May 14, 2003
MIDEAST FTA:
THE U.S. SHOWS DETERMINATION TO 'TRANSFORM' THE REGION
KEY FINDINGS
** Euros, others back U.S.'
"long-term commitment to reshape" the Middle East status quo.
** "Political
issues" such as a "just solution to the Palestinian cause" must
be solved before enacting any FTA.
** Arab dailies worry about
the proposed FTA's inequality, noting the U.S.' "financial power and
technological pre-eminence."
MAJOR THEMES
An FTA can bring the 'wealth of globalization' to an 'insulated
and isolated' Arab world-- Euro, Asian and moderate
Arab dailies agreed that "Washington's determined initiative" offers
an "economic route out of the chronic underperformance that has provided
such a fertile breeding ground for terrorism." Germany's center-right Frankfurter
Allgemeine stated that the FTA's "path of liberalization" might
help Arab polities escape "their rigid and authoritarian ways," while
France's right-of-center Le Figaro added that "turning the Middle
East into a vast free-trade zone" is far better than any "new
unilateral military operation."
Singaporean and Argentine dailies praised the FTA proposal as a sign of
the U.S.' "larger involvement" and "commitment" to the
"strategic region." While
highlighting "the extent of political misery in the Arab world,"
Lebanon's centrist Al Anwar ironically termed Bush the "number one
Arab revolutionary...and reformist."
Critics insist any FTA is 'entirely dependent' on first solving
political issues-- Peace between the
Palestinians and the Israelis "remains a prerequisite for development,
prosperity and stability." Saudi
Arabia's pro-government Arab News noted that the U.S.' FTA proposal
"will be entirely dependent upon the success of their roadmap for
Palestine." UAE and Pakistani
dailies cited the U.S.' "total bias" for Israel's "racist and
aggressive policies" to explain why Washington will find it difficult to "convince
a skeptical Middle East of American bona fides." Oman's independent Al Watan added that
"nobody expects the economic partnership plans to succeed" during the
current violence. Kuwaiti and Turkish
dailies downplayed the FTA as a "PR campaign" designed to
"minimize the anti-American sentiment" in the Middle East.
The 'breathtakingly arrogant' FTA may be just a 'blueprint for
U.S. economic hegemony'-- Opposition to the FTA
stemmed from fears of the U.S.' "cultural imperialism" and
"colonial and unilateralist mindset."
Arab dailies called for "protective covenants" to prevent the
U.S. from "sweeping aside its smaller and weaker commercial
competitors" in the Middle East.
Morocco's independent L'Economiste admitted "Rabat doesn't
have the power to say no to the U.S.," while the UAE's Al Khaleej
cautioned the FTA would be established "between two unequal
sides." An FTA with "the
mightiest economy on the globe" would allow Washington to "interfere
in Arab and Islamic affairs," Egyptian and Saudi dailies warned, with
Jeddah's moderate Okaz declaring that Washington would not succeed in
its "attempts to McDonaldize the region."
EDITOR: Ben Goldberg
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey
was based on 26 reports from 18 countries over 10 - 14 May 2003. Excerpts from each country are listed from
the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "What
Conspiracy?"
The centrist Times noted (5/13): "The shape of Iraq, post-Saddam Hussein,
is becoming clearer.... It confirms the
commitment of the coalition to Iraq when critics had predicted that America would
rush home once the military job was done, and leave the country in a state of
anarchy.... President Bush on Friday
urged progress in the Israel-Palestine peace process and set out a vision of a
United States-Middle East free trade area in a decade.... Trade could offer countries an economic route
out of the chronic underperformance that has provided such a fertile breeding
ground for terrorism. Before the war
that would have been a fantasy. Now it
is merely ambitious. The road to a better and safer Middle East is being mapped
out, however much the critics carp from the sidelines."
"Empire Economics--The U.S. Is Hypocritical Over Trade"
The far-left Guardian opined (5/12): "George Bush's imperial ambition can be
terrifying. But the president's speech
last week outlining an offer of a US-Middle East free trade pact was a dramatic
shift from the loud, bellicose rhetoric of military force to the siren words of
economic progress. This is a startling
and welcome change for a region where the Bush White House, partly thanks to
its armed interventions, is more loathed than loved.... The worry is that while Mr. Bush has
correctly identified many of the region's problems, recent history suggests
that his administration views trade policy as another way of projecting power,
not as a weapon of mass
salvation.... For Mr.
Bush's White House the business of running America is often confused with
running American businesses. So US firms
are handed big contracts to rebuild Iraq while Russia and France, which opposed
the war, risk losing $5bn each as unpaid loans to Baghdad are written off. If Mr. Bush wants to display global leadership
on trade then his actions will have to match his gestures. American
unilateralism, even if coated in universal values, is a real threat to the
globe. Trade hypocrisy will help no
one. Mr. Bush's narrow agenda has not
been good for the world or America and will certainly not be good enough for
the Middle East."
FRANCE: “When Bush Bets On
The Middle East”
Pierre Rousselin commented in right-of-center Le Figaro
(5/10): “Turning the Middle East into a
vast free-trade zone is not a revolutionary idea. The fact that today President
Bush is adopting a vision shared by Shimon Peres and Bill Clinton is in itself
good news. This method is better than threatening this or that country with a
new unilateral military operation....
The Middle East, with its oil reserves, is the biggest economic waste in
the world today. The permanent threat of war has kept the region from the
wealth of globalization. But these threats are also useful alibis for some
regimes. Pushing these towards free-trade means to push them towards democracy.
But history has proven that political issues must be resolved first. Hence the
popular skepticism that will probably welcome this new vision for the Middle
East. As the U.S. gets ready to deal with Iraq without the UN, President Bush’s
plans for the Middle East look like one more sign in support of the idea that
the U.S. wants to take a long-lasting foothold in the region. For Europe, it
means new competition. It is also a new challenge.”
GERMANY: "Important
Signal"
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger observed in right-of-center Frankfurter
Allgemeine (5/10): “Trade theorists
regard bilateral free trade agreements with skepticism because they are based
on exclusiveness. But President Bush’s
proposal to create such a zone between America and the Middle East is a signal
whose importance reaches far beyond these concerns and the core problem, or at
least it can. The remarkable thing is
the optimism, which radiating from this proposal: that the reconciliation
between Israelis and Palestinians will progress a step further and be reflected
constitutionally and internationally by a Palestinian state which will have
close ties with America. And the
proposal fosters the hope that the states in the region will not remain stuck
in their rigid and authoritarian ways, thus entering the path of
liberalization. After the announcement
of the “road map”, Bush’s new proposal is a further element lending substance
to his determination to transform the Middle East, in the wake of September 11-
with the regime change in Baghdad as a pivotal point. Washington’s commitment to the pursuit of
what could be called power-based world order politics is conspicuous anyway.”
TURKEY: "The Road and
the Map"
Hadi Uluengin commented in mass appeal Hurriyet
(5/13): "President Bush's statement
in South Carolina is a clear indication of Washington's determined initiative
for the settlement of the Middle East issue.
This is an imminent issue on Washington's agenda in order to minimize the
anti-American sentiment in the post-war period.... Following both the Bush statement and
Secretary Powell's meetings in Israel, we can draw a conclusion that there is
no significant achievement on the horizon.
Sources close to Arabs are saying that the road map for the Middle East
has no chance of success unless there has been a concrete gesture from the
Israeli side. And the same sources
indicate that even the new PM of Palestine, Abbas, agrees with this.... As for Israel, it depicted its terms for
settlement as even tougher than before, and Ariel Sharon evidently was aloof to
Secretary Powell.... There might be some
hope for the Sharon-Bush meeting which is scheduled for next week. On the other hand, the Jewish lobby in the US
will do its best to prevent Sharon from facing American pressure. If that is the case, the roadmap is doomed to
fail."
MIDDLE EAST
EGYPT: “Facts”
Leading pro-government Al Ahram Editor-in-chief Ibrahim
Nafie remarked (5/11): “In the South
Carolina speech, President Bush proposed a plan to establish a free trade zone
between Middle East countries and the U.S. like the Marshall Plan for European
reconstruction after World War II--though Bush’s new plan is broader in
range.... We Arabs, have had no basic
differences with Americans except for their flagrant bias towards Israel and
their attempts to interfere in Arab and Islamic affairs under pretexts of
modernization and reform by force because Arabs and Moslems prefer dialogue
over violence.... However, Washington’s
dreams may evaporate if the Israeli right-wing insists on making an alternative
home for Palestinians in Jordan."
JORDAN: “Familiar
Objectives”
The centrist, elite English-language Jordan Times
editorialized (5/11): “U.S. President
George Bush’s initiative for the establishment of a free trade area between the
United States and the Middle East might not be original, but it is timely and
promising.... Unless solid foundations
for peace are laid, free market reforms have few chances. Peace remains a prerequisite for development,
prosperity and stability.”
“America Proposes Trade Openness To Middle East Countries”
Fahd Fanek declared in semi-official, influential Arabic-language Al-Rai
(5/11): “The U.S. President realizes
that America’s image, as a state biased in favor of Israel and against the
rights of the Palestinian people and as a state occupying a very important Arab
country, has reached rock-bottom. Arab
people must, therefore, be appeased and America’s image must be improved in the
Arab public opinion. Politically, Bush
stressed the need for Israel to deal with the Palestinians with dignity and
respect.... Economically, Bush presented
a grand project for establishing a free trade area between the Middle East and
America. This is the first step towards
reshaping the map of the Middle East....
If the American President wants to bribe the Arabs, then finding a just
solution to the Palestinian cause is the way to do that.”
KUWAIT: “The Future Of The
Gulf”
Naief Al-Hajraf wrote in independent Al-Anba (5/14): "President Bush’s suggestion to
establish a free trade zone in the Middle East in his recent speech at the
University of South Carolina must be welcomed cautiously despite the importance
of this idea. The GCC, Iran and Iraq must work closely to create a stronger
position to negotiate with the U.S. when it reveals more about its idea. It is
time now for the cannons to stop, and to get the factories running.”
“A New Initiative Or Public Relations?”
Ahmad Al-Dayeen held in independent Al-Rai Al-Aam
(5/11): “President Bush’s address [on
May 9 at the University of South Carolina] included many slogans such as
‘economic reforms’ and ‘confronting corruption.’ To achieve these slogans is
not an easy mission simply because our regimes...are the ones that resist
democratic reforms.... Having said that,
should we expect the US to force our regimes to carry out [the US] demands or
will Washington try to achieve its ends by preserving the regimes in power? In
this case, then the whole project is no more than a PR campaign to improve the
image of the US.”
“Kuwait’s Name Was Not Mentioned”
Hassan Al-Essa wrote in independent Al-Qabas (5/11): “Kuwait’s name was not mentioned during
President Bush’s address at North Carolina [sic] University when he talked
about a free trade zone in the Middle East region. The two words ‘freedom’ and
‘women’ were repeated more than once in his speech. President Bush gave
examples of countries where women have been appointed to high positions,
including Bahrain, Jordan and Turkey, but what about Kuwait which is known for
its constitution and democracy?....
Forty years after the establishment of the constitution, Kuwait’s
democracy has not developed and, as a matter of fact, it has regressed due to
some of our MPs whose priorities were to segregate university students [by
gender].”
LEBANON: "Confronting
Challenge By Entrenching Deterioration"
Rafiq Khoury contended in in centrist Al-Anwar (5/11): "Nothing shows the extent of political
misery in the Arab world better than a situation where President George Bush
finds himself able to emerge as the number one Arab revolutionary, opponent,
and reformist. The utmost of misery is that instead of working seriously to
introduce democratic change, all that we do is offer repeated arguments that
the United States is not serious in its talk about democracy. We proceed from
the right position of scoffing at a democratic slogan raised on the tanks of
the occupation only to maintain the wrong position of refraining from
introducing change unless forced on us by a foreign power. It is inconceivable
that we confront the challenge by entrenching deterioration. It is unacceptable
that in the 21st century we remain hostages to an unfair option: Foreign
enslavement or local despotism....
Change begins from Washington's variable vision on the protection of its
invariable vital interests. The first line in this change is that the American
national security is now linked 'not only to security in the Middle East but
also to "political reforms, economic development, education, the rule of
law, and the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.' For the first time in half a century the
'national security interest and the principles and values' converge on the
ground of one policy, namely, 'supporting freedom' in the region, as President
Bush says. The question is: Is it
conceivable that we wait for the United States to decide to 'seize a historic
opportunity for the Middle East' instead of us taking the initiative to create
and seize the opportunity? No one is unaware of the imperialist objectives of
the American empire...but the difference is huge between rejecting hegemony and
closing the eyes to our reality."
MOROCCO:
"Imagination"
Editor-in-chief Nadia Salah contended in independent,
business-oriented French-language L’Economiste (5/13): "The FTA proposal from the U.S., another
proposal to develop the "neighboring countries' offered by the European
Community to develop relations and may be answer what Morocco has asked for more
than ten years: 'More than partnership less than integration.' The two options,
the American and the European, are not disconnected: it is not a coincidence
that they have presented themselves in this hard world of post-September 11,
2001. It is not a coincidence either if
they do not go through WTO. They are not
compatible on all points but they are not completely incompatible. Their common
denominator is the reduction of the obstacles that face change.... These two distinctive regions, that are sometimes
rivals, put Morocco in a difficult position: Rabat doesn't have the power to
say no to the U.S. while, due to its proximity to Europe, its interests are
more European than American. But this
complicated position, where both countries must be taken care of, provides
opportunities.... If Morocco does not
want to see itself as a grain falling down between two millstones, now is the
time...for imagination."
"Bush Wants FTA For The Middle East"
Independent, French-language business-oriented L’Economiste
declared (5/12): "The offer might
be well received in the region. George Bush presented, last Friday, a
comprehensive plan for the Middle East suggesting mainly the establishment, in
ten years, of a FTA between this region and the U.S.... President Bush will tie his offer to reforms
such as the struggle against corruption, terrorism and protection of property
rights."
OMAN: "Peace Precedes
Trade Partnership"
Sami Hammed remarked in independent, Arabic-language Al Watan
(5/11): "In the light of the
current situation, nobody expects the economic partnership plans to
succeed. The logical sequence of the
events is the elimination of occupation first, followed by the successful
implementation of the Road Map and the establishment of a Palestinian state to
which all the refugees are returned to their homes. At that time, the Arabs
will feel the birth of a new era of peace, justice and economic flourishing
that is sought by all the people in this very sensitive area.”
SAUDI ARABIA:
"McDonaldization Of The Region"
Jeddah's moderate Okaz carried a commentary by Fahim Al
Hamed saying (5/12): "It seems that
President Bush intends to bring McDonalds; Pizza Hut and the fast food culture
to the entire ME region. In other words a McDonaldization of the region, the
American way. But, before this is
possible the Bush Administration should put pressures on Israel to declare its
official acceptance and approval of the Road Map.... The time has come for America to understand
that, as long as Israel remains an occupation force in the ME, there will be no
peace. Peace will only prevail when occupied territories are returned to their
rightful owners. Washington's attempts to McDonaldize the region will not
succeed. The Israeli occupation of Palestine will not be accepted. Also, the
American occupation of Iraq will not be tolerated any longer."
"Free Trade With Caution"
The English-language pro-government Arab News opined
(5/11): "The United States has
proposed the creation by 2013 of a free trade area linking it with the Middle
East. The idea is worth serious consideration but should also be approached
with caution. There are two factors, which will be critical. The first is that
free trade between the mightiest economy on the globe and the countries of the
Middle East cannot be truly free for the foreseeable future. It must instead be
governed by protective covenants that stop the financial power and
technological pre-eminence of the US from sweeping aside its smaller and weaker
commercial competitors.... The second
factor stems from these requirements. To the American way of thinking, capital
and expertise are elements of competition.
A free trade area with the Middle East would, by US logic, lead to the
gradual buying up of the best regional corporate assets. Under aggressive new
management they would then drive their local competitors out of business and
achieve market dominance. At that point domestic businessmen would justifiably
conclude that 'free trade' had meant nothing more than offering up their throats
to the sharp knife of US capital. The counter-arguments that the local economy
benefits from increased trade and that anyone can buy shares and own a part of
any of the great US corporations.... In
such circumstances, are both sophistries? They do however indicate the cultural
imperialism behind US thinking.... This
blind spot is dangerous. The most tragic
victims of such arrogance are the Palestinians. Americans have swallowed the
propaganda of “democratic” and “free market” Zionist Israel hook, line and
sinker.... And Washington should
understand from the outset that the success of their free trade area proposals
will be entirely dependent upon the success of their roadmap for Palestine. A
just settlement will only be achieved by even-handedness. The same is true of
free trade."
"The American Vision For The Middle East"
Jeddah’s conservative Al-Nadwa maintained (5/11): "The U.S. President George Bush's plan
to create a free trade area with the Middle East represents a jump over many
factors in order to integrate Israel with the countries of the
region...especially when Bush has urged Arab leaders to recognize and to
announce explicitly and openly that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish
state and live in peace with its neighbors....
The reshaping of the Middle East will not happen by ignoring well known
facts, that Israel is an occupying power and exercises terrorism in its worse
form.... Recognition of Israel cannot be
achieved while there are occupied Arab territories.... This fact will not allow Israel to become a
part of this region. If the United States wants the Arab world to acknowledge
Israel to live in peace with its neighbors, it must completely withdraw its
borders back to the borders of June 4, 1967, by doing so Israel would have
actually paved the way for normal relations with all Arab countries.... Any attempt to ignore this initiative (Crown
Prince Abdullah’s initiative) in order to impose a new reality will not
succeed."
SYRIA: "Major
Obstacle"
Haydar Haydar opined in government-owned Al-Thawra
(5/11): "The call made by President
Bush to establish a free trade zone in the Middle East by 2013 clearly shows
clearly that the US wants to utilize the outcome of its war on Iraq to the
utmost limit. But how can a stable and productive future for the region be
established when Israel, with its racist structure based on expansion,
occupation and settlements, is standing as an obstacle to the construction of a
secure future for the peoples of the region?"
UAE: "President Bush's
Plan For A New Middle East"
Sharjah-Based pan-Arab Al Khaleej held (5/11): "President George Bush's plan for a new
Middle East and his suggestion to establish a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area
by the year 2013 gives the impression of good will and American concern for the
region and its people.... But whoever
looks carefully at this plan and its goals and refers to past U.S. policies
towards the region...the plan relies on previous Israeli Minister Shimon
Perez's proposal for a new Middle East.
The plan in theory will be established between two unequal sides,
economically and militarily. This plan
is talking about a region that still has conflicts, most importantly the
Arab-Israeli conflict, which the U.S. treats with total bias for Israel and
supports its racist and aggressive policies....
This plan now puts the 'cart before the horse,' because its
implementation suggests first that this region should be blessed with security,
stability, and peace.... The U.S. plan
for a new Middle East comes at the wrong time, except if the U.S. thinks that
it can impose Israel on the region....
If the U.S. is serious about establishing a new Middle East that is
economically prosperous and blessed with the liberty and democracy President
Bush talks about, it (the U.S.) should immediately start by requiring that
Israel implement the international decisions in order to reach a just,
comprehensive, and lasting peace.... Or
else these plans will only aim to beautify the U.S.'s image in the eyes of the
people of the region."
"Carrot And Stick Diplomacy"
The English-language pro-government Gulf News editorialized
(5/11): "American President George
W. Bush has outlined a Mideast trade plan.
The objective is to have Middle East nations sign up to a U.S.-backed
trade initiative, giving such nations special terms, presumably on a quid pro
quo basis. Yet, there is more to this initiative than mere business.... The underlying reason is for the Arab World
to improve--or change--its political structures and see democracy in Arab
nations, together with greater human rights and freedoms. Whilst many Middle East nations may welcome
the possibility of improving trade with the U.S., every Arab and Muslim nation
will object strongly to the method employed to attract such participation. For
it requires fundamental changes not only in society and the rule of law but,
far more importantly, the very interpretation of Islam. This is because Arab Muslim law and society
is based on the Holy Quran, so any modifications to the interpretations of the
Holy Quran should certainly not be made by an outside power--a western one at
that--and definitely not coerced by the prospect of increased trade. The religion, history and culture of the
region can be traced back farther than that of America; it is the failure of
successive American administrations to understand the theory of such concepts
that depicts their desire to impose the "American way of life" where
it is not wanted."
ASIA-PACIFIC
CHINA (HONG KONG):
"Economic Difficulties Need Reform--Middle East's Potential Should
Not Be Ignored"
Independent Chinese-language Hong Kong Economic Journal
observed (5/10): "U.S. President
George W. Bush will deliver a speech today advocating the establishment in the
next decade of a U.S.-Middle East free trade zone to strengthen economic and
trade ties with the Middle East and to attract investment. Economic growth might help drive democratic
development in the region.... According
to statistics, the combined exports of more than ten Arab countries accounted
for 13.3% of world exports in 1980. This
figure dropped to 3% in 2001. Economic
development in the region is at a standstill.
This is not because Arabs are stupid or lazy, but because of the Arab
world's insulated and isolated political and economic systems, making it
difficult to attract overseas capital to the Middle East. The region accounts for a tiny percentage of
global trade and investment and has seen that share drop 8% over the past
twenty years, limiting growth for any industry except oil. One should not ignore, however, the region's
economic potential. The Arabs have a
long history of trade and commerce. If
economic reforms in the Middle East are hastened by the downfall of Saddam
Hussein, releasing the region's development potential, this may benefit the
world economy--including that of Hong Kong."
SINGAPORE: "Bush's
Trade Offer To Arabs Is Cosmetic"
Leon Hadar commented in the pro-government Business Times
(5/13): "The unveiling of the plan
last Friday in the aftermath of the US military victory in Iraq is seen in
Washington as a reflection of the Bush administration's long-term commitment to
reshape the politics and economics of the Middle East.... But unlike Singapore and Chile, as well as
many economies in East Asia and Latin America, almost all the countries in the
Middle East are clearly not ready to sign an FTA with the United
States.... The US did sign FTAs with
Israel and Jordan, but those decisions by the Bush administration were based
mostly on political considerations, since those agreements brought about very
limited benefits to the American economy. Those FTAs--like the one Washington
is negotiating with Morocco and may soon discuss with Egypt and Saudi
Arabia--are regarded in Washington as economic rewards to America's political
and military allies in the Middle East.
From that perspective, the US-Middle East FTA proposal should be seen
mostly in Middle East, and as part of an effort to demonstrate its commitment
to the economic reconstruction of Iraq and other regions as well as to work
towards the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. In reality, most of
the trade of the economies of the Middle East, including Israel, is with
countries of the European Union and not with the US.... And it is doubtful that America's farmers and
textile manufacturers would allow Washington to open US markets to cheap
exports from the Middle East."
PAKISTAN: "Reforming
By Diktat"
An editorial in the Karachi-based independent national Dawn
read (5/13): "There is something
breathtakingly arrogant about the U.S. decision to unveil an ambitious and
unilateral plan of action for the Middle East. Released in Washington on
Friday, the plan proposes to bring about sweeping social, political and
economic changes in the region. While many of the proposals are in themselves
not particularly controversial, it is the imperious manner in which the plan
has been handed down from high above that make it seem like a royal decree
rather than a set of proposals meant to be considered.... What is remarkable about this wish list is that
it has been announced as a fait accompli without any prior discussion or debate
between the U.S. and the regional countries involved. This is not only patronizing but reveals a
colonial and unilateralist mindset that must be deplored.... The plan of action is clearly designed as a
sop to those outraged by the American occupation of Iraq and by Washington's
support for Israel's repressive policies against the Palestinians. The intent to present a more humane U.S. face
to the Middle East is so palpable that there is already much speculation about
the plan's real aims and objectives....
The U.S. must realize that at the heart of the current anti-Americanism
in the region is Washington's indulgent stance towards Israel. Unless it pressures Israel and forces it to
stick to its part of the obligations under the new peace initiative, no amount
of well-meaning rhetoric on women's empowerment and parents' rights in the
matter of education will convince a skeptical Middle East of American bona
fides.... The delicate task of reshaping
the Middle East is better left to its own people to handle, according to their
own lights, with the help of the United Nations where necessary. The U.S., or any other country, is fully free
to guide and assist in this effort. But
to try to enforce reforms by diktat can only fuel greater resentment in the
region. Democratization and basic reforms are essentially evolutionary
processes and simply cannot be thrust on nations and peoples by means of
external pressure and intimidation.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Arabs And
Free Trade"
The leading Globe and Mail editorialized (5/13): "Mr. Bush wants to open the borders of
the Mideast in psychological as well as economic terms. This can take place,
however, only once peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been achieved--or
alongside it. In other words, the Bush economic proposal is highly dependent on
the Bush political proposal--the so-called road map that Secretary of State
Colin Powell is pressing now during a Mideast tour. Initial Arab reaction to
the free-trade proposal has been disappointing. Suspicions abound that this is
a blueprint for U.S. economic hegemony. It might help if other countries
supported the talks or even sought to sign on to them. Canada prides itself on
being a free trader; it should be the first to encourage this process."
ARGENTINA: "Bush
Reinforces His Plan For The Middle East"
Jorge Rosales wrote in daily-of-record La Nacion
(5/10): "In his diplomatic
offensive to reach peace between Israelis and Palestinians, stabilize the
region and highlight disagreement with the European countries that opposed the
war in Iraq, President George W. Bush offered an economic incentive to the Arab
world by proposing to create a free trade zone with the Middle East countries
within ten years...with the purpose to grant larger prosperity and stability to
the region, said Bush yesterday when launching the ambitious initiative.... This step represents a larger US involvement
in the strategic region and long commitment to reach peace in the rocked area.
But it is also a response to the criticism of the US intervention in Iraq from
the countries of the 'old Europe,' as the Republican administration terms
France and Germany due to their closed opposition to the war that deposed
Saddam Hussein... Bush's strategy for the Middle East is based on the promotion
of democratic and economic reforms that, in the Republican administration's
hope, should be adopted as an example of the changes in Iraq after the removal
of the Saddam regime."
##
