The relevance of the truth about WMD in Iraq, Khatoun Haidar

Opinion, June 2003, Al-Jazeerah.info

The relevance of the truth about WMD in Iraq

Khatoun Haidar

The Daily Star, 6/27/03

Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was the major justification cited by the US and Britain for going to war. Two months after the fall of Baghdad, such weapons have yet to be found. On June 5, the majority of the UN Security Council members, including Britain, called on the US to allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to certify whether it possessed WMD before the US-led invasion.
This comes at a time when the Bush administration is facing charges in Congress that it may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. On the other side of the Atlantic, more than 70 representatives of Blair’s own party signed a petition demanding the disclosure of the evidence that justified the Iraqi war. The truth may become public knowledge today, tomorrow or in 50 years, but the way this issue is perceived around the world is both enlightening and indicative of a deep divide.
In the Arab world, apart from some intellectual circles, the preponderance of the evidence is not an issue. It does not give rise to debate. The judgement on the issue was rendered long ago and I heard it best expressed by an old Lebanese villager: “The strong eat the weak; this is the law of nature. What is strange is why do they (the Americans) feel the need to lie to justify their actions?”
For this man, as for most Arabs, the reason behind the war is common sense US self-interest. This is met with sadness and a sense of fatality. In this part of the world, using lies to justify one’s actions is a grave transgression on the social level, but it is acceptable when used as a political tool.
After all, nondemocratic regimes have the luxury to declare and promise without fear of accountability. The overwhelming feeling is not indignation; it is a feeling of injustice and double standard, again well summarized when the same old man wondered: “Why do the Israelis have the right to own WMD while the Arabs don’t!”
The debate over WMD in Iraq is equally passionate on both sides of the Atlantic, yet the semblance does not carry further. In continental Europe, the issue is viewed as the manipulation of the century. In Britain, the conservative opposition leader accused Blair of “equivocating” and argued that “the whole credibility of his government rests on clearing up these charges,” while on the labour side, Malcolm Savidge called the issue “potentially more serious than Watergate.”
The charges seem to have struck a deep chord in Britain. The press coverage is quite hostile and the popular sentiment is sobering, with polls suggesting that a majority of British feel misled on the weapons issue. The US polls indicate a different story: The majority of Americans still approve the Iraqi campaign even if the WMD that were the major pretext for the war are never found. It is true that in the political arena, some Democrats are questioning whether the administration exaggerated the urgency of an Iraqi threat but it is done timidly and behind closed doors; the main concern is the quality of US intelligence before the war. This is a far cry from the uproar and impeachment charges faced by Bill Clinton during his presidency for lying on a private matter that does not affect national security.
The divide in these reactions reflects a difference in values. The US and Europe are representative democracies and follow the open market economic model, but their social and political evolution diverged some time ago and moreso since the Bush presidency and Sept. 11, 2001.
Americans, despite their might, feel vulnerable and rally unconditionally behind their commander in chief. Objectivity and accountability are sacrificed on the altar of “patriotism.” For the time being, they have accepted social inequalities and huge budget allocations to defense. Europeans are shy about their nationalism, and do not accept political statements and positions at face value. It is very difficult to imagine Europeans ready to sacrifice their social welfare cushion in favor of the increased military spending necessary for Europe to meet its diplomatic ambitions.
The schism with the Arab world is much more significant. Given the unrepresentative nature of governments in this part of the world, the idea of citizenship is not deeply rooted within the culture. People are disenfranchised. Given that they have no say in the choice of their leaders, the concept of accountability is irrelevant.
The debate over WMD in Iraq might take new turns in the West. But in the Arab world, apart from the interest of using it as a new proof of Western dubiousness, it comes at the lower echelons of the Arab individual’s ladder of priorities.

Khatoun Haidar, a Lebanese journalist, contributed this commentary to The Daily Star

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).