Issue No. 604
Readers' corner
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
19 - 25 September 2002 Issue No. 604 Readers' corner |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
All are culpable
Sir-- I wonder which planet Mr Tarek El-Beshri is living on, when he says in 'Reclaiming history' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September), "11 September is an American event from beginning to end." Really? Mr El-Beshri, do you mean that most of the hijackers who took over the planes and piloted them into the buildings were not from Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries? Do you mean that Al-Qa'eda, which had been given a base by the Taliban in Afghanistan, played no role at all in planning the attacks?
Click to view cartoonIt is one thing to say that the US is somewhat self- centred in putting their tragedy so much higher on the scale of suffering than other tragedies in other places, or even that the US should be trying to understand the situation which gave rise to this so it can avoid similar events in the future, but rhetorical excesses such as Mr El-Beshri's complete denial of any responsibility accruing to the Taliban and many Arab governments, will only marginalise Arab views even further. America certainly has a problem, but to deny that the Arab governments and societies have a problem, is to bury your head in the sand. Fortunately, the article by Jamal Khashoggi 'To whom it may concern' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September) makes this point better than I can.
B Chandrasekaran
Columbus, OH
USA
A streak of luck
Sir-- I just finished reading your excellent coverage of 9/11 one year later. What amazes me, and amazes every other American that I know, is the extent and vehemence of Middle Eastern fixation on the United States. I think I speak for many when I say that most Americans simply had no idea of how powerful we had become, and how much keen resentment this fact has sparked in the Middle East. Everyone that I know figuratively held their breath for many weeks when the war in Afghanistan began, and most Americans quickly assumed their prospects there were similar on some levels to the Soviet and British experiences.
Europeans and Middle Easterners enviously and obsessively harp on our "hyper-power" status, yet I know of no American who articulates an ideology of American imperialism or hegemony. America become the sole superpower not because it set out to be (or that we really wanted to be), but because it was all that was left over when the dust of the Cold War settled.
The sentiments expressed so eloquently by Egyptian editorialists are wrong on yet another level. So much of the baffling explosion of American military and economic power in the last decade is directly related to the commanding pre-eminence of the United States in the fields of High Technology. Who predicted such a thing, who advocated a form of economic hegemony based on these new technologies in 1990? Nobody that I am aware of.
So, if America is the modern-day equivalent of Rome, it isn't because that is a goal we set out to reach.
Larry Purviance
Idaho
USA
People unity
Sir-- In reading your poll results 'A domestic outlook on 9/11: seeing through it all' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September), I was struck by common threads in both US and Egyptian public opinion. We're worried about a war on Iraq, we don't know what the world will be like afterwards, and we fear that a lot of people will be killed. We are wary of our own and various governments and their actions, and we fear the unknown consequences. Can our various governments do their jobs and work together to keep and/or bring justice, peace and prosperity?
We're united in our grief for victims.
Donald Johnson
San Francisco, CA
USA
Not so foolish
Sir-- Regarding 'A new, post-9/11, Middle East' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September). The Bush administration is smarter than many people want/do give it credit for. The following are three possible scenarios that we may see in the coming months:
1. Saddam allows the inspectors back without pre- conditions and steps down shortly after.
2. The US continues to amass troops until it finally bombs facilities near Baghdad. In reaction, Saddam fires missiles into Israel which will claim it had been targeted by weapons of "mass destruction". In retaliation, Israel will fire missiles equipped with atomic warheads, completely destroying Baghdad and other main cities.
3. Nothing will happen at all, but the pressure on the Iraqis will force Saddam out.
In any case, let's hope that the Arab people of the world will ask themselves if they really want to follow in the footsteps of Bin Laden; and if they do, what will be the best and worst scenarios and which one of them is most likely to happen.
Gerry Lambston
Berkeley, CA
USA
A black eye
Sir-- Finally, Al-Qa'eda admitted on 9 September, according to Al-Jazeera television and subsequently a Canadian broadcast television (CBC) report, that it was behind the notorious 11 September attacks. I hope this is enough for those Egyptians who lived in denial for a year and argued continually that Al- Qa'eda did not commit these horrific crimes and were asking for proof. Unfortunately, we as Egyptians sometimes like to live in a dream of our own and avoid facing harsh realities.
I am wondering what is the reaction to Al-Qa'eda's recent confession in Egypt today? A stupid excuse was made by individuals to justify striking against the powerful USA, which I believe is a totally out-of- line connection between Al-Qa'eda as a terrorist organisation and the actions of a crazy government in Israel. These are separate issues, although both share similar despicable tactics.
Did Al-Qa'eda do us any good as Egyptians by its random notorious killing? Definitely not. Its actions are giving us and our children abroad a black eye.
Nancy Zahkary
British Columbia
Canada
Keeping his head
Sir-- I have just finished reading 'The imperial moment' by Galal Nassar (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12- 18 September). It is always fascinating to read overseas analyses of US foreign policy and military strategy. US foreign policy is not nearly so clever as Mr Nassar would have your readers believe; it is in reality the product of a fragmented, pluralistic polity, a rambunctious and adversarial media, and the diverse public opinions of 300 million people. It is no doubt easy to read deeper motives into current US moves around the world, and it's probably true that there are people in or around our government who see a geopolitical- economic "silver lining" in recent events. That said, the last year is nothing more than this: the US general public would have had George Bush's head if he didn't make a concerted effort to go get "the bad guys".
Jeffrey Prutsman
Orlando, Florida
USA
Get with it
Sir-- This letter is a response to every single article and letter that I've read in Al-Ahram Weekly which has an anti-American flavour to it. I pose a serious question to anyone who expresses their disdain for America and their policies on these pages: what is it exactly that you want? In reading this every week, I come across many opinions about what America is doing wrong, about how Americans are dirty imperialists, about how we have aligned with Israel to wipe Arabs off the face of the earth, about how Americans have deported many Arab and southeast Asians since 9/ 11; but I have never read a single opinion on what exactly these like-minded writers would like America to do?
Let's see. Would any of you like Saudi Arabia, a powerful and rich nation, to be the leader of the free world? That way, we could have all the leaders mimicking their policies of hording riches, funding suicide bombers, and punishing women for having extra-marital sex. Wouldn't that be a wonderful world? Or, how about Iraq being a world leader? Hmm, any time they feel threatened, they gas their own dissidents, invade their neighbour for its wealth, and never adhere to world policies whether or not it starves its citizens. Wouldn't that be a terrific world? Not only does that sound like a great world leader, I would in fact love to have a friend like that. What many of you don't realise is that the United States does not think it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. America has done more good for the rest of the world than any other nation in the history of mankind, but none of you are likely to look at those things.
What none of you understand is that America is moral, more so than any of your corrupt nations; America is just, more so than any of your kangaroo courts; and America is powerful, all encompassing, and a friend to all who open their arms to us. Get with the programme or get off the planet. If not for America, most of the Middle East would still be in the Middle Ages. You want us to leave you alone? Fine; your cheque won't be coming this month, and neither will our military the next time one of your crazy neighbours decides that he wants what you have.
Jason Kennedy
Boston, MA
USA
Liar, liar
Sir-- Regarding 'A semantic game' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September). My personal opinion is that Scott Ritter is a traitor and is best friends with Saddam Hussein. He cannot be trusted.
Kim Segar
Mill Creek, WA
USA
Only good intentions
Sir-- Thank you for your publication, it offers a different perspective which I frequently recommend to my friends. In your interview 'A semantic game' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 12-18 September), Mr Ritter mentions his fears that Iraq will be destroyed in six months if there is no progress made with arms inspection. With all of the media hype and rhetoric coming from our government, I have never heard the desire to destroy Iraq. We only hear the need to remove Saddam Hussein one way or another, and allow the people of Iraq to establish their own government.
Michael Kleving
Tucson, AZ
USA
Blood money
Sir-- Saddam Hussein's 22-year dictatorship is a ghastly saga of crimes against his people and his neighbours, but however horrendous these crimes are, they do not justify a war on the Iraqi people. We should take our complaints about Saddam's actions to the UN Security Council to ask for the creation of a special war crimes tribunal -- just as we did for Yugoslavia's and Rwanda's war criminals. But how do we get Saddam to the Hague to stand trial? Use the same capitalist device the FBI and State Department use to arrest lesser figures: post a reward. $400 million may be enough to encourage a large number of Saddam's inner circle to plot his abduction and delivery in good health to the Hague for trial.
As a gesture of our good faith to the people who might dare to arrest him, put the reward in the hands of a neutral figure like the president of Finland, and as a further gesture, have several governments offer asylum to those who collect the reward (in case they are afraid to return to Iraq). Even more important, announce to the world and the people of Iraq that when Saddam is safely delivered to the Hague for trial, the sanctions will be lifted.
Think about the impact on Saddam's effectiveness with such a bounty on his head. And consider the unease of those who have carried out his orders for these crimes; they too will risk the prospect of prosecution as did Hitler's henchmen. Clearly, it is more effective to indict and prosecute criminals than to make war on innocent people.
Robert Dennis
Dallas, TX
USA
Staying on target
Sir-- I am writing an open letter to respond openly, as a private citizen, to President Bush's call for military action against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. Speaking from the standpoint of one who will pay the bills and whose sons will bear the wounds, I believe that assertions by the Bush administration that they have unspecified information of an Iraqi threat are not credible. The Bush administration must demonstrate before the UN the presence of an imminent Iraqi threat against North America itself.
Published news reports indicate that the Bush administration is using two-year-old intelligence assessments to create the urgency of the Iraqi threat, yet military and civilian experts, testifying in July before the US Senate, unanimously responded that Iraq presents no imminent danger to the US. Our entire experience of the 1990s in dealing with this regime shows that we must be firm with them, but that the US must also work actively to maintain peace in the Persian Gulf. As President Mubarak so astutely stated, unless the American government takes on preserving peace in the Persian Gulf as its primary responsibility in the region, that entire section of the world will soon be engulfed in a widespread and devastating war.
If Saddam's miserable military record and the economic ruin stemming from long-standing sanctions imposed against Iraq have not resulted in his assassination or deposition from power, there is no force that America or any other outside power can bring to bear that will topple him. Bush and Cheney are fantasising when they state otherwise, and if not checked, Bush and Cheney's fantasies on this subject will result in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, whose only connection to the conflict is their misfortune of living in the same country as Saddam Hussein.
Despite the drumbeat of bellicose rhetoric to the contrary, the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq has effectively resulted in their abandonment of the 'war on Islamist terrorism'. Al-Qa'eda are truly the frightening adversaries, who only needed 19 men to bring us to our knees. Survival requires that we deploy our best efforts to achieve total, absolute and unequivocal victory against the Islamist terrorists. Justice demands that we devote ourselves single-mindedly to the destruction of Al- Qa'eda, and all other organisations capable of committing suicide terrorism.
Mr president, wake up before it is too late.
Robert Chapman
New York
USA
Bin Laden focus
Sir-- This is the first time I have allowed myself to publicly comment on the US administration's mixed feelings concerning the possibility of another war with Iraq. I believe that since the George W Bush entourage has entered the White House, there has been a decidedly growing tendency toward the rush to make battle with someone. As it turns out, the latest cry from part of the Bush administration is to go to war again with Iraq, but this cry is seemingly shared by only a few of our global allies. Even here at home, the battle cry is not so loud. There remains, however, a very strong will among Americans to hunt down Osama Bin Laden for his crime against humanity, and his attempt to bring this country to its knees -- which he came very close to doing.
Some in the United States believe that putting up a second front against Iraq is a dangerous exercise in spreading the US military too thin, especially when there are pronounced questions about the US's intentions towards Iraq. It is best to settle accounts with Bin Laden, but at the same time continue to keep a wary eye on Saddam Hussein. By doing so, US allies will feel much more comfortable in a partnership preventing Saddam from doing anything reckless.
The feeling of another Vietnam is also beginning to stir in the United States. Another disaster in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq would have disastrous affects on this government and country. We lost the war in Southeast Asia because we thought we were fighting against a backward and weak- minded enemy, but the generals and admirals of America found out that that was not the case, and our young men and women in uniform paid the ultimate price for that stupidity.
We, for the most part, do not want this to happen again, ever. However, the sad part is that it could happen again in the Middle East. The action to launch any war against any country without concrete proof for cause is pure folly.
Douglas Vernon
San Diego, California
USA
Bring them on
Sir-- When all is said and done, the US will move on Iraq and the international community will be behind us. Congress (including Leahy who is a hawk when a democrat is in the White House), will also be behind the president. And the people are already behind Bush. Why? Because at this point, we're ready to take on all comers. Anyone who thought this country was a paper tiger is hugely mistaken. It's important to remember that on Flight 93, civilians killed five hijackers, and not that five hijackers killed 40 citizens of the US.
Rick Van Dalen
Texas
USA
Double standard Bush
Sir-- Mr Bush's demand for a war against Iraq because of its non-compliance with 16 UN resolutions over the past 11 years is pathetic, especially when compared with how Mr Bush and his predecessors turned a blind eye to Israel's non-compliance with any UN resolution since its creation in 1948. UN Resolution 273, Israel's admission to the United Nations, tied Israel's entry to the UN with its compliance with all the UN resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict including Resolution 194. Israel never complied, and was still admitted to the UN, and now has more than 50 years of existence. I don't see Mr Bush ever demanding a war against Israel because of its non-compliance with any UN resolution.
Sherifa Shafie
Cairo
Egypt
Pack o' lies
Sir-- Lies and distortions will not save the Arab world. No wonder most of you are living in the Stone Age. Take a deep look within, and stop lying to yourselves and your readers.
Joe Dell
Florida
USA
Good work
Sir-- Great articles. Keep up the good work and continue to publish scholars like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said.
Miguel Nieves
Reading, PA
USA
Miracle for all
Sir-- Out of despair comes hope, and the weeping statue of Mary in Western Australia is an apparition of love, hope and peace, in a world that is already in despair. Hope rising from the ashes of 11 September and all wars in the world; hope that Australia does not follow the United States and Britain into a "could be/maybe" war, but engage United Nations intervention -- this could be a war that could spread into our own streets because someone is Muslim; hope that all Australians, regardless of race or religion, will work together for world peace. The miracle of Mary happened after September 11 2001, and has been continual up until now. Her message is loud and clear for all who wish to see and hear. Her tears are for the world and the devastation and the loss of lives that could follow if a war was to break out.
This statue is Australia's miracle and Australia's hope, regardless of what religion or race you are or whether you believe or not.
Paul Anderson
Melbourne
Australia
Hold your horses
Sir-- I ask the countries of the Middle East, including Iraq, to please be patient with America and its citizens. Contrary to popular belief, we are not deceived by our president's heinous actions. Our problem lies in finding the quickest and most effective ways to protest, or cease, his actions against Iraq. Many people are writing letters and protesting, though it is not often reported in regular media sites. We ask for an act of benevolent patience while we work on a resolution to this horrible situation.
Sherri Bilodeau
California
USA
Scared stiff
Sir-- As an American citizen, born and bred, I am quite gratified by the intellectual discourse I have encountered in your newspaper. I am neither an Arab, Egyptian or Muslim, but I find the varied opinions and ideas encountered on your pages quite refreshing. I was moved by the outpouring of sympathy for all the victims of 9/11. If only our media would entertain this kind of debate. However, I would like to respond to some of the sentiments and concerns expressed here. Please believe that very few of us Americans want to go to war.
We dread the thought of more death -- even in revenge for the attack of 9/11. We do not wish to attack Iraq to advance an agenda, and quite frankly we are scared. Scared of a bigger and more atrocious event happening here or overseas targeting Americans and possibly killing countless more innocents. We believe that Saddam Hussein may be preparing to support the next wave of attacks and that is frightening for everyone.
Mark Baczewski
New Jersey
USA
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
