Seeking to win Arab "hearts and minds" to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote an article for the Arabic daily Al-Ahram of 30 March. Al-Ahram Board Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Ibrahim Nafie replied in the same issue. As a service to English-language readers, Al-Ahram Weekly reprints their debate below
Who will history favour?
By
Ibrahim Nafie
Tony Blair was correct to observe that this war invokes "strong feelings in the region", but does he also realise that this war is destroying the fabric of the region and demolishing the foundations of its stability, as well as causing deep irreparable fractures in the psyche of the people. This unjust war represents an grim moment in the political and cultural history of the world -- with repercussions for humanity in the coming decades. It is precisely at moments such as these -- when logic is manipulated, truths are obfuscated, the rule of law and the principles of fairness are abandoned and power is corrupting the mighty -- that we are in need of rational minds and wise thinkers. Unfortunately Mr Blair's recent opinion article only confirms to Al-Ahram the absolute illogical basis and rationale for the war.
First, we will begin by stating Al-Ahram's position on this war. This war was neither unavoidable or necessary, as Mr Blair suggests in his article. According to Mr Blair, the world only has two choices. We, however, regret this type of black and white thinking because it goes against the basic principles of democratic thought. It is unfortunate to hear statements such as "I believe that history will judge that we made the right choice". These types of expressions remind us of the blind confidence of previous democratic powers and regimes and their effort to monopolise the keys and secrets of history and the future.
Justifying the ongoing war on the basis of the threat of the Iraqi regime possessing weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that these could be delivered to terrorist organisations defies both reality and common sense. If it was in the interest or policies of the Iraqi regime to deliver these weapons to terrorist organisations, it would have done so already. In fact, the war will cause just the opposite of its stated objective.
The animosity which this war is creating could lead the very regime it aims to liquidate to conclude that delivering weapons to terrorist organisations will be a legitimate case of self-defence. This war is, therefore, creating both the motive and rationale for this course of action. If the Iraqi regime was in possession of these weapons, then it is clear that peaceful means and negotiations -- not war -- would have been the only way to guarantee that such a scenario does not happen.
Even if it were accurate to state that the Iraqi regime failed to respect relevant international decisions -- in particular UN Resolutions 687, 1248 and 1441 -- then part of that responsibility falls on the US and Britain because of the peculiar manner in which they conducted relations with Iraq at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was slapped with some of the harshest and most notorious sanctions in the history of international relations, yet not given the slightest hope that the sanctions would be lifted if it were to comply fully with Security Council Resolution 687. There were many public statements and official positions taken to firmly shut this door of hope even if Iraq had complied to a tee. These unprecedented policies which were exercised against Iraq in particular diminished any incentive the Iraqi regime may have had to respect its commitments. It's as if these policies were specially tailored to lure it into non-compliance. Al-Ahram is in possession of a complete record of these statements and will make them available to anyone who is interested. We might also add, that the subsequent "Iraqi Freedom" legislation passed by the US Congress, not only planted a seed of despair in the Iraqi populace, but went far beyond that, and declared for its destruction.
In similar situations and crises in the past, Britain adopted completely different policies, not to mention the current approach used with North Korea. Britain resisted for a long time imposing sanctions on the Apartheid regime in South Africa despite their developing a nuclear weapons programme. The limited sanctions which were eventually imposed went hand in hand with intense negotiations with the regime to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Despite the fact that the Apartheid regime was also known for its continued and routine wars against its neighbours, war was not launched against it, nor were the doors of hope of returning to the international fold ever slammed shut in its face.
The point we are trying to make is that a much better solution could have been reached with the Iraqi regime if the US and Britain had launched serious negotiations with it in 1991. This is especially true if the negotiations had offered a glimmer of hope and applied the same level of active diplomacy which was utilised with many other states, under a similar predicament.
Second, this war is illegitimate in terms of international law and the United Nations system. It is not an exaggeration to assert that this is the most important point of difference with Mr Blair. If any British leader, past or future, were to commit a serious breach of the law without approval from parliament or the judiciary, no one in Britain would see it as legitimate regardless of how loudly that leader clamours about his confidence that "history will judge that we made the right choice". This is because the actions would be seen as a coup against democracy and brushing aside the rule of law.
Without a clear mandate from the UN Security Council there is no prospect of painting the war against Iraq in the colours of legitimacy, unless it is the legitimacy of force. What compounds the illegitimacy of this war is the fact that UNMOVIC was unable to find anything against Iraq despite months of work inside the country. UNMOVIC in fact vouched that its work was being met with increased cooperation by the Iraqi government.
Third, regime change, is ultimately a matter of domestic politics and cannot be imposed by foreign parties from the outside. By stating that this war aims to "remove Saddam" from power is a breach of the principle of the nation's right to self- determination, which is guaranteed by the UN Charter and Article 1 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. If the world allows the US and Britain to continue their breach of the law, would Mr Blair tell us when it will end and in what direction international relations will go from here? If atrocities justify going to war to decapitate the transgressing government, then why didn't Britain demonstrate its empathy towards the people of Cambodia by saving them from massacres carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime, or save the people of Rwanda and Burundi from an annihilation, which is still fresh in the minds of the world. Why didn't Britain lift a finger when Muslims were being slaughtered at the hands of Serb fascists a few years ago.
Fourth, this war is brazen in its discrimination against Arab countries. Even if wars are launched outside the framework of international legitimacy they should possess some coherent logic and consistency. If the US and Britain intend to launch wars to eradicate weapons of mass destruction, it is only logical that the masses would expect them to launch wars against numerous other countries which possess and develop these very same weapons -- Israel being one of the prime examples.
Mr Blair may interject here by saying "Iraq is the only state to have used such weapons against its citizens and neighbours." To this statement, we have several responses. It is unusual to use such reasoning by the American administration and British government while also saying that these two countries have the right to launch preemptive strikes to prevent the possibility of using these weapons. It's as if preemptive strikes only apply to Iraq and no other country. For us this would imply that preemptive strikes only target Arabs.
Fifth, this war is an indication of the lack of justice and even-handedness in international relations. The US and Britain have, for instance, failed to prevent the oppressive policies of Israel, either under the leadership of the incumbent Prime Minister Ariel Sharon or his predecessors. They have also failed to honour their commitments regarding the implementation of UN resolutions such as Security Council Resolution 242 which was drafted by Britain itself in the wake of the 1967 war, some 36 years ago. Mr Blair should know that no one in the Arab world or the world at large believes what is often suggested that this resolution was not passed according to the Seventh Chapter of the UN Charter because it is a well known fact that it is based on the entirety of the UN Charter. If not, then this resolution was a dishonourable manoeuver of deception which is not befitting the stature of civilised countries.
The issue is whether UN Security Council resolutions are binding or not. It is noteworthy here to remember that Israel has been absolved from abiding by international law, and although it is an occupying state it is exempt from adhering to international humanitarian law, including all four Geneva conventions. Britain has not dared to condemn or even point out to Israel its criminal violations, yet at the same time it shows generous amounts of courage and determination when it comes to Iraq which has been deprived for over 12 years of the basic requirements of military capability.
Sixth, this war rekindles bitter memories of Western colonialism. It is not enough to justify the invasion and occupation in terms of a promise of democracy for the Iraqi people. A large number of British parliamentarians have said that it is impossible to deliver democracy anywhere in the world through the barrels of guns and tanks. Many have also pointed out how naive it would be to give any credence to this sudden and intense infatuation with democracy in Iraq. It would have pleased us greatly if Iraq had not been home to vast amounts of oil or the target of a larger strategy. Otherwise, why was it subjected to the worst sanctions regime in history.
Even if one were to believe the promises of democracy, where are the questions of sovereignty and national dignity found in all this? And who gave the Americans and British a mandate to spread democracy in a heavy-handed manner in some part of the world? Yes, democracy is an important requirement for the people, but national sovereignty and independence are also a top priority for the people.
Seventh, this war augurs a humanitarian tragedy, and this is why we are surprised at the talk of humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq after the war, and precision bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Iraq was not in need of this assistance and can take care of itself, especially if it were left alone and if issues were resolved through peaceful means. Similarly, the talk of reconstruction would have been unnecessary if Iraq had not been destroyed. Despite the promises and all the talk about "smart" weapons technology, Iraqi civilians are falling by the hundreds. They may be killed or "are liberated from life" if "technical mistakes" continue and if the American and British forces become involved in urban warfare. And hence, how can we believe these promises?
Wise observers everywhere in the world have warned that this war is destroying an intricately woven social fabric and damaging it beyond repair. They also warned that regional balances are very sensitive and complex and may not be repairable if they are upset by this war. To this, we add that cultural sensitivities have been insulted, perhaps to such an extent that they've passed the point of no return.
The Arab world cannot endure two simultaneous cruel wars against its sons, in Palestine and Iraq, without feeling that it is a target for destruction. The consequences of these wars will unleash the forces of revenge, as well as national and religious ill-feelings. It will also tarnish international relations and weaken the sense of brotherhood needed among different peoples, religions and cultures. This is the most dangerous message that one gets from this ongoing and unnecessary war.
Eighth, we have no cause to have faith in the promises pertaining to Palestinian and Arab rights. The pledge made by Mr Blair is not very different from the long history of promises made to the Palestinian people. Yet despite this and their continued suffering, the abuse does not stop. The real guarantee that these promises will not be reneged upon as usual is for Mr Blair to publicly tell Mr Sharon, "Stop abusing the Palestinian people and breaching international law, including the Geneva conventions." He could also give Mr Sharon an ultimatum to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip within 72 hours. If such a clear statement and decision is made public we may be reassured to some degree that the goal is not to devour small populations or to flex a muscle of force. We would in this case interpret the war against Iraq as simply a miscalculation and misjudgment.
The only assurance for us would be the immediate reversal of this mistaken policy and a halt to the war. If Mr Blair assists in this vein he will find us a most receptive audience and a public which is prepared to believe him. But such support would be forthcoming only under these conditions, and none other.
