Newspaper articles from two states generally viewed as allied with the United States to one extent or another reveal the very superficial nature of that alliance. The official press of all Arab states expresses a violently negative view of the American presence in Iraq, but such sentiments from Egypt and Saudi Arabia can teach a lot about the nature of our region.
The al-Ahram Weekly, in English, carried an article by columnist Ibrahim Nafie last week in which he declared, “By perpetuating its occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration forces us to conclude that it has launched a colonialist project aimed at securing control over this region’s vital resources, and that this project is cloaked in the ancient garb of ‘the white man’s burden to civilize non-white people.’” According to Nafie’s way of looking at the situation, “the Iraqi people... are enduring greater hardship under American occupation than they were under Saddam Hussein.”
The Egyptian columnist dismisses as rhetoric American statements regarding democracy in Iraq and peace in Israel. “The Arabs do not swallow Bush’s rhetoric,” he wrote, “because they are experiencing first hand the results of his policy in Iraq and in Palestine.... [The US Administration] should work for the rapid transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people under the auspices of the UN and it should stop its complicity with the injustices perpetrated by the Israeli right. Once the Arabs perceive some consistency between US policy and rhetoric they will be able to lend a serious ear to Bush’s drive for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.”
The following day, in Saudi Arabia, the al-Riyadh newspaper editorial suggested that if a poll was taken among Arabs and Moslems, the majority would welcome the defeat of US-led forces in Iraq. “Realistically,” the Saudi editorial stated, “most of the people in the Middle East see US occupation as the root of the problem in Iraq.” At the same time, however, some Arabs, who “profess to be realistic,” are in favor of maintaining “the American forces [in Iraq] for a period of a year or two until Iraq becomes stable and able to stand on its feet. Otherwise Iraqi chaos will expose the whole region to internal and external complications.”
The al-Ahram Weekly, in English, carried an article by columnist Ibrahim Nafie last week in which he declared, “By perpetuating its occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration forces us to conclude that it has launched a colonialist project aimed at securing control over this region’s vital resources, and that this project is cloaked in the ancient garb of ‘the white man’s burden to civilize non-white people.’” According to Nafie’s way of looking at the situation, “the Iraqi people... are enduring greater hardship under American occupation than they were under Saddam Hussein.”
The Egyptian columnist dismisses as rhetoric American statements regarding democracy in Iraq and peace in Israel. “The Arabs do not swallow Bush’s rhetoric,” he wrote, “because they are experiencing first hand the results of his policy in Iraq and in Palestine.... [The US Administration] should work for the rapid transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people under the auspices of the UN and it should stop its complicity with the injustices perpetrated by the Israeli right. Once the Arabs perceive some consistency between US policy and rhetoric they will be able to lend a serious ear to Bush’s drive for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.”
The following day, in Saudi Arabia, the al-Riyadh newspaper editorial suggested that if a poll was taken among Arabs and Moslems, the majority would welcome the defeat of US-led forces in Iraq. “Realistically,” the Saudi editorial stated, “most of the people in the Middle East see US occupation as the root of the problem in Iraq.” At the same time, however, some Arabs, who “profess to be realistic,” are in favor of maintaining “the American forces [in Iraq] for a period of a year or two until Iraq becomes stable and able to stand on its feet. Otherwise Iraqi chaos will expose the whole region to internal and external complications.”