Dec 30, 2002 Op Eds

December 30, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

Our planet Earth is suffering from pollution. It threatens human beings, animals, planets, air and water. The world is now living under the threat of deadly pollution which will affect every living thing on the planet. The president of the UN environmental program said, “Environmental pollution is divided into two areas. Current dangers threaten us today and future ones which we must expect and work to prevent.”

The first danger is from carbon dioxide which has almost reached an all-time high level of 23,900 million tons which is an increase of 400 million tons — four times as large as they were 50 years ago. Human activities resulted in an excess of nitrogen because of fertilized farmland. The hole in the ozone layer still threatens Earth because of an increasing level of ultraviolet rays. The Montreal Protocol helped to reduce the hole which was originally expected to widen by 2050 and threaten the entire Southern Hemisphere.

Natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes and floods increased eight times in the last few years. The health cost for Southeastern Asian countries because of wild fires reached $1400 million. Twenty-five percent of mammals and 11 percent of birds are facing extinction. One out of three people will face the problem of finding drinkable water by 2025. Human activities threaten half the world’s coastal and marine areas.

The seas will rise half a meter and temperatures will rise 3.5 degrees because of the rising levels of carbon dioxide.

The UN expert said that nitrogen would be an international problem. Some areas receive nitrogen which causes unwanted ecological changes. Many fires will occur in the future because of weather changes and drought. New wars and border problems will occur and there will be conflict between countries sharing water from the same river. Government instability in many countries will weaken abilities to face local and regional problems and to deal with environmental issues.

We have not seen workable plans to protect the environment from pollution, in spite of meetings in Brazil and Johannesburg. The reasons are many. Some rich countries backed away from their financial commitments and from providing technology to protect the environment.

It is urgent to solve the water problem before it becomes insoluble. Water covers 70 percent of our planet’s surface and of this only 2.5 percent is fresh water. The remainder is either ice or salt water. If there are no changes, 18 percent of the world’s population will have no drinking water. The world media has neglected environmental problems and has not created public awareness of the problem.

Our main goal is to protect the environment from pollution and make people aware of the dangers of not doing so. We want to make it, rather than war, a top priority case in international affairs. Saving the environment is a vital part of protecting human rights and we do much to guarantee save human rights. Environmental problems, in terms of both importance and danger, are as much a crime against humanity as denial of freedom is.

Anti-war group finds charismatic leader in Williams
By Neil Berry

Arab News, 12/30/02

With many friends in the Middle East, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has wasted no time in challenging the morality of waging war against Iraq. In his headline-grabbing Christmas message, the archbishop criticized in mordant terms the Western warmongers who have set themselves up as “wise men” but who — following the pattern of the “wise men” in the Christian story — may soon become the authors of much needless bloodshed and human suffering.

These days, such blunt dissent is a rarity in British public life. For since Tony Blair became the prime minister in 1997, the British political scene has been mired in bland consensualism. From the outset, Blair cunningly projected himself as an “inclusivist” leader whose New Labour politics nobody in his right mind could possibly disagree with. And because of the shrinking credibility of his chief opponents, the Conservatives, there has for some years been a gaping vacuum at the heart of British political life, an unhealthy absence of effectual democratic debate. But Nature abhors a vacuum, and now — over the issue of the threatened war against Iraq at least — Rowan Williams and fellow dissenting church leaders may be about to confront the government of Tony Blair with the concerted public opposition from which it has hitherto enjoyed immunity.

Though the possibility that British soldiers could shortly see military action in Iraq has been much in the news, there has been little public discussion about the war in Britain. In recent weeks the British media has been principally preoccupied with the question of whether Tony Blair’s wife told the whole truth about her involvement with an Australian crook who helped her to purchase property. It could seem that the looming conflict is a matter of indifference to the British public. Yet the fact is that last September more than a quarter of a million anti-war protesters poured into central London to stage the biggest demonstration that the British capital had seen in 30 years. Not that you would have gathered this from the scant attention which the media accorded the event.

What the anti-war movement has been crying out for is a charismatic figurehead, a prominent and articulate leader who cannot be easily ignored. Now, in the person of the new archbishop of Canterbury, it has perhaps found just such a leader.

Bearded, bespectacled and softly spoken, Rowan Williams might seem more like a middle-aged hippy than a high-ranking member of the British establishment. But his professional qualifications could scarcely be more impressive. Born in Wales in 1950, Williams attended both Oxford and Cambridge universities and by the age of 36 he was already an Oxford professor, capable of lecturing in no fewer than five languages. Today, with some 16 books to his name, he is regarded by many as Britain’s pre-eminent theologian. Nobody disputes that this remarkable clergyman has become head of the Church of England through sheer merit.

As the church’s primate, Williams faces formidable challenges. Against the background of an increasingly secular society, church attendances in Britain have been inexorably dwindling for many years. Williams’ predecessor as archbishop, Dr. George Carey, cannot be said to have done much to reverse this trend. A stolid, unglamorous traditionalist, Carey appeared little in tune with the complex, volatile, highly individualized country that Britain has become. According to an old joke, the Church of England is tantamount to the “Conservative Party at prayer”. Seemingly determined to give this old joke fresh currency, Carey simply failed to make much impression on contemporary Britons.

A gifted communicator, Rowan Williams has made more public impact in a few weeks than did George Carey in the course of several years. Under his guidance, the Church of England is certainly in no danger of going short of publicity. But with his radical views and appetite for controversy, Williams himself runs the risk of being portrayed as a crank, if not as a subversive, by Britain’s predominantly right-wing, big business-dominated media.

Aside from declaring himself anti-war, Williams has already attacked the Disney Corporation for corrupting tender minds — a stance hardly calculated to endear him to corporate media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch.

Rowan Williams is likely to become an especial source of irritation to Tony Blair. Himself a regular, not to say ostentatious, church-goer, Britain’s prime minister has been nicknamed the “vicar of St. Albion” by the satirical weekly Private Eye. Now, Williams and Blair seem set to become rivals as leading exemplars of British public virtue. The irony is that the prime minister endorsed Williams’ appointment as archbishop of Canterbury.

He could yet end up in the position of the 12th century English King Henry II, who became locked in bitter conflict with Archbishop Thomas Becket over the clashing claims of church and state. Perhaps Blair will find himself echoing the fateful words that Henry is supposed to have uttered about his pious and inflexible archbishop: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

(Neil Berry, a London-based freelance journalist since 1980, is the author of “Articles of Faith: The Story of British Intellectual Journalism”.)

Forbidden opinion polls: Confusion and realities
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid

Arab News, 12/30/02

People need to look at Iran to understand why many countries ban polls or ban announcing the results of polls.

The Iranian government banned the poll results and considered those who carried out the polls to be traitors. The reason is, of course, that the poll results were embarrassing to the Iranian government.

According to the poll results, 70 percent of the people thought that United States and England helped in bringing about the Iranian revolution, Not only is this strange; but it is also wrong.

However, these poll results show people’s opinions which may be wrong because they do not know the actual historical facts. The polls reflect people’s opinions and political understanding, whether right or wrong.

The Iranian revolution was an enormous challenge for the United States and its foreign policy. The very idea that it was American-made reveals considerable confusion between two realities: the people hate the United States government and they also hate what their own government in Tehran is doing.

Of the families who lost sons in the Iran-Iraq War, 85 percent regret sending their sons into battle; this figure includes those who, at the time, thought it was a holy war which deserved sacrifice. The families later discovered that the war was pointless and yet, the country lost over a million soldiers.

In the last years of the war, the government could have ended it if it had agreed to the Iraqi initiative. At the time, however, the Iranian government refused, mistakenly thinking that it could destroy the Iraqi regime. In the end, of course, they had to end the war and the Iraqi regime remained intact.

Anger and regret is a common feeling in any war, not just in Iran; Many people who opposed the American government during the Vietnam War were the family members of those killed or injured in that war. That war changed the legal and community structure in American society and people who opposed politicians and warmongers began to appear everywhere.

One of the very interesting results of the Iranian poll is that 70 percent of the people questioned oppose the idea of building a nuclear reactor. They believe there is no need to build one. Their reasons are that they do not want trouble with their neighbors in Iraq and also because of their own domestic economic situation.

Putin’s war
Arab News Editorial 29 December 2002
-

When it comes to Chechnya, President Putin’s government is increasingly two-faced and, the way things are going, is unlikely to save either of them.

Face No. 1 is that everything in Chechnya is pretty well under control, bar the odd terrorist outrage such as the weekend suicide bombing of the government headquarters in Grozny in which more than 50 people were slain. This face also insists that the separatist rebels do not enjoy the support of the majority of Chechens and will, in the end, fade away, providing Russia remains sufficiently resolute in their policing of the rebel republic, which is an indissoluble part of Russia.

Face No. 2 is represented by the Russian Parliament’s decision early this month to tighten citizenship laws. Incredibly, prominent in the discussions was the plan to clamp down on Chechens even though, according the Russia’s other face, these people are just as much Russian citizens as anyone else. The Kremlin is also likely to press ahead with a state of emergency in Chechnya, which will give Russian troops even more latitude than they at present enjoy, in combating the rebels.

According to Face No. 1, there is no real problem. Nevertheless, Russian legislators have been told that since October 1999, just under 5,000 Russian servicemen have been killed and 13,000 wounded. By contrast, over 14,000 Chechen fighters are supposed to have been killed. There is, however, much skepticism about these figures, which, many Russian commentators believe, should be significantly higher, especially as they concern the number of Chechen dead.

Now a conflict that, in three years, can consume the lives of at least 19,000 people and injure many thousands of others would seem anything but minor. The fact that the scale of casualties has tailed off recently says less about a scaling down of the conflict, and more about the massive effort that the Russians have made to blanket the rebel country with their troops. Yet, top officials openly admit that, by night, Chechnya returns to the hands of the rebels. Even the capital Grozny becomes a no-go area for Russian troops.

Unfortunately for the Chechens and for the Russians who have been sent to suppress them, this is Putin’s war, a conflict that he re-ignited, certain that a determined push could finally bring the rebels to heel. Putin’s delusion that he can win has been shared by many men before him, both czars and commissars. None has achieved more than a pause in the Chechens writhing to be free.

As long as Putin will not admit his error, he will refuse to countenance any sort of peace talks. Nevertheless, it is clear from local reports that his officials on the ground in Chechnya are in frequent contact with rebel leaders and negotiations to end the conflict could begin quite quickly. The separatist — and elected — head of Chechnya, Aslan Maskhadov, has already demonstrated flexibility and pragmatism and would welcome any sort of talks that might lead to an end to the bloodletting.

Unfortunately, unless Putin has an extraordinary change of mind, Russians and Chechens will continue to slay each other for a long while to come, in a sterile military standoff.

Damocles' sword

Jordan Times, 12/30/02

THE CONFLICT with Iraq is now being mirrored on the Korean front. The US is charging North Korea with going full speed ahead with a nuclear weapons programme, in violation of past agreements. North Korea had no problem admitting that it is reactivating its nuclear weapons programme. It also requested UN nuclear inspectors to leave and moved some of its army closer to the demarcation line dividing the Korean peninsula into two rival states.

North Korea claims that it was forced to take additional measures to produce much needed nuclear energy after oil shipments were halted at US orders.

These developments are indeed regrettable.

During Bill Clinton's presidency, there were positive signs suggesting a thaw in relations between the US and North Korea. President George Bush has taken a different route in dealing with North Korea, and now the two countries are on the brink of a major war.

And if North Korea goes nuclear, Japan and South Korea may have to respond in kind. That is why greater efforts must be exerted to reactivate the agreements signed by the US and North Korea.

The international community cannot afford two major wars — in the Middle East and the Far East. Since it was possible to reach an accord to regulate North Korean reliance on nuclear energy, there is every reason to believe the accord can be resurrected. Still, the broader issue must be addressed. What exactly is the criterion that allows some countries to develop nuclear power while others are denied such an option?

Acquisition, possession or development of weapons of mass destruction must be forbidden. What is worrisome is the lack of a coherent, legitimate and fair standard; this allows some countries to possess nuclear power while denying others this right.

Until this issues is settled in a legal way, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will forever threaten the world.

Paying the price of war and occupation

By Fahed Fanek

Jordan Times, 12/30/02

IRAQ, WHICH has hitherto enjoyed the support of much of the world community in its efforts to get the UN sanctions lifted, suddenly finds itself alone. Even Baghdad's Arab brethren decided to accept the resolution asking Iraq to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors in order to avoid the possibility of war — or at least to put it off for some time.

What about the “Arab street?” Will America be made to pay a price for attacking Iraq? The subject of Arab street has assumed great importance in recent years; upon the expected reactions of this “street” are built many decisions and policies made by major powers vis-ý-vis the Arab world.

Where Iraq is concerned, supporters of the American bid for military action say that the Arab street will remain quiescent, while opponents warn of turmoil and increased terrorism. And, as is usually the case in political analysis, the truth falls somewhere between these two extremes.

The Arab street will definitely not stand idle by while a major Arab capital is obliterated. On the other hand, the Arab street may not be able to impose its will on the regimes.

To gauge the reactions of the Arab street, it is necessary to consider a number of factors, such as the absence of democracy and the lack of usual channels of peaceful expression. Consequently, the only options open to the Arab street are either silence or violence. Silence is meaningless, unless it is total — which is impossible. Violence, on the other hand, needs only a few people to be effective, especially if these people are organised.

At the present time it is problematic to rely on opinion polls to predict what the reaction of the Arab street would be when the time comes. The results of such polls are only significant and meaningful in democratic societies. However, there are indications that should Iraq be attacked, wide-scale violence would erupt, like it did for other reasons in Palestine, Lebanon, Algeria, Egypt and Kuwait.

Thoughtful American analysts, such as William Pfaff, admit now that the United States had, in some way, brought the attacks of Sept. 11 upon itself. The Saudis don't want foreign soldiers on their soil ten years after the end of Gulf War. They have no legitimate alternative means of telling the Americans to leave. No wonder that those who were very angry went underground and tried to make America pay for what they perceive as its occupation of their land. Of course terrorism cannot, and should not be justified, but neither can permanent occupation of Saudi Arabia or attacking Iraq without the slightest provocation.

Perhaps the US should learn from the experience of Israel, which has to pay the price for its aggression against the Palestinians in the form of lack of security and destabilised interests.

A prescription for Mideast peace

By James J. David

Jordan Times, 12/30/02

A JUST solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict can only be achieved if the US policy is based upon American moral principles and a strict adherence to international law, which run counter to the continued Israeli occupation of Arab territories and the denial of basic rights and freedoms to Palestinians under Israeli military rule.

No peace initiative will ever succeed if it denies the Palestinians the liberty to which all people are entitled. Unfortunately, the US has always been silent in the face of Israel's continued occupation, obediently providing military, political and financial support which only strengthens Israel's belligerent posture towards its neighbours.

The confiscation of Arab land in order to build more Jewish settlements, the expulsion of Palestinians, their arrest and imprisonment, the systematic torture in the prisons, the assassination of political leaders, the total absence of due process, the demolition of houses, the uprooting of thousands of olive trees, the diversion to Israel of scarce water resources and the often indiscriminate killing of men, women and especially children are violations of international law and moral standards.

Americans have a special responsibility to put a stop to these abuses because these abuses are unjust and because they are being carried out with our resources and with the military and political support of our government.

The United States has a responsibility to intervene in order to prevent hostilities from occurring anywhere around the world or whenever human rights are being violated. It must do what is right, based upon moral principles and not upon influences from special interest groups, political action committees or influential lobbyists. No rational dialogue is possible when those who dare to speak out are subjected to such intimidation that they fear for their political or professional lives.

A major obstacle to the establishment of such an American policy is the political influence wielded by the Israeli lobby. Supplementing the lobby's efficient pressure, pro-Israeli political action committees give more money to the campaigns of senators, congressmen and presidential candidates than any other single-issue lobby. Aggregate contributions by pro-Israeli individuals are even greater.

US policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Its lopsided support of Israel is the main reason. It is not good for Israel to live beyond its means and be immune from criticism because of American protection. This unquestionable protection of Israel and our refusal to condemn this Jewish state no matter what violations of international law and human rights it commits only breeds terrorism. We Americans now see this terrorism on our own soil.

— Israel receives over $5 billion annually in both military and economic aid from the American taxpayer. Israel is one of the richest countries in the world, with a per capita income of $21,000, yet receives $1,200 per person from the United States with no strings attached. America needs the money for its own people and for the starving people of less fortunate, Third World, countries. The $5 billion in annual foreign aid to Israel has got to stop.

— Israel continues to occupy lands that were seized from its neighbours in 1967. Continuing the occupation with all its inhumanity and exacerbating it by expelling the original inhabitants and creating new settlements is immoral and illegal and in no one's interest. This is particularly galling when the settlements are funded by the US taxpayer who was not asked if he approved of his money being used in this fashion. This has got to stop.

— Israel has been given free access to US technology, which it has been illegally reexporting to the People's Republic of China, India and others. This technology is going into weapon systems that one day might be used against us. This misuse of our military technology has got to stop.

— Israel has nuclear weapons that were developed with the technology and materials stolen from the United States. According to federal law, aid to countries who build nuclear weapons is illegal. Until Israel joins the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to permit inspection of its facilities, all military aid or assistance from the United States should stop.

— Israel continues to spy on the United States to obtain civilian and military technology. After China, it is the most active country spying against the United States, even though it calls itself an ally and a friend. The espionage has got to stop.

— The Israeli lobby has effectively blocked American business relations with countries that Israel considers enemies, like Iran and Syria. That has cost tens of thousands of American jobs. This interference in our commercial affairs must stop.

— Whenever Israel invades one of its neighbours or kills innocent civilians, the United States is prompt to veto any United Nations resolutions that criticise Israel. The US could not even bring itself to condemn the Qana (Lebanese refugee camp) massacre in which over 100 civilians, including two American boys from Michigan, were killed. Shielding Israel is an international embarrassment and places US citizens in danger around the world, including our own soil, as we recently experienced with the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre attack. Israel must begin taking responsibility for its actions, and erosion of our national prestige in order to protect Israel must stop.

— Israel discriminates against the Christians and Muslims who live within its borders in numerous ways, most notably by forbidding them to buy, lease or rent 92 per cent of the land in the country, which is earmarked for “Jews only.” Israel must decide whether it wants to be a democracy, or a state in which only Jews have civil rights. If it is to be the former, it must offer all citizens equality before the law.

— The influence of Israel's lobby and its political action committees has turned Congress and the White House into “yes men” for Israeli interests. Israel should get out of our politics and stay out. The promiscuous use of the label “anti-Semitic” to tar and feather any critic of Israel must also stop.

— All Israel's vocal supporters and those who do its bidding in Congress and the White House should remember that when Stephen Decatur said “my country, right or wrong...” he was referring to the United States. Israel is a foreign country which, rightly, has interests and concerns that are different from ours. It should react to those concerns in light of its own national interests. We should do likewise.

The situation in the Middle East will not and cannot improve until American aid to Israel is either phased out or brought under control. That is the key to peace.

Israel is a wealthy country, sixteenth among all countries in per capita income. Thanks to American support and protection, the Israelis and their government have been living beyond their means and snubbing international law since recognition of Israel. Massive American aid only encourages the right-wing in Israel and spreads settlements on Arab lands.

But just mention Israel's foreign aid programme to your congressman and most likely you'll get the canned response: “Israel is our strategic asset in the Middle East.” You'll know that answer was bought and paid for. As former Senator James Aburezk once pointed out, to call Israel a strategic asset in the Middle East is like thanking the arsonist for calling the fire department that put the fire out.

Donald Bergus, a former ambassador to Sudan and retired diplomat, has written: “At the State Department we used to predict that if Israel's prime minister should announce that the world is flat, within 24 hours Congress would pass a resolution congratulating him on the discovery.”

Is it any wonder he would write such a thing?

The writer is a retired brigadier general and a graduate of the US Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defence University, Washington DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly three years of army active duty in and around the Middle East, between 1967 and 1969. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Hizbullah has to start speaking its mind

The Daily Star, 12/30/02

Hizbullah has every right to be angry over its undeserved addition to the Canadian government’s list of terrorist organizations, but it can hardly profess to have been surprised by the move. In fact, the party’s own interpretation of what happened does much to explain how it got banned on the basis of faulty (if not deliberately skewed) reporting by an American newspaper. The party also makes a point of arguing that Ottawa’s decision was influenced by Bnai Brith, a pro-Zionist organization that actually went to court to get its way on this issue. Both of these claims are at least partly true. The only reason these flimsy efforts succeeded, however, is because Hizbullah has yet to understand the need to communicate with the outside world and so has been left unarmed in a propaganda war that its enemies take very seriously.
The resistance is now in the process of performing damage control, presenting solid evidence to debunk the allegations and shameless propaganda that caused Canada to act the way it did. Given the sloth-like tendencies of governments everywhere, though, it may not succeed any time soon, if at all. The important thing is for the party to finally learn that it has no choice but to take part credibly, forcefully, and regularly in that amorphous conversation known as the “dialogue of civilizations.”
Hizbullah has a history of excellent operational security, and no one is suggesting that it now throw off the veil of secrecy that has served it so well in the past. But it also has a heritage of articulating its goals and motives for both the domestic and wider Arab audiences, a practice at which it has been remarkably successful without compromising the effectiveness of its military efforts. The Canadian debacle is simply the latest illustration of why the party needs to spread its message to the rest of the world as well, especially the West.
Hizbullah has a special responsibility to explain itself. As the first Arab force to manage anything even remotely resembling a defeat of Israeli arms, it is widely seen as being representative of Lebanon, of the Arab world, and even of Islam writ large. Its image abroad is often affixed by Westerners to other groups and peoples far and wide. Its refusal to help craft that image is therefore a hindrance to the fortunes of both active and passive supporters everywhere. More importantly, it is an obstacle to the building of understanding between Islam and the West.
The period since Sept. 11, 2001, has seen an unprecedented focus on Muslim militancy, and the results have not been pretty. The demonization of Hizbullah has been a top priority in certain circles, and the task has been made that much easier by the group’s near-complete failure to defend itself diplomatically, intellectually and philosophically. More is required than terse denials that it is cooperating with Al-Qaeda and deliberately murky references to how it would react in the event of a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement. Hizbullah’s admirable work in things like community development, education, and healthcare have long made it far more than “just” a liberation movement. It has become a symbol for an entire civilization. Now it has to start acting like it deserves that position.

Repatriating migrant Arab capital? Say ‘inshallah’

By Samira Dawani, The Daily Star, 12/30/02

The recent conference in Beirut on “Investing Arab money in the Arab countries” highlighted another dimension an economic one this time of the deep, pervasive and longstanding crisis/stalemate that the Arab world has been experiencing. That crisis began long before the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and their repercussions. But those events exacerbated the crisis and plunged the whole Arab order into a situation similar to the one experienced by the Ottoman Empire (“the sick man of Europe”) at the start of the previous century.
The issue of repatriating migrant Arab capital had surfaced every now and then for different reasons prior to Sept. 11 in varying degrees of urgency. However, it has emerged this time out of anxiety that Arab capital abroad might be subject to Western (mainly US) arbitrary measures that might intensify amid an atmosphere of paranoia about all things Arab or Muslim within the context of the campaign to cut off the funding of terrorist networks. The lawsuit brought by the relatives and survivors of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks against several prominent, wealthy Saudis is an example of such paranoia. Other secondary reasons for revisiting the issue of repatriating Arab capital include corporate scandals and the collapse in share values, chiefly in the United States.
In other words, the issue has resurfaced as a reaction, not as the detection of an opportunity to make higher profits. It most certainly does not represent a desire on the part of migrant capital owners to help launch sustainable development in their home countries or in other Arab states, or to strengthen their economies vis-a-vis Israel or vis-a-vis the challenges imposed on them by unidirectional globalization, which threatens with dependency and marginalization those unable to keep up with it.
To understand how it would be possible to attract migrant Arab capital or most of it, it is first necessary to understand the reasons for its migration. These are deep-seated, and are not merely related to the shortage of profitable investment opportunities at home. They also relate to the manner in which the majority of its present owners acquired it, and not necessarily earned it.
In the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s, one of the preoccupations that the West imposed on the Arab world was the problem of petrodollars hundreds of billions of them held by the oil-exporting countries: the best place for investing them and the best way of spending them.
A substantial amount of those oil revenues was spent on infrastructure and arms purchases, some of which were for display. The result was that most of the petrodollars ended up in the Western industrialized countries, and did not contribute sufficiently to strengthening the Arabs vis-a-vis Israel, or to launching the mechanisms and dynamics of sustainable economic and human Arab development. This is attested to by our current state of weakness compared to Israel, our fragile economies (including the oil-exporting economies), our rising public debts and the deterioration of our food security.
What remains of those petrodollars has begun to flow toward the developed Western nations in the form of state or private investments. A significant proportion of the latter are owned by ruling families and the elites connected to them. Because it is not hard-earned money, part of it has been squandered, not properly invested or sufficiently protected, as in the example of the funds of the Kuwaiti Investment Office in Spain.
Under circumstances other than those prevailing in the Arab countries, those revenues could have provided the nucleus for a relatively speedy, effective economic development process that would not have required large sacrifices (such as saving at the expense of consumption or the imposition of high taxes to finance government projects).
Participants in the Beirut conference mentioned many reasons and incentives for repatriating migrant Arab capital, or at least part of it. They also suggested many practical steps that governments must take (individually or as part of the overall Arab order) that might contribute to such a repatriation, including privatization programs, economic reforms, facilitating inter-Arab trade, etc. Missing from those suggestions, however, was the most vital one: creating the political and organizational circumstances that will guarantee not only the security and safety of investments, but also the appropriate climate for sustainable development and growth in which people have basic stakes and which are not subject to the political whims of rulers.
One question clarifies this point: Why, despite the many facilities offered by most Arab states to foreign mainly Western investors do we not see the latter substantially investing in those states, despite enjoying the protection of their influential nations, of the independent judiciaries there and of the international agreements to which they are party?
There are purely economic and technical reasons for the absence of foreign investment. These include the limited size of individual Arab markets, the absence of a large single Arab market, the lack of arbitration laws and institutions, insufficient development of transport and communications systems, bureaucracy and corruption and other reasons.
The most important cause, however, is weak economic development and the low level of economic growth. An investor first and foremost considers the future, particularly when making a long-term investment, and wants to see the factors ensuring the profitability of the investment continuing year after year. The absence of such dynamics prompts investors to either completely avoid investing in the first place, or to pass up increasing it, or even to liquidate it and withdraw, sometimes at a loss.
The gross domestic product of the Arab countries hardly exceeds $500 billion, whereas migrant Arab capital amounts to between $1,000 billion and $1,200 billion. The latter is more than sufficient to launch a serious process of sustainable development and growth at reasonable rates that will guarantee improved standards of living for Arab citizens and a surplus that can be invested in achieving future growth.
But sustainable development and growth require political, social, educational and legal conditions and institutions that embody and protect them. This takes us into the realm of political reform and related issues such as establishing democratic freedoms, human rights, transparency, accountability, the empowerment of women, the freedom of knowledge and other issues, all of which were amply dealt with by the UNDP’s Arab Human Development Report for 2002.
It may be rightly argued that the majority of the owners of migrant Arab capital are not the most enamored of people with democracy, human rights, transparency, accountability and the rule of law, nor are they the most averse to corruption, favoritism and nepotism. But their likes and dislikes are not the point. The point is the conditions that must exist to transform the processes of sustainable development and growth into a societal movement that releases the potential of individuals and their latent abilities, because only thus will investments enjoy safety and security and the potential to be profitable.
Arab capital has migrated to the West, not out of love for its democracy, institutions or values, but basically in search of safety, security and profitability. It is therefore both a laughable and lamentable irony that the owners of those investments now feel that they are under threat in the West and some are considering repatriating them, although not much has changed at home since their initial exodus.
Projects linked to tourism play a prominent part in inter-Arab investments. The tendency to make such investments increased after the near hysterical euphoria that followed the 1993 Palestinian-Israeli Oslo Accords, particularly in Jordan and Egypt, where hotels sprang up everywhere and resorts were built on the shores of the Sinai. The same applies to Tunisia.
However, tourism’s extreme sensitivity to security issues makes tourism investments risky, as the experience of recent years has shown (the killing of scores of tourists in Luxor in Egypt, the bombing of a synagogue in Djerba in Tunisia and the kidnappings in Yemen). Moreover, even when safety and security exist, a successful tourist industry also requires an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance toward the customs and practices of other peoples. Sites of touristic interest and facilities to receive them, in and of themselves are not enough.
The repatriation of migrant Arab investments is complicated by the fact that the region is threatened by a possibly lengthy period of political instability if the United States wages war on Iraq. Such a war, in addition to its direct repercussions including Israel’s involvement will deepen the official Arab order’s crisis and weaken the already tenuous legitimacy of its regimes. They might even propel the nihilistic forces that claim to be the representatives of “true” Islam to the forefront. This, to be certain, is not a suitable environment for resident or returning investments.
Even if a US war on Iraq quickly achieves its declared goal of regime change, the speedy growth in Iraq’s oil output will contribute to lowering oil prices. This will reduce the revenues of oil exporting countries, creating unattractive economic conditions for returning investments, and possibly driving away already existing ones.

Samira Dawani is a London-based economic journalist.

Canada’s misguided decision

By Hussein Naboulsi, The Daily Star, 12/30/02

When Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered his speech on Jerusalem Day, all media networks were present, all news agencies were recording and representatives of the Lebanese president, prime minister and speaker of the House were seated in the front row. Everyone heard the speech as it was broadcast live by Al-Manar Television.
Not a single comment was made until a freelance journalist wrote an article in the Washington Times in which he deliberately misquoted the Jerusalem Day speech.
The journalist is Paul Martin, a writer who on occasion writes under the pseudonym “Sayyed Akbbar” in order to fabricate his own stories. In his article, Martin deliberately misquoted Nasrallah as saying: “By Allah, if they touch Al-Aqsa we will act everywhere” when Nasrallah actually said that any damage caused to the Al-Aqsa Mosque would cause the eruption of the entire region.
Although the full text of the speech including an English translation is available to everyone on the website of Sayyed Nasrallah, the Canadian government decided to turn a blind eye and exploit the misquote as a major factor in its addition of Hizbullah to its list of “terrorist organizations.” Two months after his appointment, the Canadian ambassador to Lebanon expressed interest in establishing relations with Hizbullah, yet now he comes out and says that his country’s decision is because of Nasrallah’s speech.
Despite knowing the truth, this ambassador who was willing to establish relations with the party did not even make the simple effort to clarify the truth to his government.
The Lebanese government acted swiftly and summoned Canada’s charge d’affaires and handed him a VHS videotape of Nasrallah’s speech to prove the truth. It did the same with the ambassadors of the European Union.
We all know that Canada came under heavy pressure from Bnai Brith, a Zionist organization, which started its campaign over eight months ago and filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government to force it to ban Hizbullah. This step was followed by great pressure, led by Alliance MP Stockwell Day, who condemned the government for not including Hizbullah on its terrorist list.
But to a country known for its good history and noble performance in the international arena and in the field of human rights, it is hard to believe that they made this decision.
It is possible to categorize Canada as a victim of the Zionist lobby and pro-Israel Alliance but one way or another it deliberately and willingly led itself to fall into that impasse when it placed Hizbullah on its list of terrorist organizations.
At first, Canada appeared to be ostensibly resisting pressure, saying that it would study the case well before making a ruling. However, it acted otherwise only to satisfy the whims of the Zionists, ignoring the repercussions and political consequences of the decision.
To the Canadian government, it was an opportunity to score a needed goal and exploit the falsified and fabricated quote as hard evidence. Swiftly, the federal government of Canada announced its decision, without considering its future relations with Lebanon and the Arab world.
It ignored the facts that the Lebanese government and the Arab League consider Hizbullah to be a legitimate Lebanese political party, that the party holds 12 seats in Parliament, and that the European Union regards Hizbullah as a legitimate political movement resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon
Neil Macdonald, a reporter who works for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., flew to Lebanon to investigate the truth. After he studied the facts, met with Hizbullah MP Muhammad Raad, and listened to the full speech of Sayyed Nasrallah, he arrived at the following conclusion: “The only problem is, there is simply no evidence Hassan Nasrallah ever made a speech calling for global suicide attacks, there is no record for such a speech here and these remarks were never uttered.“
Personally, I feel sorry for the Canadian government because it was dragged into a situation that forced it to reject the principles it believes in and dismiss the views of the majority of Canadians, who are known for their sympathy with all just causes in the world.
In the days to come the Canadian government has a chance to correct its mistakes, especially since it has been provided with all evidence needed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It must now act bravely and retreat from its decision, with the Canadian ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Duval, playing a key role.

Hussein Naboulsi is Hizbullah’s media relations officer.

What will 2003 bring after demise of ‘political Arabism?’

An Arab press review, By The Daily Sart, 12/30/02

Three Arab political analysts one Tunisian (Saleh Bashir) and two Lebanese (Hassan Shami and Ali Hamadeh) see eye-to-eye that the closing days of 2002 point to the eclipse, if not the demise, of “political Arabism.”
“‘Political Arabism’ is probably the first victim of the war that the United States is waging against ‘political Islam.’ The said war, triggered by the Sept. 11 events, effectively led to annulment of the Arab world which some people prefer to call the pan-Arab nation as a political factor, whether strong or weak, in that it was stripped simultaneously and instantly of its classification as ‘adversary’ or ‘ally’ or its categorization as ‘enemy’ or ‘friend,’” Saleh Bashir writes for the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
Bashir goes on to explain himself in more detail: “‘Political Arabism’ is no one’s ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ anymore. The outside world does not treat it, deal with it or take political positions toward it in either capacity. Put clearly and succinctly, it’s a case of annulment, dissolution or invalidation. The best proof and expression of this is what has happened to the icon of ‘political Arabism’ namely, the Palestinian cause and what has befallen the champion of that cause namely, Egypt.
“Where the Palestinian cause is concerned, the latest intifada put on view, in a tragic way, the magnitude of its marginalization after having occupied, over the past 50 years, center stage on the regional and world levels, which few other causes were able to do before it. Never have the Palestinian people been so isolated as they are today in the wake of their second uprising, facing the Israeli train of death and destruction on their own and with almost no support whatsoever except from some non-governmental organizations and the speech-making and carping of their ‘brethren’ on satellite TV channels.
“‘Political Arabism’ has ceased extending the minimum level of protection to the Palestinian people and has become incapable of providing them with the political conduit, which although it never stopped the violation and usurpation of their rights helped prevent the burial of those rights altogether (something that is now liable to happen). Even if ‘political Arabism’ was never one day able to stand up to or deter Israel militarily, it was able, albeit to a limited degree, to embrace the Palestinian cause politically, thus giving some political muscle at the international level and a modicum of immunity …
“At the same time, the role of Egypt, which invariably served as the pivot of ‘political Arabism,’ seems set to shrink back from one of regional heavyweight to one of reclusion behind national borders.
“There have been several indications to that effect, perhaps the most significant of which was Egypt’s fading influence on the course of events in the current Palestinian intifada whether in terms of protecting the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its leaders (to whom it has traditionally been close); or in terms of a more balanced, or less biased, position by the US administration of which it is supposedly an ally; or in terms of using its peace treaty with Israel to check the extremism of its current right-wing government.
“The US administration’s way of dealing with Egypt and its role are perhaps the most indicative in this context.
“There have been several signs of late suggesting that the US administration gives no weight to Egypt’s regional role, whether real or imaginary, and does not deal with Egypt from that angle, as has been the case since the late Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David agreements more than 30 years ago.
“Whereas the US administration previously turned a blind eye to human rights or economic shortcomings in Egypt, it now does not hesitate to focus on internal Egyptian policies (criticizing and apportioning blame such as in the Saadeddin Ibrahim case) and on US aid to Cairo, now standing at $2 billion annually, in a way suggesting that such aid would eventually have to be associated with the issues of human rights, public freedoms and political and economic reform …
“If in the future a historian were to look back at events in this region, he/she is liable to designate the year 2002, now coming to a close, as marking the eclipse of ‘political Arabism.’”
Writing on the same theme for Al-Hayat, Hassan Shami speaks not only of the waning of Arabism, but of the “difficulty of being Arab.”
What we are asked today, he says, is to bid farewell willingly or otherwise to historical or political Arabism and to suffice with “cultural Arabism.”
There have been mounting signs, post-Sept. 11 and since the start of the countdown to a war on Iraq, that the Arab and Muslim masses are in a lethargic state.
“News of the conference held by the Iraqi opposition in London, in the presence of a sizable American delegation, is sufficient proof that the post-Saddam Hussein period will be required to be one of voluntary retreat from the realm of inter-Arab bonds to the domain of managing ethnic and confessional divisions inside the Iraqi mother country,” Shami writes.
“Likewise on the Palestinian front,” he says. “There, the requirement will be to adopt the American-Israeli reading of the Oslo Accords and disengage the Palestine question from its direct Arab milieu and its wider Islamic reach. In return, the Palestinian people will be recognized not as a people entitled to political rights but one facing a ‘humanitarian’ problem capable of being addressed through relief supplies and financial assistance.
“There are many indications and much evidence that the current US administration’s geostrategic vision of the Middle East region and its conflicts is tilting more and more toward taking matters into (American) hands, even if that puts an end to regional Arab politics.”
Shami says: “The Arab League can remain in business and official Arab gatherings can continue taking place but only as folkloric events to reminisce about or grieve for the past.”
Ali Hamadeh, in Lebanon’s An-Nahar, says the year is drawing to a close with the US stepping up its military preparations around Iraq. The region, he writes, prepares to see off 2002 without any observer doubting for a moment that 2003 will be Iraq’s year.
“The new orders directing additional US warships to head for the Gulf, the Turkish U-turn on the war, and the accompanying plans for political change in Iraq through the door of Kurdistan are all factors piling up to point unmistakably to a period of big changes unseen in the region since the 1920s,” he predicts.
Where are the Arabs in all this?
“Wedged to America’s tail and more ambivalent than ever,” Hamadeh writes. “Although they are all, without exception, rotating in America’s orbit, its impending war on Iraq and its plans for regime change there (seems to place them) among the losers. The political irony is that Arab policies, both conservative and revolutionary, are aligned with the superpower bound to win the war, but are nevertheless losers” like Shareef Hussein who helped Britain dismantle the Ottoman Empire without him winning the kingdom Britain had promised him.
Hamadeh says there is not one single Arab state which is seriously trying to back up its rhetoric against war on Iraq with concrete measures.
“Egypt, whose verbal opposition to the war shrank from the level of upholding the latest Arab summit resolutions to simply reiterating that it will not join America’s war, is almost telling its own public: ‘This is all we can do’ while telling the Americans: ‘Sorry, but the internal situation is at boiling point.’ Saudi Arabia opposes the war, but says little about the presence of US forces on its soil when its bilateral relations with Washington continue going downhill. Qatar is basking in the glory of American military presence and political support, which helps it shake off Saudi pressure, albeit at a heavy price. In Jordan, the leadership almost does not know whether the country will eventually remain whole or if it will be hauled in for surgical procedure when the time comes for a final Palestinian-Israeli solution.
“As for Syria, which has a long history of deals and understandings with the Americans, her utmost hope is that the storm over Iraq will pass without causing damage in Syria proper or in Lebanon; Syria is confident that she will be able to replicate the famous Baker-Assad agreement. This leaves Iran, which remains true to form on matters of equivocal policies cursing America on its streets and sending Tehran-based Shiite opposition figures to Iraqi opposition conferences sponsored by Bush’s envoy to ‘free Iraqis,’ Zalmay Khalilzad, in Washington and London. Observers will not be surprised if American warplanes use air corridors over Iran to reach targets in Iraq.”
Hamadeh says that although 2003 will be Iraq’s year by name, it might still turn out to be “the year of the Middle East in terms of content and long-term consequences.”
Nahla al-Shahhal, writing in Al-Hayat, ponders the stance of countries around the world including Iraq’s neighbors that have been strong-armed by Washington to support and even participate in a war on Iraq simply to avoid or alleviate the damages and negative fallout that such armed hostilities can inflict on them.
In the event of war, Iraq’s neighbors will all face threats. “The least of these threats is refugees pouring into their territories. The greatest is the outbreak of general instability, the results and repercussions of which cannot be assessed in advance,” she warns.
Further afield, countries such as Russia and France, which have enjoyed preferential economic relations with Baghdad through lucrative multi-billion dollar contracts, also stand to lose a great deal as a result of the proposed US war on Iraq.
Even North Korea, which “may have been able to slightly resist and respond to US sanctions by declaring the resumption of its nuclear program” will face a different situation once a war “that will have the power of a deterrent example” has been waged, Shahhal predicts. Indeed, Washington is calling on all parties “to take a conclusive stand” in favor of war on Iraq “to avoid another one if the deterrent example doesn’t work.”
All the potential losers are passively “colluding” with Washington, “reluctantly” accepting war and trying to maneuver themselves into better positions as it draws closer, and will eventually participate, if only to ensure their own “salvation,” she suggests. Their tacit “collusion” with Washington’s war plans “resembles the situation of a family that knows that one of its members is terminally ill, but publicly behaves otherwise. Women secretly prepare their mourning clothes and men discuss the funeral and wake arrangements in whispers, while everyday life continues as everyone awaits the inevitable day.”
Despite the tremendous losses that all these countries face in the event of war on Iraq, they remain passive, simply hoping that US pressure on Iraq could lead to a miraculous cure that would obviate the need for war, such as a military coup in Iraq.
To try and secure wider participation in its planned war, particularly by countries surrounding Iraq, Washington is trying to address their “panic” by developing “the concept of a lightening and conclusive war,” Shahhal continues. Washington itself is motivated to keep a war on Iraq as brief as possible because it fears that the loss of Iraqi oil exports could push up oil prices “to unbearably high levels,” particularly since the ongoing strike in Venezuela has slowed that country’s oil exports to a trickle. This has already caused oil prices to soar, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia has increased its output to compensate, she remarks. Washington hopes that a short-lived war on Iraq will allow the restoration of its roughly 2 million barrels per day of oil exports to be resumed quickly, so that oil prices will only spike for a brief period.
According to Shahhal, even Iraq is passively playing the US game and colluding with it. The 12,000-page arms declaration that Baghdad submitted to the UN can easily be refuted and shown to be deficient, providing the US with the excuse it needs to launch a war. By “ignoring” US threats at times and “making confrontational rhetorical statements” and indulging in brinkmanship at others, Iraqi officials are making light of the possibility of war and may well be motivated by “the logic of mass suicide.”

Fault lines that cut across Israeli politics
By Dr. James J. Zogby

12/30/02

Less than one month remains before Israeli voters go to the polls for their third national election in four years. This, in itself, is a sign of the divisions and instability that have come to characterise Israeli politics - a dangerous situation that has made peace difficult to achieve.

There are two distinct ways of describing the fault lines within Israeli politics. On the one hand there is the deep rift that exists between the pro-peace and anti-peace camps - alternatively referred to as Israel's left and right. This division has been growing since the signing of the Oslo Accords and has only worsened after two years of intensified violence.

Two decades ago, for example, only fringe elements, like the followers of Meir Kahane, called for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel and the occupied lands. Today, representatives of this extremist and racist ideology serve as ministers in the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, serving alongside those whom Mrs. Rabin once accused of inciting the violence that ultimately took the life of her husband, Yitzak Rabin.

No peace partner

The accepted historical narrative that defines the right-wing ideology is: "Israel has no peace partner. Ehud Barak, representing the culmination of the Oslo process, made Arafat a generous offer. Arafat rejected it and resorted to violence threatening the very survival of the state of Israel." The lesson Sharon has sought to cull out of this experience is the necessity of ending the Oslo experiment and destroying the Palestinian National Authority. Thus far, a majority of Israelis have supported the Likud prime minister's approach.

While the right-wing has grown stronger, the peace forces have shrunk in size. They were never a dominant force in Israel. Even during the tenure of Rabin, there was a near even split between the two camps, which is why Rabin, and later Shimon Peres, found it so difficult to push more aggressively toward a final peace arrangement. In any case, Rabin's once dominant Labor party faces the prospect of being reduced to about one-half of its former strength.

Sign of drift

A further sign of this drift to the right in Israeli politics is reports leaked to the press last week that indicate that Labor's new leader, Avram Mitzna, has proposed a map for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The map cedes to the Palestinians far less than what Barak offered at Camp David. Since Mitzna, is seen by many as the "great hope" for peace, the fact that he senses that he can go no further than this miserly offer speaks volumes about the current drift of Israeli politics.

There is a second fault line that defines contemporary Israeli politics and that is the ethnic/communal divide. Twenty per cent of Israel's population is Arab, another 20 per cent is the recent Russian immigrants and further 20 per cent are ultra-orthodox religious Jews. These three groups share almost no common ground and, in many instances, don't even speak the same language. All of this is, of course, makes it quite difficult to build a stable political order.

The question is, what ought Arabs do in the face of this chaotic situation? First and foremost, it is imperative to recognise that the situation can become worse. With neo-conservatives and religious conservatives ascendant in U.S. politics and the Likud still dominating Israeli politics, there are real dangers that a third "disaster" can occur in Palestine.

I remember toward the end of the Clinton administration some Arabs arguing that an election in the United States and or Israel made no difference and that the situation couldn't get any worse. They were wrong then and if they still believe the same thing, they could see even more horrible results in the future.

I argued a year ago in this column that the violence should end. This is even more imperative today. Israel's plan is becoming clear every day. It is to exploit the anger and fear created by suicide bombings in order to completely dismantle the Palestinian National Authority, reassert complete occupation and expand its colonialist outposts in the West Bank and Gaza. The accelerated pace of assassinations and other provocative acts are designed to hasten this goal. When Palestinians respond with violence it only serves to further legitimise this Israeli plan by building stronger support for Sharon's efforts in Israel and the United States.

In the current political Palestinian environment it will take enormous strength to exercise self-control and complete the agreements between Fatah and other Palestinian factions, being sought in Cairo. These efforts can be supported by major Arab states. One way they can do so is by undertaking an aggressive campaign to promote the pro-peace resolution of the Beirut Arab Summit.

As difficult as they will be to achieve, the impact of these two efforts combined could yield some positive results for Palestinians.

Corruption

Even though the right-wing bloc in Israel is in a dominant position, it has been weakened by recent revelations of corruption and voter-fraud. And while the Labor party is in a somewhat weakened state, Meretz, a party to the left of Labor, has grown somewhat and can provide some needed backbone to the peace bloc.

A recent poll of Israeli society produced contradictory but interesting results. An overwhelming majority want peace based on two sovereign states, but a strong majority remain insecure and do not believe peace is possible. Steps taken to reinforce Arab commitments to peace can be helpful in this regard.

Palestinian pain and anger are real and legitimate and so taking such steps toward peace will be enormously difficult, especially as Israel continues its brutal provocations. But this is precisely why Israel acts as it does - to block any Arab peace move and to continue the cycle of violence, which they use to their advantage.

Right gestures

But if Arabs and Palestinians can marshal their strength and make the right gestures, they may be able to alter the internal Israeli political discourse to their advantage. At the same time, they can win much needed support in the West, which could serve to restrain the Israelis from pursuing even more heavy-handed and devastating blows to the much beleaguered Palestinian people.

The recent speech delivered by Abu Mazin in Gaza was essentially correct. The current path taken by the second intifada has not taken the Palestinians in a direction toward the realisation of their national aspirations. Contrary to the views of those who argued two years ago that the situation couldn't get any worse - it did - and it can become worse still. There is no guarantee that corrective measures taken now will yield immediately positive results. But what is certain is that in the face of the disasters that loom ahead, the only responsible path is to make a genuine effort to transform the current dynamic. One way to do that is to attempt to transform the intifada, with Arab support, into a courageous challenge for peace on the eve of the Israeli election.

Dr. James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.