The Damascus newspaper a-Thawra carried recently a long editorial entitled, “Jungle Law and the Power of Right”, by Editor-in-Chief Fahd Diab, detailing the need for Arab steadfastness in the face of American “unilateralism”. “Syria,” Diab writes, “is the citadel of the Arabic steadfastness clinging to her lands and Arabic legitimate rights despite the American and Zionist injustice accusations and pressures.”
The Syrian editorial – in its controlled domestic press - describes changes in the world as a result of the “aggressive war on Iraq” that lead to a situation “in which the USA monopolizes leadership and authority unilaterally in a global role. These matters make the USA, in the absence of real competition from other basic powers in the world, to be a decisive player in any part of the world according to its interests.” This is, a-Thawra editorializes, “a dangerous historical starting point in international relations.”
The US “started its attack and occupation of Iraq using false headlines and excuses,” writes Diab, “It justified its aggressive, destructive attack, which was opposed by the Security Council and the international community, publicly and formally saying that American interests are threatened in the region…” The Arabic world, in the Syrian view, is in conflict with the US, because “the region of its states is vital in the comprehensive strategy of Washington.”
However, a-Thawra states, “[t]he new colonial attack to which the region is subjected is a dangerous precursor not only for our Arabic countries, but also for international legitimacy and the historical formation of modern international systems…. This reality is an unprecedented, dictatorial practice, imposed by force.” The Syrian newspaper declares, “It is known that the lawful and political current ideology considers that the basic feature of the state, as a lawful political entity, is sovereignty. In this meaning, the defeat of the concept of sovereignty is a defeat of the concept of state. This seems clear by the destruction and military occupation to Iraq. The jungle legitimacy replaced international legitimacy….”
The Syrian editorial expresses a concern just below the surface that Syria is next on Washington’s list for unilateral action: “Washington plays the role of the Security Council, directing its military strike against Iraq, preparing for other strikes against other countries according to an arranged plan. It markets new schemes in the region to complete its authority, while getting silence concerning the Israeli weapons of mass destruction. It prevents the issuing of any resolution by the Security Council condemning the Zionist crimes against the Palestinian homeland and people, despite previous tens of Security Council resolutions.” The US is “applying its view of ‘international legitimacy’ in a ‘selective’ form, according to American private interests, harmonized with the Zionist ones,” a-Thawra claims.
Arabs, in contrast, according to the Syrian regime, are committed to the rules of “international legitimacy”. According to the editorial, “the Arabs and their central case” – meaning the existence of Israel – “proves its strength through international legitimacy and the Palestinian struggle, aside from the formal and public recognition.” Therefore, the US-led liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein actually “targets the central Arabic case, through ambiguous American plans and obstructive Israeli ways.”
In Iraq, as elsewhere, Syria says, through the a-Thawra editorial, “Our national rights are firm in international law and admitted by the international community. The defeat of a regime doesn’t mean the defeat of a nation. The crowds of the nation are insisting on resistance to injustice, are facing the storm, and are ready to offer more sacrifices as the aggressors’ brutality increases.” It is unclear if the “aggressors” here are Israelis or Americans… or both.
The Syrian editorial – in its controlled domestic press - describes changes in the world as a result of the “aggressive war on Iraq” that lead to a situation “in which the USA monopolizes leadership and authority unilaterally in a global role. These matters make the USA, in the absence of real competition from other basic powers in the world, to be a decisive player in any part of the world according to its interests.” This is, a-Thawra editorializes, “a dangerous historical starting point in international relations.”
The US “started its attack and occupation of Iraq using false headlines and excuses,” writes Diab, “It justified its aggressive, destructive attack, which was opposed by the Security Council and the international community, publicly and formally saying that American interests are threatened in the region…” The Arabic world, in the Syrian view, is in conflict with the US, because “the region of its states is vital in the comprehensive strategy of Washington.”
However, a-Thawra states, “[t]he new colonial attack to which the region is subjected is a dangerous precursor not only for our Arabic countries, but also for international legitimacy and the historical formation of modern international systems…. This reality is an unprecedented, dictatorial practice, imposed by force.” The Syrian newspaper declares, “It is known that the lawful and political current ideology considers that the basic feature of the state, as a lawful political entity, is sovereignty. In this meaning, the defeat of the concept of sovereignty is a defeat of the concept of state. This seems clear by the destruction and military occupation to Iraq. The jungle legitimacy replaced international legitimacy….”
The Syrian editorial expresses a concern just below the surface that Syria is next on Washington’s list for unilateral action: “Washington plays the role of the Security Council, directing its military strike against Iraq, preparing for other strikes against other countries according to an arranged plan. It markets new schemes in the region to complete its authority, while getting silence concerning the Israeli weapons of mass destruction. It prevents the issuing of any resolution by the Security Council condemning the Zionist crimes against the Palestinian homeland and people, despite previous tens of Security Council resolutions.” The US is “applying its view of ‘international legitimacy’ in a ‘selective’ form, according to American private interests, harmonized with the Zionist ones,” a-Thawra claims.
Arabs, in contrast, according to the Syrian regime, are committed to the rules of “international legitimacy”. According to the editorial, “the Arabs and their central case” – meaning the existence of Israel – “proves its strength through international legitimacy and the Palestinian struggle, aside from the formal and public recognition.” Therefore, the US-led liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein actually “targets the central Arabic case, through ambiguous American plans and obstructive Israeli ways.”
In Iraq, as elsewhere, Syria says, through the a-Thawra editorial, “Our national rights are firm in international law and admitted by the international community. The defeat of a regime doesn’t mean the defeat of a nation. The crowds of the nation are insisting on resistance to injustice, are facing the storm, and are ready to offer more sacrifices as the aggressors’ brutality increases.” It is unclear if the “aggressors” here are Israelis or Americans… or both.