|
Jan 15, 2003 Opinion Editorials 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
|
In Washington, the battle line is drawn between the forces of conservatism and liberalism. While patriotism is often cited as a shared value, there is only one "ism" that truly unites members of both parties in a common cause: nepotism. In the last two years, nepotism has flourished in Washington to a point that would make the most inbred potentate blush. Just last week, former Sen. Frank Murkowski's handpicked successor was introduced to the nation. (Murkowski was elected governor of Alaska and, as such, was entitled to appoint his Senate replacement.) The new senator immediately assured the public that she "shared the same vision for [Alaska], the same values." She should: She also shares his DNA. Lisa Murkowski is the daughter of Frank Murkowski. It appears that the former Republican senator scoured the entire state of Alaska for a suitable replacement, only to find the best candidate in his own family. Imagine that. Frank Murkowski's extreme variation on "Bring your Daughter to Work Day" follows a long, dubious tradition of nepotism in Washington. The current list of family appointments is too long to recount in its entirety. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter was made a deputy assistant secretary of State. Cheney's son-in-law was given the plum position of chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget. Secretary of State Colin Powell's son was made chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The administration has not neglected key members of the Supreme Court in access to the public trough of appointments. Both Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (who voted with the majority in favor of President Bush in the 2000 election challenge) have watched their children sworn in to high-ranking positions. After a contentious confirmation hearing, Scalia's son Eugene was made the top lawyer at the Department of Labor. He has since resigned. Rehnquist's daughter, Janet, was made inspector general at the Health and Human Services Department. (President Bush's father had given her a job on his White House staff.) In her short tenure, Janet Rehnquist has triggered an array of scandals, ranging from her storing a gun -- without a trigger lock and not in a gun safe -- in her office to more serious allegations of intervening in departmental cases to assist personal and political friends. She is under federal investigation and, most recently, was hit with allegations of shredding incriminating documents relevant to that investigation. Congress has proved particularly eager to respond to Bush's call for greater family values in government. Elaine Chao, the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is secretary of Labor. (Chao can claim experience to justify the position.) Sen. Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, was not willing to rely on experience alone in securing an appellate judgeship for his son, David. Rather than recuse himself, Bunning interviewed 11 finalists for the position and, with McConnell, reduced them to three. Amazingly, Bunning's son made his dad's cut. He didn't make the American Bar Assn.'s cut. It found young Bunning to be unqualified, due to his lack of experience and the "serious doubts by respected members of the bench and bar" as to his intellectual and professional abilities. Bunning's colleagues confirmed him anyway. Former Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) was able to secure confirmation of his son, Strom Jr., as U.S. attorney in his home state, despite the fact that the 28-year-old Strom Jr. barely outranked a Justice Department intern in experience. Of course, many politicians in Washington do not try to appoint sons and daughters to high positions: Many do not have eligible sons or daughters. The father of Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.) was nominated for an appellate judgeship and, after being denied confirmation by the committee, has just been renominated. Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota is pushing his sister, Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, for a judgeship. The list goes on and on. Ultimately, the problem is less about individual qualifications (or the lack thereof) as it is institutional integrity. With branches of government swapping siblings, spouses and offspring, our constitutional checks and balances become mired in personal debts and alliances. Perhaps the election of the son of a former president inspired the shift toward a more aristocratic system of government. It could be worse. In the year 40, the Emperor Caligula appointed his favorite horse, Incitatus, to the Roman Senate. Incitatus proved to be lacking in the temperament or tact for public service. Of course, Incitatus had one positive characteristic: He was a gelding who could neither produce nor appoint offspring. Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington Law School.
-
India and Russia
The Six-Day visit by India’s Defense Minister George Fernandes to
Russia will not simply cover the possible purchase of armaments, among the
more significant of which could be the acquisition of the aircraft carrier
Admiral Gorshkov, strategic bombers and nuclear submarines. The Fernandes
trip will also be used to further discuss matters of strategic interest,
since his tour comes just weeks after a highly successful trip to India by
Russia’s President Putin. India first formed her relationship with Moscow when she needed to both
establish her independence from the former British colonial power and more
importantly, counterbalance the once alarming threat of Communist China,
which culminated in a full-blown Chinese invasion of India in October
1962. India’s relationship with the old Soviet Union was, however,
always an uneasy one, because of her leading position in the Non-Aligned
Movement. The world has changed. Now India is emerging as a significant economic
power. If the analysis is correct that this new century will close with
the Far East, primarily India and China, established as the most
important, if not the dominant commercial region, then Russia is likely to
need India every bit as much as India once needed it. Stripped of ideological differences and unburdened by the danger of
disputes over a shared border, these two large countries have much to gain
commercially from each other. Both need capital for economic development
but each is seeing the emergence of a thrusting entrepreneurial class,
impatient with the bureaucracy that afflicts each of them. Russia has a
widely established technological base while India is busy acquiring its
own specialties, not least in the area of information technology. India is arguably the more efficient place in which to do business,
whereas much of Russian society has yet to cast off the stultifying
effects of communist command economics. Indeed one of the issues that Mr.
Fernandes will be raising with his Russian hosts, is the problem of
obtaining spare parts, as specified in contracts, for Russian military
equipment that his country has already bought. It is the very lack of potential flash points between Moscow and New
Delhi which suggest that theirs is a relationship that has immense
commercial and maybe also political mileage. The confrontation with Pakistan is certain to be on the agenda and here
the Russians have a particular interest. Until now it has been the United
States which has wagged its finger at both squabbling India and Pakistan.
US arms also underpinned the overthrow of the Taleban regime in
Afghanistan and now pursue its remnants and Al-Qaeda allies in the east of
that country. US influence could however be set to decline if it presses
ahead with a foreign policy which is seen on the one hand to be
unswervingly pro-Zionist and on the other, increasingly anti-Muslim.
Though Russia’s shameful resumption of its campaign against Chechen
rebels is an initiative that came directly from President Putin within
days of his moving into the Kremlin, Russia is not as deeply implicated as
the United States in anti-Muslim accusations. Indeed were Putin to accept
the inevitable and enter into negotiations with the Chechens and grant
even autonomy, Russia’s stock would rise considerably in the Muslim
world. Whatever the ramifications of such a transformation in the Middle East,
it is certain that Moscow could speak with considerably greater authority
to Pakistan on the question of Kashmir. It may even be that with Indian goodwill founded on the long-term
relationship that seems to lie before herself and Russia, Putin could
broker a settlement and bring to an end the dangerous Indo-Pakistani
confrontation. This would not only be highly desirable in itself but it
would be a major slap in the face for Washington’s highly assertive,
even bullying foreign policy. Putin would have pulled off a diplomatic
coup without snubbing his new friend in the White House and India would
have demonstrated its international statesmanship. And of course, Chechnya
could at last be at peace.
-
An American ‘Wolfowitz’ in
Baghdad! Arab
News, 15 January 2003
The picture in the office of Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary in the US
Department of Defense, speaks for itself. In it, he is surrounded by Dick
Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld; the former was secretary of defense during the
first Gulf War and is the current vice president and the latter is the
secretary of defense today. Paul Wolfowitz sincerely believes that the
upcoming strike on Iraq is “his” war; he also believes that this will
be his path to the post that has eluded him due to his ethnicity. Wolfowitz has said previously among private circles that if he was not
Jewish he would have been secretary of defense by now. To a great degree,
the current war policy against Iraq is part of Wolfowitz’s greater
“vision”, presented in a doctrine in 1992. The contents of the doctrine paint a different Middle East and a
different Islamic world. It also has some very familiar themes similar to
the ones presented in the now infamous Rand Report on Saudi Arabia. For thirty years Paul Wolfowitz, with some associates, has been
developing and applying the world view that mainly guides the proposed war
on Iraq today. His associates include Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman. They all made
a very strong case to the American administration to extend the war on
terror into Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz has always had a strong conviction that he was destined
for glory. This was made even stronger when the famous American novelist
Saul Below based a character in his novel “Ravelstein” on him. The
novel states the following about Wolfowitz’s character: “He has a
powerful mind and a great grasp of great politics” and “it’s only a
matter of time before he has a Cabinet rank, and that would be a damn good
thing for the country.” Since then Wolfowitz has been on a mission to achieve glory and
greatness for himself, but the question remains: At what cost? After the fall of the Soviet Union, Wolfowitz has developed a theory
that the US should and can confront all “Evil” enemies and it will
prevail over them. He believes that the world is full of enemies who will hurt the US if
they can. He was not as surprised by the Sept. 11 attacks as others in the
American establishment because his formative experience was in confronting
the Soviet Union. Wolfowitz sincerely believes that you do have to treat your friends
different from enemies, thinking that this is a basic principle of
international relations. During the time he diplomatically served in Asia,
he was known for applying pressure on “friends” like Marcos and the
Korean generals to encourage democratic reforms. Now in a political play he has been staging for a while, Wolfowitz
believes he can reshape the Arab and the Islamic world. While the Arab world lacks some important political, social and
economic reforms, Wolfowitz’s plans fail to mention the destructive role
which the tyrant government of Israel plays in the region. He fails to specify how the US must get rid of the Israeli occupation
of Arab territories. In Israel, the US has been supporting a government
headed by a convicted war criminal with a foreign minister previously
ousted by a corruption scandal. This has to end, if we seek new global
political values. To say Wolfowitz’s plan is hypocritical would be a gross
understatement. Wolfowitz is very keen on a war on Iraq; it has been
something he has been dreaming of, as it would solidify his ambitions to
become the next secretary of defense. The road to this great personal glory, as far as Wolfowitz is
concerned, goes through Baghdad. This would be the opening act in his
wicked play. It would not be surprising to think that Wolfowitz would love
for the war to begin on a full moon!
-
So-called
Israeli Democracy! By Mohammad
Ado Al-Ibrahim Syria Times,
9-1-2003 -
It is a farce when many countries worldwide would view Israel as a democracy if not as the only democracy in this part of the world! Democracy is however inseparable from people's free choice throughout history. Was Israel democratically established and built as any other country worldwide? Israel was established at the rubbles, blood and bones of innocent civilians in Palestine. Its founders made no elections as to get voted in from Diaspora to Palestine! Any way, what follows the Israeli usurpation of Palestine was a history of killings, assassinations, expulsions and the like. The so called prefabricated garrison state was there; yet it rejects to state definite borders, constitutions... It even acts and deals differently with its Jews, Ashkenazi or Sephardim. If so, how would Israel respect non-Jews mere existence and presence? Actually labeling Israel as a democracy is but the very humiliation for what real democracy is! Ha'aretz, the Israeli daily itself, noted on January 2, 2003 that the ongoing assault on the political activity of Palestinians in Israel over the past few days is unprecedented". The Israeli regime has firmly established its position as one that first and foremost serves the Jews in Israel and the Diaspora; and in order to do so, it is willing to take harsh measures against the Palestinian public in Israel. Land expropriation, citizenship laws, immigration laws, orientation of capital, and the development and division of the geographic space are all basic components of the structure of the Jewish-Israel regime. All these means constitute tools to strengthen the Jewish majority and exclude the Palestinian minority. In many cases, they even serve as tools to harm the minority. The daily spoke of the disqualification of Ahmed Tibi's candidacy by the Central Elections Committee and the expected hearing on the petition submitted by the attorney general to disqualify the Balad list, not to mention the recent vote barring Azmi Bishara from taking part in elections! On December 21st, 2002, Israeli interior minister ordered an Israeli weekly newspaper closed for two years for making harsh criticisms of the Israeli occupation and apartheid rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli state-run radio said Interior Minister Eli Yeshai decided to close down Sawt al Haq Walhurriya (Voice of Truth and Freedom), a weekly newspaper, published by the Islamic movement in Israel in the Arab Israeli town of Um El-Fahm. The radio quoted unidentified government sources as accusing the paper of supporting the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli colonialist rule. The paper's editor Tawfiq Eerer criticized the closure order, saying Israeli democracy was still too fragile and undeveloped to tolerate dissenting voices. Israel routinely closes down publications and electronic media in the Occupied Territories and arrests Palestinian journalists for communicating to the outside world Israeli repressive measures against Palestinians, thus making its claim of being the "only democracy in the region" indeed ridiculous. In a recently published first worldwide index of press freedom, Reporters Without Borders ranked Israel 92nd out of 139 countries surveyed. In their report, the group stated: "in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported." If this is what democracy is, one would wonder what not democracy is!
-
The Major
Issue By M. Agha Syria Times,
9-1-2003 -
All current events and developments seem to be minor in comparison with the Iraqi issue which pushes other regional and international problems aside to occupy a leading position in the world arena. This is one of the objectives sought by the US-Israeli alliance. In the first place, this alliance seeks to liquidate the main issue in the Middle East, which is the Palestinian question. In the second place, they seek to dominate the natural resources of the Arab nation, namely oil. This is an academic analysis which separates the major objectives of this hostile alliance from each other, but the real strategy pursued by the two allies does not separate them from the other one. There is a dialectical relationship between the first objective, which is the liquidation of the Palestinian question, and the second objective, which is the domination of Arab oil. To attain this strategy, the US-Israeli decision makers have spared no effort to divert the world attention from the core of the Middle East problem, which is the Arab-Israeli conflict in general and the Palestinian cause in particular. In brief, Washington and Tel Aviv are doing their utmost to turn the regional conflict from a legitimate resistance of the Israeli expansionist settler colonial strategy into an inter-Arab conflict according to the old colonial basis زDivide and Ruleس. Therefore, they try to obliterate the just cause of the Palestinian people by creating a vicious axis, a real evil axis, under the cover of fighting terrorism! The real aim of this axis is to fight the national liberation movements that are still standing in confrontation of the imperialist-Zionist expansionist plots. Instead of stopping the Israeli criminal war against the defenseless people of Palestine, Washington continues to double its war preparation in the other direction in the Arabian Gulf, close to the oilfields. Although the US and Israel want the world to move in other direction, the Palestinian people remain the only party that decide on the priorities of the conflict. It is their just cause which needs to be solved according to UN resolutions. Other issues also need to be solved on the basis of the UN resolutions including Iraq. Will the زaxis of evilس get it?
-
The real
danger By R Zein Syria Times,
9-1-2003 -
Through their daily field tours across Iraq, the international arms inspectors have confirmed that there is no tangible existence of banned weapons in many sites so far inspected. Nonetheless, the US continues to mass troops, to prepare for an offensive and to persist in alleging that Iraq is a real danger and still hides weapons of mass destruction. In the heat of the unprecedented American military build-up in the Arab Gulf region, the question of Israelصs possession of nuclear arsenal continues to be pressing. It is widely known that Israel possesses more than 200 nuclear and other sophisticated arms of mass destruction as well as the زDimonaس nuclear reactor. It moreover continues to develop different nuclear installations under international inspection. Israel also blatantly refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to honour resolutions of the international legitimacy. What encourages Israelصs brazen defiance is the US which continues to render all-out aid to its strategic ally and to support its policy of occupation, aggression and mass genocide being pursued against the defenceless Palestinian people. Needless to say therein that the actual threat and real danger in the region is Israel. Its weapons of mass annihilation are in the hands of extremist and terrorist leaders who are not hesitant to use these destructive arms, to continue carrying out acts of mass genocide and destruction and to escalate grave tension in the entire Middle East with a view to achieving further expansion and setting up زEretz Yisraelس extending from the Nile to the Euphrates in the very heart of the Arab region. The whole problem then lies in Americaصs full bias to Israel and the adoption of a selective and double-standard policy in an open challenge to provisions of the international legitimacy and the prestigious will of the world community. Only when America stands to reason and logic and puts things in the right and sound path in line with legitimacy resolutions, the agitated region will certainly be stabilized and its peoples will enjoy peace and security.
-
Larger
anti-peace strategy M. Agha Syria Times,
11-1-2003 -
There has never been such a big military presence in the Middle East as it is today. The US Administration and Britain have sent further warships and aircraft carriers to the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean in preparation of an unjust war against Iraq. The two allies also put their military bases around the world in general, and the Mideast in particular, on alert for such a devastating event regardless of the international communityصs opposition. The US-British military preparations seem to be larger than the Middle East geographical range. They may exceed the region to other parts of the world such as South East Asia!? The current dangerous moves go in concert with the escalated Israeli ruthless war against the defenceless Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The American hectic disinformation and military campaign is being carried out as the UN inspectorsص team underlines the fact that there has been no evidence of the possession by Iraq of any internationally-banned weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, the axis concocted by the Bush Administration including Israel is the only party that possesses weapons of mass destruction and is carrying out the ugliest practices of murder, terror and violation of human rights. The pretext that Washington used to justify an all-out war against Iraq is no longer valid because the international teams and experts, which are sent with an American recommendation, found nothing that threatens (the American or Israeli security)!!! Following the issuance of Security Council resolution No. 1441, the initiative for finding a peaceful solution to the crisis was supposedly taken by the international community. The US Administration seems to be worried about the world security more than the world itself!!! For this, Washington and Tel Aviv pay no heed to the international community, but interested in massing further war machinery and gun powder against Iraq and the Palestinian people. The whole region and the world are now in jeopardy due to the current military reinforcements and moves. The international community should face this horrible situation created by the pre-fabricated Iraq crisis.
-
False
democracy By M.N. Syria Times,
11-1-2003 -
The British government has announced that the conference scheduled to be held in mid-January in London concerning the Palestine cause could be cancelled after Israeli government's decision to prevent the Palestinian delegation from travelling to participate in the conference. If Israeli authorities prevented the Palestinian delegation from attending the conference scheduled in London, it will be normal to adopt a decision on the uselessness of convening such a confrence within these circumstances, spokesman for the British Prime Minister said on Tuesday. It is clear for those who are following up the situation in the occupied Palestinian lands that Israel which claims that it is the "only oasis of democracy in the region" is working hardly to prevent any international support for the Palestinian people and to deprive them from having their voice reach international circles. Thus, the world public opinion will not be able to know what is actually taking place in the occupied Arab territories like mass assassination, demolishing of houses, confiscating of lands, sacrileging holy places, mass arrest campaigns, devastation of plantations and other unknown procedures. While Israel is working to destroy the Palestinian people's living conditions, it at the same time, works to undermine any attempt to reform the Palestinian inter-relations, including the Palestinian national dialogue which has become a vital question to safeguard the interests of the Palestinian people and the Palestine cause. On this basis, Israel's false democracy which the Zionist circles are promoting in order to beautify Israel's picture in the international community must be unveiled.
During the past summer, I decided to take a vacation to my home country Iraq, to which I hadn't visited or been since the summer of 1993. Both that visit and this recent one were relatively short, lasting for a period of about two to three months each. Given the fact that the greater part of my life, upbringing and education has taken place in the West -- about nine years in the U.S. and over ten here in Canada -- I believed it was both my right and duty to visit my country and the many relatives that I have there. And this despite the series of conflicts and debacles that have resulted in Iraq being viewed and treated as an outlaw state, and its citizens as barbaric rogues and outcasts by the international community. It seems a
very cruel twist of fate that the people of Iraq have been forced to bear
the burden of one dictator's crimes and stupidity for over a decade now,
while he himself has been left untouched and unharmed in his mansions and
palaces. This took place while the U.S. and Britain imposed
(indiscriminately) the most ruthless and severe economic embargo ever
witnessed in history, and refused to either minimize this policy or
recognize it as ineffective. Now George W. Bush is embarking on an Episode
II mission to oust the "Butcher of Baghdad" for all the wrong
reasons and in all the wrong ways. But I'll stop digressing and get back
on track. In Iraq, I saw first-hand the gruesome effects of two Gulf Wars, some twelve years of the most brutal form of biological warfare (a.k.a. economic sanctions), as well as regular (usually unreported) bombing by the "axis of righteousness," i.e. the United States, Great Britain, and other members of the "civilized" world. I witnessed dry numbers converted into real people and gross suffering, statistical figures transformed into starving families, dying children, and a quite exhaustive list of other by-products of what was supposed to be simply "containing" Saddam Hussein and protecting freedom and democracy. But I guess that's the harsh reality of life, is it not? Plus, I guess one could quote from reliable sources, like the very punctual Madeleine Albright, who seemed so confident that the price (of over half a million dead Iraqis under the age of five due to sanctions) is worth it. In any case, after spending almost two and a half months in Iraq, two weeks in Syria, another two months in Jordan, and finally a week in London, England with an aunt of mine, I decided it was time to head back home to my parents and family in good ol' (but too cold) Canada. I booked a flight with Continental Airlines for Dec. 11th, luckily before the holiday high season when the prices of traveling tickets rise drastically. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any available direct flights from Heathrow to Ottawa; I had to settle for a flight with a transit stop in Newark, New Jersey. The stop in Newark was originally only supposed to last for an hour and a half, yet exceptions were made for royalty like myself for whom they actually extended that resting period to three to four hours. What took place during those long hours of wait was actually a little funny, somewhat amusing, but also seriously degrading and insulting. Upon my arrival in Newark, I was sidetracked away from everyone else (normal people I guess) and sent to a segregated room for "Special Registrars." One observation struck me as odd about this room. There were absolutely no white people. I really don't mean to sound derogatory by making this comment. Of course, most of the officers working there were white, but the actual "special" people asked to go to this room were not. I saw Pakistanis, Hindus, Hispanics, Africans, and of course, Arabs. But no Caucasians, no Brits or French or Belgians or Italians. At first I thought I was going to be awarded or something. It's not that often that I'm labeled "special," so it didn't really occur to me that this kind of "special" was based solely on my appearance, on my Arab looks, on the fact that everything about me seemed to carry an aura of "Arabness." Maybe they were right in having me register as someone "special," though I would've preferred if this "special" status were based on some other standard than the fact that I may have a slightly broader nose or darker skin than the average Joe. But I suppose my gold-dark Semitic features can give me away in any setting as being a towel head, camel jockey, or sand-nigger. I just never really noticed it, that's all. After they took my fingerprints (for the crime of?), pictures, weight, height, eye-color, hair color, and a bunch of other philanthropic details that may be useful for screening me out of the system more effectively next time around, I was allowed to go. I went to pick up my luggage and was taking them through customs when I was pushed over into another lane again, the "special" lane as I like to think of it. Most of the other people before and behind me went in great rushes to some other customs officers, and were all let through with the utmost ease, along with the regular greetings and smiles to welcome them. I was probably seen to be above such superficial treatment and, therefore, the customs officers I was made to see greeted me with suspicion, disdain, perhaps even nervousness. Those two customs officers had the sorry fate of searching my luggage, which consisted of two large (and overloaded) suitcases and one carry-on handbag. I almost felt sorry for them. Along with the thorough and messy search in which every item in my suitcases were taken out, frisked, searched, and strenuously analyzed, I was also asked a number of stupid and intimidating questions. One would think that people in such positions would have more than a primary education. But alas, in the country of the American Dream, all people have an equal right to attain positions of sensitivity and status, no matter how low their IQ. After being asked a series of "procedural" questions with regard to the nature of my travel and the countries I had visited (especially Iraq), I was also questioned about whether or not I was approached by any Iraqi agents asking me to work for them. They told me that I could potentially be an "asset of great value" to the Iraqi regime, due to my fluency in English, my Canadian citizenship, and my relative flexibility to travel and what not in general. Agents? Asset of great value? I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was like I was acting out some big Hollywood hit on spies, terrorists, and national security. Or perhaps some jingoistic novel by Tom Clancy on Arabs with big beards, thick accents and dark black eyes intent on destroying Uncle Sam for no other reason than because of their sheer hatred for democratic and liberal values. Except I neither had the big beard nor the thick accent (or any accent for that matter). A little along the line, they even saw to it that I receive their platinum package and brought two U.S. customs agents for further questioning. Yikes, with all that "special" attention for a nobody like me, I really did feel like royalty. The questioning turned into intimidation when they started asking me questions of a purely theoretical nature. One such question was something along the lines of, "If the U.S. decided to go to war against Iraq, would you be in a state of moral dilemma since you have family back there who might potentially be killed or injured by the bombings?" Moral dilemma? No kidding I'll be in a moral dilemma. In fact, that's kind of an understatement as to how I'd feel, and I told them so. I'd be angry, sad, and seriously pissed off. Fairly normal and natural human feelings, I would say. Who wouldn't be in a "moral dilemma" if they had relatives and family in a country the size of California being bombed by the greatest superpower in the world (along with its cops on the beat) using the most state-of-the-art B-52 bombers and technology? They also happened to find a number of political and religious books, articles, magazines, and other literature, which, from their stares at one another, seem to have given them goose bumps. Why? I have no clue, really. I was carrying a few socialist left-wing magazines and newspapers that I got from London, one of which had a huge picture of Mr. Bush on the front page and huge cap letters reading "STOP BUSH." I guess maybe that gave them the creeps. What I found ridiculously strange though was that they took all of my paperwork (books, diaries, articles, pamphlets) and photocopied it all. They took awhile reading through my diary, actually made out about 45 minutes for it alone. I've usually thought of my life story as particularly boring and inconsequential, but they seemed to believe otherwise. Then more hysterical questioning and more presumptuous questioning followed. One of the U.S. agents even got himself round up in a political debate with me, about the legal and moral validity of America's upcoming war against Iraq and whether or not I was being discriminated against. He actually thought that he could convince me, or any sane person for that matter, that the U.S. was beating its drums for war merely for the interests of the Iraqi people. I mean I know that I'm somewhat dark and according to that outdated social evolution theory people like me of the lower subhuman races probably shouldn't possess a more sophisticated thinking process than an average six-year old, but give me a break. Then he tried to beat about the bush about how I wasn't being discriminated against and that they were simply taking "security precautions." Yeah, O.K., that's probably why I saw no light-skinned white people detained for over three hours and being made to miss and re-schedule their flights. I guess you could justify that mathematically though. If Bin Laden and Co. were all dark-skinned Arabs, then it follows that all other dark-skinned Arabs are "potential" Bin Ladens. Makes sense, I suppose. But if you tried to apply the same equation to Timothy McVeigh and classified all white Catholics as "potential" McVeighs, then that's called a false syllogism and flawed logic! Towards the end of this encounter, I thanked the U.S. customs agents and officers for blessing me with the pleasure of experiencing discrimination and racism within the borders of their blessed land. It's not everyday that one experiences the aesthetic luxury of flying second class. [This article was originally printed on http://shianews.com.] Mohamed Ahmad encourages your comments: Mohamed@shianews.com
-
Present in intent: The London Conference Jordan Times, 1/15/03
- THE LONDON conference on Palestinian reforms and finding effective ways to restart the peace process began yesterday with the presence of representatives from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East peace quartet, but without the participation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). This is regrettable, if not absurd, since the primary purpose of the meeting that Britain called for is to examine how best to reform the PNA in a bid to lay the foundation for renewed peace talks between it and Israel in the near future. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon prevented the Palestinian officials from attending the meeting even though Israel has been most vocal in calling for Palestinian reforms as sine qua non for renewed negotiations. British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried his best to convince Sharon to allow Palestinian participation but failed. True there is a plan to ensure a semblance of Palestinian participation by telephone but such participation would obviously remain flawed and incomplete. Sharon's brute arrogance was again patronising at best. The absence of the Palestinians also means that reforms would have to be pursued in an abstract manner that lacks credence and effectiveness. Likewise, all discussions on how to regenerate peace talks on the Palestinian front would be inadequate and ineffectual given the fact that the primary parties to the conflict are absent from the conference. Still, the London meeting need not become irrelevant. The conference could initiate new ideas on how Palestinian reforms can be pursued. No less important is the issue of how the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks can be rejuvenated and resurrected. Now, any new round of talks between the parties will have to wait until after the Israeli elections on Jan. 28. Even more ominous is the suggestion that such peace negotiations may have to wait till the Iraqi file is dealt with one way or another. But this does not mean that all preparatory work leading to the resumption of peace talks on the Palestinian question must remain in limbo. The London meeting can still assume great importance and relevance even though the immediate parties are kept away from it for the time being.
HUMAN RIGHTS Watch Tuesday released its annual global survey of human rights conditions for 2003, in which it made the important observation that “global support for the war on terrorism is diminishing partly because the United States too often neglects human rights in its conduct of the war”. The global reach of American power today is so great, and virtually unchallenged, that the United States has assumed the self-appointed position of setter of global political norms and economic values; in return, the world now compares Washington's conduct towards the world with Washington's exhortations to the world. Those of us out here in the world who value our own dignity and security as much as we admire America's rich national values urge Washington to grasp the consequences of its policies and style of conduct around the world. The predominant messages to the United States are that: 1) we are more impressed by the consistent application of values than by their repeated exhortation; 2) we believe that those who make the rules should live by the same rules; and 3) we reject the simplistic notion that the cumulative, integrated complexities of our global societies' history, culture, politics and world views can or should be judged according to one-dimensional and rather seasonal standards, this season's standard being our position on the war against terror — a worthy war, but one that suffers the handicap of seasonality nevertheless. Some 15 months since the United States launched the war against terrorism, the larger global picture points to a growing divergence between the projection of American military power around the world and the condition of Washington's political credibility around that same world. This is because most peoples and governments share Washington's desire to wage war against terror, but reject Washington's sense that it enjoys a unique, quasi-divine mandate not only to define the aims and methods of this war, but also to make it the sole criterion by which other peoples and governments are judged. The Human Rights Watch report released Tuesday is just one example of this problem. It notes that terrorists violate basic human rights principles because they target civilians, but also that “the United States undermines those principles when it overlooks human rights abuses by anti-terror allies such as Pakistan, China and Afghan warlords”. Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said: “The United States is far from the world's worst human rights abuser, but Washington has so much power today that when it flouts human rights standards, it damages the human rights cause worldwide,” adding that the US government's engagement on human rights has been compromised by its unwillingness to confront a number of crucial partners and its refusal to be bound by standards it preaches to others. Another live example is the glaring dichotomy between Washington's policy to prepare to attack Iraq military while engaging North Korea diplomatically, in pursuit of the same stated goal of preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The combination of inconsistency, double standards and unilateral militarism reflected in such policies results in a situation where many in the world fear Washington, but many fewer respect it. We also witness the simultaneous trend of people around the world losing their fear of the United States, while a few people actively attack symbols of its power. (The parallels with Israel's policies vis-ý-vis the Palestinians are striking: the increased use of Israel's overwhelming military power against the Palestinians in the last 28 months has only resulted in greater Palestinian resistance and attacks against Israelis, more Israeli deaths and injuries, rising insecurity and fear among Israelis, and an obvious loss of fear of Israel among Palestinians. Palestinian children who now routinely chase Israeli army jeeps and tanks and try to place Palestinian flags on them, reminding us that the human will to live free is greater than the human fear of dying in a struggle for freedom.) Americans would do well to ponder these issues more seriously, especially since criticism of the United States now emanates strongly from Europe also, and includes respected global institutions like Human Rights Watch. The last 15 months further suggest that many people around the world will not stand idle by and watch America spread military bases and double standards around the world. Some people will fight back, even against the mighty Anglo-American armada. If current trends continue unchecked, the military war against terror runs the real risk of becoming a political war against America. Lessons that we might draw from all this are that military power has limited impact in many cases, and that political and moral consistency matter an awful lot to ordinary folks around the world.
-
Where is the UN? By Hasan Abu Nimah Jordan Times, 1/15/03
- THERE IS the argument that since for the last fifty-seven years we have had a United Nations Organisation which has been entrusted with world peace and order, and with peaceful, or even forceful resolution of conflicts, world powers should refrain from acting individually in dealing with certain issues, even in protecting their “threatened” interests, and should instead refer every single issue to the UN for taking the appropriate action. In theory, such a situation would not only be fully compatible with the required international legality; it would be ideal as well. It would also, still in theory though, save the member states a lot of cost and trouble, while providing them with free, handy and easy service for their international needs. As a matter of fact, the charter affirms “the sovereign equality of all its members”, (Article 2), a principle that puts a superpower like the United States on the same level with, say, Micronesia or San Marino. It is also true that the UN Charter, by the same article, establishes other relevant principles, such as requiring all members to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. Yet, even if all the aforementioned is true, the reality on the international scene is entirely different, and not entirely incomprehensibly so. For, though perfectly legal, it is also perfectly impractical to expect the role and the behaviour of the major powers to be the same as that of the much smaller, and often powerless, nations. Roles vary according to an endless number of factors under all circumstances, and the international arena is no exception. The size of a country, its location, wealth, military capability, level of advancement, its diplomatic skill and its ability to extend help to other states are some of the factors that generate influence, which, in turn, generates moral and political authority, which, accordingly, amplifies the role of such a state far beyond the normal limits of its membership in the world organisation. Add to that the reality that the UN Charter did recognise, right from the very beginning, that the roles and the responsibilities of the members should vary, and not by way of contradicting its sovereign equality principle as much as it was the practical admission that the role and indeed the dissimilar interests and stakes of the powerful amongst the original founding members were considerations too important to be ignored. This, at the time, distinguished five superpowers with the unique right of the veto; a very powerful tool to block any UN action on any issue should one or more of the five UN Security Council permanent members decide to do so. It was perhaps meant at the time as a guarantee that superpower unanimity was vital, as well as safer, for decisions at that level, decisions on which the destiny of the world had much depended. Earned this way, and employed for the right and just purposes, such potential should be seen as a bolstering factor for the UN system. Naturally, the UN would be more effective itself while performing its giant duties and responsibilities if the enormous influence and political weight of many of its members became an available tool for its handling of world crises. That the power which a country like the US could wield should be required to help the UN in carrying out any of its worldly responsibilities is unquestionably decisive in any eventuality is understandable; and that does not apply only to the availability of physical military power; economic and political influence count as much. If that is the case, then where is the problem? The problem is that this is not really the case, and it never was. The powerful amongst the UN members did hardly act, or are acting now, in a manner that allows the UN system to employ their power and influence for the general good unless that “good” is perfectly identical with their own interests in the first place or, better phrased, unless the “good” is just in their interests. The outcome, therefore, is exactly the opposite of the assumed formula; The UN and its mighty system became a tool in the hands of its powerful members, for the service of their specific needs (not necessarily compatible with the Charter or with the interest of the common good) rather than the other way round. The price of such a major discrepancy should not be only measured against the amount of disparity and unevenness in handling international and member states' affairs, as in fact it should be seen within the context of how much threat it is posing to the entire UN system. It is true that the UN, and the UN secretary general, can complain that the embarrassing marginalisation of the UN is only a logical result of the superpower indifference to the need of maintaining the authority as well as the integrity of the world organisation. It is also true that the strength of the UN system and its ability to enforce international law and to live up to the principles of the Charter, as well as the direct involvement of the UN in all significant international disputes, largely depend on the members' commitment, the absence of which has already led, and will further lead, to the steady degeneration of the UN effectiveness and the erosion of its authority. What is blameworthy, is the UN acquiescence and inglorious silence. At a time when two UN agencies (UNMOVIC and the IAEA) are efficiently and earnestly investigating and meticulously searching Iraq for any evidence of the existence there of any weapons of mass destruction, of which no trace has been detected yet, tens of thousands of soldiers and huge amounts of war equipment are being dispatched to the Gulf region in preparation for an almost declared, almost certain, invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain. Such threats of use of force by one or more member states against another is banned by the UN Charter and the UN is saying and doing nothing; it is not voicing objection and is not reaffirming its right to decide on any necessary action with respect to Iraq, in light of the investigation results. This is certainly not the century when individual states can take military action against others, as Helen Jackson, a member of the British House of Commons, declared recently, warning her government against proceeding with such action, and one may painfully add that the superpower tendency to ignore the UN's existence or to reduce it to a mere tool for their purposes is alarming. More alarming is the UN failure to defend the Charter, if not by deed at least by word. On one of the most troubling issues of the time, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the UN, which has been dealing with this issue since its creation (though very poorly) has finally succumbed to the shameful option of reducing its magnificent status of an organisation that represents over 190-member states to what practically amounts to less than a state, by accepting to become a mere member, just a quarter, of the notorious Quartet, with Russia, the US and the EU. Why did the UN decide to abandon its distinguished place at the top and to voluntarily diminish its role on such a major international issue to such a trivial portion is for the secretary general to explain. And he also may have to explain his silence on the decision of both the US and Israel to shelve altogether the rather poor outcome of over half a year of the Quartets work, the novel peace promise to which the Quartet's road map was about to lead the region. The true promise of peace and security for the entire world, as envisaged in the UN Charter, lies mainly in the prevalence of the rule of international law, which the UN is solely responsible to enforce and defend. The UN's abandoning of this responsibility, as we sadly witness nowadays, is a “road map” to the law of the jungle. The writer is former ambassador and permanent representative of Jordan to the UN
-
Arab human rights record cries out for
change
The Daily Star, 1/15/03
-
Human Rights Watch released its annual
report on Monday, and the results were predictably grim especially in
the Middle East. The private US-based organization chastised Washington
for turning a blind eye on abuses by its allies in the “war on
terrorism” and condemned a litany of Israeli offenses, but it also
singled out several Arab and Muslim countries. And so another year passed
in which the region continued to be stained by official disdain for the
norms of civilized behavior.
-
2003 economic outlook in the Arabian
(Persian) Gulf
By Henry T. Azzam, The Daily
Star, 1/15/03
-
Lower crude production last year reflected
negatively on economies in the Gulf, as oil continues to account for 35
percent of the region’s GDP, 75 percent of government revenues and 85
percent of total exports. Nevertheless, the region’s non-oil sectors
more than made up for the negative growth recorded by the oil sector.
Government budgets were generally expansionary and there appears to have
been sufficient activity in the private sectors supported by lower
interest rates and reform and liberalization moves. Modest growth in real
GDP is projected for 2003. The GCC customs union agreement which came into
effect on Jan. 1 singled the birth of a Gulf common market with 31 million
customers and a purchasing power close to $350 billion. This should help
growth and investment. Henry T. Azzam is the chief executive officer of Jordinvest.
-
Ibrahim Hamidi: 3 reasons to let him go
Michael Young, The Daily Star,
1/15/03
-
It’s been several weeks since the Syrian
journalist, Ibrahim Hamidi, Al-Hayat’s bureau chief in Damascus and a
frequent contributor to The Daily Star, was arrested for allegedly
publishing incorrect information. Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR
-
US war threats meet only Arab helplessness
An Arab press review, By The
Daily Star, 1/15/03
-
The Arab press is unsure what to make of
the latest political “initiative” which Saudi Arabia is proposing to
the other Arab states, or quite how it relates to their professed efforts
to prevent a US war on Iraq.
The long line at the Qalandia checkpoint on Monday was one of the first
signs of the added collective punishment that the Israeli army was now
instructed to impose on the Palestinian population.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |