Not nice to remember
The Arab press had little good news to report this week. Dina Ezzat sees why
Click to view caption |
Drawn by Hamid of the Emirates' Al-Ittihad, a Gulf national, in between Camp David, Madrid, the roadmap and Oslo, deplores the "illusions that have wasted my life.";
In the Libyan daily Azzahf Al-Akhdar, daggers plunged into a regional map provide the background to blood-stained footprints left by a man clothed in the words: "Islam, resistance, nationalism, Jihad, liberation..."
|
It was a bad week when it came to remembering. This was the week marking the second anniversary of the attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. The week also marked the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Oslo peace accords which brought hardly any peace.
The week was difficult all round as popular Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was killed, stabbed by an unidentified assailant. So, too, did the Israeli government vote to expel Palestinian President Yasser Arafat from the occupied territories. And in Iraq it was another week of anarchy and gloomy predictions.
Newspapers rolled off the presses last week with headlines carrying all sorts of disturbing news: "Israel indicates intention to liquidate Arafat if it does not expel him", "Bush: the war on terrorism will go on", "Swedish foreign minister dies after being stabbed", "Geneva meeting fails to bring consensus among the P5 over Iraq", and "Two years later, the US is still searching for a sense of security".
Remembering 11 September was a keynote item in the Arab press. For the most part, commentators reflected on the impact of the attacks on the international political scene. Some centred on a sense of confusion that has marked international relations since the attacks that triggered the US war on terrorism. Others seized the opportunity to voice concern over the failure of the international community to force the US to state clearly what constitutes international terrorism. Most commentators questioned America's war on what they described as an unidentified enemy.
In the Lebanese daily As-Safir, Hesham Melhem took a down-to- earth approach on the issue. Writing on 11 September, Melhem argued that two years on, the world had started to come to terms with the painful memories of the day only to have to deal with the scenes of horror brought by the war declared by US President George W Bush on international terror.
"There will be prayers, flags, fewer government activities... but TV will not dedicate the entire day to remembering the attacks as it did last year," Melhem wrote. Like other writers this week, Melhem asked the obvious question that, he added, Americans must be asking themselves: "Has the US become safer?"
In Al-Anwar, another Lebanese daily, Raouf Shahouri attempted to provide an answer. "The US is worried from top to bottom (Al- Qa'eda), " Shahouri wrote, playing on words.
In his article, published on 13 September, Shahouri attributed this overwhelming American sense of insecurity to disturbing developments in Iraq. "Americans feel that their country is in a fix because of Iraq... they feel that the White House is not telling the truth, not the whole truth... They feel that the strategy behind the war on Iraq was fundamentally flawed."
To properly illustrate the dismay shown by Americans over the results of the war against terrorism, several Arab papers published the result of recent US polls that showed a steady decline in American support for the wars launched by their president.
In fact, on 14 September, the daily Al-Bayan of the United Arab Emirates published extensive quotes from statements made by former US President Bill Clinton on the war on terrorism. "Instead of uniting the world [behind us] we have been antagonising the world," Al-Bayan quoted Clinton.
The developments of the war against international terrorism and its impact on the political future of the incumbent US president were also given space in the Arab press this week.
In the London-based daily Al-Hayat, on 13 September, Khalil Al- Anani asked the obvious question: "Has the war on terrorism satisfied the political ambitions of the US president?" In view of the developments on the ground, particularly in Iraq, Al-Anani argued, "it is safe to say that the war on terrorism will not offer Bush much concerning what he wanted to get out of it". The war, he added, "was not only based on shaky foundations but was also conducted in an illogical and unrealistic fashion," the writer said. He added that among other things, US war planners forgot one basic fact: " the US is not living alone in this world".
For the most part, in marking the second anniversary of the 11 September attacks, the US came under fire from the Arab press. The US, particularly the president and his immediate team of neo-conservative advisors, were strongly criticised for taking the world into needless military, political and cultural confrontations.
It was perhaps only in the Kuwaiti press that signs of sympathy, of the kind the US enjoyed two years ago, could be found. Al-Ra'i Al-Am, like other dailies in Kuwait, gave space to the words of condolences offered by Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohamed Al-Sabah who participated in an event organised by the US Embassy in Kuwait in recognition of the day.
The anniversary of 11 September could not have passed without an interview with a senior Saudi security official. On 11 September, Al- Hayat printed an interview with Turki Al- Faisal, the former Saudi security chief who left office just 11 days before the attacks. In the interview, Al-Faisal denied reports recently circulated in some US quarters that Saudi intelligence failed to notify the US on credible intelligence information on a potential attack. "We had no clue, none, that Bin Laden was planning to take the war to the US."
Iraq, Syria and Libya appeared in many news stories and opinion pieces that reflected on the war on terrorism.
On 13 September Al-Youm, a Saudi daily, quoted anonymous US officials as indicating the intention of the Bush administration to take action against Syria. Measures were to be taken, Al-Youm reported, to reprimand Damascus for failing to undertake a series of measures required by Washington including the closure of all Hamas and Palestinian jihad bureaus in Syria.
Libya's implication by US officials in sponsoring international terrorism was also reported by the Arab press. This week, the accusation made by Washington was that Libya was involved in developing and possessing weapons of mass destruction.
These accusations ran side by side with news of the UN Security Council resolution lifting sanctions which had been imposed on Libya for over a decade.
Obviously, the attention of the Libyan press was almost exclusively directed towards the UN resolution. On 13 September the Libyan daily Azzahf Al-Akhdar carried both stories on its front page. A banner headline read: "Libyans march to celebrate the victory achieved by the leader [Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi]". Next to it , in a smaller font, Azzahf Al-Akhdar had: "Libya denies unfair charges of possessing weapons of mass destruction".
Meanwhile, from Iraq, correspondents continued to file stories showing a country in chaos. The lead story which topped the long list of mishaps in Iraq came from Fallujah where US forces "by mistake" killed 15 Iraqi security forces in what was described in many papers as "a massacre".
Like every other week, since the beginning of the US occupation of Iraq, there was no dearth of stories reporting the failure of the Americans to bring security to the country. Commentators were also fuming, and not for the first time, at the US for failing to bring stability to Iraq.
This week, however, it was interesting to note criticism of the US policies in Iraq in some Kuwaiti papers that have so far been very supportive of the US role in that country. In an editorial published on 13 September, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan asked, "Isn't it the job of the US to bring security to Iraq?" The article criticised the Americans for throwing accusations right, left and centre at Arab and Muslim countries for allegedly exporting terrorism to Iraq. "The US has no right to accuse Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iran for the deteriorating security situation in Iraq," the article argued.
Another lead story on Iraq that caught the headlines in the Arab press this week was the Geneva meeting of the UN secretary-general and the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The usual divisions between the US and Britain on one hand and Russia, China and France on the other was portrayed not only in Geneva but in the negotiations currently underway in New York over a new US draft resolution on Iraq with the aim of bringing more international forces to it.
In an interview run by Asharq Al-Awsat on 13 September Michele Alliot-Marie, the French minister of defence, expressed her country's point of view on Iraq. "The Iraqi people need to restore full sovereignty over their daily life and political affairs. I believe it is important for the UN to lead the way through which Iraqis will regain sovereignty," the French minister said.
Speculation over Iraq, in the Arab press this week, was matched by guesswork over the fate of Palestinian President Arafat in the wake of the decision of the Israeli cabinet to deport him. Arafat himself said he feared not for himself but was worried by the impact of the decision over the future of the Palestinian cause. On 14 September, he was quoted by the UAE daily Al-Ittihad as telling a group of supporters that now was the time to worry about the future of the peace process. "We are currently facing the most difficult moment in the peace process since the signing of the Oslo Accords. The [threats] are not just about me; rather they are about the intention of the Israeli government to eliminate the Palestinian side in the equation of peace."
A few commentators wrote on the 10th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, since for many it goes without saying that the accords failed to bring even a semblance of peace in the Middle East.
Many Arab commentators were busy studying the consequences of the Israeli threats against Arafat. The consensus was that it would be a gross mistake for Israel to actually expel the president. "This would create a political vacuum", Ahmed Omrabi warned in Al- Bayan. "It is not [even] in Israel's interest to lift Arafat's siege and give him the opportunity to tour world capitals," wrote Ahmed Al- Rabei in Asharq Al-Awsat. "This move is a clear demonstration of Israeli political arrogance. It would bring unmitigated consequences," said the editorial of the Omani daily Al-Watan.
The reaction of Arab officials, as quoted in the press, was not much different from that of columnists. They, too, expressed concern over the consequences of the possibilities of removing Arafat. "This move would be very harmful for the prospects of the peace proess," the Bahraini daily Al-Ayam, quoted Hamad Al-Khalifa, King of Bahrain and current chair of the Arab summit.
Frustration with Israeli intransigence and political arrogance was perhaps one reason the Arab press covered the killing of Swedish Foreign Minister Lindh on 11 September. Articles eulogising Lindh underlined her strong-willed stand against Israeli intransigence.
Lindh, wrote Satie Noureddin in the Lebanese daily An-Nahar, will always be remembered in this part of the world not only for her "harsh criticism" of the militaristic policies of the US president but also for her equally "harsh criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon".
In the Syrian daily Teshreen, official government spokeswoman Bouthaina Shaaban also paid tribute to Lindh, "a wonderful voice that often said what world leaders would not dare say".
