What Does America Mean by Democracy in Iraq?
What Does America Mean by Democracy in Iraq?
What does America mean by democracy in Iraq?
Condoleezza Rice once said at a dinner of heads of state that the priority in Iraq's democracy was drafting a constitution - but someone had to remind her that, in order to do this, a legislative assembly would first have to be elected, writes Randa Takieddine in al-Hayat on Wednesday. Rice disagreed.
"What is this American democracy that rejects the principle of electing a legislative assembly to study the drafting of the constitution, and who is going to draft it in Iraq?" she asks. "Iraqis are busy with a deteriorating security situation that they cannot control. What is this democracy that decides that Iraq's reconstruction is to be handled by two American companies: Bechtel and Halliburton?"
The Arab dream of democracy, in which the people call the political class to account, is not in harmony with the priority of the US, which prefers democracy that serves its private interests in the region, concludes Ms Takieddine.
America needs to change its strategy in Iraq
After 15 soldiers died when a US helicopter was shot down by Iraqi resistance the Arab press urged the US to re-think its strategy in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld was in the depths of despondency when he faced hostile questions from journalists on Sunday after an Iraqi resistance operation led to the downing of a Chinook transport helicopter said an editorial in al-Quds al-Arabi on Monday. The situation in Iraq is more dangerous for America than it was in Vietnam.
In Iraq there is not only an armed resistance hitting American troops daily, said an editorial in Asharq al-Awsat on Monday. There is also a total inability to deal with any Iraqi grouping. The Iraq "liberation" policy is being translated into night-time raids on homes, extensive arrests and the brutal torture of detainees, conducted under a total news black-out. The situation in Iraq calls for a new policy, but the US administration is determined not to listen.
Suicide bombings in Iraq are not the way forward
The Arab press largely supports the right of the Iraqi people to resist occupation but this week denounced the suicide bombings in Iraq arguing that targetting civilians and international organisations only strengthened the American position.
I am not one of those who admire suicide operations, wrote Hazem Saghieh in al-Hayat on Saturday. I have many moral reservations about the strategy, not to mention its ineffectiveness at a military and political level, he said. The perpetrators of these suicide actions are terrorists and not martyrs. Their victims are mostly innocent civilians. There should be no confusion between understanding [the motives for] their actions and justifying them.
Suicide operations serve no purpose, said an editorial in al-Quds al-Arabi on Saturday. Targetting the UN and the Red Cross does not boost the resistance but only serves to undermine its goals. Such actions separate the resistance from the people it wishes to serve and from the Arab world at large.
Without doubt, the explosions targetting the Red Cross headquarters will never serve the interests of the Iraqis, said an editorial in Al-Ahram on Saturday.
Who will succeed Yassir Arafat?
The legal response to this question is clear, according to an editorial in al-Hayat on Saturday. If Arafat dies he is to be replaced by the head of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Then, elections must be held to choose a new democratically-elected president. But, the paper points out, Israel has made elections impossible.
Two candidates appear to be front-runners, the paper went on: Mahmoud Abbas, Secretary of the PLO's executive committee, and Farouq Kaddoumi, secretary of Fatah's central committee. But Abbas's reputation was damaged when he was prime minister and Kaddoumi lives abroad.
The bottom line is that Israel has destroyed the Palestinian National Authority's infrastructure. Sharon's government is exploiting the Bush administration's absence by rushing in and building the wall while confiscating territories. The situation will remain like this until 2005 - if there are any Palestinians or cause left by then, it said.
Stop the nuclear hypocrisy
The international community has a responsibility to make the Middle East a zone that is free of weapons of mass destruction, said an editorial in al-Ahram on Wednesday.
All claims that Iraq possesses WMD have been proved wrong. Allegations that Iran was illicitly developing a nuclear weapons programme were undermined when, a few days ago, Tehran agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency free and unconditional access to nuclear facilities, the paper said.
It went on to ask: Is it not time for the international community to focus its attention on Israel - a state which analysts estimate has some 100-200 nuclear weapons? Should the country not be pressurised to join the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Why is it acceptable for Israel, a country that has occupied Arab territories for many years and oppressed its inhabitants, to decide when and if it will allow inspections, let alone disarm?
If Israel is to be allowed to maintain whatever policies it wants until peace prevails - a policy that is making peace impossible - then what is to stop other countries demanding the same privileges?