The Hindu : Arabs think they are worse off after Iraq war

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Mar 21, 2004

International

International

Arabs think they are worse off after Iraq war

By Atul Aneja

MANAMA, MARCH 20. One year after the war in Iraq began, most Arabs are closer to the view that their situation has worsened and are pessimistic about their future. Many Arab newspapers, commenting on the anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, are of the view that the region is now far more unstable than it was before the war began.

A commentary in the Egyptian daily Al-Jumhuriyah appeared to sum up the mood in the Arab street. "After a year of occupation, has the world become more secure, free, better economically or more united? Has the Middle East (West Asia) become more stable? No-one in the world can answer yes to any of these questions." Many in the region say that the American occupation of Iraq has, instead of fighting terrorism, encouraged its spread. Saudi Arabia's daily Al Watan claimed that, "The continued occupation of Islamic countries will not conquer terrorism. It will, however, feed it and give it fuel to continue and spread." Analysts point out that many regimes that might have tacitly supported or reluctantly endorsed the U.S. invasion of Iraq are now jittery about the prospects of extremist violence spreading to their home ground.

The general view among ruling establishments in the region is that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, despite all its faults and dangers, had stood opposed to terrorism. But Iraq under U.S. rule has become a magnet that has drawn international terrorists to the country. The Casablanca blasts, the deadly Al-Qaeda bombings in Saudi Arabia and the spurt of suicide attacks in Iraq during the course of the year are making Arab regimes in the neighbouring countries extremely edgy. Arab reaction to the growing American difficulties in Iraq is more complicated. Distrustful over the U.S. designs in the resource rich region in the future, many find it in their self-interest to see the Americans bogged down in Iraq.

Some commentators have argued that so long as the Americans remain preoccupied in Iraq, the lesser are the chances that they would embark upon "regime change" experiments in the rest of the region. In fact, some attribute the deal between the U.S. and the Libyan leader, Muammar Qadhafi, to the American difficulties in Iraq. With the occupation of Iraq becoming painful, the Americans, some say, appear to have veered to the view that instead of attempting "regime change", achieving a change in "regime behaviour" would be more desirable. A commentary in the Lebanese newspaper, The Daily Star, said that, "The fall of Saddam Hussein no doubt unnerved the Libyan leadership, but many Arab Governments believe that it was unlikely that the Bush administration would have accepted such a deal from the Libyan leader had the Iraq war gone better than it has." Libya might have become the first country in the region to have experienced a modification of the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emption. While many Arab regimes see benefits for themselves in the U.S. pre-occupation in Iraq, they are nevertheless fearful of an American defeat."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

International

News Update

Stories in this Section

Anti-war protesters take to the streets

Narrow win for Chen; Opposition contests poll verdict

Arabs think they are worse off after Iraq war

Malaysia to go to the polls today

Karuna `whipping up regionalism'

Putin urges tough action to defend Serbs

Pakistan captures 100 `foreign' militants

U.S. drops charges against Muslim Chaplain

Clarification

Former Dutch Queen is dead

Transplant baby doing fine