IRAQ WAR - LOOKING GLASS NEWS |
Apocalypse Now |
|
by Edward Said Al Ahram Weekly Entered into the database on Monday, February 07th, 2005 @ 20:09:34 MST |
|
A careful analysis of that crisis is imperative. The US has always opposed
any sign of Arab nationalism or independence, partly for its own imperial reasons
and partly because its unconditional support for Israel requires it to do so.
Since the l973 war, and despite the brief oil embargo, Arab policy up to and
including the peace process has tried to circumvent or mitigate that hostility
by appealing to the US for help, by "good" behavior, by willingness
to make peace with Israel. Yet mere compliance with the US's wishes can produce
nothing except occasional words of American approbation for leaders who appear
"moderate": Arab policy was never backed up with coordination, or
collective pressure, or fully agreed upon goals. Instead each leader tried to
make separate arrangements both with the US and with Israel, none of which produced
very much except escalating demands and a constant refusal by the US to exert
any meaningful pressure on Israel. The more extreme Israeli policy becomes the
more likely the US has been to support it. And the less respect it has for the
large mass of Arab peoples whose future and well-being are mortgaged to illusory
hopes embodied, for instance, in the Oslo accords. Moreover, a deep gulf separates Arab culture and civilization on the one hand,
from the United States on the other, and in the absence of any collective Arab
information and cultural policy, the notion of an Arab people with traditions,
cultures and identities of their own is simply inadmissible in the US. Arabs
are dehumanized, they are seen as violent irrational terrorists always on the
lookout for murder and bombing outrages. The only Arabs worth doing business
with for the US are compliant leaders, businessmen, military people whose arms
purchases (the highest per capita in the world) are helping the American economy
keep afloat. Beyond that there is no feeling at all, for instance, for the dreadful
suffering of the Iraqi people whose identity and existence have simply been
lost sight of in the present situation. This morbid, obsessional fear and hatred of the Arabs has been a constant theme
in US foreign policy since World War Two. In some way also, anything positive
about the Arabs is seen in the US as a threat to Israel. In this respect pro-Israeli
American Jews, traditional Orientalists, and military hawks have played a devastating
role. Moral opprobrium is heaped on Arab states as it is on no others. Turkey,
for example, has been conducting a campaign against the Kurds for several years,
yet nothing is heard about this in the US. Israel occupies territory illegally
for thirty years, it violates the Geneva conventions at will, conducts invasions,
terrorist attacks and assassinations against Arabs, and still, the US vetoes
every sanction against it in the UN. Syria, Sudan, Libya, Iraq are classified
as "rogue" states. Sanctions against them are far harsher than against
any other countries in the history of US foreign policy. And still the US expects
that its own foreign policy agenda ought to prevail (eg., the woefully misguided
Doha economic summit) despite its hostility to the collective Arab agenda. In the case of Iraq a number of further extenuations make the US even more
repressive. Burning in the collective American unconscious is a puritanical
zeal decreeing the sternest possible attitude towards anyone deemed to be an
unregenerate sinner. This clearly guided American policy towards the native
American Indians, who were first demonized, then portrayed as wasteful savages,
then exterminated, their tiny remnant confined to reservations and concentration
camps. This almost religious anger fuels a judgemental attitude that has no
place at all in international politics, but for the United States it is a central
tenet of its worldwide behavior. Second, punishment is conceived in apocalyptic
terms. During the Vietnam war a leading general advocated -- and almost achieved
-- the goal of bombing the enemy into the stone age. The same view prevailed
during the Gulf War in l99l. Sinners are meant to be condemned terminally, with
the utmost cruelty regardless of whether or not they suffer the cruelest agonies.
The notion of "justified" punishment for Iraq is now uppermost in
the minds of most American consumers of news, and with that goes an almost orgiastic
delight in the gathering power being summoned to confront Iraq in the Gulf.
Pictures of four (or is now five?) immense aircraft carriers steaming virtuously
away punctuate breathless news bulletins about Saddam's defiance, and the impending
crisis. The President announces that he is thinking not about the Gulf but about
the 21st century: how can we tolerate Iraq's threat to use biological warfare
even though (this is unmentioned) it is clear from the UNSCOM reports that he
neither has the missile capacity, nor the chemical arms, nor the nuclear arsenal,
nor in fact the anthrax bombs that he is alleged to be brandishing? Forgotten
in all this is that the US has all the terror weapons known to humankind, is
the only country to have used a nuclear bomb on civilians, and as recently as
seven years ago dropped 66,000 tons of bombs on Iraq. As the only country involved
in this crisis that has never had to fight a war on its own soil, it is easy
for the US and its mostly brain-washed citizens to speak in apocalyptic terms.
A report out of Australia on Sunday, November l6 suggests that Israel and the
US are thinking about a neutron bomb on Baghdad. Unfortunately the dictates of raw power are very severe and, for a weak state
like Iraq, overwhelming. Certainly US misuse of the sanctions to strip Iraq
of everything, including any possibility for security is monstrously sadistic.
The so-called UN 661 Committee created to oversee the sanctions is composed
of fifteen member states (including the US) each of which has a veto. Every time Iraq passes this committee a request to sell oil for medicines,
trucks, meat, etc., any member of the committee can block these requests by
saying that a given item may have military purposes (tires, for example, or
ambulances). In addition the US and its clients -- eg., the unpleasant and racist
Richard Butler, who says openly that Arabs have a different notion of truth
than the rest of the world -- have made it clear that even if Iraq is completely
reduced militarily to the point where it is no longer a threat to its neighbors
(which is now the case) the real goal of the sanctions is to topple Saddam Hussein's
government. In other words according to the Americans, very little that Iraq
can do short of Saddam's resignation or death will produce a lifting of sanctions.
Finally, we should not for a moment forget that quite apart from its foreign
policy interest, Iraq has now become a domestic American issue whose repercussions
on issues unrelated to oil or the Gulf are very important. Bill Clinton's personal
crises -- the campaign-funding scandals, an impending trial for sexual harassment,
his various legislative and domestic failures -- require him to look strong,
determined and "presidential" somewhere else, and where but in the
Gulf against Iraq has he so ready-made a foreign devil to set off his blue-eyed
strength to full advantage. Moreover, the increase in military expenditure for
new investments in electronic "smart" weaponry, more sophisticated
aircraft, mobile forces for the world-wide projection of American power are
perfectly suited for display and use in the Gulf, where the likelihood of visible
casualties (actually suffering Iraqi civilians) is extremely small, and where
the new military technology can be put through its paces most attractively.
For reasons that need restating here, the media is particularly happy to go
along with the government in bringing home to domestic customers the wonderful
excitement of American self-righteousness, the proud flag-waving, the "feel-good"
sense that "we" are facing down a monstrous dictator. Far from analysis
and calm reflection the media exists mainly to derive its mission from the government,
not to produce a corrective or any dissent. The media, in short, is an extension
of the war against Iraq. The saddest aspect of the whole thing is that Iraqi civilians seem condemned
to additional suffering and protracted agony. Neither their government nor that
of the US is inclined to ease the daily pressure on them, and the probability
that only they will pay for the crisis is extremely high. At least -- and it
isn't very much -- there seems to be no enthusiasm among Arab governments for
American military action, but beyond that there is no coordinated Arab position,
not even on the extremely grave humanitarian question. It is unfortunate that,
according to the news, there is rising popular support for Saddam in the Arab
world, as if the old lessons of defiance without real power have still not been
learned. Undoubtedly the US has manipulated the UN to its own ends, a rather shameful
exercise given at the same time that the Congress once again struck down a motion
to pay a billion dollars in arrears to the world organization. The major priority
for Arabs, Europeans, Muslims and Americans is to push to the fore the issue
of sanctions and the terrible suffering imposed on innocent Iraqi civilians.
Taking the case to the International Court in the Hague strikes me as a perfectly
viable possibility, but what is needed is a concerted will on behalf of Arabs
who have suffered the US's egregious blows for too long without an adequate
response. |