|
Feb 18, 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
|
Dear Sirs, I’m a young Saudi Arab woman who supports peace among humankind. I appeal to you, the French, Russian and Chinese missions to the United Nations, to veto — in your capacity as permanent members of the Security Council — the forthcoming proposal to pass a Security Council resolution sponsored by the United States and Britain to launch a war on Iraq for alleged non-compliance with UN resolu-tions on disarmament. Peace-loving people everywhere in the world oppose such a war. This very day (Feb. 15) there are anti-war demonstrations representing a rainbow of faith, color, languages and races in over 600 cities all over the world, including the larg-est demonstration ever in London. The firm stand of France, Russia and China at the Security Council has won the admiration of the world, especially the powerful, reasoned and spirited views of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin expressed at the Security Council meeting on Feb. 14. I must also add that the anti-war position of your three countries (and that of Germany as well) against the aggressive stance of the US and Britain will resonate very well not only with peace seekers everywhere, but also with the more than 1.25 billion Muslims, some of whom are citizens of your countries. The vast majority of Americans are peace-loving and do not support military adventures, but the Bush administration is leading a desperate, unwise effort to launch an unwarranted war of aggression against Iraq allegedly in the name of peace and democracy. However, don’t you think that by doing so, the US and Britain will claim the lives of many thousands of innocent civilians whose only crime is that they happen to have been born in unfortunate times and in an unfor-tunate country? What crime have these suf-fering people committed, many of them old men and women and children? The US administration’s stance on Iraq is the height of hypocrisy. If the US adminis-tration wants to ensure non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it should first of all set an example to the world: It should disarm the US. Instead, it has opted to produce even more lethal weapons of mass destruction. The US administration sensibly says that it will try to resolve peacefully the very seri-ous problem posed by North Korea, which has announced its intention to produce more nuclear weapons and has booted out the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors. It’s a case far worse than that of Iraq, which is cooperating with the UN inspectors. So, why not negotiate a peaceful resolution with Iraq? The US and Britain both keep repeating ad nauseam that Iraq has flouted UN resolu-tions and therefore force has to be used to enforce those resolutions. Are the US and other permanent members of the Security Council — who are all ultimately complicit in the dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians — blind to the fact that Israel, thanks to the shameless backing and vetoes of the US at the Security Council, is in breach of some 60 resolutions of the world body? Can any one of you identify a single resolu-tion about which the UN Security Council took an enforceable action in order to bring Israeli policy into accord with the will of the international community? Why these double standards, which are a blot on the United Nations and a blow to its credibility? The US and Israel are two bulls in the United Nations’ china shop, which, unless reined in, will eventually wreck it altogether. For the Bush administration, time for Iraq "has run out." But, apparently, for the Bush administration and for the Security Council time can never run out for the rogue state of Israel, whose violations of UN resolu-tions and the Fourth Geneva Convention and perpetration of state terrorism have gone on for more than 50 years and whose never-inspected biological, chemical and nuclear weapons destabilize regional peace. Successive British governments, and Prime Minister Tony Blair — that lackey of the US and great hypocrite whose support of the US’ belligerence against Iraq is opposed by the majority of the people who elected him — consider the Irish Republican Army to be a terrorist organization, which has always received funds from the Irish in the US. The IRA has for several decades terrorized London and other British cities and assas-sinated the respectable Lord Mountbatten, a cousin of Queen Elizabeth, and attempted to kill Margaret Thatcher, then Britain’s prime minister. But did Britain bomb the IRA in Ireland and also the US, the main supplier of funds to the IRA? No, sensibly Britain worked hard to resolve its differences with the IRA peacefully. Aren’t all human beings equal in respect to life and death? Or is Arab and Muslim blood cheaper than the blood of people who come from Western ethnic backgrounds? It is such racial attitudes which inflame those already oppressed in Muslim lands and unfortunately and inexorably nurture the hotbeds of hatred and violence. Today, the credibility and prestige of the United Nations is on the line. It’s you who can save the world body, the hope of peace for all humanity, from the arrogance and warmongering of the US, which is exerting all the pressure it can to impose its will and agenda for world hegemony on all members of the Security Council. Please act to show that might is not right and that there are states with backbone who are willing to stand up for the principles of justice and peace in international relations. France, Russia and China are the only three permanent members of the Security Council who could really make a difference by casting their veto against a US-led war on Iraq. So, please act now and in the coming days in the interest of world peace and your own citizens. With the utmost regard for France, Russia and China and other Security Council members who are working hard to ensure that the credibility of the United Nations is maintained and justice and the rule of law prevail, Sincerely, Huda Ismail Nawwab
-
The Clique Pushing US to
Confrontation
A popular Arab saying goes like this: "Your true friend is the one who tells you the truth, not the one who believes you." Many friends of the US are reluctant to tell the US the truth since it will only accept the half truths imposed upon it by a Cold War clique manipulating the post Sept. 11 American psyche though their views and agenda were developed well before Sept. 11. Of course this generalization does not include US administration figures who are not part of this clique, but they can only play a limited moderating influence on American policy since the clouded legitimacy of the present US administration was given a life of its own by the reaction of the administration and the public to the events of Sept. 11, and no one was willing to take action that might affect this new legitimacy. There is nothing like a sense of despair and national catastrophe to rally the people around the flag, and the administration exploited this fact to the hilt regardless of the possible long-term negative consequenc-es to the American people and the world. This manifested itself in the institution of policies that diminish the very prerogatives enjoyed constitutionally by the American people yet promoted internationally by the US administration. In other words, the US is promoting ideals abroad that it is negat-ing at home. This shows how fragile these American ideals are. This will was brutally exploited by a deliberate policy advocating policies of fear and hatred supported by truths, half-truths, outright fabrications of fact and fiction that left many Americans bewildered and look-ing under their bed every night. Without these politics of fear, the administration and specifically the Justice Department could not have rolled over Congress and the courts to go along with its constitutional transgressions. Very few people in the world did not feel anger at what the US suffered, and very few did not applaud the American response to the terrorists that committed their senseless act. Yet many in the world watched sadly, as the war on terrorism got sidetracked from its original purpose, to include the dictates of the Cold War warriors and the neocon-servatives allied with Zionist Christians, who control the policy-making functions of the US administration. This clique and their supporters like Thomas Friedman, George Will, William Safire, and others, convinced America that it is not important to know why the US was unpopular, subjected to an attack of unheard of proportions, and that what was important was to respond to the ter-rorist attack. However flawed this argument is, it does make sense coming from a group that does not want to advertise the fact that their push through the years of American support for Israel’s brutal suppression of the Palestine people in particular, and Arabs in general, is a main cause of the events of 9/11. Exposing and publicizing this fact might have led to a popular demand that the US re-examine its Middle East policy, which can only reflect negatively on this clique, and its ideological approach to politics. In spite of all American protestations, this clique pushed the US into a confronta-tion with the Arab and Islamic nations not because it is a confrontation between two cultures or civilizations, however different that may naturally be, but because there is a real divide between a minority in the two camps, and in the US it is strongly represented by the clique governing the policy making functions in the administra-tion. Their strength and influence is not a secret and is known to every respectable political journalist or observer, and refer-ences to the clique and the subjecting of America’s policies and interests to Israel’s is an open secret, however much they deny it in spite of the glaring facts. The interest of this clique is to maneuver the president and the US, into so-called gradual positions that would make it impossible for the US or for the president to backtrack from the clique’s ultimate goal. A clear example of this is the Iraqi question. President Bush and his lieutenants declare again and again that military action against Iraq is not inevitable. If so, will the president be able politically to bring back all the American military assets sent to the Middle East, at a cost of billions of dollars to the American taxpayer, without a war to justify the billions spent on a war that never was. The answer is a resounding NO since it will lead not only to a one-term Bush presidency, but also to the routing of the Republican Party, and the ideological clique leading the country from one confrontation to another. Of course the latest confronta-tion is with America’s allies in Europe, where the absolute majority in the European nations if not their governments, are against the war for many reasons, among them the fact that they simply do not see the need for an unjust and destabilizing war because the US and its governing clique say so, and nothing presented by the US as evidence can be considered reliable or acceptable. On the other hand, it would be foolish to con-sider a European anti-war stance as being pro-Iraqi as it is really a position against American hegemony and arrogance that has exceeded all acceptable parameters. America does not need enemies around every corner to survive; nor does it need wars to prove its supremacy. Courtesy: Al-Hayat
-
Summit With a Difference Next week, there is to be an emergency Arab summit in Egypt on the
Iraqi crisis. It has not been easy to organize. At their meeting in Cairo
on Saturday and Sunday, Arab Foreign ministers had some difficulty
agreeing a date, but not as much difficulty as in hammering out a unified
stand on the crisis. There was a statement of sorts in favor of more time for Iraq’s
peaceful disarmament and opposing any attack or the provision of
assistance and facilities that could be used to threaten its safety and
territorial integrity. But the statement was purely symbolic and has no
binding force whatsoever on the 22 members of the Arab League. Moreover,
Kuwait quit the discussions before the resolution could be put. The truth
is that, like the EU, the Arab world is divided on the issue. Some states
want to put the pressure on Washington to resolve the crisis; others want
to put it on Baghdad. Thus a resolution that contradicts reality — for
in hosting the growing US invasion force, three GCC states are doing
precisely what the statement calls them not to do. It is not the only contradiction. The GCC as a whole has already said
that it will protect Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq; Oman has already
sent forces to Kuwait. The logic of that is if there is a war and Iraq
attacks Kuwait as it has threatened if it itself is attacked, then the GCC
will be dragged in on the same side as the US whether it wants to be or
not. That is every reason for preventing war in the first place, a war
that could be the most momentous since the creation of Israel. This
conflict could result in the very map of the region being redrawn. Never
therefore has there been greater need for Arab unity. Never has there been
greater need for unity of purpose and unity of action. We all know that a date will be found for a summit and that it will
take place. But what is the point of a summit if all it produces is
nothing but the usual hot air? There have been too many of those summits
in the past. Only last month there was the Istanbul summit of Iraqi
front-line states; all it managed to do was echo the demand already heard
everywhere else — that Iraq cooperate with the arms inspectors. Perhaps
those involved did not consider it a waste of time, but many others did. Next week’s Arab Summit needs to be one that will make a difference.
If that cannot be done then it would be better if the meeting were
shelved. What must not happen is yet another symbolic statement. It would
be more than useless, it would be dangerous. It would demonstrate Arab
disunity for all the world to see. Others, not just enemies like the
Israelis, would exploit that to the full. The summit must be a strong summit. The Arabs must demonstrate unity of
purpose. Iraq is an Arab issue. They cannot afford to say that, like the
Europeans, they are divided on the issue. The world ridiculed the
Europeans when they failed to face up to the crises in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The Arabs will face the same ridicule if they act with similar
indecisiveness now. They can make a difference. They can, for example, say that Saddam
Hussein must go, as well as demanding that arms inspectors be given more
time. It would certainly pile the pressure on Iraq for change. It is true
that this would be interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, but that
argument is meaningless now. The demand that Iraq disarm is also
interference in its affairs but everyone, Arab governments included, is
doing it.
-
The Siege of Nablus
Anne Gwynne writes from Nablus,
Occupied Palestine Al-Jazeerah, 2/18/03 -
“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place
beneath.” Shakespeare, The
Merchant of Venice I am numb with anger at what has happened this past week. First, Hassan Algoul, an eight-year-old boy was murdered by the Israelis in Qalqilya on Tuesday and, in retaliation for this outrage, fighters attacked the most dreaded checkpoint in Nablus where many murders have taken place. They succeeded in killing two Israelis at least, and wounding several more, but at the cost of their own lives. One I knew. Then, the next night a gang of eight soldiers burst into the Khilfeh house (of the Tel Aviv Martyr, Baraq); they trashed everything and took away Mohamed Khilfeh, Baraq’s brother, in punishment. They did not use violence at that time because my friend Margarethe from Sweden was with him, but they hurt her and I don't know what they did to Mohamed after… The next night Israeli soldiers burst into a family home in the city and brutally murdered the father of a young family, who had to watch the killing. I spoke with the pathologist who carried out the autopsy, and he described how the young man had more than 60 wounds to his body – everywhere – head, torso, extremities, back and front. Bullets had entered his body from the back and exited through the front. There were many knife wounds - I saw the x-rays and photographs. Before he was killed, they cut off the forefinger of his right hand with which, in the Islamic faith, he must make a sign to accompany his last declaration before he dies. However, in Islam, the signs are unimportant – it is what is in the heart that counts, so here again, they just didn’t get it. There were many knife slashes on the body, and many shrapnel wounds. The frenzied attack was completed by the firing of many nasty little objects about 5 cm long, with a shaft, a tail fin, and a ball of sharp steel needles on the entry end which lodges in the body, causing massive bleeding and being impossible to remove without fatal damage. After he was dead they had cut his feet from toes to calf, and had slashed his back open along its length, both with a very sharp knife. I will see this pathologist again next week, when he will arrange for me to have the photographs, and those of many other murder victims. With the permission of the families, we will put them on the internet. Photographs such as those of Rami abu Bakri - you remember the 16 year old who was killed in the Balata Camp about a month ago for throwing a stone? “He had no head” shuddered the doctor. And when our ambulance scraped his remains up he had no rib-cage either, and his heart was lying, clearly visible, in the empty chest cavity. Like Omar Alloush, the 16-year old from Askar Camp who is still with a chest drain, and pain which makes him want to die, from the huge hole in his chest and lung caused by the shell he received through his right shoulder - for throwing a stone. Like the two victims of the Zawatta Murders a couple of weeks ago, who were blown to pieces by shells and then shot with multiple bullets after death just to make a point. Perhaps the sight of their organs hanging out of their shattered bodies will wake up people to what is happening here. How many pictures will it take to make a change? Or the last three murders in the camps where, amongst others, a boy was killed by a tank for having a stone in his hand. The Raffidia hospital has thousands of these photographs and, in time we will post many of them. I wish I had photographs of the shattered families whose uncles, cousins, brothers and husbands have been kidnapped this week for no reason other than that they are alive. On Tuesday night Hussein Khalili’s young brother, Sami, ate dinner at our flat and left at about 1.00 am. Two hours later he was in prison - for absolutely no reason other than he is the son of Abu Hussein who was the Fatah leader here in the First Intifada. They also kidnapped two of Hussein’s uncles. Last night we waited all night for them to come for Hussein - he is, after all, one of those people the lunatic Israelis hate most - a peace activist. They did not come then, but at 5.00pm today they took him. They also took a cousin, not the one they were looking for - they could not find him - but, what the hell, any cousin will do. Operations on a large scale have been carried out in Tulkarem and in Balata last night, and no doubt there will be many more. It is extremely dangerous here now – Susan, a US activist, was shot at within a centimetre of her forehead, the bullets passing only a centimetre above her head as a warning. Every day internationals are shot at at checkpoints. Every day crazed Jewish-Israeli soldiers snarl out the threat “I want to kill you NOW” to internationals. It is worse every day as the grip of the siege tightens. This is how the Nazi Siege of Stalingrad started. Why is this allowed to go on? I will write more about the sinister effect of the total closure of Nablus tomorrow. Despite suffering unimaginably, the people of Nablus carry on their daily lives in as normal a way as possible. We have had a week-long New Year Eid Celebration with much visiting, feasting, laughter and love. Unfortunately, the Israelis continued their killing and kidnapping spree through the holiday. Among the victims were Mohammad Shahlan, father of three, killed by a shot to the chest in the Ala’ayn Refugee Camp (they were looking for someone else, but killed Mohammad anyway); Arif B’Shart, 13 years old, killed in Tamoun Village; and 40 year-old Isma abu Heja, who has cancer in the brain and was arrested in Jenin simply because her husband is a bearded Muslim. They have sentenced Isma to six months preventative detention - she has a malignant tumour and may not survive this. There are now 13, 000 people illegally detained in Israel. I have not met one man without a bullet, knife or shattered bone wound in the city of Nablus. Sami Khalili is the only boy I met who had not been in the prison - well now that is remedied. I so much wish that more people would come
here and experience a life that only Nablus can offer - such a rich, close
and loving community which gives every visitor riches beyond compare.
Anne Gwynne is working with the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees in Nablus
-
Time for Iraq to act
By Firas
Al-Atraqchi,
YellowTimes.org Al-Jazeerah,
2/18/03 -
Friday's U.N. Security Council briefing by UNMOVIC head Blix and IAEA head Al-Baradei allowed the world a short reprieve from talk of war. The condemning report and evidence the U.S. and U.K. delegations had been hoping for from the inspectors never materialized and a new U.N. resolution draft authorizing war was called off for the interim. Headlines in
the U.S. and Canada screamed that the Bush administration had suffered a
setback in its bid to persuade world powers to endorse military action
against Iraq. Both Blix and Baradei admitted that Iraq had not fully
cooperated yet, but that they had seen evidence that Iraq was undertaking an
active role and willingness to disarm and cooperate with the inspectors. The inspectors' report fueled French, German, Chinese, Russian and Syrian efforts to halt the rush for war. In an increasingly heated debate within U.N. Security Council chambers, the U.S. position appeared to be taking a beating. Meanwhile, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein issued a decree banning and outlawing any import or domestic development of weapons of mass destruction. "All ministries should implement this decree and take whatever measures are necessary to punish people who do not adhere to it," the decree read. Iraq also agreed on Friday to host a South African nuclear disarmament delegation expected to instruct Iraqi specialists on how to disarm effectively and seamlessly. South African President Thabo Mbeki said the experts' efforts to dismantle apartheid-era nuclear weapons had resulted in South Africa becoming an international example in disarmament. Mbeki hoped Iraq would make good use of South Africa's experience. On Saturday, ten million people worldwide took to the streets to protest the rush to war and to plead with world leaders to allow the inspectors more time to do their mandated tasks. "I welcome you to London where we have the largest demonstration in 2000 years of British history," London Mayor Ken Livingstone told nearly one million demonstrators. In Hollywood, actor Martin Sheen told a CNN crew, "I'm just moved and so proud to be an American." He was joined by director-producer Rob Reiner and actress Angelica Houston among other cinema luminaries, all protesting against the rush to war. The outpouring of dissent against war forced U.S. President George Bush to issue a statement that he believed war was a last option and that the president stood for peace and democracy. The onus was on Saddam, the statement concluded. Has a war been averted? Hardly. It is the position of this author, who has long studied Iraqi foreign policy, that the time is ripe for Iraq to come forward and be proactive in the current inspections tour. All too often, Iraq has shied away from the responsibility it could have met, and taken measures which have proven counterproductive. With public opinion so strongly and passionately against a rush to war (a Saturday New York Times poll reveals that 59 percent of the American people want more time to be given to the inspectors), it is Iraq that must take the next step. Iraq must continue to encourage and actively push Iraqi scientists to submit to U.N. interviews. Iraq must increase its efforts to locate any and all documents that can help the U.N. inspectors. Iraq must work with the South African delegation and implement whatever advice it receives. Iraq must be willing to destroy arms that are considered illicit. It is understandable that Iraq may be reluctant to fully disarm. However, that is not to say that such retained arms will be used against the United States. Mainstream North American media is guilty of never informing the public that Iraq is located in a belligerent neighborhood. To the east, Iraq must contend with its one-time arch foe Iran. To the northwest, Iraq is faced with a Turkish military that will not tolerate an autonomous Kurdish enclave and has since 1918 been eyeing the oil-rich regions of Mosul and the Nineveh province. Further west, Iraq's nemesis Israel is armed with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Nevertheless, in a bit to avert war and deny the U.S. and the U.K. any substantial reason to wage war in the Middle East, Iraq must act. Although inspections during the 1990s did prove fruitful, they were tainted by Iraqi efforts to hide armaments and dissuade inspections. The current political environment means that Iraq can no longer do so. [Firas Al-Atraqchi, B.Sc (Physics), M.A. (Journalism and Communications), is a Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues, oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry.] Firas Al-Atraqchi encourages your comments: fatraqchi@YellowTimes.org
THE United States of
America is paying the price for its imperial ambitions and as the war
juggernaut proceeds apace, the post-Cold War structure of Europe and the
world is being punctured as never before. Protesters against launching a
war on Iraq made their voices heard around the world, including in
America, on Saturday on a scale reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam war
protests. But American war planning remains uninterrupted because the
United States cannot withdraw close to 200,000 troops from the region
without winning a war against a prone enemy.
There is a method in this madness
because the American establishment ژlite priming President George
Bush views President Saddam Hussein as the most inviting target to prove
its projection of America as the seat of the Second Roman Empire. What
better way of projecting unsurpassed power than in toppling a person
suitably demonised by US propaganda in order to control a country with
the world's second largest reserves of oil and begin reordering the
region and raise Israel to an even higher pedestal in the American
strategic scheme? Palestinians will have nowhere to hide. But the Bush administration is
discovering that imperial ambitions do not come cheaply and since Bush
has chosen to disregard one of his wiser predecessors' warning of
speaking softly and carrying a big stick, the costs mount even higher.
Take the historic meeting of the UN Security Council, with the fencing
match between the US and the other veto-bearing powers. Bush went to the
UN reluctantly to seek legitimacy for his unilateralist aims. Then the logic of the UN took over,
embracing the US for two long months before delivering resolution 1441.
UN inspectors went to Iraq and reported back twice, but US Secretary of
State Colin Powell's pyrotechnical display of 'evidence' against Iraq
failed to impress, and he was decisively worsted by France in last
week's debate. Despite US arm-twisting, Hans Blix, the chief weapons
inspector, refused to sign on the dotted line. In a refrain that is
beginning to pall through repetition, Bush and his officials say time is
running out. The all-important question is: For whom? The answer is simple. US troops and
equipment cannot remain poised to attack Iraq indefinitely, with dollar
costs mounting by the day and the hot weather in the desert making
fighting beyond March all but impossible. On the other hand, Bush's
opponents, in the UN Security Council and outside it, have all the time
in the world as public protests around the world grow and the Bush
administration is unable to answer the central question: Is the US and
the world in imminent danger of an attack by Iraq? The Bush administration desperately
needs a second resolution in the UN Security Council specifically
authorising the use of force against Iraq as political cover for its
operations. Threatening the United Nations with irrelevance if it does
not do America's bidding has not worked thus far. The magic number 1441
is a resolution of many hues and has America in its coils. It is very
well for Bush to declare that he will go it alone with a 'coalition of
the willing' if necessary, quite another to advertise his unilateralist
approach by disregarding the United Nations. How did the Bush administration get
it so wrong in the diplomatic field? Partly, it is hubris; partly,
miscalculation. It was logical for the dominant elements in the Bush
administration to spell out their theme of supremacy by declaring the
goal of maintaining military superiority over any country or group of
nations far into the indefinite future. In order to do so, the US
arrogated to itself the right of 'pre-emptive' and preventive attacks on
any sovereign nation on the basis of self-assessed threats to its
interests. Domestically, Bush sought to justify the new imperial dictum
by wrapping himself up in Stars and Stripes to counter the September 11
threat. The arrogance of power was on full
display as the world watched the degree to which Bush had appropriated
the campaign against terrorism to implement his imperial vision in Iraq.
The world's sympathy for America following the September 11 attacks
evaporated. France, together with Russia and Germany, responded by
entangling the Bush administration in the fine print of a resolution.
Bush has since then been seeking to disentangle himself from 1441, a
number that has begun to have the same resonance in the Bush camp as
September 11. Germany has had its own compulsions
in opposing an Iraq war. Chancellor Gerhard Schrڑder used it to
win his re-election, but his country's attitude is also governed by an
abhorrence of war and its impact on civilian lives based on World War II
experience. For France, as to a more limited extent for Russia, it has
been a question of seeking to dent America's unilateralist course in a
UN setting more to its advantage. The joint Franco-German approach to
the Iraq issue in the European Union was a stark contrast to Tony
Blair's full-throated support for Bush and he avenged his isolation by
getting some of the other members, such as Spain and Italy, to the
American side. The former Communist nations of the East and prospective
EU members signed on for America, wooing as they are US power and money. The EU's projection of a common
foreign and security policy lies in ruins, but there was a new twist to
Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, with France and Belgium,
together with Germany, resisting an American request for the
organisation's support for Turkey. It was, they suggested, premature
because it would commit Nato to a war in Iraq even before Blix had
reported for the second time. Supporting Turkey, a Nato member, was not
the issue. The purpose was to moderate America in its headlong rush to
war. Bush and his team have had little
patience with Nato in the new American imperium. They have been
disdainful of the European Nato members' military capabilities and are
now seeking to pit the new former Communist members against the more
independent-minded old members. As the American operations in
Afghanistan have shown, the Bush administration has the rather lowly
role for most Nato members of cleaning up the mess in a post-military
operation phase. In Washington's view, the United Nations belongs to the
same category. Signs of a growing anti-war movement in the US and around
the world are a danger signal to the Bush administration. Bush will
interpret it the only way he can: it is better to go to war sooner,
rather than later.
-
An
Israeli limited agenda in the London talks
-
U.S.
should pay heed to sound French plea
-
Saddam is not alone in having to act
quickly
The Daily Star, 2/18/03
-
The combination of massive public protests in
the West, a relatively positive report from UN weapons inspectors, and the
Franco-German initiative seems to have at least delayed the onset of a US-led
war against Iraq. One thing that all these factors have in common is they
amounted to calls to “give peace a chance” by allowing the inspection
process to run its course. The effect has been widely interpreted as a message
to Washington that it should hold off on its invasion plans. There are other
parties, however, that must also treat the opening window as an opportunity to
do more than mark time: Baghdad has to heed the same call as Washington by
cooperating unreservedly with the inspectors; and Arab regimes in general
must, at long last, throw themselves into reform.
-
The abandonment of Iraq and the death of
unity
By Abdelmalik Salman, The
Daily Star, 2/18/03
-
Perhaps the most ominous aspect of the Iraq
crisis is the way the Arabs have been gradually dropping their resistance to
America’s war plans, and resigning themselves to the idea that a US invasion
of Iraq is preordained fate, which they can do nothing to prevent or avoid.
Simultaneously, and to justify this conduct, a number of Arab governments have
been aiding and abetting America’s attempts to blame its war on the Iraqi
regime, on grounds that it has failed to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
or disarm. Abdelmalik Salman is an Egyptian political analyst who heads the Studies and Research Department at the Bahrain daily Akhbar al-Khaleej.
-
Iranian dissident is war’s first casualty
By Ali Nourizadeh
The Daily Star, 2/18/03
-
Although it has been more than 24 centuries
since Alexander the Great invaded Persepolis, Iranians still remember two of
their heroes of that era: Aryo-Barzan, the brave Persian commander who fought
to the death at the head of his Khaledoon Brigade but failed to check
Alexander’s advance after 48 days of fighting; and a local village headman
who betrayed his homeland by guiding the invading Macedonians through the
mountains to the rear of Aryo-Barzan’s lines. That was how Alexander managed
to defeat the Iranians and subjugate the Pars Empire. Ali Nourizadeh, one-time political editor of the Tehran daily Ettelaat, is an Iranian researcher at the London-based Center for Arab-Iranian Studies and the editor of its Arabic-language newsletter Al-Mujes an-Iran.
The failure of the Arab states to agree a date
for an emergency summit on Iraq is seen in the press as confirmation of a
deepening split within Arab ranks over what to do about a war no one wants but
many consider unavoidable.
-
Positions clarify as the stakes rise By Rosemary Hollis Jordan Times, 2/18/03
- A DRAMATIC meeting at the UN Security Council, with Hans Blix giving a report which undermined the US case against Iraq, followed by a day of demonstrations against war in hundreds of cities around the world, have raised the stakes but not necessarily averted military action. As the temperature rises in key international fora, from the European Union, to NATO, to the Security Council, some clarity about the contending arguments for and against is at last emerging. Faced with a million people massing in the streets of London, among them veteran protesters and novices, Christians and Muslims, communists and parliamentarians, Labour and Liberal Democrats, the British prime minister changed his line on Iraq. At a speech delivered with passion to the Labour Party in Scotland, Tony Blair put the case for regime change in Baghdad in the interests of the Iraqi people. He knows and acknowledged that the legal case for military action has to rest on the issue before the Security Council, namely Iraqi compliance with Resolution 1441 on disarmament. However, he said, there will be a blood price for the continuance of Saddam Hussein in power, in human lives lost and torture inflicted in Iraq itself. Blair is back on the ground he championed in the run up to military action in Kosovo and Afghanistan, saving people from brutal regimes. In his eloquent and moving speech to the Security Council, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin put the case against war also on humanitarian grounds. In a dig at the Americans, whose defence secretary had dismissed France, along with Germany, as “old Europe”, de Villepin said he spoke for an old country conscious from its history of the horrors of war. In so doing, de Villepin moved the argument beyond the issue of Iraqi compliance and alleged deception to the desirability of finding a way to avoid war, if possible, for fear of the consequences. He painted a spectre of human suffering and regional instability unleashed by war. In response, and discarding his set speech, US Secretary of State Colin Powell also spoke with force. But he challenged the Security Council to consider what serious consequences should await Saddam if, as Powell believes, he is playing games with the UN rather than meeting its demands. The arguments now on the table are seemingly irreconcilable. Blair says war can rescue the Iraqi people from their suffering. De Villepin says the humanitarian and unintended consequences of war are too awful to risk if the case is not compelling on the arms issue. Powell says Iraq is deceiving the UN so war has to be contemplated. Yet, none of these three positions can stand in isolation. As the French concede, the inspections have only worked thus far because of the threat of war provided by the United States. Take that away and Iraq is off the hook. The Americans cannot call for action in the name of upholding UN authority if the majority of the Security Council is unconvinced that the Iraqis are indeed playing tricks or, if so, that their subterfuge is sufficient to warrant war. The British cannot deliver a better future for the Iraqis on the back of a US assault alone. The seriousness of this last contention became clear only recently. Members of the Iraqi opposition meeting in Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that they have been informed by US officials that a war will be followed by a US military administration working in coordination with existing Baath Party and army cadres. This may be a more efficient formula for running post-Saddam Iraq than a coalition of fractious opposition groups distrusted by the current civilian and military establishment. However, hopes of democracy and avoidance of US imperialism will be dashed. Pragmatists in the US administration need to weigh the benefits of going it alone, without the encumbrance of UN allies or Iraqi opposition groups, against the costs of increased anti-Americanism among their allies and across the Middle East — if they flout international law, try to run Iraq by military fiat and presumably take a hand in energy development. They need also to calculate how they are going to cater and pay for the huge humanitarian consequences of war without UN assistance. The way forward now could be for the French to oblige Powell with a detailed examination of what “serious consequences” could actually mean. They could engage the US administration on their war plans and challenge them to explain how they intend to limit civilian casualties, provide emergency food and health care, and justify US military rule the day after. In return, the French could be challenged to explain how they expect to keep up the pressure on Baghdad to complete the inspections and disarmament process. The task of the British, and one dear to Blair's heart, could be to try once more to extract a clearer undertaking from Washington to do something concrete about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such an effort would have the backing of the Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi governments and the endorsement of the Arab League. With this, the US international image could improve immensely. To reconcile all the positions at the UN Security Council, a vision could be articulated for Iraqi and regional development and conflict resolution in the aftermath of the current crisis. The Iraqi regime could even be told that more than just disarmament, help is required. Political reform is also needed and the UN and United States could help if Baghdad would agree to effect its own, internal, “regime change”. This may sound like a chimera, but serious engagement between all the key parties involved in handling the crisis, which is threatening international legality, the Western alliance and Middle Eastern stability as well as the future of Iraq, could open more options. The alternative is a US war for regime change which will result in all the hostility and costs that every imperial adventure has encountered through history, if not worse in this age of transnational terrorism.
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. |