Schizophrenia
By
Salama Ahmed Salama
In the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 and throughout 2002, the Arab and Muslim worlds were faced with several campaigns of vilification. At first these were met with anger, denial and disbelief, but those feelings soon dissipated, leaving behind muffled protest by the masses and a few dissenting voices among intellectuals and in the media.
Arab countries were not given the opportunity to articulate their part of the blame for terrorism, nor that of the US and other Western countries, which had used terrorism for their own ends. Instead, Arabs and Muslims shouldered the entire responsibility and had to pay double the price: international support for the Palestinian cause evaporated, and the international community looked on passively as tragedy after tragedy unfolded in the Palestinian territories at the hands of Israel. Most Arab countries were forced to allow the US to conduct surveillance operations within their borders under the pretext that this was required to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Threats to cut off aid became commonplace, while Israel was encouraged to usurp what remained of Arab rights.
The Arabs reacted to these actions in a haphazard and defeatist manner, having been unable to speak in a united fashion -- whether in defence of Islam, their collective political will, or to prevent attacks against the Palestinian people. What is certain is that the Arab world is incapable of facing America's overwhelming force as it prepares to invade Iraq and oust the ruling regime there, while, at the same time, it is only able to provide limited help to the Iraqi people.
Arab countries could have abstained from facilitating American military presence in their lands, they might have loudly objected to any attack on Iraq and launched a campaign to deflect the accusations levelled at Islam. It appears, however, that most Arab regimes were afflicted by political schizophrenia -- on the one hand they express concern for the region in the wake of strikes against Iraq, while on the other, they are eager to maintain good relations with the US for economic, political and military reasons.
This schizophrenia gave rise to conflicting Arab positions. While some countries maintain an ambiguous position and hesitate to assist the US, others believe that no one can stand up to the world's only superpower, while a third group condones any resolution issued by the Security Council. In light of this schizophrenia, some intellectuals and politicians called for understanding -- or more accurately acceptance -- of the US position, suggesting that each Arab country should focus on protecting its own interests, saying that in such times there is no place for hollow Arab rhetoric. It would be even better, in their view, for Saddam Hussein to hand over power to the US and flee his country.
Meanwhile, there were also calls to reform Islam in response to Western criticism that the Islamic world was responsible for its own backwardness, which, in turn, was suggested to have fostered fundamentalism.
One of the most bizarre responses to such accusations and actions was the acceptance by some Arabs of the US initiative to install democratic regimes in the Arab world -- their only objection being the measly budget that the US earmarked for this endeavour.
Although there is a dire need for regime change, the US should not stand in the way of the efforts being exerted by national forces to increase freedom and democracy. Any such changes should come from within and according to the will of the people.
The American experience in Afghanistan is no model to be emulated, and the outcome of a war in Iraq will certainly differ from that of the first post-9/11 military campaign launched by the USA. The coming year, too, will not be a repeat of this one.
