|
December 24, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
|
Mary Ann Lindley Editorial Page Editor The Tallahassee Democrat, Tallahasee, Florida. REF: Doug Marlett's Cartoon "What Would Muhammad Drive" (12/22/02). It goes without saying that given our nation's rediscovered sensitivity to race, ethnicity, and religion following the prejudicial comments of Sen.Trent Lott that I find your cartoonist, Mr. Doug Marlette's portrayal of Islam's Holy Prophet, Muhammad (pbuh) as a "terrorist" to be of utmost ignorance, bigotry, and a stark Anti-Semitic statement; although I'm sure he's not even aware of the true meaning of the word Semite. At a time of world turmoil and terrorism, at a time when Muslims especially children are already exposed to violence and harassment in schools, at a time when our nation is keen to avoid the perception of attacking the Islamic faith, at a time of "peace on earth and good will to men"; your paper has done a great disservice to your readers, to Florida, and our nation. I find it curious that our nation seems to disregard the total irreverence given to Jesus, peace be upon him, and Muhammad, peace be upon him, but is totally fearful and intimidated to negatively portray Moses, peace be upon him. That would be suicidal for Mr. Marlette and your paper. Mr. Marlette should view the recent movie "Muhammad, Legacy of a Prophet" shown on PBS. If he missed it I would be more than happy to send your paper a copy as a gift. Thoughtless and conforming behavior by our journalists is too dangerous a prospect in our anxious world of today. Perhaps it would be more informative for your paper to tackle the issue why Palestinian Christians and Christians from around the world are unable to perform their annual pilgrimage to Bethlehem this year due to Israel's military occupation of Manger Square and the imposed military curfew on the city. For 1,400 years in the Holy Land under Islamic rule, Jews, Christians, and Muslims enjoyed the peace and freedom of living in mutual respect with religious freedom. This was lost with the establishment of Israel. May I suggest to you and him to view these two following sites for more information on the Holy Land: www.cactus48.com and www.mideastfacts.com the first written by Jewish Americans and the second by a Christian. I would even be happy to travel to your paper at my expense to meet with your editorial staff on Islam and MidEast politics or perhaps you can invite one of the Muslim leaders among the large Muslim population in Florida: I ask that your paper issue an apology to Muslims regarding this most hurtful and insensitive cartoon and refrain your cartoonist from seeking a convenient humorous sound byte to fill his daily agenda. He should avoid appearing like an intellectually lazy and uninformed Anti-Semite. If Muslims followed the belief of a "terrorist" he would NOT dare print such a cartoon, it's precisely because Muslims are peaceful that he can pen his hate. Alas, our complaints are by email not by "terrorist" means. God bless you. Wishing you, your family, all your colleagues, our nation, and the world Peace during this celebration of the birth of the "Prince of Peace"
Dr. Mohamed Khodr is a contributing columnist to Al-Jazeerah. He sent a copy of this letter to Mary Ann Lindley, the Editorial Page Editor of the The Tallahassee Democrat (12/22/02), regarding Doug Marlett's Cartoon "What Would Muhammad Drive?"
The savage smear campaign to which Islam and the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia have recently been subjected in some sections of the American media
has served both to deepen and widen the misunderstanding of the Kingdom
and Islam, especially in the US but also in the West in general. The
prevailing Western view of Arabs and Islam is a factor that determines the
Western view of Arabs and Islam in the American media; it is an important
source of the misunderstanding. As Edward Said has said, it is impossible for any researcher or for the
Western media to write of Arabs or Islam or even to imagine them outside
the preconceived limits set by Western ideas of Arabs. This also
represents the new conservatives’ central frame of thinking in the
United States — and provides the moral dimension of America’s hegemony
and an introduction into the American political decision-making related to
this region. These decisions are not made in a vacuum but are instead
based on inaccurate decisions on the state of the region, its traditions,
habits and culture. The American political mind tends to deal with Arab
reality on the basis of inaccurate assumptions — unfortunately however,
to too many of the American political decision-makers, these assumptions
appear to be facts. The Western researcher, politician or media looks at Arab and Islamic
societies from what is called an “Essentialist” view based on two
principal ideas. First is the myth of fixed traits and permanent features.
In this myth, Arab and Islamic societies are ruled by unchanging permanent
features — East is East and West is West and each have their own fixed
and permanent features. Arab-Islamic culture is one that is incapable of change and innovation.
One of the most prominent Orientalists in the US, Gustav von Gronbaum,
finds no difficulty in portraying Islam as anti-humanity and unable to
change or gain self-knowledge or objectivity. He says, “It is essential
to realize that Islamic civilization as an entity does not share our
principal aspirations. It is unconcerned with studying the cultures of
others as an end in itself or as a means to an improved understanding of
their natures and history. If this were true of modern Islam, one might
link it to Islam’s turbulence which does not allow it to look further
than itself unless forced to do so; this, however, goes back to the past
and one may link it to the anti-human tendency of this civilization.” This sort of fundamentalist and racist thinking, based on the myth of
the existence of an outright contradiction between two opposites that have
no common denominator, has affected ideas on Arab and Islamic societies.
Therefore, many modern Western researchers are comfortable recycling this
train of thought with the aim of proving the imaginary and politicized
contradiction between what they think is fundamental in their personal
identity and what is fundamental in Arab-Islamic culture. P.J. Valikiotis does not hesitate to presume that the contradictions
between Western and Arab civilization are sharp and eternal. Judith Miller
does not hesitate to assume that Islam is incompatible with human rights.
Daniel Pipes uses the term “fundamentalist Islam” and “Islam”
interchangeably. He also makes a comparison between “fundamentalist
Islam” on the one hand and communism and fascism on the other. He says:
“While fundamentalist Islam differs in its details from the utopian
ideology, it is very similar in both scope and aims. Like communism and
fascism, it portrays a pioneering ideology and a comprehensive program for
human betterment and for building a new society and dominating it
completely and setting up cadres ready and eager for bloodshed.” In his work, “Islam and Liberal Democracy,” Bernard Lewis considers
the problem of the Middle East does not rest on the extent of the
compatibility between fundamentalism and liberal democracy, but on the
possibility of the existence of any such compatibility between liberal
democracy and Islam itself. The second issue is the presumption of knowledge of Arab and Islamic
societies and what is involved in portraying Western and racist
generalities as objective realities. These presumptions drive the
researcher, politician as well as the Western media into believing that he
is thinking or planning or writing based on the realities of those
societies, unaware of the bias or the results of this politicized message
that is characterized by regurgitating stereotypes. Unconsciously people become prisoners because the trap they fall into
is an ideological one rather than a physical one. They believe that they
are thinking and acting and writing on the basis of the objective
realities of Arab and Islamic societies when in fact they are thinking,
acting and writing based on their view or understanding or imagination of
those societies. The Western understanding of Arab and Islamic societies rests on
ignoring that people are the ones who make human history and consequently
we must look to understand other societies and cultures from the idea that
they are cases for interpretation and not objective realities and accepted
facts. There is no objective understanding independent of the ideological
view of the makers of such knowledge. Understanding is a result of human
explanation inextricably linked with the political-cultural context which
produced it. Further, the prevalent Western understanding of Arab and
Western societies which rests on the supposition that it is a clear
example of those societies, ignores the reality that we live in a
constantly changing world and limits the mind with chains of stillness and
immobility. In reality nothing exists which is incapable of change and
development. The presumption, or perhaps more aptly the myth, that Muslims
are enemies or are potential enemies may not be true and even if it were
true for an instant in time, it might change in the next. Western
stereotypes harden other realities and widen the gap between the mental
picture and reality. In conclusion, despite the fact that the Sept. 11 attacks are
considered crimes against humanity, undertaken by terrorists claiming to
be Muslims, the Islamic countries are also victims of terrorism. The
dominant West should not be a prisoner of its own fundamentalist view of
Arab and Islamic societies. (Dr. Khaled Al-Rowaitea is a Saudi academic. He is based in Riyadh.)
-
In limbo -
Now is not a good time to be an optimist about peace for the
Palestinians. The sense that everything seems to be in suspension, in a
state of limbo, while the world waits to see if President George W. Bush
really is going to finish his father’s unfinished business with Saddam
Hussein has just been heightened by the announcement that Palestinian
presidential elections have been postponed indefinitely. The grounds are perfectly reasonable. With the exception of Jericho,
every single Palestinian city of any consequence is effectively occupied
and run by the Israeli military. These do not look like the circumstances
in which a free and fair election could be run. The delay represents both
a great opportunity and a great danger. Let us take the latter first. The writ of the Palestinian Authority had
hardly been established in the Palestinian territories before the Israelis
began their clampdown. By identifying Yasser Arafat with the suicide
bombers, Ariel Sharon’s Zionist administration felt it legitimate to
attack and demolish the nascent institutions of the Palestinian
administration. This demolition was both physical, as in the destruction
of police stations, official buildings and the PA’s own headquarters and
leader’s office, and psychological. Thus the great contradiction emerged
in the Israeli argument against Yasser Arafat’s leadership. Given their
virtual eradication of the law and order authorities, it was never clear
how the Israelis imagined Arafat could crack down on anyone. Sharon, of
course, knew, just as well as every other observer did, that whatever
influence Arafat might once have enjoyed over Hamas and Islamic Jihad has
been blown away bit by bit by Israeli aggression. For Zionism, any
settlement with the Palestinians will compromise the goal of a greater
Israel. Only by egging on the extremists will Sharon and his hawks be able
to avoid the negotiating table. The vacuum left by the collapse of the Palestinian Authority’s
administrative infrastructure has been filled by the extremists. Their
welfare and social services are often the only source of help for
beleaguered Palestinians; their fighters the only source of law and order
and protection. Nevertheless, had the presidential election gone ahead as
planned next month, it is highly likely that Yasser Arafat would have won,
for all the complaints against him. He has come to represent in his own
isolation and humiliation, the horrors that have befallen everyone living
in Palestine. There are those who argue that soon a new moderate Palestinian
leadership is needed to face down the Zionists, re-inspire Palestinians
and impress the outside world. But, were such a leadership to emerge in
these present uncertain days, when there is no mandated Israeli government
to speak to and the world waits nervously for Washington’s attack upon
Iraq, it would quickly squander its freshness to little purpose. Bush does not understand how justice for Palestine will rob
international terror of one of its great excuses. Until he learns some
lessons about moderation, it is hard to see him honoring a moderate new
Palestinian leadership. Therefore, it is probably for the best that the
experienced and battle-hardened Yasser Arafat maintains his leadership in
these alarming times.
-
Anti-war not the same as
anti-defense - People should make a distinction between someone being anti-war and
being anti-defense. The best way, as George Washington said, to preserve
the peace is to be prepared for war. The worst thing politicians can do is
to squander the nation’s resources in unnecessary wars. Look at Vietnam. We know in retrospect that it doesn’t make one
iota’s difference to us that Vietnam is communist. American politicians
and businessmen have flocked to do business with the communists. Yet
politicians wasted 57,000 American lives presumably to prevent Vietnam
from going communist. Another 40,000 were wasted in Korea, as if the
politics of the Korea Peninsula mattered to us one way or another. I
hasten to add, of course, that in both instances it matters a great deal
to the Vietnamese and the Korean people. But that’s the point. They are Vietnamese and Koreans, not Americans.
Who governs their countries is up to them, not to us. God did not put us
on this earth to run around the globe deciding which government is
appropriate for which country. We are responsible for only one government
and one country — ours. We are not doing a very good job at taking care
of it, either. Our borders are being overrun, our natural resources are
being exploited, and our government is inefficient and corrupt. There is no need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was
designed to defend Europe against an invasion by the Soviet Union. There
is no Soviet Union. There is no reason whatsoever for 91,000 American
soldiers to be permanently stationed in Germany. There are no military
threats to Germany, or to any other European country. There are more
people in the European Union than there are in the United States. I
imagine that they would field whatever military forces they felt were
necessary if we quit being such a sucker as to “protect” people who
don’t need any protection. There is no reason to keep 36,000 Americans in South Korea or thousands
more on the Japanese island of Okinawa. We have no legitimate interest in
the Far East except for trade, and military forces are not required for
trade. The only country in the Far East that is supposedly an enemy is
China, and we’re trading with China like mad. Japan is the
second-largest economy in the world and can certainly defend itself. It
has a warlike tradition 3,000 years old, whereas ours is barely 400 years
old. Japan already spends more on its “self-defense” forces than Great
Britain and France combined. It might be of interest to know that at the end of World War I, Great
Britain’s military planners figured the next war Great Britain would
have to fight would be against the United States. They saw Germany as
having been taken out of the picture, and they saw us as the only threat
to Great Britain’s dominance. That historical tidbit is a reminder of
the wisdom of another thing George Washington said: There is no such thing
as friendship between nations. No nation can be trusted beyond its
perceived self-interest. The fact that American politicians today routinely refer to this
country or that one as “friend” is just more evidence of our
intellectual decline. We are powerful today because in the past we’ve
been lucky as hell, and because in the past we had leaders with brains and
backbones. We are spending the seed corn of the past, and the American
people need to wake up and find something more substantial to rely on than
dumb leaders and dumb luck. If I sound grumpy, it’s because I am. If I wanted my grandchildren to
live in a Third World country, I would move them to one. I have no desire
whatsoever to stand silent while cheap politicians reduce this, the
greatest country in the world, to just another Third World has-been. (King
Features Syndicate)
IT IS hard to believe that the US could find something wrong in the Syrian-sponsored draft resolution expressing grave concern by the UN Security Council at the killing of UN personnel in the Palestinian territories by the Israeli army. Even more puzzling is Washington's rejection of any wording in the resolution that calls on Israel to refrain from using disproportionate force against Palestinians and to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention. The US ambassador to the Security Council explained his veto of the resolution on the premise that it is one-sided and would poison the political climate on the eve of the official release of the so-called road map for peace in the Middle East by the quartet of powers working on the document. All the other members of the Security Council including Great Britain, to date the US' staunchest ally, thought otherwise. They cast their vote in favour of the resolution. Can all those members of the council be so wrong and only the US right? Even Israel expressed regret when UN officials were gunned down, so why is Washington so unwilling to state the obvious. It should be remembered that just over a week after Ariel Sharon's provocative entry into the Islamic holy grounds of Al Haram Al Sharif and the ensuing Intifada, the Security Council passed a resolution condemning the use of force "especially" against Palestinians in the Middle East. The resolution stated that the council "condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life." At that time the United States abstained from the vote. The vote was 14 for the resolution, none against and one abstention. At the time the US ambassador to the UN said: "The United States does not think this is a very good resolution, to put it mildly. It was one-sided, it did not reflect the fact that Israelis have been killed and wounded. We want resolutions that contribute to the resolution of problems, not inflame situations." The premise then as now was one-sided, to use the US own terms. It should be remembered too that Washington was none too pleased when Syria was elected last year to serve as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for a two-year term. As for the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, there can be no grounds whatsoever to oppose this call. And speaking of the Geneva law, the prohibition of disproportionate use of force is a cardinal principle in contemporary humanitarian law. Instead of acting once again as the odd man out, the US should have endeavoured to break the pattern of its one-sidedness when it comes to Israel, call a spade a spade, and maintain some semblance of credibility as a so-called honest broker. It is no wonder increasing numbers of people, even your average American citizen, are beginning to recognise the blatant double standards Washington continues to apply in favour of Israel and in neglect of the Arab world, particularly the Palestinians.
-
Reading between the lines of UK diplomacy By Rosemary Hollis Jordan Times, 12/24/02
- THERE WAS a flurry of diplomatic activity in London last week on Middle East issues. Syrian President Bashar Assad arrived on an official visit, in the middle of which British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his intention to convene a mini-conference with Palestinian and other Arab officials in January to discuss the issue of reform in the Palestinian National Authority. Both events proved a subject of contention between the Israeli foreign minister and his British counterpart when they met on Friday. Meanwhile, the UK government set in motion military preparations for a possible war with Iraq and issued a critical initial assessment of Baghdad's declaration on its weapons programmes. Taken together, these developments provide a clear indication of the thrust of Britain's overall policy towards the region and the extent to which this is distinguishable from that of the United States. Anyone wishing to see Britain making a stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq or the war on terrorism which clashes overtly with that of Washington will no doubt be disappointed. However, simply by receiving Assad for talks at the highest level and offering a platform to the Palestinians when Washington seems content to shelve their concerns points to a more discerning assessment of regional issues than the one that prevails in Washington. Even so, the jury is still out on whether London is serving the needs of Washington by providing diplomatic cover for its more forceful agenda or actually exercising a formative influence on the US administration. Arab interlocutors seem as much at a loss as the rank and file of Britain's governing Labour Party on how to assess the impact of British diplomacy. The most positive comments coming from Arab governments, including that of Syria, depict Blair as instrumental in getting Washington to take the UN route on the Iraq crisis. However, according to Assad, the overall verdict on British influence could be negative if the UN inspection process fails to avert a war. Assad was also not very impressed by Blair's call for a meeting with the Palestinians, on the grounds that focusing only on their reform plans, without calling the Israelis to account for the occupation, not only fails to address the core problem but actually assists Israeli and American delaying tactics. To substantiate his message to Britain that a war on Iraq is too dangerous to contemplate, the Syrian president painted a picture of regional instability and increased terrorist activity in the wake of an attack. Yet Assad's visit proceeded amicably and without a public contretemps between him and Blair, of the kind which marked their previous meeting in Damascus. Also, when challenged on the absence of Arab pressure on those Gulf countries hosting the US military build-up, Assad indicated an appreciation for the constraints which prevent Gulf governments from defying the Americans. A view from the Gulf itself, that is circulating in London, is that somehow it will not come to war because the risks are just too great to contemplate. This, of course, runs counter to the consensus that prevailed in the meeting of Iraqi opposition groups, which also took place in London last week, that the removal of Saddam Hussein is not only desirable but to be urgently pursued. In order to make their case for regime change, Iraqi exiles were wont to downplay the scale of resistance which Saddam loyalists might be expected to mount to an American attack. In the midst of this confusion about what is likely, wise or permissible under international law, the Liberal Democrats and some Labour back-benchers in parliament are saying that plans for a possible war must not be talked up, for fear of circumventing the UN process and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. By the end of last week, however, the qualms of such parliamentarians and Assad's warnings were overshadowed by a statement from the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to the effect that Iraq should be considered in “material breach” of UN Resolution 1441, because of omissions in the Iraqi declaration. British military contingency plans were also set in motion which portend a readiness for possible action as of February or thereabouts. Britain's dilemma is not without parallel among America's other allies. If war is on the cards, it makes sense to prepare accordingly, while also pursuing alternatives. Yet, because Britain has positioned itself as a key confidant of the United States, were London to actually oppose Washington on the central issue of Iraq, this would be much more significant than criticism from other quarters. Blair conceded as much in an interview with the Guardian last week. However, Blair said that he agreed “both with the war against international terrorism and the campaign against weapons of mass destruction”. He went on to say that his concern with US policy is that “the agenda however has got to be broader than terrorism and WMD”. Here, then, is an important clue to where the British government is coming from and Blair's initiative on the Palestinian front spells a greater sense of urgency on that score than is operative in Washington. What's more, there are several indications that Blair is not as relaxed as Washington about letting Israeli internal politics take their course. Instead, he wants to actively bolster the peace camp. Notwithstanding Assad's scepticism, if the Palestinians can use the January meeting in London to demonstrate that they are doing whatever they can under the present circumstances to address the issue of reform, this could serve to shift the onus on Israel, to show more commitment to conflict resolution. Blair has also indicated an interest in meeting Labour Party candidate for prime minister, Amram Mitzna, in person, ahead of the Israeli elections. As Benjamin Netanyahu presumably told Straw when they met, British diplomacy is on the verge of interfering in Israeli domestic affairs. He apparently also objected to Britain hosting Assad, and perhaps received the answer that if peace is to stand a chance, Syria will have to be part of it. In fact, Britain is doing Washington a favour by pursuing a broader diplomatic agenda, though the State Department is probably more appreciative of this than the hawks in the US administration. And by incurring the irritation of the Israeli government at this time, London is charting a course which contrasts with that of Washington. In sum, Blair's claim that he acts out of conviction, not just loyalty to Washington, rings true, but ultimately it is still unclear what material difference British diplomacy is making to the basic thrust of US policy.
-
The letter 'q', the linkage between Iraq
and Alqaeda By Sherri Muzher Jordan Times, 12/24/02
- AS WE prepare for war on Iraq, polls show that the American people want to see evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Many of us would also like to see the linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq, because it seems that the biggest thing they have in common is the letter “q”. The media reports and US intelligence were adamant that the tragic events of Sept. 11 were committed by Al Qaeda, and they still are; so how did we go from Al Qaeda to Iraq? Is it the oil? (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves). Is it Israel? (It's the only country to wholeheartedly rally for this war). Is it revenge for President Bush Sr? (He was almost assassinated in Kuwait back in 1992). Is Iraq more of a threat than North Korea? (Though North Korea has already admitted to having nuclear weapons). The reasoning remains elusive. So we're left to guess the reasons for the impending attack on Iraq. But we do know some things: 1) Some Al Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. They live in an area dominated by Ansar Al Islam (Partisans of Islam) who reside over a small area near the Iranian border — a part of Iraq that is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi government. 2) In an article reproduced by the US State Department, the reputable Christian Science Monitor interviewed one Ansar activist, Rafed Ibrahim Fatah. Fatah spoke of meetings in earlier years between the Ansar group and Al Qaeda leaders, absent Osama Ben Laden. Again, out of the area which President Saddam Hussein's government controls. This doesn't mean there have been zero contacts, but as terrorism adviser to the US National Security Council Daniel Benjamin recently stated, “while there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no cooperation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship”. Even when the Sunday Telegraph in London reported that Fatah and senior Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubair — both captured in Morocco — underwent training in Iraq, no alleged link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government was mentioned. The event of the capture and training was mentioned by the British government in its official dossier against Iraq, but no definitive linkage. 3) The Czech authorities reported that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001. But now, Czech President Vaclav Havel has reportedly told the Americans he doubted this was true. Still, it's the greatest “pillar” to Al Qaeda and Iraq link, which isn't saying much, given Havel's reluctance. A couple of other points to remember: Saddam, a secular nationalist who refuses to rule by the Sharia, has never been a fan of Islamic militants nor is he revered by them. In fact, Ben Laden has long promised to bring down secular Arab leaders like him. “Osama Ben Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel,” said Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Quds. He says Ben Laden was even ready to help liberate Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq in 1990. Furthermore, while Hussein's goal has been to promote Arab causes, Al Qaeda was formed in the late 80s to fight for Muslim causes, particularly ousting American troops from the Gulf region. The problem is — we just don't know. The government's explanation that we might jeopardise operations or our national security if we reveal our evidence is ludicrous. If our government informs the world about evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or Al Qaeda links, chances are that Saddam already knows about them. I guess I never thought the letter “q” could attain the status of a smoking gun, but with nothing more than tenuous evidence, I am left to surmise that “q” is the most tangible linkage available. Ultimately, the White House may want to take its queue from the wise Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, who has said: “Military force alone will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians nor assure stability in the Middle East.” The writer is JD in international law and a writer and media analyst in Mason, Michigan.
-
National
resistance against foreign occupation is not terrorism
-
Korean voters throw down
challenge to US policy line
By Sinhal Singh
Khaleej Times, 12/24/02
-
IT IS ironical that while the European Union and Russia are capitulating to the United States on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, new winds of change inimical to American interests are blowing in unlikely places. After the election of the labour leader Lula da Silva in Brazil and the success of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, South Korea has sprung a surprise. In the victory of Roh Moo Hyun, the candidate of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party, over his conservative rival, America faces its greatest challenge on the Korean peninsula in the last 50 years. The closely fought election took place against the setting of large-scale anti-American demonstrations and the Bush administration's hardline policy towards North Korea. Two Korean teenage girls were crushed under an armoured carrier in June and the recent acquittal of two US soldiers by an American military court led to much anger and demands for changes in the Status of Forces Agreement that governs the 37,000 American troops stationed in South Korea. The outrage over the girls' deaths took on a national character unprecedented in the scale of the protests. Even Roh's conservative rival Lee Hoi Chang had to make sympathetic noises and sought changes in Sofa, but Roh was more assertive and credible in demanding that it was time Washington conducted a more equal relationship with South Korea. In the 1980s, he had demanded the withdrawal of US troops, a stance he has changed since then. North Korea loomed large in the election campaign because of the Bush administration's hard line by first including it in its "axis of evil" and then disengaging from it after Pyongyang's reported acknowledgement last October of continuing with its nuclear weapons programme. Roh's mentor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Kim Dae Jung, had set two goals for his administration: a sunshine policy of engaging with North Korea and democratisation at home. His most spectacular achievement was a summit with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in June 2000. But the promise of that meeting remained largely unfulfilled because President George W. Bush, in his first meeting with the South Korean leader, threw cold water over the sunshine policy and the North Korean leader's return visit never materialised. Roh is now carrying Kim Dae Jung's flag, but, unlike his mentor, he is more assertive and has declared that Seoul must have a central role in America's dispute with North Korea. In fact, he has suggested a mediatory role for himself to defuse the crisis. No wonder the New York Times quoted an American military official as saying after Roh's victory: "There is a real sense of mourning here". South Korea was particularly roiled that during the 1994 crisis former US president Jimmy Carter helped defuse, the Americans hardly consulted Seoul in the initial stages in a situation which had a life and death connotation for the country. South Korea's capital, for instance, is within the North's artillery range. Kim Dae Jung, who gives up office in February after his mandatory one-term presidency, is leaving a mixed legacy for his protégé. His bold sunshine policy opened up a new vista for the peninsula's eventual peaceful reunification. But the North has been hesitant in reciprocating the South's gestures until recently, despite the large economic assistance the South, in addition to other nations, has given it. As against the Pyongyang summit, the South Korean President has been hobbled by corruption scandals in his family, with two of his sons serving prison terms for their infractions. In line with Confucian thinking, the sons' misdemeanours were visited upon the father. That Kim Dae Jung's vision lost steam in the last year of his presidency does not negate his place in history and the result of the election is remarkable in the twists and turns it underwent. The conservative Lee of the opposition party was a hot favourite to win the election against Roh and the scion of the Hyundaiempire. Chung Mong Joon, who acquired great popularity by co-hosting the World Cup with Japan. Chung then dropped out of the race and gave his support to Roh. But days before polling day, Chung withdrew his support from Roh after the latter had declared at a public meeting, "If the US and North Korea start a war, we will stop it". This was interpreted as a declaration of neutrality and Lee gained an edge over Roh in the eyes of the cognoscenti, but the latter surprisingly won by two percentage points. Indeed, Roh's victory is all the more remarkable in a hierarchical society because he had humble beginnings, studied law after working in a chicken farm, defended labour and student activists in the era of military administrations and then was drawn to the democracy movement and Kim Dae Jung. The turmoil over North Korea and Seoul's relations with Washington have combined to make this a historic victory. The conservatives and the older generation are still comfortable with a subsidiary relationship with the US and perhaps feel that Kim Dae Jung has given away too much to the North without receiving enough compensation in return. But for a more confident and prosperous younger generation, subservience to America is not an attractive proposition. There are, however, a few home truths about South Korea both sides of the divide understand. After the travails of the German reunification, avidly studied by Seoul, a nightmare scenario for the South is to have a sudden reunion of the two halves, with catastrophic consequences on South Korean peace and prosperity. It makes sense, therefore, to aid North Korea and gradually wean it away from its isolation and disastrous economic course. There are doubtless compulsions on the part of the Northern regime in refusing to open up more than at a glacial pace. Another verity all South Koreans understand is the craving of millions of separated families for reunions with their relations across the border, with the older generation dying out. One such series of reunions took place after the Pyongyang summit and another more recently. But these are highly structured meetings, with the lucky ones determined by lots in South Korea. Regular and more informal meetings would do relations between the South and the North a world of good. President Bush has invited Roh to meet him in Washington in January and Washington hopes to try to smooth over the differences that have increasingly bedevilled relations. But in Roh, the US must contend with a feisty leader who will insist on substantive changes in Sofa and in having a substantial say in how America should treat North Korea. How Bush will reconcile the views of the symbol of a new Korea with his desire to make an example of North Korea - the third country in his 'axis of evil' - after he has toppled Iraq's President Saddam Hussein remains to be seen.
-
Terrorism-Iraq linkage yet to
be established
By Mushahid Hussain Khaleej Times, 12/24/02 -
HISTORIANS will probably record December 20, 2002, as the date on which the countdown to an American war against Iraq probably began. It was on this day that a number of significant developments took place: US Central Command
Commander General Tommy Franks, whose troops will lead any military
assault and who has been touted as the 'Iraqi MacArthur' should the US
occupy Iraq as it did Japan after World War II, briefed the high-powered
National Security Council in the presence of President Bush.
-
Registration
gives U.S. image another beating -
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |