Op Ed Feb 21, 2003

Opinion Editorials February , 2003 http://www.aljazeerah.info

PARIS, 21 February 2003 — The years have not dimmed Bernadette Mouchel’s respect for Americans. Nothing, the French retiree says, could erase her gratitude to the brave GIs — “those boys who died,” she calls them — who liberated her Normandy farm from Nazi occupiers in World War II.

Which is why, 59 years later, the prospect of renewed war over Iraq leaves Mouchel deeply conflicted. Like others the world over, her attitude toward Washington is hardening. Despite her feelings for Americans, she can’t help but voice — almost apologetically — concern that the United States is a superpower running amok.

“Business America, economic America, is just too powerful and it wants — I don’t necessarily want to say rule the world, that might be too strong — but it wants nevertheless to keep an eye on the entire world’s affairs,” said Mouchel, age 75.

In many corners of the globe, America’s image is slipping. While the current crisis is over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the United States is on trial in the court of world public opinion for pushing efforts to disarm President Saddam Hussein by military force, rather than through slower but peaceful UN inspections.

Interviews by Associated Press reporters with dozens of ordinary people in nations as far-flung as France and China, Algeria and South Korea, suggest that goodwill and sympathy for the United States generated by the Sept. 11 attacks have evaporated.

For some, the United States is again — or always has been — the country they love to hate: America the brutal, America the hypocrite, America the implacable ideological or religious foe.

But beyond the zealots and outside the Muslim world, many others are torn between admiration for Americans and things American — they cite democracy, technology, Hollywood movies — and the discomforting reality of America the sole superpower, able and willing to fight alone if need be, despite international opposition.

“A year and a half ago, we said we’re all Americans. That has changed,” said Emanuela Lo Monaco, an architect in Rome. “We like American things — just give us the choice, don’t shove it down our throats, you know?” said Irish bank clerk John O’Donnell, lunching at a McDonald’s in Dublin and gesticulating with a half-eaten Big Mac.

No survey can capture the global range of emotions the United States inspires. But there are common threads. No matter the language, words used these days to describe America are often the same: bent on war, arrogant, bullying, blind to the plight of the poor. At anti-war protests like those that brought millions onto streets worldwide this weekend, US President George W. Bush is lampooned as a bloodthirsty bandit or a cowboy. “I don’t need the Third World War,” said Eleonora Chizhevskaya, a 68-year-old Russian retiree demonstrating in St. Petersburg. “The United States is just trying to save its dollar and it spits on the rest of the world.”

But to others, American power is comforting. In Kabul, Afghan Army major Sultan Mohammed frets that his country will plunge back into war if US troops “get busy in Iraq and say goodbye to Afghanistan.”

“We should be pleased that somebody else wants to do the dirty work for us — I mean fight evil and dangerous countries,” says Slawomir Konopiek, a retired teacher in Poland. “If not America, who can do it?”

Martin Glas, a 72-year-old Czech retiree, regrets that no “world’s cop,” as he put it, was there to prevent World War II. “History could have been different. Hitler would never have become as strong as he was and my father would not have died in a gas chamber,” said Glas, who is Jewish.

Even in the Middle East, attitudes are not always clear-cut. “I don’t like anything in America, except for the high standard of living and job opportunities,” said Adnan Youssef, a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon. But he added: “If the Americans launch a war against Iraq, my hatred for them will increase.”

Such hard-line sentiment echoes across the Islamic world. “Bush is an assassin thirsty for oil and the blood of Muslims,” says Aziz Moktari, a 22-year-old science major in Casablanca, Morocco.

“All this suspense about whether or not they will go to war is just to prove a point: ‘Look, I have the power to push a few buttons and wipe this country out — I’m still boss,”’ argued Mohamad Ismail, a Muslim businessman in Malaysia.

Outside the Islamic world, however, and even in France, which has led European opposition to an attack, many say their beef is not with America or the Americans, but solely with the Bush administration.

“War would be bad for the whole world — bad for the economy, bad for security, bad for peace,” said a hawker waving fistfuls of pirated American movies on a street in Beijing. “We understand where America’s coming from. I don’t like Saddam, he’s dangerous and a little crazy. But Bush needs to be careful. ... He may be right about Iraq, but that doesn’t mean he’s right about war. He has to listen more to others,” he said.

A common argument in Europe, where tens of millions died in two world wars last century, is that US leaders are ignorant of war’s devastation because they have not experienced conflict at home.

Americans “live in a world of their own,” complained Vit Vojtech, a Czech advertising executive. He nonetheless confessed that he likes Hollywood movies “because I love happy endings.”

In Hong Kong, whose currency is linked to the US dollar, and in Taiwan, which looks to Washington for protection against neighboring China, emotions are tuned to the economic might America wields.

“We’ll be seeing another hike in unemployment. Our economy will be very much affected if there’s any war,” said Ivan Kaan, a Hong Kong computer engineer.

Others, especially in European cities already on heightened states of alert, fear that by infuriating Muslims, the United States will sow the seeds of future conflict and increase the risks of revenge attacks by extremists.

“If you kill terrorists, you just make more terrorists. They thrive on their grievances. You never wipe them out,” said O’Donnell, the bank clerk in Dublin. “America needs to be subtle, patient — everything Bush isn’t.”

Lost Opportunity in Cyprus
Arab News, 21 February 2003
-

Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash would seem to have made a serious mistake in not bringing to an end 28 years of partition when he had the chance, with the sympathetic former Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides. Now Clerides has been ousted by Greek Cypriot voters in favor of the hard-line Tassos Papadopoulos, and a reunification deal is once more remote.

Though Papadopoulos has said he is eager to take up where his predecessor left off, the fact is that during the election he made no secret of his distaste for what he described as the generous concessions that Clerides seemed prepared to make. A deal foundered ostensibly because Denktash wanted to limit the rights of Greeks to return to their former properties in the northern part of the island, from which they fled when the Turkish Army entered in 1974.

Papadopoulos rejected out of hand a UN proposal that not all Greek Cypriot property be returned, demanding complete restitution. He is unlikely to moderate this position, given his strong mandate of 51.5 percent of the votes, against the 38.8 percent gained by Clerides.

Time would seem to be on the president-elect’s side. The UN has stipulated that unless agreement is reached by Feb. 28, in just seven days’ time, the Greek Cypriot part of the island will go on alone to join the European Union, while Denktash and the Turkish Cypriots in the north will be left out in the cold.

It is highly likely that had Denktash not prevaricated and reached an agreement, Clerides would have won the election, and the delicate business of putting reunion into effect could have been relatively painless. As things now stand, Papadopoulos, who has always taken an anti-Turkish line, is going to drive a far harder bargain. This is an unmitigated tragedy for all Cypriots and, by extension, for Turkey, whose government has been unstinting in pressuring Denktash to reach a settlement. The ramifications of the veteran politician’s failure will go far beyond the island. They will affect Turkey’s own bid for EU membership and could renew the antagonism between Greece and Turkey.

Denktash never wanted a deal. Few Turkish Cypriots, however, support him. And to ignore the long-term interests of the people he is supposed to represent is perhaps his greatest mistake. A settlement with Clerides would have involved sacrifices on the part of both communities, but probably more so for the Turkish Cypriots. There were, however, constitutional guarantees that ought to have afforded both communities protection from each other.

All this is now in ruins. Denktash can only argue from a position of weakness. Ankara is exasperated with him, as is the UN and a significant proportion of his own people. A wound that could at last have been healed has now been torn wide open by a politician whose political outlook is clearly mired in the distant past.

The UN is working very hard to patch up some sort of an agreement, but the initiative has slipped from its grasp. Papadopoulos doesn’t need a deal; the Turkish Cypriots do. Were any settlement now to emerge, it is likely to be on terms far less favorable than those proffered by Clerides. A magnificent opportunity for reconciliation has been thrown away, and for what?

Peace Protests and Media Bias
Nourah Abdul Aziz Al-Khereiji
Arab News, 21 February 2003
-

Feb. 15 was a day of global humanitarianism. Millions of people all over the world, especially in western European, demonstrated for peace and against the war on Iraq. They displayed slogans rejecting war, supported a peaceful solution to the crisis and condemned the US president for his threats. The largest demonstrations took place in countries like Britain, Italy, Spain and Australia which support the US-led war. There were demonstrations in the United States and even in Israel.

It was not the first time such protest marches were held in the US since it began preparing for war by sending troops and weapons to the Gulf. Anti-war demonstrations are increasing every day. The families of some of those killed in the 1991 Gulf War and in the 9/11 attacks even traveled to Iraq to light candles. They did so alongside the families of victims of the US bombing of civilian targets in Iraq in 1991.

These demonstrations take place without comprehensive media coverage and in spite of the misinformation campaign in the US media on the reasons for war. Some of these reasons are laughable: Is Iraq really a threat to the mainland US? Apart from Kuwait, which is understandably wary of Baghdad, we have heard no complaints from Iraq’s neighbors. The US media says Iraq is not cooperating with the weapons inspectors, but the inspectors say it is. Hans Blix has told us that his inspectors have not found any weapons of mass destruction in the country.

Most people who demonstrated are against war because they know it will have to be paid for with men, money and a lost development. Western Europe remembers all too well the horrors of two world wars, and it does not want to see them repeated. There is a very real fear that an attack on Iraq could lead to World War III.

I am no supporter of Saddam Hussein’s oppressive domestic policies. I am no supporter of Saddam’s aggressive policies toward his neighbors during the first and second Gulf wars. But neither do I support his eviction from power by force, because it would destroy the county and kill many innocent people. According to rumors, Saddam and his family would be allowed to leave Iraq safely and live in exile. He would have no problem as his foreign bank accounts are overflowing with billions of dollars.

Of course I support the unfortunate Iraqi people, who have been paying the price since Saddam took power in their country. They are the ones who pay for the international sanctions that have brought them a decade of chronic diseases, increase in crimes and poverty and generally propelled the country backward by centuries. While all this is going on, Saddam Hussein builds new palaces, wears the expensive clothes and smokes costly imported cigars.

But I say to the rightist and extremist American president that he will not be able to realize his dreams by attacking Iraq. He will also fail to boost his country’s economy by controlling Iraqi oil fields because the spirit of innocent Iraqi people killed in the planned war will spawn hatred against the US for generations to come, producing thousands of Osama Bin Ladens.

The billions of dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war, whether for military spending or to buy the support of other governments, should have been used for the education, development and the prosperity of ordinary Americans. The money could be used to solve such problems as poverty, unemployment and homelessness - all of which are shockingly evident in the US.

My first question to President Bush is whether he has studied the results of America’s wars and understood the tragedies they have caused. If he had done so, I am sure that he would oppose the war as many Americans have done. The memories of human and material losses in both the Vietnam War and the recent operations in Afghanistan are fresh.

People in the West demonstrated strongly against the planned war on Iraq; they did so not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the Arab people. We thank them. I say this with shame, after watching a demonstration in an Arab country - 600 people surrounded by 2,000 policemen. I can make no further comment.

The murder of Feras Al-Mabrouki

By Hassan El-Najjar and Jane Christensen*

Al-Jazeerah interactive editorial, 2/21/03

Jane T Christensen:

I have just read with shock and dismay Anne Gwynne's piece about the murder of Feras al-Mabrouki.(FERAS AL BAKRI - A HERO IN THE MIDST OF HORROR, By Anne Gwynne). I have read Anne's accounts for months in Counterpunch and had come to know Feras Al-Bakri as the charming, kind, patient, and brave ambulance driver. And now (I thought) he is dead, for his selfless efforts shot by these murdering swine! I know no words. I want to stand and scream. I want to hurt back. I want revenge! How can a whole people go on! What is there to live for! What can a single person do here in the U.S.?

Hassan El-Najjar:

Feras Al-Bakri was not one of the dead. You confused him for Feras al-Mabrouki (Thanks for Juan Bertucci for the correction). Either of them is an innocent human soul. You can do a lot to stop the Israeli aggression in the Palestinian territories..

Educate your students about the overwhelming Israeli influence on the US government that has allowed this to happen and to continue to happen. Without the US continuous financial, economic, and military aid to Israel, the Zionist state could not have continued in its genocidal policies against the Palestinian people.

Start a charitable effort to send money, food, and medical equipment to Palestinians. This is particularly important because the Bush administration has closed down the vast majority of Palestinian charitable organizations in the US under the pretext of the war on terror.

Start a grassroots movement in your state to vote out senators and representatives who blindly support Israel. Vote for those who are willing to stop aid to Israel, make this issue as the most important one.

Find others, who are like yourself, willing to do something positive, not only to stop this disgrace, but to do it for America, which is the only country in the world which supports Zionist Israel.

Finally, and most important, educate people not to vote for the War Party, which is committing America to fight Israel's wars to subjugate Arabs and Muslims. Peace to you.

* Hassan El-Najjar is a sociologist and the editor of Al-Jazeerah. Jane T Christensen is a political scientist. Both are college professors in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively.

Is all this hatred towards Muslims in America really necessary?

By Raff Ellis
YellowTimes.org

Eddie "The Sheik" Farhat died last month. He was a professional wrestler who invented the evil persona of a Bedouin sheik who would stop at nothing to win a match. Born in Detroit, the son of Lebanese parents, Eddie couldn't speak any Arabic but loved muttering guttural nonsense at his opponents as he pulled various objects out of his costume to torment them. Although I'm sure it wasn't his intention, "The Sheik" probably aided and abetted mistrust and hatred for Arabs as much as the many Hollywood movies of his time.

Along with Eddie, there were other "ethnic" bad guys in the wrestling world, among them Professor Tanaka, the nefarious Japanese villain, who also elicited the boos and catcalls of wrestling fans. The reason I mention these showmen, and the emotions they aroused, is that people in America have a love affair with hate and, given the opportunity, demonstrate inherently racist attitudes. Easily identifiable groups in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial America have always been the targets of bias and prejudice. There is no shortage of "good" Americans awaiting the opportunity to exercise hatred against their "inferiors."

If you don't believe there is a racism problem in America, surf the web to see the many sites with white supremacist mantras. You don't have to be non-white to be included; often times Jewish or Catholic will do just fine. You will be simultaneously amazed and repelled by the proliferation of these beliefs and the doctrines they espouse.

As many commentators have noted, it would be good in today's climate to remember our not so glorious past when America sanctioned the shabby treatment of Japanese immigrants and citizens during WWII. They were deemed security risks and their loyalty couldn't be counted on during a war with the country of their ancestry. Contrast their treatment against the benign treatment of German Americans who, at the time, were the largest ethnic group in the country (with many German American Bunds supporting what today would be called terrorist activities), and you cannot escape the conclusion that race was the mitigating factor.

Some sixty years later, we have similar conditions at work. Calls for incarceration of Muslims and Arabs are not only espoused by hate groups but also are being implemented by the Justice Department with the approval of a complicit Congress that will soon be asked to approve an even more draconian Patriot Act II. Radio talk show hosts proudly proclaim that they "have no problem with locking these people up," and their "white-neck" audiences agree. The thinking is that when we go to war with Iraq and whoever is next, the loyalty of Muslims and Arabs will be to their religion and country of ancestry, not the U.S.

Americans are easily manipulated into the racist trap by an arrogant and egocentric government. Bombarded daily with the notion that the U.S. is a superpower that will have its way in world affairs no matter what, much of the population begins to mimic this behavior and also becomes arrogant and egocentric. This is accompanied by lots of flag waving with patriotic proclamations and jingoistic slogans about "the greatest country in the history of the world."

Once you adopt the belief that America is superior to all other countries, it is a short step to the notion that these people, including all recent non-Nordic immigrants, are inferior and covet your way of life. "They all want to come here, don't they?" is an often-heard phrase. As you skip across the pond of suspicion, you step on stones labeled, "they're not like us," "don't subscribe to American values," "aren't good for the country," and "are taking jobs away from real Americans," until you land on the other shore labeled "racist American." Exacerbated fears ultimately result in the spewing of epithets such as "ragheads," and "sand niggers," all of which ultimately results in wanting to "bomb them back into the Stone Age" and the commission of hate crimes.

Racist paranoia is exhibited in many ways, some small and others not so small: Lauren Bush, a fashion model and the President's niece, refused to don clothes that were too "Arab" looking; an Arab American Secret Service member of Bush's security detail was denied air transportation because he looked suspicious; an Arab Canadian citizen was threatened with deportation to his country of origin while in transit at a New York City airport on his way back to Montreal; three Muslim medical students were chased by police for over 800 miles because of an overheard "suspicious" conversation in a restaurant; many Arab and Muslim residents are being detained or deported for overstaying their visas while awaiting action on residency applications, an offense that heretofore was considered minor and is not being enforced across the board. There are literally thousands of examples that have occurred since 9-11 that amply demonstrate the implementation of an awakening racism in America.

Many are wont to exclaim that the above actions are not racist but are quite justified in the name of security. These are perilous times and we have to give up some freedoms for our safety, or so they say. I have a hard time believing that this diet of abuse would be so easily swallowed if it were fed to normal "white" Americans. All racism needs is a "good" excuse to reveal its gruesome grin and our government is supplying that excuse by feeding the public's paranoia with a frenzy of security alerts and a rogue's gallery of "evildoers."

Our erstwhile guardians of truth, the mainstream media, don't seem to be able to sift through all of this to provide the general public with the information needed to prevent what is happening to them. In fact, they aid and abet hatred with the reportage of rumors and innuendo, complete with scare tactics punctuated by pictures of the bad guys. They have given our administration a pass by reporting nearly everything they do in a favorable light.

Not since the red baiting of the 1950s have we seen such an assault on individual freedom with the name calling of enemies and panic campaigns being used to advance a clearly political agenda. Demagoguery is rapidly replacing democracy and not only do a surprising few seem to care, most are eager to enlist in this army of racism and hatred. Woe to those who dare voice dissent of America's policies for the full weight of our settling of scores will befall you. The current barrage of pejoratives being hurled at France and Germany for obstructing America's march to war is an example of just such retribution.

So, the next time you see President Bush, cheerleader cum gladiator, ironically imitating "the Sheik," preening around his podium, muttering often unintelligible diatribes, cruise missiles peeking out of his Superman's cape, proclaiming that he will kill for the security of America in a "war for peace," ask yourself: "What is all this venom doing to us, to our character as a people, to our standing in the world community?"

One can only ask: Is all this hatred really necessary?

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

Raff Ellis encourages your comments: rellis@YellowTimes.org

To speak or not to speak about Iraq

Jordan Times, 2/21/03

OVER THE past few weeks, and more so over the past few days, it has become rather apparent that officials are reluctant to speak to the press on issues even remotely related to the Iraqi crisis and a possible war scenario. Some observers are even talking of an unspoken agreement among ministers to avoid the press, in a sort of information blackout.

It is perfectly understandable that officials these days might be particularly preoccupied with trying not to encourage alarmist reports, or with ensuring that public opinion steers clear of arguments meant to incite.

But it is also true that, in public office, explaining sensitive issues and answering tough questions come with the job. And it is also true that, in the absence of official statements, the public tunes in more to rumours and speculation, as that is all that is being communicated.

It is exactly in times of crisis that politicians must better connect and effectively communicate with their people.

We fear that the ongoing crisis could slow down, rather than accelerate, the pace of information reforms earlier announced by some government and para-government quarters.

What happened, for example, to the stated plans to appoint a spokesperson for each ministry? Given the massive presence of journalists in town nowadays and the threats of an imminent war, it would be hard to imagine a more appropriate time to go full throttle with that plan.

Perhaps current tensions and possible future scenarios would also warrant a special mandate for “crisis spokespersons.” Jordan has a government spokesperson, but the extremely wide spectrum of different interests, issues and aspects that would arise in a war context would certainly warrant additional investments in communication. The government's spokesman cannot be expected to juggle other jobs, in addition to his own. Like many might recall, an “ad hoc” spokesperson, with a limited and clear mandate, was appointed on the occasion of the 1997 elections. Jordan could now be bracing for much more trying times than those of November 1997.

No citizen in the world seriously expects politicians to always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In a sense, mankind gave that up when it created organised societies, political systems, and the ensuing notion of the “raison d'etat,” accepting to delegate decision making to some elected, or otherwise chosen, representatives. But all citizens in the world — and Jordanians are no exception — expect their governments to be available and ready to confirm or react to a piece of news... to speak.

The UN role and the future of humanity

Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh

Jordan Times, 2/21/03

ALL THE good inhabitants of our small globe are in agreement on weapons of mass destruction: these weapons pose a serious, direct and immediate threat, not just to world security and peace but to human life — in fact all forms of life — all over our planet; and therefore they must be not just controlled or curtailed but eliminated. No one should manufacture, import, export or keep these weapons for any reason. If human beings cannot settle their differences through peaceful means, and if wars are inevitable, let people fight using conventional weapons.

The positions of governments differ somewhat from those of the good people. While all governments agree in principle that our globe should be free of weapons of mass destruction, several of them — those whose possession of such weapons is proven and those whose possession is presumed — argue that their existence is necessary for deterrence.

Countries of the so-called developed world, who think no country in the developing or underdeveloped part of the world should have weapons of mass destruction, think the weapons they possess are in safe hands. In the hands of the rest of the globe, they are not safe. These latter countries should therefore disarm — unless they are friends or allies, of course, in which case they can be permitted either to import or manufacture such weapons. A flagrant case of double standards, of course.

The developing or underdeveloped world, which follows in the steps of the developed in almost everything it does, thinks it should also have weapons of mass destruction: you never know when the need arises for them or when your villainous neighbour acquires or manufactures them.

The bottom line here is — and this has become obvious, I believe — once weapons of mass destruction are manufactured, even if they are manufactured by one single country, it is not only unavoidable but also inevitable and almost axiomatic that they will find their way to another country, and then another, and another.

The matter of weapons of mass destruction is, in fact, much like the matter of personal secrets. Once a secret exists, it becomes known to someone. Once it becomes known to someone, no matter how reliable or trustworthy that person is, it will unavoidably and inevitably find its way to another, and then another. And this is why several countries in the world today (we are told that even several “groups” of sorts, terrorist or non-terrorist), have weapons of mass destruction or their secret recipes.

This also means that the whole argument about weapons of mass destruction being safer in the hands of some than in those of others is a big fallacy. Having weapons of mass destruction is like having a handgun. You never know when you find yourself in a situation where you think you have to use it. History has shown how unsafe such weapons become in those so-called safe hands, be it when a mighty country is attacked by another or when reactors or manufacturing facilities leak.

But weapons of mass destruction are not like personal secrets or handguns in their effects. While the lives of a limited number of people are affected by the leaking of secrets or the use of handguns, the future of the whole globe is at stake in the case of the use of weapons of mass destruction.

What is the other bottom line then? It is that these weapons should be destroyed and their production, not just their trafficking, prevented? How is this to be done?

One interesting element in the whole discourse about Iraq's presumed possession of mass destruction weapons and how to go about disarming it is the role of the UN. No UN member, including Iraq itself, is saying Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction. They are all in agreement that should Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, such weapons should be destroyed. The disagreement, or a substantial part of it, is about how to go about doing it and when.

Directly or indirectly, however, the so-called stand off on Iraq is about the role of the UN, and it is becoming also (increasingly so) about weapons of mass destruction in other parts of the world — primarily in the developing or underdeveloped. No matter what happens in the days to come with respect to the war on Iraq, three points have become crucial to tackle.

The first is that all action against countries possessing weapons of mass destruction should be done not just through the UN but through a strong UN. And the more countries involved in the decision, and not just the big five or seven or ten, the better. No action outside the UN is trustworthy. Equally importantly, any action through a weak, coerced UN is equally suspect and untrustworthy.

The second is that there should continue to be no double standards regarding the matter of weapons of mass destruction. If you are so eager, insistent and adamant about disarming one country, you should be equally eager, insistent and adamant about disarming another and then another until the world is free of this plague. No exceptions or favours should be made. And if you have to begin with the developing or underdeveloped world, so be it. Eventually, however, you need to get to the rest of the world.

The third is that, for this noble aim to be realised (a world free of weapons of mass destruction, that is), a strategy needs to be drawn up with respect to disarmament, carefully and meticulously. The strategy should include names and locations throughout the world, but also a timetable.

Unless the world confronts these three points and lives up to its responsibilities, and unless the UN is both respected and empowered, many of us will continue to be both sceptical and cynical about intentions and efforts to make our world a safer place by targeting this or that country or party, and many of us will continue to fear for their lives and for the life of this planet.

Where's Colin Powell?

By George S. Hishmeh

Jordan Times, 2/21/03

WASHINGTON — Washington was blanketed by a severe snowstorm last weekend — a three-day national holiday — virtually shutting down this capital city (and many others in the northeast) as the Bush administration was tending to its political wounds suffered in a lacklustre battle for international support for its much-promised war on Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, long considered a reluctant hawk, was dealt a humiliating blow as he tried hopelessly to argue at the UN Security Council last Friday for the Bush administration's unpopular and single-minded approach to disarm the Iraqi regime. A rare burst of applause from the audience at the UN council meeting greeted the remarks of the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who lectured his colleague: “In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of conscience. This onerous responsibility and immense honour we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament through peace.”

The next blow to the American position came from Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, who disputed Powell's Feb. 5 presentation that US intelligence had identified trucks as working on chemical decontamination at a munitions depot, saying it “could as easily have been a routine activity”. He also rejected Powell's claims that Iraqi officials could have obtained advance information on which sites the UN inspectors would examine.

Dr Mohammad Al Baradei, the chief nuclear inspector, was even more damaging to the American side, saying that his inspectors found no evidence of nuclear activity so far. The two inspectors also announced their satisfaction with the Iraqi conditions for overflights by the U-2 surveillance planes, which began last Monday.

The feud at the United Nations regrettably deteriorated into harsh exchanges across the Atlantic, France receiving the brunt of the American “verbal vitriol”, reminding Frenchmen — as did the inelegant New York Post — of the American military cemetery in Normandy. A French scholar at the Brookings Institution here, Justin Vaisse, countered mockingly in a well-written op-ed in the Washington Post on Feb. 15 that French generals Lafayette and Rochambeau came here “not to help Americans gain their independence but merely to execute the crass real politic manoeuvres of Louis XVI”.

What led to this ugly situation has been attributed publicly by foreign diplomats here to the Bush administration's “heavy-handed and bullying tactics” over the last two years, which resulted in a deep split that threatens the NATO alliance.

The unprecedented and salutary worldwide demonstrations against a war against Iraq last weekend has emboldened many nations and leaders to stand up against the dictates of the neo-conservatives running the Bush administration, who were bent on cutting “old Europe” to size and unabashedly voicing their support of Israel and a new order in the Middle East.

In its haste for war against Iraq, in order to score a quick and easy victory to cover up its ineffectiveness in combating international terrorism which was responsible for the Sept. 11 tragedy in the US, the Bush administration seemed to miss the point that no nation is really supportive of Saddam Hussein. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser for President Carter, pointed to the undisputed fact that in none of the countries that had pledged support for the US position is “public opinion in favour of a solitary war”. He said quite correctly that “this enormous gap in outlook” is the result of conviction overseas that “disarmament is essentially a charade for removal of Saddam (Hussein)”.

This American diplomatic bungling was more evident this week in the untimely dispatch to Israel of US Undersecretary of State John Bolton who confirmed earlier suspicions that the United States is planning to deal with “threats” from Syria, Iran and North Korea after its attack on Iraq, probably sometime next month. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Bolton on Monday that “Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran”, stressing: “It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned towards Iraq.”

In its editorial on Monday, Haaretz raised another Israeli concern. “Jewish activists who have been following the (anti-war) demonstrations and protest activities since last summer, cannot help but notice their evident anti-Israel line.” It added: “Alongside the placards and exhortations against President George W. Bush, there are always placards attacking Israel and the occupation of the (Palestinian) territories. Moreover, speakers at the demonstrations have often mentioned Israel as one of the key factors (alongside oil and his inheritance from his father) that are impelling President Bush to wage war against Iraq.”

Little wonder Powell avoided the Sunday talk shows at the American networks. One would have expected the one-time presidential hopeful to come out defending the administration's policies and his poor performance last week, or calling for a reevaluation of the American stance. National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice was the ineffective substitute, repeating the tired administration line that it will push for a new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq.

Arabs irreconcilably divided but into how many camps?

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 2/21/03

Despite renewed efforts by Egypt to bring forward the date of next month’s annual Arab summit, the collapse of its bid to convene an emergency meeting of Arab heads of state devoted specifically to Iraq is seen as evidence that their differences over the issue have become irreconcilable.
Newspapers highlight the thumbs down given by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal to the idea of a special summit, when he indicated that holding one would be counterproductive, as it would merely reflect the divisions that broke the surface at last weekend’s acrimonious meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo.
He urged the Arabs states to concentrate on making a success of next month’s regular summit which is to be moved from Manama to Cairo, and Egypt is now proposing to hold at the beginning of March rather then toward the end by adopting a “serious and credible” position over Iraq, instead of “issuing communiques that do not express the true position.
The Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat notes that the Saudi chief diplomat made a point of explaining that his opposition to an emergency summit is not due to the controversial statement issued after the foreign ministers’ meeting urging that no Arab military bases or facilities be provided to US troops attacking Iraq. He said Riyadh had supported the said declaration, and that its refusal to allow its territory to be used to wage war on Iraq is “firm.” However, he added a possible proviso, declaring that Saudi policy is to oppose any unilateral US military action against Iraq “outside the framework of the Security Council.”
Al-Hayat’s Riyadh correspondent, Suleiman Nimr, sees Saud al-Faisal’s remarks as a sign that Saudi Arabia which he reports has put its armed forces on a state of alert is bracing for imminent war. The prince concluded from his recent talks in Washington, London and Paris and duly informed fellow Arab foreign ministers that “the war is coming,” that the threat it poses to the region is “real,” and that with the US determined to depose Saddam Hussein by force, the Iraqi regime must take “unfeigned action” if it is to protect itself.
Nimr sees this as evidence that Riyadh has resigned itself to war and thinks the priority now is to “act to reduce the dangers” to which the armed hostilities will subject Iraq and the region. Hence his emphasis on the need to preserve postwar security inside Iraq and prevent the country from being torn apart by tribal, ethnic, sectarian and ideological conflicts or breaking up into feuding mini-states, and his bleak warning that the resultant “anarchy” would hurt neighboring states, trigger civil wars in the region and turn Iraq into a “haven for terrorists.”
Publisher and editor Abdelbari Atwan writes in pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi that Saudi Arabia heads one of three competing camps in the Arab world, whose emergence has been highlighted by the summit controversy. The Saudi-led camp consists of the six Gulf Cooperation Council partners and sees no point in holding any summit, not least because most of its members are playing host to the US forces poised to invade Iraq.
The second camp comprising Syria, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Yemen, Palestine and Tunisia includes most of what used to be termed the “Arab rejectionist states,” and strongly opposes any attack on Iraq and wants US forces to be denied any Arab bases or facilities.
And there is a third camp consisting of Egypt and a few others, “who publicly straddle the fence while secretly colluding in the aggression,” Atwan writes.
“Thus, the first and second camps are united in opposing an emergency summit, but for opposite reasons,” he explains. “The second camp firmly believes that the US is behind the invitation, because it wants the Arabs to exert psychological and political pressure on the Iraqi regime to step down, to blame it for the war and to bestow Arab legitimacy on the impending aggression.”
Atwan says the collapse of efforts to convene the emergency summit is a major blow to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who called and set a date for the meeting without the necessary prior consultations. Never before, not even in the reign of King Farouk, did Cairo summon an Arab summit into session only to be comprehensively “ignored.”
This, to Atwan’s mind, says something about Egypt’s self-image as leader of the Arab world. As demonstrated on previous occasions, its claim to leadership is only valid when it defends its fellow Arabs against external aggression.
“Egypt’s leadership status is not a product of its size, location or population, but the nature of the role it plays. When Egypt espoused anti-colonialism and supported liberation struggles in the region and the world, it deservedly held a position of leadership, not just in the Arab world but also in Africa, Asia and the nonaligned countries. It is natural that Egypt’s stature should shrink and wither when it abandons this vanguard role,” he says.
Al-Hayat’s Saudi columnist, Daoud al-Shiryan, puts a very different spin on the rift over Iraq. In an article strongly supporting “Kuwait’s right to defend its territory in the way it deems fit,” he writes of an Arab world split into two rival groups.
“The first group possesses a realistic vision, knows the possible from the impossible, and refuses to sacrifice their security, safety and interests and those of the region and its peoples for the sake of Saddam Hussein’s regime,” he says.
“The second group still adheres to slogans and sees the Iraqi regime as part of the Arab order without which it would die, and which must be defended even if at the expense of the Iraqi people and their future and the future of the peoples of all the Arab states,” according to Shiryan. Moreover, this group “virtually controls” the discourse of the Arab media, “and so is still managing to make its viewpoint the gauge of patriotism and national honor, and to brand all others as capitulators, defeatists, and all the other epithets that have brought us to where we are.”
The Cairo meeting of Arab foreign ministers, some of whom “tried once again to sacrifice Kuwait and its security for the sake of ‘Arab solidarity,’” mirrored this rift, says Shiryan. And the way the proposals of some of the states participating were “ignored” shows “that some of the Arabs still view others in terms of senior and junior, settled people and nomads, revolutionaries and reactionaries, and metropolitans and suburbanites,” he complains.
Ali Hamadeh forecasts in the Beirut daily An-Nahar that inter-Arab divisions, not just over Iraq but the fate of the entire region, are set to deepen further.
He likens the Arab states’ conduct over Iraq to the way they have spent the past two years watching “the ongoing bloodbath in Palestine” while claiming to be individually and collectively incapable of doing anything to alleviate the Palestinians’ suffering or put any pressure on the US administration to be slightly less biased.
“And while the Iraq question has galvanized world opinion, East and West, against American unilateralism and the bullying policies of George W. Bush’s administration, the decrepit Arab order has not lifted a finger,” he writes.
The world opposes war not because it sympathizes with Saddam but because it abhors America’s behavior and its global strategy, “its division of the world into two ‘good’ (America) and ‘evil’ (the rest) and its post-Sept. 11 concept of permanent war,” he says.
“The war that will be foisted on us via Iraq is the logical prelude to a series of impending wars. The first will be the completion of Israel’s 1948 war, which Ariel Sharon has been waging relentlessly. The second will be about reshaping the maps inherited from British and French colonialism. It may loom in Jordan, or perhaps even other states that mistakenly believe that their existence is everlasting. The third will be about setting up feuding ‘post-Iraq’ cantons at war with each other, dividing the country’s resources, and competing to align themselves with Israel as the key to acquiring a ‘special’ standing with the US,” Hamadeh writes.
“When we object to the American war, we don’t do so out of love for the tyrannical regimes and governments, which Iraq’s current regime most bloodily and disastrously epitomizes,” he adds. “We object to a war whose aims are Israeli, and from which no democracy, prosperity, stability or modernization can be anticipated; a war led by the ‘princes of darkness’ in the US administration who only see the Middle East through Israeli eyes. We object to a war aimed at eliminating the Palestinian cause and Israeli-zing Iraq and the entire East. We object to policies based on the hatred that festers at the heart of US policy toward Arabs and Muslims. We are with the millions of people in the Christian West who marched against the logic of darkness that has two faces George ‘Dubya’ Bush’s face, and Osama bin Laden’s.”
“When will we in this accursed East march behind those millions?” Hamadeh asks.
In Damascus, the editor of Syria’s ruling Baath Party daily Al-Baath, Mahdi Dakhlallah, stresses the need for the Arab states to close ranks and take a forceful stand against an invasion of Iraq.
He stresses that when the Arabs have stood together as during the 1956 Franco-British-Israeli aggression against Egypt or the 1973 war they have achieved great things and proven capable of wielding major influence, despite the current vogue for degrading the “Arab order” as represented by the Arab League, and pan-Arab nationalism generally.
But Dakhlallah warns that “the first shot fired in the Anglo-Saxon war on Iraq will be the last bullet, the coup de grace, in the corpse of that Arab order, which appears to be the least influential player in what is going in the Arab world today.”
He acknowledges that Syria has had difficulty “persuading other elements of the Arab order” of its anti-war stance and turning it into a collective Arab position. Syria, Dakhlallah stresses, sees war on Iraq as “unacceptable under any pretext,” as war is only ever justified as part of a people’s liberation struggle or resistance to occupation. This sets it aside from some other countries, which while opposing the US view that war is “necessary and urgent,” see it as a “last resort” that can be deferred. While it is important to work with those countries, it is insufficient for the Arabs to espouse their position.
“The Arab order has only a few days left to get itself out, for once, of the intensive care unit, and achieve a long-awaited pan-Arab reawakening,” Dakhlallah writes. Otherwise, “no one will be spared.”
Al-Hayat’s Zuhair Qusaibati casts a suspicious eye on Iran’s intentions in Iraq, amid reports that thousands of Iranian-backed Shiite rebels have been moved into the country.
He writes that Tehran, which is poised to sponsor a conference of Iraqi Shiite dissidents, has been making “generous offers” to Washington “in order to get its name struck off the ‘day-after-the-war-on-Iraq’ list.” The Iranians seem certain that Saddam’s demise is inevitable and appear prepared to go along with the Americans in this regard. But, more importantly, they mistrust US assurances about post-Saddam Iraq. They worry not only about the “tempest of death and destruction” the US is poised to unleash, but also about the prospect of it installing an American military governor of Iraq who would proceed to “control the country’s borders and besiege anyone inside it who Bush wants to isolate after Saddam’s overthrow,” he says.
“The question is, do Iraq’s Arab neighbors, or any of the Arab states who are still concerned about the fate of the country’s unity, approve of Tehran’s sponsorship of an Iraqi Shiite conference?” Qusaibati asks. “And does that gathering address fears about America’s intentions, and the ability of the opposition in general to hold on to the reins of unity, even under American military rule?”
He contrasts Iran’s position to that of Iraq’s other non-Arab neighbor, Turkey, which has been haggling over the price it is to be paid for allowing American troops to invade Iraq from its territory, and sending its own army into the north “to act both as a line of defense for the Americans after the invasion, and a line of attack against what the Turks’ claim to be the Kurds’ ambition to secede.”
Ankara is hoping to reap handsome profits from war, Qusaibati notes, but meanwhile the Iraqi Kurds “are much more frightened of its army than of Saddam’s.”

Arab League sets new standard for failure

The Daily Star, 2/21/03

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said in an interview published Thursday that it was “unfortunate” that the Arab League failed earlier this week to agree to hold an emergency summit to discuss the twin challenges of Iraq and Palestine. “Unfortunate” in this case is far too kind a description of what must rank as one of the most troubling and persistent weaknesses in the modern Arab order the shocking inability of the 22 member states of the Arab League to formulate and implement a consistent foreign policy, and, in particularly ignominious situations like this week’s, an even more shocking inability even to agree to meet to discuss an issue on which they would subsequently prove unable to formulate a common policy. It behooves us all in the Arab world to ponder the full implications of this embarrassing situation, and to attempt to come up with some remedial actions for the Arab League role and credibility.
Most Arabs have adjusted to the fact that the Arab League does not function very well when it comes to collective political action. But the times demand a more coherent response to this condition, because the times are changing. Hundreds of thousands of foreign troops are massing in our area to carry out an operation whose aims and consequences remain very unclear, certainly to us in the region, and perhaps also to those who are poised to strike. If we wish to avoid yet another century of foreign hegemony, vulnerable nationhood, staggering economies, and fractured regional integrity, we must soul-search more seriously and finally come to grips with the real underlying reasons for our national and collective constraints.
The single most important reason stares us in the face on a daily basis: In every Arab polity, the divisions between power and money are blurred to the point of invisibility. Those who control the sovereign assets and power of the state and those who own major chunks of the commercial and material wealth of our lands are often synonymous. King Abdul-Aziz (Ibn Saud), the wise founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, believed that there should always be strict separation between imara and tijara (the realm of governance and the realm of commerce). That wisdom has been long forgotten in all parts of the Arab world; instead, we suffer a situation where rulers and owners cannot be easily distinguished. The resulting distortions in economic and political life have virtually wiped out any semblance of accountability, transparency and checks and balances that once acted as a constraint on power.
The socioeconomic disparities and political tensions that have plagued so many individual Arab countries have been compounded when the Arabs have tried to work together through the Arab League to forge common positions on life-and-death issues like Iraq and Palestine. The continued failure of pan-Arab action in such situations cannot be tolerated any longer, when the consequences menace us in the form of a region broached yet again by invading armies, and reconfigured yet again by distant powers. We must urgently reconfigure ourselves, before others do it for us. The place to start is the point of weakness in every individual Arab country: that terrible nexus between power and money that results in public policy being formulated according to the distortions of political and economic self-interest, rather than the public interest, the common good, the rights of the individual, and the dignity of an entire national community of Arabs.

US hawks hope to find or fabricate cause for war

By Patrick Seale

The Daily Star, 2/21/03

Determined to smash Iraq, US hawks are feverishly hunting for a casus belli a pretext for war. With strong support from their Israeli allies, they hope to find or fabricate one in the next two or three weeks, in time to justify a massive blitz in early March when the full moon will facilitate night bombing of Iraqi targets. This is the message conveyed by sources in America and Israel, who report the huge anger and frustration of the hawks at the obstruction to their war plans from the UN weapons inspectors and the Security Council, but especially from President Jacques Chirac of France, now seen by the hawks as the principal villain.
How can a pretext for war be found? Some sources believe that Washington is already grooming an Iraqi defector whose “revelations” of Iraq’s prohibited arsenal will justify an attack. Other sources report that strenuous attempts are being made by American and Israeli intelligence agents to penetrate Hans Blix’s expanding team of weapons inspectors, perhaps in the hope of “planting” on Iraq incriminating evidence of prohibited items. Some European counter-espionage sources do not rule out the possibility of a contrived terrorist attack somewhere in the world which could be “linked” to Iraq. On Feb. 19 the British newspaper The Independent reported that Washington and London were contemplating an “orchestrated” raid on three “mystery ships” in the Indian Ocean, suspected of carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to present them as “evidence” that Saddam Hussein was in “material breach” of UN resolutions.
All these rumors and reports point to the utter determination of the neoimperialists and Zionist extremists who have captured American foreign policy to wage war on Iraq, come what may. For them, the issue of Iraq’s alleged weapons has never been more than a sideshow. Intoxicated by their hold on American power, they are in the grip of a geopolitical fantasy which sees the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime as the first step to the destruction of all their Arab and Islamic enemies and the wholesale “refashioning” of the Middle East to suit the United States and Israel.
These war-mongerers bitterly regret that President George W. Bush was persuaded late last year by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Secretary of State Colin Powell to seek Security Council authorization for war. But the hawks now see this multilateral UN route and the ongoing inspections as a trap constraining America’s freedom of action.
Nevertheless, they recognize that Blair, America’s vital European ally, needs a second resolution if he is to head off an anti-war revolt in his own Labor Party and persuade the skeptical British public that war is necessary. Blair’s participation is crucial to the war party: If he were to decide that the political cost was too high, not least to his own position, Bush might have to pause.
American diplomacy will have its hands full in the coming weeks. Apart from the search for a pretext for war, the following are seen as its most urgent tasks:
l Securing a majority in the Security Council for the new resolution drafted by the US and Britain. This will be no easy task. At present, the US, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria are ranged against a powerful block comprising France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria. The other six members of the 15-member Council are undecided. Great US pressures are now being applied to bring these “waverers” Mexico, Pakistan, Chile, Angola, Guinea and the Cameroons over to the American side. Such political pressures, financial inducements and other forms of “arm-twisting” might well cause Pakistan, Angola and Chile to bend, but that is still two votes short of the number the US needs for a majority.
l A further priority is to head off the possibility, even the probability, of a French veto of the proposed second resolution. While it is recognized that President Chirac will not easily give up his conviction that war must only be a last resort, American tactics will be aimed at weakening the French position by persuading Russia to switch camps. President Vladimir Putin’s recent decision to back France and Germany greatly strengthened the anti-war camp. A defection by him would leave France and Germany vulnerable and would be a major victory for the hawks. It is widely rumored that, in private negotiations, the US is offering Russia a “share of the spoils” from the Iraqi campaign.
l A third American tactic will be to urge Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, to proceed immediately with a number of key tasks: the destruction of Iraq’s complete stock of Al-Samoud rocket engines (which are alleged to have exceeded the permitted 150 kilometre range); conducting many more interviews of Iraqi scientists, without minders or tape recordings; accounting for the missing stocks of anthrax, VX nerve gas and other chemical agents; proceeding with extensive monitoring of Iraqi territory by American U2 spy planes and French Mirage IVs.
Any Iraqi hesitation to comply with any of these demands would immediately trigger war. On the other hand and this is Saddam Hussein’s dilemma if Iraq were to lay itself open to such all-intrusive surveillance, it would greatly compromise its ability to defend itself if the US decided to attack after all, as seems more than probable.
Even before a single shot is fired, the costs of the war to America’s regional alliances, and to the American Treasury, are rising steeply. In a highly significant interview with the BBC, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, declared that a US attack on Iraq without UN authorization would be an act of aggression. In other words, he was signaling that the US could not use Saudi air bases for such an attack. Another US ally, Turkey, is setting stiff terms for its participation in the war. Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party, has said that Turkey would not open its bases to thousands of American troops unless the US paid massive compensation put by some sources at over $40 billion.
Alone in the region, Israel is pressing hard for a US attack: war is indeed the cornerstone of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s strategy for destroying the Palestinians and confirming Israel’s regional hegemony. Its powerful friends in Washington are the impatient advocates for war. And Israel is asking for an additional $12 billion in US aid to help it over of its current economic difficulties.
Beyond the current diplomatic jousting for and against war lie a number of wider issues. In the Middle East, the overriding question is whether the Arab states can achieve real independence or whether they must submit, in neocolonial fashion, to American and Israeli dictation. For the Palestinians, now facing national extinction at the hands of Sharon, the problem is both agonizing and immediate.
In Europe, the issue is also one of power. Who will dominate the future of the European Union? No doubt, in seeking to check the rush to war, one of President Chirac’s objectives is to contain American power, which he sees as irresponsible and dangerous. In this he is reflecting the view of many Europeans who fear that the United States, under the influence of Israel and a handful of right-wing extremists, is charging blindly down a path which will destabilize the already volatile Middle East, provoke still more terror, and bring about the much-heralded “clash of civilizations.”
As the world holds its breath, here are some immediate questions: How long can the arms inspections continue before some form of closure will be demanded? Can Putin’s Russia be “bought off” by the US? Can American and Israeli agents spring a “surprise” and produce a pretext for war? Above all, will Saddam Hussein give up everything he has and will even this be enough to save his country? The greater the hawks’ frustration, the more dangerous and desperate they become.

Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for The Daily Star

Brand new century, same old problems

By Rami Khouri

The Daily Star, 2/21/03

One of the striking aspects of the current tensions between the United States and most people in the Arab world over the issue of Iraq is the asymmetry in perceptions on both sides, which we can probably trace back to the terrible attack of Sept. 11, 2001.
The most simple way to describe the asymmetry is that Americans feel shocked and brutalized by the unprecedented attack against them, while most Arabs today feel that the gathering Anglo-American armada poised to strike Iraq and rearrange the Middle Eastern political order is perhaps the fifth or sixth time in the past century that we witness such an armed assault.
Americans have had enough of Arab states that take their money and protection and allow anti-American terrorists to operate from their soil; Arabs also have had enough of Western powers that speak of peace and democracy but routinely use their capabilities to maintain an autocratic and oligarchic order that has shunned democracy and maintained internal and regional orders defined by chronic inequalities and tensions.
The attack against the US on Sept. 11 was an unprecedented and traumatic experience that shook the country to its very soul. My own sense is that the goals and intensity of American actions today are driven by two different phenomena: the policy of the Bush administration reflects the various strategic goals of the five main component groups that have captured and define the White House (Republican conservatives, pro-Israel hawks, extremist fundamentalist Christian groups, neo-conservative American global supremacists, and free-wheeling free marketers); but the emotional and political intensity of the Bush policy reflects a delayed and intense reaction to the massive trauma of Sept. 11.
The military campaign in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taleban regime and disrupt the operations of Osama bin Laden’s group did not satisfy the core, understandable American need for justice and retribution. That, it seems, will be met by the less understandable goal of changing the Iraqi leadership, and sending a message to all Middle Easterners that from now on you operate in the Middle East according to American rules, or you don’t operate at all.
For ordinary Arabs, the problem with this approach is that in contrast with the novelty and shock of the Sept. 11 the spectacle of another Anglo-American armada coming here to enforce Western rules is both politically offensive and tediously repetitive. American, British, French, and Italian troops have traveled this route numerous times in the past century, seeking either to maintain a Middle Eastern political order that is largely unsatisfactory to ordinary Arabs, or to re-arrange a political order to satisfy Western interests.
The most irritating thing for ordinary Arabs is not the immediate issue of having to endure yet another military strike by Western armies. It is, rather, the gnawing realization that throughout the past century of this nonsense we have not satisfactorily resolved the fundamental issues that challenged our grandparents in the 1910s and 1920s.
It is most troubling that for the past century we have not resolved any of the following core issues that are relevant to the current standoff in Iraq: the territorial shape of Arab countries, the quality of our sovereignty, the nature of our governance systems, the well-being of our economies, the provision and protection of basic human rights, our relations with Western powers, the balance between religiosity and secularism, the nature of citizenship, the role and rights of women, coexistence or confrontation between Arabism and Zionism, the balance between the identity of the modern Arab state and older indigenous identities such as religion, tribalism, family, ethnicity, monarchy, and regionalism, the role of civil society in the face of state power, the individual and collective right to bear arms, and the role of the military and security services.
It is astounding and enraging that such basic issues not only are unresolved in our lifetime, but also have consistently plagued the last four generations of our people. Faced with yet another armada steaming toward our shores to bring us freedom, peace, democracy, prosperity, and other promises of a new Middle Eastern order, it is not surprising that most of us around here are skeptical.
The understandable rage that drives Americans after Sept. 11 now confronts the equally understandable indignities that define the masses of Arabs, producing a gruesome cycle of imperial-vintage militarism from some quarters in the West and retrograde terror from pockets of enraged young men in the Middle East.
My impression is that while we might be able rationally to explain the emotional and militaristic furies of self-appointed, divinely-mandated warriors like George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden, their current policies reflect the proven failure of violence as an instrument of policy.
Bin Laden represents a most un-Islamic approach to relations with the world, going against the grain of the humility, tolerance, and piety that define the core of Islamic values. Bush, likewise, strikes me as blatantly un-American in his current war-mongering attitude, going against the grain of the long-standing tendency of ordinary Americans to shun imperial adventures, refrain from occupying other people, and live and trade in peace with the world.
The motivating anger of these tough guys may be understandable, but their chosen paths are not, and instead represent the triumph of failed militarism over the otherwise peaceful sensibilities of their own people.

Rami G. Khouri is executive editor of The Daily Star

Is fury over French veto hypocrisy or jealousy?

By Rime Allaf

The Daily Star, 2/21/03

As old Europeans and long-time imperialists, the French have extensive experience in global relations. Assuming an increasingly responsible role as a former great power now in tune with today’s realities, they are saying “Disarm Saddam but don’t attack Iraq” to an attentive world that sees their point as more than 10 million people demonstrated last weekend. Calmly and confidently, France has been making its case for reason and restraint on the Iraq crisis, taking into consideration all the consequences of a war and explaining them. Many may appreciate his eloquence and dashing looks, but it was Dominique de Villepin’s logic that provoked unprecedented and spontaneous applause in the Security Council on Feb. 14, star treatment that an American secretary of state could never hope for in the present state of affairs.
For once, people the world over are closely following the multilateral debate. This is the first time since the creation of the United Nations that people who do not usually follow international affairs now understand the concept of the Security Council, the role of the five permanent members, and the veto power accorded to them.
This is also the first time that officials in an American administration, and media sympathetic to its overt agenda, have done their utmost to vilify the use of the veto, coming this time from a country trying to do precisely what its role in the Security Council demands of it, namely safeguarding the security of the world. By warning it may veto a resolution allowing an armed attack on Iraq, France believes it is protecting the globe from a mad rush to unjustified war whilst offering a feasible alternative.
Not so, says America, whose media has gone into a frenzy of name-calling that the less vindictive French media has even had trouble translating. From “weasels” to “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” (courtesy of The Simpsons), every derogative term has been used to portray France as an ungrateful appeaser, spinning its reasonable arguments into simple anti-Americanism and forgetting Le Monde’s highly publicized editorial after Sept. 11, 2001 asserting “We are all Americans.” Few column inches have explained France’s rationale, but many have questioned the validity of its seat on the Security Council and its right to veto.
Meanwhile, a falsely outraged America pretended to explain the importance of the United Nations and that of its resolutions, as Colin Powell beseeched the Security Council to play its intended part and forego opposition to its war.
Powell would probably not want to remind a forgetful world that only two months before, in December 2002, a lone veto was cast to block a Security Council resolution that would have simply condemned (let alone attacked) a country for allowing the killing of unarmed civilians. In that particular case the killer was an Israeli soldier; the victim, armed with a cell phone, was Iain Hook, a British UN employee who bled to death in Jenin as Israeli soldiers refused passage to the ambulance. The vetoer was the United States. This incident alone should be enough to demonstrate American contempt for the UN and its employees, not to mention its blind support for its Israeli protege.
But this disdain of the United Nations Security Council, and therefore of the international community, did not begin or end with that failed resolution: America’s veto exploitation has been a central part of its foreign policy for over three decades, and Israel has been its main beneficiary. The US has even vetoed resolutions that upheld resolutions already passed by the body. In 1973, for instance, America vetoed two resolutions that basically reiterated Resolution 242. Likewise, it vetoed a January 1982 resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal from Syria’s Golan Heights, invaded illegally in 1967 and already covered (again) in resolutions 242 and 338.
Such examples are plentiful; America has repeatedly vetoed resolutions reminding Israel to comply with previous resolutions, or to take responsibility for recurring acts of terrorism. In April 1982, the US vetoed a resolution condemning an Israeli soldier’s shooting of 11 Muslim worshipers near Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. In February 1986, when terrorism had apparently not yet been defined by the superpower, the US vetoed a resolution condemning Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan airplane. And, 10 years later, in April 1996, America shamelessly vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for the horrific bombing of a UN camp in Qana, Lebanon, killing over 100 helpless refugees. While Palestinian civilians should by now be accustomed to this support for Israel come what may, bearing alone the brutality of Israeli occupation, even they must have been stunned by the US veto of a resolution in March 2001 backing the deployment of a meager UN observer force.
It is easy to find references to each and every instance of the American veto, even on the websites of pro-Israeli groups which gloatingly list this history of abuse. However, it is difficult to keep track of which number is growing faster: that of resolutions on Israel being vetoed by the United States, or that of resolutions on Israel being flouted by Israel. The latter is currently in breach of some 70 United Nations resolutions, and would have been in breach of a lot more had the US refrained from exploiting its veto. In comparison, Iraq is a mere amateur, managing to breach only a couple of dozen, for which it is about to pay a heavy price.
Critics of the French stance on a United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force on Iraq are well advised to do the math, and to wonder where was all this indignation when the United States was blocking resolutions on other types of inspections, those on suspected massacres of Palestinian civilians.
The French position is one shared by millions around the world, and by the overwhelming popular majority in the countries officially aligned with the American hawks. While the European leaders who signed the declaration of support for the US are ignoring the staggering numbers opposed to war, their electorate will surely not forget. For once, the French people hardly demonstrated, not needing to reproach their government.
As France is being maligned for its “appeasement” and supposedly isolated stance, are its opponents simply jealous of its independent popularity? Perhaps America believes the veto should be its sole prerogative. But should a resolution allowing an attack on Iraq be presented, and should France oppose it, never would a veto have been cast in the Security Council with more support from the world population. And should America decide to ignore the UN’s opposition to war, then future editorials around the world will surely be titled: “We are all French.”

Rime Allaf is a London-based Syrian writer.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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