Al-Ahram Weekly | Readers' corner

		24 - 30 October 2002 Issue No. 609 Readers' corner	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

Hidden agendas

Click to view caption
Cartoon by Ossama Qassim
Sir-- Let's get things in perspective. First, Iraq's military strength is about a third of what it was in 1990, the US military capabilities are 10 times stronger than they were back then. How can Iraq be a greater threat now? Second, Iraq flouted UN resolutions, not for over a decade, as the president said, but only when it saw no end in sight for the economic sanctions and their removal.
On the other hand, Israel has been flouting UN resolutions for the past five decades including Resolution 673 that deplored Israel for not cooperating with it, and Resolution 517 that "censures" Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions. It's a joke that Israel not only flouted the UN resolutions for over five decades but also those that asked it not to flout the resolutions. What does our president think about that?
In the face of these clear facts, the whole speech of the president to the UN becomes quite meaningless -- a joke -- and appears to the ordinary person like myself who uses his common sense, that an ulterior motive is behind putting the lives of ordinary people, both American and Iraqis, at risk for the sake of power and materialism.
M Asadi
Springfield
USA

Realism and the law

Sir-- Regarding Ahmed N Roushdy's article 'No legal justification' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 17-23 October) on whether or not UN preemptive strikes are allowed under international law, there are two facts that need to be fully explored. First, when the UN was founded, the likelihood of a state killing millions of people with a nuclear weapon was not likely. Second, given the fact that biological weapons, gas and nuclear weapons can be used by a potentially deranged individual to avenge himself or to try to become a worldwide Islamic leader, it is prudent to realise that the original UN charter on this subject is seriously out-of-date and not relevant to modern times. It needs to be revised immediately.
Rather than be legalistic about charters, we should be realistic about weapons of mass destruction that now threaten everyone. War today must be stopped before someone commits a heinous act. Let's concentrate on weapons inspection in Iraq first, and not allow Saddam to have weeks and months to move or hide materials and weapons to thwart the inspectors as happened in the past. If a nuclear bomb is ever dropped on Israel, Iran, Pakistan or India it will be the entire Middle East in jeopardy from nuclear fallout, resulting in calamity greater than any unrest everyone is overly worried about. Yes we now have to worry about North Korea, but at least they finally admitted what they have been doing.
Let's put some teeth into the inspection agreement, allow Iraq to be forthright and not have a war. In the meantime we have to be prepared if the inspections fail and have the UN act in a responsible (not clerical manner) to preserve the present and future peace.
David Morrow
Maryland
USA

The UN's worth

Sir-- We are now seeing the US pressuring the UN (the organisation which works for world peace) to pass a resolution which gives the US legitimacy to attack Iraq. Thus, the UN has become a tool in the hands of the US. It is approving an attack against Iraq because the US says Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, but where is the proof? At the same time, it is refusing to pressure Israel to comply with any UN resolutions.
I think it's high time for UN member countries to really take a deep look at the international organisation and consider if it is still worthwhile having it around. I personally don't.
Sherifa Shafie
Cairo
Egypt

Immoral record

Sir-- Thank you for Ibrahim Nafie's article on US war drum beating, 'The diplomatic way' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 10-16 October). In my view, Arabs must do more. How many more of you must be killed in order to appease the State of Israel? The war on Iraq is a war in search of pretext, and it can never be justified. Can we in all honesty believe that Saddam Hussein is as dangerous as we are made to believe, or is this just a pretext to go to war in order to deviate from the domestic problems in America and gain advantage in the mid-term elections?
With the past records of the US, Britain and Israel, it is difficult to believe them at face value. Their combined records show a pattern of deceit, duplicity and self-serving objectives. They all lack credibility in preaching morality in this millennium. Britain as colonial power justified slavery, committed genocide in Africa and supported apartheid. The US nuked (super WMD) the Japanese twice, committed genocide against the Native Americans, engaged in and benefited from slavery and apartheid, and encouraged state- sponsored assassinations. The US built up Iran under the Shah; supported Iraq in destroying Iran with the use of WMD. It built up Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians, and today, they are shredding Afghanistan and turning it into a pile of gravel, all in the hunt for Bin Laden.
Now, the US is seeking to begin the decimation of Iraq, and I wonder about the fate of our current allies -- Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- in 10 years.
Israel has defied UN resolutions countless times for over 30 years, and still continues to do so with impunity. When are we going to rein them in? Israel plays from the American book in its genocide against the Palestinians, and in state-sponsored assassinations. Israel provided the worst machinery of oppression in human history to the apartheid South Africa, using the "survival" argument to justify their coziness. The same argument is used today to justify the genocide against the Palestinians.
Is there a pattern of guilt and duplicity complex at play here? As an African who watched them decimate Angola, build up Jonas Savimbi in the name of democracy and the fight against communism, trade roles and positions in Ethiopia and Somalia, justify and for decades exploit Apartheid in South Africa for their own gains, I have no confidence in any dossier coming out of Britain or any prevarications from George W Bush. Past performances and associated justifications do not make them credible to judge another monster.
How much more Arab blood must be spilled for US, Britain and Israel to realise that all life is precious. I wonder what these nations would look like if they were not "God Loving".
Obiofuma Abiuwa
West Bloomfield, Michigan
USA

Bin Laden's tune

Sir-- I am an American who is as horrified and angry at my government and its present lust for war with Iraq as I was with the 9/11 attacks. I am angry that my government has responded to those attacks in the manner of a cornered bully, rather than that of an enlightened world leader who can reflect upon its position and move forward in a positive direction.
I think an attack by the US on Iraq is a major move in a negative direction. It will be disastrous most of all for the Iraqi people but also for the people of the US. The world, not only the Middle East, will become far less stable and the membership of radical factions everywhere will swell. A unilateral US invasion of Iraq will lead to a monumental increase in terrorism throughout the world. This is a war for oil, a war for politics, a war to take the critical eye off the troubles America faces at home. George W Bush is stupidly playing into the hands of Osama Bin Laden, giving him the clash of civilisations that he sought.
I want my country to deal with old problems in new ways. The United Nations can be a vehicle for problem solving and dispute resolution. I shake with anger at the way the Bush administration deals with the UN, and I shake with anger that the US Congress has gone along for the ride by giving Bush the power to make war with Iraq. I shake with anger and fear that so many Americans seem to support this insanity, this stupidity, and seem to treat the "War with Iraq" as just another football game.
As Edward Said stated in 'Israel, Iraq, and the United States' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 10-16 October), I believe the only way to move forward is through education and open discussion. Military adventures will not help anyone.
I hope the readers of your paper know there are many Americans with similar feelings.
Dan Rosen
Colorado
USA

Communication failure

Sir-- Thank you for publishing Edward Said's article 'Israel, Iraq, and the United States' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 10-16 October); he makes many interesting observations. The inability of the Arab/Muslim world to adequately express and inform the West in general, and the population of the United States in particular, is astounding. There have been few examples throughout history of a people so entirely inept at common communication. Though media bias certainly exists, no "Zionist Conspiracy" could possibly explain the disconnection between Arab/Muslim victims and Western/Judeo-Christian readers.
As Said noted, one obvious problem is that "both the ruling elite and the dominant opposition are anti-liberal and anti-democratic." The Arabs are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they are ruled by fundamentalist zealots preaching a 1000-year-old dogma, and on the other there are the monarchies -- or crony-capitalism as we call it in the West.
At any rate, Arabs are 150 years behind the West, and your pathetic attempts at communication with the rest of us may as well be religious hieroglyphs carved in stone tablets or royal Victorian edicts engraved on vellum and delivered by white-gloved messengers holding forth a silver tray. We long to tell you, "Click on OK to proceed."
Stephen Shelton
San Francisco, CA
USA

The bare facts

Sir-- Some Middle East countries, and in particular the Gulf states, never miss a chance to publicly oppose war against Iraq. Unfortunately, there are some hard facts that cannot be ignored. First, the US has prepositioned significant amounts of military equipment in Jordan in preparation for a war with Iraq; the US forces have regular access to two bases close to the Iraqi borders in Jordan; and at a minimum the US may use Jordan soil for rescue operations.
Second, there are more than 9,000 US military personnel in Kuwait, as well as a significant number of US F-15 and F-16 aircrafts and a significant amount of US military equipment. Third, there are more than 6,000 US military personnel in Saudi Arabia, and the US has access to a significant network of air, naval and communication bases there, as well as a significant amount of US military equipment in Saudi Arabia.
Fourth, the US uses at least two military bases in Oman, where there are a significant number of US B-52 bombers, USP-3 Orion anti- submarine aircraft and AC-130 gunships. Also, the US has pre-positioned military equipment and facilities in Oman to support 26,000 personnel. Fifth, the US has access to Bahrain's Manama naval base, the ISA airbase which hosts US bombers and fighter aircrafts, and US military personnel amount to at least 4,000 on Bahraini soil.
Sixth, the US uses the UAE's bases for reconnaissance and refueling aircraft, and there are already some US military equipment pre- positioned there.
Finally, some 600 US war planners will arrive in Qatar in November, the Al-Odeid base is being developed by the US, almost 3,000 American military personnel and 50 aircraft are on Qatari soil, and the US has pre-positioned very significant amounts of military equipment, such as tanks, there.
When confronted with these hard facts, leaders of these countries resort to arguments that they are bound by agreements with the US, a UN decision is obligatory, that their permission is not sought officially, or that they have no choice.
Let's forget about Iraq for now and think about a scenario involving Egypt, Syria and Lebanon as the main protagonists. If the US decides to change the policies and/or regimes there, they will use force using their military assets in the region. Most of the above mentioned countries will react the same way as they are doing now on Iraq. Most of these countries have put the US ahead of this region.
Joaquim Soares
Stockholm
Sweden

Evil ways

Sir-- George W Bush speaks about Saddam Hussein as a person who is willing to "kill his own people with the use of chemical weapons", and is currently "developing weapons of mass destruction".
I believe that Saddam may be saying the same things about President Bush to the Iraqi people.
Bush who had the highest record of capital executions during his tenure as governor of Texas, usually with "chemical" injections, and is currently talking about the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism.
They are two of the same, both with evil intentions. I can only pray for this world.
Derek Martin King
Dublin
Ireland

Wider horizons

Sir-- Regarding 'Israel, Iraq, and the United States' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 10-16 October). I read Edward Said's pieces whenever they appear, and have been concerned by his recent (relative) silence. This article should be disseminated as widely as possible. I am a student of comparative cultures, especially Arab culture, who began learning Arabic at 50.
I was privileged in education, but learned many non-truths, and now am shocked that Americans are so dreadfully deprived by their government and the media concerning the events that ought to make them agents of history.
I am grateful for all you publish, and only wish more people were able or disposed to read it.
Lucy McNeece
Connecticut
USA

Clinton failures

Sir-- In 'Clinton's integrated global society' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 17-23 October), Mr Mohamed Sid-Ahmed appears to wish that Slick Willy were still president. We called Clinton "Slick Willy" because the name captures the essence of his personality. While most politicians have a hard time telling the truth, Clinton was so bad that even his supporters recognised him as a habitual liar. Dan Rather, anchor for CBS news and Clinton's most enthusiastic supporter, said in an interview, "Clinton lies, but I don't think that means he lacks integrity." But if telling lies doesn't destroy integrity, I don't know what does.
Many political analysts admit that Clinton sat in the oval office for eight years and did nothing. He lied about his accomplishments, exaggerated some, and took credit for the work of others, particularly anything the Republicans did. On international issues, he was completely asleep at the wheel.
Clinton is a legend in his own mind. Naturally, he thinks he's smart enough to map out a strategy for creating a Utopia on earth. But if people are foolish enough to attempt to implement his plan, they'll face the same results as the other great experiments in Utopias -- the Communist butcher shops of the former USSR, China and North Korea.
Roger McKinney
Broken Arrow, OK
USA

Quality writing

Sir-- Thank you for continuing to publish the insights of Mohamed Sid-Ahmed. While he is not the most rhetorically flashy of your columnists, he is clearly the most well-informed and fair- minded. I particularly appreciated Mr Sid- Ahmed's column on Bill Clinton, 'Clinton's integrated global society' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 17-23 October), as well as his recent three-part series outlining the influential essay Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan.
Mr Sid-Ahmed tackles the complex issues of international politics honestly and without recourse to the "anti-establishment" platitudes that seem to litter the work of your other columnists.
Perhaps the other Al-Ahram Weekly columnists ought to follow Mr Sid-Ahmed's example and set down their copies of Noam Chomsky and Edward Said once in a while, and pick up some Paul Kennedy or Kagan or (hold on to your hats) actually read a bit of Samuel Huntington before they call him a racist.
Critics like Chomsky and Said are an essential part of the international discourse, but when you take them out of their political context and refashion them as your mainstream (as most of your columnists seem bent on doing), all you accomplish is prevent your readers from seeing the broader perspective. Mr Sid-Ahmed helps to counter this tendency toward imbalance.
Now, if you could only combine his fairness and quality of thought with the verbal virtuosity of, say, Hani Shukrallah, you'd really have a columnist on your hands.
Shahin Abdel-Rauf
Rancho Santa Margarita, California
USA

Clear vision

Sir-- I have always enjoyed reading Mr Salama A Salama's columns which are sparked by his conscientious writing and courage.
He wrote: "It is time to admit the facts and call a spade a spade." Yes, indeed it is time. Please keep it up.
Atef Hafez
Wisconsin
USA

Terrible deeds

Sir-- Thank you for allowing me and others to read the facts on the terrible and brutal treatment of innocent people who the taxpayers in the USA are forced to support by our despicable politicians.
L Frank
Chicago
USA

Bad service

Sir-- While you decry the American and Israeli actions, you continue to advance the culture of hatred and exaggeration.
Shame on you for contributing to a culture that panders to emotions and not to the reason of good men on both side. You are performing a disservice to your readers and encouraging the worst, not the best on all sides.
Sapna ben Abraham
Rochester, NY
USA

By any means

Sir-- I have always tried to maintain an even- handed opinion when it comes to the Middle East, but I can no longer sit by and read about the carnage that the Jewish people have allowed their leaders to pursue. And if our president and congressmen cannot influence Sharon, then they will not get my vote come election time.
We, as American people, share some of the blame because we are the ones who supply the money for the missiles and airplanes. I personally think it is time for the American Jewish community to step in and apply pressure to cease all the slaughter.
In the future, you cannot depend on me to feel sympathy for the people in Israel when some teenager blows himself up trying to do something to help his people. The Palestinian people will be seeking revenge for the next 500 years and they will not always be in the weaker position. It is only a matter of time.
William McGonigle
Titusville, FL
USA

Well-rounded

Sir-- Thank you for getting the news out to the world. In the US, we have a hard time hearing all sides of the story.
Erik Borncamp
California
USA

Water war

Sir-- Contrary to the impression given by Michael Jansen in her article 'Southern thirst' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 17-23 October), the Israelis would like nothing more than to see Lebanon receive its fair share of water from the Wazzani Springs, and the people of Southern Lebanon to live in prosperity and peace. Israel's objections are not about the amount of water being pumped, it's about a country unilaterally declaring an action that is considered hostile both politically and militarily.
Politically, because Lebanon refuses to conform to the universally accepted practice of negotiating a water treaty with all of the interested parties in the Jordan Valley, and militarily because of the threats from Hizbullah that they will intervene if Israel attempts to reinforce the status quo. This Lebanese action is provocative, especially while the region is in such turmoil.
Lebanon is unable to act like a responsible neighbour because of the negative influence of its occupier -- Syria, and it's proxy forces, the Hizbullah, who are intent on starting a conflagration that could consume Lebanon, in an attempt to keep Lebanon from ever making peace with Israel. The timing of the Wazzani Springs issue shouldn't leave any doubt in anyone's mind that Hizbullah will eventually get their wish of a confrontation with Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dealt a heavy blow to the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank, and is determined to do the same to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It is safe to assume that after Gaza is crushed, and Saddam is defeated, Sharon's eyes will turn north towards Lebanon.
Shep Fargostein
Memphis, TN
USA

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

ARCHIVES
Letter from the Editor
Editorial Board
Subscription
Advertise!

WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg
Updated every Thursday at 20.00 GMT, 10 pm local time
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Al-Ahram Organisation