| Opinion Editorials February 23, 2003 http://www.aljazeerah.info | ||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
|
-
Wolfowitz and His Successfully
Evil Cabal - Whatever comes next in the battle against Saddam Hussein, Assistant
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has achieved a life-long aim. He has
diverted the search for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem
onto the back burner while turning up the heat on the problem of Saddam
Hussein. Wolfowitz has a long history working for the government. After
completing his university graduate work, he was a management intern in the
Bureau of the Budget (1966-67), where he began his steady ascent up the
bureaucratic ranks. As assistant secretary of defense in the current administration,
however, Wolfowitz has come into his own. Some say he considers himself
the administration’s resident intellectual. Whether that is true or not,
Secretary of State Powell is his chief rival for influence in the White
House. At least once in the Bush administration Powell has come down hard
against Wolfowitz. But Wolfowitz indefatigably bounces right back from
such upsets, all the while pursuing his own private agenda. That agenda is
to deflect attention from the problem of Israel by finding Washington new
enemies anywhere else in the world. This long-term goal of his has been Wolfowitz’ idée fixe for many
years. Apparently with the president’s blessing, he has elaborated this
goal into calling for the defeat of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the
creation of a military occupation government. Wolfowitz maintains that,
since Saddam is so hated by his people, once serious military action
begins he will fall rapidly. It will not be terribly long, Wolfowitz
argues, before a military government can be melded into a democratic
country, perhaps the first in the Arab world. The civilian Defense
Department official tends to minimize problems that don’t fit into his
world views — such as the fact that Iraq’s Kurds may have different
plans of their own. The country’s Shiites also may have a different game
plan. Waving aside these practical considerations, Wolfowitz insists that
these matters can easily be dealt with later. There are others, however, who believe that Wolfowitz has a separate
agenda of his own, and who believe, in fact, that Wolfowitz welcomes each
new international problem. He may want the United States to remain bogged
down in various crises and thus give the Israelis more time to consolidate
their own conquest over the Palestinians. Indeed, some Wolfowitz-watchers warn that he is, in the words of one
conservative, “the most dangerous man in the current administration.”
This is partly because he both advocates hard-line positions and has the
ability to defend them. One observer has described Wolfowitz and his cohorts as “democratic
imperialists.” In addition, Wolfowitz and other hard-line commentators
are talking about US military action to bring about changes in both Syria
and Iran after subduing Iraq. Said Hugo Young of The Guardian of Dec. 3, 2002: “In Washington, as
well as in Europe, Paul Wolfowitz is regarded as the most awesome of the
hawks in his appetite for war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. A Republican
senator saw him as a ‘weirdo’ whose views were so dogmatic as to put
him outside the realms of normal debate.” In a press conference after Sept. 11, 2001, Wolfowitz declared that
American policy “is ending states that sponsor terrorism.” This earned
a public remonstrance from Colin Powell, who said that Wolfowitz “can
speak for himself,” but the US goal is only to end “terrorism.”
Wolfowitz’s enthusiasm for nailing Saddam was thus quashed for the time
being, as Powell and others made it clear that such a widespread war would
destroy the anti-terrorism coalition and infuriate Arab allies. While this was neither the first nor the last time Wolfowitz and Powell
have clashed, the secretary of state has not totally quashed the assistant
secretary of defense. Wolfowitz’ knack for the unexpected and his eagerness to deploy
American forces earned him a reputation for both prescience and nuttiness,
in the words of David Plotz. Wolfowitz reportedly has said, for example,
that “a kiloton of prevention is worth a megaton of cure.” In October 2002, The New York Times published a leak about Wolfowitz
and his coterie. According to the article, Wolfowitz wants an immediate
war with Iraq, believing that the targeting of Afghanistan, an already
impoverished wasteland, falls far short of stopping the global war the
cabalists are seeking. Iraq, however, is just another stepping stone in
turning the “war on terrorism” into a full-blown “Clash of
Civilizations,” where the Islamic religion could become the “enemy
image” in a new Cold War. The Times also revealed deep divisions within the Bush administration,
describing how the Wolfowitz clique plots behind the backs of Cabinet
officials such as Secretary of State Powell in the name of the US
government. “The group wants to obliterate Iraq, and put the Palestinian
Authority and President Arafat on the terrorism list,” wrote Michele
Steinberg in the Oct. 26, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. The “Wolfowitz Cabal” is now determined to push the US in the same
direction as Israel’s most dangerous right-wing policy and take on as an
enemy every Islamic nation Israel perceives as a threat. In this Wolfowitz
and his colleague, Richard Perle, seem to have succeeded beyond their
wildest and most fevered dreams. Richard H. Curtiss is the Executive Editor of the Washington Report on
Middle East Affairs Magazine. Arab News Opinion 23 February 2003
-
Price of Election -
When the RAF virtually wiped the German city of Dresden off the map in
the closing days of the war, it was claimed that the target had been local
railway junctions. In fact, the devastating attack was designed to break
the fighting spirit of the already virtually defeated Germans, by wreaking
maximum destruction on a beautiful place which until then had been largely
untouched by the war. And behind this again there was a darker motive of
revenge, for the indiscriminate German bombing attacks on historic British
cities like Coventry earlier in the war. The British and Americans were, in short, out to make certain that
Hitler and his Nazis reaped the whirlwind for their wickedness. The way to
do this was to inflict catastrophic damage on the German population, who
had permitted this monstrous regime to come to power. The Dresden raid did
not have to happen; Germany was already on its knees. The World War II allies had far less excuse for their barbarity than
the Palestinians who use their bodies to deliver their message of despair.
They are very far from defeating the Zionists who continue to oppress
them. Washington’s refusal to understand the lessons and contradictions
of history is compounding the tragedy of Palestine. Instead of assessing
the problem for what it is, President Bush is determined to smite the
Palestinians, regardless of the reasons for a resistance which most
Palestinians reluctantly support. The arrest of Palestinians in America accused of supporting terror
groups is being billed as part of the overall US drive against terror.
Because Al-Qaeda has proclaimed the oppression of the Palestinians as
being one of the wrongs it wants righted, the Palestinian issue has become
part of Bush’s anti-terror agenda. It is an object to be defeated, by
brute force if necessary, not a problem to be solved by subtlety and
understanding. This plays into the hands of Ariel Sharon and his Zionist hawks, who
are delighted to find that their subjugation of the Palestinian people can
now be dressed up as executing US foreign policy and the Bush campaign
against terror. In as much as he understands the tragic recent history of the Middle
East, George W. Bush sees that the issue of Palestine runs like a deadly
poison through the region’s veins. Instead of seeking a peaceful
antidote to the venom, he appears to be determined to cut out and block
off the veins themselves. It is a policy of great ignorance and
significant danger. The alternative is still there for the taking, but it must be doubted
if the Americans have the wisdom to seize it. Were the White House to see
justice for the Palestinians as an essential precursor for any further
interference in the Middle East, it could raise its regional stock and
earn the right to be listened to with respect. It would at a stroke cut
off one of the key platforms of Al-Qaeda and all extremists who believe
that Washington represents a great evil. Reining in the Israelis and
forcing them to take the path of peace and justice for the Palestinians is
entirely within the power of the Bush White House. But, Bush has a second-term election coming up and, like many
presidents before him, fears the corrosive power of the US Zionist lobby.
Thus, to win himself a second term, he will refuse to differentiate
between the blind hate of Al-Qaeda and the desperate violent campaign of
the Palestinians.
-
There Is a Strong Smell of Oil
in the Air - This is not a war about terrorism. This is not a war about weapons of
mass destruction. This is not a war about democracy in Iraq. This is a war
about something else. As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but the idea that
he might be connected with Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. Saddam heads the
Iraqi section of Al-Baath, a very secular party. Bin Laden is an Islamic
fundamentalist, and Al-Qaeda aims at the destruction of all secular
regimes in our region. The official who invented this particular lie is
either an ignoramus or a cynic who believes that one can fool all the
people at least some of the time. As for weapons of mass destruction: The US supported Saddam when he
used deadly poison gas against the Iranians (and their Kurdish allies in
Iraq). At the time, America was interested in stopping the Iranians. Today
there are chemical and biological weapons in most of the countries of this
region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one of them has nuclear
arms. As for democracy: Americans don’t give a damn. Some of their best
friends in the Islamic world are dictators, some more, some less cruel
than Saddam. As the American adage goes: “He is a son-of-a-bitch, but he
is our son-of-a-bitch.” If so, what is the war about? In one word: Oil. There is a strong smell
of oil in the air. Without smelling it, one cannot understand what is
going on. But once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush
& Co., while cynical and hypocritical, are utterly logical. These,
then, are the American war aims: -- To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world’s
biggest; -- To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil
reserves; -- To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf
states. Control of most of the world’s oil reserves will free the Americans,
at long last, from the whims of the oil market. Their hand, and theirs
alone, will be on the tap. They, and they alone, will fix the prices of
oil all over the world. If they will want prices to rise, they will rise.
If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With one single
movement of the hand, they will be able to deal a crushing blow to the
economies of Germany, France and Japan. No country in the world will be
able to stand up to them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France
oppose the war. It is directed against them. It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq, establish
democracy and leave. The very idea is ridiculous. The US enters Iraq in
order to stay there, for years and decades. Its physical presence in the
Arab and Muslim world will create a new geopolitical reality. Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire uses its
military power to promote its economic dominance. History is full of
examples. Indeed, one could say that all of history is an example. But
there has never been a superpower like the US, with no rival left, using
its immense military might in order to ensure its domination of the world
economy for generations to come. From this point of view, the coming war on Iraq — a “small” war,
militarily — will have historic significance. For sure, Bush will try to
set up some native Iraqi government, in order to disguise and lend some
legitimacy to the American occupation. There are any number of volunteers,
ready to serve as Quislings. Then again, Bush may prefer some new Saddam
Hussein, a dictator appointed by them. But war is war. War usually starts
with a well-prepared plan, but even the “best” plan, backed by the
mightiest military power, can go awry. The Arab masses may rise against
their American-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical governments. How will this affect Israel? Or, to use the old phrase: “Is it good
for the Jews?” The relations between Bush and Sharon are almost
symbiotic. In Sharon’s view, the massive presence of the US in our
region strengthens Israel and will enable him to implement his hidden
agenda. But, as one says in Hebrew, “the fat tail of the sheep has a
thorn in it”. The permanent occupation of Iraq turns the US into a kind
of “Arab” power, with a vital interest in the stability and
tranquility of the region. It will want to prevent by all means chaos in
the Arab countries — before, during and after the war. Sharon and his
generals are, on the contrary, interested in as much chaos as possible, in
order to use it to “transfer” millions of Palestinians to the other
side of the Jordan. There is a definite conflict of interest between Bush
and Sharon. Sharon, an extremist but prudent person, knows that he must not under
any circumstances infuriate Bush. He will act cautiously. He has lots and
lots of patience and lots and lots of stubbornness. He will try to obtain
from Bush permission to transfer (at least some) Palestinians, to murder
Arafat (“If Saddam, why not Arafat?”) and to break the Palestinian
people. Bush, on the other hand, will want Israel to stay quiet, very
quiet. At this time, he may use the Israel threat in order to ensure that
the Arabs, too, will stay quiet, very quiet. He will threaten the Arab
rulers, who are mortally afraid of an uprising of their peoples, that if
they do not behave, he will let Sharon off the leash. Is all this good for Israel? From the economic, social and security
points of view, the answer is negative. We are entering an era of
adventurism, with adventurer No. 1 at the helm of our state. The earth
will shake in our region, and nobody can foresee the dangers approaching
us. Only one thing is certain: This will not bring peace. I do not belong
to those who can speak about war with equanimity. I have seen war, I know
its face. I see the thousands who will be killed, the tens of thousands
that will be wounded and maimed, the hundreds of thousands that will
become refugees, the ruined families, the sea of tears and human
suffering. I join the millions all over the world who say NO. Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist. Arab News Opinion 23 February 2003
-
A Soul for a Cow - The opposite of opposition is not government. It is, more logically and
more correctly, position. In theory, a government takes a position, and
the parties across the dividing aisle in Parliament, oppose. Since a
government has the executive authority, it is expected to set the agenda
for the nation by instruments of legislation and Cabinet decision. When this goes awry, you can be sure that a government is in trouble.
If the opposition sets the agenda and the government begins to respond, it
is almost axiomatic that the latter has lost the natural advantage that
power provides in politics. Digvijay Singh is in trouble in Madhya Pradesh. There is no other
explanation for the curious somersault that politics has taken in his
state in this election year. Digvijay Singh, keeper of the secular flame,
now wants to get re-elected because he insists that he loves Mother Cow
more than his BJP opponent Uma Bharati. He also wants the voter of his
state to believe that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee eats beef! The
unsaid part of this allegation is that he himself would never indulge in
such sacrilege. This is not the first time that beef has been an election issue. The
reasons are obvious. Hindu sentiment is by and large against cow
slaughter, because of the reverence accorded to the cow in Hindu
scriptures. Most sensible Muslim rulers of India have accepted the need to
respect such sentiment; and only fools considered an indulgence to beef
worth the price of stability. (Aurangzeb, incidentally, for those who
might consider this interesting, was a vegetarian) The Congress government
of independent India also recognized this, and banned beef where it could.
You can eat beef at five star hotels now, but it is imported. That, by and
large, is where the matter rested, except when partisans of the Hindutva
family wanted more than this. The Congress never attempted to make beef
into an election campaign issue in the past. Digvijay Singh has learnt nothing from the humiliation of his
fellow-Madhya Pradeshi Kamal Nath in Gujarat. Kamal Nath should have made
governance the central issue. Sonia Gandhi should have started her bid for
victory in Gujarat from an earthquake-ravaged village without water and
shelter after years of the tragedy, instead of launching her campaign from
a temple. Digvijay Singh is as blind as Kamal Nath. He cannot see the obvious. If
the voter has to vote on cow-protection, who will he opt for? A party that
has made this a part of its agenda from the day it came to life, or a
party that has Sonia Gandhi as its president? There is nothing wrong with
Sonia Gandhi eating beef. She is a Christian and permitted by her faith to
do so. But how can the Congress make this an issue against a party that
has as its mentor a Guru Golwalkar? This is a no-brainer. But perhaps you
need some brains even to recognize a no-brainer. When you begin to sink, there is never a depth to which you will not.
To accuse Vajpayee of eating beef is absurd. It must be an act of
desperation. To accuse him of exporting beef is an utter nonsense. His
angry response will only increase his support. It only remains for the BJP
to accuse Sonia Gandhi of eating beef, which they will do happily. It is
astonishing that the MP Congress never realized that this charge could
boomerang. A Narasimha Rao could have fended off that boomerang. Sonia
Gandhi cannot. It is not her fault that she cannot, but that does not help
much. The beef campaign has injected a religiosity into the election
atmosphere that suits the BJP perfectly. The BJP has something far bigger
than cow-protection on its electoral agenda. It is going to offer a
solution to the Ayodhya problem, and do so with the full support of all
its allies in the NDA because the solution has been carefully hedged by
all the required checks and balances. First, ‘evidence’ will be
offered to show that there was a temple to Ram at the site where the Babri
Mosque was constructed. Second, the Supreme Court will be involved in the decision-making
process. This effectively finesses other parties, since they have all
given a public commitment that they will abide by any Supreme Court
ruling. They cannot now refute their previous stand. Third, temple
construction will start on undisputed land. This too is intelligent,
because you cannot argue too strongly about land that is undisputed.
Fourth, a mosque will be constructed nearby, although not at the precise
spot on which the Babri Mosque stood. This is the perfect position from where the BJP can launch its bid for
re-election, along with its allies, for five more years at the center. It
indicates, if nothing else, that the party has not allowed itself to
become complacent after its revival-victory in Gujarat. It has not made
the mistake of believing that victory in Gujarat was sufficient to ensure
victory in a national general election. Contrast this with the Congress
attitude, where the party thought that power in 15 states of variable size
would translate automatically into power at the center in the next general
elections. Arab News Opinion 23 February 2003
-
Nehru’s Choice - The late Indian leader Jawahar Lal Nehru said half a century ago:
“Dealing with America, you have two choices: You either accept the
authority of the Pentagon and lose your freedom, or the authority of
Hollywood and lose your culture.” Nehru was talking about better days: Now American hegemony, which
started with the fall of the European empires after World War II, does not
admit any choices. Globalization has strengthened American dominance in trade, culture and
information. It has also reinforced its position as a single world power
following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the
Eastern bloc, whose members joined NATO and the European Union. The Sept. 11, 2001 events helped the US to take steps to deepen its
hegemony and realize its plan of making the 21st century the American
century. Every action has a reaction, and it seems that the new administration
which assumed power in Washington has been hasty in creating its new
empire. They were rash in their push after the Sept. 11 attacks, expecting
that the world would have no choice but to surrender. They forgot that the
heirs of the former empires also have interests that have to be defended,
and nurture experts capable of exposing the American plan. It would be wrong to think that the position of the European
governments is based on moral principles and that the people in the
European streets demonstrated in support of them. Despite the anti-war
marches in British, Italian, German, French and Swedish streets, their
governments’ policy is dictated by self-interest. After Washington strengthened its grip over oil sources in the Caspian
Sea, Canada and Mexico (with the NAFTA accord) and in Nigeria by changing
the government, and in Venezuela by supporting the revolution against the
first democratically elected government there, and in Indonesia by
weakening its economy, it was inevitable that it would seek control of the
richest oil source in the Gulf by political, economic and military means. Europe and Japan had the choices of Nehru’s India, but they opted for
military and political alliance. They resisted successfully for some time,
but failed in their cultural choice. However, there still remains vast scope for choice and independence in
the economic field, despite Washington’s dominance in international
economic institutions such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund and
the World Trade Organization. It seems that Europe’s patience began to wear thin after the US
decided to establish a military base in Kabul, on the Caspian Sea and
another in Baghdad near the Gulf, coming as it did on top of
Washington’s economic dominance in North and South Americas, Central
Africa, Central Asia and the Indonesian archipelago. The American move is a threat to the new European empire project, the
new Chinese awakening, Russian ambitions and Japanese moves to restore its
economic power. If the American threat frightens these major powers, then
what will be the situation of weaker countries? Demonstrations in Europe, the US and other parts of the world were
motivated by moral considerations and legitimate fears about the return of
the rule of tanks and missiles, for which the world had paid dearly with
the deaths of 100 million people. And elected leaders and politicians do
respond to the demands of their people, provided the people insist on
their demands and threaten their rulers’ seat in government. But the main reason for this stand in opposition to the war is the
growing fear of US expansionism. Who knows, this international awakening
to America’s economic and political domination might be the beginning of
a resistance movement, which, though late in the day and slow to rise, is
nevertheless to be welcomed.
-
No time to waste By Musa Keilani Jordan Times, 2/23/03
-
IT IS ironic that the international community seems to be unable to see through the Israeli game that has no room for Palestinian aspirations for independence and statehood. We are hearing emphatic calls for the early implementation of the quartet's “roadmap” for peace, regardless of the consequences of the US-led war against Iraq, slated to begin in March. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is busy wooing partners into a coalition government and seeking an all-party Cabinet excluding, of course, the nine Arab-Israeli members of the Knesset. He has the perfect excuse to offer his partners against moves to get Israel rolling on the “roadmap”. The Palestinians and the Arab League have welcomed the quartet plans and hope it could be launched soon, but Israel is cool towards the idea obviously because Sharon does not find any necessity to make any compromises or agree to any of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It would be naÔve for anyone to believe that his recent moves, such as meeting Palestinian officials, lifting the ban on Palestinian officials travelling outside and sending an Israeli team to the London talks with the Palestinians, reflect a change of mind. Behind the new “diplomacy” is the reality that the entire scenario would change once the US gets going in Iraq. No one is questioning the ability of the US military might to eventually overpower the Iraqis, but the time frame and consequences of the action are uncertain. The only certainty is that the impact of a war against Iraq would be catastrophic for the Arabs in all aspects. The shape of a post-war Middle East would never be conducive to Arab and Palestinian interests since it would only serve Israel by launching it as the dominant power in the region. Obviously, Sharon is counting on the new shape of the region to advance his quest to put an end to the Palestinian problem once and for all, and his version of a solution would have little semblance to justice and fairness. But then, as Sharon seems to think, who is going to raise any questions anyway? The rift in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union and indeed the UN Security Council over Iraq plays into Sharon's hands. A disarray in all these organisations pitting the US against European countries would benefit Israel since Sharon would dig himself firmly in the US camp and put up a challenge to Europe to pressure him into seeing reason and logic in resolving the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. In the hypothesis that the US circumvents the UN Security Council and launches a war against Iraq without a new council resolution, it would signal the collapse of the world body. Indeed, Israel would be the most relieved party in that eventuality; in the eyes of Sharon and like-minded others, there would not be any relevance of the council resolutions on the Palestinian problem, particularly Resolution 242 that the Arabs insist should be the basis for a peace agreement. Obviously a world without a UN has little hope of ever convincing Sharon to respect international legitimacy. One only has to look at the situation of the world today, even with the purportedly authoritative UN Security Council around, as it is unable to make any dent on Israel's hard line and refusal to accept international law. That is only one of the many potential scenarios, none of which bodes well for Arab interests. With a US-led war against Iraq having become all but a foregone conclusion, the world and indeed the Middle East should not be wasting time by chasing initiatives like the quartet “roadmap”, since the relevance of such proposals would disappear in a post-war situation. Indeed, the “roadmap” is the only initiative on the table and it is natural that we grasp it as a last straw. But it would be pointless to press it at this point in time, since calls for its implementation would be mere rhetoric and not practical. What the Arab world should be doing now is to closely study the various post-war scenarios and adapt itself to the contingencies of an Israeli-dominated Middle East. It would not be far-fetched to envisage a post-war Arab world losing whatever coherence it has at this point, with Arab governments battling against expected American and Israeli pressures, as well as so many internal crises, with everyone fending for itself. The Arab leaders should be well aware of such a course of events that would lead to the disappearance of whatever Arab unity and solidarity we are deceptively talking about. The Arab world today faces the toughest challenge and the gravest danger it ever confronted. Indeed, the Arabs have stood in need for fundamental reforms for long and have advanced at a snail's pace. But this time around, changes would not come in a controlled situation, in view of the shifts prompted by the external imperatives rather than internal considerations. Situations would be imposed on the Arabs, and the only way to confront them is a well-thought out collective strategy that has for long been sadly missing. At the same time, a new thinking about the impending disaster to befall the Middle East has prompted concerns and perhaps has even brought Arabs a little closer. That could be the take-off point, but no time should be wasted before having frank and honest Arab deliberations and decisions on how to cope with a post-war situation in the region.
-
The wrong question By Gwynne Dyer Jordan Times, 2/23/03
- US SECRETARY of State Colin Powell did a good job at the United Nations of laying out the evidence that Saddam Hussein has kept some of the chemical and biological weapons that he had before the Gulf War of 1991, and maybe even made more since then. If you doubted it before, then you shouldn't doubt it any more. But it was the right answer to the wrong question. Saddam should be forced to comply with his obligations and destroy all those weapons, but if you are planning to launch a war next month that will probably snuff out tens of thousands of lives, then you have to answer a different question. Is there a big enough risk that Saddam will use those weapons himself in the near future, or give them to terrorists to use, to justify pulling the inspectors out and killing all those people now? No, there is not. Saddam has had these weapons for at least twenty years, and he hasn't given them to anyone in all that time. And why would terrorists need to get these weapons from Iraq anyway, when they could just steal their poison gas from the huge, poorly guarded stocks in Russia (secured, in some cases, with bicycle padlocks) or mix them up in the kitchen sink, like the Aum Shinrikyo cult did for its attacks on the Tokyo subway in 1995? Besides, Saddam is no friend of Al Qaeda. He is a secular, Westernising socialist who liberates women and makes deals with the West. Osama Ben Laden says he is an “infidel” and has been calling for his overthrow for years. But, says George Bush, he's a dictator, a mini-Hitler who wants to overrun the Middle East and will stop at nothing. We must not appease him by waiting three months (always the Munich analogies). We have to take him down now. Saddam is neither mad nor expansionist. In fact, if you were looking for a European parallel to Saddam's regime, it would be something like Nicolae Ceausescu's long reign in communist Romania — except that Ceausescu, safely contained within the Soviet bloc, never had a war with his neighbours. Saddam, who is 66 this year, comes from the Arab generation that believed in modernisation through revolutionary socialism on the Eastern European model. During the 1970s he behaved like a classic communist leader, eliminating his rivals but taking the task of raising people's living standards quite seriously. With abundant oil revenues available, he built an Iraq where most people had decent jobs, the children were all in school and women were freer than anywhere else in the Arab world. Then came the war with Iran, and everything went wrong. Saddam always dreamed of becoming the hero-leader of the Arab world on the model of Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser, which is why he had a nuclear weapons programme. (The first Arab leader to acquire a deterrent against Israel's nuclear monopoly automatically becomes an Arab hero.) He never showed any desire to conquer his neighbours, but Iraq did have territorial disputes with Iran and Kuwait, both dating back to before he was born — and he did not manage them well. He signed a treaty with Iran in 1975, settling the dispute over the Iraq-Iran border, but it unravelled after the shah was overthrown in 1978, and the new Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini began inciting the majority of Iraqi Arabs who share Iran's Shiite religious heritage to throw off Saddam's godless socialist rule. In the great blunder of his life, Saddam went to war with Iran in 1980. Iranians outnumber Iraqis three-to-one, and without huge amounts of US aid and those chemical weapons we keep hearing about (which the Reagan administration knew all about), he would not have survived. Iraq emerged from that war in 1988 with hundreds of thousands dead, the welfare state in ruins — and $60 billion in debt to its Gulf Arab neighbours. Saddam asked them to cancel the debt, since Iraq's sacrifices had “saved” them from revolutionary Iran. When they refused, he invaded Kuwait (which all the rulers of independent Iraq have claimed as part of Iraq) in August, 1990. He thought he had cleared this with his American allies, but neither party understood what the other was saying in his famous conversation with the US ambassador in Baghdad. When Saddam contacted President George H.W. Bush four days after the invasion and offered the US unlimited Kuwaiti oil at one-third of world market price in return for a deal on Kuwaiti sovereignty, Bush senior coldly ordered him out of Kuwait. He refused, the Gulf war followed, and he has been under UN sanctions ever since, clinging to power in the ruins of the country he once raised to prosperity. He has been a disaster for Iraq, but he is not the new Hitler. He is not even a visceral anti-American, though US-Iraqi relations have been bitterly hostile since 1990. So the right questions are: is Saddam likely to give chemical or biological weapons to the Islamist terrorists he loathes this month or next, when he has not done so in the past twenty years? If not, why do we need a war with Iraq now that will kill a great many people with old-fashioned high explosives? The writer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
-
Richard
Pearle interviewed about Iraq
Editor's Note: Both of Richard Pearle and Amir Taheri are staunch haters of Saddam's Iraq.
-
Looking
for excuses, EU blames Iraq for recession
-
A
step toward peace in Palestine
-
Divided
Europe puts U.S. on the back foot
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |