17 - 23 January 2002
Issue No.569
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 17 - 23 January 2002 Issue No.569 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The jungle's law
Who can hear the voice of reason? Mustafa Kamel El-Sayed* lends an ear
Reflecting on the way of the world as a new year begins, one can only wonder at the extent to which violence has become the rule in the world community. States -- presumably the guardians of order in the world -- practice a good deal of this violence; indeed, states routinely prevent even the United Nations (the global organisation established after the Second World War to uphold justice and the rule of law) from intervening in situations that require precisely its competence, as in Palestine, or use it to legitimate policies dictated by a small group of countries, as evidenced by Security Council resolutions in Iraq and, more recently, Afghanistan.
The events of the last months of 2001 -- the attacks of 11 September and the US's "war against terror" -- demonstrate that the law of the jungle is the fundamental rule governing the international community at present. If we assume that the story of Bin Laden's involvement is true, a small group of people, perhaps frustrated at what they believe to be the profound injustice of US foreign policy in the Middle East, decide to send the US administration a powerful message by striking at the most important symbols of American economic and military power, and causing the death of over 3,000 individuals. Had the situation in the Middle East been governed by international law, perhaps the young people who committed these acts would not have been so desperate that they were eager to sacrifice their lives, and those of thousands of others.
The US reaction was based solely on a logic of force, on "massive retaliation." Instead of searching for those who were directly responsible, it decided to punish the Taliban without offering a shred of evidence that the regime had anything to do with the planning or execution of the attacks. It then launched a war that has caused the Afghan people extreme suffering, and it is continuing to attack Afghanistan contrary to the wishes of the very government it set up.
The minister of defence in the interim Afghan government has called on the US to stop military operations in his country, as there is no evidence that Osama Bin Laden is still there. Yet US troops continue to carry out their military operations and American government spokesmen vehemently deny the reports of Afghan villagers who complain that the strikes are killing and maiming people who have never been involved with the Taliban or Bin Laden. The US president has declared that troops will remain in Afghanistan for an unspecified period. He has not asked the UN Security Council, much less the Afghan people, for an opinion on this matter. Furthermore, US officials including Bush have made it clear that their "war against terror" will continue indefinitely, targeting other countries without consulting the United Nations and without any legal justification.
There is nothing surprising, however, in the US administration's response to events. It has been pursuing a unilateralist policy since Bush's first days in office. It has showed only contempt for crucial international agreements (the international criminal tribunal, Kyoto, the treaty governing traffic in light arms...). Most recently, by declaring that it is no longer bound by the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty of 1972, it has paved the way for a new arms race with other major powers. In our region, the US administration has ignored its commitment to Resolution 242, which calls for Israel's withdrawal from occupied Arab territories, and is blaming the victims for resisting occupation. It is doing nothing at all to remind Israel that it has occupied Palestinian land for far too long, and consolidated its occupation through the construction of colonies and highways that destroy the territorial integrity of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the Golan Heights and the Chebaa Farms in Southern Lebanon.
I feel no inherent hostility for the US. In fact, I have nothing but pleasant recollections of my experience in US institutions, including some of its most prestigious universities, and of my encounters with ordinary Americans. But unfortunately, it is precisely because the US is a role model and a pace-setter that Israel has been so quick to emulate it in the Middle East. I also suspect that certain parties in the Indian subcontinent have been trying to apply the same policies in the recent crisis involving Pakistan. There, however, Asian wisdom seems to have prevailed, and the two countries withdrew from the brink of a war that would have been a total loss for both, given their economic and social situation.
In 1991, George Bush Sr promised a new world order based on law, democracy and justice. It is an irony of history that George Bush Jr is inaugurating an era characterised only by the absence of these qualities.
Still, not everyone accepts the law of the jungle in the new world disorder. In the US and Europe, as elsewhere, many see the world slipping into chaos -- a vacuum where survival of the fittest is the only rule. This deterioration is not to everyone's liking. Those who fear for our common future, then, must join hands across continents, so that the voice of reason can speak louder than the cacophony of competing economic and political national interests.
* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University and director of the Centre for the Study of Developing Countries.
© 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