Oct 21, 2002 op eds

October 21, 2002 Opinion Editorials

Sari Nusseibeh and the right of return

By Jaffer Ali

Jordan Times, 10/20/02

WHEN ONE is a Palestinian growing up outside one's ancestral home, there is often a contradiction between the real politic that one contemplates in the mind and the dreams one feels in the heart. Today I write from the heart to address what some Palestinians seek to surrender: the inalienable right of return.

The right of return is an internationally recognised principle guaranteeing an indigenous population the right to not be relocated against its will. No nation, however powerful, has the right to ethnically cleanse a population. In short, might does not dictate right. Israel's birth was not the virginal affair depicted in movies and books like `Exodus'. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were uprooted... and dispossessed. Today, from that number, over 4 million Palestinians, many of them living in refugee camps, are asserting their right to return to their historic homeland.

The Israelis have not been able to crush the dream of returning from the hearts of the Palestinians. But incomprehensibly, a small group of Palestinian intellectuals led by the quasi-official PLO spokesperson Sari Nusseibeh is trying to convince Palestinians all over the world that the right of return is nothing but a vain folly.

Without a doubt, we stand at a special moment. Men like Nusseibeh offer a solution without justice. All people should guard with jealous attention justice and suspect all who seek to diminish its precepts. Every solution that carries within its bosom great and unredressed injustice cannot stand.

Nusseibeh has chosen a course to undermine the right of return, all in the name of real politic. All he sees in over 50 years of struggle is failure. I see a beautiful spirit of a people that has never given up its dream to live in a land without regard to ethnicity or religion. I do not see failure, but an indomitable will and faith that even if success may not come today, it shall come tomorrow, and if not then, after thousands of tomorrows.

Nusseibeh presents a greater darkness than the one Palestinians have fought for over 50 years. It is the darkness of a soul that has lost its way. Couched in gentle rhetoric, he offers a world devoid of right and wrong. He offers a world where the cold edge of real politic replaces the “foolish” notion that decency will somehow triumph in the end.

It is this simple notion that has fuelled the hearts and minds of millions of Palestinians over the decades. This simple notion was served to me with mother's milk. Thousands of people have died rather than give up the innocent notion that justice matters.

Nusseibeh suggests that the time for pain must be over and the price of this must be to relinquish our hopes and dreams. Is it not the case that greater than the death of flesh is the death of dreams... the death of hope? Dreams and hopes are not the stuff of real politic, but they are what animate the human soul. These dreams are part of the Palestinian soul and cannot be waived with a casual hand.

The choices for Palestinians seem stark. They are offered the despair of occupation or the despair of unredressed injustice in Nusseibeh's world. Palestinians must reject this cold world that prizes expediency over human rights.

The writer is a Palestinian-American businessman who writes on politics and business. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

Elections likely to add to past confusion
By Dr. James J. Zogby

If the 2000 election was remarkable for the lack of a clear direction indicated by the final vote tally, it appears that the 2002 elections will only add to this picture of confusion.

It should be remembered that when all of the 2000 votes were added together on the presidential, senatorial and congressional levels, the parties evenly divided the votes cast. This year, it seems, voters will again do the same thing.

With just two weeks remaining before Americans decide the composition of the next Congress, the U.S. political picture is confused.

There are 36 governorships, 34 Senate seats, and all 435 congressional posts up for election. With Democrats holding a one-seat advantage in the Senate and Republicans holding 51 per cent of the seats in the Congress (to the Democrats 49 per cent), control of both Houses of Congress is up for grabs.

At stake for the Republicans is the control of the Senate, which President Bush needs to push through his agenda.

Democrats, on the other hand, need to maintain their hold over the Senate so that they can continue to place at least some limits on the power of the President to define domestic and foreign policy priorities.

Historically the party that has just won the White House usually loses congressional seats in the next mid-term election. Republicans can ill afford to experience such a fate.

To do so would cost them control of the Congress thereby giving Democrats majorities in both Houses. Republicans hoped that the huge boost in popularity the President received after his response to the 9/11 attacks might help to inoculate their party and save it from a mid-term slump.

But, during the last several months, the ebbs and flows in the national mood have been so pronounced that it is difficult to predict any outcome to November's elections.

During the late summer of 2002, after a number of corporate scandals (and revelations about some that might have involved the President and Vice President), a deep slide in the stock market and a continued decline in the nation's economy, Democrats had hoped that the November contests would be a referendum on the economy and corporate responsibility.

In September the national debate dramatically shifted back to terrorism and the push for a war with Iraq, fuelling Republican hopes that the election would be a national referendum on their strong suit: national defence and security issues.

Polls are mixed. One week Americans cite economic woes as their top concern, giving Democrats renewed hope that their issue will be in play.

The next week, fears of renewed terrorism are back on top giving Republicans the opportunity to remind voters that their party is tougher on defence policy.

Instead of helping voters to focus on what is at stake in the election, this barrage of national issues appears to be drowning out any discussion of the elections.

A recent study of local news broadcasts in the U.S.'s 50 major cities found that the 2002 elections receive scant mention in nightly broadcasts. The researchers investigated the content of almost 2,500 nightly news broadcasts aired during the last two weeks of September.

They found that elections figured in less than one-half of these programmes. When covered at all, elections received an average of only 80 seconds of airtime. And only five per cent of all of those very short treatments dealt with congressional races. The bulk of the coverage was focused on state gubernatorial races.

The resultant picture that emerges is so confused that it appears that neither party will have an advantage. Two additional observations need to be made.

On the one hand, both political parties and many candidates appear to be set to break new records for campaign spending in a mid-term election. At the same time, voter apathy has grown resulting in all-time low voter turnout.

During this year's primary election voters set a new record. Only 9.1 per cent of all Democrats turned out to vote and only 7.7 per cent of all Republican voters went to the polls. This total of less than 17 per cent reflects a continuing downward trend in each successive midterm election since 1966 when a high of 33 per cent turned out to vote.

Most analysts predict that this downward shift in voter involvement will continue in November, when less than one-third of all voters are expected to go to the polls.

Thus the 2002 picture, in brief: the stakes are great; there is confusion as to what the election is about; neither party has a clear advantage; there is little attention paid to the elections in local news, most is reserved for other local, national and international stories; campaign spending is high and voter turnout is expected to be low.

The election will not be national (i.e. an election where voters will be drawn to the polls by an overarching issue that favours one party), nor does it appear that the election will produce a national mandate.

Instead it seems clear that 2002 will consist of 505 separate and individual contests, each decided on local concerns, personalities and issues.

Looking at the most up to date polls it appears that if the election were held today, Democrats might hold on to their one seat advantage in the Senate, while Republicans would probably continue to maintain a slim lead in the Congress.

The one area where some measurable change might occur is in the Governor's races, where Democrats might win enough of the states from Republicans to give both parties (you guessed it!) a near 50-50 split in control of governorships across the nation. That is today's picture. Though it is not likely to change, a dramatic development in the last two weeks of campaign 2002 may alter this dynamic.

For example, a major international event, an early November announcement of an increase in unemployment or a domestic crisis that shakes public confidence – last minute developments such as these could tilt enough votes to change enough elections to alter the final outcome. But barring that, 2002 will end as it began, with confusion and a lack of political clarity.

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

'The inevitability of having no option'

Musa Keilani

Jordan Times, 10/20/02

IT WOULD be naive to believe that the US' shifting of moves at the UN, in its efforts to secure Security Council endorsement for its plans to launch war on Iraq, came from genuine desire to avert war and abort its self-assumed mission to topple Saddam Hussein. US President George W. Bush could not be dissuaded from his plans and he is only seeking some formula or another that might give him legitimacy to implement them. At the same time, if he could not gain legitimacy, he would go ahead anyway and wage war on Iraq with little regard for Arab and international calls for restraint.

While the Arab world is hoping against hope that some miracle might happen to avert war on Iraq, it is high time for the Arab leaders to get together urgently and discuss what their options are to counter the catastrophic impact of US military action in Iraq. It is clear that war on Iraq and “regime change” in Baghdad as sought by the US would change the face of the Middle East. We have heard of US plans for a “temporary military occupation” of Iraq by the US. An American military commander will be head of the occupation forces and implement the US plans to change the shape of the Middle East regardless of the will of the people of the region. The consequences of such action are unpredictable and would have serious repercussions on the security and stability of all Arab countries one way or another.

And what have the Arab countries done about it so far? Indeed, Arab appeals against war on Iraq have fallen on deaf ears in Washington, which is, of course, aware of the intensity of Arab sentiment sparked by its plans concerning Iraq. The best the US could do is to ask Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to ease his military brutality against the Palestinians as if that were the only cause of Arab anger against Washington's policy. It only shows how the US has taken the Arabs for granted. However, that does not offer any justification for concrete Arab action to preempt the catastrophe that would befall the Middle East as a result of the US plans.

It is defeatist to resign to the US plans, hoping that somehow the Arabs would be able to live through the disaster. Survive they will, but they would emerge to a new neighbourhood where the US and Israel would call all the shots in an area whose shape would bear a totally fresh look. No one will be spared the effects of those changes.

Indeed, there might be a few who might even argue that such changes are much needed; among them would be those calling for democracy in the Arab world. But let us not kid ourselves. The US is not exactly enamoured with the idea of introducing democracy to the Arab world, to be prompted to topple Saddam Hussein. It wants unchallenged political, military and strategic control of the Middle East, and Israel is encouraging Washington for purely strategic purposes because it hopes to emerge as the dominant power in the region in the wake of the changes that the US wishes to implement.

Israel is hoping that it would no longer have to put up any pretence over its plans never to return the occupied territories to Arabs and subdue the Palestinians, to deal with Syria's demands for the return of the Golan, to settle the dispute over the Shebaa Farms and to handle Lebanon in the dispute over that country's rights to water. Israel wants simply to impose its will on the region and its people, and what better environment to do that than by changes that it hopes would create new realities that would replace international law to suit American and Israeli interests?

The question that comes up is about the international attitude as the US goes ahead implementing its plans. The shifting signs from Russia and France over their initial rejection of the US determination to wage war on Iraq tell us that the US is slowly concluding deals with them on how to deal with a post-Saddam Iraq and, indeed the Middle East, in a way that would serve the economic and oil interests of the big powers. The price they are asked to pay is to endorse the US plans; Washington is also offering face-saving formulas for them to do so. That explains the shift in the US position at the Security Council on Friday, saying that the council could go through the exercise of UN inspection but Washington reserves the right to strike Iraq if it feels the UN is not doing its job.

In practical terms, under the US scenario, the US would allow Hans Blix to undertake a token mission to Iraq to launch weapon inspections. Of course the US is confident that it could come up with a million reasons and situations to make sure that Blix would never be able to certify that Iraq is complying with the UN demands. Therefore, the Blix mission, if it ever materialises, will be just another short scene from the US-drafted Iraq drama, with American generals all poised to push the buttons of war seconds after Blix makes the predictable statement that Iraq has failed to comply with the UN demands.

The envisioned scenario does not come from the mind of a doomsday prophet: it is the net picture that emerges from the drama that is being played out for the benefit of those countries who might need a cover to justify their endorsement of the Bush plan to hit at Iraq. But what those countries don't seem to have realised is the inevitability of having no option but to bow and accept American-imposed changes that would leave little resemblance of the Middle East as it exists today; and they could have the biggest surprise of their life once the US gets going in Iraq.

Israeli sympathizers’ arrogance knows no bounds
By Raff Ellis
YellowTimes.org

WASHINGTON — While channel surfing a couple of weeks ago, I landed on the "Anna Nicole Smith Show," quite by accident I assure you. In the scene I happened upon, the irrepressible Anna Nicole was riding in the back of a limousine with her lawyer, Howard K. Stern, on their way to some celebrity bash. "I think it would be good if you said something in support of Israel," Howard offered, out of the blue. I was somewhat shocked that this solicitation, completely out of context with the proceedings, would come while the camera was rolling. Nicole demurred, not that it would have made much difference in the greater scheme of things, that is.

The incident set me thinking of how invidious and ubiquitous the pro-Israeli sympathizers are. It isn’t enough that our administration, Congress, and media find little if any fault with the State of Israel. It isn’t enough that Israel receives massive amounts of military and economic aid, courtesy of US taxpayers. It isn’t enough that our diplomats fight Israel’s battles in the international arena. No, they have to answer every critic, cultivate every personality, and promote its agenda in every forum lest it suffer a percentile drop in its overwhelming support.

Last week, my local newspaper ran a story, which encompassed 13.5 column inches, about the trial of Palestinian Marwan Barghouti in Israel, with the headline, "Defy Israeli curfews, Fatah chief says." Superimposed over the article was a large picture that covered 18 column inches. Did the picture have anything to do with the story? Not a whit.

The photo was of a somber Ariel Sharon, head bowed before the "Wall of Names," a memorial to Israeli soldiers who have died since 1948. This was an obvious public relations coup that must have left Israel’s supporters howling at their ability to manipulate the press.

Of course, the story failed to mention that Israeli curfews are illegal and condemned by everyone but its principal benefactor, the United States. It failed to mention that the Palestinians are an occupied people subject to international law and the Geneva Conventions, which Israel violates daily. It failed to mention that these people are being humiliated and starved into submission.

The headline instead implied that Fatah chief Barghouti was being obstinate, for surely the Palestinians should meekly, and in complete obeisance, put their heads into the Israeli public stocks for the world to see.

The PR campaign to sanctify the war criminal Sharon’s image has taken on epic proportions. Read what Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, journalist, and former Knesset member, had to say about the trial after being denied entrance to the courtroom.

"Israeli TV channels gave much prominence to the riot (guaranteed by admitting only right-wing supporters) in the courtroom without reporting how it was planned and orchestrated. No wonder: what is happening now to the courts has already happened to TV. Since Ariel Sharon recently took direct control over the electronic media, everybody can see the result with his or her own eyes. Like the late Stalin, Sharon now appears on TV almost every day, speaking at length to the nation. Each such ‘event’ is meticulously planned and directed by his spin-doctors. He appears among soldiers, against a background of tanks, in the company of children, at meetings of bereaved parents, at memorial ceremonies."

But it isn’t enough that the Israeli sympathizers get their say in the government and the media. Their zeal to justify their actions, no matter how brutal and illegal, seems to exhibit a deep-seated fear that Americans will wake up one morning and say, "What the hell is going on here?" They need to insure that this won’t happen by going after anyone and everyone who voices dissent.

Recently, a campaign has been launched by a pro-Israel group to identify and blacklist any academics who disagree with them. The Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum created a new website, dubbed Campus Watch, to monitor US academic institutions. As the site puts it, "American scholars on the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans [i.e., are not pro-Israel], and the enduring [pro-Israeli] policies of the US government about the Middle East."

The group plans to "monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance … and make available its findings on the Internet and in the media." The obvious objective is to label academics as pro- or anti-American, and while offering patronage and solidarity with the pro variety, they intend to incite the media and the public against those classified as "anti." They further intend to manipulate the funding and appointments to the benefits of loyal elements and the detriment of those whose policies oppose theirs.

The main objective of these fascist style tactics is to totally suppress dissent, to cultivate the approval of the masses and to strike fear into the hearts of those whose conscience drives them to speak out against the daily injustices heaped upon the Palestinians. As an example of how insidious this program is, I quote from a letter to an activist friend of mine from his concerned brother.

"While I totally agree with your position, I wish you did not have to make public comments to promote your message. Please use great caution. There have been many cases of politicians, judges, legislators, news people, and others who were ‘targeted’ for such expression of free speech and calling for ‘balance’ in reporting. I do not want to read about you."

Thought this was a free country, didn’t you? I have a Jewish friend and fellow professional who is a PR representative at his temple. His job is to answer all letters to the editor and articles in the newspaper that might be in anyway negative on Israeli policy.

He and other members of his temple network with other Jewish organizations to see that nothing goes unanswered. They are firm believers in their mission and will destroy anyone or anything that opposes their view.

The Israeli PR machine and their apologists, like the record-setting football team that piled it on to win 222-0, are not satisfied with just winning.

They must show their power and pummel the opposition into insignificance so they may convince themselves that might makes their cause right.

One can only hope that such overzealous actions will, as has happened throughout history, lead to their own destruction. As Shakespeare would say, "‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."

(Raff Ellis lives in the United States and is a retired former strategic planner and computer industry executive. He has had an abiding and active interest in the Middle East since early adulthood and has traveled to the region many times over the last 30 years.)

Raff Ellis encourages your comments: rellis@YellowTimes.org

US- Israeli alliance, neo-colonialist order

SyriaTimes, 19-10-2002

It has become crystal clear that the American Administration of George W. Bush is determined to continue the policy of hostility towards the Arabs and Muslims. The latest hostility step was recently taken by Bush on occupied Jerusalem. He signed an act providing for the recognition of occupied Jerusalem as capital of Israel.

This step is a flagrant violation of the international laws and conventions which provide for the preservation of the holy cityصs Arab and Islamic character. This unjust American act was met with a strong indignation and resentment in the Muslim and Arab worlds. Both Muslims and Arabs have viewed the act as a blatant defiance of the their feelings and a violation of the UN resolutions.

Islamic and Arab states also described the act as a hostile move that will destroy all the peace efforts being exerted for reaching a just and comprehensive solution to the Arab- israeli conflict.

For its part, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) voiced concern over the US move as dangerous and viewed it as damaging to the Islamic interests.

It is disappointing that Bush takes this hostile step at a time when Israel is escalating its aggressive and racist liquidation war against the Palestinian people. Therefore, Bushصs action is considered a real encouragement to Israel to step up its brutal attack on the Palestinian people. This is also unfair that the US, which is supposed to be an even-handed broker in the Mideast, continues to take sides with Israel and helps the latter to expand at the expense of the Arabs.

Moreover, this Administration has not refrained from supplying the government of Sharon with the most up-to date weapons in order to liquidate the Palestinian cause physically and politically. All moves made and policies followed by the Bush Administration have been in the interest of Israel and its occupation strategy.

It goes without saying that nobody can ignore the American move is made as Arabs and Muslims are passing through the worst circumstances under which Washington زcontrols most of the Mideast affairsس. Despite this, nobody can afford to deny that the Arab and Muslim nations have the ability to foil the US- Israeli conspiracy by uniting their potentials, morally and materially.

Syria has always urged all Arabs and Muslims to confront the hostile plots and conspiracies as one team. This is a period during which the Arab and Muslim governments should think about the future of their nations vis-a-vis the US- Israeli aggression. The US- Israeli alliance has never observed any law or convention concerning the regionصs conflict. Furthermore, they are plotting for destroying the very bases of the Arab potentials and controlling the Arab riches, particularly oil. This is a fact unveiled by the US and Israeli strategists. They actually want to place the Arab region under their neo-colonial system, which enables them to plunder the economies and natural resources of the Arab region.

The last ditch

Fouad Mardoud

Syria Times, 10/19/02

As usual, an Israeli prime minister was the only Middle Eastern leader to receive the most welcome and understanding at the White House, with minor زdifferencesس with the U.S. on president زminor issuesس. But it was the first time ever, an Israeli prime minister زgot all what he wantedس from Washington. As expected, Ariel Sharon of Israel has won President George W. Bushصs blessings for his policies on Palestinians and Iraq. The American president spoke about what he described زIsraelصs right of self-defenceس while the Israeli forces were committing a new carnage in the Gaza Strip, killing eight ذ four of them were children and women ذ in a barbaric attack on Rafah. It was reported that the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, asked Mr. Sharon to زgive explanationsس on what had happened in the Rafah incursion. The Israeli prime minister did not bother himself by giving an answer.

The blood was drenched miserable in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli soldiers: has the hope of stopping the Israeli military offensive as a prelude to a possible return to the negotiation table been washed away? For the Israelis the answer is apparently زyesس, with more to come.

The new Israeli carnage was not the first and will not be the last. But its effects are much more than double that of one. It indicates a state of hostility that was originally designed to provoke Palestinians, and secondly to measure its effects on the American president who was talking to Mr. Sharon at the time of the Israeli incursion. The Israeli prime ministerصs offer to introduce more زhumanitarian measuresس on the Israeli siege against the West Bank and Gaza Strip cities and villages has to be seen in this sceptical light. But unexpectedly, the larger question mark concerns Washingtonصs attitude on this Israeli policy.

The question left unanswered at the end of Sharonصs visit to Washington is whether the United States is prepared under any circumstances even to begin a meaningful role to stop the two-year-long Israeli military offensive against the Palestinians.. Neither the White House nor the state Department gave an answer. Perhaps they were satisfied by Sharonصs determination to زgo it to the end of the roadس.

Boutros-Ghali blames US for Mideast impasse
Sole superpower is ‘supporting one protagonist in the conflict’

IFO secretary-general calls for end to ‘unilateralism’ and says peace depends on ‘globalization of democracy’

Hala Kilani
Daily Star, 10/20/02

The impasse facing the Arab-Israeli conflict is a result of the United States’ support for one side of the conflict and not of ill-prepared peace negotiations from the Arab side, the secretary-general of the International Francophone Organization (IFO) says.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, one of the architects of the 1978 Camp David peace accord between Egypt and Israel, spoke to The Daily Star one day before the start of the Francophone summit on Friday.
Asked if he regretted his involvement as foreign minister with then-President Anwar Sadat in the landmark 1977 trip to Jerusalem and the talks at Camp David, which led to the neutralization of Egypt as the greatest Arab threat to the Jewish state, Boutros-Ghali said: “There’s no relation between what happened in Camp David and what is happening today.
“The problem is not there, the problem is that the superpower is supporting one protagonist in the conflict, and neither Egypt nor any other state are able to confront the superpower,” Boutros-Ghali added.
However, according to Arab historian Mohammed Hassanein Haykal, who was a colleague of Boutros-Ghali at Egypt’s Al-Ahram newspaper, figures show that violations in Jerusalem and settlements in the international capital increased dramatically after 1977.
“Before that, Israel was more careful because the future, particularly after the great battle in October 1973, became filled with dangers that halted the outpour of the Zionist hatred,” Haykal wrote in the monthly Egyptian cultural and political magazine, Woujouhat Nazar (Points of View).
Haykal, who reviewed Boutros-Ghali’s book entitled Egypt’s Road to Jerusalem, said the IFO secretary-general discovered in the Israeli Knesset that Sadat did not have a clear vision for Camp David.
In the same book, according to Haykal, Boutros-Ghali said that during the talks, Sadat accepted conditions that were not only detrimental to Egypt but also humiliating.
As for the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, Boutros-Ghali, told The Daily Star that it would take many years before a solution would be found.
“After what happened over the last two years, we are back to square one,” he said in reference to the intifada that was sparked by then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to al-Haram al-Sharif on Sept. 28, 2000.
According to Boutros-Ghali, during this summit the IFO will adopt resolutions that support the international community’s position on the Middle East, but he admitted that, like the recommendations of UN conferences, they are not binding.
“These resolutions are not binding because we’re dealing with sovereign states, but we are obtaining consensus that can allow for change in the attitude of the international community toward war and in the negative aspects of globalization,” he said.
The secretary-general said that like the abolition of slavery, apartheid and colonization, these issues take time.
“How many years did it take to eliminate slavery? You are in a field where new ideas cannot be implemented in a few days or a few years,” he said.
After working in the Egyptian government, Boutros-Ghali became the secretary-general of the United Nations. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a new world order with the United States as the sole superpower, Boutros-Ghali began his mandate at the UN as unilateralism in the international organization was on the rise.
This experience may have been key in inspiring his political work at the IFO and in pushing for cultural diversity as a way to fight the unilateralism of the United States, which successfully worked against renewing his mandate as UN secretary general in 1996.
“We are talking about cultural diversity, multilingualism, because as ‘multi-partyism’ is the basis of national democracy, multilingualism and multiculturalism are the basis of international democracy,” Boutros-Ghali said.
“By defending cultural diversity, the Francophonie is using culture to promote multilateralism against unilateralism.”
Boutros-Ghali was diplomatically critical of US hegemony on international affairs.
“If we can talk about the globalization of terrorism, the globalization of environment, the globalization of finance, why can’t we also talk about the globalization of democracy?” he asked.
Boutros-Ghali said that his major achievements at the UN included solving several international disputes, such as those in Cambodia, Mozambique and Guatemala, in addition to five important international conferences that adopted norms regulating globalization, citing among others the conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 on the environment and development.
But the secretary-general also cited his failures at the UN: “Let us be very honest, we have not been successful in solving the Yugoslav problem, we have not been successful in solving the Somali problem and we have not been successful in overcoming the financial crisis of the UN.
“The United States paid their contribution only after the events of Sept. 11 last year so like any human organization, in certain cases it is successful, in others it is not,” he said.
The massacre at Srebrenica, where Serbs killed thousands of Muslims, while supposedly under the protection of UN peace-keeping forces, took place during Boutros-Ghali’s mandate.
Responding to the argument attacking the Francophone movement and accusing it of being a tool to sustain the colonial past of France, Boutros-Ghali said that the IFO was a club into which countries enter by choice.
“This argument about the continued imperialism of France is outdated. It belongs to the mentality of the 1930s. We have member countries that have never had any kind of colonial relations with France, like Canada, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Egypt,” Boutros-Ghali said. “After all this is a club, one is free to enter.”
Boutros-Ghali said that all the Francophonie members have their own national language and chose the French culture and language as a second language or as a basis for their institutions.
“My mother language is Arabic, I dream in Arabic, write in Arabic and have disputes with my wife in Arabic,” he said.

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