| |
THE
ROVING EYE
Arab impotence and
misguided anger
By Pepe Escobar
CAIRO - It was certainly great
theater. With a backdrop of anti-war demonstrations all
over the Muslim world, leaders of the 22 member
countries of the Arab League gathered an Saturday at the
Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh - developed
by Israelis - to exchange their usual elaborate
courtesies in an "ordinary" summit.
But then they sat down in their plush cream
leather chairs just to watch Syria's President Bashar
Assad passionately denounce American colonialism and
say, "After Iraq, we're next." Then followed a call by
the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for Saddam Hussein to
step down; a threat by the Iraqi delegation to leave the
summit; Libya's flamboyant Muammar Gaddaffi and Saudi
Crown Prince Abdullah almost come to blows; and the
Saudis then also threaten to leave.
After so
much adrenaline, they couldn't do better than settle for
a bland resolution condemning war, but with a
face-saving provision for the Gulf states - all of them
bound by defense pacts with the US: in the event of war,
these mini-monarchies can always say that they are not
participating directly, and that US military operations
on their soil are legitimized by a UN mandate.
Furthermore, an Arab committee this week will
explain the Arab position (which is no more than
attached to the Franco-German-Russian position) to
"international parties" before going to Baghdad for a
last-second talk with Saddam Hussein. Too little, too
late.
Everybody knew in advance that the summit
would be a failure because it was a meeting initiated by
fear. Jordan entirely depends on Iraq for its oil. Syria
fears an influx of Kurdish refugees. Lebanon and Jordan
fear a mass "transfer" of Palestinians masterminded by
an Ariel Sharon run amok. Egypt fears a loss of revenues
in tourism and the Suez Canal. Countries with a Sunni
majority fear increased Iranian influence with a larger
role to play for Iraqi Shi'ites in the post-Saddam era.
Gaddaffi, clad in a fabulous reddish-orange robe
and clutching a red ballpoint pen, certainly remains a
show-stealer. In the middle of the discussions, he chose
to remind everyone how, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in
1990, the American military arrived in Saudi Arabia. "I
told King Fahd that American forces are moving into
Saudi Arabia. He then replied 'America is a big country
and we cannot prevent it and it can come'. I told him,
'How can this happen to Saudi Arabia, which is an
independent country'? After that, in a telephone
conversation, the king told me that Iraq had the
intention to invade the kingdom. I asked him how he
knew. He said, 'We have seen the Iraqi forces deployed
on the front. That means the Iraqi threat was a source
of concern and threat for the kingdom and all the Gulf
states. America has pledged to protect this region
because it is an important source of energy'."
This was enough to send Crown Prince Abdullah
into a fit of rage. The prince cut Gaddaffi short and
fired back, "Saudi Arabia is a frontline country for the
Muslim nation. It is not a colonial agent. Colonialists
are for you and others. Who exactly brought you to
power? Don't say anything and don't interfere in matters
in which you don't have any role. You are a liar. Your
grave awaits you."
All of this live on Egyptian
TV, whose directors scrambled like mad to cut off the
feed. The Saudis were so furious that they started to
leave the meeting. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak,
Syria's Assad and Lebanese President Emile Lahoud did
everything they could to calm the Saudis down. The
session only resumed after a very tense 20-minute
interruption. A key Saudi-Egyptian-Jordanian plan
discussed at the summit called for the formation of an
Iraqi national unity government, with Saddam as a sort
of figurehead, and with representatives of all ethnic
and religious Iraqi groups. It's obvious that Saddam and
the Ba'ath Party leadership will never agree to such an
arrangement. Saddam has repeatedly said that he would
rather die like the last Abbasid Caliph (facing the
Mongols in the 13th century) than go to exile.
In London, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi
ambassador to the United Kingdom, reinforced the idea
that even with a second United Nations resolution, Arab
countries will keep trying to convince Saddam to step
down. But much more important was what he said
concerning the American presence in Saudi Arabia.
According to Turki, Saudi Arabia will open talks on US
troop withdrawal immediately after the war. "If there is
no longer any need for a no-fly zone in Iraq, then the
discussions would take place between us and the US about
the removal of those forces from the kingdom."
This is extremely significant because it comes
from none other than the man who sent Osama bin Laden to
fight a jihad in Afghanistan in the early 1980s. And
this development - American forces leaving the "land of
the two mosques" - is exactly what bin Laden had wanted
all along.
After the Gaddaffi-Abdullah exchange
and before the release of the final summit declaration
in Sharm el-Sheikh, some Arab diplomats and commentators
- who insisted on remaining anonymous, and obviously
fired by Gaddaffi's intervention - went into back to the
future mode, trying to shed some light on recent
history. All agree that Saddam invaded Kuwait on August
2, 1990 after misinterpreting a series of dubious
American signals. Saddam thought that he would be able
to get away with it. All remember the 1980s when the
Arabs - ostensibly - and the US - more or less
discreetly - supported Saddam in the bloody
eight-year-war against Iran. The Saudis thanked Iraq for
defending the eastern flank of the Arab nation from the
Persians with cold hard cash. And the Americans praised
Saddam for doing the dirty work of containing the armies
of the Islamic revolution- selling loads of military
equipment and chemical and biological material to Iraq
in the process.
But when Saddam invaded Kuwait,
King Fahd was tricked by US intelligence into believing
that he was next in line after the emir of Kuwait -
although Iraq had explicitly promised that it would not
attack Saudi Arabia. Diplomats remember George Bush
senior called Fahd on August 3, 1990, and telling him
that the Iraqis were about to invade Riyadh - while
Jordan's King Hussein was trying everything he could to
solve the crisis peacefully among the Arabs themselves.
The Arab League met in Cairo on August 3, and bowing to
relentless American pressure it passed a resolution,
with a feeble majority, condemning the invasion. On
August 5, Saddam said that he agreed to withdraw his
troops and negotiate. But Bush senior said it's a lie,
and was about to order American forces to rush to the
Gulf.
Fahd at this point still does not want
American troops on Saudi soil because he views his role
as a mediator capable of solving the crisis. But the US
shows him doctored satellite photos as evidence that
Iraqi armies are massing at the gates of the country.
According to diplomats, Fahd says "yes" on the same day
that Saddam guarantees to an American charge de affaires
that Iraq will respect Saudi Arabia's sovereignty. On
August 6, American forces start disembarking in Saudi
Arabia to mount operation Desert Shield.
That's
where bin Laden comes in. Immediately after the invasion
of Kuwait, he sent a message to the Saudi royal family.
He would be able to raise a force of at least 10,000
mujahideen to confront Saddam's Republican Guard in the
event that the Iraqi leader had some ideas. Bin Laden
deeply believed a Muslim army should defend its homeland
if attacked. He thought that Riyadh was considering his
offer. But on August 7, bin Laden finally learned that
American troops would be in charge of the security of
Saudi Arabia's oil. He was assured that the Americans
would leave after Kuwait was "liberated". They didn't.
So bin Laden broke with the Saudi royal family. Later,
he said, "They had betrayed Muslims, had become
dependent on Christians and Jews and couldn't be the
custodians of the holy places any more." He was ordered
to leave Saudi Arabia - so he went to develop al-Qaeda
in exile in Sudan and Afghanistan.
Back to the
summit. As far as the UAE proposal was concerned, UAE
President Sheikh Zayed ibn Sultan al-Nahayan sent a
message asking for the entire "Iraqi leadership to step
down and leave Iraq ... within two weeks of adopting
this Arab initiative". Iraq then should be governed
jointly by the Arab League and the UN and return to "its
normal situation in accordance with the will of the
brotherly Iraqi people". Zayed was careful to add that
the Iraqi leadership should be given legal guarantees
that it would not face prosecution.
On hearing
this, furious Iraqis, led by vice president Izzat
Ibrahim, threatened to leave the summit. But this time
it was Mubarak and Gaddaffi's turn to calm down the
Iraqis, and the proposal was formally withdrawn. Iraqi
Foreign Minister Naji Sabri described the proposal as
"US-inspired bilge". The UAE were dejected. According to
their Information Minister, Sheikh Abdullah ibn Zayed,
Gulf states are in favor of the arrangement because it
"could spare Iraq the torment of war". After the summit,
Kuwait and Bahrain - hosts to the awesome American
military machine - officially supported the proposal.
Politically, Gulf states are worried about the
consequences of an armed and dangerous US in their
vicinity, while in economic terms regime change couldn't
be a more popular arrangement. Small Gulf nations are
already profiting from a war that has not even started.
With oil prices shooting up to almost US$40 a barrel,
the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have nothing to lose.
They also have their eyes set on the endless golden
opportunities in terms of economic reconstruction and
long-term foreign investment in the post-Saddam era.
Businesses in the Gulf are already planning for a
mini-boom starting on the second half or the end of
2003, and accelerating in 2004 towards 2005. Iraq's
reconstruction will be financed not only by Iraq's oil
revenues, but most of all by a mix of international aid
and soft loans from Arab nations. There will be a
construction boom for Gulf-based contractors, suppliers
and consultants. Much will be financed by Gulf banks.
Kuwaiti traders have been praying for Saddam to bow out
for more than two decades. But the economic hub of the
UAE, Dubai - which will become the gateway to Iraq -
will probably be the biggest winner.
Where does
this all leave the Arab street? Moroccan sociologist
Mohamed Tozy offers an explanation, "People in the Arab
world simply don't accept the US linkage of
Islamism-terrorism-Iraq. They can't stand this kind of
confusion. Anti-American sentiment at the same time is
comforted by the anti-Americanism of non-Arab societies:
this is not merely an Arab or Muslim sentiment any more.
Now, many pin their hopes in a sort of global conscience
incarnated by mass movements in different capitals.
There's a feeling that the Arab world is being
reinserted back into the world. We are not the only ones
concerned about what's happening. We see this
paradoxical mix: on one side, the despair and impotence
of an Arab world which cannot trust a summit any more,
nor any Arab resolution; on the other side, a real hope
carried through by this alternative globalization, this
global civil society who says 'no' to the United
States."
Even the not-exactly-free Arab press
mirrors these feelings. The point is made by an
editorial of the Saudi English-language daily Arab News,
"Bush is one of America's least traveled presidents. It
seems that he only knows of the Middle East that which
is whispered in his ears by his largely
Zionist-influenced advisers. The subtleties and complex
history of our region are entirely beyond his ken. He
thinks in terms of the good guys and the bad guys.
Saddam is the bad guy and the Iraqi people need to be
bombed into liberation and freedom from his clutches.
Pax Americana will afterward be delivered to the
wreckage, on Washington's terms. Every item on this
potentially catastrophic agenda entirely ignores the
wishes and concerns of every other country in the
region. A US-occupied and destabilized Iraq will become
a breeding ground for the botulism of terrorism, far
more deadly in nature than anything that the world has
yet encountered."
Which leaves Arab
intellectuals in a terrible impasse. In Sharm el-Sheikh,
many posed three crucial questions. Is Arab nationalism
really dead? Or if it means the defense of a status quo
which allows dictators like Saddam to remain in power,
what is it good for? And how is it possible to subscribe
to a democratic project supposedly entertained by the
Americans, when their attitude towards the Palestinian
tragedy and their support of repulsive dictatorships
around the world for decades totally destroys American
credibility?
Gaddaffi may have blamed Saudi
Arabia for the Arab world's current predicament, but
that may have been just the tip of the iceberg - or the
sand dune. The crisis of the Arab world is now so severe
because there are no political or social institutions
capable of framing the terms of the debacle. There's
nothing for the Arab masses apart from engaging
themselves in what for many is a very remote idea, the
global anti-war movement. It may not be enough as too
much Arab repressed anger and frustration is about to
explode.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
