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 | ||
'Arabs under attack'
For the past year, Arab governments, without exception, have been trying to prove that they are 'with', not 'against', the US. Dina Ezzat reports
Within hours of the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York on 11 September 2001, the Arab world came under attack. Accusations were levelled against Arabs, and for that matter Muslims, even before the identity of the perpetrators was revealed. Once the identity of the hijackers was made public, an anti-Arab/Muslim campaign of unprecedented scope took off. The campaign not only targeted Arabs and Muslims, including those of Western nationalities, who were suspected of having links to the hijackers, it actually targeted all Arabs and Muslims, and Arab governments, too.
Since the day of the attacks, a considerable amount of legislation that either specifically targets Arabs or would have the effect of singling out this group has been proposed to US Congress. Hundreds of stories and programmes that represent Arabs and Muslims as natural evil- doers have been run by US media outlets. And, unprecedented criticism against Arab leaders, not excepting some of the US's staunchest allies, has been voiced.
"Arabs were under attack. We were all accused simply for being Arabs and Muslims. Arabs were projected as terrorists. We were guilty until proven innocent," commented Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.
In the 12 months since 9/11, the Arab world has actually come under military attack because of the US "war against terrorism". By all appearances, Israel's extensive and ferocious attacks on the Palestinians, the intensity of which peaked this spring, followed a green light from Washington. The declared US-Israeli objective of this extended military operation was "to combat Palestinian terrorism" in the occupied territories, just as was done in Afghanistan. Today, the US is telling the world that it might be attacking Iraq soon, irrespective of UN and international opposition. The rationale offered for the aggression is US concern about the threat that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- whose country has suffered under stringent sanctions for 11 years -- constitutes to world security.
US threats against Iraq have not been affected at all by the repeated appeals made by Arab governments warning against the consequences of such a move. Actually, informed Arab sources tell Al-Ahram Weekly that Washington has told some Arab capitals that instead of opposing the strike, which is going to happen, whether they like it or not, Arab governments need to prepare their public for the military action if they are concerned about a public outcry.
"The US does not care what anyone says. It simply doesn't," commented Iraqi Foreign Minister Nagi Sabri Al-Hadithi. Al-Hadithi was talking to reporters a few minutes after an Arab foreign ministers' meeting declared its rejection of US intentions to subject Iraq to a military strike.
In his speech before the UN General Assembly next week, US President George W Bush is expected to snub the repeated Arab, and for that matter international, appeals against declaring war on Iraq. By doing so, Bush, Arab diplomats agree, would be demonstrating a lack of sensitivity to the concerns of Arab governments about what they believe would be the catastrophic consequences of a military action against Iraq. For many diplomats, the stance Bush has been taking recently presents a marked contrast to the sympathy he showed concerning the Palestinians' plight and their right to statehood which he expressed in his speech to the UN General Assembly last year. "At that time, he [the American president] needed to make sure that there would be no opposition to the war against Afghanistan, but now he feels he can launch a new war each day and say he is combating terrorism," commented one Arab official.
When top Arab officials speak to the press on the record, they express hope that the US will not follow through on its threats against Iraq, but when providing background they say that military action against the Gulf country is part of a US plan to capitalise on the September attacks to reconfigure the Middle East. "Washington is showing its impatience towards even those Arab regimes and Arab leaders who have done everything to show 'solidarity' with the US after the attacks," commented one Arab official. He added, "Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, who hastened to donate blood to American victims in the wake of the attacks, was the first Arab leader to fall prey to the US's regional plans, the US having decided that it wanted him removed from the leadership of the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinians are to have a state. Now it is Saddam Hussein. And there is no telling who will be next."
Meanwhile, the US administration has dealt some serious blows to many Arab regimes, including some of its allies. Sudan, which was once subjected to a limited US military action for its alleged connection with terrorists, agreed to a peace deal with a rebel movement that may lead to the secession of the country's southern part. Arab North African states, including Libya, are offering intelligence cooperation with the US. Syria and Lebanon have encouraged Hizbullah to reduce its attacks on Israel, and some Palestinian militants have been told by Damascus that they are no longer welcome guests. Somalia, to be spared military action, agreed to open its territory to Western inspection to ensure that it does not host terrorists or their training camps. It also agreed to the patrolling of its shores by Western military forces. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been working hard to promote a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in a fashion consistent with the American vision, which meant that Cairo and Riyadh had to work with the Palestinian Authority to reduce Palestinian militant resistance to the military occupation. Jordan and Qatar have been prompted to show more vocal support for US policies and more warmth towards Israel.
These affronts have been coming from Washington in spite of the many goodwill gestures made by Arab governments. Protests by the Arab public against Israel and the US were ignored, and at times even suppressed; opposition to US policies in the Arab media was carefully put, when carried at all; and resolutions coming out of every regional gathering were sure to condemn international terrorism. "Actually, at a certain meeting Palestinian officials asked that the Intifada be kept out of the final communiqués because the uprising has been categorised by both Israel and the US as a terrorist campaign," commented one Arab diplomatic source.
Such moves on the part of the Arabs, however, were unsuccessful in getting Washington to show understanding, much less sympathy, towards the Arab point of view on any of the key Middle East issues.
"This is very telling of where Arab governments stand today vis-à-vis the US," commented a senior Arab diplomat. "A reassessment of policy is now required," he added.
Policy reassessment does not, by any stretch of the imagination, entail defiance, even at the lowest level, of US policies. "We have to admit that we, as Arab countries, are helpless before the will of the US," commented Qatari Foreign Minister Hamad Bin Jassim. "The US is going through hard times and we have to explain our point of view more," said Bahraini State Minister for Foreign Affairs Mohamed Abdel-Ghaffar. "I think that eventually President Bush will understand the Arab view that a strike against Iraq is not in anyone's interest," said Youssef Bin Alawi, Omani minister of foreign affairs. "We have to work with the US. We cannot ignore the US," said Nabil Shaath, Palestinian minister for international relations. "We want to have a good dialogue with the US," said Mustafa Ottoman Ismail, the Sudanese minister of foreign affairs.
So, is there an Arab consensus that working to earn the US's friendship is the best way to be spared the catastrophic consequences of the US wrath? The Arab League secretary-general put it as follows: "The US is now the only superpower, and we are working with this in mind. That is why we have to adopt a collective Arab stance on issues such as Palestinians' right to resist Israeli military occupation without being branded as terrorists and Arab countries' right to refuse to provide any facilities for a strike against Iraq". Moreover, Moussa added, "We should reject that the agenda of international relations be dedicated solely to combatting international terrorism. There are other issues, such as the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the cross-cultural dialogue that we should insist on. And, indeed, we should insist that decisions related to world peace and security should be adopted under the umbrella of the UN."
Meanwhile, Arab countries believe that the best way to oppose the US is to lobby international and even American public opinion. Towards this end, the Arab League is currently working to organise a conference for Arab- American organisations. Last week, at league headquarters, Arab foreign ministers met representatives of some Arab-American organisations to discuss the conference that is scheduled to take place in Detroit in May 2003. The objective of the event is to capitalise on the contacts and knowledge of some 100 Arab-American organisations, with the aim of putting the Arab point of view across, not only to the US administration, but also to Congress and the media. By influencing the decision-making apparatus in the US, Arabs are hoping that they would be subjected to less hostility from the US administration. This process, they concede, will probably take a few years before it bears fruit.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
