abhisham
16th April 2003, 21:40
The War as We See It
Ahmad al-Saqr, Site Manager, IslamToday.net
Among the objectives declared by the United States and Britain for waging their present ferocious war on Iraq are the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship, its replacement with a democratic regime, and the destruction of all weapons of mass-destruction in the country. Not everyone agrees. There are many people in those two countries and in other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, especially the Arab world, who have good reasons to believe that this is a war of aggression and occupation, not liberation. This is how they view the situation:
Liberation:
a. To liberate a people it is not enough to claim that you are liberating them, or that you honestly see yourself as a liberator. You must succeed in making them perceive you as such. The Bush administration not only assumed that they would be thus perceived by the Iraqi people, but duped many Americans into sharing their false assumption. They gave everyone the impression that once their forces enter Iraq - and especially Basra - multitudes of Iraqi citizens would hurry to meet them with open arms and bouquets of flowers.
b. When nothing of that sort happened - when in fact they were met with hostile citizens carrying bullets rather than flowers - they started saying that this was because the people are afraid of Saddam's brutal agents. That might apply to some of them. But the facts, as we see them, point to a more plausible explanation. Even many of those people, Iraqis and non-Iraqis, who have been traditional foes of Saddam, are now hurrying to support him, because they believe that it is not the person of Saddam that is being targeted by the invading forces, but their country, some would even say their religion. Saddam has never been more popular among Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims than he is today. If he dies, he will be considered by many a great martyr who stood bravely in the face of the strongest powers in the world in defense of his country and the honor of Arabs and Muslims.
c. Many people are wisely saying you do not kill hundreds of civilians or even military personnel as a means of getting rid of a dictator. What the so-called allied forces are doing is the worst that a dictator can do: killing people because they do not support you. There is no difference in this respect between civilian and military citizens, because you cannot assume that all those in the military are fighting the invading forces for the sake of Saddam and not their country and the honor of their people. And if some of them fight because, as it is sometimes claimed, merely because they cannot afford disobeying orders, still they are innocent. The invading forces are expecting such people to get out of the frying pan and into the fire.
d. Why should Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims believe that two of the greatest Imperialist powers have suddenly become benevolent agents of liberation? Why shouldn't they believe that all this talk about liberation and democracy is mere deception, a smoke-screen behind which is the beginning of a wave of new imperialism? Isn't this what a famous British diplomat, who is said to be very close to Mr. Blair, said?
e. What kind of liberation is this in which no Arabs play any roles, neither public nor official? You might say: What about Kuwait? Kuwait is in fact the exception that proves the rule. It is driven by narrow self-interest; it wants revenge, whatever the consequences. That is why you find even in that country there are some people who are opposed to this invasion because they wisely see in it a greater danger than Saddam.
Democracy
a. If democracy is the rule of the people, then you cannot coerce a people to be democratic. They have to do that out of their own choice.
It is difficult to believe that the US and Britain are paying this great price in human lives and wealth just to change Iraq into a democracy. Why haven't they done the same for other non-democratic countries?
b. One of the most important principles of democracy as it is practiced in the West is the rule of law. But the invading countries violated this rule. They took the international law into their own hands by refusing to abide by the decisions of the United Nations, nay, by even despising that organization. Was this because France threatened to veto any decision legitimizing war? But if it did so, it would have been exercising a right which the charter of that organization gave it, a right which was used several times by the US to prevent any condemnation of acts of aggression by Israel against the Palestinians.
c. The invading powers know that a democratic Iraq will not automatically be an Iraq on their side. So they will have to ensure that any elections that take place will bring the people whom they like. An American imposed democracy is, in short, bound to be a sham.
d. The invading forces assume that the people of Iraq are not mature enough to take responsibility for their own affairs. They have to be gradually initiated into the secrets of democratic institutions. And guess who the suggested initiate is? An American military dictator!
e. Who said that democracy is the highest value, the most important criterion by which political regimes are judged? Many people would prefer a non-democratic regime that makes them strong and respected to a democratic one that keeps them weak and dependent. But this is exactly what the invading forces intend to make of Iraq: a country that cannot be a bother to the Arab's main enemy in the region.
f. If the invaders are sure that Iraq will soon be liberated, why not wait until that liberated country decides how it is going to rebuild itself? Why the hurry in assigning some of that lucrative task to American companies?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
a. It is surely better to clean a country of weapons of mass-destruction - assuming that it possesses them - in a peaceful way, than to use the most lethal weapons of mass-destruction to achieve that aim. But the latter is what the invading forces have chosen in defiance of the United Nations and the efforts of the inspectors, and with complete disregard, even disdain, for the wise and honest voices of millions of people around the globe.
b. What was the clear and present danger posed to the Unites States by Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction, assuming they had them? Why the hurry to commence this senseless war of aggression? Is it because the … failed to discover those weapons of whose hiding place the two countries were sure? Why not show that place or places to the … and make them finish the job and report to the Security Council? Many people believe that the reason for the haste was the in fact the fear that the … would prove their allegations to be false and that Iraq indeed did not now have weapons of mass-destruction.
c. Many of our people are wondering if weapons of mass-destruction are such a danger to world peace why should the United States and its friends - especially Israel - have them? Can't there be a rule of law on the international level? Or is it assumed that only the United States and its allies and friends are civilized countries that would not put these weapons to immoral use, and that all other countries are rogue states. The behavior of the so called allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gives lie to this assumption.
National Interest
This we believe is the real motive behind the present war on Iraq, and future wars on other Islamic countries. There is no denying the fact that every country has the right to safeguard its national interest. However, if every country was free to make the decision to take whatever action it feels is appropriate for safeguarding its interests, there would be chaos in the world. The United Nations was created to avoid this chaos, to give nations a venue for settling their differences in peaceful ways. By ignoring the U.N., the US is in fact defeating its purpose of world peace and, and hence, failing to safeguard its national interest. This is so because other countries might follow its lead in defining their own national interests in ways that justify aggression on other countries. Also, if the aim is to eradicate what is assumed to be Arab or Muslim terrorism, such acts of aggression as we see in Iraq are bound to only encourage that kind of terrorism. The only way for the United States to live in peace is by behaving responsibly and fairly as a world power; only in this way can it start to win the hearts and minds of the people. You do not win the hearts and minds of people like the Iraqis by destroying their country and by killing thousand of them, including children, and then supplying them with 'humanitarian aid' which is anyway bought with their own money.
We are sure that we are not speaking just for ourselves as Arabs or Muslims. These views are shared by millions of people of different nationalities, religions, and cultures around the globe. We are very grateful to them and are keen to continue this cooperation with them for the sake of a safer world and for more just and humane international relations.
Ahmad al-Saqr, Site Manager, IslamToday.net
Among the objectives declared by the United States and Britain for waging their present ferocious war on Iraq are the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship, its replacement with a democratic regime, and the destruction of all weapons of mass-destruction in the country. Not everyone agrees. There are many people in those two countries and in other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, especially the Arab world, who have good reasons to believe that this is a war of aggression and occupation, not liberation. This is how they view the situation:
Liberation:
a. To liberate a people it is not enough to claim that you are liberating them, or that you honestly see yourself as a liberator. You must succeed in making them perceive you as such. The Bush administration not only assumed that they would be thus perceived by the Iraqi people, but duped many Americans into sharing their false assumption. They gave everyone the impression that once their forces enter Iraq - and especially Basra - multitudes of Iraqi citizens would hurry to meet them with open arms and bouquets of flowers.
b. When nothing of that sort happened - when in fact they were met with hostile citizens carrying bullets rather than flowers - they started saying that this was because the people are afraid of Saddam's brutal agents. That might apply to some of them. But the facts, as we see them, point to a more plausible explanation. Even many of those people, Iraqis and non-Iraqis, who have been traditional foes of Saddam, are now hurrying to support him, because they believe that it is not the person of Saddam that is being targeted by the invading forces, but their country, some would even say their religion. Saddam has never been more popular among Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims than he is today. If he dies, he will be considered by many a great martyr who stood bravely in the face of the strongest powers in the world in defense of his country and the honor of Arabs and Muslims.
c. Many people are wisely saying you do not kill hundreds of civilians or even military personnel as a means of getting rid of a dictator. What the so-called allied forces are doing is the worst that a dictator can do: killing people because they do not support you. There is no difference in this respect between civilian and military citizens, because you cannot assume that all those in the military are fighting the invading forces for the sake of Saddam and not their country and the honor of their people. And if some of them fight because, as it is sometimes claimed, merely because they cannot afford disobeying orders, still they are innocent. The invading forces are expecting such people to get out of the frying pan and into the fire.
d. Why should Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims believe that two of the greatest Imperialist powers have suddenly become benevolent agents of liberation? Why shouldn't they believe that all this talk about liberation and democracy is mere deception, a smoke-screen behind which is the beginning of a wave of new imperialism? Isn't this what a famous British diplomat, who is said to be very close to Mr. Blair, said?
e. What kind of liberation is this in which no Arabs play any roles, neither public nor official? You might say: What about Kuwait? Kuwait is in fact the exception that proves the rule. It is driven by narrow self-interest; it wants revenge, whatever the consequences. That is why you find even in that country there are some people who are opposed to this invasion because they wisely see in it a greater danger than Saddam.
Democracy
a. If democracy is the rule of the people, then you cannot coerce a people to be democratic. They have to do that out of their own choice.
It is difficult to believe that the US and Britain are paying this great price in human lives and wealth just to change Iraq into a democracy. Why haven't they done the same for other non-democratic countries?
b. One of the most important principles of democracy as it is practiced in the West is the rule of law. But the invading countries violated this rule. They took the international law into their own hands by refusing to abide by the decisions of the United Nations, nay, by even despising that organization. Was this because France threatened to veto any decision legitimizing war? But if it did so, it would have been exercising a right which the charter of that organization gave it, a right which was used several times by the US to prevent any condemnation of acts of aggression by Israel against the Palestinians.
c. The invading powers know that a democratic Iraq will not automatically be an Iraq on their side. So they will have to ensure that any elections that take place will bring the people whom they like. An American imposed democracy is, in short, bound to be a sham.
d. The invading forces assume that the people of Iraq are not mature enough to take responsibility for their own affairs. They have to be gradually initiated into the secrets of democratic institutions. And guess who the suggested initiate is? An American military dictator!
e. Who said that democracy is the highest value, the most important criterion by which political regimes are judged? Many people would prefer a non-democratic regime that makes them strong and respected to a democratic one that keeps them weak and dependent. But this is exactly what the invading forces intend to make of Iraq: a country that cannot be a bother to the Arab's main enemy in the region.
f. If the invaders are sure that Iraq will soon be liberated, why not wait until that liberated country decides how it is going to rebuild itself? Why the hurry in assigning some of that lucrative task to American companies?
Weapons of Mass Destruction
a. It is surely better to clean a country of weapons of mass-destruction - assuming that it possesses them - in a peaceful way, than to use the most lethal weapons of mass-destruction to achieve that aim. But the latter is what the invading forces have chosen in defiance of the United Nations and the efforts of the inspectors, and with complete disregard, even disdain, for the wise and honest voices of millions of people around the globe.
b. What was the clear and present danger posed to the Unites States by Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction, assuming they had them? Why the hurry to commence this senseless war of aggression? Is it because the … failed to discover those weapons of whose hiding place the two countries were sure? Why not show that place or places to the … and make them finish the job and report to the Security Council? Many people believe that the reason for the haste was the in fact the fear that the … would prove their allegations to be false and that Iraq indeed did not now have weapons of mass-destruction.
c. Many of our people are wondering if weapons of mass-destruction are such a danger to world peace why should the United States and its friends - especially Israel - have them? Can't there be a rule of law on the international level? Or is it assumed that only the United States and its allies and friends are civilized countries that would not put these weapons to immoral use, and that all other countries are rogue states. The behavior of the so called allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq gives lie to this assumption.
National Interest
This we believe is the real motive behind the present war on Iraq, and future wars on other Islamic countries. There is no denying the fact that every country has the right to safeguard its national interest. However, if every country was free to make the decision to take whatever action it feels is appropriate for safeguarding its interests, there would be chaos in the world. The United Nations was created to avoid this chaos, to give nations a venue for settling their differences in peaceful ways. By ignoring the U.N., the US is in fact defeating its purpose of world peace and, and hence, failing to safeguard its national interest. This is so because other countries might follow its lead in defining their own national interests in ways that justify aggression on other countries. Also, if the aim is to eradicate what is assumed to be Arab or Muslim terrorism, such acts of aggression as we see in Iraq are bound to only encourage that kind of terrorism. The only way for the United States to live in peace is by behaving responsibly and fairly as a world power; only in this way can it start to win the hearts and minds of the people. You do not win the hearts and minds of people like the Iraqis by destroying their country and by killing thousand of them, including children, and then supplying them with 'humanitarian aid' which is anyway bought with their own money.
We are sure that we are not speaking just for ourselves as Arabs or Muslims. These views are shared by millions of people of different nationalities, religions, and cultures around the globe. We are very grateful to them and are keen to continue this cooperation with them for the sake of a safer world and for more just and humane international relations.