22-25 May

Compiled by Kathleen Ridolfo

London-based "Al-Hayat": Abdulwahab Badrakhan discusses the weakness of the UN Security Council vis-a-vis the United States on 24 May.

     "In Iraq today, not only is there a foreign occupation, but also political confusion and indications of a struggle. And while it would have been logical to demand the withdrawal of the occupation army, such a demand would only have legitimized the state of vacuum in authority, and thus, accepting the authority of the occupation seemed the lesser of two evils. [...]

     "The matter may seem exceptional [and] of peculiar characteristics. But it may also be generalized because what happened proves one thing: the order of the UN is no longer effective, which had appeared in several international disputes before. That may be the responsibility of the international organization, but it is certainly that of the U.S. The other thing that was demonstrated is that the 'other' world order, the one led by the U.S. is most effective. [...]

     "The UN is a body that functions on the accord among the great powers. And when such accord is lacking, the UN simply stops functioning. In the past, the Cold War undermined the international organization, and following that conflict the U.S. wars have played that same role to undermine it. Now, American officials who vary in extremism compete to declare the death of the UN [and the organization] as a relic of the past. [...]

     "The most important evidence to such loss for the international community rests in resolution 1483. There is no trace of international law in judging the occupation. The Security Council became subordinate to Paul Bremer. It issued a resolution to practically facilitate his mission, and it will be prepared to issue more resolutions. Still, there is no need to provide much evidence to conclude that the UN has been able to tear the UN apart in favor of a new and non-existent charter. However, dealing with the facts on the ground in such a manner also means that the arrogance of the Pentagon has overwhelmed the UN. Debate within the Security Council is now dominated by the American military might, and thus, its members lose one opportunity after another by postponing the real debate after the occupation has been legitimized."

Cairo's "Al-Ahram Weekly": In the 22-28 May issue, Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara says the "roadmap" for peace was born as a guidebook for Arabs desperate for a resolution.

     "Should the Israeli prime minister grant his approval, then the Arabs would be able to move on and wait for Israel to agree to interpret the roadmap, after which they could then proceed to wait for them to implement it -- just as they waited in the past for them to implement [UN Security Council] Resolutions 242 and 338, and for the implementation of Mitchell's report and of Tenet's plan. Arab waiting has a long, though not glorious history. [...]

     "So far, the roadmap looks like a list of U.S.-Israeli public relations successes, even though Israel has not yet granted the document its stamp of approval. And America is sure to lend Israel a compassionate ear when Sharon finally meets Bush in Washington. Even if they do not change the letter of the document, the two countries are likely to agree on some interpretation of the text that works in Israel's favor. [...]

     "The Arabs, meanwhile, are in a double state of decay that boggles the minds even of those who expected a hot summer of postwar decadence. There are two self-destructive streaks at work here. The first manifests as an instinctive vindictiveness against America and the West, in murderous attacks of incredible randomness, of blinding violence with no rhythm or rhyme, of random hatred that is inimical to everything moral and meaningful. The best this wave of destructiveness can do is turn Arab governments into policemen obsessed with protecting U.S. interests. The second self-destructive streak is that which persuades the Arabs to accept whatever map America may care to draw up for the road ahead. Random violence, empty of any goal or liberation scheme, of the kind we have witnessed lately in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, is just as unhelpful as the Arab tendency to automatically acquiesce to U.S. dictates."

Damascus-based "Al-Ba'ath": The paper criticizes the U.S.-led Interim Administration for its management of Iraq on 25 May.

     "The 45 days of failure by the interim civil administration to normalize the situation in Iraq prompted the administration to revise the 'policy of liberation,' use more violent means to deal with the domestic situation in Iraq, to be more defiant...vis-a-vis those who call for sovereignty, and to be more inclined to use covert methods and make deals behind the scenes. [...]

     "There is a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the lack of public services amid doubts about unfulfilled promises. Meanwhile, the United States seeks to focus on endless discussions about preparations for a transitional authority, representation of the former opposition groups, and administrative powers of Iraqi cities and provinces. [...]

     "Chaos prevails in Iraq while the Bremer administration evades its obligations as an occupying power by using the people's widespread animosity toward the previous regime. Its aim is to create a demographic map as a basis for the main components of a new Iraq. [...]

     "The practice of 'precautionary' firing at Iraqi civilians is now admissible as the killing of individuals and groups became legal. [...]

     "A state of neo-McCarthyism prevails in Iraq while the ruler adopts the famous political philosophy 'divide and rule' as an ideal formula for a postwar administration. A kind of apathy now governs the occupiers' behavior toward Iraq and its capabilities, human resources, political forces, and national heritage. [...]

     "The Pentagon hawks portrayed the occupation of Iraq as a prelude to a world utopia.... However, they turned out to be conventional colonialists who do not hesitate to hatch plots and conspiracies and who are not embarrassed to renege on promises, dash hopes, and cause infighting if need be.... They are colonialists who are more confused in running the civil administration than the invaders in planning and leading a war of aggression against Iraq."

Saudi Arabia's "Abha Al-Watan": A 24 May editorial by Abd al-Karim Abu al-Nasr says the United States is "fumbling" its first "colonialist" experience in Iraq.

     United States is very advanced militarily and technologically as well as in many other vital fields, but is 'behind' in its colonialist experience and in 'rebuilding countries and nations' after fighting them and controlling them. [...]

     Bush administration lacks a thought-out, organized plan to actually occupy Iraq similar to the plans that the British and French had in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, which they had adopted in dealing with many Arab, African, and Asian countries. [...]

     "Therefore, the Bush administration is fumbling in its first 'colonialist' experience in Iraq, even if it is only temporary. It faces far more real and serious problems and obstacles than it had expected to ensure normal life for the Iraqis; gain their trust; play the role of the mediator and judge between the various Iraqi sects, groups, forces, and leaderships; and reach a formula for a joint solution to establish an interim, temporary Iraqi authority. Such an authority must be acceptable to the Iraqi majority, and must pave the way for establishing a legitimate government based on elections and the free choice of the Iraqis. [...]

     "Instead of curbing the state of chaos, which usually results from wars and the forcible change of regimes, the U.S. military and political presence has become part of the prevalent chaos in Iraq. [...]

     "As a result of its success in the war in Iraq and the rapid fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States has moved fast from being the 'sole superpower' in the world that is superior to all other countries, into being the 'dominant empire' over many countries, regions, and areas of the world. [...]

     "News about Iraq shows that the United States is so far neither ready nor qualified to play that new important role, despite all its capabilities, and the authorities and influence it has in that country."