September 23, 2002 News

Al-Jazeerah Arabic  الجزيرة

Arab Cartoonists

Articles

Columnists

Contact us

Documents

Editorials 

Essays

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

letters to the editor

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

News Archives 

Opinion Editorials

Poetry

Women in News

Michael Kristiansen, EU

THE future of US-Arab relations looks dicey if the US administrations finally decide to go alone on their plans to attack Iraq to oust President Saddam Hussein, noted Hady Amr, an Arab-American political consultant and economist.

Outlining his prognosis for the Arab-US relations, Mr Amr warned the US administrations of the risks involved in case of a unilateral action against Iraq and emphasised the need for a dialogue between the two societies.

"Personally, I am greatly concerned on President Bush's position on Iraq, because the war will not only divert the US resources, it may deprive the US a lot of its allies," said Mr Amr who was the highest ranking Arab-American on Al Gore's campaign team in recent presidential elections.

Mr Amr reckoned that the Arab-US relations are at the cross-road at the moment and the events in near future can either part the both parties for a long time or they could consolidate the present relationship in form of long-lasting bond.

"America and its main political parties are divided at the moment on Mr Bush's plans to attack Iraq and this is the time when America wants to listen to the Arabs as there is a serious dearth of information on Arab point of view.

The best way forward, the Arab-American activist added, is to have a dialogue between the Arab and American societies: "I can see a great opening and a tremendous opportunity for Arabs to open up a dialogue with the American policy-makers and the public as after September 11, the Americans are ready to listen to the Arab viewpoint," said Mr Amr who also served in President Clinton's Department of Defence at the Near East South Asia centre for Strategic Studies.

The political activist did not agree with the notion that the US sides with Israel because of shared geo-strategic interest. "I can't see any shared geo-strategic interest for Americans vis-a-vis Israelis. It's just the case of better lobbying and adept political communication," said Mr Amr who is a founding member of Alliance for American Leadership.

"We have to start the dialogue now. As if we start today, the benefits of this dialogue will come in 10-20 years," said the Lebanon-born Mr Amr who divides his time Washington and the Arab world.

From Helsinki to Athens, from Dublin to Paris, citizens from over 30 countries were asked to leave cars at home in a drive to raise awareness of the damage to the environment caused by rising traffic and encourage alternative means of transport.

For many it was a day spent calmly rediscovering the often congested city centres with the family. Public transport was operating as usual, but many took the opportunity to cycle, rollerblade or jog through the ghostly quiet streets.

"We wanted to discover Brussels without the car," said art-historian Diane Delvaux, who took her seven-year-old John and 21-month-old Othelie cycling through the Belgian capital. "We like cycling but with the kids it is difficult and we are often obliged to use the car. Today is different. There are hundreds of kids around."

Brussels, home of the European Commission that launched the initiative in 2000, displayed the strongest commitment to the event by cordoning off 160 square km to traffic, more than any other participating city.

Those who ventured into the city centre before noon were met with the unusual sight of Belgian Crown Prince Philippe and his wife Mathilde on a bike as they approached the Royal Palace after a five-kilometre bike ride from their residence in Laeken.

In Paris, where eight districts out of 20 were closed to non-essential traffic, the town hall laid on bicycles and extra boat services on the river Seine. "It's lovely. You hear the odd car go by, but on the whole it's been really quiet. It's phenomenal," said central Paris resident Stephen McIlvenna who was enjoying being able to open his windows wide without being deafened by traffic.

Participation was lower in traditionally environment-friendly Germany as the initiative clashed with general elections there. But some cities dared to buck the trend: in Muelheim an der Ruhe, a town of 175,000, the council launched a 'walk to vote' campaign.

In London, many streets in the centre of the city were blocked by police for a rally by about a quarter of a million country folk in support of fox hunting and against the erosion of rural life. London Mayor Ken Livingstone urged residents to keep their cars at home and encouraged them to walk across Tower Bridge. - Reuters

WASHINGTON - A first draft of US war plans for strikes on Iraq was released yesterday, as lawmakers expressed confidence of broad congressional support for a military campaign with or without UN backing.

Boldly-outlined Pentagon plans for a 'narrowly focused but extremely intense' military offensive against Baghdad, which Washington accuses of developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, were made public.

The Pentagon has already begun choosing targets for US warplanes and missiles, the size and shape of the troop deployments on the ground and a likely timeline for a US invasion, The Washington Post reported. Different from the 1990-91 Gulf War that was waged by US President George W. Bush's father, former president George Bush, the offensive is designed to be an attack on a government, not a country.

"Our interest is to get there very quickly, decapitate the regime, and open the place up, demonstrating that we're there to liberate, not to occupy," a military planner was quoted as saying.

A small, fast-moving invasion force relying on Special Operations troops instead of conventional deployments of battalions, will likely carry out the US offensive, which could include a simultaneous ground and air assault, the Post reported.

Army General Tommy Franks, the head of the US Central Command, which is currently waging the US-led campaign against terror in Afghanistan, will ultimately be responsible for any US plans for war, which must first be authorised by the US Congress.

Mr Bush on Thursday presented a resolution to lawmakers that would grant him sweeping powers to oust Saddam, even if the United Nations declines to pass resolutions authorising members to enforce disarmament mandates.

The Bush proposals have been criticised as open-ended and as failing to focus on a wide, UN-led effort to throw Iraq open to inspections and ultimately produce a regime change in Baghdad. But Arizona Republican John Kyl insisted yesterday that the United States "cannot rely upon the United Nations necessarily to grant us the authority that we'll need."

"We can never subject our security interests to the United Nations or the Security Council of the United Nations on the grounds that somehow that's a moral objective force out there," said the senator. Therefore, he said, "Congress will authorise what the United States needs to do in our best interest." - AFP

"We have no intention of physically eliminating Arafat or to forcefully occupy the Muwatalli (Arafat's HQ) but to push him to decide to where he will leave," he said on the Arab-language service of Israel's public television. It was the first time an Israeli official said the aim of the army's operation launched on Thursday was to drive out Mr Arafat. - AFP

"The council will take a joint Arab position in regard to the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the siege imposed on the Palestinian leadership by the Israeli occupation forces," said a spokesman for the 22-member Arab League. The meeting was requested by the Palestinian delegate.- AFP

United Methodist Church Executive

urges Bush not to attack Iraq

The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given the order to fire.

I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. The United Methodist Church has called for "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention" for all nations (2000 Book of Resolutions #277). Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations.

United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. I beseech the President and Vice-President to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship.

This matter can and should be dealt with by the United Nations. Our Church "support(s) regional and international negotiations arranged in cooperation with the United Nations and held without resort to political posturing." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p. 684) No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the UN Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law. The administration’s proposed attack is essentially a unilateral U.S. effort that uses as its rationale Iraq’s non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requiring full compliance with UN weapons inspectors. Arab and European governments strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq. Their views cannot and should not be disregarded. The question of weapons inspection non-compliance should be a matter for the United Nations.

There are those who argue that some military actions are just, however this would not be a just war. No proof has been provided that Iraq has nuclear weapons mounted on launchers aimed at the United States or troops massed on its borders or has developed deliverable weapons of mass destruction. No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq’s neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States.

A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in US foreign policy. It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle lest disaster and chaos result.

There are questions yet to be asked and answered about many matters including the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial cost of a war and its aftermath, and consequences for the future of Iraq. Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq. The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement, and final outcome are by no means assured. Presumably, Baghdad, a huge city filled with innocent civilians, must be a major objective of attack. Accidentally or not, we have seen the deaths of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die? What is the reasonable chance of success in this war? How long would it take to rebuild destroyed areas? Can the United States effectively carry out regime change?

The regime of Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities against its own people and has been a highly negative influence in international and regional affairs. We all yearn for a just and peaceful government in Iraq. The Iraqi people have suffered greatly for many years and our prayers are with them. The United Nations estimates its own sanctions, the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people.

If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice and peace with one another (Matthew 5:1-12), we must speak out now – to the president, members of Congress, and our local media – that the path upon which the President seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church, and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. That the ends justify the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better, and the world expects better of us.

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