Feb 14, 2003 Op Eds

Feb 14, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

The smell of war
By Uri Avnery (Feb 8)
2/14/03

This is not a war about terrorism. This is not a war about weapons of mass destruction. This is not a war about democracy in Iraq. This is a war about something else. As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but the idea that he might be connected with Osama bin Laden is ridiculous. Saddam heads the Iraqi section of al-Baath, a very secular party. Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist, and al-Qaida aims at the destruction of all secular regimes in our region. The official who invented this particular lie is either an ignoramus or a cynic who believes that one can fool all the people at least some of the time.

As for weapons of mass destruction: the USA supported Saddam when he used deadly poison gas against the Iranians (and their Kurdish allies in Iraq). At the time, America was interested in stopping the Iranians. Today there are chemical and biological weapons in most of the countries of this region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one of them has nuclear arms.

As for democracy: Americans don't give a damn. Some of their best friends in the Islamic world are dictators, some more, some less cruel then Saddam. As the old American adage goes: "He is a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch." If so, what is the war about? In one word: oil. There is a strong smell of oil in the air. Without smelling it, one cannot understand what is going on. But once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush & Co., while cynical and hypocritical, are utterly logical. These, then, are the American war aims:

* To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world's biggest.

* To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil reserves

* To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf

states, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Control of most of the worlds oil reserves will free the Americans, at long last, from the whims of the oil market. Their hand, and theirs alone, will be on the tap. They, and they alone, will fix the prices of oil all over the world. If they will want prices to rise, they will rise. If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With one single movement of the hand, they will be able to deal a crushing blow to the economies of Germany, France and Japan. No country in the world will be able to stand up to them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France oppose the war. It is directed against them.

It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq, establish democracy and leave. The very idea is ridiculous. The US enters Iraq in order to stay there, for years and decades. Its physical presence in the Arab and Muslim world will create a new geopolitical reality.

Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire uses its military power to promote its economic dominance. History is full of examples. Indeed, one could say that all of history is an example. But there has never been a superpower like the US, with no rival left, using its immense military might in order to ensure its domination of the world economy for generations to come.

From this point of view, the coming war on Iraq - a "small" war, militarily - will have historic significance. For sure, Bush will try to set up some native Iraqi government, in order to disguise and lend some legitimacy to the American occupation. There are any number of volunteers, ready to serve as Quislings. Then again, Bush may prefer some new Saddam Hussein, a dictator appointed by them. But war is war. War usually starts with a well-prepared plan, but even the "best" plan, backed by the mightiest military power, can go awry. The Arab masses may rise against their American-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical governments. The Turks may perpetrate a massacre in the north of Iraq in order to break the Kurds once and for all, and no one can know how this will end. The holy places of the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq, next to Iran, may cause trouble.

How will this affect Israel? Or, to use the old phrase: "Is it good for the Jews?" The relations between Bush and Sharon are almost symbiotic. In Sharon's view, the massive presence of the US in our region strengthens Israel and will enable him to implement his hidden agenda. But, as one says in Hebrew, "the fat tail of the sheep has a thorn in it". The permanent occupation of Iraq turns the US into a kind of "Arab" power, with a vital interest in the stability and tranquility of the region. It will want to prevent by all means chaos in the Arab countries - before, during and after the war. Sharon and his generals are, on the contrary, interested in as much chaos as possible, in order to use it to "transfer" millions of Palestinians to the other side of the Jordan. There is a definite conflict of interest between Bush as Sharon.

Sharon, an extremist but prudent person, knows that he must not under any circumstances infuriate Bush. He will act cautiously. He has lots and lots of patience and lots and lots of stubbornness. He will try to obtain from Bush permission to transfer (at least some) Palestinians, to murder Arafat ("If Saddam, why not Arafat?) and to break the Palestinian people. Bush, on the other hand, will want Israel to stay quiet, very quiet. At this time, he may use the Israel threat in order to ensure that the Arabs, too, will stay quiet, very quiet. He will threaten the Arab rulers, who are mortally afraid of an uprising of their peoples, that if they do not behave, he will let Sharon off the leash.

Is all this good for Israel? From the economic, social and security points of view, the answer is negative. We are entering an era of adventurism, with adventurer No. 1 at the helm of our state. The earth will shake in our region, and nobody can foresee the dangers approaching us. Only one thing is certain: this will not bring peace. I do not belong to those who can speak about war with equanimity. I have seen war, I know its face. I see the thousands who will be killed, the tens of thousands that will be wounded and maimed, the hundreds of thousands that will become refugees, the ruined families, the sea of tears and human suffering. I join the millions all over the world who say NO.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.

Oh, What a Web They Weave! Will Hans Get Blixed?

By Linda S. Heard

CounterPunch, February 13, 2003

In the red/blue corner we have 'Dr. Spin' Tony Blair, managed by 'Dubya' Bush and in the blue/red corner the 'Lion of Old Europe' Jacques Chirac and his manager, Gerhardt 'The Peacemaker' Schroeder. If the Bush/Blair team has its way, the starter bell will ring at any minute.

Not so for Chirac and Schroeder who want to see the game cancelled without having to accede the title. In this game the Prize is the future of Iraq - peace or war? Israel and Australia are cheering on the <U.S./U.K>. combo, while Russia and Belgium applaud for France and Germany. Drs. Blix and El Baradei are the referees. If only it were that simple.

Chirac and Putin said at a joint press conference on Monday in Paris that they saw war only as a last resort, that their stance was a moral one and that they insisted on adhering strictly to international law. Putin stressed that the vast majority of countries represented in the UN General Assembly wanted to see a peaceful solution to the Iraq problem.

On Monday evening, the Iraqi ambassador to the UN put a spoke in the American wheel by saying that Iraq is now willing to allow U-2 flights and other aircraft to fly unconditionally over their territory.

Earlier, in Germany, we saw the battle of the political giants, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Germany's Foreign Minister Joschke Fischer who recently engaged in a heated exchange, which in earlier centuries might have been resolved by pistols at dawn.

Rumsfeld wants what he calls 'Old Europe' to vote 'yea' for an invasion of Iraq, and insists that NATO ready itself to protect Turkey when, and if, the pyrotechnics begin.

Fischer, backed by France and Russia are having none of it. They want to see inspections take their course and are considering pushing through a UN Resolution aimed at doubling the numbers of weapons inspectors, a UN peacekeeping force being installed in Iraq, and that country being turned into a giant No-Fly Zone. Rumsfeld warned that NATO, like the UN, is in danger of being labeled his favourite word 'irrelevant'. The thwarted American President is not amused.

What America had hoped would be most of the world against the Iraqi regime has turned not only into a crisis for members of the North Atlantic Alliance but also for Europe itself. Leading the pro-war Brigade is Britain's Prime Minister, one of the signatories on a letter backing the US, penned by eight European nations and published in various leading European newspapers.

Blair has got to have full marks for tenacity and determination, given that over 80 per cent of the British people are anti-war, along with the Anglican church, the Vatican, a number of head honchos in the British military, over 100 of his own Labour Party backbenchers and even members of his cabinet.

There is also an alleged growing divide between M15/M16 and the British government over a plagiarized dossier, which Blair's office had lifted off the Internet - the work of a post-graduate Arab American student. Britain's intelligence community was so incensed that it 'leaked' one of their own documents showing that, contrary to the plagiarized dossier, available intelligence shows that the Iraqi regime has no tangible links to Al Queda or to any other terrorist groups.

Powell's manipulation of the truth

Despite the general consensus to the contrary, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell still insists that Iraq has links to Al Queda. He has even claimed that in a tape recently aired by Al Jazeera Bin Laden is heard professing his cooperation with Saddam Hussein. Even the hawkish Rumsfeld refrained from going to those lengths but that didn't stop Britain's own Defense Secretary Jeff Hoon from jumping on the bandwagon and stressing that Bin Laden and Saddam share common cause.

Powell, whose credibility was previously hardly ever called into question, made another faux pas this week when telling a Congressional Committee that the ricin poison found in a North London apartment emanated from Iraq, although he did add not from the Baghdad-controlled region.

When subsequent reports out of London suggested that this could not be true, since the ricin found in that flat was home-made, Powell's aide later stated that his boss meant that the 'know-how' came from Iraq. How the heck could he have known where the know-how came from in this Internet age? The people arrested for making the poison were Algerians and could have picked up their recipe from just about anywhere.

Reaction from the Arab world

The Arab world is carved up into various camps too. Kuwait and Qatar are actively and visibly cooperating with the American build-up of troops and weaponry in the Gulf, and reading between the lines have indicated that they really had little choice. The UAE, which is vehemently against the war, has, nevertheless, sent 5,000 of its troops and a warship to Kuwait for that country's defense in accordance with GCC common defense treaties.

According to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's statement recently after a meeting with Presidents Bashar Al Assad of Syria and Muammar Gaddafhi of Libya, the Arabs are looking to Britain to change course and dilute the American led aggression on Iraq. He seemed to be throwing up his hands in despair and admitting that the Arabs are impotent to stop the invasion.

Jordan's King Abdullah was at first reluctant to join with the U.S. but appears to have succumbed to heavy American pressure to lend some support, a decision which is far from being popular among that country's five million ethnic Palestinians. Jordan presently enjoys cheap imports of Iraqi oil and trades with Baghdad to the tune of some two billion dollars annually. Kuwait has pledged to make up for the shortfall in petroleum.

Turkey's street is boiling too and feels that its pro-Islamic new government has let down the populace, some 90 per cent of which are against any military adventurism in Iraq. Again, the Pentagon has been twisting Turkey's arm with warnings and incentives.

The Turkish government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Its fragile economy relies on loans from the World Bank and the IMF, and the last thing the country wants, from a geopolitical viewpoint, is to see an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, providing a rallying point for its own militant Kurds. On Monday a further complication appeared. The Turkish army refused to operate under U.S. command and control.

The Palestinians fear that the Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon is waiting ominously in the wings to pounce when the time is right. They are concerned that Sharon will use war with Iraq to further his ambitions of a Greater Israel either by further colonization of the West Bank or by attempting to ethnically cleanse the Occupied Territories.

Blix in a fix

If we are to believe diplomatic statements coming out of world capitals, then whether or not there will be a conflict depends on Messrs Blix and ElBaradei of the United Nations and the IAEA respectively. This is a heavy weight on the heads of these two men who have the mandate to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. The politicians and the press hang onto every word that these two men utter, and use those sentences to back-up their own case very often in a disingenuous manner.

I have no doubt that Blix and ElBaradei take their responsibilities very seriously and are aware of the consequences of a single error of judgment, but at the same time they are human, all too human. It seems to me very wrong that these 'non-biased' judges or arbiters shuttle between Washington and London before flying to Baghdad.

In a perfect world, the Chief Inspectors should not be subjected to the sway of either side's politicians and should, surely, confine themselves to the realms of science and the facts on the ground. They are currently behaving like judges who sit down to afternoon tea with both the accuser and the accused before presenting a verdict.

Upon his return from Baghdad, Blix gave a preview of the contents of his report to the UN, scheduled for Friday, to the big five in a closed session. According to reports, Blix appears hopeful of Iraqi cooperation, but Condoleeza Rice told him that he must be firmer in his stance and stress that Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441. How on earth is Blix supposed to deliver an objective report when he is coming under so much pressure from the Superpower?

However, Blix has now been offered the perfect red herring in the shape of reports that some of Baghdad's missiles exceed the permitted 150-kilometer range. Tony Blair is already making headlines screaming his concern over these weapons, which contravene relevant resolutions. The range of the offending missiles is just 185-kilometers. What on earth is 35 kilometers between friends, or even enemies for that matter?

Not in our name

While the politicians bicker and the armies flex their muscles, we, the people have spoken. 'Not in our name'. We don't want war. We do not believe that Iraq is either a danger to its neighbors or to the rest of the planet. We don't want to sit in our armchairs, munching on popcorn, watching Iraqi mothers and children being killed by missiles and bombs. We may not appreciate Iraq's dictator and his brutal methods, yet most of us feel that he is their leader and it is up to them and/or the region to deal with him.

But, we the people feel helpless to really do anything to prevent the inevitable. Most of are too busy with our own lives, or too apathetic to bother even though we feel a gnawing sense of discomfort that justice is being ignored. Some of us are spending our time writing letters to the editor, or to our political leaders, others turn up at anti-war demonstrations, while the most courageous of us have headed off to Baghdad to offer themselves up as human shields.

The Iraqi people are left to stoically await their fate, hoping against hope that America and Britain will leave them be. "Haven't we suffered enough," they cry. "Why us?" Why indeed? And so, the fight between the suits and ties in their smart offices goes on. Let's hope it will not be to the death - neither the death of the Iraqi people, nor the young, wide-eyed soldiers sent to the killing fields.

Will the report presented to the UN General Assembly by the chief weapons inspectors on Friday offer yet more grist to the warmonger's mill? Or will it provide the 'Old Europe' crowd with the moral high ground to pursue its peaceful path? I trust that these two eminent civil servants Messrs Blix and ElBaradei will search their respective consciences and do what is empirically right.

Linda Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be reached at: freenewsreport@yahoo.com

Manipulating fear
Arab News, 14 February 2003

Has UK Prime Minister Tony Blair taken leave of his senses? The sight of tanks and armored patrol vehicles patrolling London’s Heathrow airport suggests so. He has ordered 2,000 troops and extra police to Heathrow, including tanks armed with anti-tank guns, would you believe, because intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have reportedly warned there could be an attack by Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network.

It is right to take precautions but this is going over the top. What precisely does Blair envisage — an Al-Qaeda panzer division rolling up the M4 from Hounslow?

Washington appears equally paranoid. Batteries of anti-aircraft missiles have been set up around the city with fighter planes patrolling overhead, while Americans have been warned to stock up on water blankets and food. Hardware stores in and around the US capital have sold out of duct tape and plastic sheeting, following government recommendations that people protect their homes against chemical and biological attacks by terrorists. Not since the 1962 Cuba missile crisis have Americans been so hyped about a possible attack.

But how credible are the reports of impending attacks?

On Tuesday, CIA Director George Tenet told a US Senate committee that the threat is the “most specific” the agency had ever seen, and he included Saudi Arabia in it. The latest taped threat supposedly from Bin Laden reinforced the likelihood of an attack, he said, because statements from the Al-Qaeda leader had preceded previous attacks. Meanwhile, in both Washington and London, officials talked of such an attack possibly coinciding with the end of Eid Al-Adha.

None of this really adds up. For a start, an attack at Eid does not fit in with the way Al-Qaeda operates. There was talk about one at the end of Ramadan. It did not happen because they strike when least expected. As to the CIA’s warning about an attack here, Interior Minister Prince Naif has been quite categorical: there is no evidence that Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent assault.

Can anyone smell a rat behind these manic activities in London and Washington? Bush and Blair could easily have taken precautions without shouting about it from the rooftops. But they have not.

This looks like a deliberate attempt to whip up a sense of fear among the public — a public, in the case of the UK, that is increasingly opposed to an attack against Iraq.

Tony Blair is a master of the political spin, but this is manipulation on the grandest scale — frightening Britons into supporting war against supposed terrorism while confusing them as to who the terrorist is: Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is not lunacy; it is downright deception. The frightening thing is he may succeed if the level of public paranoia in Washington about a terrorist attack is anything to go by.

The first casualty when war comes is truth, said American Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917. Times have changed. In this case truth has already been kicked out of the window even before the war starts.

Restraint option

Jordan Times, 2/14/03

TODAY THE international community will again hear from the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who is to submit yet another report to the Security Council on the extent of Baghdad's compliance with Resolution 1441. Again the world's nations will be looked to for comment and judgement. A Russian source already predicted that Blix will report that Iraq's compliance is still incomplete especially over its ballistic missile programme. Meanwhile, Britain is reportedly busy drafting a resolution for the Security Council which would give the green light for launching a war against Iraq. Britain's move is based on its anticipation that Blix will in fact submit a report stating that although some additional progress in determining the status of mass destruction weapons in Iraq has been achieved, the Iraqi authorities have yet to make full disclosures on their weapons programmes. On the other side of the fence, both France and Germany are also busy preparing a counterresolution, also for submission to the Security Council, demanding additional time and personnel for the UN weapons inspection teams.

And as the picture of this international crisis becomes defined, the rift between the US and Britain, and between the US and the rest of the international community, is rapidly expanding. NATO is already experiencing a crisis of an unprecedented nature between Washington and London on one hand, and Paris, Berlin and Belgium on the other. Unless the division of opinion within NATO can be healed, and soon, over Turkey's request for military protection in case a US-led war against Iraq actually materialises, the damage to NATO could be devastating.

The fallout from American and British isolation on Iraq has already reached the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. That situation risks causing untold damage to the future of the international organisation. The support of the American and British peoples for their governments' stance on the Iraqi conflict is also eroding, reaching no more than 10 per cent in Britain and about 40 per cent in the US. The question that must be asked and put before US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, therefore, is: Can the greater majority of humankind as well as their own peoples be so wrong on how to deal with Baghdad? Perhaps it is not too late for Washington and London to rethink their positions, opt for restraint, and effect results without violent intervention.

Bush's mission

By James J. Zogby

Jordan Times, 2/14/03

IF PRESIDENT George W. Bush's two speeches last week are any indication, it appears that he, in fact, has his heart set on a military confrontation with Iraq. For weeks now, I've argued the opposite. I did not believe that the administration would go to war for many reasons: the US public, to date, has not been sympathetic to a war unless such an effort has UN support; the absence of allies' support makes a war logistically, materially and diplomatically risky; a war will be a costly venture that the failing American economy cannot easily afford; and the fact that a US military adventure in the Middle East, at this time and under current conditions, poses grave dangers to and will exacerbate already tense US-Arab relations.

For all these reasons, I have argued that the administration would continue to pressure the Iraqis to disarm, but would stop short of a war. Now I'm not certain.

The State of the Union, and Bush's follow up address in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the next day, put the president in the rather precarious position of preaching that this war is a historical mandate and a religious necessity he feels compelled to carry out.

While the State of the Union (SOTU) address was a formal presentation, his Michigan remarks appeared to be more informal and, therefore, reflective of the president's personal thoughts. His appearance in Grand Rapids received less attention than the SOTU, but because Bush spoke with such apparent passion and conviction, it is useful to examine his remarks since they may provide some indication as to the president's state of mind.

In both the SOTU and the Michigan remarks, Sept. 11 and Al Qaeda only received passing mentions. Osama Ben Laden was not mentioned at all! Instead, it appears that the “war on terror” is now seen as merely a segue to the unfinished business of Iraq. As President Bush said: “Our might is needed in the world right now to make the world a more peaceful place. The war on terror is not confined strictly to the Al Qaeda that we're chasing. The war on terror extends beyond just a shadowy terrorist network. The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorise himself (sic).

“Saddam Hussein has terrorised his own people. He's terrorised his own neighbourhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of Al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he's a danger to the American people. And we've got to deal with him. We've got to deal with him before it is too late.”

Bush then makes passing mention of the UN and the inspections — both of which are somewhat treated dismissively, to the delight of his supportive Michigan audience. On the UN, the president said: “I wanted the United Nations to be something other than an empty debating society,” while the UN inspectors are described as: “108 inspectors running around a country trying to stumble into something...”

Bush then goes on to state his hope that the conflict can be resolved peacefully. He acknowledges “the terrible price of war”, but observes, “the risks of doing nothing... it's just not a risk worth taking.”

Finally, Bush notes that “if war is brought to us [by which I presume he means, if the United States is `forced' to go to war”]... we will commit the full force and might of the United States military and for (sic) the name of peace, we will prevail.”

He then proceeds with a stunning conclusion that should be read in full: “We will free people. This great, powerful nation is motivated not by power for power's sake, but because of our values. If everybody matters, if every life counts, then we should hope everybody has the great God's gift of freedom. We go into Iraq to disarm the country. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need healthcare will have healthcare, those youngsters who need education will get education. But most of all, we will uphold our values. And the biggest value we hold dear is the value of freedom. As I said last night, freedom and liberty, they are not America's gifts to the world. They are God's gift to humanity. We hold that thought dear to our hearts.

“This is a great nation. America is a strong nation. America is a nation full of people who are compassionate. America is a nation that is willing to serve causes greater than ourselves. There's no question we face challenges ahead of us — challenges at home, challenges abroad. But as I said last night, history has called the right nation into action. History has called the United States into action, and we will not let history down.”

And so, in the mind of the president, this war is for peace and the promotion of values — not American values, but God's values. America, in the president's thinking, is merely God's agent, or history's agent — and “we will not let history down”.

It appears that the White House strategy over the next few weeks is to have the president repeat those Michigan remarks in several other locations around the United States. They realise that Bush must work hard to convince the American people who, at this point, are far less enthusiastic than their president about the war.

Polls, prior to the SOTU, showed that while 47 per cent of Americans expressed support for a war against Iraq, 49 per cent were opposed to such a war. The divisions are deep. While Republicans support a war by a 72-24 per cent margin, only 29 per cent of Democrats support a war, with 67 per cent of Democrats opposing it. Independents are also largely opposed, 56 per cent, with 41 per cent supporting a war.

One important reason for this partisan split is the racial and ethnic divide that has come to define the two parties. On the matter of war against Iraq, more than two-thirds of all African Americans and Hispanics (both largely Democratic communities) are opposed, while the same percentage of white “born again Christians” (largely Republicans) are in favour of a war against Iraq.

It is interesting to note that the polls also show that while a majority believe that the president has made his “case to commit US troops to a war with Iraq” (by a 53 per cent to 43 per cent margin), they are still opposed to this war. The major reasons given are: lack of international support, fear of loss of life (American and Iraqi) and the future impact a war may have on the United States.

And so, even with his apparent deep, almost religious-like convictions, the president still faces a questioning US public. Much of the heavy lifting to win international support will fall on Secretary of State Colin Powell as he attempts to persuade the UN Security Council next week. But it is Bush who will have to win over the American people. From the Michigan speech, it appears that the president has convinced himself. He sounds like a man on a mission. We'll see if he can sell it.

Israeli bluster obscures crucial debate

The Daily Star, 2/14/03

In terms of pure, breathtaking temerity, few performances can match that of an Israeli government in the full splendor of self-righteous indignation. It was predictable, therefore, that a memorable show would be forthcoming after Belgium’s highest court ruled that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be prosecuted in that country for war crimes once he has left office. The irony is that by refusing to deal with the matter calmly and rationally, Israeli officials are only helping to prolong the controversy.
The case relates to Sharon’s alleged role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre of 1982. As defense minister, he was in command of Israeli forces that had invaded Lebanon and occupied a significant portion of Beirut. It was on his watch that a Lebanese militia allied with the Jewish state entered two Palestinian refugee camps in the Lebanese capital and slaughtered at least 800 civilians, most of them women and children. The central question is whether, as commander of the occupying forces, Sharon was responsible for the atrocities that took place.
Israel’s frenzied official reaction to the Belgian ruling belies the weightiness of the issues at stake. The Jewish state recalled its ambassador to Brussels for “consultations” and his counterpart in Tel Aviv was summoned to hear a protest from Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who described the ruling as “blood libel.” President Moshe Katsav dispatched an angry letter to King Albert II to complain that Belgium “does not have the right to doubt” Israel’s “ethical standards.” Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit went even further, declaring: “It is unacceptable that this small and insignificant nation would be the judge for the whole world.” The Israeli press cried out as well, with the Maariv daily trotting out a badly overused theme: “The ruling is impudent and a legal and political scandal, not free of anti-Semitic considerations.”
While all these insults and innuendoes being tossed around, the real issues were almost completely forgotten. For one thing, if Israel and its premier are certain that he did nothing wrong back in 1982, they should be anxious to clear his name once and for all. For another, all sides to this debate should welcome a chance to have a court of law separate fact from fiction. The accused is entitled to defend his actions, the survivors deserve to have their charges heard, and the dead are owed a supreme effort to finally let them rest in peace.
Perhaps most significantly, the ugly debacle is preventing an exceedingly pertinent debate over international justice, one with implications for countries around the world. In between bouts of hysteria, Sharon’s defenders question both the propriety and the practicality of having an Israeli tried by a Belgian court over events that took place in Lebanon. What happens, some ask, if he is found not guilty in Belgium but then faces a new indictment after some other country passes similar legislation allowing for “universal competence?”
It was questions like these that prompted the creation of the International Criminal Court, but Israel and its No. 1 ally, the United States, are among the obstinate nations that have steadfastly refused to take part in the new tribunal. Since that mechanism cannot be applied in this instance, the Belgian route is the best one available.
Finally, Israel is in no position to either dismiss other countries as “insignificant” or question their commitment to the rule of law. It is not as though Sharon faces the prospect of being judged in a country that allows people to be held without charge or trial for a decade or more. He could do that right at home, if only he were an Arab.

My Palestinian father, God bless his soul

By Jamal Ahmed Khashoggi

The Daily Star, 2/14/03

My father passed away recently while I was in the US on business. Being far-off made the pain of losing him much deeper. I decided to return home immediately, and during the return flight memories of my father came flooding back.
My mind reverted to when I was 10, playing in my father’s little shop in Medina’s old marketplace. I had inkling that there was a war on between Arabs and Jews (for that was how people referred to the Arab-Israeli conflict back then). I recall how drivers painted their headlights blue and how streetlights were turned off all measures intended to avoid possible Israeli nighttime air raids.
My father was not affected by the war, in fact very few of us were. He continued to take me with him to the shop every afternoon. But once there, I noticed that neighboring shopkeepers would all sit around listening to the radio. They used to listen to Cairo’s blaring Sawt al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) first, but once the clock struck, they would quickly tune in to the BBC. I still clearly recall the distinctive “This is London” call sign. I learned then that the BBC was something else; a serious radio station, far removed from Sawt al-Arab and its ilk.
My father never listened with them to the news. He sat silent and alone in his little shop behind his wooden desk. In fact, his silence at that particular time struck me, although he was never a talkative person.
One day, while sitting in the shop, we heard people outside discussing the news with particular concern. My father went on to the street and asked the jeweler next door: “Is it true that Jerusalem has fallen, O’ Abderrahman?”
“Yes, O’ Ammu Ahmed,” the jeweler replied sadly.
My father came back into the shop mumbling, “God is greater than they are!” Looking up, I saw tears welling in his eyes. It was only the second time I saw my father cry; that, and when his daughter died in an accident. I could not understand why that strong man, whom I used to love and fear in equal measure, would cry.
It was only much later that I came to understand what Jerusalem meant to an utterly apolitical textile merchant. For unlike other people I knew at the time, my father never listened to the speeches of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, nor was he concerned with the disagreements between the Egyptian leader and our King Faisal as other people were at the time.
When he said: “God is greater then they are,” I thought my father was referring to the Jews who had conquered Jerusalem. Only later did I realize that he meant the Arabs who had lost the Holy City.
My father closed the shop later than usual that night. Unusually, he lent his Yemeni helper from Hadramout a hand in locking up. Dinner was unusually quiet; in fact, I was the only member of my family who spoke about Palestine and Jerusalem. No one was in a mood to talk. It was a bad night. I forgot it pretty fast.
Yet memories of that night always kept flooding back, especially in discussions I had much later with American reporters and diplomats about what Jerusalem means to Arabs and Muslims. To me, Palestine was inexorably linked to my father even though he had only seen the place once as a child.
Why does the outside world refuse to understand what Jerusalem means to us? Why is the world unprepared to appreciate the unbroken centuries-old relationship between Jerusalem and the Muslim world, while readily accepting the Jews’ tenuous claim to the city? The Jews have no tangible links to Jerusalem or to all of Palestine for that matter. There are virtually no Jews who can claim ancestry in Palestine. When was the last time you heard of Menachem of Haifa or of Ramon the Jerusalemite? Except for the few who lived peacefully among the Muslims of Palestine, the current occupants of the land took it by force of arms and through Arab weakness. There was no justice in it at all.
When I was in the United States, an American lady took great pains to tell me about the historical value of some old buildings in the center of the rural town of Freeport. She criticized the mayor for neglecting the historic center and lavishing his attention on out of town shopping malls. “But what history are you talking about, dear lady?” I thought to myself, “when Caterpillar tractors made just around the corner are uprooting our thousands of years heritage in Palestine?” (Jerusalem was a prosperous city more than two thousand years before Abraham had arrived there).
Americans are fascinated by history. They spend huge amounts of money buying antique furniture and historical memorabilia. Why then don’t they understand our infatuation with our heritage in Palestine? We have mosques, churches, neighborhoods, houses, castles, schools, graveyards, dialects, attire, cuisine and manuscripts there that are rooted firmly in Palestinian soil and cannot be bulldozed by the earthmoving equipment generously donated by the US government to Israel, that transient usurper of our land.
Like many Palestinians, my late father had an old shop. He had converted an old coffee shop into a textile business, which he then expanded little by little. As business grew, so did the shop. That textile shop wasn’t only my father’s source of income; it was his whole social life. Before midday prayers, his shopkeeper neighbors used to meet in my father’s shop to drink the green tea he used to prepare in person and discuss various matters. In fact, my uncles used to visit him at the shop more than they did at home. The shop became his life.
That was why when the old marketplace burned down, he changed completely. It wasn’t the material loss that hurt the most; it was the loss of his social life. He lost that world that had grown around him, with its friendships, acquaintances, and customs. The place went up in smoke, and so did his life. There was nowhere for him to go to anymore.
My father opened a new shop; a large, glass-fronted store on a wide thoroughfare in the city. But it was not the same; the friends of old had gone, and there was no one to drink tea with anymore.
Until he died, my father lived like a Palestinian deprived of his land. No country can take the place of one’s homeland. I always note the sad gaze in the eyes of Palestinian friends even when they laugh. I know this gaze well, for I have often seen it in my father’s eyes.
May you rest in peace, father. It was through you that I learned what Palestine means to us all; why it has been and will continue to be the cause of our anger. But it is best to direct this rage toward our own weaknesses, which caused us to lose Palestine time and again. Perhaps then we can recreate the lost world my father lost.

Jamal Ahmed Khashoggi is a Saudi political analyst and the deputy editor in chief of Saudi Arabia’s English-language Arab News.

Old Europe’ fights back against American warmongers

By Patrick Seale

The Daily Star, 2/14/03

There were two striking moments in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s long interview on French television last Tuesday night at the end of his state visit to France. The first was when he said that Russia was, of course, part of Europe. “Look at the map! Look at our history!” he exclaimed. “We are the heirs of Greece, of Rome, of Byzantium, we are the heart of Orthodox Christendom.” (I am quoting him from memory and may not have recorded his exact words.) The second moment was when, in discussing the Iraq crisis, he declared that Russia’s ambition was to see the emergence of a multipolar, rather than a unipolar, world.
Putin’s remarks signal that, beyond the transatlantic dispute over Iraq, we are witnessing a rebellion by major European states against the dominance of the United States, a dominance which has characterized international relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union a dozen years ago. The notion that a single hegemon can dictate terms to the rest of the world and make war on whomever it pleases is being categorically rejected.
The rebellion has spread beyond Europe, seeing that China has expressed its support for the solemn joint declaration on Feb. 10 by Russia, France and Germany (read out at the Elysee Palace by President Jacques Chirac himself). It states that the disarmament of Iraq, in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions, is the common aim of the international community, but that “we are sure there is an alternative to war. The use of force can only be a last resort.”
On the surface, the dispute is over how best to strip Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of his alleged arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The US says that because of Saddam’s record of lies and deception, it must be done by force. In this the United States has the backing of Britain’s Tony Blair its most loyal, some would say its most slavish, ally but also of the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, and a clutch of newly democratized East European states. In contrast, France, Germany, Russia and China, supported by much of world opinion, believe Iraq can be disarmed peacefully by the UN weapons inspectors, who must be given the time and resources they need to finish the job.
This is the essence of the so-called Franco-German plan, spelled out in a French working paper and circulated to the chief weapons inspectors and to members of the Security Council. It calls for the “doubling or even tripling” of the UN weapons inspectors; the recruitment of accountants and customs officials to examine Iraqi government records; the dispatch of an expanded team of armed UN security guards to protect the inspectors’ premises and “freeze” suspect sites; the aerial surveillance of Iraq to monitor road movements around sites due to be inspected; the creation of a joint intelligence office in either Vienna or New York to collect and analyze information supplied by the intelligence services of UN member states; and the creation of a permanent coordination office in Baghdad to represent the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohammed al-Baradei. The plan has been scornfully dismissed as a time-wasting irrelevance by the United States and Britain.
The dispute has split the European Union, threatened the cohesion of the NATO alliance and paralyzed the UN Security Council. It has fed the flames of anti-Americanism in Europe and of anti-Europeanism in America. Volleys of insults are being fired across the Atlantic. France, in particular, has been the target of a barrage of abuse from American right-wing pundits and columnists, who have accused it of ingratitude, of appeasement, and of a lack of moral fiber. A New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman, wants France voted off the Security Council, while Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online has depicted France as a nation of “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” a phrase taken up with glee by many others. All in all, it is the worst quarrel inside the “West” for several decades.
Two questions need to be asked. Can the European “rejection front” stop America’s war against Iraq? And secondly, what are the real roots of the crisis?
The answer to the first question must, alas, be negative. It would take a miracle or an act of statesmanship of which as President George W. Bush seems incapable to halt and reverse the American war machine. The military buildup continues inexorably, with over 130,000 US troops already in place, and more on the way. Two formidable instruments of war are heading for the region: The aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk has left its usual station in the Straits of Taiwan and is heading for the Indian Ocean, to join four other US carriers within range of Iraq, while the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division, which in the 1991 Gulf War launched the largest helicopter assault in history, is also on its way.
The ill-tempered diplomatic warfare across the Atlantic, the anti-war axis inside NATO of France, Germany and Belgium, the massive anti-war demonstrations planned across the world on Feb. 15, the inconclusive report of the UN inspectors to the Security Council, the more than doubtful evidence of Iraq’s links to Al-Qaeda (in spite of Osama bin Laden’s latest call to Muslims to join forces against the “crusaders” in defense of Iraq) none of this is likely to stop the Washington hawks who are determined on war. Early March remains the most likely date.
What then are the real roots of the crisis? Who is driving the rush to war? As most people have grasped by now, the “war party” in the United States is a coalition of three main forces.
l First are the so-called “neoconservatives” or “neoimperialists” who want to affirm America’s global domination, and see off any potential rival. Led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, their fury at France is precisely because they feel that America’s leadership is being challenged by a presumptuous military and economic pygmy. However, the devastating terrorist attack on the US of Sept. 11, 2001, demonstrated that power alone could not guarantee security. The terrible fear of another mass-casualty attack has caused the Bush administration to develop a doctrine of “preventive war.” It is intended to pre-empt the possibility that a “rogue state,” such as Iraq, might at some time in the future supply a terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction able to kill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Americans. This is the often-cited justification for the coming war, although the ambition to dominate the Middle East’s oil resources evidently comes a close second.
l A second group consists of right-wing American Jews, close to Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party in Israel, who have achieved unprecedented power in the Bush administration. Several of them are themselves “neoconservative” activists, but their principal concern would seem to be Israel’s security, expansion and regional hegemony. One of the most prominent is Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy in the Pentagon, but there are many others in influential positions inside and outside government, in think tanks, in the media and in lobbying organizations. Almost as one man, they are baying for war.
In Israel, Prime Minister Sharon (and the brutal men around him such as Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, Mossad head Meir Dagan, and air force commander Dan Halutz) make no secret of their belief that the smashing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will change the Middle East balance of power in Israel’s favor, allowing them to complete the destruction of Palestinian society, of the Palestinian national movement and of its leader Yasser Arafat, with the ultimate aim of absorbing all, or at least a great deal more, of historic Palestine into the Jewish state.
l A third group are the so-called “born again” Christian fundamentalists, like Bush himself, Attorney-General John Ashcroft and many others in America’s “Bible belt,” who profess to believe that God gave the Holy Land to the Jews.
David Frum, a former Bush speech writer responsible for the “axis of evil” speech, has written a book about the president, entitled The Right Man. “Of course,” he writes in one passage, “the Palestinian Authority is the epicenter of world terrorism. Can we really suppose that we could begin the war against terror by creating an Arafatistan on the West Bank?” This is just one indication of the way right-wing American “Likudniks” have hijacked America’s “war on terror” to promote Israel’s criminal agenda in the Middle East. It is a recipe for more violence against both America and Israel for years to come.

Patrick Seale is a veteran Middle East analyst.

The Arabs and the transatlantic feud

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 2/14/03

The transatlantic split over Iraq grips the attention of Arab press commentators, who are of two minds about the effect it is likely to have on Washington’s preparations for war.
Some Arab observers hope Europe’s increasingly assertive opposition can act as a brake on US plans to invade and occupy Iraq, or at least deny the Americans an undeserved facade of international endorsement or legality.
But others doubt that it will have much practical impac, and even warn that it could backfire and prompt President George W. Bush’s administration to opt for military action sooner rather than later.
Jordanian commentator Tarek Massarwa writes in the Amman daily Al-Rai that the Iraq crisis “has placed what used to be termed the Western alliance at a crossroads” and could signal “the beginning of the end” of the unipolar world order that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War and enabled the US to “commandeer” the United Nations.
He sees a “Paris-Moscow-Berlin axis” emerging, with support from China and other important players in Asia, Africa and Latin America, to challenge America’s “megalomania, hijacking of international legality and incessant warmongering.”
This could terminate Washington’s exploitation of the UN, he says. The fact that 11 of the UN Security Council’s 15 members have backed France’s plan for continuing and strengthening inspections in Iraq has “overturned the equation” there. Instead of France, Russia or China having to veto the British draft resolution authorizing war on Iraq, it is Washington and London who may need to brandish their vetoes to foil the French plan, he writes.
Massarwa sees the blocking of Turkey’s request for NATO assistance against a possible “attack by Iraq” as another coup by the Franco-Russian-German camp. The move foiled an attempt by Washington and London to “bestow European legitimacy” on their war by co-opting NATO, and also to help the Turkish government “bypass” the country’s Parliament. The elected legislature is reluctant to give its approval to the deployment of US forces to invade Iraq but won’t have to if they are sent out in response to a request for defensive assistance from NATO, he says.
The “hysterical response” of Washington and London to the challenge mounted to their Iraq policy is likely to stiffen the resolve of Paris, Moscow and Berlin, Massarwa adds. That promises to “restore equilibrium to international politics and life to the UN,” and in turn provide the world with cause for hope that it can be “spared from the insanity of the cowboy and his servile sidekick.”
Oman’s Al-Watan columnist Mohammed Abdulkhaleq applauds European efforts to prevent the Americans and British from igniting a war in the region.
He highlights how American and British spokespersons have been playing down the potentially calamitous consequences of war. They speak casually of installing a pro-American regime in Baghdad and transforming Iraq’s political life after bombing the country to ruins when in reality, while they can easily change the current regime via overwhelming force, “the outcome will be indecisive and inflict the gravest harm on Iraq.” They also insist that their forces will avoid hurting civilians in Iraq, “without clarifying exactly how the dropping of tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on Iraqi cities and infrastructure can avoid civilian casualties.”
And British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon has assured us that his country will help rebuild Iraq after the war, says Abdulkhaleq, “in which case why destroy it in the first place?”
He says it is this arrogant and reckless attitude to war that has fueled the European backlash, and is heartened by the way France, Germany and Belgium prevented NATO from being co-opted. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance, and the Europeans are right to refuse to use it to plan aggression against a country that has not attacked any of its members. They deserve every support, as does their broader endeavor to offset America’s quest for world hegemony.
Columnist Abdelwahhab Badrakhan writes in the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that Turkey’s request for NATO “protection” against a nonexistent threat from Iraq “was clearly an American request, aimed at testing NATO and the degree of its allies’ obedience.”
If Turkey were genuinely threatened, the European allies would not hesitate to come to its aid. “But the ploy was blatant” and attested to the depth of the underlying chasm: If a war on Iraq had been justified, so would the Turkish request have been.
Badrakhan remarks that just as the Bush administration’s reaction to Sept. 11 alienated the Arab and Muslim worlds, its hidden agendas, shortsightedness and domineering attitude over Iraq are doing the same to Europe. Even Europeans who were ardent interventionists in Bosnia and Kosovo are alarmed at the prospect of US intervention to topple a regime in Iraq they would all like to see removed from power.
The transatlantic “war of words” over the issue has reached such an intensity that Washington “probably now deems the breaking of European opposition to be a victory that must be achieved as a necessary prelude to its subsequent victory” in Iraq, Badrakhan says. But whether the standoff between the US and Europe that surfaced within NATO develops into a “confrontation” may hinge on the tone used by Hans Blix in his report to the Security Council.
Badrakhan says it is a shame that the Arab countries have not made use of burgeoning anti-war sentiment in Europe. They may oppose war for different reasons, “but they ought to share the Europeans’ aversion to American hegemony, for they will be the ones who suffer most from it in future.”
But while European opposition “has discredited this war before it even begins,” in practical terms it may backfire, he says. “It would push Bush and his people to the point of no return, i.e. to waging war without first trying to justify it, and to baring its claws even more. When the hawks in the US administration threaten the chancellor of Germany that they will punish and topple him, others are bound to think a thousand times before they utter a word,” Badrakhan writes.
In the Beirut daily An-Nahar, Ali Hamadeh contrasts the vocal European opposition to war with the “deafening silence” of the Arab regimes. They have spent the past few months voicing their opposition to military action, even while allowing 130,000 US troops to deploy on their soil in readiness for it, he remarks.
“While the Arab governments have been frankly professing their impotence at influencing American decision-making, in Europe they have been at least trying (and not for our sake) to prevent American unilateralism from becoming a permanent rule of international relations,” Hamadeh writes.
This might not prevent war, but it could have a major impact, not least on America proper. If the Bush administration is left to dictate the course of international relations without anyone acting to restrain it, the world order could become permanently subordinated to US national security and domestic political considerations, “and the outcome of that could be bloodbaths for example in Palestine.”
Hamadeh stresses that the Europeans’ problem is with the Bush administration, not America per se, and it would be wrong to make too much of the “transatlantic rift.”
But the split over Iraq is real, and it provides the Arabs with an opportunity to try to forge a “decisive” collective position “based on affirming the primacy of international law, extending the mission of the arms inspectors in Iraq, and refusing to allow US and British forces the use of any Arab territory or airspace in their intended war which would leave them only with the seas and Turkey,” he says.
“The French, Germans and others might not succeed in their bid (not for our sake, it must repeated) to prevent the American war, but the aim justifies the endeavor and the Arabs have more of a stake in it than anyone,” Hamadeh adds. “It is not a question of the Arabs siding with the victor, but of the victor’s attitude to them and of the position they will be in once the guns fall silent.”
Bashir Mousa Nafie argues in pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi that the Europeans may prove incapable of sustaining their opposition to Washington’s war plans.
He notes that at the outset of the Iraq crisis many people pinned their hopes on Russian, Chinese and French opposition. But Russia and China appeared to relent, leaving France and Germany in the forefront. Russia may even be playing a “double game,” and will probably eventually agree to a “deal” under which it barters its acquiescence to war in exchange for various US concessions. China decided 20 years ago to enhance its role in East Asia while lowering its international profile and concentrating on economic development and gaining export markets, all of which entails taking a nonconfrontational posture toward the US.
Nafie argues that without the lead set by France, the Russians, Chinese and others would not be taking such a strong anti-war stand as they are. “But there is a big danger in banking on France,” he warns. It is genuinely alarmed at the prospect of the US strengthening its hold on the Middle East and world affairs generally, and its desire to restrain the US and force an independent European position is sincere. “But France does not have the capacity to give an absolute and indefinite ‘no’ to Washington, or that would entail a long-term confrontation with US policy that Paris neither wants nor seeks, and which the current international balance of power does not permit.”
The US, meanwhile, has made war all but inevitable. “Not because it has always been intent on war, and not because its military buildup has reached such proportions that it is hard to envisage any diplomatic solution to the crisis, but above all because an American climbdown would be a humiliating blow to US prestige and influence worldwide,” Nafie explains. America “ may wage war without a Security Council resolution to give it a veneer of international legality, expand its international coalition, and persuade other countries to join it (alongside Britain) in a war on Iraq.” But such a resolution would be very useful, not least as a fig leaf for certain Arab regimes that have been colluding with Washington or are gearing up to do so.
“But it is not unlikely that things will reach a point where Paris says it has come to the conclusion that Iraq won’t disarm peacefully and that the Security Council should issue a resolution that sets the stage for the use of military force,” Nafie writes. It may even do so by week’s end, if Blix’s second report to the Security Council proves to be similar to his first one.
“And as France has become the de facto leader of the anti-war camp, a shift in French policy would lead to its rapid collapse, at least on a state level. Neither Russia nor China will go further than the French, and even Germany would have to tone down its opposition to American war plans.
“War might be initiated in any case, but it is important for Washington not to be given the opportunity to wage it in the name of international legality,” Nafie says. The US is bracing for a protracted war against the Arab and Muslim worlds, and whatever the initial outcome, it is pushing the peoples of the region to the wall and forcing them to defend themselves.
“I have no doubt that all of Iraq, including most of the current opposition forces, will quickly turn against the occupying forces if the crisis culminates in war and occupation,” Nafie remarks. Many Iraqis welcomed the British forces that invaded in 1918 and saw them as liberators from Turkish oppression. But in less than two years, the whole country had risen up against the British, who resorted to sending the Royal Air Force to bomb rebellious areas.
“Today, if there must be war, then let it at least be defined by the world as an illegal war, a war not just against Iraq but against the consensus of humanity. Then no one can blame the Iraqis for whatever means of resistance they employ against the invaders,” he writes.

Sharon's day in court will come
Gulf News, 14-02-2003
-

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is unhappy. Belgium's highest court of appeal has decided he can be tried for involvement in the killings of Palestinian refugees more than 20 years ago. It was that slaughter which earned Sharon the sobriquet "The Butcher of Sabra and Shatilla".

The court made the caveat that "international custom does not allow heads of government to be the subject of legal action by a foreign state". It therefore leaves the door open for Sharon to be tried once he is no longer head of government. Probably Sharon thought he had put this issue to bed when he successfully defended his position - that he was not a resident of Belgium - last summer. But since then, the Belgium administration has plugged that loophole and the amendment is expected to take place this Spring.

Israel's president has written to King Albert II arguing that Belgium "does not have the right to doubt the ethical standards" of his country, while the Israeli justice minister charges that "it is unacceptable that this small and insignificant nation would be the judge for the whole world." An accusation that could equally be levied against Israel, which has for so long acted as global judge, jury and executioner against the Palestinians.

Use brain not brawn
Gulf News, 14-02-2003
-

Despite the name calling from across the Atlantic, Germany persists in its anti-war stance on Iraq. Such effrontery, as determined by the Bush administration, is now being seen as ingratitude - for the Marshall Plan after World War II in helping Germany recover and, in the case of co-conspirator France, for relieving the country of Nazi oppression. Ironic that these should be dredged up, considering that it was U.S. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld who said Germany and France were part of "old Europe". Yet here is America, harping back to the "bad old days" when "old Europe" was, indeed, in desperate need of all the assistance that could be rendered.

But since then, "old Europe" has transformed; it is now "new Europe" with all the dynamism that an expanding European Union can and will project. It is the "old America" that rankles. For "old America" has laid down its plans for the future: these include it being the sole superpower, with no other nation having the right to compete in any way militarily, and presumably, economically as well, as that is now viewed as the more effective weapon to wield these days. So much of the American administration's ire and animosity is because not only are France and Germany seen as being ungracious, but also as having the temerity to challenge the mighty authority of America.

Yet a superpower has to do more than prove to the world that it possesses a super armoury. For that is known anyway - one look at the current and envisaged defence expenditure of the U.S. will show that it out-spends all other nations by far. But the gun-slinging days of the old Wild West are over - or should be, at least. A nation with so much power and authority should not have to continually prove its brawn, but instead show it has the brain to talk peace as well.

History will repeat itself, Pakistan and the US
By Hussain Haqqani, Gulf News, 14-02-2003
-

According to a report in the New York Times, "Pakistan, a nation not entirely sure of its bearings, is awash in anti-Western polemics. In a country where Christian churches are being stoned because Washington is in charge of the war, there is a daily diet of visceral anti-Americanism and crude anti-Semitism in the press, both English and Urdu".

The story sounds current with the exception that stoning of churches has graduated to occasional bombing. But the quote is from a description of Pakistan's reaction during the Gulf War of 1991 published on February 1 that year.

During the first Iraq war, the U.S. led a coalition including most Arab-Muslim countries. Pakistan's civilian Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif) supported the U.S. and Saudi Arabia while the military chief, General Aslam Beg propounded the thesis of "strategic defiance" – the notion that the U.S. will not be able to maintain its global preponderance for very long provided that smaller nations keep defying its will.

The Islamic parties led anti-American demonstrations, promising to transform Iraq and Kuwait into new Vietnams for the U.S. military. Washington worried about the anti-American protests and the Pakistani government responded by expelling an Iraqi diplomat, blaming him for distributing money to orchestrate the demonstrations.

In the end, however, none of the happenings in Pakistan affected the outcome of the war. The U.S. managed to liberate Kuwait without much defiance, a new Vietnam was not created and the U.S. status as the world's sole superpower was not altered.

Twelve years later, Pakistan does not have a credible civilian government. There is no rift between the army chief and his prime minister about policy toward Iraq. But General Beg is still articulating his thesis about the inevitability of multi-polarity and the religious parties are still leading anti-American marches. Of course, a lot has changed.

In 1991, Pakistan had just been subjected to U.S. sanctions over its nuclear programme, leading its diplomats and analysts to argue that the U.S. withdrawing its economic and military assistance fuelled anti-Americanism.

Now, the sanctions are over and Pakistan is the recipient of considerable U.S. largesse in grants, new loans and loan rescheduling. Washington is even trying to write off some outstanding loans to help the Pakistani economy.

If the imposition of sanctions instigated the demonstrations during the first Iraq war, one cannot help wonder why the end of sanctions has not won the U.S. any friends among the Pakistani public and elite. Is anti-Americanism a deep-rooted sentiment in the country, unaffected by U.S. aid policy, or has it become a strategy periodically invoked to seek a higher price for Pakistan's continued alliance with Washington?

Pakistan is not alone in this quandary of simultaneous alliance and hatred involving the United States. Muslims have been suspicious of Western motives in the Middle East ever since Lawrence of Arabia led the Arab rebellion against the Turkish Ottoman Empire during the First World War.

The Muslim empire collapsed, the Arabs were divided by lines in the sand and Lawrence's promises of Arab independence turned out to be a well laid out trap to pave the way for Anglo-French supremacy. In the Muslim mind, the Americans have only taken forward the imperial mission of Colonel Lawrence since the Second World War albeit with greater sophistication.

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories, rather than hard evidence, educate Muslim public opinion from Morocco to Indonesia. Instead of identifying and addressing this problem, successive U.S. administrations have ignored the "Muslim Street," being content instead to depend upon friendly potentates and dictators.

But such dependence also makes the U.S. vulnerable to the manipulation of its allies. The deployment of anti-Americanism among the people, to seek higher rent for cooperation with the U.S., is part of that manipulative process.

U.S. decision-makers are confident that once they start bombing Iraq, there will be little effective opposition to their operations. Tens of thousands might march in the streets of Cairo or Karachi but the demonstrations will not impede the U.S. military. They will be a passing phenomenon as they were during the 1991 Gulf War and the Afghan war in 2001.

The only factor ignored in this analysis is the significance of anti-American sentiment as an instrument of recruitment and motivation by extremist groups. While the Pentagon and the state department plan in terms of immediate and five-year scenarios, groups like Al Qaida think and talk about conflict spread over generations.

The U.S. is spending considerable resources and energy on combating the actions of terrorists and little on minimising the influence of their ideas.

U.S. policy would be more effective if it was based on understanding Muslim sentiment and the history behind it. In case of Iraq, the U.S. made its preference for war against Saddam Hussain obvious long before Secretary Powell was called upon to present evidence justifying military action. This has allowed Muslim sceptics to argue that the evidence has been tailored to justify a war instead of the decision for war depending on the evidence.

If Muslim public opinion had not been such a low priority in the U.S. government's scheme of things, discussion of evidence of Saddam Husain's conduct earlier might have left him few friends among the world's Muslims.

Saddam was avowedly anti-religion until the 1991 Gulf War, after which he started his pretense of championing Islamic causes. In doing so he played on a historic tendency that has characterised Muslim behaviour since the Middle Ages. Muslims turn to literalism in interpreting religion and admire defiant militants whenever their Ummah (community of believers) is threatened by the military might of non-Muslims.

Sacking of Baghdad

The sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols in 1258 is an important example. Genghis Khan's grandson, Helugu Khan, conquered the then capital of the Muslim caliphate, killing its people and burning down its great library "The House of Wisdom". Muslims interpreted this military defeat as a result of their embracing pluralism and worldly knowledge.

The emphasis on Ijtihad (reasoned spiritual struggle) was abandoned with renewed focus on militant Jihad (holy war). Soon thereafter, Ibn Taimiyah (1262-1327), a Syrian theologian, laid the foundations of a militant revival that remains the theological font of all counter-reformation thinking among Muslims.

While Colin Powell probably has never thought about this episode in history, Saddam Hussain and Al Qaida have both referred to the 1258 sacking of Baghdad in recent statements. The allusion is significant for true believers and for those who seek to defy rather than co-exist with and learn from unbelievers.

For militant Islamists, the military defeat and humiliation at the hand of the Mongols marked the beginnings of a religious revival. In less than a century, the Mongol conquerors converted to Islam and Islamic power, uprooted from the Arabian heartland, had been re-established in Turkey and Northern India.

Islamist movements are already arguing that the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the coming sacking of Baghdad should be seen as cataclysmic events that would purify Muslim souls and prepare them for an ideological battle with the West.

The potentates and dictators backed by the U.S. so far have only helped Islam's counter-reformation by stifling debate and aligning with theological hard-liners to protect their own position.

If after the war in Iraq, there is still no change in what some Western scholars have started calling "the victim mindset" in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world, the cycle witnessed at the time of the 1991 Gulf War will continue to be repeated. As it is being repeated right now.

The writer is a Visiting scholar at Carnegie Endowment for international Peace in Washington D.C. He served as ambassador to Sri Lanka and as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. He can be contacted at: hhaqqani@gulfnews.com

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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