4 - 10 October 2001
Issue No.554
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 4 - 10 October 2001 Issue No.554 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
It's up to us
Things will get worse before they get better, writes Mohamed Hakki*
The US -- indeed, the world -- seems to have entered a dark tunnel. No one knows just what the imminent war will be like, or even what the United States is planning. We hear of massive troop movements around Afghanistan. The most powerful aircraft carriers, supersonic bombers, state-of-the-art stealth technology are being deployed; but the enemy is not defined very clearly.
One day, it is Osama Bin Laden, the fugitive dissident living in a cave in the southern hills of Afghanistan. The next, the Taliban fighters are playing hide-and-seek with the US. The media is painting the larger-than-life portrait of a master strategist who hatched the most diabolical plan of destruction in modern times. The US administration has declared him an outlaw, and placed a $25 million bounty upon his head.
Maybe Bin Laden is what he is cracked up to be; we don't know, because we have yet to see a shred of proof. If he is, he must be the cleverest author of a brainwashing operation in history, having persuaded thousands of highly educated young men to join a network of concentric cells that extend across Europe and the Middle East, all the way to Afghanistan. Is this logically possible? Besides, are the Taliban not the very same people President Ronald Reagan praised in 1984 as the best modern freedom fighters in the world?
Thus far, it would appear that rational thinking has prevailed. The tone of the administration has changed since the immediate aftermath of the attacks. President Bush and his aides are now asking the country to be patient. He has received the greatest support possible, both domestically and abroad; countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, and many others, who displayed a lukewarm attitude at best to the Bush administration, are coming around and supporting the battle against terrorism. Even Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi announced he had donated money to the families of the victims. The US has not seen such an outpouring of sympathy and support for many years.
A number of sober writers are now advising that the US will also need Iran in the new coalition. Even the Sudan, which has long been a victim of right-wing Christian-Zionist propaganda, is already sharing its "substantial intelligence" with the US. It is not surprising, then that many commentators view this tragedy as "reshaping the globe." It is creating new alliances and a new global picture, which will be with us for some time.
Even US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is emerging as a voice of reason and wisdom. The right-wing members of what has come to be known in Washington as the war party tried to portray him as the 200-pound gorilla who will eclipse Colin Powell, but Rumsfeld is now saying there will not be any D-Day as such; the American response will develop in a measured way.
Arab Americans are an integral part of the American patchwork. They are just as horrified and angered as other Americans. They, too, are wondering about the goals, objectives, and ultimate end of this unprecedented war. Because it is more ambiguous and more shadowy than any of its predecessors, they fear it could boomerang against them at some future time. After all, that is what happened to Japanese- Americans during the Second World War. Americans of Arab origin also worry about what may happen to their Arab homelands if thousands of Muslim civilians are killed in Afghanistan. They think Arab societies could be pushed to a very delicate pass. If the US government casts its net too wide, and classifies any far-flung organisation as the enemy, it may rend the very fabric of some societies asunder.
President Bush is well aware of this danger. He has met with a number of Arab-American and Muslim leaders both in the White House and in the largest mosque in the Washington, DC area; he also met with a number of Arab leaders at the White House. He has, in his words, been "working the phones" with several Arab leaders, and has set the tone for his administration in his address to the joint session of Congress, elevating domestic dialogue and warning against any persecution of or hostility toward American Arabs or Muslims. Many others in his administration have followed suit: Secretaries Powell, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft have all given the same counsel.
Two major concerns continue to plague Arab Americans, however. They share the first with the rest of the population: that is, the growing sensitivity toward any erosion of civil liberties. Several new laws being issued to confront any future possibility of terrorism have already begun to encroach upon civil liberties. Many writers of good will have warned against this trend. Even Maureen Dowd, who chose the bizarre title for her column "We love the liberties they hate" has written: "At a time when Americans are willing to vest extraordinary power in the president, to trust him with life and death decisions, to give him considerable leeway in curbing civil liberties, and spending billions, this is a time when questions and debate are what patriotism demands. Even the most high minded government is not infallible."
Truly frightening, however, is the intensity of the ultra-patriotic trend, the exaggerated flag- waving, and the emphasis on revenge rather than justice. The new laws that allow the intelligence apparatus of the United States to assassinate not only Osama Bin Laden but any other leader place America on the same level of the Likud government of Israel. Previous presidential edicts banning assassination of foreign leaders have now been dropped. Many people are now concerned that this trend is making dissent impossible and presenting pacifists as traitors.
The other concern is a marked tendency to gloss over Israel's responsibility for this most recent act of terror. All its supporters are making a concerted effort to distance it from any discussion about what happened in New York. Chief among Israel's defenders is someone who long posed as the "chief mediator" between the Palestinians and Israel. All of a sudden, this so- called neutral expert appears on every TV channel to propagate his visceral hatred of Arabs and Muslims. He is none other than Dennis Ross.
The debate continues yet. It is larger than Ross and Co; it is larger than Israel's closet supporters or Likudniks in the administration like Paul Wolfowitz, the under-secretary of defence, who advocated "ending" states that harbour terrorists, or like his guru Richard Perl, now at the American Enterprise Institute, who advocated wiping out Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and the Sudan.
On the other hand, there are dozens of thoughtful writers and ordinary citizens speaking on radio and television shows, searching for answers, and valiantly trying to balance the writings of pro-Israeli commentators. Some are even touching on the question of the way Americans see themselves, and the way they are seen abroad. Anthony Lewis, for instance, has commented: "As Americans, we passionately believe that we are a human people. We showed that in restoring wounded economies abroad after World War II, even those of our enemies, Germany and Japan. In due course, I think we must make an effort of similar scale to relieve the poverty and misery that are seedbeds for terror in the Middle East." Some are realising that in Europe, Asia, and Africa (let alone the Middle East), America's foreign policy causes it to be perceived as a bully. Some, however, continue to blame "traditional societies," claiming that these societies are troubled by outside influences, forces like social mobility and cosmopolitan thinking that can undermine local authorities or that some Iranians have described as Westoxification.
There are also courageous writers like social columnist Judy Mann, who has rarely ever touched upon political subjects, yet who wrote recently: "It is time to do some painful thinking." She said: "If you still want to think hard about events that have so wounded our land, think about the elephant in the parlor: America's policy vis-à-vis Israel, and Israel's fruitless attempts to put down the Palestinian uprising. Israel is fighting its war with American gunships, and paying for it with American money. Is it any wonder the Arab world hates us?"
Another writer, Kevin Danaher, co-founder of Global Exchange, an international human rights organisation, says: "If we define the violence of September 11th as an act of war, it couches the issues in nationalist sentiment and separates us from the people of other nations. If we define it as a crime against humanity, it holds the potential for uniting humankind against the scourge of terrorism." He then asks: "Do we want to be seen by the world as a violent bully, mainly concerned with consuming a disproportionate share of the world's resources, or do we want to be seen as a global promoter of even handed justice?"
It is no wonder, then, that Jewish Americans fear an anti-Israel backlash over the attacks. Some are already preempting that possibility; a publication called USA Jewish came out on 28 September stating: "We have seen the enemy, and he is Colin Powell."
The challenge facing all of us in America and the Middle East is to look beyond the current crisis, which will get worse before it gets better. Both sides need a new paradigm. We need to look within ourselves, and to make historical compromises. The crisis can go either way. It is in our hands to turn a catastrophe into an opportunity.
* The writer is a Washington-based veteran Egyptian journalist and political analyst.
© 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