An open condemnation
It has been a few decades since the last time Arabs openly condemned the US. Dina Ezzat reports on the recent Arab Foreign Ministers Meeting
Unsurprisingly, this week's Arab Foreign Ministers Meeting adopted no serious measures to stop US and British troops from attempting to occupy Iraq under the guise of freeing Iraqis from the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Arab countries facilitating this aggression by providing military and logistical assistance were not asked to withdraw their support for an assault on a fellow Arab state. Additionally, the United States, United Kingdom and other aggressors were not threatened with any Arab retaliatory political or economic measures, humble though they probably would have been.
However, to the surprise of many, all 21 member states of the Arab League, with the notable exception of Kuwait, adopted a toughly worded resolution that clearly and vocally condemns the US and the UK for their military aggression.
Adopted under the title, "The American-British Aggression on Iraq and its repercussions on the safety and security of Arab neighbouring states and Arab national security", the resolution contains anti-American language that has not been seen in documents for years. Indeed, compared with recent Arab and Islamic resolutions adopted on the Iraq issue, including that adopted by the Arab summit, this resolution is extremely tough.
"During the past few months, resolutions adopted at Arab and Islamic meetings have not even dared to refer to the US per se. This resolution, however, goes way beyond naming the US as an aggressor," commented one Cairo-based Arab diplomat who asked for his name to be withheld.
Indeed, the resolution overtly states that the military action led by the US is an aggression. It clearly condemns this aggression and states that it has had serious repercussions for Arab national security and the region. It also calls US troops and their allies, "occupying forces" -- in language reminiscent of Pan-Arabism's heyday.
Moreover, the resolution, which was adopted by Arab foreign ministers during their meeting at the Arab League on Monday, explicitly calls the aggression against Iraq, "a violation of the UN Charter, the tenets of international law and international legitimacy". The resolution also states that this aggression constitutes, "a threat to international peace and security and an act of defiance to the international community and international public opinion, which called for peaceful settlements to international disputes in accordance with the tenets of international legitimacy".
So, gone are the days of euphemism when Arab officials would refer to the US as, "the key international power" in contexts where they wanted to voice anger or criticism. And, gone is the apprehension that forced most Arab countries to call the Anglo-American war against Iraq, "military action" or "the Third Gulf War".
Today, Arabs are calling the US an aggressor and they are asking it to withdraw its troops from Iraq, "unconditionally and immediately" expressing a sense of urgency that has not even been indicated towards Israel recently.
Even the US's very close Arab allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan signed the resolution.
In the words of one Arab League source, "this was one resolution that was not subject to any serious debate or give and take. A draft was proposed by one of the foreign ministers in a limited meeting that brought together the secretary-general [of the Arab League, Amr Moussa] and a number of foreign ministers. Some amendments were included. And, the resolution was adopted in less than two hours with the reservation of Kuwait."
"What we are seeing now in Baghdad and Basra is simply unacceptable. Not a single Arab accepts seeing a fellow Arab country under occupation, with the American flag being raised on Arab soil," said Moussa. He added, "Arabs hold no grievance against the American or British peoples but this is an aggression that is faced with widespread international opposition, even from within America and Britain."
"What this aggression is really about is neo-colonialism," commented Libyan Foreign Minister Ali Al-Trikki, who chaired the Foreign Ministers Meeting. "It seems that Arab countries that spent long decades and gave millions of martyrs to win their independence during the 19th century are now [being] forced to face a new wave of occupation and to fight a new war for freedom," he added.
That said, Arab public opinion and, for that matter, Iraqi official and public opinion, have not been completely satisfied with the outcome of the ministerial meeting. Both Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan and Mohamed Hussein, a Cairo taxi driver, believe that Arab politicians could have done more.
Critics argue that, despite the complicated economic and political ties between most Arab countries and the US, Arab states should have taken more serious and practical moves, such as imposing an oil embargo on the aggressors, or reducing trade with Washington and London in favour of, say, Paris and Berlin, who opposed the war. According to many critics, it is not enough for Arab foreign ministers to call on the UN Security Council to meet and take necessary measures to stop this aggression since it is known to all that the US decided to ignore the council when it went to war.
However, on stepping out of the meeting on Monday evening, Iraqi Foreign Minister Nagui Sabri agreed that, "Arabs, all Arabs with the exception of the rulers of Kuwait, came together to condemn this aggression and salute the Iraqi resistance. They could have done more ... but this is a clear stance."
In the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Sharaa, "yes, much more could and should have been done but this is Arab solidarity at the minimum. It is good that we did not lose this much."
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 27 March - 2 April 2003 (Issue No. 631)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/631/sc3.htm