|
Jan 30, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info |
||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
|
I listened to the Presidents ate of the Union address with growing boredom and a sense that I was being duped. Rather than talk about the state of the union, which would be delving in depth on the declining economy and the globalization of anti-Americanism, President Bush chose to speak about the wonderful things he hopes to do for the wonderful people of America. He went down the laundry list of domestic issues, education, health care, economy and touched upon aborting and cloning by employing a serious of crowd pleasing slogans/promises instead of analysis and facts. The only exciting issue that he had was his promise to those born today, that one day they would drive a car run by hydrogen whose only exhaust would be water. His only achievement seems to be the 674 million dollar stimulus package that the Congress has yet to pass. On foreign policy, he promised a war against Iraq without declaring a war. He insisted on maintaining his unilateralist approach to world affairs and went to great lengths to show that since his previous lecture he has learnt that there are significant differences in the circumstances of Iran, Iraq and North Korea. He promised to spread democracy in the world even if America had to do it alone and by force. While forcible democracy may sound a bit puzzling. I however do not understand why someone who is so committed to democracy would be opposed to the democratic positions advanced by the UN and insist on unilateralism if the vote went against the US in the UN Security Council. Why is he so eager to compromise democracy when it does not suit his agenda? How can he be both, pro-democracy and anti-democracy? Perhaps Professor Rice should explain to him that unilateralism is antithetical to global democracy. The only proposal that I appreciated was his promise to help fight AIDS in Africa. If implemented it will definitely save many lives. Maybe on the Day of Judgment the lives he saves in Africa may save him from a harsher reckoning for the many innocent lives he plans to take in the war on Iraq. Declining Democracy and Economy Under George W. Bush, America has made great strides. It has gone from a $250 Billion surplus to nearly $250 Billion in deficit and the family feud against Iraq, that has yet to begin, will cost the American taxpayer at least $60 billion in destroying Iraq and another $100 billion in rebuilding it. Americans have lost over 1.5 million jobs under his watch, over 100,000 last month alone, and most States (28/50) are now suffering from huge deficits in their budgets. President Bush himself has silently conceded mismanagement of the economy by sacking his financial team midway (including senior aides such as the Treasury secretary and the Chief Economic Advisor). But unfortunately he has not learnt that it is not people but policies that mess economies. He should be changing his policies not the people who implement them for him. George W. Bush has given American democracy a new meaning. It is a place where people contest elections and the one who gets lesser votes becomes the president. The USA Patriot Act passed by the Congress last year at his behest, undermines several important civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today the idea of due process, which used to be the corner stone of justice in America, has now become an undue burden to the American legal system. Not only has the Bush administration violated international law in its treatment of prisoners of war it has also violated fundamental principles of the US constitution in its treatment of several people arrested in the US since September 11th. Globalization of Anti-Americanism After the tragic attacks on September 11th, this president promised us two things; he would eliminate Al Qaeda and he would win the hearts and minds of those who hated America. But this President has succeeded not only in increasing hatred towards America in most of the Middle East by making injudicious statements such as, if you are not with us you are against us (tell that to France, Russia, China, 80%of the British and the UN now who are not with the US on the war on Iraq), Axis of Evil (it spurred the North Koreans to go nuclear), and the use of the Crusade word which has become the metaphor for his policies in most of the Muslim World, but he has also succeeded in making Asians and Europeans also hate and distrust America. In German as well as in South Korea the most vocal anti-American politicians won elections recently. Rather than reducing hate George Bushs policies, style and statements are contributing to the globalization of anti-Americanism. Even at home he is determined to generate disenchantment. Immediately after the Trent Lot affair, who was finally exposed for having preference for the pre-civil rights America, President Bush decided to appease the haves and alienate the have-nots, by coming up with a stimulus package that gives tax breaks on dividends (to fat cats with investment portfolios) and deciding to oppose affirmative action (designed to help underprivileged minorities). The irony of this position seems to have escaped him and many of his supporters. He is himself a poster child for affirmative action a not so bright guy, with modest grades and even modest SATs who went to Yale and then Harvard only because his last name was Bush! Bushel of Blunders To put it bluntly, President Bush has screwed the economy; his management of foreign policy has alienated the world so much so that in a Times Europe survey 84% Europeans (our allies) rated America as the state that posed the most danger to the World and North Korea and Iraq got similar votes from only 7% and 8% respondents! The World has lost trust in America and it demands proof, conclusive proof, for every claim we make. In spite of spending billions of dollars on the so-called war on terror, Bin Laden is still free and Al Qaeda still powerful and still launching attacks (Bali and Kenya). The Taliban are back and the American choice for President, Karzai, has been reduced to the status of a Mayor of Kabul (so much for democracy in Afghanistan). The anthrax bomber is still free to kill. The Middle East crisis continues to rage. Assuming that President Bush's statements about the Palestinian State were disingenuous and he had no intent to follow through on his promises, he is still letting Israel slowly unravel. The Palestinian uprising will cost America another $10-14 Billion dollars in foreign aid to Israel another costly mistake on the foreign policy front. President Bush in two years has amassed a long list of failures. His only successes are the midterm elections and his periodic handouts to the rich in forms of tax cuts. He duped Americans in the midterm elections by talking about Iraq and not the economy. But as the economy declines and the purse begins pinch, even the gullible, and poorly informed American voters will know that something is going terribly wrong. * Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Chair, Department of political science at Adrian College. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging faith and Freedom. His commentaries are archived at http://www.glocaleye.org.
- Showdown at the Crawford Corale: Time to Become an Even Finer Generation by LINDA HEARD Al-Jazeerah, 1/30/03 -
With accumulating war clouds ominously looming over the world's most ancient civilization, and the planet's leaders demanding that the Iraqi president hand over his weapons of mass destruction leaving his nation naked and vulnerable, nobody is asking this question: why on earth should he? Imagine that America or Britain had been the object of United Nations sanctions for 12 years leading to the deaths of more than half a million children and babies. Imagine that Western countries had to put up with international weapons inspectors crawling all over them for years, including enemy spies. How would you feel if the Iraqis had been regularly dropping bombs on Alaska and Florida, or Inverness and Cornwall for a decade while the world pretends not to notice? Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and Iraqis and their allies were surrounding the US or Britain with hundreds of thousands of service personnel wielding state-of-the-art weapons, and refusing to rule out the use of nukes. You can't can you? It could only happen to poor, weak third world countries not to 'proud' nations like ours. Ask yourselves these questions: Would the US, Britain or Israel lead UN and IAEA inspectors to their stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons? Would Britain let Iraqi spy planes crisscross over its skies? Would the White House or Downing Street submit to their very own scientists flying off to a third country to be interrogated or to allow inspectors to rummage under the beds of their sick wives? The answer is of course not. "Ah, but that's different", I hear you muttering. "Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and has used chemical weapons on his Iranian foes". You are right, he did. But is he any worse than a succession of American leaders who were responsible for crimes against humanity and horrendous death tolls in Japan and South East Asia? Is he worse than those stalwarts of Britain's upper crust who rudely carved up the Middle East and brutally subjugated hundreds of millions on the Indian subcontinent? Is he so very far apart from Ariel Sharon who was found by an Israeli commission to have been responsible for the murder of hundreds of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and who is even today slaughtering them in their thousands on the West Bank and Gaza? What is clear is that there is one rule for the Superpower, its satellite Tony Blair's Britain, and its protectorate Israel but there is quite another for everyone else. There is no moral high ground in their aggressive stance. There is no justice. Just a hotchpotch of propaganda, and paranoia-inducing rhetoric designed to elicit fear in the populace. Bush, Blair and Sharon are the ultimate conmen and we are their victims. All three are presently engaged in the theft of oil and/or land under cover of protecting us from the ubiquitous enemy. Dancing a diplomatic minuet The Bush-Blair combo is determined to go to war with or without a credible pretext. They would, of course, prefer to do this with the blessing of the world community and they are currently dancing a diplomatic minuet in the UN, but at the end of the day they will simply say 'Screw the lot of you' and go ahead anyway. Those countries they cannot bribe or bamboozle that is. Sharon is rubbing his plump hands together eagerly awaiting a pretext to inflict even more pain and suffering on the Palestinians people. The UN itself has been the object of the American president's derision and it constantly been put under threat of being deemed irrelevant. American Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has described Jacques Chirac and Gerhardt Schroeder as being of 'Old Europe' while the Potentate of Poodlestan has labeled his detractors as treasonous. George Bush has called the opposition among the Democrats as unpatriotic and going by all the statements emanating from the Oval Office and Downing Street, there is no doubt that Bush and Blair are on the same page when it comes to Iraq. What page is that exactly? There are various interpretations of this. According to the stammering Texan, Saddam Hussein with his deadly arsenal is a danger to the entire world, while Britain's own smooth talking Prince of Spin concurs. This motley pair, however, appear little bothered by the real threat looming over the planet, which is Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. Kim is a peculiar pipsqueak who actually does have nuclear weapons, the missiles with which to deliver them to Alaska, Hawaii and London, and has threatened the US with their use. If you call me 'evil' again I'll make you eat your words is Kim's reaction to being included in the evil Axis. In Bush's State of the Union address last Tuesday he stopped short of re-labeling the Korean leader as 'evil' but his personal attacks on Kim Jong-Il were just as venomous. Incredibly they come just when Japan, South Korea and China are trying to diplomatically resolve the crisis. Saddam Hussein, the dictator who Bush accuses of representing an imminent threat to the entire world, has opened his doors to weapons inspectors. However, they've failed to produce anything other than a dozen rusting warheads, and an out-of-date document on laser technology. The Iraqi leader has made it clear that he doesn't want to attack anyone and his neighbors believe him. The weapons inspectors have asked for more time. So, why not let sleeping Saddams lie? The answer is clear. This planned invasion of Iraq has nothing at all to do with threats that Iraq will radiate the planet or spread smallpox in downtown Seattle. The inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei said as much last Monday in front of the UN Security Council, although you would hardly realize that the way that their words have been twisted, turned and taken out of context by Powell, Negroponte and Straw. The 'Great Leader of the Universe', on the other hand, didn't even bother to twist and turn, preferring outright lies. In his Tuesday address, he said that Iraq had imported large quantities of aluminum rods for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Yet on the very day before, Monday, ElBaradei of the IAEA had told the UN Security Council and the world that whereas those aluminum rods could indeed be utilized for dual purposes, in this particular case they had been employed in a commercial capacity. He said that his team had checked this out carefully and was wholly satisfied. Who are we supposed to believe? The American president in his ivory tower surrounded by warmongering sycophants, or nuclear experts on the ground who have seen how those aluminum rods are being used with their very own eyes? It is now patently clear that Bush will distort the truth to back up his self-serving agenda. Let's face it. In the event that Britain and America knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and wished to launch them on an unsuspecting world, would they be treating that country with so much disrespect? No, they would not. The glaring truth is that the Bush administration, backed by Whitehall, is on an oil grab. They know it, we know it and the Iraqis certainly know it. Non-Opec oil is dwindling fast, a fact, which lends far more importance to the rich deposits of black gold under the soil of Iraq, the second largest in the world. Lending credence to this argument is the President's own words on Tuesday. He stressed that he wanted America to be less reliant on foreign energy sources and wants to devote 1.2 billion dollars to fund research on hydrogen-powered automobiles. Now that there is such a large allied force in the Gulf, the world's richest energy resources are under Washington's control. The Rand presentation to a Pentagon committee last year, which nominated Egypt as 'the Prize' could well have been referring to the Suez Canal, gateway to Arabia and the key to its rich underground deposits. This strangulation of the region not only insures that gas-guzzling America can continue enjoying cheap petrol but could only mean that the expansion of 'strategic competitors' (to use a Bushism) like China could be curtailed at the whim of the White House. Showdown at the Crawford Corale Another spin-off from an invasion would be the 'display of power and might' factor. Experts say that the Pentagon's war plan includes bombarding Iraq with more missiles in one day than the total expended during the entire duration of the Gulf War. If the Iraqis aren't cowering in their boots after that then they can expect more of the same until they discard their footwear and run for the dunes. Iraq would serve as the perfect testing ground for new weapons too. There are plans to test new microwave technology, designed to render the enemy's electronic weapons as useless. Experts have suggested that bunker busting nuclear warheads could be part of the Pentagon's armory too. If the campaign goes as planned by the hawks in the form of a short Blitzkrieg, like the fastest gun in the Old West, the US would reign supreme over all of us. Anyone who sashayed into the Crawford Corale wanting a showdown at dawn would be terminated before he could utter 'Skull and Crossbones'. 'Naturally, though, Britain's Blair, the trusty sidekick, would be allowed to flex his puny muscles and bask in the ensuing, Bush-approved, benefits, including, perhaps, a place on the board of Carlyle like his Prime Ministerial predecessor John Major. But like in the Old West, there is always somebody out there who is even more ruthless, someone who will not shirk from shooting his enemy in the back or someone with an even faster draw. George Bush and his cohorts are creating the soil in which contenders for top gun will flourish. He is virtually saying to America's foes: 'Come and get us. We are invincible'. Sadly, Mr. Bush, no individual and no nation is invincible forever. Unless you stop creating enemies where none exist, and fuelling the flames of anti-Americanism around the world, then the day will come when you too will be challenged by a merciless opponent... and another... and another. Defenders of truth and justice My heroes in this murky mess are those who boarded a London bus en route for Baghdad, led by Kenneth Nicholls O'Keefe, a former marine, where they will willingly serve as human shields. Keefe said on BBC World's Hard Talk that he wanted to look an Iraqi in the eye and tell him that there are Westerners who care and he's one of them. The incredibly honest and authentic O'Keefe reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia who in the movie attempts to explain how he is very different from the 'fat' people in England. Lawrence succeeded and garnered the trust of the Arab tribes only to be stabbed in the back by the British establishment. O'Keefe will, no doubt, share a similar fate. In the same way that Lawrence turned his back on his own and went into obscurity, the former marine already has. He took the step of relinquishing his American citizenship because, as he says, he could no longer swear allegiance or pay taxes to the country of his birth. The Greenpeace guys and girls on the Rainbow Warrior, presently anchored in the Solent blocking Britain's warships from sailing off get my vote, along with those protestors who marched to Fairford RAF base in Gloucestershire demanding inspection of Britain's weapons of mass destruction. I wish I had half their courage and commitment. I can only glue my fingers to the keys and hope that someone out there is listening. Come on Americans and Britons. Let's see your mettle. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers who swallowed mud in the World War I trenches have been designated 'the finest generation'. Let's show the world that we are just as fine and we will not allow egomaniacal greedy leaders to endanger the very existence of humanity in our name. Linda Heard is a specialist
writer on Middle East affairs. She can be reached at: freenewsreport@yahoo.com
-
Who
leaked Iraq's arms declaration?
By
Firas Al-Atraqchi -
In recent weeks, much has been made of the Iraqi weapons declaration, which Iraqi officials have claimed is final and comprehensive. The world
will never really know because the report was seized en route to the
United Nations Security Council from Cyprus by U.S. officials who claimed
that the declaration contained vital information and military technology
secrets that could not be distributed to the rest of the non-permanent
members of the Security Council. And definitely not to the rest of the
world, who would love to see how Iraq's weapons procurement program had
gotten so advanced, so discreetly. However, in an about face, the Security Council later decided (was it a decision or a unilateral decree?) that the U.S. would effectively receive the report first and foremost. This was an extremely suspicious affair since it is the U.S. that is leading the call to wage war against Iraq, much to the disillusionment and chagrin of the rest of the Security Council. Since December 11, when the declaration was handed over to UNMOVIC, little has been made of the declaration except to be lambasted by U.S. officials as incomplete and in clear material breach. UNMOVIC head Hans Blix has said that some issues remained unresolved and that he would press the Iraqis to answer some questions. This has since happened as of January 19, 2003, when Blix and IAEA head Mohammad Al-Baradei visited Iraq and obtained some answers (and documents) to their queries. Prior to December 12, the deadline for the Iraqi declaration, mainstream media, at the behest of the Bush administration, taunted the date as a fulcrum for going to war. That date has since passed. Why then has there been no war? Mainstream media quickly jumped in and reported that White House officials, although dismayed by the lack of information and citing it as a material breach, would give Iraq another final chance. Some media analysts dared to challenge this change in the U.S. position, but, within a few days, the focus shifted to such entertaining stories as how the White House was preparing for Christmas and the Trent Lott alleged racism fiasco. In Europe, however, where media is a lot more risqué and intrusive, another theory surfaced. Die Tageszeitung, one of Germany's leading alternative newspapers, claimed it had secretly obtained vital information contained within the Iraqi declaration. The information consisted of a list of nations who had discreetly equipped, supported, and engaged in aiding Iraq's weapons procurement program. The list included 24 leading and highly successful American companies which were directly involved in arming Iraq during the 1970s leading up to the eve of the 1991 Gulf War. The list also includes some 80 German companies as well as others from the U.K., Russia, China, France, Sweden, and Belgium. Ironically, the list highlights the level of "cooperation" between the U.N.'s permanent members of the Security Council, most notably the U.S., with Iraq. It would be naïve to believe that many of these countries acted without explicit U.S. support. The Iraqi declaration was eventually "edited and abridged" to 3,000 pages, much to the shock and abjection of the non-permanent members of the Security Council. The reasons are clear: Should the American public demand to know why such companies as IBM, DuPont, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard and Eastman Kodak armed and supplied Iraq with vital chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons related information, the entire state of the U.S. economy would undergo massive upheaval. The U.S. economy is already reeling from widespread layoffs, the Enron and WorldCom scandals, and the weakening of the NASDAQ. A quick look at the "contributors" list reveals that many of the aforementioned companies are prominent, and indeed, sustaining the vitality of the NASDAQ. The U.S. economy could not handle such a blow. Neither could the White House, which has tried to stave off numerous rumors of duplicity in the Enron (and Halliburton, among others) scandals. Furthermore, an increasing number of U.S. Gulf War veterans are demanding an investigation into mysterious illnesses they have contracted since their return from Iraq. Stories of exploding chemical munitions storage facilities in Khamisiyah (southern Iraq), in the sight of unprotected U.S. army divisions, have surfaced in mainstream media in recent months. A 1997 CIA White Paper, titled Khamisiyah: A Historical Perspective on Related Intelligence, admitted for the first time that chemical munitions were stored at the 25-square kilometer weapons storage facilities. To date, nearly 88,000 U.S. Gulf War Veterans have reported mysterious ailments since their return from the theatre of operations. Of those, nearly 5,000 have launched a class action suit, led by attorney Gary Pitts in Brazoria County, Texas, against U.S. companies claiming they helped Iraq purchase chemical agents. Should the American public get its hands on information within the Iraqi declaration which links U.S. companies to Iraq's weapons procurement program, the fallout would be catastrophic. Company CEOs would face criminal negligence suits; financial payouts in the hundreds of billions would be sought; and many of these companies would no longer exist. Solution? Seize the report, edit it, call it incomplete, and move on. Europe, however, did not move on. Europe (except for a few former East European nations groveling to join NATO) is firmly united against a unilateral, unsanctioned war. "Go through the U.N.; give the inspectors more time," they say. This author has received several emails begging the questions: Why didn't Iraq release the list to embarrass the U.S.? It is likely that Iraq did release the report to the press, but in a Machiavellian gesture of suspicion and paranoia, was careful who would receive its contents. Several developments point to why Iraq may have released the list, and why Germany, or the German press, was determined to be the best recipient. Firstly, German companies have been featured prominently in several Iraqi trade shows in recent years. The latest was held in November and included the greatest number of German companies in over 12 years. One hundred German firms (greater than France's 86) participated in Iraq's International Trade Fair, mainly operating in the oil, electricity and industrial sectors. Germany is also one of the few European countries that have full diplomatic relations with Iraq. While France and Russia seem to fall in and out of favor with Iraqi officials, Germany has been gaining commercial and logistical influence in Iraq. In late 2001, Germany sought to create an economic sector between Iraq and Egypt by exporting German-licensed products in Egypt to Iraq. "Marketing products manufactured in Egypt under German licenses is a way to enhance trade ties between Germany and Iraq," Peter Goepfrich, director of the German Chamber of Commerce in Cairo, told reporters in August 2001. Secondly, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's ruling coalition streaked to an election win this fall by campaigning against a U.S.-led war in Iraq. Schroeder went so far as to indicate that Germany would not support in any way an invasion of Iraq even if it were mandated by the U.N. He has even threatened to withdraw the chemical weapons analysts Germany currently has stationed in Kuwait. This greatly impressed the Iraqis. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told reporters in September that he wished Arab countries would support Iraq's plight in the same manner as Germany was increasingly doing. The above is a stark statement that Iraq trusts Germany more than it does its Arab neighbors. In addition, Germany this month becomes a member of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. Germany's vote will be crucial should the Security Council take up the issue of another resolution on Iraq. Iraq has also switched to dealing in Euros rather than dollars, giving European economies a slight nudge. The report may also have been leaked to Germany to embarrass German Intelligence (nearly 80 German companies are listed in the declaration), who late last year made the claim that Iraq already possessed a nuclear device. Andreas Zumach, a reporter for the German daily Die Tageszeitung to the United Nations, obtained an unedited copy of the Iraqi document submitted to the U.N. Security Council outlining the status of Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal. In 1997, Zumach also broke the story of French involvement in the sacking of the Bosnian village of Srebrenica, where thousands of Muslim males disappeared. Further analysis that Iraq leaked the report to Zumach, or through third parties, can be derived from the fact that the report was in UNMOVIC's guarded possession from Baghdad to Cyprus and finally to New York, where it was immediately seized by U.S. delegates to the U.N. However, Zumach announced almost immediately after December 11th that he would be publishing information from highly classified portions of the Iraq declaration. If Iraq had not been the source of the report Zumach received, likely suspicion will fall either on UNMOVIC (unlikely) or U.S. officials themselves. It is highly unlikely that U.S. officials would presume to torpedo their own plans. [Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.] Firas Al-Atraqchi encourages your comments: firas6544@rogers.com
-
Bush's address: Double whammy
President Bush’s State of the Union address and the Israeli election
results are a bitter double whammy for the Middle East. They are the worst
of news, crushing any hopes of peace in the region. Bush’s address makes
it plain that war over Iraq is moving inexorably closer. Ariel Sharon’s
election victory means no change in the present bankrupt Israeli policy of
confrontation with the Palestinians: there will be no peace deal, no end to
Israeli violence in the occupied territories, no end to suicide bombs in
Israel. The only glimmer of light is that whatever coalition Sharon manages to
pull together is bound be weak and divisive, and probably fall apart within
a couple of years, maybe less. But so much blood is going to flow between
now and then, so much pain, so much destruction; and all because the
Israelis have chosen a leader who is hellbent on smashing the Palestinians
into abject submission. As Yasser Arafat says, the Israeli voters have made a historic mistake.
It is not just that a golden opportunity for breaking the cycle of violence
has been thrown away, it has happened at a time the Middle East is in a
crisis of far greater consequence. Imagine if Labour had won. The Middle
East would be in a completely different ball game now, and that includes
what happens on Iraq. The peace process would be back on track, the
Palestinians would have fresh hope of finally getting a state of their own
— which would reduce the endless cycle of violence and counterviolence —
and Arab, Muslim indeed international public opinion would be far less
hostile to US plans for a regime change in Iraq, which in turn would pile
the pressure on Saddam Hussein and make a peaceful change more likely. The Israelis have thrown it all away. They have put their trust in a man
whose promise to make Israel secure is a demonstrable lie, who is incapable
of delivering anything other than more of the same: more Palestinians
deaths, more Israeli deaths. Yet they blindly refuse to see it. That so many
decided not to vote at all and that others voted in large number for the
secularist Shinui party is part and parcel of that astounding blindness. In
other circumstances Shinui may have much to commend itself with its call for
change in Israel; but it is beyond belief that Israelis can shut their minds
to the fact that the Palestinian question is the No. 1 issue they have to
deal with, not whether the ultra orthodox Jews should have special
privileges. As for George Bush’s State of the Union address, one can only weep
tears of bitter despair and wait for the war that must surely now come.
Compulsive optimists may say that it was nothing more than posturing
designed for domestic consumption and which does not necessarily translate
into immediate action. Yes it was designed for the home audience. But there
will come a point — a matter of weeks at most — when he has to be seen
taking action. He could have sounded a note of conciliation, building on it
later. But this was all threat — and the trouble with threats is that you
have to deliver sooner or later or look the fool. Bush has painted himself
into a corner. He has made it impossible for himself to climb down now. From Israel, from Washington, a double blow to peace, a double blow to
hope.
JEDDAH — I’ve just finished watching US President George Bush’s
State of the Union address and was not at all convinced by the president
that the United States is justified in wanting to disarm Saddam
Hussein’s regime by force. Bush was tough on Iraq and its nasty leader, but he failed to provide
any of us listeners with any new and compelling evidence that Saddam is an
imminent threat to the United States or to any of its neighbors. Indeed,
Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein said on MSNBC’s "Hardball"
after the speech that she hasn’t seen any evidence as a member of the
Senate Intelligence Committee that Saddam and Iraq pose a clear and
present danger to the US. Sen. Feinstein emphasized that the US should get the support of more
allies, working through the United Nations’ Security Council, before
deciding to invade Iraq. Commenting on Bush’s assertion that the US
already had a coalition of allies ready to back a war with Iraq, Feinstein
said, "Who is the coalition? Bush didn’t say. I think we should use
our good allies to get the Security Council to force Saddam to comply with
its demands. George Bush I had a coalition of 30 countries, now that’s a
coalition." President Bush claimed during his speech that Secretary of State Colin
Powell would present new intelligence to the Security Council in New York
on Feb. 5 that would prove that Saddam’s regime has stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction. But this begs the question of why hasn’t the Bush administration
already released this information, and more importantly why they
apparently haven’t shared this information with the UN weapons
inspectors currently in Iraq? Perhaps it’s because the US doesn’t
really have compelling evidence. Bush summoned up all the usual descriptions of just how bad the Saddam
regime is: That it gassed its own people, and regularly tortures, rapes
and kills its opponents. All of this well known and is not denied by
anyone. Saddam is without a doubt the nastiest and most brutal dictator
that the Middle East, and indeed the world, has seen. But is this enough justification for first bombing Iraq to Hell and
back in a eight-day bombing campaign that, according to US leaks to the
press last week, would use more missiles and bombs than were used during
the entire first Gulf War? Observers abroad of US foreign policy are struck by the evident
hypocrisy of sticking to diplomatic negotiations with the nasty North
Korean regime. One that is hard-line Communist, has several nuclear bombs,
and starves its own people while its leadership lives in obscene luxury. A
North Korea that still poses a threat to world peace, regularly exports
weapons of mass destruction to rogue regimes and groups across the globe,
and which forces the US to keep 30,000 US troops permanently stationed in
South Korea to protect it from its neighbor. I think the world community would support the US much more if it was
consistent in dealing equally with all dictatorships around the world, but
then America has never been consistent in doing so. National interests,
such as oil supplies and strategic position of certain nations, have
caused this inequality in applying the American values of freedom,
equality and democracy overseas. Everyone is saying that the looming war in Iraq is all about oil and
nothing much else. Perhaps this explains why North Korea gets away with
turning off monitoring cameras at its nuclear power plants, withdrawing
from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and still brutally repressing
its own people: Because it doesn’t sit on massive reserves of oil like
Iraq does. Oil that American, British and French oil companies are
desperate to get their hands on. Bush was very good during his speech at sounding like he and the US
military would be the saviors of the Iraqi people by saying, "We will
bring to the Iraqi people food, medicines, supplies and freedom!" But
that begs the question of the millions of Iraqis who have suffered under
mean-spirited UN sanctions for the past 11 years, with medicines and some
food supplies in short supply, as US-backed sanctions bled life out of the
Iraqi economy, punishing its people just to spite Saddam. Bush also made the grandiose and false claim that the US exercises
power without conquest. Does he really think that people across the globe
are stupid enough to swallow that line of thinking, hook, line and
sinker?! There is nothing more that the world would like than to see Saddam
overthrown and a new and democratic government installed in Iraq. Indeed,
as many hawks have noisily pointed out in the US, the Middle East is
starved of democracy and freedom. But can true democracy be imposed from the outside by force? Won’t
this cause more resentment of America and its seemingly limitless support
of a hard-line Israel that continues to oppress the Palestinians? The US should continue using the UN Security Council as its main avenue
of dealing with Iraq. Bush said in his speech that the US was prepared to
go it alone in invading Iraq, but I think this would be a terrible
mistake. As Sen. Feinstein pointed out, "I think we will have a deep
chasm between us and others if we don’t get a coalition." America’s sudden obsession with democracy and freedom in the Middle
East is suspicious to most Arabs who smell a rat and rightly believe that
it is only rhetoric being used to cover up America’s true target of
securing Iraqi oil supplies. Planting the seeds of democracy takes a long
time and cannot be done overnight. Where has the US been for the past 50
years in the Middle East? Actively promoting democracy? Hardly. Its been
cozying up to dictatorships because it suited America’s own selfish
economic interests. Until the US admits this and tries to mend its foreign
policy, the world won’t believe that Iraq is going to be invaded for
freedom and democracy’s sake. Bush can insist on that all he wants, but
the world isn’t buying it, not even for a second. **** Email the author at: rasheed@arabnews.com.
-
Memo to Washington’s most
powerful people -
OK, let’s review the main points. A basic PR problem remains. While
you’re in a hurry to launch an all-out war on Iraq, the main obstacle is
that a large majority of Americans don’t feel the rush. Uncle Sam’s
usual carrots and sticks have a long way to go at the UN Security Council.
The big disappointment of January is that some key allies haven’t caved
yet. No need to belabor the recent polling numbers. Newsweek did a national
sampling of opinion midway through the month, and you went into a funk
when you read the Associated Press summary: "Most Americans want the
United States to take more time seeking a peaceful solution in Iraq rather
than moving quickly into a military confrontation." The next sentence was even more cautionary: "By 60 percent to 35
percent, people in the Newsweek poll... said they would prefer that the
Bush administration allow more time to find an alternative to war."
And, what’s more, "a majority would be opposed should this country
act without the support of the United Nations and had no more than one or
two allies." But before you panic at the specter of peace breaking out, take a long
cold look at another finding: "Support for a military option would be
strong, 81 percent, if the United States were to act with full allied
support and the backing of the UN Security Council." Such full
support and backing is likely to be unnecessary. At home, appreciable war
fever is available for inflammation below the surface, and an initial
large majority of domestic public opinion will not be needed to get the
war job done. It may be possible to chip away at recalcitrant citizens by portraying
the obstinate allies as mischievous or worse. Some media coverage has been
apt. A quiet cheer is in order for your friends at The Washington Post,
where strong editorial support for a righteous war often runs parallel
with news articles. When the Post recently reported on its front page that
France signaled plans to "wage a major diplomatic fight, including
possible use of its veto power" on the Security Council, the
newspaper informed readers that France and other balking countries had
just engaged in "a diplomatic version of an ambush." An undertone of allied flirtation with treachery is a helpful media
spin at a critical moment. It provides a wisp of underdog status for
American diplomats as they salvage what support they can and preen
themselves as courageous global visionaries — a posture that can augur
well for the aftermath to a State of the Union text swaddling the
president’s war cries in oodles of lofty rhetoric. The Cabinet and sub-cabinet heavy hitters naturally pile on with a
renewed blitz of network talk shows. One way or another, they explain that
the USA’s war train is leaving the station, and other nations would do
well to hop on board. Not many pundits emphasize that the war dealers in Washington have, as
an ace in the hole, the ability to begin largescale bloodshed and then let
the devil take the hindmost. When warfare becomes a fait accompli — with
high-tech missiles suddenly flying and with American soldiers killing and
even dying — the public’s numbers quickly shift away from antiwar
sentiment (at least for a while). It’s not necessary to consolidate a
supportive majority before war gets rolling. It’s sufficient to have
enough people cowed and numbed so that opposition to starting the war
stays within tolerable bounds. As thoroughly modern masters of war, you comprehend the captivating
power of television to simultaneously mesmerize and anesthetize. Once the
Pentagon’s carefully screened video clips are streaming onto TV sets in
wartime, a kind of intoxication sets in; the journalists seem to feel the
rush, and they pass it along. The media pace is frenetic, with adrenaline
pumping; the new conditions of carnage are exactly suitable to play to the
US government’s unrivaled strength — its capacity to inflict massive
and overpowering violence. And, helped along by media spin, most people
back home can be induced to revere the inevitable winner. "A conqueror is always a lover of peace," the Prussian
general Karl von Clausewitz remarked two centuries ago. The more you yearn
to launch a war, the more you must strive to burnish your image as someone
who craves peace. On your terms, of course. (Creators Syndicate)
-
‘War on Terror’ — or is
it? -
The terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks in New York and
Washington paid the price for their crimes. They are all dead. The
operation had a relatively small budget, not requiring the millions in
Muslim personal, business or charitable funds now blocked or sequestered
by the US government. At the same time, the war waged by the US on
terrorism since 9/11 targets all individuals, groups and states who find
US policies offensive, irrespective of their involvement in the events of
that day. So, what’s up, doc? This is what is up. This war targets foreign governments. George Bush Sr. is on record: "America must always come
first." I have no problem with this patriotic sentiment, but I have
severe problems when, in this "must-always-come-first" business,
America is not All of America but special-interest-group-America. These
special interest groups — or lobbies — control the means by which
politicians are elected to public office. I have no problems with this
either. Americans are free to elect whomever they want to public offices.
They are also free to choose those who govern them — but I have severe
problems when these same officials attempt to extend their authority,
scope and power to the world at large. Yes, America is the most powerful military power. Yes, America is the
richest country. Yes, without America the likes of Hitler, Stalin and
Milosevic would be ravaging the earth. Yes, without American generosity
Europe, Japan and much of the world would be struggling for economic and
political survival. None of this, however, gives America the right to
impose its will on sovereign countries. Since 9/11 a sovereign country has
been bombed without a formal declaration of war. Its government has been
replaced by one of America’s choice. The United Nations Security Council
has been reduced to the status of the submissive canine seen on "His
Master’s Voice" phonographs. America has in deed if not in fact
declared itself above international law. The German chancellor is being
"advised" to be subservient to American foreign policies. A second sovereign country is about to be carpet bombed with or without
United Nations involvement. Legitimate armed resistance to illegal foreign
occupation is being called terrorism. Charitable funds of only one
religious denomination have been either blocked or sequestered after being
unilaterally labeled "terrorist funds". People whose origins are
limited to one geographical area are being hunted down and put behind bars
without charges or indictments, without recourse to legal representation
or bail. Yes, justifications are being offered by the US — a different
one each time — but the common denominator in each case is "good
intentions", never "real intentions". To understand the
difference we must recall that a year before 9/11, high-ranking
representatives of the now-demonized Taleban were being
"courted" in Texas by the US government and the oil lobby. The
Americans wanted permission for a transcontinental oil pipeline to run
through Afghanistan. Some of those former Afghan negotiators are now in
the cages of Guantanamo. It would be instructive to remember that just a decade and a half ago,
the other demon — Iraq — had dutifully fought America’s proxy war
for the containment of Iran. While doing so, it emerged as the regional
bully with muscles, nuclear technology, chemicals and even germs provided
by America. Had Iraq remained loyal and continued promoting America’s
regional interests without foolishly occupying a neighboring oil-rich
country or lobbing some antiquated missiles at Israel, they would have
earned the status of one of America’s "most favored nations"
with state-of-the-art "Made in America" weapons of mass
destruction. But as we all know, Iraq chose not to. Misjudging the extent
of Zionist (meaning both Jewish and Christian right) influences as well as
the oil lobbies on American politics has cost them dearly for the past 10
years and will continue to cost them more in the years to come. They will
soon end up supplying cheap oil in abundance to America for as long as an
American general runs the country’s affairs — of course under the
watchful eyes of the Zionists in Washington. There are other sovereign states on America’s bombing list. In each
case a "justification" with special "good intentions"
is ready for public consumption in America as and when required. At the
best these "good intentions" are hard to accept and at worst,
they are simply red herrings, the greatest being that Iraq is producing
weapons of mass destruction. Once the "good intentions" have been declared and the
"real intentions" buried ostrich-like, the logic behind the
justifications will be difficult to accept. On this very subject one
American commentator pointed out that when the Mafia commits violence, no
one suggests that America bomb Sicily. On the subject of good intentions:
In the book, "The Mainspring of Human Progress," G. Henry Weaver
warned against good intentions. Years before 9/11, he wrote: "Most of
the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who
ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to
themselves, and were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of
mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done
by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in
comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional
do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as rulers on earth and who
would ruthlessly force their views on all others — with the abiding
assurance that the end justifies the means." In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent
bombing, a CBS reporter asked the US Ambassador to the United Nations,
Madeleine Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half
million children have died (as a consequence of US policy against Iraq).
Is the price worth it?" Albright’s response was, "We think the
price is worth it." (This interview won an Emmy award but was rarely
shown in America.) Somehow the cat of "real intentions" got out
of the tightly bound diplomatic bag of "good intentions".
India needs another Gandhi JEDDAH — India is said to be the world’s largest democracy. I
thought I knew what democracy meant but when I look at the political scene
in India these days, it doesn’t quite come up to the definition of
democracy that I learned in school. Has the idea or concept of democracy
changed? In search of answers, I leafed through some thoughts attributed
to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, our beloved father of the nation. As we
recall his most unfortunate murder by a fanatic Hindu on this day — Jan.
30 — 55 years ago, we can do Gandhi no greater honor than remembering
some of his ideas and comments on secular democracy. "My notion of democracy is that under it, the weakest should have
the same opportunity as the strongest." "Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep." "Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to
be greatly abused." Globally, India is hailed for the sheer size of its democracy, but
these days few laud our democracy for its moral greatness. Guidebooks to
India frequently discuss and applaud the nation as a "celebration of
diversity." Lately that diversity has been expressed by the political
scene’s splintering into groups which focus on sectarian interests and
thus abandon the integrity both of Indian society and the nation at large.
The concept of inclusiveness which was sincerely embraced by India’s
founders seems no longer to play a part. Gaining advantage at whatever
cost has become all important. The politics of hatred has been nourished
on the blood of Indians themselves. In the aftermath of the Babri Mosque demolition, popular Hindi
journalist Udayan Sharma wrote an interesting piece. According to him, the
easiest way for an Indian Muslim to demonstrate his loyalty to the country
was to declare his/her allegiance to the fundamentalist Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh or its political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Supporting the RSS or BJP was in essence a way of showing fidelity to the
nation. The reasoning was simple: Any Muslim who owed allegiance to the
RSS and BJP, despite their being viciously communal, had proved that he
was a staunch Indian. What Udayan Sharma wrote tongue-in-cheek in 1993 has
now become the order of the day. Even before their sweeping victory in Gujarat, the shrill voice of
Hindu fundamentalists could be heard in every village throughout India.
The campaign was on to force minorities into accepting that the BJP is
India and that India is the BJP. The party’s think tanks want Muslims
and Christians to believe that to oppose the BJP is in essence to oppose
India. This is a dangerous campaign and an even more dangerous stance. Where will this politics of hatred take India as a nation? The Sangh
Parivar is peopled by elements who care nothing for the country but
completely for their own pursuit — and achievement — of naked power. Sadly and unfortunately, the Sangh Parivar has been able to attract a
huge majority of Hindus. What has become of the inclusiveness of
minorities which is supposed to be the primary feature of Indian
democracy? The likes of Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia and their ilk who spew
sectarian hatred have blackened the image of India abroad. Even Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee admitted this during his last visit to the
United States. He described Gujarat as a blot on India’s image and said
that everywhere he went, people were talking about Gujarat and the
violence that occurred there. Currently, there is a serious debate about the lack of leadership among
Muslims. We must face the fact that at present Muslims in India are not
only insignificant but also irrelevant as a political force. They have
been demonized to the extent that it is impossible for them to rise up
with any strength. Indian Muslims would do well to use the resources they
possess to strengthen the power and influence of liberal Hindus. In spite
of Gujarat, Modi and Godse — Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin — all is not
lost. In the end, India is larger than Hindu fanatics. What the country
really needs most is another Gandhi to apply the healing touch to a nation
wounded by communal strife. — sirajwahab@arabnews.com
-
Daily life under occupation:
Palestinian humor -
Since the Israeli re-invasion of Palestinian cities last April has left
most of the population confined to their homes, no cases of sun stroke
were reported in the occupied territories despite the hot Middle Eastern
summer. With drivers hardly ever able to reach even fourth gear thanks to
checkpoints, car accidents are way down. We also save on petrol. Sharon is losing the demographic war with the Palestinians. What do you
expect people locked-up in their homes to do, especially when the power is
out and no TV? Outsiders think the Israeli Merkava tank is a formidable machine. But
we hear that Israeli soldiers don’t like it. It has small openings so they cannot steal whole computers from
Palestinian homes and offices. That is why there are so many reports of
them opening up PCs and taking out only motherboards and hard disks. At the Surda checkpoint, on the road from Ramallah to Birzeit
University and other villages, Israeli bulldozers are always busy digging
up the asphalt and piling mounds of earth and cement blocks. Every day we
find the distance to walk becomes longer. But there are positive aspects to it. The exercise it takes to go
across is making us fit, we are using this chance to enjoy nature and the
change of seasons, and using the opportunity to meet friends and
colleagues, help the elderly and sick across, exchange the latest news and
jokes, sympathizing with those arrested by Israeli soldiers and often made
to sit on the ground tied up and waiting for ‘processing’, and putting
our remaining energy hating the occupation even more. In spite of the terrible hardship, you still won’t find people
sleeping on pavements like in New York or London. There are still a lot of
family and neighborhood safety nets. So we guess we still have a long way
to go before we become an advanced society. Ramallah is located between Tireh and Al-Bireh. Our own Tora Bora. Palestinians are nowadays afflicted by either one of two diseases:
Arafitis or Sharonitis. The other day I found, at a friends of ours, a lovely big dog with long
white hair. They named her Jessie. When asked where they got her from,
they said she ran away from Psagot, the Israeli colony (or settlement)
built on a confiscated hill overlooking Ramallah and Al-Bireh. The
settlement has multiple barbed wire fences, watch towers, an electrified
perimeter, constant guards and search lights at night. The buses traveling
out, often with very few passengers, have bullet proof glass and metal,
with armored cars in front and behind for protection. Do you blame Jessie
for running away from such a life? Confined to their houses, Palestinian children around Psagot are
excelling in a new/old hobby: flying kites. They are becoming very good at
it, flying kites and directing them high above the Israeli settlement with
pictures of Arafat or the Palestinian flag. The demonstrations that were taking place at night — which involved
people banging on pots and pans to challenge the curfews — were quite an
event. The practice was picked up from Argentina. The kids loved it,
banging on anything that makes a noise outside, venting their anger at the
Israeli soldiers and trying to scare the evil axe away. In the West Bank, we always felt that the people in Gaza have a worse
existence, taking a heavier toll of casualties, with a far higher
percentage of people living below the poverty line. But, the other day, a
French lady diplomat said to us, after visiting Gaza, that people there
now feel more sorry for the people in the West Bank, because we have
curfews and they don’t. In Ramallah, we now have no police, no prisons, no security services,
no courts, no traffic lights or fines, etc. Yet there seems to be very
little crime according to friends and neighbors. This is primarily because
there’s not much left to steal, not that there’s anyone left to
compile crime statistics, anyway! Old people, especially women, are more popular again. They have so much
to contribute now. Under curfew and closures, with no access to hospitals, delivery of new
babies is being done at home, without doctors. The skills of old women are
needed again as midwives. They are also digging up the old recipes of how to make things at home:
marmalade, pickles, preserving fruits and vegetables, etc. They also help
in keeping the young children happy with old time stories. But my favorite
is the following. The Israeli occupation forces announced recently that any car going
round with men only could be stopped and searched. A good friend of mine
found an opportunity to make some money. He is offering to rent his
mother-in-law. Palestinians are the highest exporters of international news per
capita. Yet we don’t get any returns from such exports, not even
intellectual copyright royalties. (AL-AWDA News) Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, is the largest
network of grass roots activists dedicated to Palestinian human rights.
-
Arabs expecting the worst from Sharon’s
2nd term
Arab press review, By The
Daily Star, 1/30/03
-
As Arab commentators consider the
implications of the unwelcome but predictable re-election of Ariel Sharon,
the press points to what appears to be a swift policy adjustment on the
part of the Egyptian government.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |