As another world emerges
The first US-led war against Iraq saw the birth of the post-Cold War world. As the US prepares for the sequel, an even "newer" world order is being born, writes Osama El-Ghazali Harb*
Once again, contemporary international politics has produced a peculiar situation whereby the Middle East emerges as that region in which the characteristics of the world order manifest themselves the most succinctly. This was certainly the case with the Suez crisis of 1956, at the height of Abdel-Nasser's confrontation with the former colonial powers, when then Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin threatened to drop atomic bombs on London and Paris. To the Arabs, the Russian ultimatum in defence of Egypt became a symbol of the power of socialist Russia against the forces of Western capitalism.
During the October War of 1973, this region afforded the world a glimpse of the nature of the US- Soviet confrontation in that era of "détente". On 22 October, Washington put its forces on full alert in response to Moscow's threat to intervene independently if Israel did not stop violating the cease-fire in the southern Suez Canal zone.
As the world geared up for the war to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion of 1990, President George Bush Sr began to speak of the "New World Order" that would supplant the old bipolar one now that the Soviet Union had begun to disintegrate. The international alliance the US created to free Kuwait constituted the landmark signaling the rise of that new order.
Now, only a few days ago, the Iraqi crisis was the issue that brought to the fore, more than any other contemporary issue, a new and exciting feature that is taking shape within the new world order. It appears that another pole, opposed to the US's absolute hegemony is coalescing as the result of the initiatives of France, Germany, Russia and China against the persistent efforts of Washington and London to win over the other Europe -- or the new Europe -- to their position on Iraq. The impassioned speech by the French delegate to the Security Council on 14 February will undoubtedly go down in history a symbol of this historic development in the "new" world order, as will, perhaps, the clamour in the US Senate to impose sanctions against France and Germany for their display of ingratitude.
Very much related to this development is the marked awakening of the forces of civil society across the five continents. From Australia to North America, from the Far East to Latin America, from Northern Europe to South Africa, young and vibrant forces are declaring their opposition to the US's absolute hegemony over the world's resources, its trigger-happy behaviour and its indifference to the vast human and material costs of war. This, too, is an emerging phenomenon of the new world order.
Within this universal context, the "Iraqi crisis" is not so much a focal point of conflict as it is a spotlight on the nature of the evolution of the new world order, as was 11 September and its aftermath, and the changes in the EU and NATO. In other words, the rift that has begun to sever the Western alliance reflects a rivalry over international "status" or influence more than it does differences over the welfare of Iraq and the effects of a war on the Iraqi people.
Certainly, this "international" perspective on the crisis is radically at odds with that of the Arabs. To us, as Egyptians and Arabs, Iraq is not merely an occasion for posturing vis-à-vis the US, however justifiable that may be. Egypt, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, is a part of the Arab world to which Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, also belong. As such, we must inevitably view the crisis differently than France or Germany, for example, even if they, too, are eager to avert the spectre of war.
What, then, is the Arab perspective? What position should the Arabs take, politically and morally, in response to the peril hovering over Iraq?
The US has three "declared" reasons for its determination to attack Iraq: its possession of weapons of mass destruction; its links with international terrorism, Al-Qa'eda in particular; and its human rights violations. It also has, according to most observers, three "undeclared" reasons for going to war. The US wants to secure full control over Iraqi and Gulf oil reserves, it wants to reorganise the region in a manner that will tighten its hegemony over the world order and, thirdly, it wants to dispel Israel's security fears by eliminating any possible source of threat and, thereby, guarantee Israel's military superiority over all its neighbours.
Any Arab position must rest upon an assessment of these objectives in light of higher Arab interests. Such an assessment will not conform to the position of the US and will not necessarily be founded on the premises that have motivated US's rival powers. For example, Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction is not a sin, in itself, so long as another country in the region -- Israel -- continues to possess them. However, the fact that in the case of Iraq such weapons lie in the hands of a reckless, dictatorial regime that has used them against its neighbours and its own people should compel us to support international efforts to eliminate them. The Arab stance on this issue, therefore, should be that Iraq comply fully with the weapons inspection process and that the international inspection teams and the UN -- not the US -- should be the agencies that determine whether or not Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. In this respect, the Arab position would coincide with that of the European nations that remain unconvinced by Washington's attempts to persuade them that Iraq still possesses such weapons.
Washington has also been unsuccessful at proving, beyond the "theoretical possibility", that Iraq is a source of weapons of mass destruction for international terrorist organisations. Nevertheless, the Arabs could sympathise with Washington's concern for possible Iraqi connections to international terrorism, but with two major reservations. The first is that Palestinian resistance organisations should not be branded as terrorist. The second, and perhaps more important in this context, is that the state terrorism practiced by Saddam's regime inside Iraq has surpassed in brutality and bloodshed that perpetrated by any other despotic regime in the world. That terrorism is a fact, as opposed to Saddam's illusory connections with Al- Qa'eda.
Given this reality, no one is about to quibble with Washington's contention that the Iraqi regime systematically violates human rights. However, the bitter irony is that the Americans only brought up this issue recently, having conveniently overlooked it during the many years in which Saddam served US interests, the Iraqi war against Iran being the salient case in point.
It is difficult not to agree with most analysts who maintain that what truly motivates Washington's determination to wage war on Iraq is its desire to control the sources of oil and to secure its hegemony over the region, an objective that acquired particular impetus following 11 September. US actions at these two levels are part of a US global strategy to assert its supremacy, not so much over the Arab world, but rather with respect to rival powers, notably Western Europe, Russia and China. The growing international awareness of America's global designs, together with the universal abhorrence of war, accounts for the recent explosion in international grass-roots anti-American opposition of a scale unprecedented in contemporary history at least since the war in Vietnam.
Nor is it possible to refute the contention that catering to Israel's security concerns and aspirations is Washington's third undeclared motive behind its insistence on an assault against Iraq. Not only has Washington continued to offer unlimited support to the ruling right-wing forces in Israel, but also it has completely bought that government's line that Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation is the counterpart of the terrorism that struck New York and Washington on 11 September. This notion has gained considerable currency among sectors of American opinion with little familiarity with the history of the Palestinian cause and, more significantly, an ultra- conservative ruling elite that was more prepared to accept, indeed, welcome, such ideas than any other administration in US history. The irony, here, is that Israel's obsession with the purported Iraqi threat, an obsession that dates back to Tel Aviv's strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in July 1980, was never grounded in any concrete reality. The only time Saddam fired missiles at Israel, the missiles themselves were carrying no charges and the cause of death of the few Israelis who died during that "attack" was panic.
Given the preceding considerations, the unprecedented universal outcry against Washington's determination to go to war against Iraq, as part of its strategy to secure the cornerstones of its hegemony over a unipolar global order, should be accompanied by a clear and unequivocal Arab position no less forceful in its condemnation of the alternative of war, even if the chances of averting war at this stage appear weak. Simultaneously, however, the Arab stance should not simply parrot those of other international forces opposed to war. On the contrary, it must distinguish itself through its sincere expression of higher Arab interests and its political and moral rectitude. For this to come about, the Arabs must take into account two considerations. First, in formulating their position they must ensure that it cannot be interpreted as a defence of the regime of Saddam Hussein, condemned the world over by enlightened and democratic forces. Above all, we must not give Saddam the opportunity to proclaim to the helpless Iraqi people that he has won a second "mother of all battles" and halted the hordes of Mongols at the gates of Baghdad.
This consideration would not have occurred to international anti-war forces, quite simply because they are remote from the immediate effects of Saddam's actions, whereas that dictatorial regime has done much more to sap the resources and energies of the Arabs than any hostile outside force. It would, therefore, be politically and morally bankrupt were the Arabs not to isolate the Iraqi regime and delegitimise Arab support for it. The point is not to tell Saddam to step down and leave Iraq, but rather to convey a clear message of condemnation in order to gain the respect of international opinion and of Iraqi patriots who have been abused and driven out of the country by the Iraqi president. Simultaneously, that message should tell the US that the Arabs are capable of constructive change, that it is in our power and no one else's to enhance democracy, human rights and development in our countries, and not to squander our energies and resources.
Our second consideration is to ensure that our opposition to war against Iraq coincides with a declaration of our absolute refusal to allow a resolution to the Iraq crises come at the expense of the Palestinian cause and efforts to reach a just and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US administration, obsessed with fears that the forces of terrorism might obtain weapons of mass destruction, imagines that it must give the Iraqi question its absolute priority. Pro- Israeli forces in the US have encouraged this thinking in order to divert US and international attention away from events in Palestine, leaving the Palestinians exposed to the brutality and extremism of the Sharon government. The Arabs, therefore, must strive assiduously to restore the Palestinian cause to its proper place on the international agenda. They must also stress that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction must apply to the entire region, not just to Iraq, that the fight against terrorism must extend to Israel's abhorrent terrorism against a defenceless people under occupation and that the fight for human rights must seek to redress the usurped and abused rights of the Palestinian people.
If the Arab position reflects the determination to denounce the belligerence of the Sharon government and the awareness of the catastrophic effects that the perpetuation of the Saddam Hussein regime has had and will continue to have on the people of Iraq and the Arab world, the Arab opposition to war against Iraq will assume a distinct moral and political significance.
* The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly Al- Siyassa Al-Dawlia (International Politics), issued by Al-Ahram, and member of the Shura Council.
