Click
an area of the map for world news.
Affiliated Programs: 
World Press Review is a program of the Stanley Foundation.
|
Arab Press Eyes War on Terrorism with Unease
Joel Campagna
World Press Review Contributing Editor
Oct. 19, 2001
 |
| An
Iraqi iman anxiously studies Babil, owned by Saddam
Hussein's sons, in Baghdad, Sept. 12, 2001 (Photo: AFP). |
With
U.S. military strikes against Afghanistan underway, a cloud
of unease has settled over a number of Arab capitals. The feeling
is that the U.S.-led war on terrorism may spread beyond Afghanistan's
borders and target Arab countries, such as Iraq and Syria, accused
by Washington of supporting terrorism. "America may increase
the use of force in the coming days, and it may target other
countries and figures as it sees fit in order to settle certain
scores," state-run Iraqi TV stated Oct. 7, no doubt expressing
the regime's anxiety over reports that Baghdad could be a target
down the road.
Such fears have been heightened by the mixed messages emanating
from the Bush administration. While U.S. officials have indicated
no firm decision on expanding the war militarily they have kept
the possibility alive. Emile Khoury, writing in the Oct. 12
edition of independent Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar, pointed
out that after Jordan's King Abdullah announced he had received
assurances from Washington that no Arab state would be targeted
in the military assault, U.S. officials contradicted him by
refuting this claim. This uncertainty has fostered uneasiness
in Arab nations and has triggered criticisms from the Arab press.
"We are now amidst a new war," declared Abdel Bari
Atwan, editor in chief of the Palestinian expatriate Al-Quds
al-Arabi of London (Oct. 8). "We know what triggered
it, but we don't know how it will end. Americans speak about
a war extending 10 years. President George Bush refuses to assure
Arab leaders that Arab nations will not be targeted, specifically
Iraq." Atwan says that members of the U.S. Congress have
been urging the State Department to include Palestinian militant
groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as the Lebanese movement
Hezbollah, to its list of terrorist organizations.
Egypt's government-owned Al-Ahram (Oct. 10) said that
it is understandable to have equivocation and disagreement about
tactical strategy in the war on terrorism but "What is
not understandable is that there should be conflicting signals
regarding a sensitive issue that has to do with the course of
the present operation, and the possibility that it may move
on to other regions." The editorial added that "the
Americans are sending clear messages that their forces will
carry out other operations against other countries and organizations.
This is taking place while the United States has also supposedly
agreed not to expand military operations into areas such as
the Middle East."
According to Al-Ahram, such talk creates "confusion"
that can have a "negative effect" on the international
coalition against terrorism.
Echoing this sentiment, an editorial in Beirut's Daily Star
(Oct. 13) said that although the United States has the right
to respond to terrorism, it has "has laid down only vague
standards as to precisely what various countries will have to
do in order to avoid being branded uncooperative and subjected
to economic sanctions, military action, or some combination
thereof." The country the Daily Star has in mind
is Syria, which Washington has left adrift in uncertainty. As
the Daily Star put it, "President Bush addressed
the possibility of Syria's rendering assistance by averring
that 'we'll give them an opportunity to so.' But he quickly
added a caveat to that statement, warning that 'I'm a performance-oriented
person. I believe in results.' That is an admirable quality
in any political leader, but given Washington's own track record
in this part of the world, it was an unfortunate choice of words.
It was Bush's father, after all, who initiated the historic
Madrid Conference in 1991 [at the end of the Cold War, the United
States and the Soviet Union invited the leaders of Israel and
its neighbors to discuss plans for a peace in the Middle East].
More than a decade later, the results have been paltry at best."
Widening the war risks causing greater public opposition in
Arab countries and threatens the United States' regional coalition
against terrorism. The United States should not be so near-sighted,
according to Jordan's semi-official Al-Dustour. "We
are afraid that the United States, as part of the 10-year plan
it is calling a war on terrorism, will extend its military plans
beyond Afghanistan's borders to include some Arab and Islamic
countries that are on U.S. State Department's list of state
sponsors of terrorism," the paper said. "This will
increase the expected repercussions of this war and lead to
negative developments that affect the Arab and Islamic world.
This will especially be the case if Israel's friends in Washington
persuade the U.S. administration to strike Iraq, Sudan, or others
in the later stages of this protracted war."
The author is Director of the Middle East Program at the
Committee to Protect Journalists and a contributing editor at
World Press Review 
|
|
|
