Jan 6, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 6, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

,Have you ever seen an alcoholic preaching abstinence and advocating prohibition? Just listen to President George W. Bush, the commander-in-chief of a military force that not only possesses and maintains nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons but also boasts an array of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological, lecturing the world on the threat from Iraq and North Korea and on the virtues of nuclear non-proliferation. American hypocrisy on this subject runs much deeper. Indeed we can call American position on nuclear weapons as multi-layered double standards.

Level one: The US continues to remain the number one proliferator of weapons in terms of marketing. Even in regions such as the Middle East where peace is deemed crucial to American interests, America is the number one exporter of advanced weapons, including strategic fighters (such as F-16s) and missiles to both sides – Israel and Arabs. The US has sold nearly $13.9 Billion worth of weapons, government to government, and licensed nearly $30 Billion in commercial sales in FY 2001. The US is the world’s biggest merchant of death. If the next Arab-Israeli war involves vastly more sophisticated and dangerous weapons than ever before, we will only have the US to thank for.**

Level two: The US continues to remain the number one proliferator of weapons in terms of technology. The US was not only the first to produce nuclear weapons but to date remains the only nation in the world to have used nuclear weapons, more than once. Even now, long after the end of the cold war, it continues to possess chemical and biological weapons and has just announced a massive new missile system that will enhance its global military domination, in turn facilitating an enhanced unilateralist posture. It will also ensure a new arms race by triggering the security dilemma for other nations wary of Washington’s neo-imperialist agenda. .

Level three: On nuclear proliferation it continues to have very close relations with nations that have refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty such as India, Pakistan and Israel and are widely known to possess significant nuclear arsenals (Israel is reputed to have anywhere between 50-200 illegal nukes), but is determined to intimidate and punish nations which evidently do not have any nuclear weapons but merely nuclear ambitions, such as Iran and Iraq. All Iran and Iraq want to do is emulate the US, like India, Israel and Pakistan have done and have a few nukes of their own. To this day the US has never expressed any concern over the illegal nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction that Israel possesses and now that it suits it interests, it has decided to ignore the fact that India and Pakistan also continue to defy not only the nuclear non-proliferation regime but also the nuclear test ban regime.

Level four: The US has constantly accused Iraq and Iran of nursing an unquenchable thirst for nuclear weapons. American propagandists have also argued that these nations desire these weapons of mass destruction for the explicit purpose of using them against the US and its allies (read Israel). Unless it can be demonstrated that both Iran and Iraq have a very strong desire to self-destruct, it is difficult to understand why any nation would be willing to sign its own death warrant by attacking the US. The world has not forgotten what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children born in those cities still bear signs of what it means to challenge the US. No country or entity that cannot run and hide in caves and mountains will dare attack the US. So why would Iran and Iraq want a handful of nuclear weapons if not to attack the US? The answer is simple, but you probably never heard it on any talk show and never read it in any policy brief or media report – to deter Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its array of missiles and other weapons of mass destruction. What the US seeks is to prevent these nations and any other nation in the region from developing the capacity to deter Israel and force it to adopt less bellicose methods towards the Palestinian people.

Level five: In his first State of the Union address, President Bush made his intentions clear about the so called “axis of evil”, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. He was determined to eliminate their capacity to threaten America or its allies. But now we have a strange situation. Iraq denies that it has any weapons of mass destruction and so far after over 200 inspections the UN inspectors have discovered nothing. The US claims it has certain knowledge of Iraq’s evil weapons and even after sharing its “intelligence” with the inspectors, nothing has been discovered. Where as North Korea has not only declared that it has an active nuclear weapons program but is determined to become a nuclear power in the immediate future. But guess who the US is targeting for a massive military attack? Iraq, and it has ruled out any military option against North Korea. Puzzling isn’t it?

Common sense suggests that both Al Qaeda and North Korea at the moment present a greater “gathering danger” than Iraq but President Bush has chosen Iraq as his primary target. On many levels America’s present policies raise questions about its moral clarity. Washington articulates policy in idealistic terms but applies it in realistic fashion. If the objective is to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons then the US must continue to pressure those who already have them (India, Pakistan and Israel) and those who are about to have them (North Korea) just as much if not more than those who aspire for them (Iraq and Iran). And if nuclear weapons are indeed seen as a danger to world peace then Washington should not only work to denuclearize South Asia and the Middle East by convincing India, Pakistan and Israel to voluntarily denuclearize (like Sweden, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil) and submit to inspection regimes, but also give the world a firm timetable on its own denuclearization program (in concert with UK, France, Russia and China) and immediately cease all further development and production of all weapons of mass destruction. If these measures are impossible for reasons of realpolitik, then President Bush should at least spare us the tedious moral rhetoric and speeches on good and evil that he is currently addicted to and let his actions and policies speak for themselves, they do anyway.

Presidential candidate George W. Bush had promised that if elected his administration would provide “moral clarity” in foreign policy. I am now reminded of another Presidential candidate George H. Bush who had promised “read my lips; no more taxes”.

* Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Director of International Studies at Adrian College. He is the author of the recent book American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom, http://www.ijtihad.org.

** References for the arms figures:
http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/FAS071399.html
http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm#USArmsExports
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_10/unroc98.asp

A reference on US arsenal:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0617-04.htm

Uneasy military balance in the Far East

By Hassan Tahsin, Arab News, 1/6/03
-

In the 1980s, the United States was forced to close its bases in the Philippines. Its military bases in Japan and South Korea thus became strategically very important. The bases are considered the front line of defense against possible attack, especially from China.

Continuous changes in the region produced new dangers to the United States. North Korea, for example, produced its first nuclear bomb and long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Japan had a mixed reaction to the North Korea nuclear program. It tried to have good relations with North Korea but failed, and Japan was left with no option but to continue its military relations with Washington. South Korea wishes to unify the divided peninsula for two reasons: to be the most powerful country in the region and to get rid of the American bases protecting South Korea from the north.

China, however, found the situation to be very critical. On one hand, it is a good ally of North Korea and an unstable neighbor to South Korea because of the American bases. China is beginning to change its policies since India and Pakistan, on its western borders, became nuclear powers. China likes the idea of a unified Korea, and does not mind that Korea is a nuclear country; they can both be strong influences in the region with common interest.

These strategic military changes forced Washington to delay steps to unify the Korean Peninsula. It put much pressure on Japan to form a front line against China and North Korea in the future. Japan found itself in a very difficult situation. The Japanese Constitution after World War II fobade the formation of an army capable of facing challenges in the region, fearing that Japan might have military ambitions.

Japan formed a very technologically developed army on paper. Despite the warnings, it was also a very strong army with a real military capability. This change in capability allowed Japan to conduct a military exercise with Japanese police and coast guard last November. Japanese forces also conducted a joint exercise with American forces off Hawaii last September. This is in addition to the logistic support for the United States military and its possible war against Iraq.

We must know that Japan might change its alliances with Washington in the near future, especially if it sensed a threat to its interests in the region and to its worldwide economic power. Japan will find itself forced to choose between full alliance with either China or United States especially since Washington is trying to restrict its economic spread.

The change in Japan’s position and the spread of its military role needs political decision and a change in the constitution. It is a complicated procedure but the local demand to change the constitution and the pressure from the Japanese people to eliminate American bases may speed things up. If this happens in the near future, we will see a strong Japanese military and this will once again change the military balance in the Far East.

Bloc vote in American elections
By Richard H. Curtiss, Arab News, 1/6/03
-

The story of the bloc vote began ten years ago when a number of Muslim- and Arab-Americans and their supporters decided to make elections more effective for their community. The idea was that all members of the community would work together to ensure that they did not cancel out each other’s votes in each four-year election cycle. However, the endorsement was never made, and once again Republican and Democratic Arab- and Muslim-Americans simply canceled each other out.

Four years later, it was clear to all Muslim-Americans concerned about making their voices heard that there had to be some ground rules. Members of the Democratic and Republican parties were invited to exploratory meetings. But Democratic Party members would not even participate in the discussions, because they did not believe that the Muslim-American groups would be able to uphold the bloc vote in the 2000 elections. The Republicans made informal promises to take Muslim-and Arab-Americans into consideration in their policies, so Muslim-Americans and many Arab-Americans went Republican. The result was astonishing: because of the extraordinarily tight election in 2000, the bitterly contested vote finally went to the Republicans. In short, the bloc vote made the difference between George W. Bush’s election and Al Gore’s defeat.

One cannot say for sure how many people actually followed through with the bloc vote, but it was very apparent that in Florida a very large number of Muslim-and Arab-American voters took the bloc vote seriously, and decisively changed the election. Obviously, some Democrats now realize that if they had understood the strategic importance of the Muslim-American community, they might not have discounted their vote.

In the subsequent two years, many Arab-and Muslim-Americans have been deeply disappointed with Bush’s foreign policy decisions, which seem regularly to tilt toward Ariel Sharon’s viewpoint rather than that of Palestinians and their American supporters. They are also appalled that despite his campaign assurances, Bush’s administration has made extensive use of profiling and secret evidence in the wake of Sept. 11.

But the fact is that elections are carried out only every four years. It is only now that Democratic and Republican leaders are thinking through what will happen in 2004. There are a minimum of 7.5 million Muslim Americans, and perhaps an additional million-and-a-half Arab-American Christians. Because of an astonishing array of ways to minimize the statistics, these are modest estimates. On the other hand, the Jewish vote is always estimated at five million people.

One thing that is certain is that if Arab- and Muslim-Americans are combined, their numbers are considerably higher than even the highest estimate of the Jewish vote. Another given is that nearly 80 to 90 percent of American Jews vote for Democratic candidates. As Republican former Secretary of State James Baker once said in a pejorative way, “the Jews don’t vote for us anyway.

So there are lessons to be learned as the possibility of a bloc vote reemerges. For example, the Hispanic vote in the United States is increasingly up for grabs. It may more likely go Democratic than Republican, but it is not yet clear which way the Hispanic community is actually leaning. The same is a matter of consideration for African-Americans. Up until now, a vast majority of African-Americans have voted Democratic. But this, too is changing, ever so slowly. It is true that some African-Americans accuse such distinguished Republicans as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of being merely “token blacks”. But in fact, many African-Americans cannot help but notice that Powell and Rice are in two of the top national positions, and in this administration play extremely important roles.

Whatever the Democrats may say, there will be some fallout from the African-American community in favor of the Republicans. The point is simply that every time a limited number of Hispanic- or African-Americans decide to vote against their community majority, the effectiveness of a bloc vote is reduced. But, when an entire community switches its vote, as Jewish Americans did to oust Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney, the result can be very effective. McKinney’s Republican rival took the Jewish votes and the election.

In 2004, probably both Democrats and Republicans will realize that they can now swing an election nationwide if the election is relatively close. Let’s assume that Democrats are wondering how to gain Democratic votes without alienating the Jewish vote. Similarly, the Republicans will have to do something to maintain their narrow margin. Given the fact that many Muslim- and Arab-Americans have been deeply disappointed by the Republicans, I would guess that senior Republican strategist Karl Rove is thinking about the subject at this very moment. Let us hope that the Democrats are thinking about the same problem, and particularly about how to avoid writing off Muslim- and Arab-Americans voters.

Given the Muslim- and Arab-Americans’ current disappointment with the Republicans, and earlier disappointments with Democrats, the possibility of third-party votes is crossing everyone’s mind. But the grim reality is that a third-party vote, even for such a popular candidate amongst Arab-Americans as Ralph Nader, is a wasted vote. In fact, third-party candidates usually have the counterproductive effect of removing any possibility of influence from their supporters. Also, one of the major parties is usually somewhat more acceptable than the other.

Muslim- and Arab-Americans should at least choose the major party, Democratic or Republican, that is most useful to them and receptive to their ideas.

— Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Israeli elections issues
Arab News, 6 January 2003

Up until recently, the Israeli general election campaign was dominated by one theme — security. But there are now several issues on the agenda, and while they serve to spice up the campaign, none have managed to derail Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from his march toward a second term in office.

Until last month, Sharon’s Likud Party, the front-runner in the polls, had been sailing smoothly until allegations of corruption surfaced. The affair has included accusations that some Likud leaders accepted money and favors in exchange for votes in the party’s primary election. No one has been charged but opinion polls showed that public support for Likud was beginning to falter. Two polls showed Sharon and Likud would have captured only 31 seats in the Knesset if the election had been held last week. Likud leaders said last month they expected to win 41 seats when Israelis go to the polls Jan. 28. Sharon needs to put together a coalition government with at least 61 seats in the 120-member Knesset to have a majority. Likud is still expected to emerge from the elections with the largest share of seats, but its lead is shrinking.

While the scandal is no Watergate, it could hamper Sharon’s chances of forming a stable coalition government. While the polls show that Sharon remains the most popular Israeli politician, the slippage raises questions about what kind of coalition government he will be able to form. It appears that if he cannot stem the Likud losses, he may have to turn to Labor or one of the centrist parties to continue with his policies in a new government. Even though Likud continues to lose popularity, the polls show that voters are not flocking to the Labor Party and its candidate for prime minister, Amram Mitzna. Labor can expect to win 22 Knesset seats in the election, unchanged from a survey a week ago.

Further controversy has broken out over a vote by the Central Elections Commission to bar an Israeli Arab party, Balad, from running in January, along with its leader, Azmi Bishara, and Ahmed Tibi, another Arab politician. Should Bishara and Tibi lose their appeals in the Supreme Court the impact on Palestinian participation in the elections could be dramatic. Arab candidates would be potential allies of Labor if January’s vote turns out to be closer than opinion polls currently suggest. Participation is crucial if only to prevent the expected Likud majority from becoming an absolute landslide.

The dire state of Israel’s economy surfaced as a potential election issue after an official report announced that last year’s growth rate was the worst in 50 years. The economy is suffering from one of the worst crises in the country’s history. The conflict with the Palestinians, together with the world economic downturn, has led to rising unemployment and falling investment. Still, Sharon’s ratings have refused to fall, neither because of economic woes nor anything else.

When Sharon has felt challenged, he has changed the subject to Iraq and has found eager listeners. The Iraqi card has done wonders whenever Sharon and Likud have begun to slide in public opinion polls. And the issue will continue to be used by Sharon, all the way to the election day.

The real roots of anti-Americanism

Fahed Fanek

Jordan Times, 1/6/03

NATIONS GO to war in order to achieve specific objectives. Yet, it is often the case that after it starts, war ceases to be under the control of the side that initiated it; it becomes self-perpetuating, and might well lead to results that were never contemplated by its instigators. Side effects of war are frequently more important and more serious than its original aims.

US President George W. Bush is incessantly calling for military action against Iraq. He has very clear and simple objectives in mind: “change” the regime in Baghdad, lay his hands on Iraq's oil resources, ensure Israel's security and remove the Arab/Muslim “threat”. He doesn't want to contemplate what war will mean even to America itself. Yet others have. Many American thinkers have carefully weighed the pros and cons of Bush's Iraq policy and have decided that war is not necessary, and will be extremely costly (its overall cost depending on whether it will be limited in scale, or whether it will become a rolling conflict that might well slip out of America's control).

These American experts say that a limited conflict will cost $50 billion initially, to which must be added a follow-up cost of $70 billion to cover the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, in addition to the war's effects on the financial markets. If, on the other hand, the war doesn't go America's way, then the cost might shoot up to $140 billion and, over a 10-year period, might run up to $1.5 trillion.

A campaign launched by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (“a national not-for-profit organisation of more than 400 corporate executives, directors and business owners whose goal is to redirect $40 billion from America's annual military budget into public investments that benefit our people and our communities”) concluded that: “War will wreck the American economy, war will breed terrorism, war will discredit America in the eyes of the rest of the world and war will take a terrible toll in human life.”

A leader's character and personal preferences play a major role in decision making; yet these are supposed to be controlled by the checks and balances built into the democratic systems of government. It seems that this mechanism is at last starting to move in America. According to recent opinion polls, Bush's popularity is sliding. Support for war on Iraq is declining. But will cool heads prevail?

America is a democracy, and in a democracy a leader who wants to draw the nation into war has to convince the people that it is necessary. Can this be done by using fabricated evidence and misleading information? Was Bush being truthful when he told the American people of Iraq's nuclear and missile capabilities? The purpose of these false “facts” is to scare the American people into supporting a war on Iraq. Will such fabrications succeed to fool them?

The answer, sadly, is yes. Because, quite simply, the American press has traditionally been averse to telling the truth. Washington's political culture, moreover, tolerates using lies to achieve objectives.

It was not odd that, bombarded with this barrage of “information”, 74 per cent of the American people really believe that Saddam Hussein supports Al Qaeda, and 71 per cent accept as true that the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Wall Street Journal supports Bush's plans for war on Iraq; that is why it has been publishing lies and ascribing them to “unnamed sources”.

USA Today said the CIA was coming under pressure to change its assessments concerning Iraq, while a former CIA counterterrorism expert described the information currently being propagated about Iraq as being “cooked”.

Bush is not the first president to mislead the American public. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded in getting congressional approval for his plans to widen the war in Indochina by propagating a false account of a naval confrontation in the Gulf of Tonkin. Now, it is apparently Bush's turn to misinform the Americans in order to persuade them to agree to send American troops to kill and be killed in Iraq.

Everything, it seems, is permissible to promote war.

These days America seems particularly concerned about its image in the Arab world. The Americans are distressed that anti-Americanism has apparently reached new heights, and are busy diagnosing this phenomenon and prescribing the necessary remedies.

One of the oddest analyses of this phenomenon was that written for the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs by Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Centre, in his article “The real roots of Arab anti-Americanism”. While concurring that anti-Americanism was on the rise in the Arab world, Rubin professes amazement as to why this is the case, since US policies “have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim” over the past 50 years.

Rubin says that the US fought against Iraq for the sake of Kuwaiti Muslims; it fought against the Christian Serbs for the sake of the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo; it helped Iraq against Iran in their 1980-88 war, it supported Azerbaijan against Armenia, the Afghans against the Soviets, Pakistan against India, and Turkey against Greece. In short, Rubin says that of 12 conflicts, America supported the Muslim side in 10.

Rubin suggests that hatred of the United States “is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problems within those societies”.

Rubin doesn't deny America's pro-Israel bias against the Palestinians, the sanctions it has imposed on Iraq for the last 12 years, its threats against Baghdad, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab positions of the first order. He doesn't delve into the real reasons behind America's coming to the aid of the Kuwaitis, the Bosnians and the Kosovars. Nor does he expound on why Washington helped Iraq in its war with Iran. The matter had nothing to do with Islam; in fact, it can be said that the US went to the aid of the Bosnians and Kosovars despite their being Muslims, not because of it.

Another bizarre conclusion Rubin makes suggests that anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world “is not encouraged by a belief that the United States is too tough but that it is weak, meek and defeatable”. He suggests that this was encouraged by a perception that the US cannot tolerate human and material losses.

Instead of a more balanced Middle East policy, Rubin calls on Washington for more of the same: more support for Israel and a more robust response to Arab and Muslim challenges.

“US policy makers,” he writes, “should understand that various public relations efforts, apologies, acts of appeasement, or policy shifts will not by themselves do away with anti-Americanism. Only when the systems that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fail will popular opinion also change. In the interim, the most Washington can do is show the world that the United States is steadfast in support of its interests and allies. This approach should include both standing by Israel and maintaining good relations with moderate Arab states which should be urged to do more publicly to justify US support.”

This is the thrust of his argument. As a matter of fact, Rubin is following a Zionist agenda at the expense of American interests. Rubin's proposals amount to a prescription for even more anti-Americanism which, in turn, will encourage more acts of terrorism

Gul’s Iraq peace mission is music to Arab ears

An Arab press review, By the Daily Star, 1/6/03

Everything Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters before and after kickstarting his Iraq peace mission in Syria prior to resuming it in Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Saudi Arabia was music to the ears of Arab journalists.
While Jordan’s Al-Rai daily carries not less than five signed commentaries on Turkey’s drive to consolidate ties with Arab capitals in trying to find common ground for a peaceful resolution to the standoff between Iraq and the United States, newspapers elsewhere in the Arab world focus in their reports and headlines on Gul’s salient public declarations after his talks Saturday with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus namely:
• “We still believe this (Iraq) problem can be solved without war. Turkey and Syria, as two countries neighboring Iraq, agreed to coordinate efforts to bring a peaceful solution to the problem. We still believe that this problem can be solved without war.”
• “It is unreasonable to say we do not want war but do nothing to prevent it. What we are doing is active diplomacy for peace.”
• “Both Turkey and Syria attach great importance to the territorial integrity of Iraq, which should be protected.”
• “Iraq’s resources belong to the Iraqi people.”
• “Iraq should make an extraordinary effort to comply transparently and without vacillation with UN resolutions, and to leave no room for suspicion.”
• “We think it would help to convey our opinions and deliberations here to the US administration.”
Saudi Arabia’s leading pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, views Gul’s tour as the possible start of a Turkish-sponsored Middle East effort to avert an American war on Iraq, and the resumption by Turkey of its long-abandoned role as a key regional player.
“If the incentive for the tour was the critical situation in the Middle East region,” the paper says, “its initiation at such speed mirrors the new approach of Gul’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to Turkey’s Middle Eastern and Muslim neighbors. After isolating herself for years from her direct surroundings, Turkey has resumed the policy of dialogue and consultation on matters relevant to both the Turkish and Arab sides.”
The paper says that Turkey’s strategic location, her links with the United States and her long border with Iraq make her key in the equation of war and peace in the region.
Turkey “can draw on its Islamic ties in the region and on its NATO relations with the US to formulate a solution that will spare the region from the predicament of war, safeguard Iraq’s territorial integrity and avoid exposing Middle East security and stability to uncalculated risks.”
Gul’s call on Iraq to play its part in arriving at a solution that will avert war “could be the start of a process of Middle Eastern coordination to arrive at the necessary peaceful resolution,” Asharq al-Awsat says.
But the paper is aware that averting a US war on Iraq is not an easy proposition amid the escalating US military buildup in the region and mounting talk that “the last opportunity to avoid war in the Middle East is receding.” But it holds out hope that “Turkey’s weight, if added to that of the Arabs, in favor of the diplomacy of dialogue, may represent the last chance of avoiding a war that most countries of the world do not look forward to.”
Another Saudi daily, Al-Riyadh, says the new government in Ankara is trying “to lay new foundations for Arab-Turkish relations” after realizing that both sides are at a crossroads “vis-e-vis Israel, the Palestine question and Iraq.”
Jordanian columnist Ahmed al-Hisban, writing in Al-Rai, describes Gul’s regional tour as one to “submit the credentials” of his new government to the international community and to Turkey’s Arab neighbors in particular.
The main purpose of his travels is to “reassure the neighbors that his Islamist government will preserve the basic principles of the Turkish state, and that its coming to power will not cause a revolution in the region.”
One of the main issues coloring Gul’s Arab foray is the fact that his Islamist government in marked contrast to the anti-Israel agendas of the Islamist movements in neighboring countries is keen to preserve Turkey’s cooperation with the Jewish state, as evidenced by Turkey’s naval exercises in the Mediterranean last week with the US and Israel.
Hisban lists the reasons for Turkey’s commitment to such cooperation, implying that Turkey’s Arab neighbors should not feel threatened by it, and should understand its motivations.
In addition to furnishing tangible proof of Turkey’s intention to stick to its prior commitments, Ankara’s participation in last week’s trilateral naval maneuvers stems from Turkey’s inability to ditch its relationship with Israel because Ankara is trying to favorably impress the international community. More specific considerations of economic self-interest are also motivating the AKP to continue cooperating with Israel, since abandoning such cooperation would almost certainly prompt Washington to halt the financial aid that Turkey needs to shore up its ailing economy.
The AKP is well aware that failure to improve the country’s economy will damage its prospects of remaining in power.
But even more crucial to the longevity of the AKP government, Hisban writes, is the need to avoid any changes to Turkish policies such as wriggling out of cooperation with Israel, which would prompt Washington to instigate the pro-US Turkish Army (the country’s ultimate powerbroker and guardian of the state’s secular character) “to reshuffle the pack.”
Gul’s tour taking place against the backdrop of a US-British military buildup in the region will also focus, according to Hisban, on coordinating efforts to prevent a war on Iraq, or limiting its damages if it occurs.
Like Jordan, Turkey stands to suffer economically from a war on Iraq. But Turkey’s real worry is that the war “will create a new reality in the region that will open the door to external and internal conflicts for which Ankara will pay a heavy price.”
Turkey remains unconvinced by Western assurances that Iraq would not be allowed to fragment following a military campaign, giving rise to a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. To Ankara, this would be “catastrophic,” paving the way for Turkey’s own Kurds to demand a state in the southeast and “rekindling the conflict that Ankara thought it had ended with the arrest of Kurdish Workers Party leader Abdullah Ocalan” in 1998.
Another Jordanian columnist, Mahmoud al-Rimawi, remarks in Al-Rai that Gul’s regional voyage comes hot on the heels of “last week’s three-way war games, which Ankara was quick to emphasize were not aimed at any third party, meaning Iraq.”
Turkey, he says, is caught between its military commitments as a key NATO member and the political calculations of its Islamist ruling party, particularly in light of the Turkish public’s deep opposition to the war and to Turkey’s participation in it.
Accordingly, the Turkish leadership deems that the best way out of the situation is to avoid war. Averting an invasion of Iraq, Rimawi explains, would have the added advantage of sparing Turkey the consequences of war on her fragile economy, the likely inflow of Iraqi refugees and the expected secession of northern Iraq’s Kurdish region, which would promote the secessionist aspirations of 12 million Turkish Kurds.
Lahdan Issa al-Mohannadi, writing for the Qatari daily Al-Sharq, says the sticking point for the Americans is what happens in the region after the war, especially if it lasts weeks or months rather than days. Iraq is most likely to break up into ethnic mini-states engaged in internecine strife that is bound to spread to Iraq’s neighbors, thus threatening the flow of oil and gas to the industrialized world. America would, in other words, be cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Mohannadi says the pointer to stability or otherwise in the region will be the future of the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq. As analysts would have it, “control of Baghdad will settle the battle for Iraq, while control of Kirkuk will settle the situation in the region and vice-versa. If Kirkuk and its oil resources are not brought under control, the chances of the war spreading to the predominantly Kurdish areas of southeastern Turkey are very high.”
According to Mohannadi, “the fate of Kirkuk is a question of life and death for Turkey” which is why Gul is touring the region to discuss this matter with the Arabs “independently of the Americans.”
The Arabs should listen carefully to what Gul has to say, particularly since they would gladly cling to “any straw to avoid sinking” into the sea of turmoil that a US war on Iraq would bring, he says.
Jordanian columnist Tarek Massarwa agrees that the Arab world has to listen carefully to its Turkish guest, except that the latter should also assimilate what Arab leaders will be telling him, even though neither Amman, nor Damascus, nor Cairo have billions of dollars to help solve Turkey’s economic problems or the clout to make her accede to the European Union.
The invasion of Iraq will lead to the destruction of oil facilities in Iraq, Kuwait and other Gulf countries, he writes in Al-Rai. Their post-war repair and development will take years and require billions of dollars, leaving little for Turkey or even the US, he says.
Gul should be made aware that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and much of the Arab world stand to lose billion of dollars from the devastation of Iraq, turning Turkey or any other participant in an American invasion of the country into the Arabs’ “enemy.”
Iraq’s invasion from Turkish soil will prove extremely costly for both the Arabs and Turkey, whether now or in the future, Massarwa says. If Washington were to reign supreme in Baghdad, what strategic weight would that leave Turkey in America’s estimation?
“It is important that we listen to our Turkish guest, and it is equally important that he should listen to us.” At the same time, it would not suffice for Gul’s Arab hosts “to reaffirm that they will not participate in a war on Iraq or that they cannot prevent it. This would make Gul regret the tour and agree unhesitatingly to participate in
the aggression.”
The Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat says that “before embarking on his tour, which will take him to Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Turkish prime minister voiced a resounding warning that ‘Iraq is like a Pandora’s box; this box should not be opened; Iraq should not disintegrate because it would be impossible to put everyone back into that box again.’ It seems clear from his statement that his country shares the fears of other regional states that a war on Saddam Hussein’s regime will be the first shot in a series of ethnic and confessional wars within Iraq coupled with direct or proxy regional wars on Iraq proper.
“Gul says he is on a peace mission to prevent war, a war that the states of the region do not want, particularly those on his itinerary. But all of these states recognize individually that they cannot stop the wheels of war that have been set in motion. While saying they are not prepared to join the war, they are declaring that they are not prepared to oppose it to the degree of undermining their bilateral relations with the US.
“Accordingly,” the paper says, “Gul’s tour seems to be intended as ‘regional cover’ for an initiative to prevent war by realizing one of its primary objectives namely, the emergence of an Iraq without Saddam. That is a very difficult mission liable to end with washing one’s hands of Iraq’s fate and perhaps reserving a seat on the war train.
“It will be difficult to prevent war and save Iraq at the same time with Saddam remaining in place. That’s why Gul is on an almost impossible mission one of convincing Saddam that, for Iraq to remain whole, he would have to quaff from the poisoned chalice when there is no sign of the Iraqi president even getting the chalice close to his lips.”
And Gul’s failure, Al-Hayat says, “will allow the states of the region the chance to declare that they tried to save Iraq, but that providence had it otherwise.”

Lessons from Turkey’s experience with religion

By Abdeljabbar Adwan

The Daily Star, 1/6/03

It’s common knowledge among the Arabs that the policies of the four centuries-long Ottoman era in the Arab world, which drew to a close with the end of World War I, were the main reason for the backwardness that befell the Arabs and Islam.
That analysis has strengthened the antipathy between the Arabs and the Turks that had taken hold before 1917. While the Arabs viewed the Turks as the cause of their backwardness, Turkey viewed the Arabs as the cause of its defeat. Since then, the two have followed different paths. The Arabs fell into the clutches and deception of West European colonialism, and the Turks moved away from the Arabic alphabet and the Muslims, adopting a hard-line secularism that separates the state from religion and prevents any religious manifestations, making closeness to the West and joining Europe their objective.
The Arab liberation movement and its pan-Arab offshoots failed to meet popular goals and aspirations. This led it to unintentionally pave the way, as we have seen for several years, for a return to a religious perspective that has taken a fundamentalist, extremist shape as a result of political persecution. Despite Turkey’s relative economic progress, secular, constitutional pressure has failed to help Ankara join European ranks and has also led to a return of political Islam albeit in an enlightened form so far that is not antagonistic to a secularism that is reconciled to religion.
To understand the difference between the Turkish and Arab experiences, the following should be considered: When the pan-Arabist secular regime in Algiers prevented the Islamist political forces from assuming the offices they had won through elections, the Islamists waged a savage war, and both sides committed atrocities and insanely terrorized the countryside. When Turkey’s secular military rejected the continued office of Necmettin Erbakan’s elected Islamist government, the party and its leaders responded by changing their name, renewing their allegiance to the secular constitution and recognizing democracy. And they have returned to power once again through elections, overrunning the political arena through the first parliamentary majority of its kind in Turkey.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Muslim world has been unable, to date, to separate politics and religion. The Turkish recipe that has brought together the military, secularism and Islam has produced an Islamic democratic flavor that people are hoping will end the sour military, secularist trend that has arbitrarily infringed on human rights. As for the Arab recipe, which includes the same ingredients as the Turkish one, it remains unpalatable and indigestible.
It is possible to endlessly expand in drawing conclusions, but I shall choose to say that Islam has become capable of becoming betrothed to democracy, paving the way for a marriage that is similar to that of social democracy, or Christian democracy. The military, on the other hand, has failed at every attempt at democracy and any other form of government.
If it is possible to say, drawing on the Turkish experience, that Islam is not an inevitable enemy of the West and democracy, it is also fair to say that the West is not an enemy of Islam. Spain was the last Western country to cancel compulsory adherence to a single religion. All the Christian countries of the West allow the establishment of mosques, which in Germany have sprung up at a faster rate than churches.
It is strange that secular Turkey is the only state in both the Muslim and Western worlds that bans women from wearing the hijab and from covering their heads. This prompted Turkey’s new prime minister, Abdullah Gul, to say that this issue should one day be amicably resolved, and that it would be strange for Turkish young women who want to wear the hijab to be forced to travel in search of an education to Western countries that allow the hijab, or to simply remain at home and forfeit an education.
Nationalist, religious or military extremism crush the rights of individuals and minorities, which is why Turkey remains outside the European Union. Turkey’s majority Islamist government should deal with the infringements of human rights and the rights of minorities infringements that it has inherited from the secularists and the military.
Another useful Turkish lesson for the Arabs is that the US is not an inevitable enemy of Islam. US policy has been allied to Turkey’s secularists and its military for many decades and did not retreat from its support for Turkey under the current Islamist majority government. The US administration has actually been actively trying to persuade the European countries to admit Turkey into the EU. If this occurs under an Islamist government, the latter will be assured of achieving moral successes and enjoying a long political life.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the success of the democratic Islamic experience in Turkey is good for the whole world, including the Arabs. To achieve full political and economic success, Turkey needs to join the EU. The first condition of such membership is implementing human rights and the rights of minorities. The military and the secularists failed to meet that demand. Until it can be met, the Turkish economy must be supported and kept afloat through European, Arab and US action.
Greater Europe is full of Muslims, either as peoples, residents or citizens. It will be to the continent’s advantage to admit an Islamic state to the EU according to modern criteria and standards. That will contribute to reducing the tension between religions and civilizations and will refute the arguments of extremists and racists on both sides.
Admitting Turkey to the EU will achieve other political objectives. It will end the Christian monopoly on membership and will create opportunities beyond geographical boundaries that have been rendered meaningless by multilingualism and the shortening of travel time across long distances. Admitting Malta, Cyprus and Turkey to the EU will also give North African countries hope of joining if they improve their political and economic situations.
Experiments in comprehensive Arab unity have failed, as have those to internally unify the Arab world’s three regions the Maghreb, the Mashreq and the Gulf. It will therefore do Morocco and Tunisia and possibly Algeria at a later stage no harm to aspire to unity with Europe, which would bring great benefits to the citizens of those countries.
All of this may be a beautiful future song, but if the present can be economically sustained and supported in Turkey, it will represent a commendable success and an excellent experience that can be replicated in most Arab countries.
What can be observed and must be remembered and understood is that Turkey is not an enemy of the Arabs. Psychological tension between the two sides was the outcome of four centuries of forced integration. It was intensified as a result of the behavior of Turkey’s military and the muddling of the military in the Arab countries. Syrian-Turkish tensions have several causes, the most recent of which is the strengthening of ties between Turkey’s military and Israel and Turkey’s withholding of water.
However, the Turkish government change holds out the prospects of a new phase in Arab-Turkish relations. In any case, the Arab and Muslim countries need to understand the bases and laws for implementing democratic Islam, or promoting democracy within Islam, to isolate both Islamist and nationalist militaristic extremism.

Abdeljabbar Adwan is a Palestinian analyst

Read the fine print in Powell initiative
By Dr. Albadr Al Shateri, Gulf News, 06-01-2003
-

The U.S. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, once noted that the division of labour between him and the Secretary of State Colin Powell is that: "His job is to talk them to death, and mine is to hit them over the head!" In such spirit, perhaps, Powell launched the U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative on Thursday, December 12, at the conservative think-tank of the Heritage Foundation.

The initiative came amidst the drumbeats for the impending war against Iraq. The timing was of essence here. Powell has cast the benign face of American power. He's set out to achieve what the daredevil Rumsfeld cannot achieve with his gadgets and gizmos, with the bargain price of $29 million.

The initiative, to borrow computer parlance, is to change Arab societies' software, not the hardware, as the Pentagon's vaunted hawks are intending. It purports to foment a silent revolution, i.e. to effect a shift in values, not to foster a radical structural transformation. Hence Powell's emphasis on "a framework and funding for the U.S. to work together with governments and people in the Arab world". The idea is not to undermine Arab regimes, but certainly to hold their feet to the fire.

The question is how to spawn the presumably seismic shift in the values and attitudes of the Arabs? The strategy would seem to be by influencing four areas that would plant the seeds of change:

In his speech, Powell emphasised the malaise of Arabs' economies. He expressed the fact that Arab "economies are not creating enough jobs. Growth is weak. The GDP of 260 million Arabs is already less than that of 40 million Spaniards, and falling even further behind. Add in the production of 67 million people in Iran, and the total is still only two-thirds of Italy's." Powell added, "many economies are stifled by regulation and cronyism. They lack transparency, and are closed to entrepreneurship, investment, and trade."

But obviously $29 million will not rejuvenate any economy, much less the economies of 22 countries. Perhaps, though, enough for advocating for consumerism. Remember that the object is not to bring forth a structural transformation, but merely a shift in values. It is no exaggeration that the advocacy here is for values of consumption that is a non-starter for developing economies. Or as Herbert Marcuse, the German-American political philosopher put it in the American context half a century ago: values where "people recognise themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment."

The second pillar of the initiative is Education. Powell quite correctly pointed to the sad state of education in the Arab World. He declared the unvarnished truth that: "Even when children do go to school, they often fail to learn the skills they need to succeed in the 21st century. 'Education' too often means rote learning rather than the creative, critical thinking essential for success in our globalising world."

Clearly the U.S. has had troubles with schools throughout the Islamic countries since the terrible events of 9/11. The U.S. media often accuse the school systems in the Muslim and Arab countries of teaching violence and hatred, especially directed towards the U.S. Influencing the curriculum, therefore, becomes a strategic goal. Reforming Arab curricula to suit this goal is a political imperative as far as Washington is concerned. Forget about uplifting Arab boys from their miserable status. Then, there is the problem that the U.S. liberal education has not produced less violent society domestically or internationally. Domestically, violence is rampant, and the U.S. was involved in foreign wars more than any Arab country, including Saddam's Iraq.
Powell in his initiative bemoans the status of women. He contended: "Until the countries of the Middle East unleash the abilities and potential of their women, they will not build a future of hope. Any approach to the Middle East that ignores its political, economic, and educational underdevelopment will be built upon sand." Do not expect the U.S. to send the marines on a feminist mission, to paraphrase the distinguished Indian writer Arundhati Roy! Again, the initiative's intent, it should be recalled, is not to restructure Arab societies, but to re-orient the value system.

Women here are the primary socialising agents. Mothers nurse not only milk to their babies but also inculcate values in their offspring. Indeed, Powell quotes the celebrated Egyptian poet, Ahamed Shuqi (with some liberty in the translation) "A mother is a school. Empower her and you empower a great nation." Altering the status of the agent of socialisation may alter the values of the socialised.

Powell decried the lack of political participation in the Arab World. The fourth pillar of the Initiative was the spread of democracy. The political value and concern are obvious as he opined a "shortage of economic opportunities is a ticket to despair. Combined with rigid political systems, it is a dangerous brew indeed." The argument has been since 9/11 that Arab governments divert resentment form their rule to the U.S. as the responsible party to their repression or that the U.S. perhaps is associated too closely with repressive regimes. Democracy therefore will do the trick of holding Arab governments accountable to their people.

But, alas, the most liberalised political systems in the Arab World (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan and Yemen) had opposed, and still oppose, the U.S. war against Iraq. Moreover, the current administration has shown negligible concern for Palestin-ians' wishes to hold elections that are being hampered by the Israelis. Perhaps if the U.S. were to lean on Sharon to allow Palestinians to exercise their democratic rights, the initiative would have more credibility in this regard.

Finally there is a concern raised by the illustrious American writer, Mark Twain, almost a century ago, when he wrote: "Extending the Blessings of Civilisation to our Brother who Sits in Darkness has been a good trade and has paid well, on the whole; and there is money in it yet, if carefully worked - but not enough, in my judgement, to make any considerable risk advisable. The People that Sit in Darkness are getting to be too scarce - too scarce and too shy. And such darkness as is now left is really of but an indifferent quality, and not dark enough for the game. The most of those People that Sit in Darkness have been furnished with more light than was good for them or profitable for us. We have been injudicious... . Is it, perhaps, possible that there are two kinds of Civilisation - one for home consumption and one for the heathen market?"

But for Arabs it is not enough to grouse about imperialism and the proverbial white man burden. It is necessary for Arabs to come up with their own initiative. Remember that importing the most expensive watch does not make one punctual. It has to come from within. A positive response, an alternative vision, would speak louder than cries of hegemony or neo-colonialism. For one, Powell's diagnoses are right on the mark, but not necessarily his cure or his parsimonious handout!

Al Shateri is a political analyst and writer from the UAE

Arab Americans ready to meet challenges
By Dr. James J. Zogby , Gulf News, 06-01-2003
-

It was 25 years ago that I first came to Washington to begin working full-time on behalf of my community. During the past two and a half decades so much has changed. As we begin a new year and prepare to deal with the many pressing issues that crowd our agenda in 2003, it is important to make note of the progress we've made and how that progress has enabled us to meet the demanding challenges we will face.

On reflection, perhaps the most significant development that marks Arab American progress over the past 25 years has been the very establishment of the community itself.

When I moved to Washington in 1978 to run the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC), I was one of but a handful of Arab Americans working in a few small Arab American organisations. The combined membership of all of those organisations was only a few thousand. And most Americans of Arab descent did not identify themselves as Arab Americans. To a degree this was due to the newness of the concept. The bulk of the community were descendants of the early 20th century immigrants from Syrian and Lebanon.

Their departures to America had predated the development of the modern Arab national movement. Other factors, which complicated the emergence of an "Arab American" identity were the devastating civil war in Lebanon and the post-Camp David rupture, both of which took a toll on community building.

Today, on the other hand, there is a strong and growing Arab American identity (a recent poll shows that more than half of all Americans of Arab descent describe themselves as "Arab American"), and there are national and local organisations that have contributed to establishing a presence for the community. The combined membership of these efforts are in the many tens of thousands and at any point in time over 100 Arab Americans are employed in various forms of service in one of these community organisations.

The fact is that today Arab Americans are established, recognised and included at all levels. That was not always the case. A few examples will suffice to make this point. In 1978, I was invited to the White House to participate in an ethnic leadership meeting with then Vice-President Walter Mondale. Three days after the meeting, I was called by the White House and told that I would not be invited back, because they had received objections to the inclusion of an "Arab" in the gathering. In 1979, the PHRC, which I headed, applied for membership in a Washington-based foreign policy coalition. We were rejected, because some groups felt that our inclusion would be "too controversial." Finally, in the early to mid-1980s, candidates for political office and the major political parties either rejected contributions for Arab Americans or attacked others for accepting support from activists from our community. Neither political party had an outreach effort to Arab Americans, preferring less controversial "Lebanese" or "Syrian-Lebanese" efforts.

Today, all of this has changed. Arab Americans are fully recognised by both major political parties and included in all coalition efforts dealing with foreign and domestic policy concerns. It is, for me, a point of personal satisfaction that I now serve as co-convener of the ethnic leadership council in the Democratic party and that my colleague, George Salem, Chair of the Arab American Institute (AAI), serves as Chair of the Arab American outreach effort of the Republican party. In this respect, it is also worth noting that Ralph Nader, a proud Arab American, ran as the presidential candidate of the Green Party in 2000.

Arab American inclusion has meant that the community and its leadership now have the opportunity to engage in the policy debates on all levels. While some are justifiably concerned that our views are not always heard or are not strong enough to win the day, Arab Americans are part of the debate on domestic and foreign policy issues. We may not win, but in many instances we have been able to shape these debates or, at the very least, warn of the consequences of ignoring legitimate concerns we have raised.

Twenty-five years ago, the still fledgling Arab American community had little national institutional structure and, therefore, no ability to meet basic community needs. Today, on the other hand, Arab American organisations have the ability to: combat and correct negative stereotypes in the media, in educational institutions and in public forums; serve as recognised spokespeople of Arab American concerns; provide support for community members seeking advancement in political life; register, educate and organise Arab American voters; provide direct social services to recent immigrants in need and advocate on behalf of their needs; and lobby on a range of issues on the national and local levels. Organisations like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Com-mittee (ADC), the Arab American Institute (AAI), the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) and the Arab American Chamber of Comm-erce (AACC), and many others are today recognised as effective entities acting to meet Arab American needs.

The record of these Arab American organisations in response to the terrible tragedy of September 11, 2001, speaks volumes of their ability to support the community and act in defence of its needs. As detailed in the new report, Healing the Nation (available online at www.aaiusa.org), Arab Americ-ans were able to meet the challenge of this crisis and act effectively to give a voice to Arab American concerns; win support for the community from a broad coalition of other American organisations; defend Arab Americans against discrimination; and debate our country's foreign and domestic policy response to this crisis.

Even with this past progress, there is no doubt that Arab Americans will face some of the most serious challenges in our history in the coming year. The continued threat to civil liberties at home, the danger of an expanded Middle East war, the dramatic deterioration of living conditions in the Occupied Territories, and the continued assault on Islam and U.S.-Arab relations-all of these issues will confront our community-based organisations in 2003.

Are we up to meeting these challenges? I believe we are. Looking back at where we were 25 years ago, the storms we have weathered and how we have grown, I believe that we will continue to do all that is in our power to defend our community and to have our voices heard. The challenges seem to grow, but we get smarter and stronger: that's the story of the past 25 years.

Dr. James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute

http://www.aljazeerah.info

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