Feb 5, 2003 Op Eds

Feb 5, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

The advice coming from some Western embassies in the Kingdom and elsewhere in the region that their citizens should have their travel documents in order in case the Iraqi situation gets worse and they have to leave at a moment’s notice has not had any noticeable effect so far; no one is rushing to the airport to catch the first plane out. Nonetheless, it is deeply regrettable. It suggests that expatriates are not going to be safe here if war breaks out. That is rubbish.

No one felt at risk here when Afghanistan was attacked — and for all its harsh and repressive ways, it was a specifically Islamic government that the US overthrew. During the Gulf War, Westerners and other expats did not feel under threat either — despite Iraq’s scud missile attacks on Riyadh and the Eastern Province. That is not going to happen this time. There is no earthly reason to imagine that Iraq is going to target Saudi Arabia. Kuwait might be different: Saddam Hussein has said that if there is war he might re-invade it. That too is unlikely, since all it would achieve would be turn the entire Arab world against him anew, although the possibility of Iraqi missile attacks on the state cannot be ruled out.

Even so, it is interesting that Philippine President Gloria Arroyo, who has just been in Kuwait to reassure the 60,000 Filipinos working there that they will be protected in the event of a war, plans to evacuate them to the Saudi-Kuwaiti border, and from there presumably into Saudi Arabia as happened last time. If the Kingdom is a safe place for Filipinos, then why not for Spaniards or Germans? Why not for Britons or Americans? What is all the fuss about? Does Washington or Berlin or Madrid imagine that the Saudi authorities are incapable of ensuring law and order in the country?

There is another side to these warnings that is also profoundly regrettable. The US travel warning specifically speaks of terrorist threats and attacks against US citizens and interests in the region and the potential for further attacks. The truth is that there have been attacks on Americans and other Westerners in the Gulf. They are to be condemned. Those behind them have acted with a malevolence that borders on racism.

Arabs and Muslims are vehemently opposed to US policies on Iraq and on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. But the argument is with the US government, not with the American people. The same goes for the UK over its support for an attack on Iraq: the argument is with the Blair government not the British people. To attack individual Americans or anyone else because of their government’s policies is repulsive. In any event, what about the anti-war protests in the US and UK? There are plenty of people in the US and UK who have very different views to Messrs Bush and Blair. It needs to be remembered that not even half the electorate, let alone half the population, of the US or the UK voted for them. Similarly there are Arabs who want an invasion of Iraq — and not just Kuwaitis or members of the Iraqi opposition. People are different from governments, and they should not be held individually responsible for what their governments do.

It is not just Americans who need to change their thinking, there are Arabs who have to do so as well.

Mounting Israelization of American society
By Marwan Bishara, Arab News, 2/5/03

Growing up in Nazareth, an Arab in a Jewish state, a secular Christian in a Muslim society, a leftist in a Baptist school, I learned firsthand how managing ideological, religious and national differences helps us evolve peacefully. Succumbing to them generates fundamentalism and antagonism. Applying brute force to overcome them as Israel, my country, has done to my people, the Palestinian Arabs — fails utterly.

So it puzzles me as to why America now views the Middle East through Israel’s eyes, and why, since 9/11, it has adopted an apocalyptic Israeli vision of an irredeemable world that “hates us.” Such fatalism on the part of Bush and Sharon is rendering diplomacy a prelude to imminent war in Iraq and Palestine. Their justification — “If it doesn’t get worse, it won’t get better, and when force doesn’t work, more force will” — threatens to globalize the violent impasse of Israel/Palestine.

Judging from the January Israeli (and last fall’s American) elections, more people are buying into this dangerous paranoia. In order to confront this logic, I feel it is indispensable to debunk the myths behind America’s misplaced identification/fascination with Israel, best captured in a post- 9/11 headline: “We Are All Israelis Now.” As seen in this light, Israel is a “peace-seeking” victim of Arab hostility, a “true democracy” that shares “our” values, an “ally” that serves “our” interests, whose “success” in a “hostile neighborhood” is inspirational in a Hobbesian world.

In reality, Israel has consistently expanded its frontiers, embarked on a number of offensive wars and even contemplated the reconfiguration of Lebanon and Jordan, while rejecting UN resolutions and America’s own initiatives. That hardly qualifies as peace-seeking. The myth that Israel serves America’s interests, while hardly a compliment or honor to any nation, goes against the logic of history.

Traditionally, Arabs identified with an America that stood as a symbol of the right of self- determination against the British and French colonial powers. Their relations with America turned sour only when Washington supported Israel’s aggression. America’s interests could be secured without imperial support for Israel’s hegemony. A Middle East that is safe for its Arab inhabitants could also be safe for America (and Israel). America’s main interest, oil, is best secured through the market’s supply and demand, not another war in Iraq.

Needless to say, Arabs — moderates and radicals alike — seek to sell their oil, not drink it. As for the “democratic oasis” fallacy, Israel, by definition, cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy with one-fifth of its population Palestinian. Israel has stripped us, its Palestinian citizens, of two- thirds of our own land, and it has enacted laws that discriminate against us simply because we aren’t Jewish. Calls to “transfer” us — that is, to push us out of Israel altogether — have been gaining momentum among my fellow citizens. Acting with impunity, thanks to Washington, my country has transformed its conflict into perpetual war by justifying its occupation on security and theological grounds and condemning the entirety of my people’s struggle for freedom as terrorism. Hardly a role model.

So why, then, does Washington mimic worldwide the worst of Israel’s chutzpah and, for lack of a better word, plagiarize Israeli doctrine and policy? Since its 1967 victory, made possible by Washington’s hardware, which transformed its army posture from defensive to offensive, Israel has functioned as an American laboratory in conventional urban and asymmetric warfare. Instead of being a “safe refuge” for the Jews, Israel became an American outpost after Washington’s defeat in Vietnam. It was appointed “regional policeman” in the 1960s, a “regional influential” in the 1970s, a “strategic asset” in the 1980s, and today it is viewed as being at the forefront of the war on terrorism.

Paradoxically, almost every time Israel rejected a State Department draft of a peace initiative, it was somehow rewarded by a new Pentagon deal! Washington’s militarization of Israel’s industries and liberalization of its economy made Israel ever more dependent on the United States. Today, although Israel boasts a high per capita income, the gap between rich and poor is one of the highest among industrial societies, and the military remains the key engine of its economy. And the result of Washington’s deformation of Israel’s sociopolitical priorities made it natural for robocop Israel, an ethnic republic at home and a colonial tyranny next door, to slide toward fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalists (one-fourth of the Knesset) and neofascist parties have ruled Israel for more than a quarter-century, with the exception of the two short and ill-fated governments of Generals Rabin and Barak.

Naïvely, some of us hoped America would save Israel from itself once Israel’s strategic- asset credentials ran out at the end of the Cold War. Instead, thanks to Osama Bin Laden, a “wag the dog” saga has played out, as fundamentalists dictate policies for all of us. While America internalized Israel’s culture of fear, adopted its claustrophobic vision of a world full of evil and charted a pre- emptive doctrine to deal with it, Israel took on America’s imperial posturing. For decades now, Washington, and Israel, have demanded that we choose between good and evil, “with us or against us.” In 1958 the devil was Egypt’s pan-Arab leader, Jamal Abdel Nasser; in 1968 it became Palestinian guerrilla leader Yasser Arafat; in 1978 Iran’s Ayatollah; and when all three were no longer threats, Saddam Hussein emerged as the devil. Predictably, after Saddam was “contained,” Bin Laden became the devil of all devils, and now, with Saddam again the chief devil, we have been cynically asked once more to choose, as if we had a choice! For those of us who have lived in Israel, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Spreading a fearmongering political culture and demonizing adversaries while supporting war renders national symbols sacred objects and tolerance unpatriotic — or worse, immoral. Recent polls underline this mounting Israelization of American society: One in three Americans now accepts government-sanctioned torture of suspects, and 60 percent support political assassinations (up from 18 percent in 1981).

Israel has tried all such methods but failed to improve security. In fact, annual civilian casualties in Israel today are twenty-five times what they were two or three decades ago. Worse, Sharon’s current policy amounts to politicide and econocide, and it is denounced as a series of war crimes and crimes against humanity by the likes of Amnesty International. Watching Al-Qaeda’s “men” and American/Israeli “gentlemen” cheering for war, I am reminded of what progressive feminism concluded long ago: The problem is not the men per se, but the system of power that grooms them. The Islamists’ pseudo-strategy of “die and let die” has failed, as has the American/Israeli strategy of “live and let die.” A third way, to “live and let live,” must now be given a try, through diplomacy, the art of resolving our differences peacefully. I’m afraid Washington’s current hostility to diplomacy stems not only from bad politics but also from the conservatives’ commitment to transform America’s global power into global domination — Pax Americana, paradoxically, in a time of US decline. As America trails behind an economically growing EU — soon to be twenty - five countries strong — excessive use of force is considered a means of maintaining superpower status. To preserve its super economic advantage (30 percent of the world economy) America is augmenting its military expenditures (40 percent of the world’s) to stay on top. But the twentieth century has taught us that power is not restricted to military means. If America continues to increase its military budget to finance offensive wars, it will eventually become, at best, Europe’s mercenary. It will also become like those it fights: Weak, desperate and isolated.

What better examples exist to illustrate the limits of military force and the growing importance of economic power than Iraq and Turkey? Motivated by membership in the European Union, Turkey’s secular military accepted the recent election results, and the Islamists have come to respect the democratic rules of the game as well as Ankara’s commitments to the international community. America can hardly point to a similar achievement in Iraq. If you ask Eastern European countries to choose between NATO and EU membership, they would all choose the latter. Have the United States and Israel changed roles? Though for decades the Middle East has had difficulty struggling with America the superpower and Israel the rogue state, their patron-client relations implied a certain rationale and a limit. Today, however, the empire acts like a rogue state, and the latter acts like an empire. If America must be a superpower, then it should be super-democratic in its policy. It could also identify with a tradition other than Israel’s. A tolerant heritage of Judaism, combined with traditional American constitutionalism and mature European culture no less ambitious, forged over centuries of war and colonialism, could provide important guidance in an era of uncertainty. My dear America, allow me to end on a personal note. We need you as much as we all need each other — Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Europeans, Arabs and others. Our right to security is a universal right. Preserving it in an era of globalization is a multilateral venture. That’s why our interdependence is a sign of our maturity, not our weakness.

All of us democrats must confront irrational geotheology and deadly geostrategy by emphasizing geoethics. Putting our values above our interests, our humanity above our nationalism, could help us create coalitions across continents and religions to block the fatalistic and destructive drive to war.

In the absence of democracy, Middle East Arabs have not made the choice of their fundamentalists or their leaders. You Americans, on the other hand, are a democracy and have a choice. The fundamentalists and the militarists succeed only when we democrats of the world fail to be what we must. (AL-AWDA News)

— Marwan Bishara is a lecturer at the American University of Paris and the author of Palestine Israel: Peace or Apartheid.

A Lifeline for Palestinian Qosin - On the ‘Road’ with the Mobile Clinic of UPMRC*

By Anne Gwynne writes from Nablus in Occupied Palestine.

2/5/03

Destruction and barriers, the biggest and deepest holes in the torn-up road I have yet seen: this is the Beit Iba Roadblock, which the Israelis call a ‘checkpoint’ – what misuse of a word! No words can convey the situation here – we are in acres of mud amid long lines of waiting people who have to carry all their shopping, baggage, children, and babes-in-arms for hours at a stretch. There is no possibility of putting them down in the deep mud and water. It is bitingly cold and damp. When the line reaches a pool of water, people are ordered to stand there for hours and are not ‘permitted’ to avoid it – it is an outrage against all humanity.

We are trying to get from Nablus to the village of Qosin with the UPMRC mobile Clinic. Our doctor tells me that “it is very difficult indeed without internationals because Qosin is a ‘closed’ village. All its roads are blocked and there is never any possibility of coming out or going in”. We wait one hour to be allowed to pass (we will be longer on the way back). A deep, fast-flowing stream runs across the road to the village by the checkpoint. These overflows of water are everywhere because of the way the IOF just bulldoze huge heaps of rubble and earth, creating lakes in heavy rain which eventually overflow. We climb to the top of a mountain road which has stunning panoramic views – and as we approach the village we see that all the large houses on the outskirts have been destroyed. In the driveway of one ruined house a tank is parked, in another an armoured personnel carrier. The Israelis use these houses as tank parks so that they can descend onto the village at a moment’s notice and 'subdue' the population. From the mountain-top, we also see people carrying huge loads on tiny suffering donkeys – animal and owner suffering together. And fresh graves ring the cemetery.

The Clinic is held in a new building - the gift of an International donor. It is not yet finished and has no proper facilities for sick people to see the doctors – very cold, with no heating and no equipment of any sort. An amazing number of people come; they are so pleased to see the UPMRC staff who are their lifeline. In this village there is no longer any possibility of employment, and people tell me that they all help to support each other in every way – but, they say, for how long?

Everything here is cold, except the welcome! It is, as usual, so warm and full of affection. To the clinic come mothers with tiny, often underweight, babies. They say that the food they are able to get now is not adequate for growing children – it is restricted, and they do not have any dairy products or fresh fruit and vegetables. I remind you that this is a Palestinian village, in which live Palestinian people in their own land of Palestine, yet they are not permitted to buy the essential food their children need for health - so the next generation will have very many health problems. Teeth here are almost universally in extremely poor condition. An American friend asked me why we didn’t take fresh produce in the Ambulance – of course, we should be able to. But this area is closed, and the vehicle will be confiscated if any item (even a warm blanket or a personal photograph) not pertaining to an ambulance is found.

The doctors must examine these babies in icy rooms on the cold surface of melamine-topped tables, and their stethoscopes are very cold indeed! Many patients arrive: old women bent double over walking sticks, children with no socks. A chill wind howls in around the windows. Everyone wants to talk, and everyone has a story of Israeli brutality and inhumanity. The manifestation of Palestinian pride in the nation is evident everywhere – there are flags, plaques, carvings, and pictures of Palestine as it was. The mothers are lovely – like young moms anywhere. They wear high-heeled boots, well-cut pants and elegant coats. But the signs of strain are there on every woman’s face. Still, everyone says to me, “Welcome, you are welcome in our land”.

This ancient nation of friendly, hospitable people has been reduced to mere existence by an illegal occupying army, contravening every relevant International Law and Governance. The expression in the eyes of the old – or maybe not-so-old – are an indictment of all of us who do not do whatever we can to influence our Governments to end this suffering. Often I am unable to lift my eyes to meet theirs because I am so ashamed of our inaction. It often requires a very deep breath! For they do not want pity – just understanding of their suffering and some reassurance that people in other countries are with them in spirit and have not abandoned them to this.

Many of the donated medicines have instructions in English only, and there are not enough effective treatments, such as antibiotics – especially liquid antibiotics which are needed for the children. As a result, many of the children and adults alike have bad coughs, runny eyes and general respiratory infections which are so easily and cheaply treatable with the right medicine.

By twelve o'clock I am really chilled to the bone – in thick jeans, tights, socks, hiking boots, a cashmere polo under a sweatshirt and a hiking jacket over a duvet vest. Many women are in cotton clothes and the children in thin cotton trousers. Babies’ feet hang down coldly from the blanket in which they are wrapped. It is impossible to convey the suffering here – or indeed, to convey the fun and merriment which bubbles out from the young men who have retained their humanity in a terrible situation. Of course, it is, I believe in some way easier for the men - because they spend their days with each other able to vent their anger, whereas the women have to keep the family together - cook, clean, wash, nurse sick babies and console old people with heavy hearts.

A cute boy of about seven comes alone with toothache – a toothache in this cold with no dentist! He has on thin trousers, one-strap sandals and no socks, topped by a thin blouson. I cannot feel my toes and my fingers are numb. A young mother has made the long trek uphill – with two children walking and one baby in her arms who is wrapped in a constantly falling-off blanket. (And in Europe we feel that bringing up children is hard!) I hold her baby and the tears come – all around give me sympathy with their usual generosity of spirit. And they apologise for the lack of chairs!

I spend a long time with a Head Teacher of a school, whose daily problems of getting to work in Nablus just amaze me. He has to leave his home in Qosin at 5.00 am to walk over the mountains because he is banned from the road by the Israelis. He is often soaking wet and covered in mud by the time he gets to work and, of course, exhausted by the daily struggle. In normal times, his school is 15 minutes away. But he says his journey is not unusual at all here!

At one o’clock the village brings a delicious lunch and no one from there eats until we have finished - bowls of olives, pitta and hummus, which is all they have left now. At two o’clock we must go – there is, of course, curfew at six, and we must allow for the long wait at the Beit Iba checkpoint where three roads converge. This time we are the first in line from our side. On the road crossing ours, going into Nablus, there is a long line of people, donkeys and carts. Only one person passes through in 30 minutes. An old man hobbles up a steep bank to sit on a cold concrete block to rest. Nothing moves. Suddenly, the Israelis begin a ‘training’ exercise in the midst of all this waiting. Next to us a bored truck driver, who clearly does this every day, sits eating oranges.

The line from Nablus is equally long – hundreds of people who can move only on the say-so of teenage soldiers. An armoured car faces us, guns at the ready; its Israeli flag blowing in the icy wind – an Israeli flag flying on a Palestinian road in Palestine! All around are huge bulldozers, earth-movers, scoops and diggers. Everything for a half-mile in all directions has been destroyed to create this monument to Israel’s ‘security’. On our right is a graveyard for ‘confiscated’ taxis and Services (mini-buses) - dozens of vehicles which represent the family investment and income for hundreds of people, summarily confiscated while conveying Palestinians between Nablus and neighbouring villages. Where else can a teenager ‘confiscate’ a bus whose owner has no right of appeal and no compensation?

The Israeli ‘training’ continues and we have now waited for 40 minutes - our staff remark that the soldiers are playing James Bond! They run about looking for all the world like nine-year-olds playing with guns. Except that these guys can end a life in a split second - at will. There are now six ambulances, with their complement of staff, two on each road. Critical patients will die and pregnant women give birth at this desolate spot. No persons have been allowed through and we have been here for one hour and 20 minutes. How can any kind of commerce survive when capital goods are standing about doing nothing, often for days upon end? Every hour that a truck is out of action costs its owner money.

Our doctor asks when can we leave – and he is told: “Wait!”. No reason. There is no pedestrian sidewalk - all the animals, baggage, children, nursing mothers, the old and the young are mixed up with trucks, buses, taxis and carts in this filthy, desolate expanse of dereliction. A women struggles by, carrying two babies, one on each arm. How has she held them for hours? How on earth have her arms endured this pain? One hour and 40 minutes later, we are ‘allowed’ to go. And my anger chokes me.

__________________________________

*Anne Gwynne, Independent International, is currently working with the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (UPMRC) in Nablus.

The 'axis of assassination' and its consequences

Rami G. Khouri

Jordan Times, 2/5/03

SPECULATION ABOUT the potential impact of (another!) Anglo-American assault against Iraq has reached epic proportions, with more lively speculation than hard facts. It is impossible to know accurately what could follow (another!) Anglo-American attack against Iraq, given the many unknowns about the nature, duration or immediate aftermath of such an assault. But we can reasonably and confidently identify those quarters and dynamics in the Arab world that should be monitored if we hope to identify real, rather than imagined, repercussions from the widely anticipated Anglo-American adventure.

The critical players to keep your eye on are three: the ruling Arab political regimes and establishments; the masses of ordinary people; and the small numbers of militants whose operating methods primarily consist of military violence, including terrorism against civilians. These three parties are almost totally detached from one another in the Arab world, and they have shown that they will react very differently to major events in the region, regardless of whether the actions being responded to are undertaken by Arabs, Israelis, Turks, Anglo-Americans or others.

The ruling regimes and elites will mainly seek to weather the storm and maintain the status quo and their incumbency; the masses of ordinary people will mainly bemoan the acquiescence and helplessness of Arab state powers in the face of (another!) Anglo-American assault; the militants will militate, attacking targets that they deem appropriate, not necessarily expecting to change Anglo-American policies or Arab elite behaviour, but mainly giving vent to the powerful sentiments of anger and humiliation that define so many people in this region. I would expect that the ruling state elites will work hard to contain the anger of the masses of ordinary Arabs, while the masses of ordinary Arabs — pacified, frustrated, angrier than ever — will quietly cheer on the few militants who take up arms against Anglo-American, Israeli or other targets of choice.

If this analysis of the main political forces in the Arab world is correct, an Anglo-American assault against Iraq is likely to lead to two parallel consequences: a slight increase in militant attacks against Anglo-American-Israeli targets, but much more political tension within the Arab world, as the centre of gravity of mass Arab popular sentiment shifts away from state elites and moves closer to the militants.

The post-assault-against-Iraq agenda in the region is much more likely to be set by the actions of violent Arab militants than it is by the pacified Arab masses or immobilised Arab elites. This will mark a dangerous but very predictable transition from Arab-Western relations, marked by confused fascination and tourism, to relations, marked by terror and active mutual ideologies based more on assassination than on communication.

Israel and the United States now operate the only two more-or-less declared state policies based on open assassination of their enemies (without any accusations or trials): Israel has assassinated over 80 Palestinians whom it accuses of terror activities, and the United States has unmanned drone planes soaring around the skies of Arabia looking to shoot missiles to assassinate Arab men whom it suspects of involvement with terror against the US (as it did most spectacularly in Yemen recently).

So it should be no surprise that a handful of Arab young men should now have decided to adopt the same policy against the Anglo-American-Israeli “axis of assassination” — kill first, kill often, even sometimes kill indiscriminately, send the judges and the juries and constitutionality home to sleep, and ask questions later.

This trend of increasingly passive elite and popular Arab reactions to Anglo-American-Israeli actions, alongside increasingly militant responses by small groups of Arab men, is neither new nor surprising. It can be tracked for nearly four decades. The first sign was after the 1967 war, when the first serious Palestinian political and military resistance against Israel was born. The second example was after the 1982 Israeli invasion and occupation of south Lebanon, when the Lebanese armed resistance was born.

The third example was after the 1991 Gulf War, when the former Afghan Islamist militants turned their guns on Arab regimes and the US. The fourth example was after the 1991 Madrid Peace Talks and the 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, when Israel's continued colonisation of the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in a new form of violent Islamist and secular resistance against this Israeli colonisation of Palestine.

In these, and other examples, we can discern a steady, linear, predictable trend by which Anglo-American-Israeli attack-and-assassinate policies result in increasingly immobilised Arab state elites, more angry and humiliated Arab masses of ordinary people, and increasingly aggressive (often indiscriminately violent) small groups of young Arab militants. Another Anglo-American assault against another corner of the Arab world, with Israeli cheering on, is certain to continue this trend.

A world out of balance

By Hasan Abu Nimah

Jordan Times, 2/5/03

IT WAS Lord Acton who warned, at the beginning of last century, that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. He probably meant the power of the individual, which, once it goes unchecked, causes enormous harm to the general good. The alternative to the dictatorship of the individual has been the rule of the majority, expressed by what so far has been the best, though by no means flawless, system of government known as democracy.

Today, the world finds itself in an epic crisis; how to cope with the absolute power of one state among many. For, if democracy guaranteed the protection of the group against the tyranny of a sole ruler, it was hoped that the rule of international law and the UN system, carefully built since World War II, would guarantee the same level of protection and order in international relations.

The current crisis has been developing since the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with it, the bipolar balance which spared the world the unchecked tyranny of one global power. One should have no illusions about the fact that the cold war era was by no means the ideal system to preserve international order. Its only advantage was its ability to provide a balance between the superpowers and, to an extent, the smaller states that revolved in their orbits.

During the cold war, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could rely on their raw power to carry out any offence against a weaker state. This did not eliminate harmful meddling in the affairs of small countries, but limited it to certain recognised spheres of influence. Any action beyond these rules of the game risked upsetting the balance. To a large extent, this system of mutual deterrence worked. The more balanced the strength of the two superpowers was the more effective the deterrent was.

This tense standoff had notable disadvantages, however. First, though it mostly prevented unrestrained unilateral action by the superpowers in the other's sphere of influence, it tended to channel superpower conflict to destructive low-level wars by proxy, usually in impoverished developing countries. Second, while keeping a certain international order in place, by preventing full-scale conventional wars, it kept the world under the shadow of nuclear fear, and often paralysed positive initiatives as well as negative ones.

But regardless of the major disadvantages, the world had some sort of order, and if it was not ideal, it curbed the abuse of power we see today and gave small states the option of bargaining with each of the superpowers for a better deal. Neither superpower could declare, as the United States does today, “that you are either with us or against us”, since there was always somewhere else to go.

The collapse of the state of polarisation, following the end of the cold war, led quickly to the collapse of the equilibrium and tipped the balance immediately in favour of the strongest. The United Nations system was supposed to fill in the vacuum and reconstruct the lost balance in international dealings. That did not happen, and is not happening now, with the United States insisting on acting alone on any issue on which UN support and backing cannot be guaranteed, as for example, its insistence on military action against Iraq with or without what the world views as the required UN authorisation.

The power and authority which the UN needs to exercise its mandate is largely determined by the member states and the amount of support they choose to offer. If they choose to pursue their own interests, however, the UN becomes powerless, as the case may actually be now.

We are witnessing the steady erosion of international consensus in favour of superpower opportunism and blind reliance on sheer force for achieving controversial and sometimes outright illegitimate political goals. This creates conditions which are much more hazardous to the security of every individual and state, to world peace, to stability and to the very values of our civilisations. The sense of insecurity in the world is perhaps worse than it was even at the height of the cold war arms race. At that time, at least, nuclear weapons were spoken of as something that existed only to ensure nuclear war never happened. Today, the Pentagon is actively developing strategies to introduce nuclear weapons to be used as tactical weapons in attacks on non-nuclear states. This follows the United States' abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and abandonment of other international treaties.

People all over the world are less safe today than ever. We fear a faceless and unimaginable threat of “terrorism” which, whatever we call this threat, is a symptom of the sweeping injustices against billions of people who have nowhere to turn for salvation, let alone their own governments, which are increasingly independent only on paper, as most of them do not dare to challenge the lone superpower.

We still live in a world where peoples' and states' rights are regularly violated by the powerful who, motivated by greed, recognise no law except their own gratification and aggrandisement. This, perhaps, is human nature, but if it is, that is why there has always been a recognised need for checks and balances. Today, all the checks and balances that were carefully and painstakingly built up with a lot of setbacks along the way are being swept aside.

Not only is chaos becoming the rule among states, but in all parts of the world, repression is becoming accepted as part of the “war on terrorism”. The United States is leading the way with harsh new police state powers that make a mockery of the US constitution. Everywhere, governments are offering up the human rights of their own citizens as sacrifices in this “war” and to please one power that demands total allegiance. Everywhere, intolerance and discrimination against immigrants and refugees, especially Arabs and Muslims, is growing, and fuelling mutual feelings of resentment, fear and even hatred is greater than it already was due to unjust US policies. The rich are getting much richer and more isolated from the rest of the world, and the poor and powerless are further away from having a meaningful say in how the planet is governed. Even when they have the rare opportunity to genuinely elect their own governments, those leaders have neither the means nor the room for manoeuvre to change their lives decisively.

The United States is pushing an agenda which the rest of the world cannot understand or accept. Putting the world before the choice of “either with us or with the enemy” is patronising, as well as contemptuous, since it often feels like we have all been unfairly labelled as “the enemy”. It is alienating the entire Arab and Muslim world. It is dividing and antagonising much of Europe. It is sidelining the role of the United Nations. Even the closest friends of the United States, who would not hesitate a minute to support the US on any just cause, are worried and embarrassed by the arrogance with which Washington is handling the most delicate and dangerous crises.

Although the current Iraq crisis is totally manufactured by Washington, it is acting as a catalyst for deterioration in the international order. The rising tide of popular and state opposition to the war on Iraq should not be interpreted as support for one of the most unpopular regimes in our time. It is, rather, a sign that people are fed up with duplicity, hypocrisy, deceit, favouritism, greed and abuse of power as guiding principles for international behaviour. It may be easy for many states to act indifferently when the victim of such unprincipled policies is weak and demonised, like Libya, Yugoslavia, Sudan or Iraq. But as political opportunism becomes the rule rather than the exception, any state, no matter how well placed, could be the next target of some abuse, and that is the deeper cause of alarm and genuine concern. The fact that all this opposition cannot be translated into action to stop the march to war shows how great and out of control US power is.

The international environment is suffering an earthquake which, at high cost, will eventually end in a new order. One possibility is that Europe, most conscious of the dangers of maintaining a dangerous and uncertain status quo, would rise to the level of providing the lost balance in international relations. The problem is that there is still division between the Old Europe, represented not as Donald Rumsfeld says by France and Germany, but by unreformed British colonial intentions seemingly resurrected from Suez, and the New Europe, indeed represented by France and Germany, which have learned the bitter lessons of history, that war is always the worst and last resort.

Russia is currently a declining power, unable to stop the US march, but it may regain its stride. China is clearly a growing power, but how it will choose to wield its influence is still unclear. In a few weeks, we may be plunged into an unjust war of aggression against Iraq, although we should still do all in our power to avoid it. As we stare into the abyss, it is hard to remember the euphoria of the fall of the Berlin wall and the better world it promised.

The writer is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan to the UN.

Sharon's coalition options

Jordan Times, 2/5/03

ISRAELI PRIME Minister Ariel Sharon's victory in last week's elections may prove untenable if he and his Likud Party, which increased its Knesset seats to 38, are unable to forge a coalition government in the period remaining available. If Labour leader Amram Mitzna, who insists on a halt to settlement activity and a return to peace negotiations with the Palestinians, continues to refuse to join forces with Sharon, the premier's only other option would be to team up with the Shinui Party, which has made a sudden but perhaps still precarious rise by securing 15 Knesset seats. To that team, he would have to add some fringe right-wing parties that Shinui leader Tommy Lapid may tolerate, such as the ultra-nationalist National Religious Party with six seats, the Russian-speaking Israel B'Aliya with two seats or even the trade union-based Am Ehad Party, also with only two seats. Lapid is now even considering a departure from his earlier protestations — he may accept to be part of a government that includes the ultra-orthodox United Torah Judaism Party.

Whatever the results of Sharon's consultations, the absence of the Labour Party in any future Israeli government could make it ineffective. The reason why the Labour Party withdrew from Sharon's government in the first place and suspended its support was over the premier's settlement policies and his refusal to engage the Palestinians under their current leadership in any serious peace talks. Should Sharon amend his policies on these two fundamental fronts, the door could be reopened for Labour participation in the new cabinet. The stage could then be set for the formation of a genuine national unity government that could lead to effective peace talks with the Palestinians and the formal declaration and adoption of the so-called "roadmap" for peace. Anything short of this would be a waste of time for all sides and a disaster for the region given the fact that a major war is looming in the horizon.

Sharon’s dangerous game over Lebanon
The Daily Star, 2/5/03

Wise leaders keep their options open, and that is presumably what Ariel Sharon thinks he is doing. He says he wants the vanquished Labor Party to join a Likud-led coalition but refuses to entertain any of Amram Mitzna’s policy proposals. He says he wants to make peace with the Palestinians but insists, in effect, that there has to be peace before he will negotiate. His government complains about getting the cold shoulder from even those Arab countries with which the Jewish state has diplomatic relations but refuses to comment publicly on an invitation from no less than Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He says he wants calm on the Lebanese border but his air force engages in daily airspace violations and intimidation.
Notwithstanding Sharon’s well-earned reputation as a hard-liner who pursues maximalist goals, all of this can be put down to brinkmanship. The problem with this kind of strategy is that while it may be designed to leave a government with a wider range of open doors, a single misstep can instantly slam all the best ones. In the current situation, this danger is especially acute with regard to Lebanon, and the risks being run are wholly unnecessary.
Apart from the odd clash in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, things are actually very calm along the Jewish state’s northern frontier. In addition, the Lebanese Army has moved quietly but unmistakably to increase its presence in the border region, steadily assuming a role that has been demanded of it by the international community.
Nonetheless, there is a strong possibility that they want to retain some kind of conflagration with Lebanon as an option in the near future. Even if this is the case, however, pushing the issue is no way to increase one’s flexibility. For one thing, while the trend on this front is clearly in the direction of reduced tensions, it is still a tinderbox that can be ignited with alacrity if and when any “need” to do so is perceived. For another, if either Sharon’s saber-rattling or the response from Hizbullah is miscalculated, the decision might be taken for both sides to the benefit of neither.
Whatever plans Sharon has for the coming months will emerge in due course. He knows, for instance, that the aftermath of America’s adventure in Iraq will see new pressure for progress on the Palestinian question. Mubarak understands this as well, which does much to explain the timing of his overture. Sharon has domestic headaches too, the most problematic being a stalled economy. Addressing these issues would be made even more difficult by a major clash in Lebanon, especially if it erupts by chance. In this sense, every Israeli warplane that crosses the frontier is an accident waiting to happen. The odds only get worse when they engage in mock bombing runs and/or make themselves targets near the border, increasing the likelihood that a stray anti-aircraft shell will cause casualties in northern Israel.
Sharon is an old hand at these sorts of games, so he should understand how easily they can take on lives of their own and recall how irrevocably they can undo even the most careful planning.

The continuing trials of ‘Old Europe’

By Michael Young

The Daily Star, 2/5/03

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi may come to regret an outlandish photograph taken of him with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two men met Monday at Putin’s winter lodge in Zavidovo and were caught sporting vast animal-skin headdresses, looking like a pair of raccoons.
Ridicule aside, however, Berlusconi has proven far more adept at seeing the advantages in backing an American attack against Iraq than the more solemn French president, Jacques Chirac, or the German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, whose party’s electoral losses on Sunday showed that he had milked his country’s anti-war mood dry.
As US Secretary of State Colin Powell prepares to give evidence Wednesday of Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions, France and Germany are under pressure to shift Washington’s way on a Gulf war. They attempted to organize a European mutiny against a war but were outmaneuvered last week by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who produced a letter signed by Britain, Italy, Spain and several East European countries supporting the US.
Now Paris and Berlin have a problem: They stand alone. The French plan was designed less to irk the US though that was an added pleasure than to strengthen France’s hand in bargaining over postwar Iraq. The French bluffed and lost. Worse, their wager on the German alliance was undermined by Schroeder’s defeat. Now the chancellor may have to satisfy opposition demands to mend relations with the US by changing his approach to Iraq.
Chirac’s and Schroeder’s maneuver was ham-fisted. In attempting to exhibit their strengths, France and Germany exposed their weaknesses particularly in an enlarged EU that will include new states with no desire to see the Paris-Berlin axis as the continent’s centerpiece. That was what US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meant when he scoffed at “Old Europe,” and in a hard-nosed way he was right.
The problem is that French and German nervousness about a war is legitimate. Had the French made their opposition to the US look principled rather than pragmatic, they might have been more convincing. Yet, undeniably, many in Europe, including US allies, are unsure about what US plans are in Iraq. European support for war has not translated into support for postwar US aims, mainly because these have not been clearly defined.
That’s where France and Germany, both members of the Security Council, still retain leverage. Even Blair prefers to take the UN route before going to war. He knows that the Bush administration will have to go back to the international body at some stage, perhaps to pass a second Security Council resolution authorizing force, but certainly to sanction a postwar order that will very likely involve the UN in some capacity.
Blair is convinced the US and Britain can get UN authority to use force. He may be right, with Putin having plainly shifted the onus of blame onto Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in recent days. If Russia votes in favor of a resolution, France will have no choice but to go along, or abstain, while the Chinese, who have no dogs in that fight, will do the same.
If that happens, one might watch how the Security Council’s Arab member, Syria, votes. A few months ago I asked Bouthaina Shaaban of the Syrian Foreign Ministry how Syria would react if the Security Council voted on a second resolution authorizing force. She responded that it would work within the council and had always worked within the confines of international law and the international community.
This was a deniable way of saying that Damascus would go along with the consensus. Once Saddam’s end nears it would make no sense for Syria to take political risks on his behalf at the UN, especially as it did not do so last November when it voted in favor of the far less dire Resolution 1441.
This would signal the disintegration of the anti-war alliance. It would also be a setback for an independent European policy in the Middle East, at least for the time being. Much will change, however, if the US gets bogged down in Iraq and its military presence provokes domestic discontent. The Bush administration might try to spread the responsibility then, which means wooing the Europeans.
That’s why the latest tiff between the US and “Old Europe” will soon blow over, if only after France and Germany realized their shortcomings. To make a comeback, both will need the US to display shortcomings of its own.

Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR

The buildup, the invasion and the aftermath

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 2/5/03

As commentators in the Arab press discuss possible scenarios for an American invasion of Iraq and the likely aftermath, Arab intellectuals calling for President Saddam Hussein’s removal in order to avert war are accused of inadvertently playing into the hands of the warmongers in Washington.
Joseph Samaha, editor in chief of the Beirut daily As-Safir, takes issue with a petition issued last week by an ad hoc group of intellectuals and lawyers from a number of Arab countries and Turkey, demanding the “dismissal” of the Iraqi leader as the “only way” of preventing a US attack, and proposing that UN and Arab League human rights monitors be deployed in Iraq to oversee a peaceful transition to democracy.
Samaha notes that while the signatories presumably put their names on the statement in a personal capacity, the fact is that most political and intellectual currents in the Arab world be they liberal, leftist, Islamist or pan-Arabist (including many Baathists) are not enamored of Saddam’s regime.
“Those who express a negative view of the present Iraqi regime are not, therefore, saying anything new,” he writes. “But the trouble with the statement is that the current problem regarding Iraq is not, specifically, the nature of the regime. The problem is the American drive to war. And if there is a problem with the Iraqi regime, it is that it is too weak to mobilize widely enough to make it harder for the real problem war to occur than it currently appears.”
The petitioners chose to ignore the “actual, tangible, real and current” realities of the Iraqi issue, Samaha adds. They deliberately avoided referring to America by name or commenting on its policies toward the region or its motives for wanting to invade Iraq. And while some of the signatories are known to be fierce critics of US policy, others are certainly not. The “easy way out” was for the two sides to ignore their conflicting perspectives on Washington’s motives and mount a “joint attack” on Saddam. But in practice the former group appears to have been lured into a “trap” by the latter.
“The trap lies in promoting the theory that democracy comes out of the barrel of an American gun, and that Washington is bringing with it a revolutionary program for change in the region in the positive sense of the word,” Samaha writes. Some Iraqi exiles have “appropriated the US program in the deluded belief that this can prevent the actual American appropriation of Iraq,” but the fact is that what Washington wants is a submissive regime in Baghdad. It doesn’t mind if it is democratic as well as submissive, but it would still be going to war if the present regime were democratic but defiant.
“The issue today is war. Changing the regime in favor of democracy is the noble title that has been given to this aggression, in an obtuse replay of the civilizing claims that have accompanied all colonial campaigns, including Zionism,”
The theory floated by Arab regimes that Saddam might be persuaded to step down is a reflection of their inability to mount a regional barrier to war. And the intellectuals who signed the petition have unfortunately made themselves look like “naive” clones of the “realistic” Arab rulers who have resigned themselves to “taking orders from the imperium.”
Instead of urging Arab public opinion to press for Saddam’s “dismissal,” they should have been calling for pressure to be put on the Arab regimes to do more to prevent war, says Samaha. This is a battle that can be waged without “defending the regime,” as many liberals and intellectuals in the West have been doing. But it seems that the Arab intellectuals concerned were so scared of appearing to be supporting the regime that they ended up calling on Arab public opinion to abandon what ought to be its role, and to put the cart before the horse.
“And when? In the midst of preparations for a confrontation whose real goals contradict the principles whose banner is raised.” The petition could almost be part of those preparations, for if its demand for Saddam’s resignation or dismissal is rejected, that effectively absolves the US of blame for the war it has been hell-bent on initiating all along. “Wouldn’t it have been possible for a clear stance (preventing war is the chief priority) to be combined with a correct analysis (the nature of the regime)?” Samaha asks. “Must our politics be void of morality or intellect, and our morals and intellect be void of politics?”
Examining Washington’s actual war plans, Egyptian political analyst Abdelmalek Saliman says President George W. Bush appears to have been sold an overly optimistic assessment of how quickly and easily the US can achieve its aims in Iraq.
But “war is war,” and its consequences for both Iraq and the region, as well as for the US proper, are certain to prove far graver than the Americans anticipate, he writes in Oman’s daily Al-Watan.
Saliman lists a number of risks involved for the US if it chooses the “insane option” of war: Military action will lack legitimacy, even if America browbeats members of the UN Security Council into endorsing it, because it is so obviously intended to foil the UN process of disarming Iraq by peaceful means. This is likely to heighten worldwide opposition to war, which is already intense, especially when the horrors of war become manifest and innocent lives are lost. With US forces likely to use depleted uranium-tipped ordnance and perhaps even tactical nuclear weapons, the war that Bush is counting on to secure him re-election could turn into a “moral crisis” and “political scandal” for his administration.
The Americans assume an invasion will be a walkover in military terms, such as in the 1991 war over Kuwait. But this time Iraqi soldiers will be defending their homeland against foreign invaders, and the army’s well-equipped elite units will be highly motivated to resist. The battle to take Baghdad could therefore prove costly to US forces and prove a domestic political liability to Bush especially as it would have been possible to achieve the declared objective of disarming Iraq by peaceful means.
The “prize” the Americans are anticipating, Iraq’s oil, may not be an easy catch. The oil fields may be torched to slow the advance of US forces, and the process of rebuilding the oil sector and increasing its production capacity is likely to prove much costlier and lengthier than the warmongers in Washington estimate. In the short term, war could well lead to a hike in oil prices that would worsen America’s economic recession and could cost Bush his job.
To govern post-Saddam Iraq, the Americans are planning to dismantle the country’s political structure and bring different ethnic and religious groups to the fore under a federal arrangement. This is liable to further split the “dramatically divided” anti-Saddam opposition and could herald civil war, partition or Lebanese-style anarchy. The Americans may find it impossible to remain in a turbulent conflict-ridden country in which their troops become targets for revenge attacks.
In the wider region, war on Iraq would exacerbate Arab public hostility to America. That could trigger a region-wide “explosion of anger” resembling that created by the 1948 Nakba in Palestine, as a consequence of which a succession of Arab regimes succumbed to military coups.
War on Iraq, for which there is no public support to speak of in the Arab world, would also fuel religious extremism, and encourage the proliferation of “bin Ladenesque” groups intent on exacting revenge against US interests. The hawks in the US who believe they can “domesticate” political Islam will find it becoming more militant and combative than ever.
The hawks who dominate the Bush administration do not appear to have given enough consideration to these consequences, says Saliman. They have the power to ignite a fireball in the entire region, “but they have no idea when or how it could be put out,” he says.
The Iraqi president’s eldest son Odai using one of his pen names, Abu Sirhan provides a detailed prospective war scenario for Iraqi readers in a lengthy article published in his Baghdad daily Babil.
He suggests there is a small chance that the Americans and British may limit their offensive to a re-enactment, albeit on a larger scale, of their 1998 aerial bombing campaign, “and then decide whether to keep going.”
But he says there is a “70 percent” chance that they will mount a much more sweeping offensive, which he reasons would be aimed ultimately at serving Israel’s interests. (If America’s aim is merely to gain access to Iraq’s oil, he argues, it could do that far more easily and cheaply by agreeing to lift sanctions, in exchange for which “Iraq would open up its oil markets to it.”)
He predicts the following “scenario for the likely aggression:” US forces make an amphibious landing in the far south, and mount a pincer movement to encircle Basra. Meanwhile, heavy aerial bombing in the north is followed by a thrust by American forces toward Tikrit, while Kurdish rebels move against Mosul and Kirkuk (with Masoud Barzani’s forces attacking the former and Jalal Talabani’s the latter accompanied by a small contingent of Barzani’s men to reassure him that he will have a say over the future of the city both factions consider to be the Kurdish capital). The US, he maintains, is intent on establishing a Kurdish state despite claims to the contrary.
Thus, the Americans hope to secure Iraq’s principal oil-producing region before attacking from Jordan in the west, targeting Ramadi, where they intend to set up a radio and TV station while pounding Baghdad with missiles and artillery.
“This is the most crucial of the anticipated battle fronts,” he says, as the Americans will feel that they have achieved nothing if they do not capture the capital. And if they fail to do so they may decide to opt for negotiations.
But either way, Odai predicts that “if the Americans decide to commit a new folly it will cost them dear.” The cost could be “exorbitant and exceed all their expectations,” and lead to a political setback that signals the “beginning of the eclipse of American hegemony,” he says. “What prompts us to say this is the many sources of strength and capability which Iraq possesses,” he concludes, namely, a great leader, an ancient people renowned for their steadfastness and courage, a ruling party closely bound to the masses, and a powerful army famed for its heroism and bravery.
Abdelwahab El-Affendi remarks in pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi that the campaign being planned against Iraq is so lopsided in military terms that to term it a “war” would be like “calling Mike Tyson punching a frail 10-year-old a ‘fight.’”
“This war is being planned in a way that ensures that no war occurs at all, exactly as in 1991,” he says. Rather, the aim is to ensure that the adversary has no chance of responding to the blitz, by mounting intense air and missile strikes … and dealing devastating blows to the enemy’s centers of power, airports, arms depots, command posts, fuel depots, power stations, roads, bridges etc. until it is completely paralyzed.” Baghdad’s sole option as it braces for this “post-modern war” is to await the blow in the hope of being able to absorb it and then prepare to retaliate.
Affendi says this state of affairs is, ironically, the “best advertisement” for Third World countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. With the UN incapable of invoking international law to protect small countries from attack, “nuclear blackmail becomes the last line of defense for the targeted country,” as North Korea has proven.
This also means that “post-modern wars” promise to cause immense international instability, contrary to British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s claims. Iraq will probably lose this war because the highly centralized state makes the country easy to subjugate, unlike a weak state such as Somalia. “But the world and its stability will also lose, because challenged countries will learn the Iraqi lesson like North Korea has done and will not sit back and wait to be attacked, but hit out first with all they have,” Affendi writes.

Imperialism fuels U.S. foreign policy
By Pervez Hoodbhoy | Gulf News, 05-02-2003
-

Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably in most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the true target of America's new wars. The products of Pakistan's madrasas are certain that a modern-day Richard the Lion-Heart will soon bear down upon them. They pray for a modern Saladin, who can miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back to their launchers.

Even moderate Muslims are worried. They see indicators of religious war in such things as the profiling of Muslims by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, the placing of Muslim states on the U.S. register of rogues and the blanket approval given to Israeli bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighbourhoods.

But Muslims elevate their importance in the American cosmography. The United States has aspirations far beyond subjugating inconsequential Muslim states: It seeks to remake the world according to its needs, preference and convenience. The war on Iraq is but the first step.

Militarism

High ambition underlies today's American foreign policy, and its boosters are not just in Washington. Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by America's corporate and media establishment. Main-stream commentators in the U.S. press now argue that, given its awesome military might, American ambition has up to now been insufficient.

Max Boot, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Wall Street Journal editor, wrote in the Weekly Standard that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets."

Washington Post editorial writer Sebastian Mallaby, writing in Foreign Affairs magazine, noted that the current world chaos may point to the need for an "imperialist revival," a return to the day when "orderly societies (imposed) their own institutions on disorderly ones."

Atlantic Monthly correspondent Robert Kaplan, in his book Warrior Politics, suggests that American policymakers should learn from the Greek, Roman and British empires. "Our future leaders could do worse," he writes, "than be praised for their … ability to bring prosperity to distant parts of the world under America's soft imperial influence."

Way of life

Although many Americans still cling to the belief that their country's new unilateralism is a reasonable outgrowth of "injured innocence," a natural response to terrorist acts, empire has actually been part of the American way of life for more than a century.

The difference since September 11, 2001 - and it is a significant one - is that, now that there is no other superpower to keep it in check, the U.S. no longer sees a need to battle for the hearts and minds of those it would dominate.

In today's Washington, a U.S.-based diplomat recently confided to me, the United Nations has become a dirty term. International law is on the way to irrelevancy, except when it can be used to further U.S. goals.

So although extremists on all sides - from Islamic warriors to Christian radicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to the leaders of Israel's right-wing parties - may yearn for another crusade, the counter-evidence to a civilisational war is much stronger. Examining the list of America's Muslim foes and friends over the years makes clear that it is perceived self-interest rather than ideology that has dictated its policy toward Muslim nations.

During the 1950s and 1960s, America's primary foes in the Muslim world were secular nationalist leaders, not religious fundamentalists. Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, who opposed international oil companies grabbing at Iran's oil resources, was overthrown in a coup aided by the CIA.

President Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a communist, was removed by U.S. intervention. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had militants such as Sayyid Qutb publicly executed, fell afoul of the United States and Britain after the Suez crisis.

In Afghanistan during the early 1980s, the United States aided militants on the principle that any opposition to the Soviet occupation was welcome. Then-CIA Director William Casey launched a massive covert operation after President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, which explicitly stated that Soviet forces should be driven from Afghanistan "by all means available."

Washington now acknowledges that "mission myopia," as such strategic errors have come to be known, helped contribute to the growth of a global jihad network in the early 1980s. But the cost of America's mistakes has been vastly greater than most policymakers care to acknowledge.

The network of militant organisations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved: Rather, like any good military-industrial complex, it grew stronger from its victories.

Strategic disaster

The resulting damage has been far greater to Muslims than to the Americans who unleashed it. Acts of jihad - killing tourists, bombing churches and the like - not only rob Muslims of moral authority, they are a strategic disaster. Even the September 11 operation, although perfectly planned and executed, was a colossal strategic blunder.

It vastly strengthened American militarism, gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a licence to put the Palestinian territories under virtual lock down, and allowed pogroms directed at Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat to occur with only a hint of international condemnation.

The absence of a modern political culture and the weakness of Muslim civil society have long rendered Muslim states inconsequential players on the world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is scarcely a threat to his neighbours as he struggles to save his skin.

What, then, should be the strategy for all those who believe in a just world and are appalled by America's war on the weak? While the strong can get away with anything, the weak cannot afford mis-steps. They must hew to a stern regard for morality.

Vietnam, to my mind, offers a uniquely successful model of resistance. Even though B-52s were carpet-bombing his country, North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh did not call for hijacking airliners or blowing up buses. On the contrary, the Vietnamese reached out to the American people, making a clear distinction between them and their government.

The country's leaders didn't assume - as Osama bin Laden undoubtedly would - that Americans spoke with one voice.

Jane Fonda, Joan Baez and other popular figures were invited to come and see for themselves what was happening in Vietnam, and they took what they learned back to the people at home. Had Ho thought and acted like bin Laden, his country would surely now be a radioactive wasteland, rather than a unique victor against imperialism.

Global movement

Only a global peace movement that explicitly condemns terrorism against noncombatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George Bush's madly speeding chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, New York, London, Florence, Italy, and other Western cities have brought out tens of thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human principles and peace - not fear or fanaticism - impelled these demonstrators.

It is time for people in my part of the world to ask themselves a question: Why are the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Damascus and Jakarta empty? Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang our heads in shame.

The writer is professor of high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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