Devildogg4ever
08-12-03, 04:03 AM
Arab foreign ministers met recently in Cairo to discuss the Iraqi issue in the framework of the follow-up committee formed by the Arab League. This meeting reflected the way Arab governments perceive the situation in Iraq and the American governance of the country. The participants in the meeting showed a unified attitude and a determination to end the US occupation of the country, and they rejected Washington’s attempts to induce them to recognize the transitional Governing Council. This despite the fact that the Arab countries are struggling to maintain good relations with Washington, which is taking offensive measures against them, either in its behavior and plans in Iraq or in its direct accusations to Gulf countries of “supporting terrorism”.
The Arab world is at a historic crossroads. Governments have to manage their regimes in the light of the war against terrorism, and to make every effort to show the authentic face of Islam. They know what the Bush Administration, in full complicity with Israel, is planning for the region: the imposition of a new balance of power far removed from the old friendship between Washington and some Arab regimes. The campaign against terrorism has led the US to a new way of thinking, more aggressive, more suspicious. The rules of the game have changed and, using their power, the Americans have promoted one equation: “you are with us or against us”. And being ‘with’ America appears to be incompatible with active opposition, even on the purely diplomatic and political levels, to Israeli policy in regard to the Palestinians.
Arab worries were made plain during the foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo, where they exchanged ideas on how to face the situation with a minimum of casualties. The Saudi attitude was clear and summarized the whole issue. Prince Saud al-Faisal described the situation as dangerous from the angle of the solution proposed by Washington for the Iraqi state and its form of the government. He showed his fears regarding the establishment of a federal regime based on ethnic groups and religious sects. The Arab governments agreed on the necessity of rejecting such a situation because implementation of such a system would undermine most of the regimes in the region, which is so diverse in ethnic and sectarian terms.
The increasing role of the Shiite community in Iraq and the role Iran is trying to play constitute a major source of anxiety to Arab countries because it might change the balance among Islamic sects which has prevailed in the region for decades.
Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jaber argued that there might be merit in being in contact with the Governing Council, “instead of staying outside the game”. But the Arab ministers refused to recognize the council, for two principal reasons:
• They wanted to send a signal to the US that they could not accept any regime explicitly based on ethnic or sectarian considerations because this might have disastrous consequences for other Arab governments.
• They wanted to express solidarity with the Iraqis and to make clear the need to hold democratic elections as soon as possible, leading to the formation of a new and legitimate government.
The ministers indicated their belief that the longer the US forces remained in Iraq, the more complex and dangerous the situation there would become. The mounting resistance to the Americans shows that while the Iraqis wanted to see the back of Saddam Hussein’s regime, they had no desire to see it replaced by a dictatorship which constituted a violation of their national sovereignty and which had been imposed by force without any support from the UN, embodiment of international legitimacy. The American presence recalls to Iraqis, and to Arabs, the presence of the European imperialist regimes against which a struggle was waged over decades, ending only with the departure of the French from Algeria in 1962 and the British exit from the Gulf 10 years later. Now, it appears, a new struggle will have to be fought.
Multinational force
The main focus of the Bush Administration now is limiting the casualties among its troops and ensuring American domination over Iraq at a lower cost. This is how the idea of reintroducing the UN -- reviled as “irrelevant” by the Bush camp in the runup to the war -- back into the equation. Now the US is conducting consultations at the UN aimed at forming a multinational force to assist in maintaining peace and security in Iraq and to enable Washington to reduce the number of its own troops by 25 percent. A large number of countries have agreed to take part, but only with small numbers of troops. The total available so far is far lower than the number the Americans would have wished, namely about 30,000 men. Less than half this is now on offer.
Not surprisingly, no Arab troops will be going to Iraq. Any Arab military presence there would look like a tacit acceptance of an illegal occupation which is in no way in the interests of any Arab state.
In conclusion, Washington now sees the very difficult position in which it has placed itself with the Bush team’s badly-thought out, almost blithe, decision to invade Iraq. Its new desire to reintroduce the UN into the Iraq issue reflects a change in its behavior but not in its strategic intentions. It is a way of managing its victory by hiding behind other players with less negative involvement in the area. But unless the governing of Iraq is handed over unreservedly to the United Nations -- something unlikely to happen --, the Americans will continue to remain largely alone in their quagmire, apart from a (diminishing) number of British soldiers.
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=466&CategoryID=2
The Arab world is at a historic crossroads. Governments have to manage their regimes in the light of the war against terrorism, and to make every effort to show the authentic face of Islam. They know what the Bush Administration, in full complicity with Israel, is planning for the region: the imposition of a new balance of power far removed from the old friendship between Washington and some Arab regimes. The campaign against terrorism has led the US to a new way of thinking, more aggressive, more suspicious. The rules of the game have changed and, using their power, the Americans have promoted one equation: “you are with us or against us”. And being ‘with’ America appears to be incompatible with active opposition, even on the purely diplomatic and political levels, to Israeli policy in regard to the Palestinians.
Arab worries were made plain during the foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo, where they exchanged ideas on how to face the situation with a minimum of casualties. The Saudi attitude was clear and summarized the whole issue. Prince Saud al-Faisal described the situation as dangerous from the angle of the solution proposed by Washington for the Iraqi state and its form of the government. He showed his fears regarding the establishment of a federal regime based on ethnic groups and religious sects. The Arab governments agreed on the necessity of rejecting such a situation because implementation of such a system would undermine most of the regimes in the region, which is so diverse in ethnic and sectarian terms.
The increasing role of the Shiite community in Iraq and the role Iran is trying to play constitute a major source of anxiety to Arab countries because it might change the balance among Islamic sects which has prevailed in the region for decades.
Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jaber argued that there might be merit in being in contact with the Governing Council, “instead of staying outside the game”. But the Arab ministers refused to recognize the council, for two principal reasons:
• They wanted to send a signal to the US that they could not accept any regime explicitly based on ethnic or sectarian considerations because this might have disastrous consequences for other Arab governments.
• They wanted to express solidarity with the Iraqis and to make clear the need to hold democratic elections as soon as possible, leading to the formation of a new and legitimate government.
The ministers indicated their belief that the longer the US forces remained in Iraq, the more complex and dangerous the situation there would become. The mounting resistance to the Americans shows that while the Iraqis wanted to see the back of Saddam Hussein’s regime, they had no desire to see it replaced by a dictatorship which constituted a violation of their national sovereignty and which had been imposed by force without any support from the UN, embodiment of international legitimacy. The American presence recalls to Iraqis, and to Arabs, the presence of the European imperialist regimes against which a struggle was waged over decades, ending only with the departure of the French from Algeria in 1962 and the British exit from the Gulf 10 years later. Now, it appears, a new struggle will have to be fought.
Multinational force
The main focus of the Bush Administration now is limiting the casualties among its troops and ensuring American domination over Iraq at a lower cost. This is how the idea of reintroducing the UN -- reviled as “irrelevant” by the Bush camp in the runup to the war -- back into the equation. Now the US is conducting consultations at the UN aimed at forming a multinational force to assist in maintaining peace and security in Iraq and to enable Washington to reduce the number of its own troops by 25 percent. A large number of countries have agreed to take part, but only with small numbers of troops. The total available so far is far lower than the number the Americans would have wished, namely about 30,000 men. Less than half this is now on offer.
Not surprisingly, no Arab troops will be going to Iraq. Any Arab military presence there would look like a tacit acceptance of an illegal occupation which is in no way in the interests of any Arab state.
In conclusion, Washington now sees the very difficult position in which it has placed itself with the Bush team’s badly-thought out, almost blithe, decision to invade Iraq. Its new desire to reintroduce the UN into the Iraq issue reflects a change in its behavior but not in its strategic intentions. It is a way of managing its victory by hiding behind other players with less negative involvement in the area. But unless the governing of Iraq is handed over unreservedly to the United Nations -- something unlikely to happen --, the Americans will continue to remain largely alone in their quagmire, apart from a (diminishing) number of British soldiers.
http://www.mmorning.com/ArticleC.asp?Article=466&CategoryID=2