[Peace-discuss] NYTimes.com Article: Anger at U.S. Said to Be at New High

[akagan at uiuc.edu]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by akagan at uiuc.edu.


I think this New York Times article is particularly useful.

akagan at uiuc.edu


Anger at U.S. Said to Be at New High

September 11, 2002
By JANE PERLEZ 




 

CAIRO, Sept. 10 - Anger at the United States, embedded in
the belief that the Bush administration lends unstinting
support to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, is at
an unparalleled high across the Arab world, according to
analysts and diplomats in the region. 

The resolve of President Bush to use force against Iraq,
they say, compounds the antagonism, which is expressed with
particularly unvarnished dismay in Egypt and neighboring
Jordan, Washington's crucial Arab allies. 

More than in previous bouts of anti-Americanism in the
region, the anger permeates all strata of society,
especially among the educated, and is tinged, people
acknowledge, with disillusionment at their own
long-entrenched American-backed leadership. 

Frustration at the failure of the Arab governments to forge
a common front against the administration and its close
relationship with the government of Ariel Sharon in Israel
seeps through many conversations. 

"There is a sense by many ordinary people and politicians
that the moves against Iraq are an effort to redraw the map
for the strategic interests of the United States and
Israel," said Rami G. Khouri, an American-educated
Jordanian journalist and a senior analyst with the
International Crisis Group, a research group with offices
in Washington. 

Mr. Khouri, like many others, said the Iraqi leader, Saddam
Hussein, was deeply unpopular in the region. 

"Everyone I know wants Saddam Hussein removed," he said.
"Nobody I know wants the Americans to do it - because we
believe they are the last people in the world who will work
on the behalf of Arab interests." 

But this deep antagonism toward the United States is mixed,
Mr. Khouri and others said, with an affinity for the
American way of life that feeds the disillusionment with
the Bush administration. 

"Arabs are much closer to Americans than to Europeans," Mr.
Khouri said. "Arabs love American culture, the rocket to
the moon, technology, fast cars. They love going to
America. Now they feel like jilted lovers." 

The authoritarian leadership in Egypt, the monarchy in
Jordan and other governments across the region would
probably survive the street protests that are likely to
occur if there is a war against Iraq, most of those
interviewed said. 

The protests may be used to allow populations to vent their
frustrations. Analysts said governments in the region were
nervous about the unpredictable consequences of a war, and
the almost certain heavy economic costs, particularly in
Jordan, where cheap Iraqi oil keeps the country going. 

Mustafa B. Hamarneh, the director of the Center for
Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan, said it was
likely that governments would ban lengthy demonstrations so
as not to risk confrontations between their armies and the
people - and also to avoid antagonizing the United States. 

"The regimes will tighten the screws on political
expression to keep their own skins," he said. "If the
American flag is burnt every night on the Cairo streets, do
you think Congress is going to give them money?" Egypt is
one of the largest recipients of American foreign
assistance. 

Opinion makers, businessmen and officials voiced what they
emphasized was their bewilderment at what they saw as the
broken promise of the Bush administration. Instead of
reaching out to the Arab world, as they had hoped, they
said Mr. Bush had assumed an unquestioning tolerance of the
actions of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel against
the Palestinians. 

They talked bitterly of the United States behaving like an
18th-century imperial power with policies based on racism
and gunpowder. The main difference between the United
States today and the marauding forces of Genghis Khan was
that Washington was able to project its power all over the
globe, said one person who was interviewed who insisted on
anonymity. 

There was little confidence in the Bush administration's
promise to bring democracy to the Arab world in the wake of
a defeat of Mr. Hussein. The administration's terminology
"regime change" was revealing in itself, several people
said. It meant, they said, that Washington could easily
target other governments in the Arab world for similar
treatment. 

"All this talk of democracy in the Middle East is baloney,"
Mr. Hamarneh said. "The United States wants to do this
against Iraq to spite Arabs and in spite of Arabs." 

Most of those interviewed said that rather than ushering in
democracy, an attack on Iraq would bring disintegration and
chaos. 

"There is a sense that the United States is going to make a
mess of the region," said Abdel Monem Said Aly, the
director of the prestigious Ahram Center for Political and
Strategic Studies in Cairo. 

Mr. Aly listed what he called four major flaws in the Bush
agenda: unequivocal support for Mr. Sharon, which he said
was the driving force behind Washington's desire to topple
Mr. Hussein; dealing with Iraq militarily "without
preparation"; misguided policies on dealing with
terrorists; and the negative "general rhetoric" from
Washington about Muslims and Arabs. 

By threatening to act unilaterally against Iraq, the United
States would lose its remaining credibility among one
billion Muslims and 300 million Arabs, Mr. Aly said. 

"You need at least the support of those who are pro the
United States," he said. "If you lose all those, there is
no way you can guarantee the security of the United
States." 

There was widespread skepticism about the Bush
administration's contention that the Iraqi leader was close
to developing nuclear weapons.