Issue No. 603
Heritage
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
12 - 18 September 2002 Issue No. 603 Heritage |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Big brother is watching
Mohamed Hakki, in Washington, finds the US a disturbingly changed place since 9/11
Living in America since the 11 September attacks, one cannot escape the feeling that the country has undergone a thorough transformation since those tragic events.
Immediately following 9/11, President George W Bush made detailed remarks on the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, saying, "I believe there ought to be a Palestinian state, the boundaries of which will be negotiated by the parties, so long as the Palestinian state recognises the right of Israel to exist and will treat Israel with respect, and will be peaceful on her borders." He called the attack on America, among other things, a "wake-up call", paid a visit to a mosque in Washington, lecturing that the war on terrorism was not a war on Islam. He used inclusive and conciliatory language. It was at about that time when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon burst out with his famous diatribe and warning to Washington, "Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia."
The US since 9/11 is a place in which fear and suspicion reign. People are asked to be watchful and to report any suspicions they may have about their neighbours. Attorney General John Ashcroft, for his part, has been making ludicrous statements and formulating regulations that infringe upon basic US freedoms, civil liberties and values.
Imagine that you were an Arab American or a Muslim American waking up each day to read statements like, "Islam is simply a religion of war" -- a notion that has been taken up by Paul Weyrich and William Lind in their new booklet entitled, Why Islam is a Threat to America and the West. Lind has said of American Muslims, "They should be encouraged to leave. They are a fifth column in this country." Columnist Ann Coulter suggested that we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity".
In contrast to evangelist Billy Graham, a decent man who regards Muslims not as the enemy, but as fellow believers, his son, Minister Franklin Graham, has jumped on the bandwagon, describing Islam as a "wicked and evil religion", "a greater threat than anyone is willing to speak [of]".
True, the attack against Islam does not come from the administration. But the repeated accusation that Muslim charitable organisations support terrorism sends a chill down the spines of all law- abiding Muslims and Arab Americans who consider themselves an integral part of the US's fabric and good patriotic Americans. Many of them volunteered to help the FBI in its investigations.
But, Attorney General John Ashcroft, the only senator ever to lose his seat to a dead man, is creating an atmosphere of increased insecurity in which citizens watch their every step, as though they were living in the former Soviet Union. Ashcroft's aim: to build support for the "war on terror".
Let us examine the societal costs of surveillance and asking people to spy on their neighbours around the country. News headlines alone speak volumes with respect to the present atmosphere.
"US intelligence agencies are watching several groups of Middle Eastern men thought to be part of an infrastructure of as many as 5,000 Al-Qa'eda terrorists and their supporters in the United States."
"Security stepped up for the Fourth of July festivities."
"The National Park Service is putting 10 miles of wood-slatted snow fences around the mall [the heart of Washington] to secure the area against unspecified terrorist threats during Fourth of July festivities."
"Whole sections and major arteries and roads around the Congress and the White House are closed to traffic and trucks."
"US warns Americans against travelling abroad."
"The State Department advises Americans travelling abroad to be cautious throughout the summer, citing continuing threat of attacks that could be aimed at civilians."
Every other week there are horror stories about new threats: dirty bombs, nuclear weapons that can be carried in briefcases, explosives, toxic substances, chemical weapons and radioactive materials. You get the idea that there is a deliberate attempt to frighten the US population with the aim of securing its acquiescence to any policy the administration adopts.
Michele Kayal, a journalist who lived in Prague from 1991 to 1995 as a news editor asks: "Today in America, I wonder what can get a person into trouble. What if the exterminator, whose monthly visits keep my house pest-free, suddenly registers my last name as unusual? I am a transplant to Hawaii and not a member of its common ethnic groups. What if the person who fixed my window screens tells someone about the Islamic-style clock in my kitchen, the one with the 99 names of God written in Arabic script, a beautiful reminder of a short tourist trip to Pakistan before all of this started? What if the man who delivered some furniture the other day reports the phone call he heard me take from my father, the one in which I commiserated with him about the stock market and said nasty things about people in power? What will happen when the snooping begins? Perhaps we should ask the Czechs."
How did we arrive at the current situation between the US and Arabs? First, there was the massive Israeli invasion of most Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank in the spring. It is no coincidence that this occurred immediately following the Arab summit in Beirut. At that meeting, all Arab countries adopted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's plan offering peace and normalisation with Israel in return for complete withdrawal of Israeli forces to its 1967 borders. (Ironically, it was the same Ariel Sharon who invaded Lebanon in 1982 immediately following King Fahd's peace plan.)
Ariel Sharon must have felt that the world had his number, that he truly does not want peace and never really did. Then he started upping the ante. First, he demanded complete cessation of any violence against Israel for a week before the two sides could talk. Then he preceded to assassinate one or several Palestinian resistance leaders on a regular basis, assuring a suicide attack against Israel in revenge.
Not long after, the whole debate about whether Yasser Arafat is relevant or irrelevant began to emerge. Sharon invaded Ramallah, put Arafat under house arrest and blockaded his compound. When it became clear that Sharon's policies had failed to break the Palestinian will, that they had failed to provide security to Israel and failed to achieve the promised prosperity, it became imperative to create a new common enemy for Israel and the US.
In the meantime, the whole economic scene in the US was dealt a terrible blow by a series of scandals of corporate deception and corruption, at the forefront of which were the antics of Enron, Worldcom and a number of major accounting firms. Many small business owners began to feel that what they refer to as "Enron/11" has been more damaging to their business activities than the war on terror. Israel's friends in the US media and around the president, especially in the Department of Defence, began to create a series of enemies. Saudi Arabia, the US's longest and most loyal friend in the Arab world and a particular friend of the Republicans was among the first to be demonised.
As the list of enemies grew, some in Congress, a tiny minority, though, started questioning the whole policy. On 27 June, Congressman Ron Paul from Maryland asked, "Are we doomed to be a police state?" He said, "So far, our post 9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against Al-Qa'eda have essentially come up empty-handed. As far as we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of Al- Qa'eda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than Afghanistan. US actions appear scattered. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we are creating enemies faster than we can catch them."
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics are being developed. The major one will be to increasingly focus on Saddam Hussein and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred towards America by the Muslim world.
During the last few weeks, there have been several articles, speeches and leaks predicting that the US attack against Iraq is imminent. In spite of this, the last few days witnessed the beginning of a lively and heated debate, both in Congress and among political leaders. Several members of the Republican Party voiced strong reservations about the war against Hussein. Chief among the nay-sayers are James Baker, former secretary of state under Bush the father, and General Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. They all agreed that Saddam Hussein is a dictator, but warned against doing it alone in trying to unseat him. They all advocated seeking international support before launching any unilateral attack.
In the meantime, Richard Cheney committed the cardinal sin that the late King Hassan of Morocco always warned against: never make yourself the object of ridicule. Cheney gave an extremely negative speech, which he meant to be the administration's definitive word on the war against Iraq. In his remarks, however, Cheney failed to introduce a single new fact about the US's declared enemy. He did not explain how Iraq could use nuclear weapons against the US, and he contended that Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons "fairly soon"; just how soon, he did not say, because "intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances."
While Scowcroft demands that the US should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective "no notice" inspection regime for Iraq -- anytime, anywhere, no permission required. Cheney asserts that a return of inspectors could provide no assurance whatsoever of Hussein's compliance and advocates war and regime change regardless. He even quotes a man who does not trust a single Arab, and who no Arab ever trusted anyway, Fouad Ajamy, who says that there will be joy in the streets of Baghdad once Hussein is overthrown.
The Senate hearings are a first step in Congress asserting its constitutional authority to declare war, says the respected Foreign Reports Newsletter. It goes on to say, "Make no mistake about it: there is a constitutional issue involved. Were the president to go ahead and launch a major war without Congressional authorisation, he would be blown into political oblivion if anything went wrong."
The rest of the story is well-known and is carried on the front pages of the country's dailies. Not a single country, other than Israel, supports the US in its declared intention to go to war against Iraq. Not even Britain. Several voices have been raised in Israel egging the US on, both from the Likud and Labour Parties. Several members of the Israeli peace camp are afraid that Sharon will take the opportunity to drive most, if not all, the Palestinians out, and push them into Jordan.
The refreshing thing, however, is that there is a clear rift among Israel's supporters in the media on the question of Iraq. But, among policy wonks, some of Israel's staunchest supporters, like Larry Eagleburger and Richard Holbrooke, are calling for the US to seek UN and international support first before embarking on any moves against Iraq.
Now, nobody is debating whether the US can trounce the Iraqi army. This is not the issue. Professor Emmanuel Wallerstein put it succinctly in the last issue of Foreign Policy. "Undoubtedly, the military remains the United States' strongest card; in fact, it is the only card. Today, the United States wields the most formidable military apparatus in the world. And, if the claims of new, unmatched military technologies are to be believed, the US's military edge over the rest of the world is considerably greater today than it was just a decade ago. But, does that mean, then, that the United States can invade Iraq, conquer it rapidly, and install a friendly and stable regime? Unlikely."
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
