20 - 26 September 2001
Issue No.552
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 20 - 26 September 2001 Issue No.552 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Time for respect
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa argues that, once recovered from its sorrow, the US should reconsider aspects of its foreign policy. He spoke to Dina Ezzat
Since the events of 11 September there have been more questions than answers. A big question is how the attacks on the US will affect the Middle East.
It is only normal that there are more questions than answers. Events of this magnitude inevitably lead to confusion and shock.
The Americans are conducting a thorough investigation. But so far, nobody knows for sure who carried out these attacks, or why. Nobody knows the kind of impact that these attacks will have. It is only to be expected that such tragic events will have many repercussions. But as yet, we cannot know what the scope of these repercussions will be. But in any event, I see no need for us to single out the Middle East here.
Perhaps because some commentators have tried to link the Middle East to these attacks? And perhaps because there is a worry that the US will no longer want to pay attention to the Middle East?
Let me say first of all that it is only understandable that the US is currently coping with the aftermath of these appalling attacks. It was a horrendous thing to happen; there are thousands of victims and so much damage. It is an hour of grief and we can only sympathise.
That said, there is actually a benign link and a malign link between the attacks and the Middle East.
What is the malign link?
The malign link is the attempt to link the attacks, or rather the perpetrators, to the Middle East. From the very first instance, the voices of certain lobbies and quarters rushed to accuse Arabs and Muslims. They wanted to convince the world that this crime was the doing of Arab and Muslim nations, despite there being no evidence for such allegations. These defaming voices triggered a hate-campaign against Arab and Muslim nations, and against Arabs and Muslims in the US.
We have warned against this defamation of Arabs and Muslims. Indeed, when I spoke with US Secretary of State Colin Powell a few days ago to express my condolences, I told him that jumping to conclusions can only lead to negative consequences and further complications. And, to be honest, he was of the same opinion.
I must also say that I found Powell very receptive to the need to protect Americans of Arab and Muslim origin from the harassment and hate campaigns that they have unfairly suffered in some parts of the US since 11 September.
What is the benign link?
This has to do with the second part of your question: the US role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is not a direct link, but it is as apparent in the Middle East as in other parts of the world where the US has played a direct political or military role, such as the Balkans.
This is not the right moment to address this issue; that time will be after the US has recovered from its grief and sorrow. But for months, the US has neglected its role as honest broker in the Arab-Israeli peace process. Indeed, for some time, there has been no peace process. Once Washington has coped with its pain, we would very much like to see it resume its role as honest broker in the peace process in the Middle East. To do so, the US will need to reassess its policy and put the peace process back on track.
Anyway, as I have been saying, this is not the time to dwell on changes to US foreign policy. It is a moment of grief and sorrow for the American people and we respect and sympathise with their grief.
The Arab world's reaction was not entirely sympathetic. There was a mixed reaction: sympathy for the victims and their families, but a lack of sympathy for the American administration.
The Arab people do not condone what happened in New York and Washington. That is something that Arab leaders have made very clear. And I am confident that the American people will not believe claims to the contrary.
That said, it would be unrealistic to ignore the overwhelming frustration in the region that comes from the US administration's tendency to support Israeli policy indiscriminately, even during the most glaring cases of blatant Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people, and Israel's outright violation of international law and signed peace agreements.
The past months were particularly frustrating for Arabs, who expected the US to stand firm against Israel's aggression towards Palestinian civilians, especially when it was launched with American weapons.
So are you saying that this might be the moment for the US to reconsider its policy on the Middle East?
I am saying that this is the moment for the US to mourn its victims, find answers to questions directly related to the attacks, consult its friends, consider a careful reaction, and eventually reconsider those elements of its foreign policy that have caused such disappointment around the world.
Indeed, when I talk about opposition to or frustration with some aspects of US foreign policy I am not only referring to the Middle East. I am also referring to the overall state of agitation in other parts of the world. There has been increasing dismay at the US approach towards political, economic and even military issues. This has been clearly demonstrated over the past years, in Seattle, Genoa and, most recently, in Durban.
But since the attacks of 11 September, Israel has intensified its aggression, and, I may even say, terrorism, against the Palestinians...
You may say terrorism. As a matter of fact, the Arab League Council that met earlier this week to review the recent events in the US did refer to Israeli practices against Palestinians as terrorism.
Israel is throwing more oil onto an already burning fire, in a highly volatile situation. Israel should not be left to continue this aggression, unless the world is ready to face the consequences.
Do you think Israeli terrorism could be addressed within the framework of the so-called international coalition against terrorism? And would Arab countries be prepared to join this coalition if Israel were on-board?
Arab countries are willing to join any effort against international terrorism. As for the present situation, we believe that any measure must be taken on the basis of, and thorough proper consultations, and solid evidence, not on mere suspicion alone. Arabs will not hurry to join any move without a clear understanding of its scope and basis. Moreover, any move against international terrorism, which, as Powell said, may not necessarily be military, will have to be premised on evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
If Israel was to participate in any proposed coalition then so many countries will not participate, particularly in view of the fact that Israel is exercising terrorism against Palestinians as has been made amply clear by the escalations of Israeli aggression during the past two days.
Meanwhile, Israel's terrorism against the Palestinian people will have to be dealt with either within this or within some other framework.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page