 
story in Al-Dustour highlights Arab conflict over 
U.S.' Initiative for a Greater Middle East as 
presented in the failure of the Arab League to agree 
on a draft project to be presented at the upcoming 
Tunis summit meeting on the Initiative. 
 
      Editorial Commentary on Iraqi Constitution 
 
-- "The constitution to Destroy Iraq" 
 
Daily columnist Jamil Nimri writes on the back page of 
independent, mass-appeal Arabic daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm 
(03/01):  "This draft [of the Iraqi constitution] is a 
recipe for civil war and not a document for 
transitioning into a stable and safe Iraq..  The draft 
seems to have been distinctively written with a 
Kurdish pen.  The draft constitution, in points (d) 
and (e) drives a very serious wedge for a conflict 
between the Arabs and the Kurds.  Point (d) postpones 
a decision on the fate of `disputed' areas until after 
the general census is done; if the majority in subject 
area is Kurdish, then it belongs to the district of 
Kurdistan.  Point (e) states that `effects of 
arabization and demographic change that were affected 
by previous Iraqi governments' are to be removed! If 
we take the Kurdish armed control of these areas into 
consideration, then this constitutes a clear 
invitation for ethnic cleansing against the Arabs in 
those areas before a general census is to take place. 
Is it logical for a temporary constitution to contain 
such text?  This is a recipe for civil war, not for 
the security, stability and unity of Iraq..  We have 
always been sympathetic with the right of Kurds who 
have suffered oppression, not to mention the Halabja 
massacre that shocked everyone.  But in my view, the 
Kurds' historical right in Iraq, Turkey and Iran lies 
in the establishment of a state of their own.  With 
international circumstances the way they are, dividing 
them between their countries, and with the reality of 
their current citizenship to these three countries not 
likely to change, then it is not right for Iraq to be 
made to suffer the consequences of the Kurdish problem 
and be divided and destroyed as a result." 
 
 Editorial Commentary on the Initiative for a Greater 
                      Middle East 
 
-- "What comes after rejecting `reform' coming from 
without?" 
 
Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/01):  "The Arab world, with all its political, 
cultural, official and popular components, has never 
agreed on anything as it has on rejecting the Greater 
Middle East project proposed by the U.S. 
administration as a tool for democratic reform in the 
Arab world..  There are three major incentives for 
rejecting the American project led by three political 
and cultural entities in the Arab world.  The first 
stance stems from a cultural-ideological rejection of 
the concept of democracy and political pluralism and 
respect for the opinions of others, is based on the 
illusion of knowing the truth and having supremacy of 
opinions, and is represented by Islamic parties, 
nationalists and some other leftist groups that are 
opposed to all proposals put forth by the United 
States.  The second stance is that of the official 
Arab regime that is afraid for its political gains and 
privileges from foreign pressures and wants to defend 
oppression and the absence of freedoms and pluralism 
by pretending to defend so-called `Arab 
distinctiveness' from foreign change.  The third 
stance is that of neo-liberal democratic leftist 
groups in the Arab world, myself included, who believe 
that democracy, pluralism, public freedoms, justice 
and development are the only way to bring reform to 
the Arab world, but who are confident that the United 
States could never be a credible leader on this path.. 
Rejecting reform from without is the right thing to 
do, but it must not be the conclusion.  Political and 
cultural reform, which we understand as inclusive of 
political pluralism, launching public freedoms, 
combating corruption, educating society and 
strengthening the self-making abilities of the Arab 
world, is demanded by the Arab world.  The Arab world 
should not remain stuck in this currently-standing 
dual state of absence of freedoms due to 
totalitarianism on one hand and foreign occupation on 
another." 
 
-- "The American democratic project . why not? 
 
Columnist Mohammad Subeihi writes on the op-ed page of 
semi-official influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (03/01): 
"Most of the opposition to the American project for 
democratic reforms in the Middle East are not innocent 
or nationally-driven.  They mean to defend the 
dictatorships and the oppression of freedoms and 
political rights of the Arab citizens.  It is clear 
that ruling regimes and parties in many parts of the 
Arab world have mobilized writers to attack the 
American project under the pretext of hidden American 
intentions for hegemony that range from claiming the 
unsuitability of western democracy for our societies 
to saying that democracy cannot be imposed from 
without but from within..  It is not a secret that the 
American project is receiving the support of many of 
the intellectuals and political figures, not because 
it is American, but because oppression and 
totalitarianism have led the learned political sector 
to a stage where it accepts an alliance with the devil 
in order to rid itself of the corruption and 
oppression that is eating away at Arab societies.  The 
common denominator between the American project and 
the political reality of the Arab people is that 
democracy and pluralism, the sharing of authority and 
the elimination of corruption are the only means to 
protect Arab societies from religious extremism. 
Thus, many Arab political regimes would bury their 
heads in the sand if they can count on Arab societies' 
antagonism towards this project and ascribe its 
failure to its having come from America.  In truth, 
the project enjoys significant support from the elite, 
although some would not say so out loud for fear of 
accusations of treason and treachery.  If the United 
States teams up its project with an attempt to rein in 
Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and 
designating a major role for the United Nations in 
Iraq, then it would reap landslide support for its 
project for democratic reform in the Middle East." 
 
-- "America spreading democracy . God have mercy!" 
 
Columnist Bassam Umoush writes on the op-ed page of 
semi-official influential Arabic daily Al-Rai (03/01): 
"The U.S. administration allocated tens of millions of 
dollars for spreading democracy in the Middle East.. 
Where was the United States on this noble objective a 
hundred years ago?  Where was it when dictatorships 
oppressed people, bombed cities, built prisons and 
built scaffolds?  Where was it when an Arab regime 
used dangerous weapons against its own people?  How is 
the United States going to supply us with canned 
democracy when it is occupying Iraq?  Is its unlimited 
support for a foreigner regime that has come unto the 
lands of the dear Middle East and kicked the people 
out of Palestine not contradictory to American 
democracy?..  Yes, we do want democracy in the Middle 
East, but what America is exporting is the disease not 
the medicine." 
GNEHM