|
December 26, 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
|
-
You're
like a dead person already; how long can you run? Bethlehem,
West Bank, Gulf News, 26-12-2002 -
-
Why
not train Israelis in decolonisation art?
Among the biggest challenges in Pakistan's latest experiment with a civilian democracy will be civil-military relations. This is because Musharraf is a serving army chief doubling as president. ISLAMABAD A MAJOR reason for Pakistan's abiding instability is the absence of 'rules of the game' that could stabilise the relationship among the warring political forces and between the political forces and the armed forces. The latter have ruled Pakistan for almost half the period since independence in 1947. The most recent political transition follows the fourth military regime under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who has ruled since the October 1999 military coup. Not surprisingly, transitions from outright military rule to a quasi-civilian elected set-up are often tricky, creating new problems without resolving the old ones. The fundamental contradiction arises because the army is reluctant to relinquish authority. But as a sop to international and domestic pressure for democracy, it wants legitimacy through an elected, albeit pliant, political government. When the political government ceases to be pliable to khaki proclivities, it is then that problems arise. This reason is simple: hybrid systems do not work because authority is divided and the lines of division are murky. There cannot be a 'half democracy' with traces of authoritarianism casting a shadow over elective authority. Although this is the third transition to civilian rule after elections under the military, there are new factors this time around. Three are pertinent. First, there is more diversity and political pluralism, given the strongest opposition in parliament in Pakistan's history, with two provinces out of the four under the control of the religious right under the six-party United Action Front. They won almost 20 per cent of seats in the 342-member parliament, doubling their share of the popular vote to more than 10 per cent. The religious Right has made opposition to any military role in politics and the US-led 'war on terror' their major policy plank. Second, the profile of Pakistan's civil society is a different picture today. A vibrant and highly educated middle class, a civil society with a 'culture of dissent' through vocal political parties and non-governmental groups, and a strong and critical media, including independent television stations for the first time, strengthen democracy, political awareness and human rights in Pakistan. The over two million Pakistanis now resident in the Middle East, Europe and North America, with strong family, cultural and economic links with their homeland, are also a major factor in linking the country and its people to the outside world. Third, the international situation and Pakistan's role have changed qualitatively since September 11, and the region where Pakistan is located is today the epicentre in the US-led "war on terror". Take three separate factors and the impact of foreign policy on domestic developments in Pakistan would be apparent: On December 17, the United Nations released a report saying that the Al Qaeda network is regrouping and re-establishing terrorist training camps in eastern Afghanistan, close to Pakistan's border. This means pressure on Pakistan will increase as Osama bin Laden and the former Taleban supremo Mullah Omar are still at large. The provinces bordering eastern Afghanistan, like the North West Frontier Province and Balochistan, are now ruled by the religious Right. Tensions with India have not abated. On December 18, India sentenced three men to death for their alleged role in the terrorist strike on India's parliament on December 13, 2001. India blamed it on Pakistan, which denies the charge. On December 12, the Indian ruling party, BJP, won the polls in the state of Gujarat, the scene of Hindu-Muslim violence in February. The election campaign was conducted in a strident anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim manner, surely a bad portent for future relations with Pakistan. Given the upcoming US military campaign against Iraq, which the religious Right opposes, the situation could become tense in case of any US-led war against Iraq. Already, religious parties haveannounced on January 3 a day of protest and solidarity with the Iraqi people with anti-American demonstrations nationwide. Among the biggest challenges in Pakistan's latest experiment with a civilian democracy will be civil-military relations. This is because Musharraf is a serving army chief doubling as president, and because he has incorporated the power to sack parliament and prime minister, and established a new, Turkish-style supra-parliament National Security Council to monitor the elected government. These steps are opposed not just by the religious parties but by the secular and liberal opposition parties. Another challenge could also emerge if the United States decides to carry the "war on terror" into Pakistani territory from eastern Afghanistan. This could provoke a popular backlash encouraged and led by a religious Right emboldened by its recent election victories and by its power base among Pashtuns residing in the provinces that straddle the border with Afghanistan. The Pashtuns, many of whom live in eastern Afghanistan as well, were also the power base of the Taleban. Ideological affinity and ethnic camaraderie could be a volatile mix in a situation of conflict, providing for potent anti-Americanism. Still, a recent opinion poll of Pakistanis, conducted by the US-based Pew Research Institute, points to faith in their country in the future. Results released early this month show that 42 per cent of Pakistanis, as opposed to 22 per cent who thought otherwise, felt their lives in the past five years had become worse. But a significant 46 per cent, as opposed to only six per cent who were pessimistic, were optimistic about the next five years. Forty-nine per cent were
satisfied with the state of the nation, as opposed to 39 per cent
dissatisfied. Corresponding figures for India were nine per cent satisfied
and 83 per cent dissatisfied and Bangladesh, 20 per cent satisfied and 78
per cent dissatisfied. Despite their travails, trials and tribulations,
Pakistanis have an intrinsic resilience, optimism and faith in their
future and that of their country, which is a healthy basis to begin anew
politically in the 21st century and to pursue its latest quest for a
stable democracy.
-
The assault on
Palestine’s soul
The symbolism was striking: Almost exactly four weeks ago, on Nov. 27, around 3 a.m., several Israeli occupation soldiers emerged from a hiding spot in one of Nablus’ narrow streets, aimed their guns at 22-year old Jihad Natour as he banged his tambourine-like drum, and shot him dead. Natour was a mossaher — a cultural fixture dating back centuries in Muslim cities around the world during the month of Ramadan — whose job it is to wake up the faithful around that time in order for them to eat a meal before the beginning of their fast from sunrise to sunset. Natour died in the street after the soldiers refused to allow an ambulance to pass through an army checkpoint to take him to a hospital. Clearly, no photographers were present to snap a picture of the scene, but even if there had been, it is doubtful that a camera, with its built-in credentials of detached objectivity, could have recorded the profoundly symbolic significance of that event. For killing a mossaher was not just an unwarranted act of violence directed at an unarmed human being, but an abominable assault on a people’s cultural narrative and religious traditions. How do you define not just the consequences but the "meaning" of the occupation of a people by another? Look at it this way: As this last month of the year comes to a close, virtually not a day has passed without occupation soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza perpetrating an act of mayhem against civilians. On Dec. 3, a 95-year old woman returning to her village after buying sweets and nuts for her family’s Ramadan iftar festivities was killed by seemingly trigger-happy soldiers who "smashed windows of the minivan in which she was sitting and then fired into the vehicle," according to a news report in the Washington Post. On Dec. 7, Israeli forces, backed by 25 Merkava tanks, helicopters and armored personnel carriers, launched an attack on a refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip early in the morning, killing ten Palestinians, including two local UN employees. And it went on, day in, day out, with other attacks, and other casualties. All this was in addition to the homes demolished, olive trees uprooted, checkpoints brazenly placed everywhere, whole towns put under curfew, and a community brought to the edge of starvation because their economy had been brought to a standstill. True, the occupation of a people by another is ugly to observe, difficult to comprehend, and painful to record. A written account of such unspeakable suffering, regardless of its complexity of thought, its use of cogent vocabulary, will not begin to define the meaning of what is happening here. For what does it mean to assault a people’s soul? It is as if we don’t want to know what is happening in Palestine today. Unthinkable horror, by its monotony, becomes mundane after we succumb to compassion fatigue. We cease to shake our heads in nauseated disbelief. What, we ask, can we do about it, anyhow? Meanwhile, the Palestinian community’s crisis of resentment and exclusion, fear and helplessness, progressively becomes that of the ordinary Everyman, touching him at every shaping level of his being. There was a time, before the occupation, when Palestinian poetry, music, theater, folk art, and the resurrection of traditional dance forms were cultural habits of reference that were beginning to show (given Palestine’s unique condition as a dismembered nation) a special heightened context, an iconoclasm, as it were, of the liberation of spirit. Almost nothing of this survives today. In its place there is, poetic rhetoric aside, desolation in the soul of a whole people, a people robbed of their humanity by the inhuman. Forget the fury and the frustration, the agony and the humiliation that have become the lot, literally, of every Palestinian, and consider the real cost to their internal psychic economy. The unhealed trauma of it all. After Sept. 11, for example, Americans came out there, like gangbusters, to denounce the horrors inflicted on them, with the rest of the world standing by their side to show its sympathy, solidarity and commitment. Americans honored their dead and supported their bereaved families. They swore to rebuild. They mobilized to guard against future attacks. They kicked butt in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They overcame their fear. They did that because they knew that if they didn’t, the perpetrators would have won. In time, Americans healed. That is not happening in Palestine. The violence inflicted daily on Palestinians as an occupied people continues unabated, in its grinding ennui, into its 36th year (Hannah Arendt was right, evil can get to be banal), traumatizing their whole society and insinuating into the marrow of its consciousness a profound sense of alienation. Palestinians have become alienated, so to speak, from that sense of "at-homeness" which all free citizens around the world have with their national identity as they do with the rock, earth and ash of their land. They have, in other words, lost control of their destiny, and become a wounded people who see no way through, around or out of their pain. And the wounds now cut so deep that Palestinians, denied the right to choose how they live, have been reduced to choosing how they die. These wounds, I say, are too deep. And it is not for diaspora Palestinians (wanderers and guests, whose anchorage is not in place but in notions) to tell those in the old home ground, who have passed through hell, say, in Jenin, among other places, and whose intimacy with death is by now legion, how to go about healing those wounds. Those wounds are too numerous, too complex and too layered, the psychological equivalent of those Russian dolls that pack neatly inside one another. You pull them all out, one by one, spread them in front of you, in any configuration you want, and what do you make of them? Where do you start? The Quartet reportedly met last week and failed "at this time" to convince President Bush to come up with a "road map" for a settlement. Say what now? Quartet, shmartet! Let’s get real. This dreadful occupation of a people by another has gone on way too long, and must come to an end at once. (disinherited@yahoo.com)
-
Sean Penn in
Baghdad — image gives way to substance -
When they realized that Sean Penn had arrived in Baghdad unannounced, the Western journalists in the city were taken aback. But they ultimately seemed more surprised by the great distance between media images and the man they actually met. Quite a few other famous actors in the United States have expressed strong opposition to the impending war against Iraq. But so far, only one has traveled there so that actions and words could speak loudly together. What Sean Penn said is still resonating. After accompanying Penn to Baghdad and joining him on a wide range of visits — including with UNICEF workers, Iraqi officials, patients in hospitals and young children in schools — I sat with Penn as he wrote on a pad at a restaurant inside the Al-Rashid Hotel. Hours later, he was reading his words aloud at a news conference overflowing with reporters, photographers and TV crews from all over the world. "I am a citizen of the United States of America," he began. "I believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the American people. Ours is a government designed to function ‘of’-‘by’-and-‘for’ the people. I am one of those people, and a privileged one." Penn spoke quietly, with evident sincerity. This was the time for a kind of summing up. For the most part during his three-day visit, Penn had gone out of his way to avoid the cameras, saying that he would share his thoughts at a press conference just prior to leaving Baghdad. Now, as he continued with his statement, the room was still. Penn said that he was "privileged to have lived a life under our Constitution that has allowed me to dream and prosper." And he continued: "In response to these privileges I feel, both as an American and as a human being, the obligation to accept some level of personal responsibility for the policies of my government, both those I support and any that I may not. Simply put, if there is a war or continued sanctions against Iraq, the blood of Americans and Iraqis will be on our hands." And then, Sean Penn added: "My trip here is to personally record the human face of the Iraqi people so that their blood — along with that of American soldiers — would not be invisible on my own hands. I sit with you here today in the hopes that any of us present may contribute in any way to a peaceful resolution to the conflict at hand." At a time when fame is so routinely seen as an end in itself, or as a way to accumulate more wealth and power, Penn has become conspicuous for his willingness to take some real risks on behalf of peace. Predictably, the vilification began immediately from jingoistic media outlets like Fox News Channel and the New York Post. Distortion is a big business. When our country appears to be on the verge of war, stepping out of line is always hazardous. All kinds of specious accusations fly. Whether you travel to Baghdad or hold an anti-war sign on main street back home, some people will accuse you of serving the propaganda interests of the foreign foe. But the only way to prevent your actions from being misconstrued is to do nothing. The only way to avoid the danger of having your words distorted is to keep your mouth shut. In the functional category of "use it or lose it," the First Amendment remains just a partially realized promise. To the extent that it can be fulfilled, democracy becomes actual rather than theoretical. But that requires a multiplicity of voices. And when the drumbeat of war threatens to drown out all those refusing to harmonize with it, the imperative of dissent becomes paramount. Sean Penn has described the challenge well: "I would hope that all Americans will embrace information available to them outside conventional channels." And, speaking personally, he expressed the desire "to find my own voice on matters of conscience."
-
The missing links in Blair's initiative Al-Ahram Weekly,
12/26/02 -
To place peace efforts back on course, British Prime Minister Tony Blair invited the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, along with members of the Quartet, to meet in London in mid-January. The British PM announced that Israel would not be invited to the conference, primarily because of the israeli elections scheduled for 28 January. What might such a conference accomplish in the absence of Israel? What might London have to offer following last week's Quartet meeting in Washington? Such questions quickly subsided when a spokesman for Blair announced that the conference would concentrate on investigating the progress already made in Palestinian reforms, and ways for the international community to help promote and hasten them. The implications are clear. Not only will the January conference focus on a single dimension of what can only be seen as a comprehensive and integrated process, but "reform" is understood to apply to Palestinians alone, as though Palestinian policies, structural flaws and the personalities of PA leaders were solely accountable for the stalling of peace. All that is required for the peace process to resume, according to this view, is a solution to Palestinian problems. Nor can Blair's initiative be assessed in isolation from the events of the Quartet meeting, in which protracted wrangling gave rise to fellow participants -- Russia, the EU and the UN -- conceding Washington's view. The "roadmap" for a settlement process should be deferred until the results of the forthcoming Israeli elections so as not to exercise an undue influence over an Israeli electorate on its way to the ballot box. In the mean time, it is PA reforms that should be prioritised. The closing statement of the Quartet meeting encapsulated the US viewpoint, revealing it to be very closely attuned to the Israeli perspective. Calling for "a settlement on the basis of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace," it went on to urge all Palestinians, both individuals and groups, to put an end to acts of terrorism against Israelis anywhere. The statement is clearly tailored to the Israeli position; and it glares in the face of reality, snubbing the provisions of international conventions and the principles of international law. The exhortation to end Palestinian "acts of terrorism against Israelis anywhere" contradicts a universally acknowledged principle. Indeed acts of resistance against the occupation forces and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are explicitly sanctioned under provision of the UN Charter; they cannot credibly be termed terrorist. The statement also implies that Palestinians are to blame for the illegal reoccupation of their territories, a halt to violence being conceived of as a precondition for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. On acts of brutality perpetrated by the Israeli forces against innocent Palestinian civilians, by contrast, the Quartet statement could only afford to stay neutral. Hours after the statement was uttered, Washington used its veto to block a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the murder of three UN employees by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza last month, and for the demolition of a large World Food Programme warehouse in Gaza. The resolution, presented by Syria, had been supported by 12 nations, including four of the permanent members of the Security Council: France, the UK, Russia and China. The US veto was a great disappointment for the Arabs, as the Egyptian permanent delegate to the UN, Ahmed Abul-Gheit, announced; PA officials condemned it as an incentive for the Israeli government to persist in violating the resolutions of the international community. It was in the light of all this that Tony Blair invited several Arab governments to discuss PA reforms with members of the Quartet in London. Neither the Israeli occupation's systematic destruction of PA infrastructure nor the part played by Israeli terror in spurring Palestinian organisations to retaliate through armed operations staged in various locations are included on the agenda. The British PM's proposed conference also implies that PA reforms are sufficient to generate a climate conducive to the resumption of peace efforts, ignoring the occupying power's role in undermining the authority and credibility of the PA leadership among Palestinians and promoting the sway of resistance groups and factions that favour armed struggle over negotiations. One would have at least expected Blair to call for embracing the demand that Israel stop its aggression against Palestinians and unblock funds earmarked for the PA; for such actions could only facilitate the necessary reforms. There is no question that PA reform is an imperative in the interest of the Palestinian people. Yet the problem cannot be solved by reducing it to PA reform alone. Rather, it must be resolved in connection with two other vital dimensions, failing which PA reform will be of little value in generating progress: the restoration of calm, and negotiations. In the consequent triad of "calm, reform and negotiation", I would give precedence to "calm" on the grounds that it is a precondition for reform. The restoration of calm should entail a complete halt to violence on both sides; I, for one, have proposed that the Arab nations guarantee the containment of violence on the Palestinian side, while Washington offer a similar guarantee in relation to the Israeli side. I have suggested, in addition, that bringing parties back to the negotiating table should be contingent on and proceed in tandem with sustained calm and reform. Egypt has launched an intensive drive to effect a reconciliation among the diverse Palestinian factions with a view to a halt of violence. It has engaged in multilateral talks with Fatah and Hamas and bilateral talks with diverse Palestinian organisations and factions. One had hoped that concerned parties, and Washington in particular, would undertake similar procedures to check the aggressive policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sadly, Washington not only failed to restrain Israel, but judging by the closing statement of the Quartet meeting and the recent veto of the Security Council condemnation, it has in effect acted to encourage Israeli excess. Turning to the third side of the triangle, it should be driven home to Palestinians and Israelis alike that the restoration of calm and PA reform will lead to the resumption of negotiations and eventually an end to the conflict based on the relevant UN resolutions and the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. It should be made clear that progress towards these ends must proceed within the framework of the proposals made by former US President Clinton, reformulated in the "roadmap" plan, which should have been adopted by the Quartet during its last Washington meeting. Yet, by some paradoxical logic, Washington prevailed upon other members of the committee to defer the disclosure of this roadmap until after Israeli elections. If this is how the situation stands, what does Blair hope to accomplish by a conference scheduled for mid-January? Does he believe it will achieve the desired PA reforms? Will those reforms, as important as they are, change Palestinian attitudes to resistance without any reciprocation on the part of Israel? Will they result in a resumption of negotiations given the absence both of a specific time frame and an American plan stipulating the broad outlines for a settlement process that clarifies to each side how they should proceed, the costs they will have to pay and the rewards they will reap? Washington has yet to address these vital questions. In view of the importance of such questions in reviving the peace process, many Arabs suspect that the UK's proposal of a conference at this time is linked to the intensive US and British drive to prepare for a strike against Iraq. The conference is intended to give the impression that some progress is being made on the way to resolving the Arab- Israeli conflict; its exclusive focus on Palestinian reform should lead people to believe that this is the principal avenue to progress. That the proposed conference is open to such suspicions is due to the fact that it emanates from a position that ignores necessary principles of reciprocity and interdependence between the processes of PA reform, the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations. Sustained calm, bolstered by powerful guarantees, encourages reform, clear frameworks and time frames for negotiations encourage the perpetuation of calm. In an article written especially for Al-Ahram, the British prime minister acknowledged that Palestinian reform should be part of a broader, integrated process. Specifically, he argued that it has become essential for all to work towards reactivating the negotiating process between the two sides. The Quartet committee, he added, is still making a sincere effort to realise this aim and thus inspire a move forward. The "roadmap," he wrote, was a practical way to delineate the steps that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel by 2005. Nevertheless, the prime minister's focus still remains almost exclusively trained on Palestinian reform. In his article to Al-Ahram, he argued that progress on the Israeli track will be limited in the short term, due to Israeli elections. He, therefore, appealed to the international community to use this period of time to improve opportunities for applying the proposed "roadmap" as soon as a new Israeli government has come to power. In my opinion, there are better ways to "use this period of time" than asking the Palestinians to continue the process of reform. For example, some serious international action could be taken towards compelling Israel to halt its aggression and alleviate the suffering it routinely inflicts on the Palestinian people. This might also be the time for the Quartet to deliver a very explicit message to the Israeli public on the eve of the elections. This message is that what is needed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is a comprehensive vision implemented within a specific time frame that delineates mutual responsibilities and places the question of Palestinian reform in its proper context. Blair's latest initiative lacks the necessary comprehensiveness as it does not explicitly address the three interrelated components for reviving the peace process: calm, reform and negotiations. The question is not how to fill up a space of time or create the illusion that progress is being made on resolving the Arab- Israeli conflict. Rather, the world must address the issue of Palestinians undergoing a process of physical and moral destruction right before its eyes. As for the British PM's invitation of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to attend a January conference, it is difficult to see what purpose it might serve.
-
Priority to Palestine until the war breaks
out Al-Ahram Weekly,
12/26/02 -
The United States is accusing Iraq of being 'in material breach' of Security Council resolutions and, according to Colin Powell, "well on its way to losing the last chance" for avoiding war. In one of the toughest warnings to Saddam Hussein since United Nations inspectors arrived in Baghdad to search for evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the US secretary of state said Iraq "needed to comply on disclosure within weeks rather than months." The US has always asserted that it has the right to decide whether Iraq is violating the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1441, whatever the opinion of the Security Council itself and, consequently, is free to act as it sees fit. However, the American administration has decided not to take immediate action, possibly because its assessment of what constitutes material breach is not shared by its main ally, the UK. This is an important new development that needs to be looked into carefully. Speaking after a meeting with the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, Britain's UN representative Jeremy Greenstone said that an inaccurate statement presented by Iraq on its weapons of mass destruction is not considered a 'material breach' of the resolution, which Article 5 of the resolution defines as a "refusal to cooperate with the UN inspectors". "We must be true to the exact wording of the resolution," added Greenstone. A number of other factors may also have figured in Washington's decision to delay taking military action against Iraq. For a start, there is no hard evidence to corroborate the claim that the 12,200-page report is "full of inaccuracies and omissions". Among the charges levelled at the report is that it failed to account for a stockpile of anthrax Iraq is believed to have had in its possession at the time the inspectors were expelled in 1998. But to assert that Iraq failed to destroy the alleged stockpile does not constitute proof of the existence of such a stockpile in the first place. This is an important distinction that can make or break Bush's claim that war with Iraq is unavoidable. Another obstacle preventing the immediate outbreak of war is the complicated logistics of moving sufficient troops to the region. Powell has often repeated that any military campaign will have to be short and swift, which requires a massive deployment of troops -- a strategy which was successfully applied by Powell himself during the 1991 Gulf War. But the forces needed to implement this strategy, roughly double the number already in place, have not all reached their positions in the Middle East yet. When the UN inspectors began their mission, it was assumed that three scenarios were possible. In the first scenario, they would fail to find any banned weapons, thereby removing any justification for war; in the second, they would catch Iraq red-handed with stockpiles of banned weapons, in which case war would immediately break out; in the third, they would be unable to come up with conclusive proof either way, that is, they would find evidence sufficient to suggest that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction but not sufficient to convince international public opinion that their findings justify a war that is expected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But the US reaction to the report presented by Saddam has reduced these three scenarios to one. While the inspectors still assert that the sites inspected so far have revealed a situation closer to scenario one than to any other, the US is dealing with the situation as though it were closer to scenario two. This would apply all the more if the mission of the inspectors ends up inconclusively, as contemplated in the third scenario. Thus the more likely scenarios are not the three previously mentioned ones, but two different scenarios that would not constitute different alternatives, but rather successive moments in a process. The more distant of the two in time is the war scenario, even though preparations for this scenario are running full speed ahead. In fact, it is the escalation of these preparations that is designed to bring about the second scenario, which is to generate the feeling among officers within Iraq's military that sacrificing Saddam is a lesser evil than exposing the country to widespread destruction, thus bringing about a situation which would encourage the removal of Saddam by means of a coup. Bush might well be banking on the idea of an implosion of the Saddam regime, its collapse from within. This has been suggested by the American press. According to The New York Times, "Tough talk from Mr Powell and disclosures of troop plans were all part of a calculated move to increase pressure on Mr Hussein, as well as on dissidents who might cooperate with weapons inspectors or even on those who might be willing to oust him." The paper quoted Powell as saying that "The pressure is going to be built up even more, until Iraq fully cooperates with the inspectors." The clear message that comes across from Powell's unusually belligerent remarks is that no cooperation with Iraq is conceivable until Saddam has been overthrown. But even as the clouds of war gather over the region, every effort must be made to come forward with possible peace scenarios, that is, with ways of breaking the present deadlock on Iraq through negotiations, not military force. The logic of negotiated settlements must extend to cover other critical flash points in the region, notably, of course, the Palestinian problem. Recently an important step in that direction was taken by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has invited Palestinian ministers, as well as representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to London in January for a conference on Palestinian reforms. The conference is expected to convene before the all-important date of 27 January, when Hans Blix will submit his final report on the findings of the UN inspectors. Speaking at a Labour Party conference, the British prime minister committed his government to trying to revive final-status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In his address, Blair also said the obligation to observe United Nations resolutions applies to Israel "as much as it does to Iraq". For the first time, the British position is not identical to the American, whether as regards linking the two issues, declaring that Iraq's report on its weapons programmes cannot be considered a material breach or the priority it gives to the Palestinian problem. Blair's speech, in which he also said he supported a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders alongside a secure and recognised Israeli state, has been sharply criticised by Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The proposed London conference on Palestinian reforms would be futile, he said, as long as Arafat (who has not been invited to attend) is leader of the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu also criticised Blair for inviting Bashar Al-Assad to London earlier this month because "to invite the leader of a terrorist state... sends a message that terror pays!" In September, Arafat scheduled the first Palestinian general elections since 1996 for 20 January, 2003, but earlier this month said the elections would have to be postponed until Israeli forces withdrew from the Palestinian cities and territories they reoccupied in recent months. All in all, the second half of January promises to be a decisive period, a point of convergence for a number of important events. The question is which of two projects will come to fruition first: a war in Iraq or peace talks in Palestine? Much will depend on the upcoming talks in London, which will run parallel with the efforts of the Quartet (the US, the EU, the UN and Russia) to draw up a roadmap for peace in the region and lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state. Israel is not expected to attend the talks and has asked the US to delay adoption of the roadmap until after the Israeli elections on 28 January. In the best of cases, the talks will reflect a genuine attempt to shift the focus from war to peace by striving to find peaceful solutions for both the Palestinian and Iraqi problems, not for one at the expense of the other. In the worst of cases, they will serve as a distraction, lulling us into a false sense of security even as preparations for an invasion of Iraq continue unabated. It is to be hoped that reason will prevail and a ruinous war averted.
-
Al-Ahram Weekly, 12/26/02
-
Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the socialist order in one state after another during the late 1980s it was natural to expect the emergence of a new world order and a redrawing of the pattern of international relations and spheres of influence. And, in fact, during the past 13 years events have confirmed the expectation. The outbreaks of war and emergence of new areas of tension, the settling of old accounts and the rise of new rivalries, the spread of new ideas and slogans from the halls of academia to official circles and then the media were all signs of a new order in the process of coalescence. Nevertheless, the old does not disappear so abruptly and the new is not all that new. The ancient Greek maxim, "You can only go into the same river once," is an affirmation that change never stops, but it is also a reminder of continuity. It is, after all, the same river. In the new world order that is in the making we must therefore expect the continued existence of certain elements from the old. Among the most important of these persisting elements is the prevalence of economic factors in determining national policies and the configuration of international relations. The history of contemporary international relations affirms the critical instrumentality of such factors and there is no reason to anticipate that this situation will change in the foreseeable future. In practice, mankind has not yet distinguished himself from the rest of the animal kingdom in that purely material motives remain the ultimate determinant of his actions. In spite of the immense progress he has achieved over the past three centuries in satisfying his fundamental needs for subsistence and in improving his standards of living, mankind appears no less greedy and covetous than before. Another trait carried over from the old order is the readiness of the stronger party to perpetrate the most horrendous acts if it finds them conducive to the realisation of its aims. History from ancient times onwards confirms that mankind has made little progress in terms of humanity towards fellow man. Several centuries of modern civilisation are replete with major protracted wars, at the cost of millions of lives, aimed at redistributing the sources of wealth, securing cheap sources of primary materials or opening new markets. Again, there is little cause to hope for change in this domain as well. If such primary instincts and means to realise them still govern international relations, we must further expect the persistence of another characteristic, so frequently manifested across history, in the new world order. This is the tendency of powers to camouflage their aims and their means of accomplishing them. When the objectives are purely materialistic and defy the most fundamental principles of justice, and when the means to realise these objectives fly in the face of universally accepted morals and humanitarian values, deception becomes an inevitable and intrinsic mode of behaviour. Economic motives must be cloaked in mantles of lofty slogans projecting principle, rather than material gain, as the impetus for action. Disseminating Christianity, civilising backward peoples, protecting minorities, advancing the cause of freedom, liberty and the supremacy of law have, in the past, been used to disguise the basest motives. Defending human rights, eliminating terrorism, eradicating weapons of mass destruction, such are the currency of the new world order. There is a corollary to the tendency to create an idealistic façade for material motives and illegitimate means of fulfilling them: the tendency to brand attempts to expose such artifice as "conspiracy theories". The accusation itself, is part of the process of deception, the purpose of which is to intimate that those who express scepticism over the declared intentions of an international power and call into question its depiction of events, or the events it precipitated in order to realise its aims, must be prey to a form of mental disorder. Crying "conspiracy theory" thus becomes a means to intimidate people against using their faculty to reason in processing the information at their disposal so as to make them doubt, perhaps, their own common sense in their attempts to resolve the discrepancies between what they are told and what they perceive with their own eyes. If the foregoing are among the characteristics of the old order that have been destined to remain with us following the collapse of the socialist camp, those very characteristics have, naturally, assumed different forms in various phases of history and will manifest themselves differently under the new world order. Marx famously wrote that social relations are intimately bound to the forces of production. "When people obtain new forces of production they change their mode of production and with the change in the mode of production, which is to say the change in their livelihood, they alter all their social relations. The windmill gives you feudal society and the steam-powered mill gives you capitalist society." Marx's observation is still valid more than a century and a half after he wrote it. However, capitalist society, as Marx knew it in the mid-19th century, was radically different from capitalist society at the beginning of the 20th century, which was not the same society that existed in the middle of that century, which, again, was different from the capitalist society we are experiencing at the beginning of the 21st century, if, indeed, the term "capitalist society" is still applicable. In Marx's time, Britain and France had undergone the industrial revolution; however, they did not yet need to dispose of a significant proportion of their industrial product outside the European markets or to make a significant capital investment abroad. When these needs did emerge and when their factories required larger quantities of raw materials, they unleashed a massive offensive against the non- industrialised nations of the South. Military occupation was deemed the means offering the fastest route to opening new markets and to guaranteeing the flow of primary materials. Had Marx written the above passage at the end of the 19th century, he would have added, "Modern textile factories, whose capacity for production, generating production and capitalist accumulation exceed the absorptive capacities of European markets for new products and investments, give you colonialism in the form of military occupation." In the mid-20th century, World War II brought to the fore two new economic powers: the US and the USSR, which began to divide between them the legacy of British and French colonialism. However, the goods these powers had to dispose of no longer consisted of a few simple products such as textiles. Production had now become much more diversified and complex. Now, outlets had to be found for hundreds of consumer goods from cars to Coca-Cola, various types of goods used in production, ranging from machinery to construction equipment, as well as goods of little value to consumers, but ones that are extremely costly, namely weapons. Simultaneously, the machinery of production required larger quantities and a greater diversity of primary materials (both agricultural and mineral), the most important of which was oil. Yet, technological advances in communications, transportation and weaponry made it possible, indeed desirable, to abandon the old colonialist method of direct occupation. Instead, it became more cost-effective to exert hegemony through local rulers, and the two superpowers frequently found that engineering coups d'état in the countries they sought to dominate would be more than adequate for accomplishing their aims. Thus, had Marx lived to experience the quarter of a century following World War II he might have written: "Arms manufactures and the need to dispose of surplus production and surplus American agricultural yields give you Third World military regimes, the rubric of economic development and foreign aid, and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund." This same post-war period, however, also engendered certain favourable conditions for Third World countries, permitting them a margin of manoeuvrability which they had been denied during the previous century. The Cold War, the preoccupation of Europe and Japan with reconstruction and the focus in Europe on economic unification combined to alleviate pressures on Third World countries, as did the fact that the US and USSR had considerable scope for investment in the re-emerging European economies. Such circumstances enabled many Third World countries to realise an economic and social resurgence that should not be underestimated. With the greater freedom of movement they enjoyed in the 1950s and 1960s some formed revolutionary nationalist governments that were able, in turn, to exercise a high degree of protectionism for their emerging industries and implement effective measures towards redistributing income among social classes. Moreover, they also began to create economic blocs with other nations with which they shared many cultural and historical characteristics. These experiments augured success were it not that the world had begun, in the late 1960s, a transition to another world order. The great advances in the methods of production, in communications and transportation, and in the methods of data storage and processing gave rise to a global division of labour in tandem with the spread of single manufacturing processes over several different nations in different parts of the globe. Under the new circumstances, the company whose major base of activities did not transcend the national entity to which it belonged no longer had the most effective structure for meeting its needs for primary materials, labour, marketing and reinvestment. Rather, the optimum system for production became the transnational, and under this new system Third World countries could no longer be permitted to enjoy that manoeuvrability and relative autonomy they enjoyed for a brief period during the post-World War II era. Thus, the customs barriers these countries had established had to fall before the onslaught of GATT accords (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the creation of the WTO (World Trade Organisation). State- controlled economic planning and policies of income redistribution gave way to the intervention of transnationals and to the pressures of the countries where they had their headquarters and international monetary organisations that served the companies. Consequently, the emerging Third World economic blocs collapsed under these pressures while the Soviet Union and the entire socialist bloc crumbled under the encroachment of these interests. Were Marx around at the end of the 20th century to comment on these developments, he likely would have observed, "The emergence and spread of transnationals gives you a new world order founded upon the principles of free trade and economic deregulation, the decline of the nation state and the re-emergence of sharp class discrepancies." The change in the economic and political world order necessarily had to be accompanied by a commensurate change in the rhetoric serving to mask gross avarice behind lofty principles. In the colonial era, military occupation used as a smokescreen the "white man's burden", with its simultaneous implication that the indigenous peoples Europe sought to "civilise" were encumbered by immutable ethnic, racial or cultural traits inimical to its mission. In the era of colonialism via economic aid, the catchphrases were the imperatives of economic development and industrial progress. The onset of the transnationals gave birth to a new rhetoric: "globalisation", "a global village", "the end of history", and "the end of the age of ideologies". One of the most successful tactics for promulgating such ideas is to create an enemy as the focus of the hatred of the people a nation seeks to mobilise behind its goals. Hatred is the other side of fear, which is best instilled by creating an enemy possessing preternatural capacities to do evil. A common enemy not only helps to unite otherwise disparate segments of a particular society, it also deflects criticism and scepticism while ensuring loyalty and facilitating submission to orders that would encounter resistance under ordinary circumstances. In the age of blatant colonial occupation and global rivalries over sources of raw materials, the enemy was readily available. For the British, French and Americans in two world wars the Germans and later the Japanese were fiendish monsters imperilling the good and civilised world. Naturally, it is much easier to justify killing other human beings and to get people to sacrifice their own lives in the process if the enemy is portrayed as a dragon. During the Cold War the Russians filled in as foe in place of the Germans and Japanese, and communism replaced Nazism and fascism as the world's most diabolical peril. So successful was US anti- communist propaganda that Khrushchev once protested loudly during a UN session that Russians did not eat children. The anti-communist rhetoric persists today, and is still used to taint individuals and groups within Western societies and other peoples and nations abroad that are deemed hostile to capitalist aims, in spite of the collapse of the Soviet system and the fact that the fiends of yesterday have become the West's best friends today. Although the rhetoric of the "Red Peril" remains alive, the new world order, dominated by transnationals, had to cast a new enemy. Accordingly, it chose the Arabs and Muslim peoples for this role. Nations and areas of the globe that had been closed to these companies now had to be opened. Customs barriers and political and cultural barriers needed to be eliminated or weakened. The proliferation of centres of rapid growth throughout the world increased the need for new and secure sources of primary materials. However, the Arab world is not merely a huge potential market for transnationals' products and a prospective area for investing their surplus capital. The Arab world is unique among other parts of the globe for two basic reasons. First, it is home to the world's largest oil reserves. Second, it is the area where the Zionist enterprise is realising its ambitions. Israel has attained such a level of military and technical prowess that it can expand territorially and economically, and, if needed, transfer a large portion of the Palestinian population outside of the territories it currently occupies. Economic expansion requires new markets, sources of energy and water, and cheap labour, all of which are not in sufficient supply within its current boundaries. Oil and Israel require the re-organisation of the Arab world, which entails modern forms of occupation and the partition of some Arab nations or the annexation of portions of some Arab nations to others. Israel and the Zionist movement, as always, have been prepared to offer their services to the dominant powers in the world order in exchange for appropriate rewards. And, in fact, it has used its powers of intimidation in combination with its manipulation of the Palestinian cause to contribute to opening up the economies of some Arab countries, such as Egypt, while the persistence of the Israeli threat has helped the arms manufacturers dispose of their wares in neighbouring countries. In addition, it has served as a pretext for certain pro- American regimes to perpetuate themselves. In return for such noble services, Israel has been paid in the form of silence over its treatment of the Palestinians and assistance in redrawing the region in a manner conducive to its interests, as is becoming more and more apparent with every passing day. What could better serve the interests of the new world order and Israel but the invention of an enemy called "terrorism"; specifically, "Islamic and Arab terrorism"? Not surprisingly, one perceives many similarities between the usage of the new rhetoric and the former anti- communist rhetoric. "Red" had served as an all-purpose brand to be used for leftists, whether they espoused socialism, democracy, totalitarianism, revolution or peace. It was used to stigmatise national liberation movements, anyone who questioned the status quo and, frequently, innovations in the arts and literature that did not please that powers that be. Today, "terrorist", is being used in a similarly indiscriminate manner. But there are also differences. Communists were identifiable; they could be associated with specific countries, they had famous theorists and ideologues, and they had a recorded history. The "terrorist" is the elusive enemy. He has no face, no country of origin. He could be anywhere -- in the US, Indonesia, Australia -- and everywhere at once (which is most appropriate to this age of globalisation). Terrorists are identified following a crime that can be conveniently attributed to terrorism, but never beforehand, and it could take anywhere from two days to two years to apprehend them, while each day brings a new sighting in a different place than the day before. From time to time, government news agencies issue bulletins about the whereabouts of these terrorists, who we learn are citizens of a country that is the best of friends with that nation that regards terrorism as its lethal enemy, but the culprits still elude capture. Ultimately, the most we do learn about the terrorist is that he is the "other", the "enemy"; he is "dangerous" and "evil"; he has diabolical designs but we are left in the dark about the nature of these designs, as though his sole purpose is simply to terrorise for the sake of terrorising. But, at least he provides the powers of the new world order the pretext of "eliminating terrorism" for any number of actions they might wish to take. Simultaneously, it is to be understood that the Arabs and Muslims are somehow more inherently inclined to commit terrorist acts than other peoples. Yet, the Arabs are numerous and the Muslims more so. It is impossible that all these people, or even a significant proportion of them be terrorists, especially given that they are dispersed across many different countries, some of which are on friendly terms with those nations leading the fight against terrorism. No attempt has been made to explain this inconsistency. In addition, the Arabs were not always regarded as terrorists or hostile to peace and stability. Nor has Islam always been so maligned, even by those nations that are now the champions of anti-terrorism. At the turn of the 20th century, Arab nationalism and rebellion against the Turks were enthusiastically encouraged by the West when it needed to dismantle the Ottoman Empire. Arab nationalism received another boost in the 1950s when the West was rallying support against Soviet expansion and Islam was similarly exploited against the heresy of communist atheism. But now that these instruments have accomplished their objectives and the Soviet threat is no more, Arab nationalism is depicted as a great fiction because the Arabs are constitutionally incapable of agreeing on anything and Islam is a religion that intrinsically breeds violence, extremism and terrorism. In today's world of globalisation and Israeli expansionism, the Arabs and Muslims are the object of a campaign of vilification unparalleled in history. The sheer geographical extent of the assault, spanning from the US in the west to China in the east, is astounding, as is the volume and diversity of media and official statements dedicated to propagating the assault. Perhaps the scale and suddenness of the onslaught is not so surprising in light of what I have mentioned above. However, what is surprising is the reaction of a significant segment of Arab intellectuals, their numerous seminars and conferences on how to improve the image of Islam in the West, and their delegations to Western capitals to explain the truth about Islam. Do these Arab intellectuals truly believe that the West is acting on the basis of a "misunderstanding" that simply needs to be cleared up? Do they really think that Western decision-makers lack sufficient information about us, our culture and religion even after more than a hundred years of colonial occupation and incessant research and intelligence gathering? One might suggest that the attitudes of Arab intellectuals are not surprising either. After all, it is the habit of the weak to view himself through the perspective of his opponent and to regard his own strengths as failings and the faults of others as virtues. Intellectuals, in fact, may even be more disposed to this habit than others, especially if they think they can meet a demand in the West that offers generous remuneration. There is no limit to what an Arab intellectual might say once he has decided to act as a foreign mouthpiece. "Terrorism is an incontrovertible fact," he will tell us, "and terrorism does have an Arab and Muslim face," to which he will add, "the Arabs are not only poor, they are backward". We might also hear them say, "The highest form of freedom is to be found in the democratic systems practiced in the West", even in the face of evidence that democracy brings only nominal freedoms and that those who possess them are ever ready to abuse the liberties and freedoms of others. We are, therefore, forced to admit that the image of the Arab intellectual under the new global order is not altogether a glowing one. However, we must also recognise that our intellectuals have an important responsibility in freeing ourselves from the stranglehold of the new world order. We are living in a time when forms of psychological and mental oppression are growing more common than material oppression, when brainwashing is proving more effective than outright coercion. True, both forms of manipulation have always co-existed throughout history. However, such are the needs for skilled labour and for a certain level of consumer affluence in order to keep the capitalist machinery of the new order of production in motion that the more subtle forms of control are in increasing demand. Under this new and insidious climate, intellectuals are best poised to expose the forms of deception that keep people in thrall to the system. A second reason why intellectuals today have a greater responsibility than ever before is that the gap between appearance and reality is wider than ever before. It is now possible to make millions through an advertisement that reaches all corners of the globe at once. Simultaneously, the art of altering ideas, creating tastes and changing lifestyles in order to generate consumer demand are growing ever more powerful and pervasive. Intellectuals are needed in order to expose the subtle processes that are controlling people's behaviour and the motives behind them. This task, in conjunction with the current campaign of anti- Arab and anti-Muslim vilification that is furthering the ends of the dominant forces in the new world order, places a doubly formidable onus on Arab intellectuals.
-
Changing hats: The US double-standard use
of the UN Al-Ahram Weekly, 12/26/02
-
From an Arab standpoint it is difficult to separate Washington's insistence on the strict implementation of Security Council resolution 1441 and the haste with which military preparations are being made to unseat the Iraqi regime on the one hand, and its use of its veto in the Security Council to vote down a motion condemning the murder of three UN employees by the Israeli army. The Security Council has patently become a plaything with which the world's sole super power endlessly toys. It has become well-nigh impossible to find a credible basis for Washington's perspective on international legitimacy or the criteria by which it is implemented in international conflicts. In the case of Iraq, Blix and Baradie summed up the international observers' initial findings, concluding that the Iraqi report on arms programmes is full of holes. Yet inspection procedures have been resumed and it is impossible to come to a final verdict until they are completed at the end of January. For Washington and the UK, however, the initial results constitute a breach of the Security Council that demands the mobilisation of forces in readiness for war. Blix and Baradie did not find conclusive evidence that Iraq has engaged, or is engaging, in prohibited activities despite the loopholes and missing facts. And though Iraq has been fully co-operative, Washington is doing its utmost to push Baghdad into a clash with the observers. It does not rest content with giving the observers intelligence information and urging them to undertake break-in operations but continues to demand the interrogation of Iraqi scientists and experts; and it is likely to insist that the interrogations take place outside Iraqi territory. Washington's sole concern seems to be completing its military preparations and mobilising the support of allies like Britain, Israel and Australia as well as a secondary group that includes Turkey, Qatar and Kuwait. Washington sports the hat of international legitimacy only when it comes to Iraq. With respect to Israel, however, the hat, it has absolutely no scruples about wearing, has been provided courtesy of the Likud government. Following extended investigations undertaken by the United Nations following the killing, by the Israeli army, of three of its employees, as well as the destruction of a large World Food Programme storehouse in Gaza, Washington refused to discuss the issue at the Security Council, and used its veto to prevent any condemnation of Israel. Of course, it is all too likely that any such condemnation would not have mattered anyway: it would simply be one more item to add to the long list of UN resolutions that Israel neither respected nor bothered to respond to. Nor is the use of the veto in Sharon's interest unprecedented. On the same day Washington used its influence to hamper efforts to bring the Arab- Israeli peace process back on course along the lines of the "road map" initially conceived by Washington itself. Washington, it is by now obvious, will not broach the Palestinian issue before the Iraq war, its only -- lame -- excuse being the Israeli elections, even though beginning the plan would have consolidated the peace camp in Israel and encouraged Egypt's efforts to convince both moderate and extremist Palestinian factions to call for a halt to suicide operations. It often appears as if American policies are formulated in Tel Aviv, what with Washington's wilful placing of the Palestinian issue in the refrigerator and its determination to take no steps towards reinforcing Palestinian hopes for peace or for a fulfilment of Bush's promise, often reiterated, of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Such promises ring hollow, and the lack of fervour with which they pursued them, compared to Bush's enthusiasm for beginning military operations against Iraq, exposes them as a sham.
Is anti-Zionism the same as anti- Semitism? Many Zionists seem to think so. After each Israeli atrocity anyone who dares to criticise is denounced as racist, a Jew-hater or, in my case, a self-hater. Jews who speak out against Israel policies -- just think of the prominent scientist Dr Steven Rose -- are subject to a vile torrent of abuse from Zionists. Here is a sample, posted on the web: "Since you are not accomplished enough to be known for your professional activities, perhaps you have decided that you can make your mark as a gauleiter for the new Nazis of radical Islam. When the fascists you champion come for you, as they certainly will, maybe we will take our sweet time with the rescue." I forget exactly what a gauleiter is, but this is clearly nasty stuff. It is worth noting that before 1890 the Zionist project had no significance within Jewish thought, remaining a minority current until the superpowers backed the Jewish state after the Second World War. And as the persecution of Palestinians intensifies, some Jews (like the British Labour Party's spokesman Gerald Kaufman), previously been uncritical of Israel, are now voicing their disquiet. The Israeli refusniks who courageously defy orders to protect illegal settlements, are part of this growing criticism. The central flaw in the Zionist case is the acceptance of the anti-Semitic argument that Jews and gentiles cannot live together. Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, wrote: "In Paris I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I began to understand historically and pardon. Above all, I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to combat anti- Semitism" (The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. Marvin Lowenthal ed, New York: 1956). The Holocaust massively reinforced this argument and remains one of the principal justifications for the state and policies of Israel. Amongst all the horrors of the 20th century, the Holocaust remains a unique case of violent racism and modern industrial methods of annihilation. The Holocaust proved to many Zionists that the coexistence of Jews and gentiles is impossible. Even in their darkest hour, while many Jews fought heroically against the Nazis, Zionists were attempting to find an accommodation with Hitler. The Zionist Federation of Germany sent Hitler the following memorandum: "May we therefore be permitted to present our views which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening, and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence. Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern, and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. An answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry. A rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people, and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group. For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews." (Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Lenni Brenner, Beckenham, 1983). I was reminded of this repugnant aping of Nazism when a friend of mine recently visited the old town in Nablus where Jewish settlers had inscribed the Star of David on the doors of the Palestinian inhabitants. In response to these policies of despair we must remember that Jews, Muslims and Christians lived peacefully together throughout the region for a millennium. When the Jews were expelled from Andalusia at the end of the 15th Century they were accommodated in North Africa and in the Middle East. I fervently believe that the only solution to the Israel Palestine crisis will be the creation of a new, secular state with equal rights for people of all religions and also for people of no religion. But Israel's strategic role for the US means that anti- Zionism has to be part of the anti- Imperialist movement. For me, and I think for a growing number of Jews, the oppression that Jews have suffered is no excuse for treating Palestinians as subhuman: quite the opposite, it makes it even worse. * The writer is senior lecturer in logic and computer science at University College, London. His grandparents fled Germany in 1933.
Cairo played host last week to an international gathering protesting war against Iraq. Though participants sparred over whether the launch of the International Campaign against US Aggression on Iraq was a whimper or a bang, the meetings pulled Arab activists into the fold of a growing anti-war movement worldwide Anti-globalisation and anti-war activists from around the world closed ranks with their Arab peers in Cairo in pursuit of a 'different world'. reports "We have no option but to demonise the United States because it poses the greatest danger to humanity. We have a powerful enemy that wants to take over." Those are not the words of an Arab or Muslim radical, but of Gabrielle Muzo, an Italian economist who, with some 50 internationalists, came from around the globe to participate in a two-day conference organised by the International Campaign against US Aggression on Iraq (ICAA). Muzo's sentiments were shared by scores of activists and observers, and even those who say that they don't identify with the anti- globalisation movement. Though the mood was one of defiance, the most pressing question was how such shows of solidarity, which are bound to multiply in the coming few weeks as the countdown to the war begins, can face down the war machine that is swiftly gearing up. This sense of urgency was reflected in the words of British MP George Galloway who said, "We are at the 11th hour and there will soon be no more time for gatherings and conferences like these. Action speaks louder than words," he told the audience in a fiery statement. But in Egypt, where acts of political protest are not welcomed by security apparatuses, merely holding such a conference in Cairo is a powerful action, as conference organiser Soheir Mursi said. "Even when the gathering was threatened with cancellation, owing to security reasons, we felt that we had already achieved a significant part of our goal of linking up with the worldwide struggle against global apartheid," Mursi said at the opening of the conference. This link-up has indeed turned what was meant to be a show of solidarity with Iraq against a pending US attack into a show of support for the world's underdogs from Iraq to Cuba and Palestine to Venezuela. Among the items on the event's agenda were "US globalisation", "empire, globalisation and struggle", "genocide and ethnic cleansing as a new world order" and "popular movements and imperialist discourse". Explaining the rationale behind including other struggles among the conference's topics, Muzo said, "The agenda should not simply be against the war, but against all sorts of ideological and economic domination by the only super power. This is not about solidarity, because one cannot express solidarity with oneself. It is about the complementarity of our struggle to liberate ourselves." A minute of silence, hence, was devoted to the martyrs to struggles for freedom the world over. The talk of resistance and the sense of profound and intense international solidarity has prompted some speakers to liken the anti-war movement with the solidarity movements of the 1960s and 1970s. "This is not only a resistance movement, it is a movement for global justice whose roots begin with the youth, not only in the US, but in Europe, Asia, South America and in the Arab world," said one speaker. For the first time in the history of the anti- globalisation movement, this closing of ranks between international and regional activists was launched from an Arab capital. ICAA organisers said that it was a symbolic gesture to launch the campaign against US hegemony from Cairo -- the so-called heart of the Arab nation. The gathering was the culmination of efforts that date back to 1997 when Egyptian activists launched a campaign to lift the sanctions imposed on Iraq. The conference, entitled, "Together Against US Globalisation and a War on Iraq", is the first event organised by the Egyptian Campaign Against US Aggression on Iraq, which was launched a few months ago. Perhaps the most important achievement, in the view of the conference's main organiser, Ashraf Al-Bayoumi, was establishing a dynamic through which both Arab and international activists were brought together to outline a plan to contain US hegemony. "We wanted to break away from prevailing defeatist notions. Understandably, we are on a very difficult path but we are confident of the results at the end of the road, and we are confident that American hegemony can be contained," Al-Bayoumi told Al- Ahram Weekly. This sense of defiance on the part of the organisers was essential as the conference comes at a time when, as Edward Said put it in his message to conferees, "Arab lives, resources and land will be lost with scarcely a note of complaint from regional governments who have abandoned their people." Said stressed, "It was not too late for intellectuals and activists to mobilise opinion in the Middle East and elsewhere against the terrible injustices and sufferings soon to be endured on a vast scale." While participants agreed on the need to steer clear of rhetorical statements and apocalyptic scenarios, there was an evident surfeit of rhetoric demonising the US. "We should not succumb to this colonisation force that is reproducing itself in the worst form and is led by a Fascist right-wing administration," warned Mohamed Sami, an Egyptian businessman who helped fund the conference. "We should stand up to this barbaric war which has been waged against our nations and peoples because the Arab nations will be on the front- line defending all humanity," Sami added. Former Algerian President Ahmed Ben Bella gave a passionate speech, saying that the war was not only against Iraq, but that Egypt would be a future target. "Why is this war waged?" asked Ben Bella, "because -- they tell us -- they want to teach us democracy and enjoy democratic rule. But I say this is the ninth crusade. Bush is waging a ninth crusade which will begin in Iraq then move to Tehran, Sudan and then Saudi Arabia. We are facing a fundamentalist administration; [Secretary of Defence Donald] Rumsfeld is a fundamentalist, [Vice-President Dick] Cheney is a fundamentalist. All of them are. This new world order they want to impose on us should change." Ben Bella's anger was shared by at least one non-Arab, Dutch journalist William Oltman, who was keen to explain that he was not "anti- American" since he had lived in the US for 38 years. He also said, "I am a journalist, not an activist." Nonetheless, he had some very harsh words for US President George W Bush. "If Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair are allowed to go ahead with this war, they will be like Mussolini and Hitler. Bush is very closely approaching the behaviour of the Nazis and what we see now is very frightening. I just don't understand why Arab nations don't stand together against this aggression and arrogant use of power?" he exclaimed. While Oltman was certainly not expecting any answers to his question, veteran German journalist Harold Schuman, author of The Global Trap , expressed impatience with arguments that put the brunt of the blame for the region's chronic problems squarely on the shoulders of the US. Schuman noted that most speeches did not analyse the situation, but rather took the easy way out by demonising the US. "To say that the US is responsible for the misery in the Arab world is only half the truth, the other half is that some people are trying to conceal that Arab governments are as much implicated in this worsening situation as the US is, simply because Arab governments don't have to fear the public vote," Schuman said angrily. He was in fact keen to point out that the conference was not meant to "defend the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein in any shape or form". "I am here," he said, "to defend the Iraqi people." That remark raised the ire of the Iraqi official delegation headed by Nabil Negm, the chief political adviser to the Iraqi president, and Negm protested to the conference organisers about the comment. The incident, however, brought to the fore the question of drawing a line between the Iraqi people, who are bound to suffer in a coming war, and the Iraqi regime. One interesting feature of the gathering was the meagre representation of those in whose defence it was organised. There was, however, a member of the Iraqi opposition present. Abdel-Amir Al-Rikabi, described as a member of "the honest opposition" (in contrast with opposition figures who met at a US-sponsored event in London), referred to "a reconciliation initiative that was launched by the Iraqi opposition," which he described as having the potential to foster a mechanism for democratic change in Iraq without a war. Under such an approach, the immediate goal would be to establish a "unity government" that would work to develop a constitutionally- enshrined system that ensures the right to representation "for all political and national forces including the Ba'athists". The response from Saad Qassem Hammoudy, a leading member of the Ba'ath Party and secretary-general of the Iraqi Conference of Arab Popular Forces, was, "Iraq welcomes any opponent who does not deal with American, British or Israeli intelligence." Unlike the Iraqis, the Russians had a very strong presence at the event and their rhetoric evoked that of the Cold War era with many references to "Nasser the leader", "standing shoulder to shoulder with our Arab brethren" and "fighting imperialism and social injustices". Russian indulgence in a "good old days" discourse reached a low point when Vassilli Safronchuk, who was former deputy permanent representative of the USSR at the United Nations and under-secretary general of the organisation, said, "unfortunately present-day Russia is different from the Soviet Union which stood shoulder to shoulder with Abdel-Nasser and the Arab people in Palestine in their fight against Israeli aggression." Putting aside nostalgia, Safronchuk suggested that the use of force against Iraq could be averted if one of the permanent members of the Security Council vetoed such an action. "We should call upon Russia, France and China to veto any resolution that permits the use of force. This should be the first goal of this international campaign because such a resolution is coming," he added. It was, however, a voice from the United States that offered a less gloomy picture. Peter Phillips, a media professor, who supervises an initiative entitled, "Project Censored" that draws attention to issues that the mainstream media overlooks, said, "There is an outrage emerging in the US. Some sections of the public no longer view it as a war, but rather as a march to slaughter. We know more about Winona Ryder's shoplifting incident than we know about the destruction of Iraq. PR people spin the news." He went on to explain that despite this gloomy picture, there is a growing interest in alternative sources of information, "because we know that the corporate media is not telling the truth".
Will Iraq be able to avert a military strike by the US and Britain? Iraq has exerted all efforts to avert a strike. It accepted the return of the weapons inspectors; it complied with UN resolution 1441, cooperated with UNMOVIC [the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Committee] and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and did everything necessary to facilitate their mission within a short period of time and without any provocation. The fact that Iraq is cooperating -- in compliance with the demands of the international community and our Arab brethren -- has been acknowledged by the UN secretary-general and all forces that support justice. Hence, Iraq has rendered invalid all pretexts for a strike. Unless the US's insistence on launching a war is for reasons that have nothing to do with guaranteeing that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. But despite such cooperation, US and British officials have said the Iraqi weapons dossier falls short of UN requirements. Meanwhile, there are daily reports of a military build up by both countries in preparation for war. What is your view on these matters? They [the US and Britain] only make these accusations as a pretext for a strike against Iraq. If the US has any information [that Iraq possess weapons or materials in violation of UN resolutions] it should share it with UNMOVIC and the IAEA who can verify the credibility of the information on the ground during their inspection mission. The fact that Washington is playing the role of the UN's guardian and is unilaterally judging the Iraqi weapons dossier -- which is comprehensive -- instead of the UN shows the US's arrogance. We should wait for the entity that the Security Council assigned to carry out inspection to finish its investigation and write its report about whether Iraq is free from weapons of mass destruction, as it has repeatedly stated. Till today, inspection operations in Iraq are a daily and practical refutation of the allegations by [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair and Bush that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The US is not the party concerned with judging the inspectors' work. But the US was able to grab the Iraqi weapons dossier against the will of the international community... According to the UN Charter and international law, the US is not authorised to act unilaterally and in an aggressive manner against others because they are not in harmony with its political agenda. Its grabbing of the report was an instance of flagrant piracy and was a humiliation of the UN and the international community. It also exposed the cowboy mentality at the White House. Will Iraq agree to having its scientists questioned abroad? This is one of Washington's provocative demands by which it sought to explode the situation after it found itself forced to refer to the UN and the Security Council [before taking any action against Iraq]. The head of UNMOVIC said he does not want the committee to become an organisation for refugees by pressuring scientists and their families to leave Iraq. Iraqi scientists will have absolute freedom to answer the inspection committee's questions without any pressure [from Iraq] because if we let our elite scientists leave Iraq we cannot guarantee their safety and security. They will be targeted and assassinated by the CIA and the Mossad the same way those organisations assassinated the Egyptian scientist Yehia El-Mashad in Paris. Why do you think the US seems so insistent on launching a war against Iraq? The US has many aims. It seeks to control Iraq and its oil, protect Israel's security, and reshape the Middle East's political map along ethnic and sectarian lines, in other words along the lines of the Sykes-Picot colonising plan [a 1916 agreement between the British and French assigning each mandates for territory in the Middle East]. Moreover, through controlling Iraqi oil, the US seeks to control the decisions of the EU [European Union] and Japan -- that is, to tighten its grip on the world through militarising globalisation. This will happen not only by targeting Iraq but the entire world. Iraq is only the first step; the entire Arab nation is targeted. [The Arabs] must support Iraq to help it overcome the first step in the US aggression. Are the Arabs aware of this scenario? Unfortunately, the official Arab stance has not even reached the minimum level [of support] expressed in the Arab League charter, and the resolution of the [Arab League's] Beirut summit [in April 2002] which expressed the Arab rejection of a US aggression against Iraq and called for an end to sanctions. The official Arab stance has to be more dynamic and effective to send a message [to the US and Britain] that an aggression against Iraq is an aggression against the entire Arab nation. In Iraq, we have placed our bets on the patriotic Arab people and we still do. The Arab street has openly and forcefully expressed its support for Iraq and rejected a strike against it. However, there is still a huge gap between the Arab people and their regimes. Iraq's long-awaited apology to Kuwait, which was televised, has been criticised as being void of conciliatory tones and of actually pouring salt on the country's wounds, would you comment on this matter? The apology was to the Kuwaiti people, not the Kuwaiti rulers who were the reason behind the deployment of US troops on 2 August 1990. Now they [Kuwait's rulers] are conspiring with the US again; US military exercises are taking place only a few kilometres from Iraqi borders; US and British planes take off from Kuwaiti bases; Kuwaiti rulers are openly conspiring with traitors and enemies of Iraq such as Ayatollah Baqer Al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani through funding them and by participating in the London meeting with the opposition. It is the Kuwaiti rulers who have chosen this stance, not us. However, we have turned over a new leaf and are committed to overcoming differences with Kuwait and all our Arab brethren in the face of the US-Zionist threat which targets all Arab countries, including those who are labelled as US supporters like Saudi Arabia. But others argue that Iraq forced Kuwait to take such a stance as a result of the 1990 invasion, what do you think of that view? Did Iraqi forces invade Kuwait without a reason? Is there a wise man anywhere who would believe this. The invasion was a result of the provocations by Kuwaiti government before 2 August 1990 and they are now repeating the same scenario. That is why we called upon the Kuwaiti people to be aware and not to slide towards danger as a result of their rulers' choices. Some Iraqi opposition figures suggested that Saddam Hussein should resign to strip the US of any pretext for war, what do you think of that argument? Why should he resign, renounce his duty and by doing so leave Iraq to the Americans, Zionists and collaborators? The argument that this would strip the US of any pretext for launching war is a lie. The US is seeking to control Iraq. This is obvious from the US's [alleged] plans for a military government and the appointment of Tommy Franks [commander in chief, US Central Command] for that purpose; namely, a return to colonialism. And any talk about reconsidering the establishment of a military government or that the future rulers of Iraq will be Iraqis is nonsense. The US seeks to shape events according to its interests and not those of anyone else. Would the US endure the expenses of war and the sacrifices a war would entail for the benefit of others? Of course not. The US seeks complete and direct control of Iraq. Would you describe the current situation in Iraq and how people are preparing for war. Our people do not fear US threats, and are ready for the worst-case scenarios. Seven million men and women are trained to use weapons in the Al-Quds Army. We are ready to face the invaders and turn Iraq into their wide grave.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |