|
Jan 31, 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
|
-
European Backing for Bush
It is no news that Europe is divided over Iraq. But while everyone
thought the divide was between the UK and the rest, with Tony Blair
playing the lonely role of President Bush’s poodle, it is France and
Germany with their forceful opposition to Washington’s Iraqi policy who
are now out on a limb. Yesterday’s joint call by the prime ministers of UK, Spain, Italy,
Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for a united
front against Saddam Hussein is a deliberate snub to the French and
Germans. The statement may not be the full backing for war that President
Bush would like, but in calling Saddam Hussein a threat to world security
and saying that the UN’s credibility is at stake if it does not ensure
he complies in full with its resolution on disarmament, the eight
governments have sent a clear signal that they side with Washington. It will be music to Bush’s ears. That five members of the EU and
three soon-to-be members should so publicly distance themselves from
France and Germany will be seized upon as an endorsement of US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s dismissal of the two last week as being
“old Europe”. The fact that eight other EU premiers did not sign the
statement, although presumably some if not all must have been asked, will
be ignored. Rumsfeld’s remark infuriated the French and Germans but he is clearly
not alone in thinking that they are no longer the controlling force in
Europe, that with the EU’s expansion other voices have to be heard. This
statement was a blunt warning to Paris and Berlin that they must not
assume that between them they can dictate Europe’s policies. Indeed, it
was as much about cutting President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Helmut
Schroeder down to size as it was support for the US. Even those who did
not sign it are resentful of Franco-German dominance. But support — strong support — it is. The timing was deliberate
too, coming just a day before Prime Minister Blair meets with Bush in as
already been dubbed a council of war. One question that will be on many
people’s lips is whether this was Blair’s doing. The document has his
imprint on it — and he has been in close touch with the Spanish and
Italians among others in recent days. As far as the Americans are concerned, they now have, not one, but lots
of allies against Iraq — and they are countries that American public
opinion is well acquainted with. That is bound to ease the domestic
pressure on the Bush administration to think twice about attacking Iraq.
American public opinion is not worried about the need for a UN go-ahead to
attack Iraq — the UN is not that highly regarded in the US. Its one
reservation, however, is that the US must not go it alone, that the
invasion force must be multilateral. Now the Bush administration can claim that Europe backs him. The fact
that France and Germany do not can now be dismissed on the grounds that
other Europeans regard them as unrepresentative. They are going to use this to the full.
-
Jordanian Backing for Bush:
Strategic choice -
Grim but determined. This was the impression that Jordan’s King
Abdallah II gave the other day during an informal breakfast with some
journalists at Davos, Switzerland. “It would take a miracle to prevent war, now,” the king said. As a
military man he knows that one cannot bring a quarter of a million troops
from the other side of the world and then take them back without having
changed the status quo. “Whatever we might do to prevent war may now
prove to be too little, too late,” he said. Apart from Iraq itself, no country is likely to be as affected by the
looming war than Jordan. Jordan gets all of its oil needs, some 90,000
barrels a day, from Iraq at cut-rate prices. It also earns almost $1
billion a year from exports and transit rights to Iraq. Jordan is also
home to an estimated 400,000 Iraqis whose lives are bound to change
whatever the outcome of the war. It is obvious that the young king has pondered his options with care. One option was to imitate his late father, King Hussein, and publicly
stand on the side of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein. But the young king
knows that it took Jordan five difficult years before it repaired the
damage done to its relations with the United States, and its moderate Arab
allies, in the 1990s. That option is even less attractive for another reason. In 1991 when
King Hussein sided with Iraq there was no question of a regime change in
Iraq. Thus the late king could partly compensate his losses on the side of
the Americans, and the moderate Arabs, by obtaining concessions from the
Iraqi leader. This time, if there is war, it will not end until there is a
new regime in Baghdad. There is, therefore, no reason why Jordan should
back a horse that is sure to lose. The second option was for Jordan to play a double game; that is to say
be against the war in public but actively take part in it behind the
scenes. That option, too, was unattractive for two reasons. First, something
like taking part in a war, in one way or another, cannot be kept secret
for long. At the same time, the eventual victor is unlikely to respect an
ally who tried to hedge its bets. Anyone who watched the Jordanian king at Davos these past few days
would notice the popularity he enjoys within the global elite. “ From
out point of view, he is the perfect Muslim head of state,” says
Professor Karl Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum. Not
surprisingly, the young king and his wife, Queen Rania, have become
permanent features of the forum and presented as “representatives of the
Muslim world.” In fact, Queen Rania has just been named a member of the
permanent council of the forum. The king has chosen what he regards as the best option not only for
Jordan but also for the Arabs as a whole. If and, as it now seems when,
the war comes, the Hashemite kingdom will be on the side of the US-led
coalition. In exchange, Jordan seeks more than mere kudos in Washington. The US
has already arranged for Kuwait to supply Jordan with the oil it needs to
replace the Iraqi supplies that might be cut off for a while. Washington
has also increased its military aid for this year, from $75 to $450
million. In addition, agreement has been reached in principle to
compensate Jordan for losses it might sustain for the duration of the
campaign to change the Iraqi regime. Jordan is demanding more, especially in political terms. It wants to
have a say in shaping the future regime in Baghdad. The king expects the
Americans to establish military rule for a maximum of two years during
which Iraqi political parties and personalities will prepare the draft of
a new constitution. The king wants the option of restoring monarchy in Baghdad to be one of
the choices offered to the Iraqi people in a constitutional referendum.
The hope is that, if the Iraqis vote for restoration, a member of the
Hashemite family will be placed on the throne. But even if monarchy is not
restored, it is clear that the future Iraqi regime would regard Jordan as
its closest friend and ally, if only because it is one of the few Arab
states to take side in favor of change in Baghdad. But, perhaps, the biggest concession that Jordan appears to have
obtained from Washington, in exchange for its support, is a promise to
work for the establishment of a Palestinian state by the end of 2005. The king has hammered in one key message: The new Middle East, of which
President George W. Bush has been talking, will not be possible without a
Palestinian state on the map. Jordan’s choice may draw the ire of self-styled Pan-Arabists. But the
tiny desert kingdom is practicing the only version of power politics it is
capable of. It has chosen to strengthen its strategic alliance with the
United States and Britain. It has fully adopted the capitalist ideology,
complete with membership of the World Trade Organization, and seems
irrevocably committed to developing a Western-style political system. Throughout the forum, Jordan’s Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher acted
as a passionate defender of the United States at a time that it seemed to
be everyone’s favorite punching bag. In exchange the kingdom hopes to
emerge from the coming Iraq war, if not with all the gains it hopes for,
at least without big losses
-
War on Iraq and the Palestinians Daoud Kuttab Jordan Times, 1/31/03
-
THE CONFLICT between the United States and Iraq has left a dark cloud over the Middle East in general and on Palestine in particular. The fear among Palestinians regarding war in Iraq stems from a number of reasons: Palestinians are concerned that the Israeli government would use the cover of war to carry out large-scale repressive acts against Palestinians. For the past two years, Israel has not been able to win its battle with Palestinians. Every attempt at deterring Palestinians has failed. Israeli military strategists think that in order to reach the elusive military victory over Palestinians, much more force and repression is needed. Some Israelis believe that part of the reason Israel has failed so far to crush the Palestinian resistance is the perceived opposition of the international community, especially the US. Although Israel has been very tough with the Palestinians, it is believed that it has not let the army completely free to crush the Palestinians because of the fear that such strong, violent, reaction to Palestinians might harm the US' war on Iraq, as it will further anger Arab and Muslim populations. War on Iraq would be a perfect excuse to finish off the Intifada, because the world will be too busy dealing with Iraq. The real nightmare of Palestinians, however, is not limited to Israel's increased repression, but to the fact that the right-wing government in Israel might use the cover of war to carry out large-scale transfer of Palestinians. Those who hold this theory believe that in the long run, there is no way to defeat the Palestinians in the demographic war unless large number of Palestinians are deported from the areas under Israeli control. Proponents of this theory think that if Israel can succeed in transferring a large number of Palestinians, it will no longer have to accept a Palestinian state but will be able to annex Palestinian territory and integrate any small Palestinian minority that might be left to Israel. Although this option is often talked about in Arab circles, most analysts doubt its feasibility. Palestinians who have seen the result of the immigration of their brethren in the 1948 and 1967 wars are clearly not going to leave of their own free will. This means that Israel will have to violently cleanse Palestine of its Arab inhabitants. This seems highly unlikely in the presence of so many foreign diplomats, NGOs and the world press. The Israeli public itself will not tolerate such violent acts. The mere logistics of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians being forced out of their homes is not likely. Some Palestinians worry that a short and successful US victory will further increase the power of the US as the only party in the Middle East, thus further strengthening the Israelis, politically, in their struggle with Palestinians. While Israeli leaders think that the removal of Saddam Hussein from the Middle East equation will eliminate a strong chip from the Palestinian negotiating hands, for Palestinians, whatever the result of a possible war in Iraq is, it will not change the basic contested issues. In fact, some Palestinians feel that the removal of the Iraqi crisis from the US and the international political discussions will make the solution of the Palestinian cause more urgent. Palestinians are not likely to capitulate politically even if Baghdad is ruled by a US general. Naturally, the potential conflict with Iraq has many unknowns. It will make a big difference if the war is short or long; if the conflict ends in a coup or if there are street fights that last a long time. Another issue is the spillover of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis into the nearby countries. Such a mass movement of people fleeing the war in Iraq could have a destabilising result on many of the countries in the region. Such a deterioration of internal security in neighbouring countries could have long-term, far-reaching effects that could indirectly affect the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
-
How to avoid assassination Sigmund Siignatuur Jordan Times, 1/31/03
-
BY THIS, I don't mean bumping into some crazy person who is full of “crack”, can't stand waiting one more minute for the traffic light to turn green at the Khalda garage and suddenly takes his Kalashnikov from the dashboard, bursts onto the road and kills 65 passengers in their cars, while they are waiting patiently and quietly, reading “Al Rai”. What I am referring to is the patient marksman who stalks the prey and dispatches it with a lethal bullet aimed at the temple. I don't think many of us think about it. After all, we are, on the whole, not very controversial or famous or in the public limelight. I, for example, write a weekly column and I don't even get any hate mail. I don't know if I feel a failure because I have not aroused the ire of my readership. I will give it some thought. I think my only enemy, an Icelandic musicologist, has probably softened her views about my supposed acidity. Let us start off with high-risk jobs. Being a leader of a country or an influential politician will put you in the forefront of being extinguished. The world list of leadership and political heavyweights who have been killed is lengthy indeed. Naturally, there are some leaders more at risk than others. Saddam Hussein is often reported as deploying look alikes to see how the crowd reacts. Many of the more controversial leaders do indeed have food tasters (too bad if your food taster is a would be assassin). Even countries that are relatively peaceful and do not employ armour plated cars, or strike Apache helicopters and marksmen on every roof to protect their great ones, can be lulled into a false sense of security. In well pampered Sweden (where everyone is happy!), Olaf Palme (the former prime minister) was in the habit of walking to the cinema on a Friday night with his wife without a bodyguard. One night, a disgruntled citizen shot him dead. Why, we will never know. The world has definitely changed for those who have ambitions at the very top of government. My friend tells me that Diefenbaker (in his early days), as Canadian PM, would leave the Canadian parliament, stroll down Bank Street, eat poutin (congealed gravy on French fries) on the sidewalk and talk to ordinary “Joe Soap” Canadians about hog problems in Manitoba, and there would never be any security in sight. After some time, he would wend his way home to his house on Sussex Drive. The above is concerned with the assassin who feels wronged over policy — usually — but there are jobs that might involve death because of spurned adulation. If you intend to become a folk hero via singing, cinema or sport, then there is quite a high risk of assassination or at the very least harassment. Now, the people who lead us or are politically involved have enormous protection, but singers and wingers (who play for Barcelona) have to find their own security. They can afford it and often do have bodyguards and all the paraphernalia of high security apparatus. John Lennon was shot because of the delusions of a youth who connected Lennon to the book `Catcher in the Rye'. Rappers have died for — who knows. Others have attracted stalkers who refuse to let go of their obsession. Teenagers take these things to heart. People can play both roles. Beckham is married to a “Spice Girl” and while he would not win any prizes for being able to become a lucid journalist and comment with sophistication on any of his games, he certainly is a “pin up” and deadly accurate with a football. He has had threats and he has a tremendous following. These people (the heroes, not the assassins) have secretaries and they need them, lest deeply felt sentiments towards these people from their fans are not returned and this devotion becomes curdled and murder roams in the mind of the fan. Obsession is betrayed and the dagger is honed. Now, there are jobs that can be reasonably anonymous. Being a diplomat may be thought to be rather nondescript (at the lower levels), but is fraught with danger. I know that the diplomat may live a privileged life, full of swimming pools, elegant suits, Pernod, canapÈs, gentle conversations and wondrous name dropping, but when the bomb explodes under the car, carnage is the result. Being a diplomat means that you represent your country, and even if you are doing something very creditable, like humanitarian help, you may have the taint of a disliked regime, if that is how your country is perceived in the county that you are accredited to. It is a luxurious life, but tinged with real danger. When you enter the diplomatic field you know this. If we cast the net wider, we come to other people who work in countries where they may be the subject of retribution. I have noted, when being with some Western friends, that there is growing talk of evacuation and embassy action. If you live in certain countries, the risk to your life as a representative of your government, or your racial features, could set you on a collision course with the society you are part of. In the likelihood of a coming military attack on Iraq, people who are identified as Westerners have to be rather careful. Under normal circumstances, Jordan is one of the most welcoming countries that you could be in. How many times have we heard those words spoken by Jordanian taxi drivers: “Welcome to Jordan”. I don't expect this to be the case when the “Willing Coalition” decides to strike Iraq. At the very least, it will be a more hostile environment and the worst scenario could result in the loss of life. An angry mob will not ask to see my passport. They will not know that I come from the land of the Minkie whale and therefore come from Husavik in Iceland. How many of the mob know that such a little entity like Iceland exists? They will see me as the representative of somebody hostile to Arabs and I will have to make the best of it. Therefore, all I can suggest is that you all get a job in Iceland and we can all live happily for ever after. In other words, we turn the country of Iceland into a hippy commune. A life of bliss, eating fish and cooking quiche. Obviously joining the police is very high risk. It is your job to approach nasty individuals. You could have become a librarian or a museum curator. You knew the risks. On the other hand, joining the armed forces of a country is not necessarily that dangerous. You have to remember that most soldiers, sailors or airman have never seen combat action, whereas I think most policemen in the Bronx have. We have now come full circle. We have thought of some of the threats posed to us. Have we ever contemplated slaughtering others? Speaking for myself, I believe that I have only ever hated one person. He used to live near Al Bustan Restaurant. There was an empty block of flats opposite to where he lived and I always hoped that a sniper would be able to terminate his life. I never had the guts to do it myself and both of us lived in torment. I never walk near Al Bustan nowadays, because such bad memories are dredged up. Anyhow, enough of this morbidity. These are just a few tips to avoid assassination. The best tip I can give you to avoid death by a politically motivated person is to apply to be the official Father Christmas at the North Pole. I am sure nobody would want to kill Santa. Hold on, though. I see a more sinister scenario on the horizon. Disgruntled child of Chicago writes: “Dear Santa, thank you for the inferior skateboard, made of cheap plywood. You know I asked for the Bloomingdale titanium tipped board. Seems you are not sensitive to the order of a child with limited aspirations, so choke on the anthrax, fatso, that accompanies this letter.”
By Nihal Singh
Khaleej Times, 1/31/03
AS THE drumbeats of war get louder, the seemingly inevitable American-led invasion of Iraq and its fearful aftermath are giving way to a transformation of the international scene, with nations seeking to redefine the George W. Bush administration's credo of US military and political supremacy. Spats between America and its European allies are not new nor are differences between Washington and client states. What is startlingly new is the gumption of not merely the traditional dissenter France but of Germany and such unquestioning allies as Turkey and South Korea to challenge American assumptions about 'regime change' in Iraq and its hardline North Korea policy. The rebuff of the old European Nato members to a US request for playing a subsidiary role in the looming war on Iraq has come as a jolt to Washington. Whether it is the "periodic madness" that grips the US, as the writer John Le Carre has suggested, or a deeper philosophical divide between a post-September 11, 2001 America and much of the remaining world can be debated. Beyond doubt is the fact that not only are the US and its traditional Cold War European allies drifting apart but the latter believe that the basic assumptions of civilised life and society are being challenged by Washington. Voices of dissent in America are making themselves heard for the first time since September 11 but no one expects them to interfere in W's war plans. The coterie of hawks around the US president will remain supreme and the swing of the pendulum will not take place until the disastrous consequences of the war make themselves apparent. The strength of European feelings cannot be doubted, even in a Britain whose prime minister is giving total support to W. In all probability, the US will launch a war, with the approval of the UN Security Council or otherwise, but the debris left by such an eventuality will come to haunt America. It is a telling reminder of the present state of things that US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should declare France and Germany 'old Europe', fastening on the pro-American formerly communist new members of Nato, possessing the proverbial zeal of new converts, to seek comfort. And countries such as Turkey and South Korea are taking swipes at the United States on its new policies and priorities. The issues being defined go far beyond the looming tragedy of Iraq. In diverse ways, Europeans, those aspiring to be European and others are chipping away at the proclaimed American dictum of being the king of the universe and the supreme arbiter of conflicts, wherever they might occur. Although in the end America obtained a unanimous UN Security Council resolution on Iraq (1441), France led a two-month guerrilla war to clip American wings. And the contortions spokesmen of the US administration are having to undertake to justify war, despite the continuing UN inspectors' labours in Iraq, are proof of the efficacy of salami tactics. The truth is that apart from those who choose to identify with W for opportunistic or ideological reasons, a dissonance is growing between America and most other nations over world view and history. For W and his acolytes, it is not the end of history but the beginning of a new American imperial age. But this new age that is being trumpeted sits ill with human progress and the 21st century. The world rebels at being dragged back to the colonial era and advances in science and technology have opened up new avenues for rebels - individuals and nations - to fight their battles. How long this new and unique crisis in the world will last will depend, above all, on the time it takes the resilience of the American system to correct W's skewed priorities and ambitions. It is, above all, an American disease, but unlike McCarthyism and the Vietnam war, much of America, traumatised by September 11, is in thrall to the neo-conservative mantra of maintaining world supremacy at any cost. Even many of those who define themselves as liberals take it for granted that America, being a benign power, should rule the world. Contradictions abound elsewhere. A European Union that is expanding and is seeking a more unified security and foreign policy is witnessing the spectacle of one of its important members, Britain, going over to W's camp while the right-leaning administrations of Italy and Spain are tilting towards the American view. An independent European defence force remains a concept, rather than reality, while an expanded European Union next year still faces the problem of inviting Turkey in. There is a growing feeling that the world is teetering on the brink of a new precipice. In the eyes of many, the new world gendarme is of the roguish variety and cannot be trusted because he is feathering his own nest. Taking the Bush administration at face value, it is going after President Saddam Hussein to protect itself and the world from terrorism and to inaugurate a more democratic dispensation in the Arab world. If there are any idealistic undertones to W's policy, they have got lost in the reality of oil politics and America's continuing affection for some dictators. It is perhaps the first time in history that poised as America is for launching a major war, its rhetoric is so roundly dismissed by the rest of the world. Serious thinkers are appalled at the inability of the neo-conservatives driving W's policy to think through the horrendous consequences of what they are about to begin. Saddam-fixation hides many other objectives and while the world is powerless to stop the American juggernaut, it cannot love the dangerous dimensions of American megalomania. Despite last-minute efforts to slow down the American juggernaut, the massing of close to 200,000 American and other troops and instruments of war around Iraq has its own logic and momentum. As one who watched the final days and hours of the last Gulf War from Baghdad, I can smell gun powder. The bugle of war has been sounded. All that remains to be determined is the diplomatic foreplay that can alter the timing.
-
CIS:
Unfulfilled hopes
-
U.S. is poised to step deep into a quagmire -
The pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi
predicts an upsurge in armed Palestinian resistance against Israel,
including more suicide bombings, following Ariel Sharon’s election
victory. The paper highlights a statement from Islamic Jihad saying the
Israeli electorate had opted to “continue the war” and vowing to
respond in kind, and remarks by Hamas leaders predicting that
“escalation will be the order of the day” with Sharon reinstated for a
second term.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |