Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  

Arabs Vs. Iraqi Reality

Recommended Posts




Email Archives

Print Reprint

August 17, 2003 -- EVER since the latest phase of the Iraqi crisis started last autumn, most Arab countries have found themselves in a hole. What is surprising is that they continue to dig, making the hole deeper.

The Arabs' initial predicament was understandable. Until the last minute they did not believe that the United States would invade. They hoped that the whole thing would blow over. One Arab leader described the crisis as "a summer storm."

At the end of January, Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General, told me during a dinner in Davos, that he was "absolutely sure" there would be no war. When asked why, he said: "Something will come up!"

Well, what came up was the U.S.-led invasion. The Arabs had developed no policy to prevent it or, when it happened, to influence its course.

More than three months after the fall of the Ba'athist regime, there has been no attempt at developing a common Arab analysis of the war and its aftermath.

Instead, most Arab states have resorted to their traditional methods of negation and dissimulation.

* They have refused to recognize the newly created Governing Council (Majlis al-Hukm), and toyed with the idea of suspending Iraq's membership in the Arab League.

* They have used the United Nations as a fig leaf to hide their lack of a policy on Iraq.

* Asked by the United States to allocate peacekeeping troops to Iraq, some have said "yes," some have said "perhaps" and some have made noises that mean neither yes nor no.

The general mood is one of rejectionism, saying "no" because it is believed, wrongly, that Arabs like nay-sayers.

For 30 years, Arab policy on Palestine was based on rejectionism. It produced no benefits for the Palestinians, who had to pay - often with their blood - the price of Arab League "heroism."

A new generation of Arab rejectionists now believe that they can play the same game with Iraq.

They are mistaken.

Iraq is not Palestine.

It is one of the most important Arab countries, with immense human and natural resources. Even today, after 30 years of the most vicious tyranny and four wars, Iraq is generally in better shape than some Arab states.

Iraq's many problems, mostly due to a collapsing infrastructure, are highlighted because of global media attention. Power brownouts in Baghdad and Basra are massively reported. But few people learn of blackouts in other Arab capitals, including some so-called "oil-rich" ones. Acts of violence in Baghdad make headlines worldwide because of the American presence. But there is no coverage of the more serious violence affecting several Arab countries right now.

Iraq will lose little if it is suspended or excluded from the Arab League, an organization that is regarded as moribund by many of its members. In fact, over 300 Iraqi intellectuals with many different political backgrounds have just published a petition asking the Governing Council to withdraw from the Arab League.

The Arabs must ask themselves what it means to refuse to recognize the Governing Council in Baghdad.

Does it mean that the Iraqi state has ceased to exist?

That would be a most dangerous assumption. Far from amounting to an act of opposition to the American presence, that kind of rejectionism would give Washington carte blanche in Iraq.

For, if Iraq has ceased to exist as a nation-state, it is no more than a territory with a number of inhabitants who are yet to emerge as "nation" and seek self-expression as a state.

At the same time, the same Arabs say they are opposed to the American "occupation."

This is strange logic.

American occupation is a fact, recognized by the United Nations. It cannot be annulled either by force or by insipid rejectionism. The only way to change it is to accept it as a temporary measure, and then speed up conditions under which the Iraqi nation can resume full control of its destiny.

When Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, the Arab League did not assume that the Kuwaiti state had ceased to exist.

But can the Arabs now claim that Saddam's Ba'athist regime remains the legitimate expression of Iraqi statehood? If yes, they should say so openly. And if they do not wish to cling to that illusion they should accept the only authority that now symbolizes the continuity of the Iraqi state, that is the Governing Council.

Rejectionism on Palestine divided and ultimately weakened the Arabs. Rejectionism on Iraq is also dividing the Arabs and could lead to further loss of influence for them.

The most realistic and efficient policy on Iraq is to accept the occupation as a temporary measure and a necessary evil, while rejecting it as a long-term proposition.

Once that is done, the Arabs, seeking support from the wider international community, and working with the U.S.-led coalition, could seek a timetable for the transfer of power to a freely elected Iraqi government.

Many countries have already understood the realities of Iraq. Neighboring Iran and Turkey have given de facto recognition to the Governing Council and are thus in a position to seek a high profile role in that country. Russia, too, has adopted a similar position, distancing itself from France's Machiavellian maneuvers. Will the Arabs miss the bus again?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this