A tragedy in the making whatever the outcome, an Arab press review aljazeerah.info

aljazeerah.info Opinion Editorials

Tragedy in the making, whatever the outcome

An Arab press review, by the Daily Star, 3/27/03

Amid the thick fog of disinformation, propaganda and psychological warfare shrouding accounts of the first week’s fighting in the American invasion of Iraq, two completely different “readings” have emerged of what has actually been happening, Hazem Saghiyeh observes in the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
The first goes something like this: The Iraqi Army and people have put up brave resistance, demonstrating that Iraqis are united in defense of their country, and that whatever view they take of President Saddam Hussein’s regime is a mere “detail.” The Americans and British have suffered significant, perhaps decisive, setbacks and made major propaganda blunders. The key thing is that the invasion is being successfully confronted. And the Iraqi opposition is “the scandal of all scandals,” its voice inaudible in comparison to that of the people and regime in Iraq.
The alternative “reading” is that far too much has been made of America’s setbacks. Some resistance had always been expected, and the Americans have taken losses because they’ve refrained from carpet-bombing Iraqi forces so as to avoid civilian casualties which is also why we’ve not seen any big refugee exodus yet. The resistance is no gauge, as it is being mounted by Saddam’s men in defense of a regime that rules by fear. As soon as it becomes plain that the regime in Baghdad is doomed most Iraqis will show their true feelings.
Saghiyeh writes that the former view is flawed because “it places Saddam between parentheses” and draws “historic” conclusions from only one week’s developments. The latter view is faulty because it is ideologically driven and simplistic, and banks on creating “new” realities more than it deals with things as they actually are.
“Proponents of the first reading want to defeat the US whatever the price. They want us to forget the hundreds of thousands of victims that Saddam and his regime have claimed, and their role in bringing Iraq and the Arabs to where they are today.
“Proponents of the second reading want to defeat Saddam whatever the price. They want us to turn a blind eye to the civilians who have been and will be killed, to the untried political endeavors and to precedents like Washington’s 1991 betrayal which are bound to have an impact,” he remarks.
Saghiyeh sees these conflicting perceptions as presaging the two possible outcomes of the war: either a big American victory, albeit at a cost, “behind which looms the specter of indefinite American global hegemony and single-handed shaping of the face of the world;” or, in the unlikely event of Saddam surviving, the Iraqi people continuing to suffer his misrule.
“These two rival projects, imperialist and totalitarian, have brought us face to face with a tragedy from which there appears to be no means of escape,” he says.
Meanwhile, the press tracks the revival of diplomatic efforts by various Arab governments aimed at halting the bloodshed, or at least being seen to be attempting to do so.
Saudi-owned newspapers highlight Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal’s announcement that the kingdom has presented both Baghdad and Washington with a “proposal for halting the war,” and is awaiting their replies.
Asharq al-Awsat says that the prince stressed that neither side had turned down the proposal, suggesting that “there is still an opportunity to act diplomatically to end the war, now that the losses caused by it are evident to both.” Prince Saud also blamed them equally for the outbreak of hostilities, citing the “mistakes” made by Baghdad over the course of the past 12 years and Washington’s refusal to “await the results of the work of the UN arms inspectors before rushing to war.”
Although no details have been provided of the Saudi initiative, some papers write that Riyadh hinted weeks ago that it would request a “last chance” to broker a diplomatic settlement to the conflict at the appropriate time. It was implied then that an attempt might be made to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign, or other elements within the regime to depose him, once he appears truly doomed.
Syria is meanwhile urging the Arab states to focus their efforts on bringing the UN into the picture, after having called for the UN Security Council to convene to discuss the invasion. The Syrian government-run daily Tishrin reflects Damascus’s dismay at their apathy. It writes in its main editorial that while the rest of the world has been speaking out against the illegal and unjustified Anglo-American war of aggression, “the Arabs, the people directly concerned, have been falling out with each other at this harrowing time, and some are even supporting this war or keeping quiet about.”
The paper finds it impossible to understand “how some Arabs can possibly back aggression against their fellow Arabs, the occupation of their land, and the looting of their oil resources.”
They should at least comply with the “bottom line” collective Arab position adopted at Monday’s meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo: clearly condemning the invasion and voicing solidarity with Iraq, demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American and British forces, and stressing the need for all Arab states to avoid participating in any military action against Iraq.
In the absence of genuine inter-Arab solidarity, sticking to that stand is the minimum that must be done to “repel this looming danger, which while targeting Iraq now will extend to all the Arabs at a later stage, which US officials have spoken about with all clarity,” Tishrin says.
Rajeh al-Khoury writes in the Beirut daily An-Nahar that it is important to get the UN to speak out against the war, even though this will obviously not deter the Americans.
He writes that while France, Russia and China clearly backed the Arab call for a Security Council debate on Iraq, any resolution demanding a cessation of the invasion would inevitably be blocked by the US and Britain. The UN General Assembly could then be convened and asked to pass one, under the “uniting for peace” procedure, but it would obviously lack the power to enforce it.
Nevertheless, Khoury argues that it is vital to go through the process of issuing such a resolution. It would be “morally and politically useful” for the world to express its disapproval of the ongoing campaign. Invoking the “united for peace” principle would also “regroup the ranks of the countries that are eager to preserve the UN and Security Council, at a time when the war contractors in Washington are trying to destroy them as a prelude to establishing a new order based on the primacy of the American empire.”
Moreover, if the invasion gets bogged down militarily, it is conceivable that the US itself might end up needing a diplomatic way out. “It would be far easier in this respect for a withdrawal from Iraq to be staged under the umbrella of international legality and the UN, rather than under the scandal of having become bogged down in the mud of an improvised war that is creating heaps of disasters.”
Abderrahman al-Nuaimi argues in the UAE daily Al-Khaleej that the Arabs need to start looking forward to the aftermath of the invasion, as the rest of the world is doing.
He writes that some countries are addressing the issue of Iraq’s postwar reconstruction, after the US tendered rebuilding contracts exclusively to American firms. Some, like Russia, are stressing the need for UN forces to be deployed in Iraq so that the country isn’t “swallowed whole by the Americans.” Others, like Japan and Australia, have backed the invasion “because they know what the outcome of the lopsided struggle will be,” and seek a share of the spoils.
The Iranians, for their part, are bracing to be “besieged” by the US on their western flank as well as their eastern one, though some Iranian factions are counting on American help in their domestic power struggles.
And, according to Nuaimi, Turkey is positioning itself to take advantage of what it believes could be a carve-up of its neighbor, with a view to acquiring a stake in its northern oilfields, asserting its influence on the country via the ethnic Turkmen minority, and suppressing the aspirations of the Kurds.
“The whole world is thinking about the aftermath of the invasion except the Arabs,” Nuaimi remarks. “Their silence is deafening. Some of them are saying: we did our duty, we tried, but no one heeded our advice. Others want America to reward them for their stance during the crisis. As for the US administration, it did not notify any of the Arabs about the start of the war on Iraq.”
What we are witnessing is nothing short of the “end of the official Arab order” and the start of a new era in Arab history, “which requires the movement for Arab liberation to redo its calculations in light of the many major new developments,” Nuaimi says.
A number of Arab newspapers meanwhile draw attention to growing tensions between the Iraqi and Jordanian governments, as the latter’s tacit involvement in the US campaign becomes increasingly perceptible despite its formal antiwar stance.
Pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi says Baghdad appears increasingly worried that Amman is turning against it at Washington’s behest, having taken a number of steps that are consistent with the US agenda and for which it provided “unconvincing” explanations.
The Jordanian government, for its part, “is looking to safeguard its interests in the event of the US aggression succeeding,” but cannot say so openly because of the strength of public support for Iraq, and also because it appears unsure how quickly the military campaign will end.
Things came to a head when Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan publicly berated Amman for complying with US demands to kick out Iraqi diplomats. This prompted Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan al-Moasher to warn that if Baghdad continued accusing it of acting at America’s behest it would make public the “regrettable facts” that prompted it to expel the Iraqis.
Meanwhile, Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mahdi Saleh protested at the way the Jordanian government has been preventing trucks carrying goods purchased by Iraq from journeying to Baghdad.
Iraq’s chief diplomat Naji Sabri for his part referred to Jordan by name as one of the countries assisting the US military campaign when he was in Cairo attending the Arab foreign ministers’ conference. Moasher’s absence from the meeting was seen as reflecting a desire by Amman to dissociate itself from any vocal condemnation of the US invasion of Iraq.
Al-Quds al-Arabi writes that Jordanian officials dismiss all suggestions that their country is tacitly assisting the Americans, or that US forces have been operating against Iraq out of its territory, as “baseless rumors” aimed at sullying its good name.
The paper writes that the two sides are also rowing over the cut-price oil that Iraq supplies by tanker truck to the Jordanians, amid reports that the Americans have persuaded Saudi Arabia to provide them with crude instead. Amman says it has only suspended the shipments for the duration of hostilities for safety reasons. Meanwhile, the first shipment of Saudi “replacement” oil is due to dock in Aqaba this week, “an important move that will signal that Jordan has dispensed with Iraqi oil.”
The Amman daily Al-Rai meanwhile features a hard-hitting commentary by Samir al-Hayyari denouncing Ramadan, and the Baathist regime in Baghdad in general, for defaming Jordan.
He portrays the Iraqi vice-president’s remarks as the latest in a succession of affronts by Iraqi officials to Jordan a country that has always supported the Iraqi people despite the abuses of the regime, a country whose position on Iraq has been “transparent and honest” and which “has not attacked Iraq or allowed anyone to use its territory and air space.”
Hayyari indicates that the Iraqi diplomats were expelled on the basis of evidence acquired by the security forces that they had been abusing their positions. He writes of attempts to destabilize Jordan, and of offers to pay people to “carry out operations liable to weaken its domestic front.”
As for the suspension of oil cargoes, why should Jordanian truck drivers risk their lives dodging Apache helicopters and Scud missiles just to earn Baghdad’s praise? he wonders.
Hayyari goes on to warn Baghdad that it risks losing the support of the Jordanian public. “Ramadan, Shaaban, Naji, Mahdi and all the pillars of the Iraqi regime can say what they want. But they must not squander the popular sympathy and backing they gained for the sake of an appearance on satellite TV,” he writes.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.