Another perspective
Sir-- I was fascinated by your roundtable discussion with Ambassador Welch 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December), and found the conversation extremely interesting and informative.
I, like Ambassador Welch, disagree with some of the statements and premises which were made by some of the people on the panel, however, I thought it gave an excellent point of view from an opposing side. I intend on reading what is on your site on a regular basis.
Blake W Hiatt
California
USA
One track outlook
Sir-- Thank you for providing the summary of the roundtable discussion with US Ambassador David Welch 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December). What struck me was Welch's profound inability to understand or accept Middle Eastern politics and society in general -- unfortunately all too typical of American, Western tendencies.
He says the US does not covet others' resources, but this is an obvious lie. Welch is trying to defend American values while evading the true basis of them -- capitalism -- under the now-perverted guise of "democracy". In spite of your journalists knowing the "realities" of Arab life more than Welch, he chose to ignore an opportunity for enlightenment and instead continued defending what amounts to nothing more than blatant imperialism.
Until America and other capitalist societies (for example "the coalition"), re-defines its values, including its now-obscene version of "democracy", there can be no unified, peaceful relationships between East and West.
William Sweetling
Nova Scotia
Canada
Free trade warning
Sir-- After reading 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) with US Ambassador Welch and opinions regarding free trade, I have the following comments.
Before trusting, Egypt would benefit by looking at the Canadian free trade experience with the US.
Free trade is "free" as long as it benefits the US, otherwise their lobby groups will do everything they can, including threats and rewriting laws to ensure the US is the beneficial recipient regardless of how it injures the other party. Make no mistake about it, the US has embarked on an imperialistic path to ensure they reap the world's resources to sustain their elite economy.
Force, if needed such as in Iraq, is always there and will be used whenever the situation warrants.
John Crone
British Columbia
Canada
The right questions
Sir-- In 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) I found the Egyptian journalists extremely polite and diplomatic when it came to asking the right questions to Mr Welch. If I were at this table, I would've asked the following:
First, his comment on the fact that the reason for staging war against Iraq was the WMD and Iraq's relationship with Al-Qa'eda but neither has been proven so far.
Second, how is it that Iraq "constitutes a threat to the security in the region" when no WMDs are to be found anywhere?
Third, if Saddam is a tyrant then what was the USA thinking when they sent Donald Rumsfeld to reassure Saddam that his use of deadly gas against the Kurds will not alter Iraq's diplomatic ties with the USA.
The US says it went to Iraq to "liberate" the people, but how does destroying houses, palm trees, citrus trees, cordoning entire villages, arresting the families and relatives (mainly wives and children) of Ba'ath members, and other practices compatible with the liberation of a people?
Lastly, the US claims to be bringing democracy to the region, but democracy cannot be imposed on the people. Which democracy are you bringing to the region given you imposed the actual government at the head of which is Mr Chalabi who is a notorious, world-class crook?
Michel-Joseph Pharès
Montreal
Canada
Other suppliers
Sir-- In reference to 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December), may I remind your readers that contrary to the assertions made, it was not the United States that was the primary supplier of military equipment to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Russia and France supplied 70 per cent of the arms used by Iraq; Russia provided most of the Iraqi artillery while France supplied technology and aircraft. This information is easily supported from any number of reliable sources.
Robert Harper
Ontario
Canada
Stop the funding
Sir-- Concerning 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December), it was an interesting debate. It is even more interesting that no one cares about the 'American street'.
As a taxpayer, I resent my government for giving away my hard-earned money on the education of foreigners, when I cannot afford to send my own child on to higher education. I resent my government for giving away my hard-earned money for building hospitals when we are being turned out of hospitals for lack of medical insurance.
I resent my government for spending my hard- earned money in countries that take that money to indoctrinate their young to hate us and kill us. I resent my government for spending my hard-earned money on feeding a most unappreciative people when I have to make a choice between food on the table and health insurance for my family.
I simply want my government to stop the funding period. No more, we say; for once, we want our voices to be heard.
Debra Mason
Boston , MA
USA
Lessons back home
Sir-- 'Close encounter with a US diplomat' (Al- Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) is an excellent cross examination and could have been even more critical.
I wish you would have asked him how the US could be putting so much emphasis on the Iraq's educational system which was/is better than what I have in my African American neighbourhood here in the US -- especially under the present Bush administration.
A Gladden
New York, NY
USA
Not a bad leader
Sir-- We were disappointed by the article 'Myth laid bare' by Hani Shukrallah (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) for several reasons.
First, the occupation of Iraq proves that President Saddam Hussein and Al-Ba'ath Party are good since the Zionists would never try to get rid of a bad leader.
Second, we should never be happy if a Zionist gets rid of an Arab leader and invade an Arab country -- did the Arabs realise in 1915 that by supporting the West against Turkey the Zionists would be in Palestine within 30 years?
Let's wait and see what the status of the Arab people will be in the next 50 years; we doubt any good will happen.
Manal Hamed
Seattle
USA
All in perspective
Sir-- Your article 'Myth laid bare' by Hani Shukrallah (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) was an excellent and thought-provoking look at some systematic delusions of the Arab world. This kind of article encourages people everywhere to examine their own assumptions.
I, along with many Americans, have fallen into a kind of knee-jerk reflexive attitude towards the Arab world, dismissing it as intractably backward, corrupt and morally deficient in its continued support of despots and terrorists. Clearly these assumptions are as incorrect and harmful to the hope for more constructive relations as some of the delusions cited in the article.
Let's hope we can all face and then leave behind such delusions.
As for Omayma Abdel-Latif's article 'The morning after' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December), it contains statements attributed to Nuri Abdel-Razaq, secretary-general of the Cairo- based Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organisation, which reveal a dangerous misunderstanding of US policy and intentions in Iraq. Mr Abdel-Razaq makes the assertion that Iraqi resistance should be focussed on US targets and should be linked to the current political process taking place in Iraq, because it is this that will drive the Americans out of the country.
Mr Abdel-Razaq is responding to today's facts with yesterday's views. Before 11 September, the US did not perceive events in the Middle East to be crucial to its interests, and could relatively easily be persuaded to follow the path of least resistance. That attitude is gone forever. Any serious analysis must now start from a recognition that the US will never be driven out of any Middle Eastern conflict or area by terrorist violence or force of arms. In fact, the longer the conflict continues in Iraq the longer the US will stay.
President Bush can withdraw from a peaceful Iraq even if it is only partially democratic. If he allows the US to be "driven out of Iraq" his political career is over.
Steve Foote
Arlington, TN
USA
Wake-up call
Sir-- If we Egyptians cry for Saddam's fall, then we probably would have been crying when Pharaoh's end came.
When will we wake up from this nightmare? Why do we believe that these so-called leaders represent the so-called Arab street? Why do we listen to their hollow rhetoric and complete lies?
If we really listen to what they are saying, this is what it will sound like: we want complete control for us, our families and our friends; we do not care about the people or their human dignity; we are all powerful and you must fear us.
Ahmed Amer
Los Angles, CA
USA
Drawing parallels
Sir-- Is there any difference between Arab leaders, Bush and Saddam Hussein? Hussein improved the education, health and women's rights in his country. Bush and other Arab countries (like Kuwait and Egypt) suppressed women's rights, abused guest workers, minorities and made healthcare more expensive and out of reach for many of their residents.
Hussein was stupid to ally himself with the West, while Bush and his predecessor presidents were smart enough to make and break Saddam.
Hussein killed national leaders of opposing parties and did not leave his post after the Iranian war. Bush killed the Iraqi people and oppressed the opposition in America and did not leave his post after he failed in 2000 election.
So this war is about two people with the same mindset and plans.
Kathy Ginberg
Orlando, FL
USA
The empire strikes
Sir-- The quite pitiful nature of the image of the captured Saddam is pregnant with several subtexts; firstly, the overarching message is that minted in Imperial iconography, the foe is diminished and rendered powerless, the television screen pictures of the intrusive oral examination, the 21st Century equivalent of the parade of the vanquished. The myth of the Arab Saladdin deconstructed; the enemies of the Imperium have been run to ground.
In the Bush family drama, the boy Emperor has now gained manhood, Saddam's capture akin to an ancient rite of passage. However, buried deep in this text of imperial triumph is the sense that the rebellion might have slipped its leash, unless it was commanded and controlled by telepathy.
Saddam, the avowed secular Ba'athist (considered an apostate by Bin Laden), an Islamist of convenience, does not belong in the main narrative of this conflict. Donald Rumsfeld, in his memorandum to the president in the immediate aftermath of 11 September alluded to this. Rumsfeld wrote a memo that said he wanted to 'Judge whether [intelligence was] good enough [to] hit S.H. at the same time. Not only UBL.' He added: 'Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'
The two totemic and authentic adversaries Bin Laden and Bush are now telescoped into sharper relief. One suspects that the president's bullish challenge to 'Bring 'em on' could just as well have been issued by Bin Laden. The American footprint has been brought down from the skies and is now characterised by being in large part a constabulary, foot patrol and therefore the opportunity to launch a classic counter-insurgency, an asymmetric campaign, is much more favourable and is proving so. Fresh reports confirm that Osama believes that Iraq is becoming the perfect battlefield to fight the 'American crusaders' and that the Iraqi insurgency has been '100 per cent successful so far'.
The lessons of history resonate powerfully. An exasperated Winston Churchill, who had taken over the mantle of Britain's colonial policies in the Middle East, was to tell the British government that it was spending millions for the privilege of sitting atop a volcano. Lamenting on the British experience in Iraq, the "last lion" was to write, "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet."
Aly-Khan Satchu
London
UK
Trading down
Sir-- The good news is that Saddam is gone; the bad news is that he is replaced by the devil, not a real national party.
Mona Hamad
Kiffan
Kuwait
Rat to roach
Sir-- It seems that the Arab people prefer not to be controlled by Saddam Hussein who was hiding like a "rat", but instead they choose to be under the power of G Bush, who hid like a "cockroach" for three days after 11 September.
Surish Basuto
Bombay
India
Several lessons
Sir-- Here are some fact about President Saddam Hussein's capture. For his credit, he did not hide in another country but stayed with his people for almost one year; news of his capture was timed to last for a few days in the media, and was timed for Sunday talk shows; Bush ran and hid after the destruction of two buildings planned by Zionists and executed by misled Muslims; now Iraqi resistance will gain power -- Saddam is 68 years old and irrelevant.
Finally: Saddam, America made you and America destroyed you.
The hope is that the next leaders in Middle East will understand that lesson.
Lura Comansky
Omaha, NE
USA
Gaining respect
Sir-- I applaud Doris Cadigan for her letter 'Breeding terror' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December). We are glad that larger segments of the American people have become more aware of the tragedy and disastrous situation of the Palestinians -- an unarmed and helpless people.
Israel, with the complicity of the US, is destroying all aspects of Palestinian life; settlements are being built on the best confiscated Palestinian lands; everything is being done to wipe out the Palestinian identity.
The Palestinians were left alone to face a most powerful country, while Israel's media domination along with Zionist lobbies are masking the truth and giving unlimited support for the aggressor.
The US has always vetoed any UN resolution if it carries the least blame on Israel, no matter how brutal the crime committed.
America may be feared for its might, but it is only respected for honest people such as Doris Cadigan.
Engy Ayman
Cairo
Egypt
Imposed might
Sir-- As long as the sons of the poorer class are willing to die in defence of corporate America disguised as patriotism and as long as Americans accept to be brainwashed, I see no solution on sight to America's rule.
We all remember the Soviet Empire; the moment the army failed to implement the political agenda with military might the USSR buckled under.
Before that, the same happened in many other European countries.
Jeff Morin
London
UK
No to NATO
Sir-- We should be grateful to our friend Mr Patrick Elyas for posting a response to Mr Sid- Ahmed's article 'Egypt, Iraq and Israel in NATO' (Al-Ahram Weekly 20-26 November). According to Mr Elyas, "An Egyptian inclusion in NATO will bring awesome economic and political benefits to Egypt. It will also propel Egypt forward economically, socially and politically."
On the face of it our friend is quite right, but the insight outlook may propose that Mr Patrick is still stuck to a time warp.
Down to the brass tacks, Egypt has featured prominently in the Israeli-Arab conflict since its inception in 1948. It had to go to war four times in defence of the usurped Palestinian rights. These wars took a heavy toll on the economic and social structure of the Egyptian people. In between these wars, perhaps until now, Egypt had to allocate over 25 per cent of its annual budget and borrow hopping amounts from other countries to meet its military obligations. That is why Egypt is categorised as a developing country so far, regardless of its great human and highly rated natural resources.
Because of Egypt's constant involvement in the conflict, terrorism cut heavily into its economic and psychological structure. The grisly assassination of the late President Sadat, the attacks on our top officials and tourists are to mention but a few. It has fallen to Egypt's lot to suffer politically as well. The Egyptians had to suffer at the hands of the Emergency Law, restriction of freedom and muzzling of the press. Unfortunately, Egypt has never enjoyed full-fledged democracy, but a simulacrum and a label of it.
Propelling Egypt forward economically, socially and politically by including it in the NATO, as our friend put it, is unfounded. Egypt will never stand up on its feet unless the Palestinian cause is even-handedly solved. It will never enjoy security unless Mr Bush assumes the role of Mr Carter, the fair and conscientious broker, compel Israel to respect the moral underpinnings of the international laws, and protect the defenseless Palestinians from Israeli criminal cohorts.
Finally, how can we expect progress and stability in our region while the American-Anglo- Israeli occupation is reveling in lawlessness, and sticking its tongue out at the world legality? Meantime, the down-trodden peoples who are fighting desperately for their independence, are ironically dubbed as terrorists.
Mahmoud Elewa
Cairo
Egypt
Technically thorough
Sir-- Salah Al-Amrousi's 'The myth of comparative advantages' (Al-Ahram Weekly, 18-24 December) was a delight to read.
It's incredibly rare to find a thorough, analytical perspective in a non-technical publication.
Mohamed Hamza
Cambridge
UK
Other viewpoints
Sir-- I appreciate having another perspective on international news. The articles I have read appear to be well thought out and researched.
Jerry Ross
New York, NY
USA
Timeless music
Sir-- As a Muslim, I was truly surprised about Ms Catta's complaint concerning the inclusion of three Strauss waltzes in 15 November concert at the Cairo Opera House. Frankly, I don't understand the reason for Ms Catta's complaint; Johann Strauss' music is beautiful for any occasion. I would even listen to Chopsticks in Ramadan -- or any other occasion -- if played beautifully.
By the way, if Ms Catta objected so much to that particular selection in the programme, why did she attend the concert? I presume the programme had been advertised in the media.
Ms Catta, music, painting and poetry is beauty in its own right anywhere and at any time.
Astrid-Herma Smart
Paernumaa
Estonia
Al-Ahram Weekly reserves the right to edit letters submitted to Readers' Corner for brevity
and clarity. Readers are advised to limit their letters to a maximum of 300 words.
