Jan 24, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 24, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

At last! The American government has announced that it is canceling the public relations campaign aimed at improving the image of American policy in the Islamic world.

The cancellation of course has come in the wake of the failed media program that accompanied the campaign. Some justified the failure as being due to the sheer weakness and simple-mindedness of the message. This may be true but it is not enough justification. The mistake does not lie in the weakness of the campaign but in something else entirely. The problem lies in American policy itself and not in the advertising campaign. What is required is for the political course to be corrected; no change in advertising techniques is necessary.

However strong and moving an advertising campaign may be, it will not succeed in improving the image; if the situation is bad, then the media will reflect that reality, not create it. The media “can fool some of the people some of the time but cannot fool all the people all the time.”

If the challenge is to correct the course that American policy has taken, the question becomes: Is that even possible? Is there any hope of changing that policy? The question is hard and the answer is even harder — for the stubborn American political mind is ‘imperial’ and expansionist and difficult to change. The American political class was raised on the policy of imperialism. This imperial mentality was linked in the 19th century to the internationalization of industrial capital, and the economic and geographic expansion that rests on control of others’ lands and the export of technology and American social codes and mores to its colonies.

Americans have deceived the world by portraying themselves as upholders of human rights, justice and freedom and believe that America is not an invading colonizing country. The truth of the matter is that colonialism is not merely a question of occupying land and military invasion — it is also the mental tendency to control and expand power. It is a mental invasion and the imposition of ideas and power over the market. Americans have excelled at this throughout their history of political, economic and media presence.

The imperialist tendency is old and rooted in the American political mind. It is what drove former US Senator William Fulbright to say: “Aren’t they exciting? The words of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge — they wanted American to have an empire simply because a big and powerful country such as America must have an empire.”

The struggle in America today is between two tendencies — an imperial one that occupies the minds of professional politicians and a popular humane tendency that mocks expansion and warns of the dangers of the US appointing itself “the world’s policeman.” The struggle is between the political mind and the popular conscience. The president and founder of an American organization working for peace, William Baker, says: “Who gave America the right to decide the fate of other nations and to fight a war under the pretenses of liberating Iraq and its people through bombs and missiles, to kill their children and bring destruction down upon them?” Yes, it is difficult, as Baker says, to Americanize the world’s ideas and systems of government or their customs and traditions.

Davos: The mood is somber
By AmerTaheri, Arab News Staff, 1/24/03

Hope for the best but expect the worst! This seems to be the motto of this year’s World Economic Forum that opened in the Swiss ski resort of Davos last evening.

This year’s program is focused on the various threats that loom over international security. Terrorism is no longer regarded as an aberration that concerns a handful of nations only. Those who designed the forum’s program assume that terrorism is now a global threat and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

The first sign of this new attitude comes in the shape of the biggest security operation ever in Swiss history. Some 10,000 Swiss soldiers, policemen and undercover agents have been mobilized to protect the event from terrorist attacks. Many are stationed in Zurich, the point of arrival for most of the participants. There has also been a buildup in other cities that have nothing to do with the event, including Geneva and the Swiss confederal capital of Bern. The village of Davos itself has drawn 2400 soldiers and policemen, a figure larger than that of the participants.

FBI and other American undercover agents have been in or around the village for weeks. Local Davosians have seen them skiing on occasion, but it is clear that they are keeping an eye on would-be troublemakers.

The draconian security measures, that included barbed wire fences that cordon off large portions of the surrounding mountains, wee mostly taken under pressure from Washington. The Bush administration had made it clear to the organizers that it would not be sending any emissaries unless the newly created Department of Homeland Security gave the event a clean bill of health.

The Americans insisted that the number of participants be cut by 10 percent and that all be thoroughly checked and approved, or rejected, by Dec. 7, 2002.

Rather than facing an American boycott the organizers agreed to foot a hefty security bill, believed to ran into $12 million.

In the end the Bush administration is not sending all the big shots that the organizers had hoped for. But the fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell will spend almost a whole day here is seen by many as significant.

Powell’s chief mission will be to reassure the political and business leaders present that the administration knows what it is doing vis-à-vis Iraq.

“There is the perception that we are acting like a bull in a china shop,” says an aide to Powell. “It is our task to show that our policies are based on rational and realistic grounds.”

Powell will have to be back in Washington on Jan. 27 at the time that the United Nations’ weapons inspection team, headed by Hans Blix, is due to present its crucial report to the Security Council. Many believe that the report could trigger a war aimed at toppling President Saddam Hussein’s regime.

It would be Powell’s task here to sell the idea to hundreds of leaders from 98 countries across the globe.

So cumbersome were the measures proposed by the Americans that the Helvetic authorities for a while toyed with the idea of asking the organizers to take their show elsewhere. It was not until last August that the idea of moving the event outside Switzerland was abandoned, at least for the time being. (One alternative site that had been debated was the Moroccan resort town of Skheirat.)

The subdued mood in Davos this year is in sharp contrast with what was a long period of “irrational exuberance” at the forum. The organizers have tried to pick up some of the pieces by devoting one panel to what they call “rational exuberance”, in the hope that the boom years of the past can be brought back, but this time on a rational, and hopefully, lasting basis.

For the third year running there is some talk here of “winding down Davos.” The idea is that the forum has outlived its usefulness. It reached its peak in the 1990s when the global economy was moving, the leadership elites were trusted, if not actually respected, and decision-making mechanisms responded to fresh ideas. “We live in a far more complex world,” admits Klaus Schwab, the Swiss economics professor who crated the form over 30 years ago. “People who come here cannot influence events as they used to a few years ago,” he said.

Nevertheless, he insists that the forum can still play a useful role as a platform for political, business and intellectual leaders to exchange ideas and, hopefully, help minimize areas of conflict.

“The world still needs Davos,” says American banker Felix Rohatyn. “Where else can so many leaders talk openly and hear contrary views without being offended?”

One thing is sure: Davos will not be as fun as it used to be. Many ought programs, including all-night revelries, have been canceled, and the usual skiing sorties are limited in time and space. In any case, it would hardly be fun to ski while soldiers holding machine guns keep watch and helicopter gunships fly overhead.

This year Davos it will be a frugal affair, more like a gathering of monks than bib-shot bon-viveurs.

The sight of Davos almost under siege might remind visitors of war movies. But the only threat looming on the horizon so far comes from some 200 anti-globalization militants who plan a demonstration tomorrow in a corner of the village. The US security services have checked the identities of all protesters and approved their presence. The worst that can happen would be for the protesters to break the windows of the local MacDonald hamburger joint, as they did three years ago.

After Sept. 11 attacks against New York and Washington, the siege of McDonald’s at Davos need not worry anyone.

Dutch pointers
Arab News, 24 January 2003

The high turnout and the strong shift back to mainstream parties in this week’s Dutch general election is being seen by many in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe as proof that, after a year of high political drama, passions have calmed down and that all is back to normal.

The facts initially appear to justify that view. The two main parties, the ruling Christian Democrats and the opposition Labor party, have both made substantial gains at the expense of the Pim Fortuyn List (LPF), the far right, anti-immigration organization of murdered populist Pim Fortuyn, which stormed from nowhere to second place in last year’s polls.

But while Labor leader Wouter Bos may claim that Dutch voters “have spoken, and clearly, for a stable, progressive Cabinet,” he is mistaken. His reading of the electoral rules is colored more by what he would like to happen — a center coalition of Christian Democrats and his own party, which managed to regain much of the support it lost last year to the LPF — than by what actually happened.

Dutch voters may have deserted the LPF in their droves but not because they suddenly decided they did not like its anti-immigration policies. What turned them off was the bitter infighting in its ranks which then brought down the coalition government of which it was a part. The party was seen as irresponsible and inept.

But in moving back to the traditional mainstream parties, the voters have not moved back to traditional, mainstream policies. Rather the political parties have grabbed some of the terrain staked out by the LPF. Both the Christian Democrats and their coalition partners, the free-market VVD, who will now continue together in government, have become distinctly anti-immigration; just recently the VVD agreed that the Netherlands was full. Even Labor has fallen in line with the new mood.

Inevitably that mood and this result will do nothing to calm fears among Dutch Muslims that they are being uniquely branded as undesirables. Plenty of people settle in the Netherlands — Italians, Portuguese, and now increasingly east and southeast Europeans. But it was Muslim immigrants mainly from North Africa and Turkey who were singled out for attack by the late Pim Fortuyn, accusing them of not integrating into Dutch secular society.

It is perfectly right and proper for the Dutch, as for any other nation, to expect that immigrants should do their best to integrate — which means accepting society as they find it and not demanding that it change to suit them. The recent demand from an Arab immigrant leader in neighboring Belgium, for example, that Arabic be made an official language was arrogant and wrong: Language is one area where immigrants must assimilate.

But it is absolutely wrong to stigmatize immigrants because of their religion. Faith is a private matter. The Dutch have never criticized the country’s Jewish community for having different ways and customs to the mainstream. Why do they do it to their Muslims? All that it will do is stir up fear and resentment among Muslims, creating a ghetto mentality which in turn could fuel further suspicion and discrimination. What is needed is an inclusive and conciliatory approach. That means accepting cultural diversity — something Europe has been very good at in the past. But it is a two-way affair. Immigrants should not make outrageous and arrogant demands from those who have given them a new home. That is just as important.

Why Filipinos don’t need a charter change
By Rasheed Abou-Alsamh
Arab News, 1/24/03

The overwhelming vote in favor of charter change by the House of Representatives last week was a signal that politicians are unfortunately getting the upper hand in the battle to change the Philippine political system from a presidential one to a parliamentary one. The idea of charter change has been around for years now, but now its proponents seem to be gaining ground.

I’m against charter change because I think it will just be a colossal waste of money and serve as diversionary tactic to stop the voting public from seeing the corruption that so many politicians are wallowing in. Worst of all, I think politicians that are pushing for it want it only because they think it will enable them to get rid of term limits, perpetuating political dynasties that the country would be better without.

Former President Corazon Aquino is in favor of a constitutional convention to be held in 2004 just after the election. The election would be used to elect delegates to the convention. This is the more democratic option, as all civic sectors would be represented and have a voice in deciding which parts of the Constitution to change. Members of the House of Representatives, unsurprisingly, are pushing for turning Congress into a constituent assembly, i.e. only they and senators would decide on changing the constitution. Yet again, the senators are the voice of sanity in Congress by disagreeing with their colleagues in the House, preferring a constitutional convention.

Neal Cruz wrote a hilarious column on Jan. 16 in the Inquirer in which he related having a conversation on charter change with an unnamed representative. (“Solon: Why we need a parliamentary system”). Now I don’t know if this was a real conversation or not as the politician sounded so dumb, but the only reason the politician kept giving for adopting a parliamentary system was because the country needed a strong leader.

Perhaps the politician was thinking of the Iron Lady of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, who ruled for 11 years from 1979 to 1990. She seems to be an anomaly in the parliamentary systems of Europe. Look at Italy for example. Until Berlusconi was swept into power a few years ago, the Italian government was changed so often following votes of no confidence in parliament, that Italy became a joke in Europe. Sure Italy continued to muddle along before Berlusconi came along, but it had 10 different governments in the span of just a few years.

Even if a parliamentary system worked in the Philippines, would we really want 11 years of Gloria, Cory, Erap or even Fidel? I don’t think so! A strict presidential limit of only one term in office was imposed following the ouster of the Marcoses, the tyranny of their dictatorship still fresh in the minds of Filipinos. But many presidents now seem to complain that six years is not enough time to get all of their programs done. Perhaps the Constitution could be changed to give them the chance to run for office again after sitting out one term in office. That way Filipinos wouldn’t be stuck with the same leader for 12 years in a row, but would have a chance to try a former president again after he or she had sat out one term.

The only advantage that I see in a parliamentary system for the Philippines, is that it can be less divisive when the public splits its vote between many political parties. That way it is easier for coalition governments to be formed, where power and portfolios are shared. Unfortunately, in presidential forms of government, such as we have in the United States and the Philippines there is no scope for power sharing. This is unfortunate in the US, where under the archaic voting system George Bush was elected president despite not winning the popular vote. (He won the election on the electoral college vote). Bush is lucky because his Republican Party now controls both houses of Congress after the November elections.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo announced a few weeks ago that she wouldn’t run for president in 2004, and that she wanted a government of national unity. Under the existing presidential system that is easier said than done. Sure she could appoint opposition politicians to posts in her government, but it wouldn’t be very effective or a smooth ride for that matter.

Many in favor of a parliamentary system will say that it is a superior political system to the presidential one because it makes voters focus on issues rather than personalities. While it is true that voters don’t actually vote for the prime minister per se, instead voting for individual members of parliament, I still think that strong personalities end up dominating parliamentary systems. Just look at Tony Blair in Britain and President Jacques Chirac in France. Sure, France is a strange hybrid of the parliamentary and presidential systems, but who remembers who the prime minister of France is? Chirac’s personality is so overwhelming that Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Rafferin has disappeared into the background.

The real question in all of this is whether or not the Philippines has enough need and money to ponder the luxury of changing its political system. As Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin said this week, “we do not need to change the Constitution to give food to the poor, to house the homeless, and to educate the street children.”

I think the whole issue of charter change should ultimately be posed to the electorate in a referendum. After several months of campaigning by both sides, a simple “yes” or “no” vote would be held. Let the people speak their minds. Changing the Constitution is too important to be left to just a handful of selfish politicians.

Regional players show their hands on Iraq

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 1/24/03

While agreeing that the Istanbul conference is unlikely to have much direct impact on the Iraq situation, Arab commentators differ sharply over the wider implications of the gathering billed as an attempt by the key Middle East players to pool their efforts to prevent war in the region.
Arab press reports suggest there have been differences between the participants from Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan over how strongly they should oppose a US war on Iraq.
The Beirut daily As-Safir reports that on the eve of the conference, the Syrians and Iranians were trying to persuade the Turkish hosts to amend a statement they had drafted for the conference participants to adopt, and to make it more explicitly opposed to American military action.
According to the text published by the newspaper, the original draft, while declaring that “war should not be an option for resolving this crisis,” puts most of the onus for doing so on “the Iraqi leadership.” It reminds the latter of the trouble it has caused the region over the past two decades, and demands that it do more to cooperate with UN arms inspectors and convince them that Iraq has gotten rid of its mass destruction weapons.
The proposed declaration also calls on the Iraqi leadership to stop issuing statements that put its willingness to comply with UN demands into question, renounce the future acquisition of doomsday weapons, adopt policies liable to win the confidence of Iraq’s neighbors and take “resolute and persuasive steps toward national reconciliation.”
In exchange, the draft statement calls for the UN Security Council to be the arbiter of Iraq’s behavior and to remain fully engaged in the crisis.
Lebanese commentator Saad Mehio agrees with the description of the Istanbul meeting as “political cover for countries that want to join the US war on Iraq.”
Although the six countries participating would sincerely like to avoid war, they know they are incapable of defying Washington, he writes in the UAE daily Al-Khaleej. “For Turkey depends on Washington for almost everything from saving its economy from collapse, to equipping its army and supporting its difficult quest for European Union membership and the same applies to the Arab states taking part.”
Mehio suggests Turkey convened the meeting as part of a “grand American diplomatic maneuver” aimed at achieving a number of things:
l Tightening the “political siege” around President Saddam Hussein “alongside the military siege, which is expected to have been completed by mid-February.”
l Enabling the Arab and Islamic states concerned to “take part in the American war on the basis that they tried to save Saddam but he was stubborn and refused.”
l Reviving moves to get an amnesty issued for Iraqi Army generals to encourage them to mount a coup against the president.
l Setting the stage for “the emergence of a new regional order.”
Mehio writes that the latter objective may be the most important. He links Ankara’s recent heavy engagement in regional diplomacy to reports that the US favors the establishment of a new Middle East order whose mainstays are Turkey, Israel, Jordan and post-Saddam Iraq with other Arab countries and Iran joining later after their regimes have been “attuned.” Most intriguing was Prime Minister Abdullah Gul’s “formal request” that Turkey be admitted to the Arab League as an observer.
“There is no explanation for these simultaneous steps other than that the land of the Sultans and the Ottomans has begun preparing itself for a new leadership role in the region,” Mehio writes.
Jordan’s semi-official daily Al-Rai suggests that the countries conferring in Istanbul could form some kind of new “regional bloc,” and strenuously denies reports that they are trying to persuade the Iraqi leader to go into exile and prevent war.
The paper writes in its leader that there is “still a chance” for the Iraq crisis to be resolved peacefully despite war being the “favored option in Washington, London and (naturally and as always) Tel Aviv.”
Whatever happens at Istanbul, the meeting itself is a “success for the quiet diplomacy and commonsense” advocated by the six participants, it says. They are better placed than any external power to appreciate how grave the consequences of war could be on both Iraq and the wider region.
Al-Rai makes a point of dismissing “rumors” that Iraq’s neighbors are considering “scenarios and plans that touch on the structure of the Iraqi regime and its leaders.” Their meeting is aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the crisis under which UN arms inspectors continue working in Iraq and Baghdad complies with all its obligations to them.
It says the “exceptional importance” of the Istanbul meeting could turn it into “an opportunity for the emergence of a regional bloc for crisis-resolution.” The gathering “should be viewed in its political and regional dimensions, and not as a facilitator for the implementation of scenarios related to the Iraqi president’s future,” the Jordanian daily affirms. “All the participating states without exception have declared that such scenarios and options are not on the meeting’s agenda.”
Gamil Matar writes in Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej “that the idea of the regional conference was either originally an American idea or welcomed by the Americans from the first instance, as was the idea of allowing Saddam and his family to go into exile with guarantees that they will not be prosecuted.”
Both proposals had initially appeared to be Turkey’s, but it has since emerged that they were inspired, or at least encouraged, by Washington.
Jordanian commentator Mahmoud Rimawi says the Istanbul conferees should make it their business to get some kind of dialogue going between Baghdad and Washington.
He concedes in Al-Rai that there are “no great hopes” pinned on the meeting, “which some see as a final attempt or opportunity, while others, both within and outside the region, believe it was convened belatedly” to prevent war.
“In truth, the impact of this meeting, which Ankara originally wanted to hold at summit level, would not have been different if it had been convened a month ago,” he judges. “There is a prior American decision on war, and Washington’s efforts are focused on securing the various logistical facilities and services necessary, while reassuring countries in the region that the security and economic equations won’t change after war is initiated. In other words, Washington is thinking about the course and aftermath of the war, while the regional players are busy thinking of ways to halt the impetus for it.”
Rimawi says although the Istanbul conference “will not halt the advance of the US war machine,” by advocating a peaceful political settlement to the crisis, it can help deny legitimacy to any recourse to military force.
“Most of Washington’s declared aims in Iraq can be achieved without resorting to war,” he points out. As the Turks were preparing to host the regional get-together, the US signaled that it would refrain from invading Iraq if Saddam were to step down and go into exile. That prompted Turkish officials to stress that the meeting was not going to discuss the issue of the Iraqi president resigning, “as that is ultimately an internal Iraqi matter and if the Americans want to think along those lines, and consider that to amount to a deal, then an American-Iraqi dialogue would enable both sides to present whatever they want to offer.”
“Accordingly, the Istanbul conference would do well to call for such a bilateral dialogue, under whatever label or guise, and whether direct or indirect,” Rimawi says. Turkish officials have hinted at this in the past, and the current “pressing and delicate” juncture might be the ideal time to propose such a “daring” idea.
Rimawi notes that it remains US policy to reject any negotiations with Baghdad. But it took the same position during the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis over Kuwait but that did not prevent high-level talks between James Baker and Tarek Aziz in Geneva. Those talks failed because Iraq made the “fatal mistake” of refusing to withdraw its forces from Kuwait, “but there is nothing to prevent a repeat attempt this time. Recourse to war cannot be the only option proposed by the world’s sole superpower.”
Another alternative is the idea promoted by Turkey that UN arms inspectors in Iraq be granted a full year to complete their task, with the Security Council intervening should the need arise.
“In the final analysis, realistic and achievable ideas and proposals must be put forward if the specter of war is to be kept at bay even only temporarily. That is the declared aim of the Istanbul conference and the participants,” he says. Their meeting is the first regional gathering of its kind, “and it opens the door to Arab-Turkish cooperation in tackling the region’s crises in a spirit of mutual understanding and support.”
Beirut’s As-Safir editor Joseph Samaha sets the Istanbul gathering against a backdrop of growing worldwide opposition to war on Iraq.
He notes that anti-globalization activists from around the world are gathering in Brazil, and that one of the main issues that the vast and diverse array of organizations they represent will be discussing is how to coordinate their efforts to prevent war on Iraq.
Meanwhile the “world’s owners” are meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where expression is likely to be given to the growing alarm in financial and business circles about “the adventure that Washington appears to be pushing toward.”
This while Paris witnesses “the partial revival of the Franco-German axis,” with both countries taking a strong stand against unilateral American military action against Iraq and speaking for Europe as a whole on the issue “much more than Tony Blair does.”
It is hard to predict how far the Europeans may be prepared to go, Samaha says, but the degree of “Western” opposition to US policy currently on show is unprecedented.
“In Istanbul, we are witnessing a regional event without precedent,” Samaha says, especially by the “miserable” standards of today’s Middle East. “It is the regional counterpart of Europe’s protest against American warmongering.”
“And just as the European protest isolates Britain, this regional protest isolates Israel.” Samaha observes. As Israel braces to re-elect Ariel Sharon, “it appears alien and hostile to its surroundings, with an interest in destroying them.” That is most starkly illustrated by the way Turkey has been putting an “unmistakable distance” between itself and Israel, when until recently the two had seemed to be forging an ever-closer anti-Arab alliance.
So even if the Istanbul conferees end up “issuing a sub-standard statement or adopting a policy that might not be translated seriously into practice,” they will have achieved two important results.
“The first is ‘chilling’ the Turkish-Israeli relationship,” and the second is supporting the worldwide anti-war camp by giving it the endorsement of the regional players whose security the US claims is threatened by Iraq.
“From Brazil to Switzerland and from France to Turkey, there is a safe international majority against an assault,” says Samaha. One of the would-be partners in the “anticipated tripartite aggression,” Britain, is having serious trouble persuading its own people to remain in that camp.
Even in America, where “the echoes of international protest do not resonate loudly enough,” public skepticism about war is growing. The opinion polls suggest that Americans are not as keen on an invasion of Iraq as they were, and are also increasingly disenchanted with George W. Bush’s domestic policies, which they see as favoring the rich.
“Bush, Blair and Sharon feel they are isolated,” Samaha writes. “They know they would have lost their case in a genuinely democratic world. But despite this, and perhaps because of it, they could resort to bringing forward the firing of the first shot. They might be wagering that the ‘no’ raised in their faces is too weak to force them to pass up the opportunity. And they might be right.”

Arab world can change or face endless crisis
The Daily Star, 1/24/03

The Istanbul conference aimed at preventing war in Iraq was the product of a region that hardly needs extra motivation to avert any exacerbation of its chronic instability. One of the main reasons the talks were convened was the notion that this part of the world, like any other, has primary responsibility for the solving of its own problems. As Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi put it earlier this week, “the security issues of regional countries must be resolved by the countries themselves.”
Unfortunately, the Middle East’s track record on this score is not an enviable one, so even if a US-led invasion of Iraq can be prevented, this time has to be different. It is not enough to convince the “big, bad Americans” to go away if the factors that brought them here in the first place are not addressed. Radical changes are required in order to keep the Iraq crisis from becoming the first of many, and not just in Baghdad: Capitals across the Middle East have to revisit the way they operate and decide once and for all that what went before will simply not suffice any longer.
First and foremost, the Arab and Muslim worlds have had friction with the West because we are weak: From Rabat to Islamabad, our regimes are hollow ones whose pretensions to glory serve as little more than fodder for comedians. The typical state in this part of the world is not really a state at all but rather a facade designed to substitute style for substance. Even these appearances are not rendered very well, though: How could it be otherwise when there is so little to inspire the architects?
The weakness of Arab countries is especially striking, a condition evinced by the fact that it took a Turkish initiative to bring Iraq’s immediate neighbors and Egypt together for talks on the crisis. The only way to cure this illness is for Arab governance to improve quickly and permanently. Such goals will not be realized by holding pompous parades to celebrate fictitious victories, erecting garish buildings to honor hated despots, or holding sham elections to confirm the status of self-loving autocrats. No government is legitimate if it does not serve at the pleasure of the people, and no bastard “referendum” can replace the genuine accountability imposed by free and fair elections.
Even before the ballot box is made to reign supreme, however, Arab regimes can do much to help the situation by becoming more responsive to their people’s needs and concerns. Things like economic opportunities, the rule of law and human rights are not slogans. The extent to which a government respects, provides and protects them says all that needs to be known about its intrinsic worth.
States that devolve theoretical power to their citizens are actually made far stronger by the exercise. They gain immeasurably in terms of moral authority and popular esteem, but they also expand their economic, diplomatic, and military potential. Individuals are loyal to people and institutions they respect, not to the ones they fear or despise. If Arab rulers finally get this message, the Istanbul conference will not have to be repeated. If they do not, no amount of summits will make a difference.

Re-electing the devil you know

By Rime Allaf

The Daily Star, 1/24/03

History is full of it, that is, full of the remorse and disbelief some people feel when remembering how their ancestors acted in a certain way at a specific point in time. Like them, future Israeli generations will one day wonder how and why their parents and grandparents elected Ariel Sharon twice in a row to lead their nation into ever greater depression. Unless something dramatic happens before Jan. 28, polls indicate that Likud, and therefore Sharon, is assured of victory. And unless something dramatic happens, Israelis and people affected by what happens in Israel will be paying the price dearly. Twenty-nine political parties reflect the division of Israeli society on essential issues, but campaigning has bypassed concerns which typically play a role in national elections. Sharon’s Israel is going through the worst recession it has ever known, with a shattered economy, rising double-digit unemployment and no damage-control measures on the menu. With Sharon’s coaxing, however, these problems have been ignored by candidates and electorate alike to focus on two key issues: Palestinians, and Iraq.
President Bush’s depiction of Sharon as a man of peace has apparently helped convince Israelis they should re-elect him. In the heat of the moment, most are forgetting that he, precisely, is responsible for the greatest escalation of violence the region has ever known. The present government, to a much greater extent than previous ones, has violated practically every international protocol on human rights, given trigger-happy soldiers a green light to kill indiscriminately, razed countless Palestinian homes, expropriated more Palestinian land to build more settlements, and continued to bring Palestinians under occupation to new lows of humiliation and despair. Oddly enough, Israelis seem to believe this will bring them peace and internal security, and their re-election of Sharon will give them more of the same.
The sounds of war drums from Washington have also given Sharon the benefit of a supposed Iraqi threat, creating fantastic scenarios and pressing unto ordinary Israelis the contrived need for a tough man at the helm. The more Bush and his hawks shriek about Saddam’s invisible weapons of mass destruction, the more Sharon milks the situation to his advantage. Images of gas masks distributed in schools throughout Israel have had the desired potent effect, as have timely “revelations” about Arab states supposedly aiding and abetting Iraq’s circumvention of UN Security Council resolutions, which apparently only Israel can flout.
Imaginary dangers aside, Israelis have borne the physical consequences of their government’s belligerence and savagery in the Occupied Territories, consequences which continue to affect most aspects of daily life.
Yet, until recently, Israelis seemed mostly content with the “Bulldozer” and were on the verge of giving him another landslide victory until tales of corruption and fraud surfaced. Suddenly, polls predicted Likud would lose some 10 seats and Sharon’s position became shaky when some Israelis objected to dirty politics.
For a brief time, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope that Sharon would be sidelined for his involvement. The Labor Party inferred that Sharon and his sons were reminiscent of Mario Puzzo’s fictitious Don Corleone and his notorious famiglia, hoping for Sharon’s dramatic exclusion from politics. While that was entertaining, the godfather is no Sharon, and the Bulldozer certainly surpasses the Mafioso in criminal matters. Should Sharon be indicted on corruption charges, rather, he would become a modern version of Al Capone. Like the recognized criminal who was finally sent to Alcatraz on mere tax evasion charges, Sharon would be brought to justice for financial and political offenses while his greater crimes remained unpunished.
Should this happen, Israel’s electorate which accepted being ruled by a war criminal whose responsibility for massacres has been ascertained by Israeli authorities themselves would at least be remembered as the generation which turned Israel around, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Alas, even that dim hope was short-lived. Whether because of sympathy voting or because the opposition hasn’t properly managed these opportunities, a man with whose criminal record few people dead or alive can compete will ride smoothly to victory again.
The few voters who had decided that a corrupt Israeli was not an acceptable leader have not gone to Labor, but to smaller parties and religious or secular extremists, and part of Sharon’s achievements will have been to polarize Israeli society even more under his rule. But while the Likud’s top echelons may have expressed frustration, Sharon has little to lose.
Likud’s majority may not be as solid as it once was, but Sharon will still command considerable clout and the power to steer coalition partners into his own hazardous path. Far from bringing the usual inconveniences of an alliance with extremes of either direction, a Likud-Shas coalition (the most likely arrangement) could allow Sharon to appear hand-tied in spite of his supposed desire for peace. Such a right-wing alliance will contribute to the growing divide between secular and ultra-religious poles, to Palestinian resentment, and consequently to Israeli insecurity.
In reality, this hard-line coalition would only be trying to enforce Likud’s founding goal and mantra, reconfirmed at its May convention, that Israeli sovereignty extend to the west of the river Jordan. Where would the eventual Palestinian state then be?
Sharon has not even begun to shed light on the “painful concessions” he would be willing to make for peace, promised in the last campaign that brought him to power. His actions, however, have spoken loudly on those he was unwilling to make, to which he recently added the acceptance of the European Union as a peace maker. Finding Europe too biased and the “Quartet” to be “nothing,” Sharon confers only on the US the dubious honor of his blessing.
Assured of American support and fishing for a further “emergency” $12 billion aid package (thus also ensuring that the American taxpayer continues to subsidize his crimes), Sharon has appealed to Israelis’ sense of fear. The more scared they get, the fewer alternatives they see to Sharon. “Better the devil you know,” Israelis must be thinking as they go to the polls in a few days, but they are demonstrating remarkable shortsightedness. Only they still have the power to change their own destiny and that of the next generation.
The thought of Sharon behind bars would delight many of his victims and gratify human rights advocates, but it would be a hollow victory to have him indicted on minor offenses rather than for the horrific crimes against humanity he has repeatedly committed. But while a corruption indictment may leave a bitter aftertaste, there are times when it is better not to question the means to an end.
Until justice is served, a temporary relief would be Sharon’s defeat at the polls, even if it is a consequence of his corruption. It is still better to oust and confine Sharon a la Al Capone than to willingly re-elect him to a position from which he will continue to destroy Palestinians and bring Israelis to continued misfortune. Israelis still have time to do the right thing.

Rime Allaf is a London-based Syrian writer.

Turkey strikes blow against Bush’s war

By Patrick Seale

The Daily Star, 1/23/03

Displaying more initiative and political courage than its Arab neighbors, Turkey has taken the lead in rallying a group of moderate Muslim countries in opposition to American war plans in Iraq. This is the meaning of the recent tour of the region by Prime Minister Abdullah Gul. He began with Syria, a country with which Turkey’s relations have greatly improved after years of antagonism. This is also the meaning of the meeting Turkey’s foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, hosted this week for the foreign ministers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Jordan.
For greater effect, the Turks would have preferred the meeting to take place at the level of heads of state, but Arab fears, hesitancies and rivalries prevented this happening. Just as France is hoping to rally the European Union in opposition to American war plans, so Turkey wants to make Washington understand that the Middle East region is against war.
But there should be no misunderstanding: there are limits to how far Turkey can go. It cannot afford to offend the United States or break its ties with Israel, however much it seeks friendship with the Arabs and feels sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Turkey’s crisis-ridden economy is heavily dependent on aid from the International Monetary Fund. As a loyal NATO member, it has intimate and long-standing strategic relations with the United States. Since the mid-1990s, it has also developed close military and economic ties with Israel, earning it the valuable political support of the US Jewish Lobby. Its opposition to American (and Israeli) war plans and its opening to the Arab world are, therefore, all the more remarkable and praiseworthy.
How far has Turkey gone in voicing its opposition?
It has refused to sanction the opening of a “northern front” against Iraq from its territory. Some six weeks ago, a leading US hawk, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, visited Ankara to request the stationing of 80,000 US troops in Turkey. The Turks said no. They will not allow more than 10,000 to 20,000 US troops not enough to pose a serious threat to Iraq, but perhaps enough to keep the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan under control if the Iraqi state disintegrates. This is a serious blow to American war plans because, freed from a threat in the north, Saddam Hussein may concentrate the bulk of his forces in the south opposite Kuwait, posing a tougher problem for an American invasion force.
The Turks have, however, agreed to allow 150 US experts to inspect their ports and air bases to determine what upgrading may be required in the event of war. But they have not so far authorized the upgrading to proceed, in spite of the visit to Ankara this week of General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.
Taking a cue from the French, the Turks have said that, before they make any move, they must await a decision by the UN Security Council. They cannot and will not act in advance of a Security Council Resolution. If the Council authorizes the use of force, Turkey will then submit the matter to its Parliament. In effect, this sets up a further obstacle to Turkish participation in a war. Dominated by the Justice and Development Party following its victory at the Nov. 3 elections, the Turkish Parliament reflects grass-roots opinion and Turkish opinion is overwhelmingly against the war. A negative vote in the Turkish Parliament could, therefore, prove highly embarrassing for the United States.
In negotiations with Washington, the Turks have stressed that they have lost between $50 billion and $100 billion in trade revenues over the last dozen years because of economic sanctions against Iraq. Hardest hit were the provinces bordering Iraq, prompting disgruntled, unemployed young Kurds to turn to politics and take up arms against the state. The $2 billion which the US is said to have offered in compensation is considered wholly inadequate. The Turkish argument is that a war will inflict further damage to trade with Iraq and would require large-scale compensation.
Turkey wants to trade with Iraq, not make war on it. In a highly significant gesture at a time of great regional tension, a delegation of 350 Turkish businessmen, led by a minister, visited Baghdad earlier this month. Turkey is involved in several infrastructure projects in Iraq including the rehabilitation of the Baghdad electricity system and does not want these valuable commercial ties to be disrupted.
Another striking development is that the key players in Turkey, who have traditionally been at odds the military chiefs, the powerful National Security Council, the civilian politicians, the Foreign Ministry bureaucracy have moved to a common position, which was thrashed out at a recent “summit” meeting at the Turkish presidency. All the players recognized that, caught between Washington’s eagerness for war and a public wholly opposed to it, Turkey was caught in a dilemma. Hence the need for unity, and great caution by the military. Last week, General Hilmi Oskok, chief of the general staff, declared that a war “would be against Turkey’s interests.”
Turkey’s overriding fear is that an American invasion will lead to the break-up of Iraq, inciting the Kurds in the north to declare an independent state of their own. Any such development could re-ignite separatist fires among Turkey’s own Kurds, and threaten Turkey’s territorial integrity. No one in Turkey has forgotten the bitter 15-year war against the PKK which ended in 1998.
Last week, a clash in eastern Turkey between security forces and separatist guerrillas led to the death of 12 guerrillas, believed to be PKK members. It was a reminder that the movement was far from dead and an ominous sign of what could happen if the situation in northern Iraq were to spin out of control.
Turkish sources are unanimous in saying there is no confidence, among either the military or the politicians, that the United States could control the situation in the north if the Iraqi state were to fall apart. The Afghan precedent, where warlords in far-flung provinces continue to challenge the authority of Kabul, is not encouraging. Turkey, which at present heads the international force in Afghanistan, is looking forward to ending its commitment there and pulling out.
What the Turks will seek from the US, in the event of war, is a green light to cross into northern Iraq whenever they judge that Kurdish separatism needs knocking on the head.
In brief, the Turks fear the aftermath of a war against Iraq, rather than the war itself, which they have little doubt the United States could win with ease, with or without its allies. However, they predict a long period of chaos and instability which, by encouraging Kurdish ambitions, could infect and disturb all Iraq’s neighbors.
By taking the lead in opposing the war, and by reaching out to the Arabs and Iran, the new regime in Turkey has aroused the anger of the neo-conservatives and Zionist extremists who have captured American foreign policy. Last week, William Safire, a prominent New York Times columnist close to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote a stinging rebuke of Turkey. And, as a senior American official put it privately the other day, “Unless Turkey hops on the American bandwagon pretty soon, it risks hearing a busy signal when it next tries to ring Washington.”
Turkey’s new regime has endured and survived a baptism of fire in its first weeks in office. Its campaign for EU membership failed to secure a clear “Yes,” causing Turkish elites to fear that Europe might say “No” at the end of the day. The Cyprus issue is on the boil, with Ankara facing a confrontation with the Turkish Cypriot leadership. On the economic front, the government is wrestling with the worst recession since the World War II. And, if this were not enough, the United States threatens the whole region with a conflict of unpredictable consequences, and is pressuring Turkey to participate.
PM Gul and party leader Tayib Recep Erdogan have so far conducted themselves with admirable coolness, caution and good sense. They need, and deserve, all the support they can get from Europe and the Arab world.

Patrick Seale is a veteran Middle East analyst.

Look for the real reason for the Franco-German revolt
Gulf News, 24-01-2003
-

The declaration by France and Germany not to be beguiled by American entreaties into war on Iraq has caused consternation across the Atlantic. Also on the opposite side of the English Channel. The firm stance - so far - demonstrated by France and Germany has also encouraged Nato and even the EU to have a second look at the American proposals, and even the necessity of taking the extreme measure of invading Iraq.

   At face value, Arab nations, some of which are currently meeting in Turkey trying to hammer out a common line on the Iraq question, could take solace in the new cracks that seem to be appearing in the usual alliances. For it is not, as some may infer, an attack of altruism for either Arab or Iraqis that motivates the change in position of France and Germany. It is more a concern that they should lose out on any prospective trade or oil deals that may be emanating from the Gulf region either in the short term or the long term.

   France has always seen itself as a friend of the Arab region, although none too ready to support its words with deeds in times of crisis, it has proven itself to be a willing trade partner to any and all Middle East countries. Equally, Germany is no slouch when it comes to doing a brisk export business to the region and, in these times of economic difficulties for the German economy, the last thing it would want is the financial drain of assisting in a war in the Gulf. On this, of course, Russia is on-side, since it is hoping to get some of the $8 billion that it is owed from Iraq. So Russia is waiting to see which way the dice falls, before making the call.

   Ironically, though, as America tries to bring together an alliance to prepare for an invasion upon Iraq, it is openly the U.S. which is accused of being mercenary in seeking to control the enormous oil reserves of Iraq. The time has come for idealism to be set aside and a realistic appraisal made of the ulterior intentions of the Western nations, before they make a final decision on impeding in the Gulf region, where the majority populace would state that outside interference is unwelcome.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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