Forewarned, not forearmed
Ibrahim Nafierecalls recent questions posed by Al-Ahram writers in Washington on the eve of war
US-British forces have not found the picnic they thought awaited them in Iraq. Iraqi troops are not surrendering in droves and the Iraq people are not showering them with flowers. On the contrary, the alliance met with such tough resistance that it was forced to call a halt on the advance on Baghdad until supplies and reinforcements could be brought in. Meanwhile it intensified its bombardment of Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities, wreaking an inevitable toll on civilian installations, vital infrastructure and hundreds of innocent lives. Despite the difficulties invading forces have encountered Washington has shown no indication that it is prepared to relent and revive diplomacy.
During a visit to the US capital from 28 February to 18 March the Al-Ahram delegation sensed the Bush administration's resolve to press ahead with plans devised in Washington a long time ago. However, Al-Ahram felt that its task at that juncture involved more than learning what was going on in the minds of US decision-makers. We felt it necessary to alert the officials we met to the dangerous repercussions of a war against Iraq and to caution them that technological superiority does not count for all in a war in which the other side is fighting to defend their land, national independence and dignity. Simultaneously, we argued that if Washington was certain that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction it made more sense to allow UN weapons inspectors more time, particularly given that the reports of the chief arms inspectors indicated that Baghdad was cooperating. Moreover, we asked, if Iraq does indeed possess such weapons what is to prevent it from using them to defend itself in the event of an attack?
We further stressed that Israel must not be allowed to exploit a prospective war against Iraq to inflict further injustices against the Palestinians. Priority must be given to ending the Israeli occupation and granting Palestinians the right to self determination in an independent state with its capital in East Jerusalem.
To a large extent our mission in Washington was to convey Egyptian and Arab views on various aspects of the prospective war. Some people, however, have very selective memories and a consequent propensity to cite out of context, at least when it comes to casting aspersions on Egypt's position on the war or on Al-Ahram's commitment to the defence of Egyptian and Arab interests. I will, therefore, take this opportunity to remind our detractors of some of the questions we posed to US officials in our recent visit to Washington.
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, on 3 February, we asked Richard Haas, director of the US State Department of Policy Planning: "Until now, most of the evidence you have cited consists of unsubstantiated reports and all proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction appears purely circumstantial. So far you have not furnished any material evidence as normally required by law... Do you think you have other proof that might convince the Europeans and the Arabs of the need for war?"
Since the Arabs would naturally ask why Iraq, of all nations, was to be singled out for war in the absence of concrete evidence and when diplomatic avenues were still available, we followed up the question: "To say that Saddam is a dictator and that he has weapons of mass destruction is not convincing in itself since 40 other nations in the world possess such weapons and there are an even greater number of dictatorships."
In its interviews Al-Ahram drove home the implications of US double standards on weapons of mass destruction and other issues. To US National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice we pointed out the following: "You say that Saddam is being deceitful. Yet others have played the same game. Israel, for example, has procrastinated since Madrid, indeed, since 1967, over withdrawing from the occupied territories. Moreover, it has not only failed to implement UN resolutions it has intensified its confiscation of Palestinian land."
In reference to US claims regarding Iraq's purported links to terrorism as a pretext for war, we asked this of Haas: "Why can you not deal with Iraq through constructive dialogue instead of war? You pursued a course of dialogue in Angola, Mozambique and South Africa. Moreover, the US had dealings with the people in Afghanistan whom you now describe as terrorists."
In its interview with Dennis Ross, director of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Studies and former Middle East peace coordinator, we took pains to explain at length why the people of Egypt and the rest of the Arab world were so vehemently opposed to a war against Iraq. It was important to draw a distinction between the regime in Iraq and Iraq as a country, we said. For the past 12 years this country has been unjustly subjected to the longest and cruelest blockade in history. War, we stressed, would compound the tragedies of a people who have already paid an enormous material and moral price for the actions of their leadership. In addition, a war would disrupt the stability and strategic balance of the region and precipitate a dire and unpredictable situation.
Throughout the Arab world, we told Ross, there prevails a sense of gross injustice. The Arabs feel they have been singled out for particularly cruel treatment while Washington goes to excessive lengths to indulge parties guilty of more severe breaches of international law. We put to Ross the general suspicion that Washington's aggression will not end in Iraq, but go on to target other countries in the region. The irony is that Egypt and the Arabs have long campaigned to rid the entire Middle East of weapons of mass destruction in an attempt to forestall an arms race stimulated by the threat posed by Israel's continued possession of such weapons. But rather than pushing for a comprehensive solution to this problem through the evenhanded enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty, Washington adopted a selective approach. In sum, we said, the US "concentrated its energies on exerting all forms of political, economic and military pressure on Iraq, which ultimately precipitated the current situation".
Having laid out these views to Haas, Al- Ahram added this: "Many say that invasion and occupation of Iraq will not solve, but rather compound the problem." At the same time we emphasised that it was still possible to avoid actions that would incur great economic, humanitarian and political costs.
Then, on 9 February, when it had become clear that only a major breakthrough could dissuade Washington from going to war, Al-Ahram put a list of questions to Assistant Secretary of Defence Peter Rodman:
The Iraqis indicate that they will resort to urban warfare, are you prepared for such a war?
In the event of such a war, what will be the human costs of a siege on Baghdad?
Do you have any remedy in mind for the instability that will ricochet throughout the region as a result of war?
How long do you plan to stay in Iraq following the war?
What do you have to say to those in the Middle East who believe the US will target other countries after Iraq?"
Al-Ahram was keen to assess the US stance on the Arabs' central concern, the Palestinian cause. In our interviews with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice we asked: "What will Washington do in the event that Sharon continues to refuse to pursue a political settlement?"
We pointed out that Sharon had stated that he does not recognise the "roadmap" and that the majority of the Likud Party was opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. We then asked: "Do you have any specific proposals for convincing him of the need to create a Palestinian state?" Finally we asked: "Do you still believe it is possible to realise Bush's vision calling for the declaration of a Palestinian state by 2005? A recent Washington Post article mentioned that Bush's and Sharon's views are in complete conformity. Has Sharon changed his mind?"
The difficulties Anglo-US forces are encountering in Iraq is indicative of just how pertinent the questions the delegation posed to US officials were. Decision- makers in Washington had miscalculated the resolve of the Iraqi army and the reaction of the Iraqi people and are now exchanging angry accusations over the confusion that has arisen from their misjudgment.
Meanwhile, here, ostensibly in the spirit of journalistic competition, are those who can only hurl one unfounded accusation after the other. Odd, considering that the thrust of our concern in the Arab world should be to support the Iraqi people and do our utmost to protect them from what is certain to escalate into a war of retribution for their steadfastness in defending their land and dignity.
