The Saudi initiative to send Arab-Muslim forces to Iraq and Sudan's predicament occupied the Arab press this week, writes Rasha Saad The UN Security Council resolution setting a 30-day deadline for Sudan to disarm Arab militias in Darfur or else face diplomatic and economic penalties occupied most Arab commentators this week. In its editorial on Monday, the Saudi newspaper Okaz supported an urgent meeting at the Arab League in support of Sudan so that "it does not turn into another Iraq". The editorial also describes the "unjust" 30-day deadline as "a compromise by the US and British forces to their supporters -- usually described as coalition troops -- who appear reluctant to strike at once." Recalling a similar atmosphere before the US strike on Iraq, Okaz called on Sudan's rulers to bow to the wind in an effort to deny the global power any excuse to direct a military blow to their country; "especially that the US has prepared Libya for encircling Sudan and is just waiting for the international cover for its action." Monday's editorial in the Qatari daily Al-Watan criticised both the Security Council resolution and US Secretary of State Colin Powell for failing to offer any alternatives to Sudan other than the threat of the use of force. "The international community did not exert any genuine effort to contain the Darfur crisis peacefully, either through offering substantial aid or rebuilding deserted villages," the editorial lamented. Thus Al- Watan questioned the real motives behind the Security Council resolution which it deemed impetuous; coming as it did when matters had in fact not reached a deadlock and when dialogue with the Sudanese government was still a possibility. Ahmed Omarabi, writing in the Emirati newspaper Al-Bayan on Sunday, suggested that Sudan cannot guarantee American consent even if it disarmed the Janjaweed militias this week. According to the writer, the US's current attitude towards Khartoum on the Darfur crisis stems from the rigid stance of some lobbies in the US Congress who have a hostile agenda regarding Sudan in general, and in which Darfur is only one item. However Omarabi dismissed the possibility of an immediate military strike on Sudan. According to him, with American presidential elections coming up in November, US President George Bush will not seek another gamble in Sudan amidst growing criticism of his failure in the ongoing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Omarabi also pointed out that the US is not the only international player, and that Sudan is placing its bet on other international parties, in particular China, which oppose the US stance. "During the past five years Sudan has turned into a strategic partner to China and thus China is leading the opposition [to the American agenda]," he explained. The writer also cited the position of France, which Paris describes as one "based on cooperation with Sudan rather than working against it," as an example to the expected extension of opposition to Washington from other international powers during the coming period. The Saudi proposal to send Muslim troops to Iraq sparked widely-varying responses in the Arab press. In an article entitled "the Iraqi complex" published in the London-based Lebanese daily Al-Hayat on Sunday, Abdel-Wahab Badrakhan argued against the idea of sending Muslim forces to Iraq. According to the writer, the experience of the coalition troops, which were occupation forces before becoming multinational forces, "does not encourage any country to send its troops to Iraq -- whether under the illusory cover of the United Nations or on a peace and security mission." Badrakhan argued that save for the Americans and British "who finalised their internal alignments," other countries do not seem ready to intervene with that selective mentality. He added that even the UN is accused of having preconceived ideas about what it desires to achieve. Moreover, he argued, the dominant international impression that Iraq has yet to reveal all of its complications and contradictions can frustrate the will of those who desire to offer impartial help. "That is why resorting to Arab and Muslim military forces does not seem to be a solution but rather an attempt by the US to lessen some of its burdens," he concluded. While Badrakhan acknowledged the importance of what Saudi Prince Saud Al-Faisal termed an "Arab and Islamic movement," the writer argued that it is not an easy mission because "all countries know that they are invited to deal with circumstances caused by the occupation and with the results of basic mistakes that the occupation itself committed." In addition, he added, the different capitals that are mulling over sending troops to Iraq clearly realised that the UN's role is limited -- sometimes even non- existent -- and ill-befits the "legitimacy" that the international organisation gave to the occupation forces in hoping to facilitate the transfer of authority and sovereignty to the Iraqis. "Even if the Americans approve a larger role for the UN, the latter cannot interest countries to undertake an unclear adventure especially when five countries were already forced to pull out from the coalition because citizens of theirs were killed or kidnapped." On the same day, Tareq Abdel-Hamid supported the Saudi proposal in his column published in the London-based Saudi Arabian newspaper As-Sharq Al- Awsat. Abdel-Hamid vehemently defended the idea of sending Arab and Muslim troops to Iraq and likened the critics of the proposal to the "masked men in Iraq who appear in the media," implying that such critics support the terrorists in Iraq. The writer urged these critics to declare whether they supported Abu Mosaab Al-Zarqawi or Baghdad. "Those who seek to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan should only put masks on their faces and stand in the same line with Al- Zarqawi, while those who seek stability in Baghdad have to support every initiative that seeks the stability of Iraq," he insisted. Abdel-Hamid believes that the Saudi proposal, which he argued should have come earlier, was not initiated to protect the American forces but to protect Iraq and its neighbouring countries -- including Saudi Arabia itself: "Stability in Iraq does not serve the US. It serves the Iraqi people, the whole region and above all Saudi Arabia. Riyadh is concerned with the security of Iraq to protect its borders. Simply put: the interests of the Saudi Kingdom necessitate that Iraq enjoy security and stability." Such emphatic support notwithstanding, the Saudi initiative also had its share of detractors throughout the week. The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi 's editor-in-chief, Abdul-Bari Atwan, for one, warned that the proposal might backfire and transfer terrorism to Iraq's neighbours instead of protecting them. In his Monday editorial entitled "A Saudi-Jordanian gamble," Atwan warned the Saudis who initiated the proposal and the Jordanians who support it that "the Iraqi resistance might move into their countries." "There is a Sunni and Shia consensus in Iraq that these Arab- Muslim troops will be deemed supporters of the occupation who should therefore be resisted. And some Islamic groups in Iraq have threatened to fight them. So why should the Jordanians, Moroccans or Saudis be killed in Iraq?" Atwan asked.
