Jan 22, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 22, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

The suggestion that the UN impose a settlement on the Israelis and Palestinians, made this week at the Jeddah Economic Forum by former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, makes a great deal of sense. The peace process is now in virtual permanent gridlock. Compromise is nowhere on the horizon. The two sides are polarized as never before, with the situation getting worse, not just within Israeli/Palestine but across the world: as Primakov said, the stalemate feeds international terrorism. It allows the terrorist to coat his evil doings with a pretense of morality.

On the one side, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is determined that under no circumstance will there ever be a sovereign Palestine, that the most the Palestinians should have is an Uncle Tom statelet kept on a tight military leash. On the other, the Palestinians have been catapulted by Israeli intransigence and repression into the hands of their own extremists, for whom compromise is just as much a dirty word as it is for Sharon and his minions. The divide is unbridgeable if left to the two sides to work things out. Every attempt inevitably fails because neither side is willing or able to take a step back toward sanity. It happened yet again with the latest Egyptian effort, with Palestinian militants contemptuously rejecting Cairo’s appeal for a moratorium on suicide bombings.

The crisis therefore needs to be looked at from another angle. That is what the Russian suggestion does. It says that if there will never be peace while Sharon is in power, because he can block any movement, then the answer is to bypass him — and bypass the Palestinians. In fact, the view that there will never be a peace while Sharon is in power misses the point, because it assumes that Sharon alone is the problem. Sharon is the product of Israeli intransigence, not the cause of it. Remove Sharon and there is still Netanyahu, and even if he were not waiting in the wings, there would be someone else. In any event, barring a miracle, it is Sharon who is set to win next week’s Israeli elections which means that his policies are the ones that will dictate Israel’s position for the next two or three years.

Moscow’s answer to the morass is to sever the Gordian knot.

The big question that many people will ask is whether a UN resolution setting up a Palestinian state would have any effect.

The answer has to be yes, although before it could happen Palestinian political reform would have to be delivered. Israel would obviously try to ignore and sabotage any such state, but its ability to do so would be severely restricted. To continue its occupation and deny existence to a state set up by the UN and recognized by the rest of the international community would put it beyond the political pale in a way it has never been before. In such circumstances, real, hard-hitting sanctions could well result.

Just as important, a UN resolution would give the Palestinians hope, something they have not had for a long time. With hope could well come a willingness to abandon suicide bombings.

Primakov suggestion is not his own. It comes with a “Made in Moscow” tag. There is no reason why the UN or the EU would not endorse an imposed solution. They too are exasperated with the gridlock and, as Primakov said, Israel was itself created by the UN, and imposed on the Arabs. That leaves the US. Will it continue to shield Israel? That is the $64 million question. Washington’s vacillating policies on a Palestinian state leave nothing but confusion and frustration.

War reporters should not cosy up to the military
By Robert Fisk

The Independent, Arab News, 1/22/03

It looks like a rerun of the 1991 Gulf War. Already American journalists are fighting like tigers to join “the pool”, to be “embedded” in the US military so that they can see the war at first hand — and, of course, be censored. Eleven years ago, they turned up at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia, already kitted out with helmets, gas capes, chocolate rations and eyes that narrowed when they looked into the sun, just like Gen. Montgomery. Half the reporters wanted to wear military costume and one young television man from the American mid-west turned up, I recall well, with a pair of camouflaged boots. Each boot was camouflaged with painted leaves. Those of us who had been in a desert — even those who had only seen a picture of a desert — did wonder what this meant.

Well, of course, it symbolized fantasy, the very quality upon which most viewers now rely when watching “live” war — or watching death “live” on TV.

Thus, over the past four weeks, the massed ranks of American television networks have been pouring into Kuwait to cosy up to the US military, to seek those coveted “pool” positions, to try on their army or Marine costumes and make sure that — if or when the day comes — they will have the kind of coverage that every reporter and every general wants: A few facts, good pictures and nothing dirty to make the viewers throw up on the breakfast table. I remember how, back in 1991, only those Iraqi soldiers obliging enough to die in romantic poses — arm thrown back to conceal the decomposing features or face down and anonymous in the sand — made it on to live-time. Those soldiers turned into a crematorium nightmare or whose corpses were being torn to pieces by wild dogs — I actually saw an ITV crew film this horrific scene — were not honored on screen. ITV’s film, of course, couldn’t be shown — lest it persuade the entire world that no one should go to war, ever, again.

The Americans are actually using the word “embedded”. Reporters must be “embedded’ in military units. The fears of Central Command at Tampa, Florida, are that Saddam will commit some atrocity — a gas attack on Shiites, an air bombardment of Iraqi civilians — and then blame it on the Americans. Journalists in the “pool” can thus be rushed to the scene to prove that the killings were the dastardly work of the Beast of Baghdad rather than the “collateral damage” — the Distinguished Medal for Gutlessness should be awarded to all journalists who even mention this phrase — of the fine young men who are trying to destroy the triple pillar of the “Axis of Evil”.

Already, the “buddy-buddy” relationship — that’s actually what the Ministry of Defense boys called it 11 years ago — has started. US troops in Kuwait are offering courses in chemical and biological warfare for reporters who might be accompanying soldiers to “the front”, along with “training” on the need to protect security during military operations. CNN is, of course, enthusiastically backing these seemingly innocuous courses — forgetting how they allowed Pentagon “trainees” to sit in their newsroom during the 1991 Gulf War.

So here’s a thumbnail list of how to watch out for mendacity and propaganda on your screen once Gulf War Two (or Three if you include the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict) begins. You should suspect the following: Reporters who wear items of American or British military costume — helmets, camouflage jackets, weapons, etc.

Reporters who say “we” when they are referring to the US or British military unit in which they are “embedded”.

Those who use the words “collateral damage” instead of “dead civilians”.

Those who commence answering questions with the words: “Well, of course, because of military security I can’t divulge...” Those who, reporting from the Iraqi side, insist on referring to the Iraqi population as “his” (i.e. Saddam’s) people.

Journalists in Baghdad who refer to “what the Americans describe as Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses” — rather than the plain and simple torture we all know Saddam practices.

Journalists reporting from either side who use the awful and creepy phrase “officials say” without naming, quite specifically, who these often lying “officials” are.

Stay tuned. (The Independent)

Can regional players succeed in stopping US drive to war?

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 1/22/03

As the US and Britain announce the deployment of vast numbers of additional troops to the Gulf, the efforts being made by various Middle East governments to prevent a war on Iraq generate much commentary in the Arab press.
Iraq’s need for regional, and particularly Arab, backing is highlighted in a commentary in the Baghdad daily Al-Iraq by Nouri Najm Marsoumi, who argues that it is in the vital interest of all the Arab countries to do their utmost to prevent war.
He writes that Iraq appears to be only the “first theater” of the military aggression the US is poised to launch, with the turn of the other Arab states coming later. “And when we say the Arab all the Arabs are targeted, that is not hollow rhetoric or an attempt to appeal to this Arab side or that. It is stated in the declared objectives of US strategy, which are unambiguous and no longer require much insight to ascertain.”
Marsoumi argues that “there is still much that can be done” to foil the US administration’s designs despite the advanced state of its war preparations, given the strength of worldwide opposition to war, including in America. Baghdad has done its utmost to deny Washington pretexts for war by complying with all the disarmament demands made of it by the UN, however unreasonable. And the Arab states, having eventually adopted a clear public and political stance against war, “now need to translate this into practice on the official level.”
The Iraqi columnist calls on the Arabs to agree on an “official collective policy” aimed at preventing war, under which they would undertake to back Iraq if attacked, deny any logistical support or base or transit facilities to US forces, and take an “effective stand” against American designs elsewhere in the region.
It must be impressed on Washington that the Arabs constitute a single nation, “and that aggression against Iraq will be sufficient to rally the entire nation to oppose the assault with all its strength and extend support to Iraq, especially as the aggression targets other Arab countries with regional economic or political clout at a later stage, such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt.”
The message the Arabs send out “must therefore be unequivocal, and not left in the hands of others,” Marsoumi counsels. They must also “be wary of any ideas that might convey the wrong message to the US administration at the present juncture, by offering concessions on matters of principle whose consequences would be destructive,” he warns. Rather, they should, on their own or in conjunction with others, “reject the plan for war, and not give the aggressors a loophole to exploit to try to achieve their aims with or without war.”
The pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi sees Washington’s recent hints that it would refrain from invading Iraq if President Saddam Hussein were to resign and go into exile as a sign that George W. Bush’s administration is beginning to worry about the likely consequences of war.
By proposing such an “offer,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisages “achieving victory without having to wage war,” the paper says. “But it is hard to imagine this wish being realized, even though a number of Arab governments are striving to facilitate it, out of fear not for Iraq’s people, but for their own futures and their survival in power.
“The Iraqi president is not the kind of man to submit easily to defeat or bow to his enemies’ demands. Otherwise he wouldn’t have stood fast all these years in the face of repeated coup attempts, a suffocating embargo and Arab and international boycotts not to mention an attack on his country 12 years ago by the armed forces of 30 countries,” the paper says.
“Rumsfeld’s offer” suggests the US is balking at the possible consequences and costs of military action in Iraq, especially with a crisis brewing in the Korean Peninsula, anti-war sentiment growing in the US, and UN arms inspectors proving that Washington’s claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were false. Perhaps it thought its military buildup in the Gulf would by itself “terrorize the Iraqi leadership and prompt it to step down,” but that hasn’t happened.
Nor, according to Al-Quds al-Arabi, is there any sign of it being deposed by means of a coup, which means that Bush will either order an invasion without evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or defer his order for a few months to give the inspectors more time.
A different view of the US “offer” is taken by Joseph Samaha, editor in chief of the Lebanese daily As-Safir, who sees it as part of Washington’s public relations strategy for countering the anti-war camp.
He writes that America’s goal of installing a client government in Baghdad cannot be achieved if Iraq cooperates with the arms inspectors and they certify it to be WMD-free. Accordingly, US officials have redefined the inspectors’ function “as searching for pretexts for war rather than searching for banned weapons,” while deeming their failure to find any WMDs to constitute not an impediment to war but justification for it, on grounds that the regime must be concealing and lying about its arsenals.
But the arms inspectors may never provide Washington with the kind of “convincing cover” that it wants for military action, so it has been compelled to “step back” for a while and “rebuild its case.” This apparent “retreat” has perplexed some observers, but does not constitute any retreat from the central goal of installing a pro-American regime in Baghdad.
“It would be stupid for anyone to claim that the US administration sees war as the only means of achieving this goal. It wouldn’t mind at all if a coup were to occur, nor would it object to assassinations. It might try to encourage rebellions, before finally resorting to direct military intervention if it has no other option,” Samaha writes.
Yet for all its might, the US still feels it hasn’t made a strong enough case for a unilateral war that would wreak havoc on international relations and create a host of “day after” problems. It knows that it may never get a war if it remains “captive to the consensus game at the UN Security Council,” but that if it launches one under current circumstances it will be taking huge political risks. It therefore seems intent on using the coming days and weeks to strengthen its hand, including by using some of its opponents’ “weapons” against them.
Washington has, for example, belatedly appreciated that the anti-war camp in the West is also hostile to Saddam’s regime, and is attempting to “neutralize” it, if not win it over, by proposing regime change in Baghdad without war, Samaha continues.
Hence America’s adoption of the idea of getting Saddam and his top aides to relinquish power to spare Iraq the horrors of war, and its hints that it is prepared to provide assurances of safety to anyone who takes up the offer. “The US thereby seeks to paralyze public opposition to war, while providing ways out for those who neither want to oppose it or take the plunge with it. It is also hoping that by repackaging the same commodity it might make the general public forget its original warmongering and blame Iraq’s rulers and their stubbornness for what happens to the country,” Samaha writes.
“The American statements about the need to prevent war are, in reality, an attempt to use time to make war more likely and secure greater support for it,” he says.
Jordanian columnist Ibrahim al-Absi wonders what the six regional governments working on plans to broker a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis are really up to. He writes in the Amman daily Ad-Dustour that the countries concerned spent months behaving like “idle onlookers” while the Iraq drama unfolded. Now they have suddenly become diplomatically engaged, and are planning a regional conference this week ostensibly aimed at preventing war.
Why did they decide to meet at the “11th hour,” after America completed its war preparations and not at the outset of the crisis when Washington’s intentions were equally clear, Absi asks.
Is it because of the upsurge in worldwide public and official opposition to war?
Is the US, which has given the “green light” to the meeting in Turkey, trying to compensate for its failure to achieve its aims in Iraq without war by means of brinkmanship?
“Is the aim of this conference to persuade Baghdad of the need to submit to the American will and heed the voice of ‘reason’ in order to avoid a war that would be disastrous for Iraq, the Arab world and the region, which Baghdad has refused to do under pressure of military deployments and threats?”
Are the countries of the region stepping in to help the US save face, after its claims about Iraq’s WMDs proved to be lies?
Absi argues that the participants are most unlikely to find a “magic wand” with which to conjure up an initiative that both Washington and Baghdad accept and which prevents a conflagration.
“If the impending regional conference really wants to prevent war, then it need only expose America’s aggressive intentions and its designs, which are no longer covert, and which weigh heavily on the peoples who the participants represent as well as on the growing world popular and official anti-war front,” he says.
In the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, Saudi columnist Daoud Shiryan proposes a novel idea for making the upcoming regional conference more effective: bring Israel into it.
He writes that the regional gathering has been planned “in coordination with Washington,” which deems it to be a useful diplomatic attempt to offer “advise” to the Iraqi leader.
“But despite the coordination with America and the eagerness of the countries concerned to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis, the conference will not achieve the aspirations of the states and peoples of the region. For it has come much too late, it is pursuing a goal that is bigger than these countries’ capabilities and their influence on events, and it is proposing a peaceful settlement that looks impossible in light of America’s military buildup and desire for war and the Iraqi leadership’s political confusion,” Shiryan predicts.
This does not mean the conference should not be held at all, but if it is convened as envisaged all it will produce is a statement eloquently describing the perils of war and “dripping with sympathy and sorrow for the Iraqi people.”
“But if the composition of the conference were reconsidered and Israel were brought into it, it might be able to reorder things and open the door to a peaceful solution in Iraq,” according to the Saudi columnist.
Israel’s involvement would turn the conference into a major development in Arab-Israeli relations from Washington’s viewpoint, he adds. It would also “facilitate the inevitable linkage between the Iraqi crisis and the Palestinian crisis, making it possible to open dossiers that it had been decided would only be opened after the end of the war, and transforming the political mood in the region.”
“Turkey could demonstrate to the Arabs that its relationship with Israel has produced a result, and invite the Israeli foreign minister to participate in the regional conference and discuss a peaceful solution in Iraq, before the Arabs along with Turkey and Iran find themselves in an unenviable position,” Shiryan says.
Egyptian analyst Mohammed Assaeed Idriss makes the point that Israel is just about the only player in the Middle East that does not oppose a war on Iraq, but eagerly advocates one in the belief it would work to her advantage and weaken the roles all the other regional players, with the possible exception of Turkey. Writing in the semi-official Cairo daily Al-Ahram, he argues that all the other regional countries have a vital interest in brokering a “regional solution” to the crisis.

Palestinian statecraft: Seize the day

The Daily Star, 1/22/03

The draft constitution released by Palestinian officials this week is a fine document whose implementation would make the people of Palestine freer than their counterparts anywhere in the Arab world. Some elements have been left out because they relate to matters that will have to be settled in negotiations with Israel and others will require refinement, but the draft is nonetheless an impressive one. What remains to be seen is whether the Palestinian people and their leaders will be able to translate words on paper into the principles and institutions of a working government. The obstacles to achieving that are many.
For one thing, Israel’s continuing stranglehold on the Occupied Territories is anything but conducive to the consultations and cooperation required to complete the process. Like the holding of elections, the conduct of statecraft is rendered impossible by the presence of foreign troops who tightly restrict freedom of movement. For another, many individuals who currently hold major positions in the Palestinian Authority are ill-suited to wield the power of public office. Their influence on the drafting and implementation of the constitution should therefore be kept to an absolute minimum.
Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Palestinian people will come when and if they get the chance to become the masters of their own destiny. Theirs will be a fledgling state presiding over a people with almost no history of being ruled by their own. Bitter memories of foreign domination will continue to color their perceptions of authority for years. The trappings of sovereignty can be erected almost overnight, but the dignity of the state will have to be earned over time. That will only be possible if the constitution that is eventually produced remains true to the democratic pronouncements in the draft and if those entrusted with its enforcement remember to put the law above all else. The Soviet Union had a great constitution, too, a fact that was of little solace to the millions who perished at the hands of the state.
The existing draft pledges that time will be made available for public input, after which the document will be submitted to the Palestine Liberation Organization for approval and then to a popular referendum. The consultation phase will be crucial. It will set the tone in terms of how much responsiveness might be expected from the new Palestinian state. Obviously, more is better, and the best way to make a government sensitive to its constituents’ needs is to make sure that they are involved in its conception.
Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in the diaspora have all the education and political awareness they need to carve out a better fate for future generations. They have valuable contributions to make in laying the groundwork for a stable and prosperous future. If Palestinian leaders are intelligent enough to understand the necessity of popular consultation, civil society should respond with as many voices and as much wisdom as it can muster.

The Bush administration: A doctrine too far

By Michael Young

The Daily Star, 1/22/03

As the Bush administration faces sagging international support for a military invasion of Iraq, what does this mean for the new National Security Strategy, or NSS, the administration released on Sept. 17, 2002?
The contradictions in the NSS, the blueprint for post-Sept. 11 national security behavior, is embodied in the following selections from the document: “In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.”
The NSS affirms that “no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The US is committed to institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions.”
But then the NSS changes directions, deflating its multilateral ambitions and the commitment to a balance of power: “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.”
Even as the bickering continues in the UN Security Council over Iraq, it’s difficult not to conclude that the Bush administration is reaping the fruits of its own inconsistencies or more specifically, those written into the NSS.
The latest downbeat salvo has come from France. At a Security Council meeting called Monday to discuss terrorism, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated that France would not sanction movement toward war. As did Jacques Chirac last week after meeting with weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammad al-Baradei, de Villepin defended continuing UN inspections, arguing: “We believe today that nothing justifies envisaging military action.”
There was little US Secretary of State Colin Powell could do to bring the Security Council around. The irony is that Powell was the person who convinced George W. Bush to take the UN route in the first place. Because he urged a time-consuming multilateral approach to Iraq, American conservatives want his head. But Powell was simply a victim of the ambiguities in the NSS.
Where will the strategy take the administration next? A unilateralist path seems most likely, particularly with tens of thousands of American and British troops flocking to the Gulf. Nor is there much anyone can do if the US decides to go in alone, using the NSS’s arguments on preemption as its banner. However, this will present Washington with a series of problems.
The first is a problem of consensus. Most Americans haven’t read the NSS and are as oblivious to its discrepancies as they are wedded to the idea that wars should be waged with popular support. A majority backs a war against Iraq, polls show, but on condition it receives UN approval. The anti-war demonstrations last weekend, particularly the massive turnout in Washington DC, reminded the administration that it has yet failed to win the public relations battle.
It is often forgotten that the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait was conducted despite the fact that Congress and the public were divided. The war was easily won, so everyone came around. However, had US forces been bogged down, the public’s mood would have quickly turned nasty. A similar situation exists today: While the administration might unilaterally initiate war, the backlash if things sour could be devastating, particularly if the military presence in Iraq is supposed to last. The price to pay could well be Bush’s electoral defeat in 2004.
A second problem with unilateral action is that it would discredit the multilateralism of the NSS. Unilateralists might respond, so what? Yet the question implies that only half the NSS can be applied at any one time hardly a tribute to doctrinal seriousness. Besides, even unilateralists must recognize there is little to be gained, and much to be lost, if the Bush administration’s enforcing the paragraph on preemption means damaging relations with its closest allies.
A third problem with unilateral action in Iraq is more theoretical, and pertains to the balance of power. The NSS is widely considered to be the directive for US unilateralism. In many ways it is. However, the reference to a balance of power stems from a conservative-realist mindset, which many in the administration share, that holds that only such a balance guarantees stability.
Yet how the US will enhance the global balance of power by going it alone in Iraq, against the wishes of its allies and of most states in the region, is entirely unclear. The administration has written into the NSS a realization that in international affairs some construct must be introduced to balance the interests of all, to the greater advantage of freedom and choice. Yet who will want to play along when only America’s choices seem to count?
Whether Saddam lasts or not may ultimately be secondary when compared to a more difficult question the US must answer: How realistic is it to pursue an incongruous doctrine that threatens to alienate the US from much of the rest of the world? The Bush administration thinks sheer force can cut the Gordian Knot of the NSS. It may fight alone in Iraq, but once that is over, half the doctrine will have to be tossed out. That’s how irrelevant it will be.

Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR

Turkey’s Arab gambit

By Muna Shuqair

The Daily Star, 1/22/03

Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul’s recent tour of several Arab countries denoted first of all that Ankara’s foreign policy had changed under the new Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, and that it was seeking to improve links with the Arab world.
Turkey seems to be making sincere efforts to repair relations with major Arab countries dented by its strategic alliance with Israel. So tense did Arab-Turkish relations become at one stage that the Turks threatened to go to war with Syria if the latter did not stop its backing for the Kurdistan Workers Party and expel its leader, Abdullah Ocalan.
The Turkish-Israeli alliance also led to tensions between Ankara and Cairo, which prompted the late Turkish President Turgut Ozal to state that the alliance was not directed against any Arab country and was not meant to harm Arab interests.
Yet despite the strategic Turkish-Israeli partnership, Amman remained on friendly terms with Ankara. In fact, Jordan continued taking part in joint naval maneuvers with the Turkish, US, and Israeli navies in the Mediterranean for many years, which made it seem for a time that the Jordanians were about to join a tripartite pact with Israel and Turkey under American tutelage. This irritated the Jordanian government, prompting it to deny that any political intentions lay behind its taking part in these “routine” maneuvers.
Another objective behind Gul’s Arab tour was to express Turkish goodwill vis-a-vis the Arab world by offering to work together with Arab countries on averting an American war on Iraq. Turkey knows that a new war on Iraq would cause it immense economic damage. The $5 billion in aid promised by the United States would do nothing to compensate Turkey from the losses it expects to incur if the Americans went ahead with their war plans. Turkey like Jordan would suffer immensely due to the stoppage of Iraqi oil exports.
In fact, Jordan would suffer even more because of its extensive economic and commercial ties with Iraq valued at more than 350 million Jordanian dinars ($439 million). More importantly, Jordan relies on cheap Iraqi oil to meet its energy needs. Some of this oil is given away free, while the rest is sold to the Jordanians at a price significantly lower than the going world rate. Uncompensated loss of this source of cheap energy would seriously hurt the Jordanian economy.
However, Turkey does not enjoy full freedom of political action. While it certainly can move quite easily to improve its relations with influential Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, even to the degree of being able to make its relations with the Arab world take precedence over its ties with Israel, these political adjustments would not necessarily imply similar shifts in the military and economic fields.
Turkey has no strategic ties with the Arab world to rival those it enjoys with Israel. The Turkish-Israeli relationship was built up over decades under American stewardship. In the field of military cooperation, the Israelis have been modernizing the Turkish Air Force in a deal brokered by the United States at the expense of American firms. The Israelis have also undertaken to modernize and train parts of the Turkish Army. And with the exception of Jordan which was suspected of being part of the Turkish-Israeli alliance Turkey did not establish strong relations with any Arab country, save for limited trade exchanges.
The crises between Turkey and neighboring Syria and Iraq over the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers may have abated, but that has not allayed Arab suspicions of Ankara’s economic, military and hydrologic policies.
All of which means that any Turkish attempt to rearrange the country’s priorities would inevitably collide with its stable and strong relationship with Israel as well as with the lack of strong foundations of cooperation with its Arab neighbors.
Moreover, Turkey’s drive to improve relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds is restricted by a number of basic facts chief among which is that of Turkey’s membership in NATO.
NATO membership imposes on Turkey certain obligations that it has to fulfill. For example, the Turks are obliged to allow the US to use the air bases at Incirlik and Diyarbakir for NATO or American military operations. These bases were used in the 1991 Gulf War to launch air raids on Iraq. They were also used in NATO operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and might well be used again in the new war on Iraq. The Turks are also required to allow the Americans to use their territory to move ground troops into northern Iraq.
NATO membership as well as alliance with Israel compels Turkey to take part in intelligence-gathering activities in neighboring countries, both within the framework of the “war on terror” and outside it. Sophisticated surveillance stations have been built on Turkish soil in order to monitor movements between Russia and Iran, and to spy on nuclear cooperation between the two countries. These stations also monitor military and economic activities in Central Asia in order to enhance Turkey’s role in these countries and to obstruct Iranian Shiite infiltration in the region.
In addition to presenting the secular and democratic Turkish example as a model to be emulated by the republics of Central Asia, the Turks also aim to compete with Iran and Russia for giant projects to transport Caspian oil through their territory to export terminals on the Mediterranean.
Turkey’s failure so far to be accepted as a member of the European Union caused it to rely on US pressure on the EU.
Despite being a Muslim nation, Turkey has never cultivated close ties with other countries of the Muslim world. Due to its secular nature, and its geographic location between Europe and Asia, Turkey has always seen itself as part of Europe which has plunged the country into a deep identity crisis.
The fact that the Islamist AKP has been forced to stress the secular nature of the Turkish state proved that it is impossible for an Islamist party to rule the country in the presence of the immense influence wielded by the army that sees itself as the guardian of secularism. Any attempt to limit the influence enjoyed by the army generals would inevitably lead to the AKP being dissolved under the pretext of violating the constitution, which enshrines the secular nature of the Turkish state.
Attempts by any Turkish ruling party to improve ties with the Arab world would inevitable collide with the conflicting interests of both sides at the forefront of which are the conflicting interests of Turkey and Iraq, and Turkish ambitions to seize the northern Iraqi oil fields.
Such attempts would also collide with the fact that while existing relations between Turkey and the Arab world are fragile, those with Israel are strong and stable.

Muna Shuqair is a Jordanian political writer.

Danger ahead if hawks keep stirring Bush

By Abdeljabbar Adwan

The Daily Star, 1/22/03

Our planet is going through a disgraceful phase in human history. The fact that we all know what is happening yet keep silent out of shortsighted self-interest makes the situation more disgraceful.
Noble human values passed down from generation to generation have been abandoned, and rules and conventions initiated by nations after World War II have been forgotten. The end result of these phenomena will in all likelihood not be to the advantage of the United States, since history tells us that the more unjust and tyrannical an empire becomes, the shorter its lifespan and the faster its memory will be erased.
The American nation, moreover, is not being led today in the interests of humanity, or even in the interests of the majority of its own citizens.
To appreciate the depths of opportunism and subservience the “international community” has stooped to, consider the following:
l In an opportunistic move, a terrorist group known for its backwardness and primitiveness claimed responsibility for the attacks of Sept. 11, thereby drawing the United States into a war in which all precepts of international law (not to mention logic and fairness) were ignored. While basic rights and freedoms were curtailed, Al-Qaeda leaders remained on the loose. Who was the victor in all this? And who was the vanquished? Which side was smarter than the other? Who is leading whom? And to where?
l Despite assurances by Western intelligence and presidential sources that Iraq has no relations whatsoever with Al-Qaeda, the Americans and British stubbornly insist that their countries are threatened by Baghdad. Iraq has been linked to terror to justify a war that practically everyone knows is really about oil and Israeli domination of the Middle East. US President George W. Bush’s election chances would not suffer as a result of an easy victory over a greatly exaggerated threat either. We are witnessing a massive lie in which both the liar and the lied know the facts, yet humanity is being led by the ears into a war with only a handful of honest voices in the West objecting. Everyone, it seems, has swallowed the explanation that anything would be better than Saddam Hussein.
l Initially, France, Germany, Russia and China were all vehemently opposed to an invasion of Iraq so long as Baghdad complied with UN resolutions. These positions are now being gradually watered down under American pressure. Where has the principled defense of law, justice and rights gone?
l North Korea, a country Bush included in his “axis of evil,” calls for direct talks with the US in order to secure American guarantees that it would not be attacked like Iraq. In exchange, the North Koreans have undertaken to dismantle their nuclear and missile programs. Yet the White House insists that Pyongyang makes these concessions before a dialogue is initiated the same White House, by the way, that rejected Arab demands that Israel withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories before a peace agreement is signed, forcing the Arabs to negotiate with the Israelis. Now, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is refusing even that, with Bush’s help and blessing. Is that not proof enough that we are dealing with an unjust US administration that doesn’t believe in logic, principles and the rule of law?
l For decades on end, Israel has been violating UN resolutions. Even the Americans admit that Israel has been evading peace and continuing to build new Jewish settlements in violation of international law. Nevertheless, while Israel prevents a Palestinian delegation from traveling to London to attend a conference called by Bush’s ally Tony Blair, and while the US State Department regrets the Israeli decision, Washington has been continuing talks with Tel Aviv on the latter’s request for special US aid, which included $4 billion in military aid for the campaign against the Palestinians and $8 billion in loan guarantees on top of the $3 billion in annual US aid. Who is responsible then for the continuation of the occupation and its violent backlash? What logic is there in America’s decision to strike at any potential adversary in the world, while it denies the Palestinian people the right to resist a colonial and racist occupation, which it supports financially, militarily, and politically?
All world leaders especially Western and American leaders know of the oppression visited on the Palestinian people on a daily basis, yet they prefer to keep silent at the request of a Washington run by fundamentalist lobbies. How more humiliating can this situation become? Especially since the Palestinians’ tragedy is the direct result of Western policies.
All this does not absolve Saddam Hussein of responsibility for his own actions, or the Palestinian leadership of the consequences of their bad judgment. Yet we cannot accept the concept of changing regimes by foreign intervention. And even if we accepted the concept, why stop at Saddam Hussein? Is Saddam worse than Sharon or many of Washington’s other friends around the world? Whatever mistakes the Palestinian leadership have committed do not justify keeping silent regarding the collective punishment of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli occupation army.
Which country was it that financed Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda when they were fighting against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan? Which country was it that bankrolled Saddam’s eight-year war against Iran? Who refused to condemn Saddam when he gassed the Kurds?
Sept. 11 was a cruel blow indeed. Yet it was a unique terrorist act that no one can guarantee would not happen again. Nevertheless, it should not have caused a country as great as the United States to lose balance. The US has been practicing state terrorism all over the world for many years without anyone calling it to account. It is only logical to go back to international law, and to rely on ordinary people in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism cannot be fought without first dealing with its root causes.
War on Iraq, support of Israeli terrorism, and acquiescence to Israeli occupation will only lead to even more terror. Oppression has never succeeded in subjugating people. It might last a long time, but it will never win.
The United States is still on the safe side. Where the Middle East is concerned, America can still realize all its legitimate objectives without needing to go to war. It can win over the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims to its side in the war on Al-Qaeda or any other anti-American terror group. It can do all that through being fair: for example, by giving Israel a deadline of one year during which it must settle its problems with the Palestinians according to existing UN resolutions, or through coexistence in one state without racial and religious discrimination, on pain of stopping American aid or that NATO forces would then step in to enforce these resolutions.
Washington can also enforce a ban on all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It can order Saddam to step down and allow the formation of a transitional government that would oversee elections within a year otherwise the UN would appoint such a government by force.
But justice and equality do not guide the Bush administration; right-wing fundamentalists drive it. That is why the world must brace itself for even greater tragedies.

Abdeljabbar Adwan is a Palestinian analyst.

Globalization needs peace to thrive

By Fahed Fanek

The Daily Star, 1/22/03

The anti-globalization movement, which accuses the globalized world of making the rich richer and the poor poorer, grew up and is largely concentrated in the industrialized nations of the West. Those who travel the world in pursuit of WTO and IMF conferences to disrupt are mainly well-off Americans and Europeans, with scarcely a poor Asian or African among them.
It is a foregone conclusion that the fruits of globalization would not be divided equally among all nations; the freer and more open a political system is, the more benefit it would gain from globalization.
At a certain time, countries with closed political systems, such as Albania and North Korea, believing that advanced countries were growing at the expense of the poor Third World, tried to cut themselves off from the global economy. The results to them were catastrophic.
Globalization was also accused of favoring richer countries by pushing up prices of their manufactured products while driving down prices of raw materials exported by Third World countries. This theory was proved to be not strictly true either.
In other words, there is an old, traditional, reactionary and isolationist school of thought that confirmed its bankruptcy in practice (as has been demonstrated by some less successful Third World econ-omies), and another successful, progressive and globalized school epitomized by such countries as China, India, and the “tiger economies” of Southeast Asia.
In Jordan, for example, there is a strong reactionary current calling for customs protection, government control of the economy and a quest for self-sufficiency such that the country only imports essential goods, and does not rely on tourism and exports, which are directly affected by external factors. In fact, this current sees the size of foreign trade as a measure of weakness rather than strength.
The intellectual battle between the reactionaries and progressives has not been settled yet. The Old Guard is still fighting their corner. Fortunately, though, the government has already come down on the side of globalization. As a country, we in Jordan are determined to be part of the global economy and to join the march of progress and technology in the fields of production, communications and services.
If there are arguments about which path to take in some countries, then the issue should be clear in nations that are not rich in natural resources. Unlike most oil-rich Arab states, Jordan’s major resource is its people.
However, globalization that was imposed on the Third World by the American-led “Washington Consensus” is being obstructed by the US itself. Instead of more freedom and encouragement, Washington is creating obstacles to the growth of free trade.
Globalization is nothing new; some of its features have been known since the industrial revolution. It reached its climax in the 1990s, and seems to be declining since. It does not appear that it will last long.
The event that caused the globalization movement we know today to really take off was the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. It continued to grow until Sept. 11 with the fall of another edifice: the Twin Towers of New York’s World Trade Center.
The rise of globalization, which occurred in the last decade of the 20th century, was reversed in the first year of the 21st before the process had reached its full potential.
In 1989, the US did not win; rather it was the Soviet Union that was defeated; the events surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall did not prove the superiority of capitalism only the inferiority of socialism. America, which led the march of globalization in the 1990s, was the same America that destroyed it 10 years later.
Globalization needs peace and an absence of threats to thrive. This was achieved with the abolition of the Cold War. Now, however, America is waging war, which bodes ill for globalization.
The free movement of goods and people is a prerequisite for globalization. Yet the United States has made the movement of people so difficult that it now needs weeks for a US visa to come through if it comes through at all. The transfer of funds, meanwhile, has become a fraught business because of fears that the money might be used to fund terrorism.
Even the modern forms of communication that transformed the world into a small village have been subjected to strict monitoring. It is enough for a person to utter a specific word for his/her entire conversation to be recorded by satellite for analysis and scrutiny. Needless to say, that person is considered guilty until proven otherwise.
There has been a severe downturn in the performance of globalization recently. The volume of world trade, which grew at a rate of 15 percent in 2000, shrank by 4 percent in 2001. Foreign direct investment, which stood at $1.27 trillion in 2000, tumbled to less than half that figure in 2001, as did the value of mergers. The value of equity trading on world stock markets tumbled from $50 trillion in 2000 to a third that figure the following year.
America promoted globalization when it felt it was to its advantage to do so; it dealt it a mortal blow, however, when it discovered that globalization was a two-edged sword that could also be used by terrorists.
It is not clear yet whether the current crisis facing globalization is a passing phase that would be defeated by the movement of history or that the entire globalization experiment was nothing more than a blip after which humanity would return to isolationism once again, thus proving that national security always takes precedence over economic prosperity.

Fahed Fanek is a Jordanian economic and media consultant.

Fighting oppression and celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr

Rami G. Khouri

Jordan Times, 1/22/03

NEW YORK — I have had the good fortune to be in the United States this Monday when the country celebrated the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday, a day that commemorates all that is good and bad about America. The bad side of America is its record of enduring, deep, legally sanctioned discrimination and racism, and the good side of America is that Americans have always eventually risen up and challenged that kind of institutionalised abuse and human degradation, using both street protests and the mechanisms of the law.

King's life, and the struggle for civil rights of which he was such a prominent symbol and leader, remain as relevant and instructive today for many people around the world as they were for African Americans and other subjugated Americans in the 1950s and 60s. Important elements of the American civil rights struggle pertain to various aspects of life in the Middle East today, where instances of discrimination, abuse of power, colonial subjugation and racism can be encountered in many countries.

The single most important lesson that I draw from the King years and the American civil rights struggle is that people must directly challenge unjust laws, abusive governance and oppressive use of power, regardless of the odds one faces. The practitioners of oppression throughout the Middle East always offer extensive rationale for their conduct, usually focused on ensuring “security.”

Discontented and subjugated people in the Middle East today — Palestinians under Israeli occupation, ordinary Arabs often denied full human rights and equality in their own countries, some minorities in Turkey and other lands, Kurds everywhere, the majority of freedom-loving Iranians and many others — are always told to behave, to remain peaceful, to be patient, respect the law, and trust the wisdom and goodness of those who hold power in society.

The exact same things were said to African Americans in the 1950s. King's enduring moral and political legacy emanates from the fact that he and his many colleagues (Fred Shuttlesworth in Birmingham, Alabama, in particular) rejected this kind of condescending racism, and challenged it head-on. They decisively refuted the argument for acquiescing in the status quo, and rejected the exhortations to behave like good boys.

The single most important piece of writing that King left was perhaps his `Letter from a Birmingham Jail', in which he stated the simple truth: “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” The situations of African Americans in the 50s and Middle Eastern peoples today are very different in their particular forms of discrimination, human degradation and denial, and suffering from abuse of power wielded by unchecked authorities. But the appropriate response must be similar at the basic level: the oppressed must demand freedom from their oppressors.

Nonviolent civil disobedience was the preferred method of protest during the American civil rights movement, which has not been emulated in the contemporary Middle East. Yet, the method one uses should not detract from the basic issue at hand: oppression and inequity must be challenged — openly, brazenly, repeatedly and forcefully. Peaceful protest is better than violent protest, to be sure, but in the end the act of protesting and challenging oppression is what matters most. This is the key political and moral imperative, especially when the oppression is practised by state authorities and is formally sanctioned by law.

It is important to remember that the discrimination that was challenged by the American civil rights movement, starting with the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, in the late 1950s, was sanctioned by laws that were upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Most awful among these were laws and Supreme Court decisions that allowed for separate facilities and institutions for blacks, such as schools, drinking fountains and sports clubs.

We, in the Middle East, should remember this fact today and be inspired by it. The fact that discrimination is authorised by the law of the land or tolerated by the prevailing ethic of the power elite does not give it immunity from protest and challenge. Officially mandated laws and practices must be challenged if they promote oppression and discrimination. The anniversary of King's death this week is one that should ring loud in the hearts and minds of people around the world, especially among many people in the grievous Middle Eastern landscape of human rights abuses and denials — because the same values and goals that defined the American civil rights movement still inspire struggles for freedom, equality and fundamental human dignity around the world.

The war on Iraq — as complex as that

By Hasan Abu Nimah

Jordan Times, 1/22/03

FOR MANY months now, it has been widely assumed that the US military action against Iraq is a foregone conclusion. Many often shook their heads with scorn at any suggestion that the war could be avoided if the United Nations plan to disarm Iraq peacefully were to succeed. Such optimism drew courage from remarkable happenings, such as the unconditional Iraqi acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors late last year and later, of the Security Council Resolution 1441, in spite of the fact that the resolution gave a much harsher definition to the inspectors' mission and laid down severe, and indeed humiliating, terms on the Iraqi leadership. The smooth inspection operations so far, Iraq's on time delivery of the 12,000-page report of their weapons stocks and programmes, coupled with the failure of the inspectors to uncover any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), (except for the twelve empty chemical warheads and 3,000 pages of nuclear-related material found at the home of a scientist) have added more weight to the optimistic view that the war argument was loosing ground.

None of this, though, earned the Iraqis any amount of credit from the Americans who continued unabatedly with their massive buildup of troops and heavy equipment in the Gulf region as they continued with their diplomatic pressure on Baghdad, accusing it of bluffing, cheating and refusing to cooperate with the inspectors. President George W. Bush himself has been repeatedly warning the Iraqi leader of the dire consequences of his reluctance to get rid of his WMDs, and threatened that his patience was running out. That, of course, in addition to similar daily statements from many other Washington officials who have not once toned down their sustained campaign for change of the Iraqi regime, together with the destruction of the WMD.

There are not many around who believed, at any time, that by agreeing to go through the Security Council the Americans really wanted to consider any other option for dealing with the Iraqi issue than what the Bush administration had in mind right from its very early days in office: regime change. The Iraqis, and those who were urging their full compliance with the UN rulings, were adequately aware of the fact that no amount of compliance may save Iraq from the dreadful war, and yet they chose to tread that course to simply deprive the war proponents in Washington and London of that “valid” argument and to strengthen the hand of those Security Council permanent members who were strongly opposing any military action against Iraq once the international will was enabled to take over.

The Americans were equally aware, as well as determined, that the UN channel would not save the Iraqi regime, regardless of the futility or the validity of the war logic, and they also agreed to go that way only to quell the many voices, home and abroad, which were demanding UN involvement. By heeding such calls, they were sure to gain substantial international and domestic support for the planned war; not for any other contemplated option.

The picture as one can see it right now is simple. It is simple in the sense that the clear American determination, the continued planning, the sustained political preparation and pressure and the nearly complete buildup of troops have evidently passed the point of no return and therefore, the progression towards war is not reversible. It is no more a question of “if” as in fact it is a matter of “when”, and one should not expect to wait a lot longer. For the US, WMD or not, here is a rogue regime which in the American view could, at any moment, link up with the terrorists and, therefore, it should go; here is a war which started in 1990-1991 and has not been finished; neither could it be declared finished as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Here is an oil rich and troubled region which needs to be put in suitable (for us) order; and, most importantly, here in the region is an important ally called Israel who is bogged down in deep crisis and needs immediate and long-term rescue. The answer to all these urgently pressing calls as far as Washington is concerned is war and there should be one, no matter what.

What is not simple, though, is that the millions around the world, in the US in particular, who, over the years, have been led to believe that the Iraqi regime deserved punishment and removal from power because: 1) it is rogue and evil; 2), it constituted, and still does, a credible threat to the US as well as the Iraqi neighbours in the Gulf region; 3) it supported terror; 4) it stockpiled huge amounts of weapons of mass destruction to supply the terrorists and to spread death and evil around the world; and 5) it defied the UN resolutions, see a different picture emerging now. They definitely do not see in Saddam an angel, but not a terrible demon either, and if so, definitely not the sole one. And if they were willing to tolerate military action on the basis of the formerly media-fed propaganda image of the Iraqi “devil”, they are beginning to reconsider now.

The hundreds of thousands of anti-war demonstrators who took to the streets days ago (in bitter sub-zero temperatures) in Washington, in San Francisco, in Tampa, Florida, in Portland, as well as in Moscow, Tokyo, Paris, Brussels, Cairo, Damascus and many more cities in Europe, the Middle East and Africa are being awakened to a totally different reality. Contrary to the overwhelming propaganda, they witness full Iraqi compliance, full Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors, in their eighth week now, without any real evidence of the existence of any WMDs, no proven link with any terrorist group and no credible danger to anyone, anywhere.

On the other hand, those millions are stunned to witness another truly nuclear state which, while declaring openly its reactivation of its nuclear reactors, expelling the IAEA inspectors, withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is rewarded with assurances of a diplomatic solution for its defiance and offered every form of appeasement, including economic aid in order to reconsider its challenge.

As a result, the decline in support for the war has been steady and steep, with 60 per cent of the American people, according to a very recent poll conducted by Newsweek, wanting their president to take more time to find an alternative to war. And while 81 per cent of the Americans would support military action if the US acted with full allied support and UN Security Council backing, the majority of the Americans would oppose the war in the absence of such requirements, and if the US acted with one or two allies only. The approval rate of the president's handling of foreign policy has also declined to only 53 per cent, according to a CNN poll, and to 56 per cent, according to Newsweek, down from 60 per cent, last November.

It is very unlikely that Washington would change its policy on the basis of protests and polls, no matter how widespread and persistent they may become. But it is also frivolous not to expect the Bush administration to be deeply concerned.

The issue is that the war is loosing domestic and international support. Many other states whose support the US would have hoped to secure would also be adversely pressured by their enraged domestic public opinion not to do so. Additionally, the UN will be unable to endorse any military action if the inspectors fail to provide the Security Council with ample and compelling evidence to incriminate the Iraqi regime. Thus, the war will loose one more of its justifying requirements and a vicious cycle will soon develop: as diminishing support will further expose the war and make it more vulnerable, the vulnerability will generate more opposition which will duly erode more support.

The complexity of the situation stems, therefore, from the fact that the Bush administration is stuck with a single-option policy, which has been formulated on the basis of an untested assumption, taking domestic as well as international support of its planned war on Iraq, under any circumstances, for granted. As this assumption is crumbling before its first test, by making any support for the war conditional upon UN legality and UN backing, the coming war, in the absence of that, may have to prepare to fight on more than the Iraqi front.

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

Any excuse will be found for attacking Iraq
Gulf News, 22-01-2003
-

With relentless determination, impervious to international sentiment, Britain and America are increasing the number of troops and equipment being sent to the Gulf region. "Preparedness" they tell everyone, just in case Iraq should be found wanting. Or, put another way, an opportunity to increase the stakes and make it even more likely that there will be a war declared on Iraq. And sooner, rather than later, despite pleas from the UN chief weapons inspectors for more time to undertake their searches.

However, time is running out for the Western duo. They can ill-afford to keep several hundred thousand troops and equipment hovering around the Gulf region - "just in case" - for six months or more, waiting for the opportunity to attack. But then the American president and the British prime minister will not want the war to be held in the summer; for them it is a winter war, or not until later this year, for the logistics of fighting a war in one of the hottest regions on Earth, in the height of summer, is something they would prefer not to contemplate.

So now the American administration and the British prime minister are looking for the opportunity to claim some default by Iraq. Fabricated or otherwise, it is almost a certainty that within the next few weeks, a reason will be found to create an almost impossible situation for Iraq. Thus will follow the cry of "foul" from the UK and the U.S. and the excuse to invade Iraq. For it is obvious that when the American president says "time is running out for Iraq" he really means that he is losing patience and wants to resolve the problem once and for all. In doing so, he not only ensures increased business for an ailing U.S. economy, with the production of more arms and armaments, but also a consequential increase in business throughout the nation. So in one fell swoop, he solves his two biggest problems and ensures a second term as president. Which is more than his father achieved.

Reinventing the U.S.-Canadian border
By Nihal Kaneira, Gulf News, 22-01-2003
-

In times like these when the world is being racked by the crises in the Middle East and South East Asia and the future is becoming increasingly uncertain, a single certainty is rapidly emerging for Canada. That certainty is that nothing means more to Canada's future than the United States.

At least, that is the essence of the message that a group of Canada's top business leaders, who have acquired a reputation for being adept at reading political winds, has sent to the government in Ottawa.

Breaking their silence on current Canada-U.S. friction, they called for the unthinkable and unspeakable for many Canadians – the complete dismantling of the Canada-U.S. border. The longest and the busiest border in the world, they said it should be eliminated and replaced with a North American security perimeter, to be jointly managed by Canada and the United States.

Going where no other Canadian group has gone before, the business leaders say the controversial proposal offers the best way to achieve more regulatory equivalency within an integrated North American economy and society.

The call is sure to rattle the ruling Liberals in Ottawa and send the country's ultra-nationalists into a new tizzy.

Reason: the proposal is very similar to calls made last year by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and other Canadian conservatives. Even more important, it eerily echoes the position taken by the Bush administration after the Septem-ber 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

The business leaders, who all belong to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, representing 150 of the largest corporations in Canada, say that instead of a demarcation line separating the two countries, there should be a northern security perimeter, and that it should be jointly managed by the two countries with a common approach to entry and exit points, trade, immigration, security and defense.

The group sees this perimeter concept as the most effective way to remake Canada-U.S. relations, eliminate border frictions and facilitate people and trade flows between the two countries.

In the post-September 11 environments, U.S. moves to tighten security at the border has become a major irritant for Canadians. The stepped-up border control measures are causing heartburn to Canadians.

They feel they are disrespectful to a strategic and close ally, and a strong partner in the war against international terrorism, a neighbour who has taken the added burden of spending an extra $8 billion to beef up security services and increase border surveillance. Yet they are being forced to accept unnecessary discriminatory practices, such as the blatant racial profiling of its Arab and Muslim citizens.

For their part, Americans complain that Canadians don't police their borders tightly enough and that the country's lax immigration and refugee policies in the past have made the border vulnerable. Implicit in their frequent complaints is a threat to tighten the border even further and document all Canadian visitors in U.S. government records, if any potential terrorists or drug and people smugglers are caught infiltrating across the border again.

But for Canadians, the 49th Parallel represents a crucial economic lifeline for their country. As much as 86 per cent of Canada's exports – worth C$2 billion a day – move across the border to the United States in trucks and oil and gas pipelines, and business leaders are particularly apprehensive about the impact any increased screening of people and goods would have on the flow of this trade.

Canadians desperately want the border checks kept to a minimum in order for the goods and services to move to the south without interruption or delays.

''What we are really talking about is totally reinventing the border," Tom D'Aquino, President of the CCCE, said this week, while unveiling the proposal. "The border should no longer be seen as a demarcation line between Canada and the United States. It should simply be an internal checkpoint.

"The whole focus on our strategy is homeland security and economic security. The two things are really inseparable," D'Aquino added.

By jointly managing the North American entry points to combat terrorism, drug smuggling and illegal immigration, CCCE advocates opening up the border to the relatively free passage of goods and citizens of the two countries.

But dismantling the border would require Canada to move far beyond the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) towards an even closer new continental relationship with the United States, a relationship in which the two countries would have to have cross-border co-ordination and co-operation in a variety of areas, such as in law enforcement, immigration and refugee policies.

Perhaps, Canada would have to enter into a customs union with the Americans, adopt uniform policies on travel visas, immigration and refugees. What would that do to Canadian sovereignty? Will Canadians be able to call themselves sovereign and independent anymore?

In the 16 months following September 11, Canada has gone some distance to harmonising its policies with those in the U.S. But Americans are clearly not satisfied and is pressing Canada to do more.

What they have in mind is more uniformity in law enforcement, immigration and refugee policies, including the creation of a northern security perimeter, more defense spending and Canadian participation in the U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield. The Bush administration seem to want Ottawa to think more in terms of continental security than purely Canadian security.

These are not controversy-free issues. While Canadians appreciate the U.S. desire for enhancing continental security, they are also wary about going too far out of a concern for national sovereignty. They don't want to become America's 51st state.

To be sure, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have profoundly changed the United States, made Americans want to fortify their country, increase their scrutiny. They are now keener to know who comes and goes through their borders. Canadians understand this, but they too have learnt a lot, not only from the September 11 horror, but also from the increasing assertiveness of the superpower next door.

But in the opinion of D'Aquino, more terrorist attacks on the North America homeland are a "virtual certainty." It is imperative for Canada, therefore, to develop a new security and economic coalition with the U.S or risk a loss of Canadian sovereignty.

"We are not talking about doing it the American way," he says. "What we are talking about is addressing continental security with joint institutions, with shared responsibility."

D'Aquino wants Canada to take the lead in selling Washington a new continental relationship, tie up new agreements with the United States to protect Canadian resources and Canadian sovereignty, enter into a deal that would guarantee open access to U.S. markets for Canadian goods and services.

"We can't look to the Americans to come forward with a plan. It is our responsibility to do that just exactly what we did in the 1980s with free trade," he told a conference in Toronto on Tuesday. "If we can do all of that, we will end up with something that will be good for Canada, good for the United States and good for North America."

Will it fly with the Canadian government? There has been no word yet, although Prime Minister Jean Chretien has been leery about the creation of a common perimeter in the past, fearing a loss of Canadian sovereignty.

But with a Bush-Chretien summit in the works for March or April, perhaps Ottawa is now more receptive to the idea and will consider incorporating it in the new economic and security agreement that the two countries expect to sign when the president is here.

US oblivious to chinks in armour

By Nihal Singh

Khaleej Times, 1/22/03

AS THE awesome American military machine is slotted in place around Iraq on land and in the waters and over the skies, there is no doubting President George W. Bush's resolve to topple President Saddam Hussein. What remains to be determined is whether Washington's military adventure will be undertaken without a second resolution of the UN Security Council.

American diplomacy is keeping pace with the military plans, with the US president tut-tutting over alleged Iraqi non-compliance. Eleven empty warheads for chemical weapons are trumpeted in Washington as the smoking gun; the supposedly dovish US Secretary of State Colin Powell chimes in that President Saddam is not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors. The diplomatic struggle is to seek legitimacy for the new American version of gunboat diplomacy, for itself as well as for skittish regional allies. Everyone knows that the 'window of opportunity' for America launching an invasion of Iraq is from mid-February after the Eid festivities to mid-March, after which it will be too hot to fight, encumbered as US troops will be with cumbersome protective gear. Therefore, all American efforts are directed at wrapping up the diplomatic game in time for a post-Eid offensive.

UN inspectors and members of the European Union are seeking more time, on the pattern of stretching out the passing of UN Security Council resolution 1441 over two months, but for American war planners, time is of the essence. If they are thwarted, there will arrive a point at which Washington chooses to go ahead unilaterally, suitably assisted by Britain, but it will make life more difficult for those who choose to, or are compelled to, assist America in waging war against a sovereign country.

For many of the nations of the Middle East, the dilemmas are acute, and for no country more so than for Turkey. Ruled by the Justice and Development Party with Islamic roots and a traditional ally of the United States, it has little option but to give Washington the bases and facilities it wants. Polls suggest that 80 per cent of Turks are against the war but the country's geographical location - in other ways an asset - means that failure to comply with American wishes would precipitate a rupture. Turkey has already been hosting US and British warplanes enforcing the illegal no-fly zones, lately being utilised to soften up targets in Iraq for the war.

There is much toing and froing in Arab capitals, the Turkish prime minister, Abdullah Gul, having recently completed a Middle East tour. Among the plans being floated are a reported Saudi offer of giving senior Iraqi officers amnesty to persuade them to depose President Saddam and there are Egyptian and Tunisian efforts to encourage him to step down. The abiding theme of these attempts at seeking a compromise is to avoid a war that would invite chaos in the region and varying degrees of violent protests in Arab and Muslim lands. At the same time, there seems to be an air of helplessness in the Middle East that politicians and nations can do little to stop the American juggernaut.

In power terms, America has notched up an impressive scorecard. The American neo-conservative goal of creating a New World Order, beginning with the Middle East, is about to take shape. The Europeans are impotent as they fret and fume, Russia and China are more mindful of their basic interests than in challenging the US frontally. The United Nations is cast in the unhappy role of an organisation relevant to the present crisis only if it serves American interests.

The US declares that it is seeking to democratise the Middle East, but few believe it. It is taken for granted that oil is at the centre of American imperialist objectives. There is little subtlety in choosing Iraq and the helpless Palestinian territories for democratic reform. That is precisely the point. There is no apology about the Republican neo-conservative administration of President Bush, in claiming the throne of the Second Roman Empire. Iraq would give America control over the world's second largest supply of oil and letting Palestinians twist in the sun in order to deny them a viable state immensely pleases the American Jewish community and Israel.

In the American-ordained scheme of things, the chaos following an American invasion is essential to reordering the region. If the Kurds in northern Iraq seek independence to the detriment of Turkish interests, so be it. And since the Shias are in a majority in Iraq, they will be given a larger slice of the cake at a price. If hordes of refugees seek shelter in Turkey and Iran to escape the war, the US will throw some crumbs at them.

Americans seem to be underestimating the chinks in their armour. For one thing, an invasion of Iraq would give a tremendous fillip to the remaining forces of Al Qaeda and their sympathisers and the broader Arab and Muslim ranks to seek spectacular vengeance against Americans and Israelis. Second, the resentment of much of the rest of the world to American hegemony in the 21st century will make itself apparent in many other ways. If the post-World War II world has been held together by a transatlantic alliance of arms as well as shared values, the dissonance between the two will be even more acute. For a while after the September 11, 2001 events, Europeans rallied to the American cause as never before, with France's .Le Monde. declaring, "We are all Americans". The mood has turned increasingly sour since then as America rides its imperial horse.`

Forebodings of another conflict?

By Mushahid Hussain

Khaleej Times, 1/22/03

THE recent worldwide protests against the impending American war against Iraq have no precedence in history, both for their scope and intensity. From Egypt to New Zealand and Syria to the United States, protestors in thousands voiced their opposition to any unilateral military action. What is unique in this anti-war movement is that it has begun even before a war has been initiated, unlike the opposition to the Vietnam or the Gulf Wars. The fierce resistance to the war in Iraq has taken time to build, primarily because this is one military campaign whose planning and orchestration has taken a while.

Take the interesting revelation in the January 12 edition of The Washington Post. According to the newspaper, President Bush signed a 'top secret' two page document on September 17, 2001 - just six days after the terror attacks of September 11 - ordering military action against Afghanistan. In the same directive, he instructed the Pentagon "to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq". This was done despite no apparent or proven linkage between Baghdad and the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Washington Post also reported on January 17, 2003, that a 'broad and protracted American role' in Iraq was envisaged after an invasion, including full-fledged military occupation of the country under a serving general of the US Army. Why is there so much apprehension regarding the war against Iraq? And what is the possible Iraq linkage with Pakistan, because Pakistan's officialdom is apparently convinced there isn't any?

The apprehension is compounded by the confusion and mixing up of motives by the Bush administration, a point made with apt clarity by a former American ambassador to Pakistan. Writing in the International Herald Tribune on January 14, RonaldSpiers critiques President Bush for having "lost his way" in the war on terror.

He writes: "The distinction between September 11 and local conflicts like those in Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Kashmir, Sri Lanka or Palestine, amenable to negotiation and political solution, quickly began to blur. Opponents are all branded 'terrorists' regardless of particular circumstances, and pretty much anything is OK in defeating them. "In America, the attorney-general finds the war metaphor useful when he turns to constitutionally questionable measures to preserve national security. The confusion is increased by trying to justify a war on Iraq as a necessary part of the war on terror."

Regarding Iraq, the officialdom is trying to present the Iraq debate at two levels: pragmatic and emotional. The 'pragmatic' argument presents the war against Iraq as something inevitable, which has no direct or indirect bearing on Pakistan, as if it is something unrelated to America's larger objectives in the Muslim world or even remotely connected to US strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan.

The 'emotional' argument views Iraq in a more basic what-has-Iraq-done-for-Pakistan theme. In other words, Iraq has been Pakistan's adversary, so why should Pakistan even talk about it? Had that rationale been adopted on Afghanistan in 1979 when the Soviets invaded that country (since Pakistan had a 30-year history of animosity with Afghanistan", Islamabad could have looked the other way with folded arms, allowing its adversary to face the Russians on their own. Notions of pragmatism or emotions apart, a more hard-nosed analysis is called for and it should be based strictly on the stated American goals regarding Iraq. In effect, Washington's publicly stated reasons for attacking Iraq. Three are relevant, and all of these could be extended to make a case against Pakistan as well, should the US deem it necessary, although right now there is no such danger, since the US needs Pakistan as an ally.

First, Iraq is being targeted as part of the new doctrine of 'pre-emption', formally enunciated by President Bush last September. Under this doctrine, the United States can take military action to pre-empt a 'potential threat' even if there is no existing military threat. The fear of a future threat, therefore, is enough to spark a war. By this reckoning, Israel would be at liberty to attack Syria or Lebanon and, for that matter, India could strike Pakistan.

Second, the attack on Iraq is being justified based on 'weapons of mass destruction', which it could use against its neighbours or US interests or transfer to terrorists. According to the New York Times of January 17, the Pentagon has prepared a 150-page National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism. The newspaper said, "US military strategy has shifted toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terror groups developing weapons of mass destruction." Since the second half of 2002, stories in the American media have been orchestrated against Pakistan's nuclear programme, linking it alternately to North Korea, China, Iraq and Iran, and questioning Pakistan's capability of safeguarding its nuclear assets, implying a danger of their falling in the 'wrong hands'. If sufficient suspicion already exists or has been created through this media vilification campaign, then it only requires a political decision to make a case against the country.

Finally, making a case for war, as President Bush did in his UN speech on September 12, 2002, making past sins a pretext for present action, is setting a dangerous precedent. The irony is that Saddam's sins were committed when he was the closest collaborator of US strategy in the Gulf - invading Iran and using chemical weapons. He broke ranks with his mentors in Washington only in 1990, when he occupied Kuwait.

Pakistan has already been accused of fomenting 'fundamentalist extremism' (supporting Taleban) and 'cross border terrorism' (Kashmir), with concerns cited regarding its nuclear scientists and the Bomb (two were arrested, interrogated and released last year, while Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was the focus of a piece in the Los Angeles Times).

Given this context, the choice before Pakistan is neither confrontation nor capitulation but a more level-headed, sober and serious analysis on how best to protect and promote the national interest.

Deft diplomacy and an imaginative and proactive national security approach, backed by a national consensus at home and coordination with the international community should be vital ingredients of such an approach.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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