 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Oct. - 3 Nov. 1999 Issue No. 453 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 28 Oct. - 3 Nov. 1999 Issue No. 453
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Study Special Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Predictable response
By Sherine BahaaIn a press conference last Thursday British Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon appeared as keen to underline the strength of the relationship between his country and Egypt as he was to defend US and British air patrols over Iraq's northern and southern no-fly-zones. His four-day visit, though, was mainly to attend the Bright Star multi-national military exercises in the Western Desert.
"This visit is an indication of the strong relationship between the United Kingdom and Egypt; a relationship that has been tangibly demonstrated with operation Bright Star," was how Hoon opened his press conference.
Be this as it may Hoon, who was promoted to the defence ministry following a stint in the Foreign Office with responsibility for Middle Eastern affairs, was unable to dodge thorny questions over British responsibility for the removal of land mines in the Western Desert. British resources, the minister responded, were limited. "We all have problems arising out of the events of the second World War and the conflicts that have taken place since then," he said.
Britain, a leading international campaigner in the fight to impose an international ban on land mines, has given Egypt maps and $1 million to help with the massive clean-up operation. But the sum is widely regarded as inadequate for the task of clearing some 18 million unexploded mines in the Western Desert. Many Egyptian observers, in any case, believe that those countries -- Britain, Germany and Italy -- responsible for the placing of the mines should assume responsibility for their removal rather than donating patently inadequate funds for a clean-up operation.
Continuing the hawkish position that characterised his time at the foreign office, Hoon sought to argue that British foreign policy, particularly towards Iraq, reflected an international consensus.
"Different people have different opinions," he insisted, but this, surprisingly enough, "does not lead to different conclusions".
For Hoon the Arab consensus that Iraqis have suffered enough is worthy of little beyond a hearing. "We listen very carefully to their [Arabs] views, as we do to any of our friends in the world. But it makes no difference," said Hoon, defending British and US air patrols over the Iraq's northern and southern no-fly-zones.
"Our pilots are trying to protect people in Iraq. We do not want to bomb anybody, we do not want to attack anybody," claimed Hoon, despite recent and widely publicised instances of US and British attacks resulting in civilian casualties.
Hoon argued that enforcement of the zones is a humanitarian necessity. "It is perfectly acceptable for the international community in a situation of humanitarian necessity to protect people, and that is precisely why the no-fly-zones were established."
The sole cause of the Iraqi people's suffering, asserted Hoon, is the Iraqi president. "There is every prospect of a change if Saddam Hussein takes the opportunity that the international community is providing," he said. "There is a set out in that resolution which he could agree to tomorrow. This will fundamentally change the way with which we deal with Iraq... We believe that the Iraqi people would be a good deal better off if they were led by someone better than Saddam Hussein."
That someone, Hoon appeared to imply, is likely to be drawn from the Iraqi opposition groups, mostly based in London.
"We have regular meetings with members of the Iraqi opposition who pledged to bring democracy in Iraq. We think this would be the best solution for the problem that Iraq faces both domestically and internationally," declared Britain's defence chief. Quite how the disunited Iraqi opposition are going to bring democracy to a nation exhausted by eight years of sanctions was a question Hoon chose not to address.
So is the eventual, non-specified emergence of democracy in Iraq merely a pretence for daily skirmishes over Iraq's no-fly-zones? The inevitable comparison was bound to be made at the conference. Israeli forces are totally free to confiscate more land each day, build whatever number of settlements on Palestinian territory with a total disregard for peace treaties, and still there is no international reaction. Hoon's response was, unfortunately, just as inevitable: "I cannot see the comparison. Israel is a democracy with a recently elected government committed to the peace process. What is important is to develop policies in relation to totalitarian regimes like that of Saddam Hussein."
