11 - 17 October 2001
Issue No.555
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 11 - 17 October 2001 Issue No.555 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Dynamics of disarray
Arab and Muslim states have not formulated a collective stance on the US-led air strikes against Afghanistan -- or their aftermath. Dina Ezzat reports
The difference in views within the Muslim world regarding the US-led strikes against Afghanistan is obvious. Some states clearly oppose the attacks and are demanding their immediate halt; Iran is an obvious example. Others support and even actively facilitate the strikes; Turkey springs to mind. The same, more or less, goes for the Arab world: Egypt supports what it terms "the US measures against terrorism;" Palestine, its President Yasser Arafat said yesterday, "expresses deep solidarity with US President Bush... and is willing to offer its limited resources as part of the international war against terrorism;" Iraq, for its part, refers to the strikes as "treacherous aggression."
Amr Moussa
In light of these rifts, the meeting of foreign ministers from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that opened yesterday in Qatar (the current OIC chair) could only witness squabbles over what the Muslim world should, or even can, do in the coming days and weeks.
Beyond support for an initiative of the emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa, to establish a fund for the Afghan people (launched with a $10 million donation from Bin Khalifa), the organisation, of which Afghanistan is one of the 50-odd members, was sharply divided. Delegations could not agree on such fundamental issues as whether the Muslim world should condone US efforts to overthrow the Taliban, back the Northern Alliance and introduce a new government.
This rift also ran through the Arab countries, which are all members of the OIC. Arab foreign ministers meeting in Doha on the eve of the OIC gathering agreed on many things, including the need to condemn both terrorism and attempts to associate either Islam or legitimate Palestinian resistance with terrorism. They also backed Arab League Secretary- General Amr Moussa's proposal to establish a commission to fight the defamation of Islam. Yet the Arab ministers, who were convening according to a schedule established before the strikes on Afghanistan began, failed to produce a unified stance on the strikes themselves. Speaking before and after the meeting, most merely iterated the independent views of their respective states; and the Arab states, for the most part, neither really condone nor really support the attacks.
According to informed diplomatic sources, the Arabs could not even agree on how to react to potential US strikes on Arab targets launched under the banner of war against terrorism. Sources told Al-Ahram Weekly that some of the Arab countries seemed to accept such an eventuality.
"It seems that all possibilities are open now, but we warn against the very grave consequences of launching attacks against Arab states," commented Moussa, who also insisted that targeting Arab states now or, as some suggest, at a later date, will be a cause of grave instability, regionally and internationally. "There is a high level of frustration in the Arab world. There is a rejection of the policy of double standards. There is frustration resulting from increasing Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people. This should be addressed," Moussa said.
Arab diplomatic sources, however, concede that an Arab country may eventually be subjected to the US-led strikes that make up Operation Enduring Freedom. The guess list includes Lebanon, where Hizbullah has strongly denounced the attacks against Afghanistan, and Yemen, in retaliation for what the US views as a lack of cooperation by the local authorities in investigations of the attack on the USS Cole. It may even include Sudan, where Osama Bin Laden is said to have resided for years and where he still maintains good contacts. In the words of one senior Arab diplomat, however, "these are all unlikely guesses." His argument is that attacking Lebanon would be tantamount to pouring oil on the fire at the Israeli borders; attacking Yemen would undermine the operations of a major US oil company; and attacking Sudan will encourage the Islamist trends that the government has subdued to a large extent.
Iraq, however, is a more likely victim. "Strikes could be conducted later, against targets in the north and south, which are subject to US-UK strikes anyway in the course of enforcing US-imposed no-fly zones," commented one informed Arab diplomat. But according to Western and Arab sources alike, any potential attacks on Iraq will be limited in scope and intensity. Strikes, if they do occur, will be highly unlikely to involve any ground operations as in Afghanistan. "The US, and perhaps even the entire international community, is not yet ready to deal with a massive state of instability in Iraq. There is no resolve yet to remove Saddam Hussein," commented one Western diplomat.
Some international humanitarian aid workers, on the other hand, tell the Weekly they have sensed instability following suggestions in the US that strikes may expand from Afghanistan to include Iraq. "We hope that the scope of military operation will not be expanded... We have to think of the humanitarian consequences," commented Bernard Pferffele, head of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Cairo. The ICRC has maintained a large presence in Iraq during the past years and is working with a budget of 24 million Swiss Francs (over $10 million). "Whatever happens, we will be there," said Pferffele.
For their part, Iraqi officials seem aware that a strike against Iraq may be imminent, particularly after Washington leapt to contradict King Abdullah of Jordan, the current chair of the Arab Summit, who said Washington had assured him the Arab states would not be targeted as part of the US war against terrorism. "We are at the brink of a major war against the Islamic states and the Muslim people. There are threats against other Muslim states," said Nagui Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister. He added: "If the US and its British ally want to widen attacks on Iraq by citing terrorism, that would only be to settle old scores." Iraqi and other Arab officials, however, hope the US is aware of the instability that could ensue if Washington decides to expand Operation Enduring Freedom. In the words of one Arab diplomat: "Let us hope that Washington is only carrying out its normal campaign of intimidation."
© 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