US embassy cable - 03AMMAN1517

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 001517 
 
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 
USCINCCENT//CCPA, USCENTCOM REAR MACDILL AFB FL 
STATE PASS TO AID 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: KMDR JO 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION ON IRAQ 
 
 
                        Summary 
 
-- Lead story in all papers today, March 12, focuses 
on remarks of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld regarding the 
participation of UK forces in a war with Iraq.  Papers 
characterized the flap over the comments as 
"confusion" within the alliance. 
 
                 Editorial Commentary 
 
-- "What happened to America?" 
 
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek writes on the back page of 
semi-official influential Arabic Al-Rai (03/12): 
"Many analysts have not yet determined who is more 
dangerous to world peace and stability: Osama bin 
Laden or George Bush.  Some believe that both these 
men are two sides of the same coin and that both of 
them believe bloodshed and violence to be solutions 
for problems.  The only difference between them is 
that one has more destruction and more dangerous means 
than the other when it comes to eliminating innocent 
civilians.  It is astonishing that a democratic 
country like America and a just and good people like 
the Americans would sink so low and that America's 
image would become so ugly as to suggest a force that 
lacks righteousness, justice and lawfulness and that 
dismisses world public opinion and that undertakes 
adventures that could lead to the worst of 
consequences." 
 
-- "The current international order at the crossroads" 
 
Columnist Salameh Ukour writes on the op-ed page of 
semi-official, influential Arabic daily Al-Rai 
(03/12):  "We can understand why France, Germany, 
Russia, China and some other industrial countries 
rejected the option to join a U.S.-led war against 
Iraq.  These countries want to protect the current 
international order, its political, legal and security 
establishments, its values and moral principles, and 
its preservation of peace and stability in the world. 
The Bush administration wants to replace the current 
international order with a new order where all the 
countries of the world and people are subject to the 
most powerful country or empire, which is, of course, 
the American empire.. What else could the destructive 
American-British war against Baghdad and Iraqi cities 
mean other than the killing of the Iraqi people, the 
destruction of its civilian, economic and social 
establishments, and taking this country back to the 
Middle Ages?  Is this the democracy, freedom and human 
rights that the United States has always called for?" 
 
-- "death is more dignifying" 
 
Daily columnist Musa Hawamdeh writes on the op-ed page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/12):  "Yes, we stand against the war and against 
the madness of Bush and his administration, that has 
yet to provide one bit of evidence that justifies its 
aggression against the Arab world..  We are not 
defending regimes and we are not taking sides, but the 
idea of an American occupation is too much.. As for 
those who believe America's arguments about Iraq's 
possession of weapons of mass destruction and that 
America wants to save the Iraqi people, then let him 
look at the West where there are more nuclear weapons 
than anywhere else, and then look at Israel, the proof 
that America cares nothing for the freedom of Arabs or 
their lives for that matter." 
 
-- "The morals of `Old Europe'" 
 
Daily columnist Bater Wardam writes on the op-ed page 
of center-left, influential Arabic daily Al-Dustour 
(03/12):  "The European stand, led by France, Germany 
and Russia, against the American-British hegemony 
stems from the maturity and nobleness of European 
political and social thinking.  Old Europe, as the 
U.S. Secretary of Defense calls it, learned lessons 
from the past, and, after having paid a huge price in 
the Second World War, both France and Germany realized 
that war and violence cannot achieve peace, and that 
peace can only be realized with political, economic 
and social development, by achieving social well- 
being, by ending military expansion, and by 
eliminating colonialism.  This advanced political 
thinking is looked down upon by the U.S. 
administration.  For instance, the United States says 
that France does not want to bear its `international 
responsibility', as if this international 
responsibility, in the eyes of the oil and military 
manufacturing gang in the White House, is simply 
calling for war and launching war on weak countries 
that have strategic locations and resources." 
GNEHM