Feb 8, 2003 Op Eds

Feb 8, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

The extent to which US President George Bush is fixated with Iraq will be confirmed in many minds by the way he shrugs off the increasingly bellicose threats coming out of North Korea. With its now-reactivated nuclear program and at least one if not two nuclear bombs, it is a far greater menace to world peace than Iraq. It ought to be Bush’s main concern. After all, did he not include it in his “axis of evil”?

It seems determined to live up to the description. After apparently opening up to the outside world, it suddenly admitted last October to having had a secret nuclear program, an admission that went spectacularly pear shaped when the US then halted the oil shipments which it desperately needs to keep the electricity stations running. Since then, it has removed monitoring devices at the mothballed Yongbyon nuclear plant, kicked out UN nuclear inspectors, pulled out of the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty and reactivated its nuclear program with the thinly veiled comment that it is for electricity, “at the present stage”. Now, in response to Washington’s talk about possibly strengthening its forces in the Pacific, it threatens a pre-emptive strike against the South and talks of the Korean Peninsula being reduced to ashes in nuclear conflagration. Meanwhile, although the US has agreed to its demand for face-to-face talks, it continues to repeat the demand.

These apocalyptic threats from Pyongyang should most certainly grab George Bush’s sole attention, were it not for one thing. This is about money. North Korea hopes to blackmail the US and other countries in the region, notably South Korea and Japan, into giving it aid and fuel to keep its bankrupt economy going and its Stalinist regime safe from riots and disorder. It has latched on to the Iraqi crisis, reckoning that the US cannot afford to fight on two fronts at the same time. There is probably also an element of fear that North Korea might be next in line after the US had dealt with Iraq. There may even be an element of sympathy with Baghdad; North Korea has provided it with weapons technology and would like to hold on to the market, even hope for cheap Iraqi oil. But these are lesser considerations. Dollars are what North Korean leader Kim Jong-il wants.

It is because of grim determination rather than skill that Bush has not risen to the bait. He will not be put off Iraq. Were it not for that, he would certainly have responded very differently to Pyongyang’s threats. A public enemy No. 1 is precisely what he has wanted. But then, of course, Pyongyang would not have engineered this sideshow had there been no Iraqi crisis.

This Pacific masquerade could, however, still prove disastrous. Although trying to use carrot as well as stick (despite its bellicose threats, it has just allowed South Korean tourists to venture north), dire economic necessity could force Pyongyang into more desperate measures. There may be method in its madness, but the madness should not be forgotten. Unpredictable and paranoid as well, it may decide to up the ante and test one if its missiles, as it did in 1998, or at least announce that it is going to do so, as it did in 1999. It may even be insane enough to launch a limited attack the South in the hope of gaining US attention.

Despite Washington’s agreement to talks, what is needed fast is a mediator. The most obvious ones are Russia and China. Both would like the kudos from resolving the issue and both have some leverage with Pyongyang. But not a lot. It is the North Koreans who will decide what happens next.

Leave it in Blix’s hands
By Linda S. Heard, Arab News, 2/8/03
-

We knew in advance that Secretary of State Colin Powell did not have the infamous “smoking gun”, we knew that Powell would not provide solid proof that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, but we did expect that Powell would present convincing evidence to the UN Assembly.

In reality, Powell’s presentation, although professionally delivered, merely illuminated that America has little evidence to back up their claim that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. It was a mishmash of hearsay, supposed communications intercepts, eye-witness reports, and secondhand accounts from defectors and the “disappeared” languishing in Guantanamo Bay. The latter would no doubt say that the moon was made of Feta cheese, if that would help their case. Hans Blix, in his earlier report, said that information from such defectors is not reliable.

First of all we heard a transcript of a conversation between a Republican Guard and an officer in the field where the guard asks his subordinate to clear out the scrap. He then goes on to tell him to destroy the message. What message?

Powell comments that this is part and parcel of Iraq’s policy of evasion and deceit. Given that we know for certain that the Bush administration is determined to overthrow the Iraqi regime, and is willing to go it alone if necessary, how can we be certain that this alleged intercept is genuine?

My own experience in the Middle East and the Gulf convinces me that this recording does not sound like an authentic exchange between two Arabs of differing status. First, there would have been elaborate greetings, with the junior soldier calling his superior by a respectful title, instead of just answering “na’am”, meaning “OK”. To my ears, the soldier sounded far too curt to be for real. Amer Al-Sa’adi, Saddam Hussein’s chief scientific advisor, referred to this as “manufactured evidence.” He said: “It is known as the concealment theory and the author of this theory is still around, Scott Ritter. You can ask him about the concealment theory to which Colin Powell repeatedly refers.” Al-Sa’adi derided Powell’s presentation as being “a typical American show complete with stunts and special effects”.

The secretary of state next described the high level committee set up by Iraq to monitor the inspectors, a committee headed by Foreign Minister Taha Yassin Ramadan. Again, in the light of the fact that several UNSCOM weapons inspectors were found to be American spies, why wouldn’t Iraq be cautious about allowing foreigners to run around its country unfettered on the brink of a possible war? “Orders were issued to Iraq’s security organizations to hide all correspondence with the Organization of Military Industrialization,” said Powell. He said that Hussein’s son had ordered the removal of illicit weapons from the Iraqi president’s palaces. He talked about material, which has been concealed in scientist’s home, as well as items in cars, which drive perpetually around the countryside.

Amer Al-Sa’adi, countered by saying that Hans Blix had jumped the gun talking about the document found in the scientist’s home. He said that the document was not classified, as Blix had first supposed, and that a copy of this research document had been given to a representative of the IAEA after a conference in the 1980s.

Satellite photographs: I was pleased to hear Powell saying that he found satellite photographs hard to interpret. An astute observation. A cloudy photograph of a munitions facility in Taji, taken before the latest inspections, showed decontamination vehicles driving around what he said were four active chemical munitions bunkers.

Just before the inspections, Powell said, the vehicles were nowhere to be seen, and the bunkers had been cleaned out. We have to wonder why the satellite didn’t later capture the current locations of these vans, and how every trace of chemicals could have been so completely cleared from those bunkers and the surrounding areas.

The inspectors have such sophisticated state-of-the-art testing equipment. Still if Iraq removed every single trace of illicit materials, we must surely regard it with awe for its technical expertise. America and Britain have shown us numerous satellite photographs before in relation to Iraq. On many of these occasions, Iraq immediately took reporters to the sites photographed, and each and every time they found nothing, except such innocuous items as baby milk and sugar.

Al-Sa’adi said that the inspectors, armed with similar satellite imagery, have already checked these sites and left satisfied with the answers to their questions and their test results.

Iraq is currently being threatened with a massive bombing campaign in which nothing is ruled out including the use of microwave technology, depleted uranium and even the nuclear bunker busting warheads. Baghdad is under threat. Which country on earth would wish to see its enemies’ spy planes circling overhead at a time like this? The Americans are already listening in to telephone and wireless communications, taking satellite pictures, and has admitted to the infiltration of human intelligence to pinpoint Iraq and persuade the world to rubber-stamp a war. Is Iraq just expected to lift up its skirts leaving itself exposed and vulnerable to attack?

Al-Sa’adi explained that the Iraqi government did not object to U2 flights but could not be responsible for their safety as long as British and American planes were dropping bombs over the so-called “no-fly” zones.

He asked that these incursions over Iraqi territory stop as per Resolution 1441, which provides for the maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of Iraq.

Al Qaeda: As the editor of the Arabic daily Al-Quds, Abdel Bari Atwan says, “the link with Al- Qaeda is very weak. The secretary said these links (between Al-Qaeda and Iraq) started in 95, so why didn’t Saddam pass his nerve gases to Al-Qaeda then? If Al-Qaeda had been handed these devastating weapons from Saddam Hussein they would have used these on Sept. 11 and not aircraft.”

Bari Atwan said that Osama Bin Laden once offered his services to the Saudi government to eliminate Saddam Hussein and was angered at being turned down. Given their widely differing ideologies — Saddam Hussein a secular leader and Osama Bin Laden an extremist Wahhabi, who has called Hussein “an apostate” — it is hardly unlikely that they would now be working together. Powell is crediting Saddam Hussein with adhering to the principle of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but has no evidence that this is the case.

As for Abu Musab Zarqawi, an Al-Qaeda affiliate implicated in the African embassies and the USS Cole bombings, he is based in Powell’s own words in northwestern Iraq, which is Kurdish territory protected by the United States. If Powell knows this, why doesn’t America go after him? Based on the way that the US treated the Taleban, targeting them because they were harboring Bin Laden, then why is America so reticent when it comes to the Kurdish tribes, who they say have welcomed Zarqawi into their bosom?

He said that Zarqawi spent some time in a Baghdad hospital and was soon followed by Al-Qaeda militants who are allowed to come and go as they please. Couldn’t we say the same thing about London, Paris, Milan, and yes, even Washington? Isn’t there an Al-Qaeda presence in almost every country of the world, according to United States government sources? Osama Bin Laden was reported to have undergone treatment in the American Hospital in Dubai in mid-2001 where he was visited by a CIA agent, but nobody is pointing fingers at the UAE.

Iraq’s UN ambassador said that just a few days ago the CIA reported that there are no verifiable significant links between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda members. This was backed up by the British intelligence services, which are miffed that their work is being distorted for political purposes.

Powell once again talked about the aluminum tubes, those same tubes that IAEA head Mohamed El-Baradei had investigated at length and which he declared, during his earlier presentation to the UN, as having been used to manufacture short-range ballistic missiles, not for producing fissionable material.

The dove-turned-hawk didn’t shrink from vilifying Saddam Hussein on a personal level citing “his contempt for the truth” and “his utter contempt for human life”. We again heard how Hussein used mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds (his own people they are called, even though at the time those chemicals were used, the Kurds were attempting to pull down the Baghdad regime). The Iraqi ambassador to the UN said that he was surprised about this statement since the CIA had verified years ago that Iraq didn’t have that particular type of chemical weaponry in its armory.

The secretary talked about how chemical weapons had been used on another nation, obviously talking about Iran but failed to say, that at that time Hussein had been the blue-eyed boy of Washington. America supplied Iraq not only with weapons but also with technical know-how during the Iran-Iraq War. No wonder the US grabbed the Iraqi weapons declaration document, pulling out entire sections, before it was handed over to the other Security Council members. The pages were choc-a-bloc with the names of American and British companies, which had willingly sold materials for the manufacture of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

“When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination — unless we act we are confronting an even more frightening future,” warned Powell. Detractors of American hegemony in the region and beyond may well be thinking the very same thing about the US.

Al-Sa’adi was dismissive of Powell’s claim that Iraq had pronounced many Iraqi scientists as “deceased” while they were still walking around. He challenged Powell to produce these individuals if, as he says, they were still alive, and called the American contention “ridiculous” in these days of DNA testing. “This is really below the level of a country leading the world,” he said. So which side do we believe? Both sides have a vested interest and so we should leave the final analysis in the hands of Blix and El-Baradei. After all, they are the UN-appointed experts.

There is one question that bothers me in the meantime. Why did the US come up with this so-called “evidence” at the eleventh hour?

Time is running out for Saddam Hussein, we are told over and over by the Bush-Blair partnership. Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, in his speech to the UN even parroted George Bush’s frequent use of the word “evil” pertaining to the Iraqi leader.

But what both Powell and Straw failed to mention was the horrendous human tragedy that would be suffered by the Iraqi people if the pyrotechnics begin. Iraq is not threatening its neighbors, does not want war and wants to rejoin the world community. For the sake of the Iraqi children and the stability of the region, we should keep the inspectors in place for as long as it takes and say a firm “no” to any war for regional domination, the furtherance of American hegemony and oil.

Powell at UN: Something out of Beckett
By Robert Fisk, Arab News, 2/8/03

Sources, foreign intelligence sources, “our sources,’’ defectors, sources, sources, sources. Colin Powell’s terror talk to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York Times. It was a bit like heating up old soup. Haven’t we heard most of this stuff before? Should one trust the man? Gen. Powell, I mean, not Saddam.

Certainly we don’t trust Saddam but Secretary of State Powell’s presentation was a mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone intercepts a la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some terrifying little proof that Saddam really is conning the UN inspectors again, and some ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad’s all too well known record of beastliness. I am still waiting to hear the Arabic for the State Department’s translation of “Okay Buddy’’ — “Consider it done, Sir’’ — this from the Republican Guard’s “Capt. Ibrahim”, for heaven’s sake — and some dinkey illustrations of mobile biolabs whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition that they suggested the Pentagon didn’t have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam’s army.

It was when we went back to Halabja and human rights abuses and all Saddam’s old sins, as recorded by the discredited UNSCOM team, that we started eating the old soup again. Jack Straw may have thought all this “the most powerful and authoritative case’’ but when we were forced to listen to Iraq’s officer core communicating by phone — “yeah’’, “yeah’’, “yeah?’’, “yeah...’’ — it was impossible not to ask oneself if Colin Powell had really considered the effect this would have on the outside world.

From time to time, the words “Iraq: Failing To Disarm - Denial and Deception’’ appeared on the giant video screen behind Gen. Powell. Was this a CNN logo, some of us wondered? But no, it was CNN’s sister channel, the US Department of State.

Because Colin Powell is supposed to be the good cop to the Bush-Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The Iraqi officer’s telephoned order to his subordinate — “remove ‘nerve agents’ whenever it comes up in the wireless instructions’’ — looked as if the Americans had indeed spotted a nasty new little line in Iraqi deception. But a dramatic picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon artist.

And when Gen. Powell started blathering on about “decades’’ of contact between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, things went wrong for the secretary of state. Al-Qaeda only came into existence five years ago, since Bin Laden — “decades’’ ago — was working against the Russians for the CIA, whose present day director was sitting grave-faced behind Gen. Powell. And Colin Powell’s new version of his president’s State of the Union lie — that the “scientists” interviewed by UN inspectors had been Iraqi intelligence agents in disguise — was singularly unimpressive. The UN talked to scientists, the new version went, but they were posing for the real nuclear and bio boys whom the UN wanted to talk to. Gen. Powell said America was sharing its information with the UN inspectors but it was clear on Wednesday that much of what he had to say about alleged new weapons development — the decontamination truck at the Taji chemical munitions factory, for example, the “cleaning” of the Ibn Al-Haythem ballistic missile factory on Nov. 25 — had not been given to the UN at the time. Why wasn’t this intelligence information given to the inspectors months ago?

Didn’t Gen. Powell’s beloved UN Resolution 1441 demand that all such intelligence information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately? Were the Americans, perhaps, not being “pro-active” enough? The worst moment came when Gen. Powell started talking about anthrax and the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York, pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and — while not precisely saying so — fraudulently suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 anthrax scare.

When the secretary of state held up Iraq’s support for the Palestinian Hamas organization, which has an office in Baghdad, as proof of Saddam’s support for “terror’’ — there was, of course, no mention of America’s support for Israel and its occupation of Palestinian land — the whole theater began to collapse. There are Hamas offices in Beirut, Damascus and Iran. Is the 82nd Airborne supposed to grind on to Lebanon, Syria and Iran? There was an almost macabre opening to the play when Gen. Powell arrived at the Security Council, cheek-kissing the delegates and winding his great arms around them. Jack Straw fairly bounded up for his big American hug.

Indeed, there were moments when you might have thought that the whole chamber, with its toothy smiles and constant handshakes, contained a room full of men celebrating peace rather than war. Alas, not so. These elegantly dressed statesmen were constructing the framework that would allow them to kill quite a lot of people, the monstrous Saddam perhaps, with his cronies, but a considerable number of innocents as well. One recalled, of course, the same room four decades ago when Gen. Powell’s predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photos of the ships carrying Soviet missiles to Cuba.

Alas, today’s pictures carried no such authority. And Colin Powell is no Adlai Stevenson. (The Independent)

Why Pakistan should not support a war resolution
By Nasim Zehra, Arab News, 2/8/03
-

Powell at UN: Something out of Beckett
By Robert Fisk

In case the United States opts for multilateral cover for military action against Iraq then Pakistan, as a newly inducted non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, will be put through a hard test. The United States will seek international support through the UNSC to attack Iraq. The Bush government already feels the pressure of growing anti-war opinion at home and abroad. Washington is continuing to lobby with governments, including Pakistan, who have not clearly opposed military action against Iraq.

Islamabad had until recently opted for a one line policy on Iraq. “We will support the UN decision on Iraq and we call for negotiated settlement” is how far Pakistan’s diplomacy has gone on the Iraq issue. In the many high-level meetings various policy options were examined. In the mid-January policy meeting chaired by President Gen. Parvez Musharraf and attended by Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali and all relevant ministers and agency heads, attention was focused on ways of dealing with the domestic fall-out of a US war on Iraq.

Pakistan’s support for a UNSC resolution authorizing use of military force against Iraq has not been ruled out. This should not be the case. Pakistan cannot support a UNSC resolution proposing a military attack on Iraq. There is compelling evidence and logic to demonstrate that a US attack will not achieve the objective of either global regional or indeed US security. More specifically it will not prevent production of weapons of mass destruction in the future. A US attack will alienate the Muslims from any international system calling for rule of law. Whatever the public or private positions of Muslim states, the substate actors will all reject and react against an attack on Iraq. Already the Western propaganda against an “Islamic bomb”, ignoring the Israeli and Indian nuclear arsenals and the dangerous doctrine of pre-emptive strikes with Muslim states as potential targets has unfortunately contributed to driving a deeper wedge among global citizens on religious lines.

In a context where the international opinion, especially in most European member countries of the UNSC, is against a military attack on Iraq Pakistan must review its policy. In the world of Internet where compelling anti war-arguments made by US allies like Germany France and even Russia are easily available to Internet-savvy Pakistanis, Islamabad’s decision to support military action would be even more untenable. Negotiation and dialogue through a multilateral channel as opposed to unilateral use of force is the preferable approach.

In Pakistan parties and groups of various ideological beliefs continue to oppose US military action against Iraq. This includes human rights groups think-tanks, lawyers organizations, opinion makers and some political parties. The most impressive and convincing opposition to attacking Iraq has come from Pakistan’s largest opposition party the Muttahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). The MMA leadership met with German, French, Russian and Chinese ambassadors in Islamabad to convey their opposition of US policy. In their memorandum to the European Union, the MMA has argued that the “US-Iraq tussle has put global peace in danger.” This assertion reflects the views of the religious parties, the liberals, the centrists and the leftists in Pakistan.

We should also remember that in Pakistan there is widespread resentment against Washington’s policy toward Pakistan.

In short, Pakistan must abstain from voting for any UNSC resolution calling for military action against Iraq. The most recent statement from Islamabad calling for more time to UN inspectors and advocating a route that ensures the security of the innocent people of Iraq, is an encouraging development. Islamabad should move forward, leaving behind fear and misplaced faith in the United States as its partial security guarantor, to opt for a policy option that will protect preserve and promote Pakistan’s national security including its dignity and stature.

The battle may be won, but it won’t make us safer
By Adrian Hamilton, The Independent, Arab News
-

To listen to the way that the names of Adlai Stevenson and Winston Churchill are being thrown about, you would think that the world was facing a superpower in Iraq. Not to fight Saddam Hussein would be an act of cowardice is the implication. In reality we know — at least according to Donald Rumsfeld — that the Americans are expecting it to be a quick victory. A couple of hundred missiles and the first assault of the US Marines, and it will all be over.

For all I know, the armchair generals of Washington may be right. Most military historians will tell you that the road to war is paved with the bones of those sacrificed to the cry of “it will all be over in a week.” But it is a great mistake for those who oppose war to do it on the grounds of huge casualties or loss of civilian life. In the desert he who has air superiority is king and if you have the technology as well as the firepower of America, it is difficult to foresee the Iraq Army being able to put up much of a fight. We’re in the paradoxical situation in which the only weapons Iraq has to fight back with are those it has hidden (no wonder it’s reluctant to give them up).

It is perfectly possible, too, to envisage the population of that long oppressed country greeting the invader with cries of joy and garlands on his tanks. We know enough from the fall of Ceausescu and Erich Honecker to understand that tyrannies tend to be like empty egg shells — once cracked, they collapse completely.

And yet it is precisely because the triumph may be so complete and the desire for a different and more democratic future so strong, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, that this war remains not just wrong but deeply dangerous.

There is a general mood of change in the Middle East. On that President Bush and his architect of restructuring in the Middle East, Paul Wolfowitz, are right. You only have to speak to young Iranians, and Gulf Arabs today to feel how powerful is the mood for political reform.

What they will get instead, of course, is a Western army of America and its white allies marching into an Arab capital with the declared intention of occupying the country for three years or more, and all in the name not of democracy but US security. The superiority of Western arms will have been established to the humiliation once more of the Arabs, .

Liberation from tyranny may be a side-effect, but it is not the stated objective, which is the removal of weapons of mass destruction, nor even the more general aim, which is to make the Middle East a more secure world for America to live in. If Washington now talks of occupation, it does so in order to maintain the unitary state of Iraq in answer to Turkish fears of Kurdish nationalism and worries about Shiite independence. Democracy, but not self-determination.

There has been a certain amount of pleading by those liberals in favor of war arguing that the invasion must be followed by a general policy of democratizing the area and seeking a settlement on the Palestinian question. And, of course, Washington might hope that conquering Baghdad will have a ripple effect around its neighbors.

It has to be said, however, that there isn’t the faintest sign that Washington is planning such a benign world. Security concerns finger Syria and Iran for “regime change”. But Bush has no interest in seeing democracy in those countries that are not Israel’s enemies — Jordan or Egypt, for example. Nor has he shown any interest, despite Tony Blair’s urgings, to restrain Israel. Most Palestinians now genuinely expect that invasion of Iraq will be used by Ariel Sharon to increase his “incursions” into Palestinian territory and even conduct a full takeover of Gaza and Ramalla.

Should Israel do that, or worse follow the wishes of some Cabinet ministers and embark on mass expulsions from the West Bank, nobody in the Middle East believes that America will intervene other than with words. As the Arab world has learned to its cost, there is one law for Washington’s enemies and one for its friends where UN resolutions are concerned.

Far from being greeted as a liberation, occupation of Baghdad will be seen throughout the Islamic world as an exercise in American power. Politics will be further radicalized, the pro-Western reformers in places like Egypt and Iran will be marginalized, the anti-American rhetoric in the streets will grow more clamorous. Against America’s absolute military might, terror will seem the only way of fighting back, just as it has been in the occupied territories.

Instead of aiding a part of the world toward peace, stability and democracy, we will have betrayed the very cause we claim to be espousing. Instead of increasing security for the West, we will have destroyed it. (The Independent)

Drumbeat of war drowns out dissent
By S Nihal Singh, Khaleej Times
February 7 2003

NOW that the looming tragedy of an American-led invasion of Iraq is only weeks away, the world's attention has shifted towards one of its cataclysmic consequences: the future of Europe. Although Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair has been able to split the European Union on Iraq to mitigate his own loneliness on the continent, the consequences of America's rush to war will be deep and abiding.

The truth is that the European debate on its future shape has been sharpened by the George W. Bush administration's penchant for unilateralism, the newly unveiled strategy of pre-emption, a contempt for dissent from states and the relegation of Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Europe is to expand from 15 to 25 and Americans are now fastening on to the new members from the other side of the old Iron Curtain to win friends and influence people.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already pitted 'old Europe' (France and Germany) against 'new Europe' whose love for the European Union and Nato springs from its historical fears of the old Soviet Union and its wounded but potentially powerful remnant, Russia. It is no coincidence that Hungary is being used as a training ground for rebel Iraqi fighters. But the widening gulf between the overwhelming majority of Europeans, including Britons and Italians and Portuguese, whose governments have signed a letter of loyalty to President Bush, and the American élite has reached alarming proportions.

Proof of this gulf is the belief of even liberal members of the American establishment that European opposition to an American-led war against Iraq reveals jealousy from countries that were once powerful and are now weak. In other words, such is the power of the United States that it must set timetables for war and peace, treating opposition with contempt. There is little doubt that America will prevail militarily and is in no mood to count the political costs.

The divide between Europe and America on Iraq, despite US proxy Britain and the inclination of the right-wing governments of Italy, Portugal and Denmark, has implications for the continent's future relationship with Washington. The demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the post-Cold War era. This in turn gave way to the post-September 11 world in which American rage over the spectacular terrorist strikes on American soil led to a redefinition of its global objectives based on its unsurpassed military might.

Until recently, few dissenting voices have been raised in the US and it took former US president Jimmy Carter to warn his fellow countrymen about the administration's policy causing a wave of anti-Americanism around the world, not restricted to Arab and Muslim lands. Never has Nelson Mandela been as trenchant in his criticism of an American president as he has of Bush. Europe has been drawing its own conclusions, with the Bush administration striking down the Kyoto protocol on environment, the International Criminal Court and the landmark ABM treaty while promoting its concept of missile defence. And it was with some disbelief that Europeans watched the US administration's a la carte approach to picking and choosing partners while disdaining Nato in Afghan operations.

Americans are betting on their belief that when it comes to the crunch, Europeans, including Russia and perhaps France, will climb on the bandwagon so as not to be left out of the post-war Iraqi oil bonanza that will be distributed by the Bush administration. Even if American hopes were to be realised, they would not alter the growing Europe-America divide. There will always be the 'new Europeans' clutching at American coat-tails for their own reasons, but Bush has broken the long post-World War II compact with Europe and must face the consequences.

We are no longer living in the world in which the West Europeans' fear of an all-powerful enemy kept them in line with American interests and directives. The new threat of terrorism is more amorphous and most Europeans tend to disagree with Washington on the root cause of this phenomenon. It is the American policy of bolstering the state of Israel in its occupation of Palestinian land, despite the level of oppression and military suppression of Palestinians, that has been highlighted by the compact between the Bush administration and Israel's Ariel Sharon.

Flowing from the blatant bias in America's dealings with Israelis and Palestinians is Bush's approach to the United Nations. Bush is not the first US president to treat the UN as a dispensable commodity. For more than a decade, the US wilfully defaulted in paying its obligatory dues, employing them as a lever of influence. Washington forced the UN to accept a pliable secretary-general and imposed a self-declared scale of dues before Bush's assumption of office. Bush's singular contribution has been to declare from the UN pulpit that the organisation would become irrelevant if it did not do America's bidding on Iraq.

In the short term, there is little Europe can do to disengage from its present alignments with the US. Rather, the changes will take effect gradually, in stages. As Americans constantly remind Europeans, they are weak while the US is all powerful. For one thing, the incentive for getting the European Rapid Reaction Force up and running will grow. Second, Nato will tend to wither away, rather than be dissolved. Proliferating membership is one method of consigning a military organisation to irrelevance.

What of the European Union's own expansion? A constitutional commission will unveil its recommendations on the future structure this year, but France and Germany, the traditional motor of European progress, have already agreed on the contentious Common Agricultural Policy and on the institution of a two-headed presidency. A defining moment will be in deciding on Turkey's membership of the European community.

Musharraf's big challenge
By Mushaid Hussain, Khaleej Times
February 7 2003

AFTER nearly two decades, a Pakistani president will be visiting Moscow in a bid to build a better bond between the two countries, which have had an estranged relationship although they live in the same neighbourhood. Gen Pervez Musharraf goes to Russia tomorrow on an invitation from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The last time a Pakistani president was in Moscow was during the 1980s, when Gen Zia ul Haq went there for the funerals of dead Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko. During this period, the geopolitical map of the region has changed although some irritants and concerns remain.

The Soviet Union is no more. Instead, 16 sovereign states, including six Muslim ones close to Pakistan's north, dot the regional map. But despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pakistan's relations with Moscow have never been renewed with fresh vigour and concerns on either side have not been laid to rest. For instance, Russia remains the biggest arms supplier to Pakistan's adversarial neighbour, India. And in the past, while the Taleban regime was in place in Afghanistan, Moscow accused Pakistan of encouraging the struggle in Chechnya.

Both countries have had a chequered relationship.

In 1971, Pakistan felt Moscow's alliance with New Delhi was instrumental in the break-up of the country and the creation of Bangladesh.

In 1991, Moscow felt that Pakistan's role was crucial, as a frontline state in concert with the United States in the Afghan war. In resisting the Red Army's occupation, it served as a catalyst that helped unravel the Soviet Union, which led to the creation of 16 independent states, including the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan plus Azerbaijan. But despite the end of the Cold War, the old mindset has been predominant in shaping perception and policy - and under this mindset, Moscow and Islamabad have continued to view each other as adversaries. In the current context, Pakistan-Russia relations and the impending visit of President Musharraf should be seen in light of three developments.

First, Pakistan's foreign policy is being re-oriented with a greater focus on the region it is located in. Last month's visit of Iran's President Mohammad Khatami, the gas pipeline accord between Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, the Kabul Declaration of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness of December 22, to which Pakistan is a signatory, are all steps toward a regional-based foreign policy - of which Musharraf's Moscow mission is an integral component.

Second, in the aftermath of regime change in Afghanistan and the ongoing war on terrorism, Russia is also seeking a greater political and economic role in the region, where it fears being displaced by the United States. For the first, US military presence in states like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is a reality that is likely to endure, in Russia's vicinity. Moscow has beefed up its relations with China, Iran and Afghanistan - and the invitation to Musharraf is part of this pattern of reaching out. Moscow wants to retain and expand its clout in a friendlier regional environment, and improved relations with Pakistan would be a political plus.

Third, the India factor impinges on both sides of the relationship. Pakistan is keen that Moscow establishes a 'balance' in ties with the two subcontinental rivals. Russia is eager to project itself as an 'honest broker' friendly to both, rather than a country with a tilt towards one side. Moscow's actions last year were illustrative in this context. For instance, during the height of the India-Pakistan military stand-off in June 2002, Putin took the initiative of inviting both Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to Moscow for a dialogue to defuse tensions.

Pakistan accepted the offer while India spurned it. Nevertheless, Putin did emerge in new light as a leader keen to mediate. On October 14, 2002, Russia also welcomed general elections in Pakistan as a "reaffirmation of President Musharraf's commitment to restore democracy". During the same period, Moscow supported the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline project, much to India's chagrin. New Delhi was then said to be so incensed that a scheduled visit of Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani to Moscow was cancelled in October 2002.

However, Moscow's ties with New Delhi were back on track after Putin's strident comments regarding the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal" at a joint Press briefing with US President George W Bush in St Petersburg on November 17, 2002. These were followed by similar statements in December during his sojourn in New Delhi.

Given this context, expectations on both sides are low-key. Rather than seeking any breakthroughs, Pakistan would like a restoration of a more normal, even cordial, businesslike rapport. This is buttressed by the fact that there is no fundamental conflict of interest between the countries on any issue, the last being the Taleban irritant that is no longer the case. Pakistan also feels that two of its closest friends who were adversaries of Moscow in the Cold War, are now close friends of Russia - China and Iran.

Russian reciprocity should be in the offing, more so in the economic realm, since Moscow is feeling squeezed out in the Iraq situation as well, with an impending war initiated by the United States likely to threaten Russian energy interests in Iraq. An added incentive for cooperation in the political field on both sides is the fact that Pakistan will be sitting in the UN Security Council for the next two years. Both have already taken a similar position on the expected US-led war on Iraq, supporting the need to give UN inspectors more time for the examination of Iraqi sites.

But even though it may be low-key, a jarring note in the relationship could be Moscow's handling of Chechnya, a cause that evokes popular support among Pakistanis.

In 2000, a prominent leader of the Chechen resistance made a high-profile visit to Pakistan. This, even though Pakistan supports Russian territorial integrity and knows that Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian Federation.

What does Washington mean by ‘reshaping’ the Middle East?

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 2/8/03

While barely noticed by the Western media, US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks about how the aftermath of war on Iraq could “fundamentally reshape” the Middle East are big news in the Arab world.
Front-page headlines portray his forecast that American “success” in Iraq may transform the region “in a powerful, positive way that will enhance US interests” as more of a statement of future intent a threat, even than a prediction.
“Powell: After Iraq, we’ll reshape the region,” headlines the Beirut daily An-Nahar. Or as pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi puts it: “Powell: Region to be reshaped ‘in America’s favor’ following occupation of Iraq.”
In its main editorial, Al-Quds al-Arabi sees the US secretary of state’s remarks as vindicating the view that the impending invasion of Iraq is not about ridding the country of alleged weapons of mass destruction, but about reordering the region in accordance with the US administration’s agenda and that of its strategic ally, Israel.
The “reshaping” could entail many things, such as “drawing new geographical and demographic maps, partition along racial and ethnic lines, and nurturing the emergence of brand-new entities, just as the Sykes-Picot and San Remo agreements did during World War I,” it says.
The paper sees the newfound interest of George W. Bush’s administration in advocating democracy in the region as one of its “weapons” in this endeavor, which it could use to “dismantle some existing states.” It notes that “a number of US officials have spoken of the need to change the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt after the Iraqi regime is replaced, while Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been pressing for similar change to be enforced in Syria, thus leading to the reformulation of its relations with Lebanon and its government.”
Al-Quds al-Arabi reasons that as Washington considers its two top priorities in the region to be oil and Israel’s regional supremacy, these can be expected to guide the regional “reshaping” process it undertakes.
After seizing Iraq’s oil, the next step will be to gain control over Saudi Arabia’s massive reserves, it predicts. Hence the idea floated by former CIA chief James Woolsey of splitting the kingdom into three separate states: Hejaz, Najd and the oil-rich Shiite eastern province of Ihsa. The latter would have most of the oil, the paper says, but would not be able to defend itself, so would become a virtual US protectorate, like Kuwait.
As for Israel, once Washington removes the regime in Baghdad and takes over the region, other Arab governments will hasten to establish full ties with the Jewish state “in search of protection and in the hope of avoiding the process of change.” That will enable the US to enforce a one-sided settlement to the Palestine question that suits its interests, on terms laid out by Sharon leading to a “mutant” Palestinian state lacking sovereignty, Al-Quds al-Arabi says.
As-Safir editor in chief Joseph Samaha says those Arabs who expect the United States to change things for the better in the region are deluding themselves.
He identifies one category of “Arab optimists” whom he says “mistake the United States for Santa Claus.” They believe that once he occupies Iraq, Bush will abandon his aversion to nation-building and commit himself to the country’s future, using its resources for its people’s benefit and encouraging them to exercise their freedom.
They feel proud that the US administration has chosen them as instruments of its “civilizing mission” and as an example to other Arabs and Muslims. They argue that the status quo in the Arab world is unsustainable: The US fears it because it spawns terrorism, and the people of the region suffer from it because all their governments have brought them is repression and backwardness. Therefore, anything that emerges from the coming “earthquake” is better than the current situation
These “Arab optimists” also imagine that once it is in control of Iraq, the US will be so dominant in the region that it will no longer need Israel as its surrogate, and for the sake of regional stability will provided the Arabs are cooperative over Iraq force it to agree to the “road map” leading to a Palestinian state by 2005.
“So the optimists expect two gifts from America: democracy for the Arabs and a state for the Palestinians,” Samaha writes.
But there is another school of Arabs who don’t fully share this rosy view, and expect America to opt for a “trade-off.” These “semi-optimistic” Arabs don’t think a war on Iraq is justified but believe the US is determined to mount one regardless, primarily to seize Iraq’s oil. This, they say, will strengthen its hand vis-a-vis both its adversaries in the region and its recalcitrant friends, enabling it to demand that they implement its agenda and “change their education syllabuses; promote the culture of tolerance; participate in the financial ‘war on terror;’ bring facets of corruption under control; put pressure on extremists and curb their movements; embrace Palestinian reform; liberalize their economies etc.”
These “semi-optimistic” Arabs don’t deny that an invasion of Iraq will create a backlash in the Arab and Muslim worlds, which even if it falls short of an “explosion” is likely to fuel terrorism. But they reason that this will be all the more reason for America to pressure Israel to seek a fair political settlement with the Arabs, Samaha adds.
“Thus, as the semi-optimists see it, the US will have gained Iraq (and the sources of energy), but we will have gained a Palestinian state. They could also add that we will have finally found a more intelligent way of operating than using the oil weapon.
“What we have here are two degrees of self-delusion,” Samaha writes. The optimists, assuming they are sincere, are daydreaming. And the semi-optimists are trying to salve consciences, believing that since American aggression against Iraq is unavoidable, we may as well obtain a Palestinian state as part of the spoils, he says. “The spoils are conditional, of course, on our not standing in the way, and on convincing ourselves there’s been a fair exchange so long as the outcome is, ultimately, the ‘loss’ of a dictatorial state in Iraq and the gain of a state in Palestine that is … democratic.”
Lebanese commentator Saad Mehio writes in the UAE daily Al-Khaleej that reordering the rest of the Middle East will be a pressing priority for the Americans once they seize control of Iraq.
He reasons that the US troops poised to march on Baghdad are likely to remain there for a long time, even a decade or more, according to some American analysts. There are several reasons for this.
For one thing, Iraq is rich in oil, unlike impoverished Afghanistan. And all of Washington’s reported military and political plans for the country concur that its oil will be used both to defray the costs of the US invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, and to finance Iraq’s reconstruction. US control of Iraq and its oil is also part of a broader and longer-term strategy for controlling the world economy, he says.
Moreover, “Washington intends to transform Mesopotamia into a bridgehead for redrawing all the contours of the Middle East, be they political, economic, ideological or cultural.” And this latter objective is likely to be upgraded in importance “immediately after the mission is accomplished in Baghdad, due to a combination of logistical, security, strategic and political considerations,” Mehio says.
“The minute American forces establish their presence in the Abbasid capital, they will discover that they need to acquire geographical and security depth for themselves in the neighboring countries. That means their ‘Pax’ will have to be extended to embrace Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia,” he reasons.
“On the strategic-political front, these forces will play the role of the whip, or the stick that facilitates the task of the American carrot in persuading Arab regimes to change their skins of their own volition or else. Moreover, US forces will not be able to remain in Iraq for long if their presence is not turned into part of the framework of a new regional order a Baghdad Pact Mark II, for example, that bestows legitimacy on their deployment there.”
Mehio says this promises to bring about a fundamental change in the nature of the US presence in the Arab world. Hitherto, America has wielded enormous influence in the region while remaining largely invisible, like a “giant ghost.” Its previous direct military interventions in the region were limited in scope and duration. And even in Afghanistan it has resisted pressure to assume charge of security outside the capital, Kabul, other than dispatching special forces units to look for or flush out Al-Qaeda people.
Things promise to be very different in Iraq, turning the US presence in the Middle East from a “ghostly giant into a visible, audible and tangible giant.” For the first time in the history of Arab-American relations, the two sides will be in immediate physical contact. Some will call this neocolonialism and others will liken it to America’s experience in postwar Germany or Japan. Only time will tell which description is more apt, Mehio writes. “But one thing is for sure: After the Iraq war, America will no longer be able to toy in secret with the region’s fate. All the cards will be flying in the air, and all the games will be exposed.”
Jordanian columnist Tarek Massarwa writes that the Arab regimes are behaving as though their main concern is to dissuade the Bush administration from targeting them for “regime change” after Iraq.
He points to moves which indicate that a number of key Arab states officially opposed to war on Iraq are positioning themselves to support it including editorials in Egypt’s leading semi-official daily denouncing the Baghdad regime, and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal’s current travels around the world.
For the Arab regimes, Massarwa writes in Al-Quds al-Arabi, the war on Iraq is about more than the invasion of an Arab country and the destruction of the lives of million of Arabs, Turks and Iranians. It is about “pre-empting the post-Saddam phase in order to save their heads.”
Massarwa says the Saudi foreign minister’s visits to Washington, London, Paris and Moscow have a different objective to the diplomatic shuttling he undertook during the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis. At the time, he tailed the late King Hussein around world capitals in order to foil the king’s efforts to rally support for an “Arab solution” that would end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait peacefully.
This time, however, the Saudis are not trying to sabotage a peaceful solution but promote one. They want an “Arab solution” to the crisis and have openly requested that the Arab states be given a chance to try one even after the UN Security Council has adopted a resolution authorizing military action. And it is clear that this solution envisages “a kind-hearted invitation to the Iraqi leadership to depart, leaving Baghdad in divine care and the oil in safe hands that have undertaken to hold it in trust for the people.”
Massarwa expects next month’s Arab summit to issue such a call for the Iraqi leadership to “sacrifice” for the sake of the country and its people. That may be why the meeting has been moved from Manama to Cairo, “the capital of the Arabs.” Or else the call may be made by Arab foreign ministers at their earlier gathering, in order to avoid embarrassing their leaders who less than a year ago signed the Beirut Declaration calling for Iraq’s rehabilitation and strongly opposing any attack on the country.
But what Arab leaders conveniently ignore is that even if Saddam listens to them, the US is planning to assume direct control of Iraq proper. It doesn’t mind the Arabs calling for the Iraqi president’s departure as part of the “psychological war” aimed at blaming his “refusal to sacrifice” for the coming carnage. It would welcome the opportunity to achieve its goals without war if it can use an “Arab solution” to bring Iraq to its knees and set the stage for an American occupation, Massarwa writes.
“The Arabs rejected an ‘Arab solution’ for the issue of Kuwait and invited American troops to liberate it because they wanted to be rid of the legacy” of pan-Arab nationalism once and for all, he remarks. “Now, the Arabs are demanding an ‘Arab solution’ to the issue of Iraq because they are prepared to bury Iraq in order to save tottering regimes.”

U.S. should target Israel
Gulf News, 08-02-2003
-

As Colin Powell spoke out against Iraq on Wednesday night at the UN Security Council, many of the points he listed against Iraq could equally well have been transferred to a speech which he will never make, announcing American intention to take military action against Israel to deal with Israel's flouting of UN Resolutions, of owning weapons of mass destruction, and of crimes against humanity.

   Israel has ignored many UN resolutions, going back to 242, which established the principle of Israel returning Arab land in return for peace. Israel has continued to occupy the land that it took by force decades ago, and has illegally converted it to its own uses. Israel has developed a unilateral nuclear weapons programme, which is not open to international inspection and ignores long established treaties. Israel has also repeatedly committed crimes against humanity in its massacring, mass arrests and deportations, and communal punishments.

   The U.S. has not protested at this continued disdain for UN and international standards. The U.S. has not stopped its aid, cut diplomatic relations, nor imposed sanctions and moved to military action against Israel. Instead it has continued to give military and economic help to Israel as it has for years, despite the horrors of the Israeli reaction to the second Intifada.

   Late last year, the Arab community took comfort from watching George W Bush come to the UN in September, and ask for what become UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq. They hoped for a precedent of America taking a new interest in enforcing UN resolutions, which could be used to enforce the resolutions passed against Israel. Now this looks a hopeless dream. The U.S. is set to proceed against Iraq, and it is doing so with minimal regard for what the UN might think.

   All the determination that Powell and the whole U.S. administration is displaying against Iraq will never be moved against Israel, and America will lose through this. America is well able to push its military campaign through, but it cannot force political acceptance of the imposed peace afterwards. It will need Arab support in the region, and it will not get the full support that rebuilding Iraq will need if the U.S. continues to pour money and trust into Sharon's Israel.

Wrong means will not lead to right results
By Kuldip Nayar, Gulf News, 08-02-2003
-

"Oil is cheap but technology costly." This was President Saddam Hussain's remark to Inder Kumar Gujral, then foreign minister, during a conversation in Baghdad before the last Gulf War 12 years ago.

What the Iraqi President was trying to convey was that although oil was the basic commodity, processing it had been purposely priced high by exploitative developed countries. Today the most powerful among them, the U.S., is so blatant and aggressive that it is wanting to control the basic commodity itself.

Saddam played into America's hands last time when he occupied Kuwait. The horrified world supported Washington in its crusade against Iraq. Even at that time the U.S. would have captured Iraq – and its oil – if Baghdad had not capitulated suddenly without giving Washington any leeway. The pressure by the Allies too worked when the original purpose to liberate Kuwait had been served.

A similar type of opposition is building against President Bush who is pushing the world into a war when his demand to disarm Iraq can be met peacefully. Most leading world powers suspect that the U.S. is hell bent upon ousting Saddam who has defied its control over oil and not even allowing inspectors enough time to search for weapons of mass destruction.

And how does one cope with America's statement that it has "some secret information" about Iraq's weapons which it will not share? Going by the statements President Bush has made recently, it looks as if his anger is not confined to Iraq alone. If the news leaks are any guide, Washington may well redraw West Asia's map, something which the West did in 1916 after World War I. Oil is in Iraq and all around.

Arrogance of power seems to be the only explanation. This attitude makes the entire third world insecure. A case can be built against any country any day and there comes America to carry out the agenda it has in mind.

It is a horrifying scenario for weak, fledgling nations. It is nobody's case that the weapons of mass destruction should remain in the hands of Saddam who has tended to throw his weight about in the region.

But it is also nobody's case that Washington should come to control West Asia, including its oil. Should such an eventuality take place, the countries as far as Japan would be dependent on America. Probably, Washington wants it that way. Still the point at issue is not Saddam's defiance, which came to an end when he gave access to UN inspectors but Bush's dictation which reminds one of the old gunboat diplomacy days.

The fight against terrorism, the raison d'etre of America's declaration of war after the destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York has been pushed into the background. And it is not only Iraq but much more: the right of peoples and nations to determine their own destiny free from military coercion by great powers.

It is apparent that America has its own agenda which poses great dangers to the people of the world. The programme begins with West Asia. The glimmer of hope is the series of demonstrations in the West.

Hundreds of thousands of people have marched on the streets of America and Europe to raise their voice against war. This sustains confidence that peace has a strong lobby despite the hysteria which the U.S. government has built.

In an e-mail message, some American Veteran soldiers have said: "In the last Gulf War, as troops, we were ordered to murder from a safe distance. We destroyed much of Iraq from the air, killing hundreds of thousands, including civilians. We remember the road to Basra – the Highway of Death – where we were ordered to kill fleeing Iraqis. We bulldozed trenches, burying people alive. The use of depleted uranium weapons left the battlefields radioactive."

The UK is no different. Its voice goes silent when Washington articulates its hawkishness. Both are back to the days of Anglo-Saxon imperialism. I recall that when the preparations for an attack on Iraq were going on, Foreign Secretary Hurd summoned me to his office.

I was then India's High Commissioner to the UK. He insinuated that New Delhi was sending weapons to Baghdad through the food ships which the UN had allowed on humanitarian grounds. Even when told that it was not true he informed me that the ships would be searched.

It was obvious that the decision had been taken before our meeting. The ships were searched and nothing was found on them. Hurd's summoning me was meant to convey to India that it was out of step with the UK and America which were all set to chastise Saddam. We did not act at that time. Nor are we going to do anything now because we dare not annoy Washington lest it should turn against us on Kashmir or nuclear weapons.

In fact, New Delhi is said to have decided to take 'a pragmatic line' whatever that means. It would not criticise America publicly and 'keep its own counsel'. This rules out any anti-war effort which Iraq expects from India. 'Some gesture' was what the Iraq Speaker wanted from India when he talked to some MPs at Delhi.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has made some noises to go on record. Had a person like Jawaharlal Nehru been on the scene, he would have harnessed opinion against the British-U.S. combination as he did against the UK and France on the Suez in 1960 when they attacked Egypt to capture the canal. They had to withdraw in humiliation. Also what happened in Hungary those days demonstrated that the desire for national freedom is stronger than an ideology and cannot ultimately be suppressed.

Violence cannot possibly lead today to a solution of any major problem because violence has become much too terrible and destructive. If the society we aim at cannot be brought about by big-scale violence, will small-scale violence help? Surely not. Partly because that itself may lead to big-scale violence and partly because it produces an atmosphere of conflict and of disruption.

Apart from these considerations the basic thing, I believe, is that wrong means will not lead to right results and that this is no longer an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition. America should realise it even though India is not a country which can show the mirror to others because it has lost in structure and moral authority.

This comment is by Kuldip Nayar, a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK and a Rajya Sabha MP.

Days of sitting on the fence over for Canada
By Nihal Kaneira, Gulf News, 08-02-2003
-

Politicians are saying it and most analysts have no doubt about it. This is a defining moment for Canada. With the President George W. Bush ready to pull the trigger on Baghdad any day now, the days of sitting on the fence are over. It is decision time in Canada. In another week or two, at most, Ottawa will have to put caution to the winds and say where it is going on Iraq.

The decision is not easy. There are no good options. The government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien has to either climb aboard the Bush bandwagon for an invasion of Iraq that most Canadians want no part of, or stay out and risk riling the superpower next door. And the superpower seems in no mood to forgive and forget these days, especially friends and allies who stray from the solidarity path.

It is the ultimate Hobson's choice for Canada. Either way, Chretien stands to lose face - with the ruling Liberal's powerful support base, the vast masses of new immigrants, the intellectual elites or trade union groups; or with the Washington establishment with which Canada has long claimed to have a special relationship, being America's strategic ally and economic partner, sharing the world's longest and busiest border.

Unless, of course, Iraq's Presi-dent Saddam Hussain decides to go into exile, a prospect that increasingly seems unlikely.

For months now, Ottawa has managed to avoid this D-Day. The government was able to do that first by insisting that Bush should show a link between Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida and Iraq, and then calling on the White House to work through the United Nations to send UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq to search for the purported weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

In fact, the prime minister is often fond of boasting that Canada was instrumental in getting Bush to take the issue to the UN.

Bush has now done both - gone to the UN and established a link between Al Qaida and Baghdad - though the evidence that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented last Wednesday to demonstrate this link is far from convincing. In fact, the evidence is considered here to be very weak and circumstantial.

But Powell's lengthy presentation, together with Bush's reluctant endorsement of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's move to seek a second UN resolution on Iraq, has intensified the pressure on Canada to make up its mind and join a U.S.-led coalition against Iraq.

Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix's report to the Security Council last month, supported more or less by Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), that Baghdad is not cooperating, has also had the effect of undercutting Canada's argument that Washington should not rush to war and should give UN arms inspectors sufficient time to do their job.

Unless Blix and El Baradei are able to present a more positive report with respect to Iraqi cooperation on disarmament when they come to the Security Council next week, Canada is about done with arguments.

Ottawa has no option but to come down from the fence on one side or the other. The government cannot stay aloof any longer, not when even the French are starting to hedge their bets on a second UN resolution supporting military action against Baghdad.

Besides, by the time the Security Council meets, Bush would have formally asked Chretien to join his anti-Iraq coalition. Powell and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld have already hinted at this at separate meetings with Chretien's Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, and Defence Minister John McCallum, respectively last month. That means this is crunch time for Ottawa.

Chretien could tell Bush that Canada is sitting this one out because UN inspectors have found no "smoking gun" in Iraq. He could say that war should be the last resort, not the first choice, and that inspectors should be given all the time they need to disarm Iraq. That would be a principled position for Canada to take, and most Canadians would applaud him for that. But what would be the consequences for Canada?

As Toronto Star columnist James Travers urged last week, the moral position for Ottawa to take is to say no to war. Such a decision would pit interests against image, economics against morality, and it would largely determine if Canada's place is on this continent or in a larger world, he said, and added.

"In the absence of proof, Canada can and should stand with Europe, not its closest friend and neighbour. It can make that decision wisely and without undue fear for its most important relationship."

But this is easier said than done. Canada is too close to the U.S. and too far from Europe or anyone else. Canadians and Americans also share more than a continent. They share a way of life as well and are partners in Nato, Nafta and half a dozen other continental defence treaties.

Eighty-seven per cent of the country's exports go across the border, and millions of Canadians work in the United States and see themselves as "cousins" in the mirror that Americans hold. Out of that mirror, their reflection would diminish to near irrelevance.

That is one part of it. The other is, unlike any conflict in the past, a war with Iraq will be a much bigger deal than getting rid of some alleged weapons of mass destruction. Americans see it not only as getting rid of a major player in the Middle East that Washington can no longer tolerate, but also toppling the regime in Baghdad and installing a new one. For them, it is also about realigning the world order and how power is disciplined in the different regions.

In this context and in the context of other recent events, solidarity counts much more for Americans now than ever before. Barely 16 months removed from the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and one week after the Columbia tragedy, they seem like a traumatised people who are feeling the need for real friends to rally round them. They are unlikely to look kindly on allies, especially neighbours, who turn their back on them now.

Canadians who have been traveling in the United States recently, see major challenges ahead for Canada, if Ottawa opts out of a U.S.-led coalition against Iraq precisely for this reason. They say that Americans are paying great attention to Canada, and would be horrified, if Ottawa decides to side with Europeans who are not only opposing U.S. military action against Iraq, but also increasingly consider themselves to be morally superior to them.

To be sure, the United States is peering at the world - and Iraq - through a different prism. It is not a view that Canadians want to share. Waging war is inconsistent with Canadian ideals, their goal of moderation and tolerance, their desire to be peacekeepers rather than war-mongers.

But their problem is to articulate this difference without seeming to be siding with a bunch of European allies who have taken it upon themselves to challenge Washi-ngton for a share of its power and influence in the world. Any mis-step in conveying the Canadian vision, any misinterpretation in this regard would have both short-term and long-term consequences for Canada.

In the short-term, Washington could very well lash out at Canadians by slapping entry-exit requirements on them at the U.S.-Canada border, the crossing point of more than 200 million people a year and $2 billion worth of trade a day.

The Chretien government is seeking exemptions for Canadians, both citizens and landed immigrants, but the Americans have so far not agreed, although the system is not being enforced on Canadian citizens yet. Getting exemptions for Canadians and their trucks is a top priority for the Canadian government because the economy here revolves around keeping the border open for Canadian goods.

The long-term repercussions maybe even worse. It might mean either political isolation for Canada or progressive absorption of some provinces into the United States. Especially, if Washington decided to pursue its interests in an aggressive fashion, cause major distress to Canada's border provinces, which depend on trade with their neighbour.

Without access to U.S. markets, they will be hard put to sustain their social programmes, and it would be a matter of time before they start forging their own separate links with the United States. That can only mean the break up of Canada.

Which is why it is indeed a defining moment for Canada.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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