Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
When asked by the Australian ABC Radio whether I think this is a Christian war against Islam and Muslims, I said: NO! This is a war led by an American administration driven by greed, religious conviction, and arrogance. Please read a recent book titled "Made in Texas" and availble via Amazon.com to understand what I am talking about.
The trouble is that not every Muslim and Arab understands matters this way. Unlike the last Gulf War, the only soldiers fighting this war are Protestant Christians. I try to explain things to my readers. Fortunately, I am helped by the millions of Chris-Protestant demonstrators going in masses, even in the same countries invading us. I always point to the pro-peace poll numbers as evidence.
An Australian lady called the same day the interview was broadcast. She obviously did some research to get my office numbers. What she told me touched my heart and brought tears to my eyes. "Not on my name!" she said. Not on my children name, and certainly not on my religion's name this war is conducted. Thank you for telling your fellow Muslims and Arabs this truth. Please, in the name of our same God, keep fighting to spread this message. I know it is an uphill battle, but I promise you I will go in every demonstration, and your promise me to tell the world about us, the good, decent and peaceful Christians of the world."
I promised her.
Again, yesterday I was dining with my wife in a Chinese Restaurant, here in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A Pilipino waiter came to me with my last article in his hand and asked: You work for Arabnews? I read your article today, I read all your articles. I just wanted to tell you, I am touched. His name is: James.
I was touched, too, and my wife smiled and said: How much did you pay him to impress me?!
And today, I read your emails. I read Annie, Britta, Margarette, Cynthia, Steven, Michael, Kevin, Scott, Smith Jr. and felt assured once more that it is not a Civilization war, it is not a Christian-Islam war, it is not even and Anglo-Saxon war. It is simple, a war led by fundamentalist, oil men and warmongers in Washington and London to advance an over-ambitious religious, political and business agenda.
I wish Hell's gates will be closed soon, but I am a realist. I know it won't until it burn all, including those who opened them. It is a sign of our desperation that peaceniks like myself would wish for fire to burn those who started it, first. Maybe, then, the bad guys will see they have no option but to pack their "weapons of mass destruction" and leave.
As for Saddam and his gangs: May they burn in Hell together with all who brought us into this mess, including our own. Only then, we could hope for peace to prevail, as well as freedom and prosperity of our region. Sorry, for the angry tone, because I am.
Finally, I was asked, what your alternative to this war is. I said: the Iraqis should have been incited to act on their own and supported. This is what exactly happened after 1991 war, but only the first part. Bush Sr. urged them to rise, and promised them support. When they did exactly that he left them in the care of Saddam's forces. Would you blame the Iraqis not to trust Bush Jr. this time?
Only locally grown solution could work. Iraq an American state, what may work in there, might not work here. Besides, Iraq is like a company with many shareholders. Neighbors have a stake as much as Iraqis on how the new Iraq is shaped. They should be consulted, too. Who organize such consultation? I believe the world community represented in the UN should be the organizer and supervisor of this process, not just America and the UK.
Consulting Iraqi opposition groups and Zionist like Pritchard Perle and Paul Wolfitz, and depending on the vision of fundamentalists and oil hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld is what brought us to this. The quick and easy fix, the easy money, and the welcoming Iraqis were all "carrots" to tempt the "intelligent" President and Prime Minister into this trap.
As for the best governing system for Iraq and the region, I think Margrettes said it best in her email (bellow): "While the American Constitution works in America, I don't believe that it is made for all cultures. It is a document born of Western liberal humanism, itself a product of centuries of the distillation of philosophy, theology and thought, so why do Westerners assume that it can easily be transplanted into non-Western cultures?"
Monday, March 31, 2003
Sunday, March 30, 2003
Exclusive: America’s Credibility
Dr. Khalid M. Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com
A frequent question confronts me in my communication with American diplomats, intellectuals and readers: Why do Arabs and Muslims sympathize with an oppressive regime like that of dictator Saddam Hussein? Why do you defend a country that invaded a fellow nation only 12 years ago? We have defended you with our blood and remained in your country to prevent another invasion, they add, and we have come now to rid you and the Iraqi people of an evil regime, and to spread democracy and freedom in your region. Despite this, you greet us with hatred and rejection, refusing to cooperate with us or support our war of liberation, democratization and freedom.
Why?
Every time I answer, I start by reminding them of the question used as an illustration of wrongful assumption in both law and media schools in America: “When did you stop beating your wife?” The wrong assumptions here are many, the most important related to American mentality and logic: We are always right because we are people of principle, and our way of life is the right one. Anything contradicts with our way needs to be rectified.
The basis for this logic is the confidence in the American constitution, which embodies in its language and clauses the dream that led millions to the New World to escape tyranny and suffering, the denial of rights and resources and opportunities for growth and development. This great constitution is based on the individual’s right to pursue happiness, and emphasizes the duty of the government to provide for and protect such endeavors.
But the eternal human problem remains. Leaders tend to take advantage of these principles and hide behind their lofty banners — whether religious, ideological or constitutional — to achieve self-serving objectives. The American administration is no different.
The colonizers justified the occupation of countries, robbing their resources and enslaving their people with the divine duty of spreading (and implementing) the principles of Christianity and civilized in the primitive world.
Today, the American administration is using the same excuses to explain its invasion of Iraq and its war on a regime they had long backed and incited into war with its neighbors. Not to mention the American cover up when Iraq used weapons of mass destruction, including chemical bombs made with British technology, against both its enemies and its own people.
Besides, a great project requires a great credibility. How much of this does the American administration have? Hasn’t the president asked Sharon time and time again, and in the strongest language and clearest terms, to get out of Jenin? What happened when Sharon refused to get out? Instead of insisting, the president defended Israel’s actions, and shifted the blame on the Palestinian victims.
How can we trust a US that sets out to discipline a country for going against the will of the UN and the world community, when the enforcer itself is in contravention?
What is the difference between the shifting excuses the Iraqi regime used to explain invading Kuwait and the American ones for invading Iraq? Wasn’t the first justification of this war an alleged Iraqi link with Al-Qaeda?
Then, when no evidence could be found, the excuse became the development of nuclear weapons. When the head of the inspections team exposed Colin Powell’s evidence in the Security Council, the target became the destruction of Iraqi missiles and chemical weapons. And after Iraq cooperated, the requirement became changing the regime within 48 hours. Doesn’t this mean the US meant to invade Iraq come what may? Is there any difference between this line of argument and the Soviet Union’s pretext for invading Afghanistan — and, as I mentioned, Saddam’s own excuse for invading Kuwait?
Still more questions remain. Why Iraq? Why now? If Iraq is in contravention of 17 UN resolutions, Israel has breached more than 70. If the possession of weapons of mass destruction is the reason, are we blind and deaf to the fact that what hasn’t been established in Iraq is very much in evidence in Israel, and that North Korea has even boasted of possessing such weapons?
I tell those who object to our stand on this war: Be honest with yourselves before you demand that the world put its trust in you. Implement justice, before you promise justice. Clean up your own backyard before you demand others do the same. Then you can ask me anything you like.
Arab News Features 30 March 2003
A frequent question confronts me in my communication with American diplomats, intellectuals and readers: Why do Arabs and Muslims sympathize with an oppressive regime like that of dictator Saddam Hussein? Why do you defend a country that invaded a fellow nation only 12 years ago? We have defended you with our blood and remained in your country to prevent another invasion, they add, and we have come now to rid you and the Iraqi people of an evil regime, and to spread democracy and freedom in your region. Despite this, you greet us with hatred and rejection, refusing to cooperate with us or support our war of liberation, democratization and freedom.
Why?
Every time I answer, I start by reminding them of the question used as an illustration of wrongful assumption in both law and media schools in America: “When did you stop beating your wife?” The wrong assumptions here are many, the most important related to American mentality and logic: We are always right because we are people of principle, and our way of life is the right one. Anything contradicts with our way needs to be rectified.
The basis for this logic is the confidence in the American constitution, which embodies in its language and clauses the dream that led millions to the New World to escape tyranny and suffering, the denial of rights and resources and opportunities for growth and development. This great constitution is based on the individual’s right to pursue happiness, and emphasizes the duty of the government to provide for and protect such endeavors.
But the eternal human problem remains. Leaders tend to take advantage of these principles and hide behind their lofty banners — whether religious, ideological or constitutional — to achieve self-serving objectives. The American administration is no different.
The colonizers justified the occupation of countries, robbing their resources and enslaving their people with the divine duty of spreading (and implementing) the principles of Christianity and civilized in the primitive world.
Today, the American administration is using the same excuses to explain its invasion of Iraq and its war on a regime they had long backed and incited into war with its neighbors. Not to mention the American cover up when Iraq used weapons of mass destruction, including chemical bombs made with British technology, against both its enemies and its own people.
Besides, a great project requires a great credibility. How much of this does the American administration have? Hasn’t the president asked Sharon time and time again, and in the strongest language and clearest terms, to get out of Jenin? What happened when Sharon refused to get out? Instead of insisting, the president defended Israel’s actions, and shifted the blame on the Palestinian victims.
How can we trust a US that sets out to discipline a country for going against the will of the UN and the world community, when the enforcer itself is in contravention?
What is the difference between the shifting excuses the Iraqi regime used to explain invading Kuwait and the American ones for invading Iraq? Wasn’t the first justification of this war an alleged Iraqi link with Al-Qaeda?
Then, when no evidence could be found, the excuse became the development of nuclear weapons. When the head of the inspections team exposed Colin Powell’s evidence in the Security Council, the target became the destruction of Iraqi missiles and chemical weapons. And after Iraq cooperated, the requirement became changing the regime within 48 hours. Doesn’t this mean the US meant to invade Iraq come what may? Is there any difference between this line of argument and the Soviet Union’s pretext for invading Afghanistan — and, as I mentioned, Saddam’s own excuse for invading Kuwait?
Still more questions remain. Why Iraq? Why now? If Iraq is in contravention of 17 UN resolutions, Israel has breached more than 70. If the possession of weapons of mass destruction is the reason, are we blind and deaf to the fact that what hasn’t been established in Iraq is very much in evidence in Israel, and that North Korea has even boasted of possessing such weapons?
I tell those who object to our stand on this war: Be honest with yourselves before you demand that the world put its trust in you. Implement justice, before you promise justice. Clean up your own backyard before you demand others do the same. Then you can ask me anything you like.
Arab News Features 30 March 2003
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Of Cowboys and Bombs
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
In a round-table discussion hosted by American diplomats and attended by Arab professors and journalists, our conversation turned to the chances of success of the US war on Iraq. After listening to many pessimistic analyses, a political science professor contended that the people in the Middle East see things in black and white and solutions are always either good or evil, with us or against us.
My reply to this simplistic view was to draw a multi-colored picture of the political, religious, cultural and ideological complexities in Iraq and neighboring countries.
Let us begin with the mosaic of the Iraqi picture. Iraq is populated by Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Farsi and Caledonians. The religious groups represented in the country are Muslims, Christians and Jews. On the ideological map there are Islamists, Ba’ath, Nationalists, Socialists and Communists. Culturally and economically, there is a whole rainbow of colors and shades, ranging from nuclear scientists to illiterate farmers, ultra-rich war merchants and corrupt leaders to poor men and women who cannot afford even baby milk for their children.
Within these categories, there are many sub-categories. Among Muslims, for example, there are Sunnis and Shiites, and among nationalists you find isolationists and regionalists.
In the surrounding areas, we see a picture no less colorful and varied. There are kingdoms and republics, as well as “republican kingdoms.” Some are real, some are fake democracies, and most are dictatorships. A few are religious and most are secular. Their inhabitants vary from Arabs to Turks to Persians. Some countries, like Israel, have as varied races as European, Russian and African. Their economic bases are varied too, including agriculture, industry, oil and tourism.
All these varieties, differences and complexities make the region look like a huge, powerful bomb with thin, delicate, overlapping, multi-colored wires. I reminded my audience of an old movie starring Omar Sharif.
The plot is about terrorists planting a bomb on a passenger ship and threatening to sink it if their demands are not met. The British government responds by sending explosives specialists led by a top expert. We watch in awe as the old expert with a pair of pliers tries to determine which wire to cut to disable the bomb.
I then asked them to imagine our feelings in the Middle East watching the latest American production. I reminded them that the situation is much more frightening this time: The bombs are more dangerous and deadly; the wires more complicated; and their colors more confusing. Even worse, the explosives experts are not experts at all, but a group of color-blind cowboys who see the world in black and white, good and evil. They carry guns not pliers, and ride their horses recklessly around the ship, their war cry ringing out as they prepare to solve the intricate problem of disabling the bomb by shooting it. Their relationship and experience of the place and its people is like the relationship between Michael Jackson and heavyweight boxing, or Mike Tyson’s expertise in belly dance.
I told them, if one of you believes for a second that these Zionist-Christian right-wing cowboys, who have never been in more than game wars, will solve the Middle East crisis in a quick and clean fashion and then just pack and leave, then I have a pyramid to sell you at the discounted price of 99 million dollars.
Everyone laughed — but I didn’t. The Greek drama that I described isn’t the scenario of a Hollywood movie, but a true story whose explosive events are about to unfold in our midst. And when the ship is burning and sinking, the American adventurers will cut their losses and go back to their big island on the first C30 transporter, and leave us and the world around us to deal with the mess they caused.
To us, the promises of establishing peace, justice and democracy in the Middle East is like a student who just failed his elementary school exams promising top scores in the GRE. In the less challenging test of Afghanistan, Bush and company failed miserably. After over a year of hard labor, the “nation-building” project produced a wild-west, drug exporting tribal land with a government ruling no more than Kabul city center. What chance of success is there, then, in the more challenging test of Iraq?
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 23 March 2003
In a round-table discussion hosted by American diplomats and attended by Arab professors and journalists, our conversation turned to the chances of success of the US war on Iraq. After listening to many pessimistic analyses, a political science professor contended that the people in the Middle East see things in black and white and solutions are always either good or evil, with us or against us.
My reply to this simplistic view was to draw a multi-colored picture of the political, religious, cultural and ideological complexities in Iraq and neighboring countries.
Let us begin with the mosaic of the Iraqi picture. Iraq is populated by Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, Farsi and Caledonians. The religious groups represented in the country are Muslims, Christians and Jews. On the ideological map there are Islamists, Ba’ath, Nationalists, Socialists and Communists. Culturally and economically, there is a whole rainbow of colors and shades, ranging from nuclear scientists to illiterate farmers, ultra-rich war merchants and corrupt leaders to poor men and women who cannot afford even baby milk for their children.
Within these categories, there are many sub-categories. Among Muslims, for example, there are Sunnis and Shiites, and among nationalists you find isolationists and regionalists.
In the surrounding areas, we see a picture no less colorful and varied. There are kingdoms and republics, as well as “republican kingdoms.” Some are real, some are fake democracies, and most are dictatorships. A few are religious and most are secular. Their inhabitants vary from Arabs to Turks to Persians. Some countries, like Israel, have as varied races as European, Russian and African. Their economic bases are varied too, including agriculture, industry, oil and tourism.
All these varieties, differences and complexities make the region look like a huge, powerful bomb with thin, delicate, overlapping, multi-colored wires. I reminded my audience of an old movie starring Omar Sharif.
The plot is about terrorists planting a bomb on a passenger ship and threatening to sink it if their demands are not met. The British government responds by sending explosives specialists led by a top expert. We watch in awe as the old expert with a pair of pliers tries to determine which wire to cut to disable the bomb.
I then asked them to imagine our feelings in the Middle East watching the latest American production. I reminded them that the situation is much more frightening this time: The bombs are more dangerous and deadly; the wires more complicated; and their colors more confusing. Even worse, the explosives experts are not experts at all, but a group of color-blind cowboys who see the world in black and white, good and evil. They carry guns not pliers, and ride their horses recklessly around the ship, their war cry ringing out as they prepare to solve the intricate problem of disabling the bomb by shooting it. Their relationship and experience of the place and its people is like the relationship between Michael Jackson and heavyweight boxing, or Mike Tyson’s expertise in belly dance.
I told them, if one of you believes for a second that these Zionist-Christian right-wing cowboys, who have never been in more than game wars, will solve the Middle East crisis in a quick and clean fashion and then just pack and leave, then I have a pyramid to sell you at the discounted price of 99 million dollars.
Everyone laughed — but I didn’t. The Greek drama that I described isn’t the scenario of a Hollywood movie, but a true story whose explosive events are about to unfold in our midst. And when the ship is burning and sinking, the American adventurers will cut their losses and go back to their big island on the first C30 transporter, and leave us and the world around us to deal with the mess they caused.
To us, the promises of establishing peace, justice and democracy in the Middle East is like a student who just failed his elementary school exams promising top scores in the GRE. In the less challenging test of Afghanistan, Bush and company failed miserably. After over a year of hard labor, the “nation-building” project produced a wild-west, drug exporting tribal land with a government ruling no more than Kabul city center. What chance of success is there, then, in the more challenging test of Iraq?
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 23 March 2003
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Our Mistakes, too!
These days, it seems the Arab world (except for Kuwait) has nothing but expressions of anger towards both America and Britain. My recent articles, as many noted, is a good example. I went from praising America and writing about my positive experience in the US during my graduate years, to bashing its foreign policy and focusing on its historical failings. My American friends are confused. How could I be a good friend to them, have such a good impression about the American society, civil achievements, and education system, then turn around and write nothing but angry articles about America.
Those who read me during the last Gulf War are even more confused and frustrated. Why would I support that war but not this one? Isn't the enemy the same? Isn't USA on our side, this time as before? Why would I defend an evil regime? If it is the Iraqi people I am defending, why would I want them "un-liberated"?
Many friends and readers point to my own hypocrisy and ask: Why would I be so good and energetic at pointing fingers at American mistakes, failures and biases, then forget about ours? If I accuse America of applying "double standards" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, am I not doing the same when I record Fox News bias and forget about Al Jazeera, or when I talk about America's racial discrimination and religious extremism and not about ours, or when I tally American crimes, past and present, and not that committed by Arab and Muslims?
All the above are good questions and valid points. The Arab world does feel angry, sound angry, and look angry. The reason: We are angry! Why? The answer is to be found in history books as much as in Al Jazeera and Arabnews. Key wards in this long story are: Israel, Israel and Israel.
In short, we cannot trust the intentions of a country that sees us through the Israeli lenses, vetoed some 80 Security Council resolutions that would have given us back what Israel owes us, and attacks a sovereign nation to disarm it of "alleged" weapons of mass destruction, while helping its neighbor (Israel) to improve on many more of them. We cannot trust a president who claims to care about the Iraqi people but not the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds, the Chechens or the Kashmiri; and who enforces 17 UN resolutions on Iraq but ignores more than 70 on Israel; who calls Saddam a dictator and Sharon "Man of Peace"!
As for the first Gulf War, it was different, totally different. Iraq then was the invader and occupier—the buster of world law and order. When USSR invaded Afghanistan the world acted the same way. So, we are being consistent when we give USA the same treatment, this time. Add this to our "mistrust" of US intentions for the above reasons and you understand why the negative reaction. It doesn't help the optimists among us that the plan to invade Iraq and redraw the region's map is public record. Deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary Doug Feith Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and neo-conservative high priest and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle are not shy about the "why" and "how". Please check the plan at the http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
After all, they had to sell this plan, submitted to and turned down by Israeli former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, to practical politicians, business and military hawks (and fanatic fundamentalists), not to Jeffersonian democrats, libertarians, and idealist intellectuals. Knowing these published intentions, we cannot, for self preservation, help being against such imperialist-fundamentalist scheme.
As for our faults, yes I agree. We should focus more on our failings, problems and mistakes. It is natural, but not wiser, for people under attack to play victim. And it is easier for a victim to cry foul and blame the world for everything including his own blunders. Wrong! We should, now more than ever, start working on the problems that brought us this low. If the Ba'ath regime was the product of its own soil, the choice of its own people, and the benefactor of its own country it wouldn't have been so easily defeated. Most Arab regimes are likewise. I hope, but not very optimistic, that they learn their lesson. The guarantee of national sovereignty, solidity and solidarity is the same everywhere. Governments should be representative of their peoples. They should acknowledge, respect and work to protect their rights and achieve their aspirations. The Arab world is still after half a century of its independence a permanent member of the Third World club, and dependent on its former colonizers for all its needs from bread and cheese to computers and Mercedes. Most countries are in debt, many on aid, and few live in oil-for-cash luxury. Our education system is poor, investment and business environment overly protective and bureaucratic, governing and legislative system dictatorial and corrupt. Our media is bias, rhetoric stupid and our attitude towards the world and the other is in need of much maintenance. Most of us claim to be Muslims, but few are good ones. Too many of our intellectuals are either fanatically religious or radically liberal. The rest are caught in the cross fire.
For my fellow Arabs I say: What was done is done. America is "officially" here, and we are in for a long run. Whether we give it the benefit of the doubt or don't trust its intentions, whether it is going to be the feared Hell or the promised paradise, we have one, and only one course of action to take: Reforms. So, instead of crying for the spilt milk, let's take care of the milking cow.
For my American friends I say: Against all odds, I am willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. But you must encourage your elected government to meet the world's best expectations and live up to its advertised goals. Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict must be a priority. Rebuilding an Iraqi model of freedom and prosperity is another. Doing so will restore the American image the world have always admired—that of civility, generosity and principled policies. To this day, to this kind of America I long and salute.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Those who read me during the last Gulf War are even more confused and frustrated. Why would I support that war but not this one? Isn't the enemy the same? Isn't USA on our side, this time as before? Why would I defend an evil regime? If it is the Iraqi people I am defending, why would I want them "un-liberated"?
Many friends and readers point to my own hypocrisy and ask: Why would I be so good and energetic at pointing fingers at American mistakes, failures and biases, then forget about ours? If I accuse America of applying "double standards" in the Arab-Israeli conflict, am I not doing the same when I record Fox News bias and forget about Al Jazeera, or when I talk about America's racial discrimination and religious extremism and not about ours, or when I tally American crimes, past and present, and not that committed by Arab and Muslims?
All the above are good questions and valid points. The Arab world does feel angry, sound angry, and look angry. The reason: We are angry! Why? The answer is to be found in history books as much as in Al Jazeera and Arabnews. Key wards in this long story are: Israel, Israel and Israel.
In short, we cannot trust the intentions of a country that sees us through the Israeli lenses, vetoed some 80 Security Council resolutions that would have given us back what Israel owes us, and attacks a sovereign nation to disarm it of "alleged" weapons of mass destruction, while helping its neighbor (Israel) to improve on many more of them. We cannot trust a president who claims to care about the Iraqi people but not the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds, the Chechens or the Kashmiri; and who enforces 17 UN resolutions on Iraq but ignores more than 70 on Israel; who calls Saddam a dictator and Sharon "Man of Peace"!
As for the first Gulf War, it was different, totally different. Iraq then was the invader and occupier—the buster of world law and order. When USSR invaded Afghanistan the world acted the same way. So, we are being consistent when we give USA the same treatment, this time. Add this to our "mistrust" of US intentions for the above reasons and you understand why the negative reaction. It doesn't help the optimists among us that the plan to invade Iraq and redraw the region's map is public record. Deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary Doug Feith Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and neo-conservative high priest and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle are not shy about the "why" and "how". Please check the plan at the http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
After all, they had to sell this plan, submitted to and turned down by Israeli former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, to practical politicians, business and military hawks (and fanatic fundamentalists), not to Jeffersonian democrats, libertarians, and idealist intellectuals. Knowing these published intentions, we cannot, for self preservation, help being against such imperialist-fundamentalist scheme.
As for our faults, yes I agree. We should focus more on our failings, problems and mistakes. It is natural, but not wiser, for people under attack to play victim. And it is easier for a victim to cry foul and blame the world for everything including his own blunders. Wrong! We should, now more than ever, start working on the problems that brought us this low. If the Ba'ath regime was the product of its own soil, the choice of its own people, and the benefactor of its own country it wouldn't have been so easily defeated. Most Arab regimes are likewise. I hope, but not very optimistic, that they learn their lesson. The guarantee of national sovereignty, solidity and solidarity is the same everywhere. Governments should be representative of their peoples. They should acknowledge, respect and work to protect their rights and achieve their aspirations. The Arab world is still after half a century of its independence a permanent member of the Third World club, and dependent on its former colonizers for all its needs from bread and cheese to computers and Mercedes. Most countries are in debt, many on aid, and few live in oil-for-cash luxury. Our education system is poor, investment and business environment overly protective and bureaucratic, governing and legislative system dictatorial and corrupt. Our media is bias, rhetoric stupid and our attitude towards the world and the other is in need of much maintenance. Most of us claim to be Muslims, but few are good ones. Too many of our intellectuals are either fanatically religious or radically liberal. The rest are caught in the cross fire.
For my fellow Arabs I say: What was done is done. America is "officially" here, and we are in for a long run. Whether we give it the benefit of the doubt or don't trust its intentions, whether it is going to be the feared Hell or the promised paradise, we have one, and only one course of action to take: Reforms. So, instead of crying for the spilt milk, let's take care of the milking cow.
For my American friends I say: Against all odds, I am willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. But you must encourage your elected government to meet the world's best expectations and live up to its advertised goals. Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict must be a priority. Rebuilding an Iraqi model of freedom and prosperity is another. Doing so will restore the American image the world have always admired—that of civility, generosity and principled policies. To this day, to this kind of America I long and salute.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Sunday, March 16, 2003
American Anger
American Anger
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go down well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans’ fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country’s constitution. I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets terrorism — and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab, but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen — as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis. Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The “made in USA” Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope.
The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself into in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all. How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 16 March 2003
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go down well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans’ fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country’s constitution. I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets terrorism — and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab, but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen — as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis. Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The “made in USA” Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope.
The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself into in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all. How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 16 March 2003
American Anger
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go down well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans’ fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country’s constitution. I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets terrorism — and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab, but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen — as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis. Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The “made in USA” Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope.
The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself into in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all. How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 16 March 2003
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go down well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans’ fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country’s constitution. I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets terrorism — and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab, but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen — as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis. Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The “made in USA” Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope.
The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself into in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all. How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Arab News Features 16 March 2003
Saturday, March 15, 2003
American Anger
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans' fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country's constitution.
I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets
terrorism -- and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white Europeans, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen -- as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others.
Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis.
Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The "made in USA" Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope. The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself in in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all.
How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
It seems that my article last week on American fear and its Crusader war struck a raw nerve in America. The Internet coverage received by the article provoked the wrath of a large number of American readers and protests from some American friends.
Some responses were related to the tale I relayed of the American passengers who decided to cancel or change their flights after seeing a number of Middle Eastern passengers traveling with them.
It seems this story gave the impression that Americans are a fearful people, a quality that does not suit the sons of an empire dominating the world.
There were also objections to the conclusions I made following my recent visit to the US and the discussions I had there with a number of American thinkers and intellectuals on the Iraqi standoff.
I said Washington was implementing the agenda of an alliance of Zionists, Crusaders, and oil and arms businesses to establish its global hegemony.
I also pointed out that the plan to attack Iraq was originally proposed in a study presented by Richard Perle, an influential consultant of the administration, to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. The plan was later resubmitted to the Bush administration. These comments did not go well with my critics.
My assertion that the Americans' fear was not spontaneous but created by the US leadership to bring about a feeling that their security is under threat also appears to have been provocative. My argument here was that the administration created the present situation to win public support for any tough political or military action, even at the expense of the country's constitution.
I concluded the article by saying that terrorism begets fear and fear begets
terrorism -- and in the end the injustice of it all will come back to haunt the aggressor.
I told the critics that I was not expressing my own view. It was also the view of several noted American thinkers, politicians, lawyers and media professional whose names I mentioned in the article. So I was not expressing my view as an Arab but the shared view of many Americans and Europeans.
All Americans I quoted were white Europeans, and some were even Republicans.
The accusation that the article was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian becomes meaningless when you consider the presence among the people I quoted of Christian thinker William Baker and Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen -- as well as many others who belonged to various Christian churches.
In fact, this was the very reason that prompted me to use the word Crusaders instead of Christians, and Zionists in place of Jews. As I strongly oppose the linking of Islam to terrorism and terrorists, I tried my best to avoid the same mistake by linking these gruesome political movements to Christianity and Judaism.
As Muslims, we believe that Christianity and Judaism are two divine religions. Our faith cannot be complete without believing in their prophets and books.
On the contrary, Zionists and Crusaders form two movements which use religion as a cover to achieve their vested, racist political and economic interests at the expense of others.
Mainstream Christianity and Judaism do not support the ideas of these two extremist school of thoughts.
The state of fear and horror created by the two administrations in the US and Israel is a reflection of the breathless, fearful world as it now watches how the American cowboys manage the Iraqi crisis.
Mark my words, ladies and gentlemen: The "made in USA" Iraqi crisis, and the expected invasion will not be a quick fix, as some US strategists hope. The new swamp the aggressors and invaders will find themselves in will be more dangerous than the ones the US managed to get itself in in Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam. The vicious circle of fear and terrorism created by the new crisis will be the worst and bloodiest of them all.
How and why? I will try to answer that in my next article.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Frightened America is Frightening the World?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
"America is afraid of us Muslims and especially of you, the Arabs,” veteran Kashmiri leader Sardar Abdul Qayyoum said after a recent visit to the United States. “It's a real fear. I have felt it during my meetings with the American president, congressmen, businessmen and journalists," he added,
I heard the same words from Thomas Friedman when I met him about a year ago. He told me he had failed to convey to us the fear of what he called the Arab and Islamic terror that arrived at their doorstep in September 2001.
The Arab writer Mohammed Hussein Haikal explained America’s state of mind in his book "The American Age: From New York to Kabul.”
The US does not know, he wrote, "the concept of security" -- because it was established on the concept of interests. America has not been as affected by wars as other parts of the world, even when it participated in the two world wars. None of its cities were ever threatened, although its soldiers were killed abroad."
After the Sept. 11 crisis, I wrote an article "Fearful America Frightens the World". It was an attempt to understand what is happening and what will happen after the US saw the largest and fiercest attack in living memory on its own soil.
It created a feeling of insecurity among Americans inside their own country. Suddenly, Americans were as exposed to death and destruction at home as other people in the world.
Recently, I spoke with a group of friends to a visiting American journalist. He told us that his newspaper had sent him to Wales, UK, to attend an intensive training course on how to deal with dangers in war zones, and that all his friends and relatives called to warn him when they heard he was traveling to Saudi Arabia. They even advised him to make a will in case he did not come back alive.
We heard and felt similar comments and sentiments from visiting journalists regarding unfortunate incidents and events in the US. But the death of a small number of people from anthrax or 10 people at the hand of a gunman are events that could occur anywhere in the world without raising much of an uproar. If they happen in the US they are front-page news and daily concern for every citizen.
This again reaffirms my point that the US is spearheading a destructive and costly war against terrorism because it is afraid. But fear on the part of a superpower is a dangerous weapon that can backfire.
And on top of the fear, there are other considerations. Christian and Jewish extremism are also pushing for war. And Washington wants to realize strategic interests by establishing military bases and allied governments.
Afghanistan is surrounded by three regional powers -- China, Russia and India -- as well as countries with the capability to produce nuclear weapons such as Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian republics.
There are also petroleum producing countries near the Caspian Sea. Iraq, more conveniently, is located in the center of the Middle East and in the Gulf region, which has the world's largest oil reserves. Iraq also happens to be close to America's 51st state, Israel.
But as a French thinker has put it: Empires collapse when they start exploiting others, and feel no need to consider their points of view.
*Managing Editor, Al Madina Daily
Kbatarafi@al-madinah.com
"America is afraid of us Muslims and especially of you, the Arabs,” veteran Kashmiri leader Sardar Abdul Qayyoum said after a recent visit to the United States. “It's a real fear. I have felt it during my meetings with the American president, congressmen, businessmen and journalists," he added,
I heard the same words from Thomas Friedman when I met him about a year ago. He told me he had failed to convey to us the fear of what he called the Arab and Islamic terror that arrived at their doorstep in September 2001.
The Arab writer Mohammed Hussein Haikal explained America’s state of mind in his book "The American Age: From New York to Kabul.”
The US does not know, he wrote, "the concept of security" -- because it was established on the concept of interests. America has not been as affected by wars as other parts of the world, even when it participated in the two world wars. None of its cities were ever threatened, although its soldiers were killed abroad."
After the Sept. 11 crisis, I wrote an article "Fearful America Frightens the World". It was an attempt to understand what is happening and what will happen after the US saw the largest and fiercest attack in living memory on its own soil.
It created a feeling of insecurity among Americans inside their own country. Suddenly, Americans were as exposed to death and destruction at home as other people in the world.
Recently, I spoke with a group of friends to a visiting American journalist. He told us that his newspaper had sent him to Wales, UK, to attend an intensive training course on how to deal with dangers in war zones, and that all his friends and relatives called to warn him when they heard he was traveling to Saudi Arabia. They even advised him to make a will in case he did not come back alive.
We heard and felt similar comments and sentiments from visiting journalists regarding unfortunate incidents and events in the US. But the death of a small number of people from anthrax or 10 people at the hand of a gunman are events that could occur anywhere in the world without raising much of an uproar. If they happen in the US they are front-page news and daily concern for every citizen.
This again reaffirms my point that the US is spearheading a destructive and costly war against terrorism because it is afraid. But fear on the part of a superpower is a dangerous weapon that can backfire.
And on top of the fear, there are other considerations. Christian and Jewish extremism are also pushing for war. And Washington wants to realize strategic interests by establishing military bases and allied governments.
Afghanistan is surrounded by three regional powers -- China, Russia and India -- as well as countries with the capability to produce nuclear weapons such as Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian republics.
There are also petroleum producing countries near the Caspian Sea. Iraq, more conveniently, is located in the center of the Middle East and in the Gulf region, which has the world's largest oil reserves. Iraq also happens to be close to America's 51st state, Israel.
But as a French thinker has put it: Empires collapse when they start exploiting others, and feel no need to consider their points of view.
*Managing Editor, Al Madina Daily
Kbatarafi@al-madinah.com
Monday, March 03, 2003
Frightened America is Frightening the World?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
"America is afraid of us Muslims and especially of you, the Arabs,” veteran Kashmiri leader Sardar Abdul Qayyoum said after a recent visit to the United States. “It's a real fear. I have felt it during my meetings with the American president, congressmen, businessmen and journalists," he added,
I heard the same words from Thomas Friedman when I met him about a year ago. He told me he had failed to convey to us the fear of what he called the Arab and Islamic terror that arrived at their doorstep in September 2001.
The Arab writer Mohammed Hussein Haikal explained America’s state of mind in his book "The American Age: From New York to Kabul.”
The US does not know, he wrote, "the concept of security" -- because it was established on the concept of interests. America has not been as affected by wars as other parts of the world, even when it participated in the two world wars. None of its cities were ever threatened, although its soldiers were killed abroad."
After the Sept. 11 crisis, I wrote an article "Fearful America Frightens the World". It was an attempt to understand what is happening and what will happen after the US saw the largest and fiercest attack in living memory on its own soil.
It created a feeling of insecurity among Americans inside their own country. Suddenly, Americans were as exposed to death and destruction at home as other people in the world.
Recently, I spoke with a group of friends to a visiting American journalist. He told us that his newspaper had sent him to Wales, UK, to attend an intensive training course on how to deal with dangers in war zones, and that all his friends and relatives called to warn him when they heard he was traveling to Saudi Arabia. They even advised him to make a will in case he did not come back alive.
We heard and felt similar comments and sentiments from visiting journalists regarding unfortunate incidents and events in the US. But the death of a small number of people from anthrax or 10 people at the hand of a gunman are events that could occur anywhere in the world without raising much of an uproar. If they happen in the US they are front-page news and daily concern for every citizen.
This again reaffirms my point that the US is spearheading a destructive and costly war against terrorism because it is afraid. But fear on the part of a superpower is a dangerous weapon that can backfire.
And on top of the fear, there are other considerations. Christian and Jewish extremism are also pushing for war. And Washington wants to realize strategic interests by establishing military bases and allied governments.
Afghanistan is surrounded by three regional powers -- China, Russia and India -- as well as countries with the capability to produce nuclear weapons such as Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian republics.
There are also petroleum producing countries near the Caspian Sea. Iraq, more conveniently, is located in the center of the Middle East and in the Gulf region, which has the world's largest oil reserves. Iraq also happens to be close to America's 51st state, Israel.
But as a French thinker has put it: Empires collapse when they start exploiting others, and feel no need to consider their points of view.
*Managing Editor, Al Madina Daily
Kbatarafi@al-madinah.com
"America is afraid of us Muslims and especially of you, the Arabs,” veteran Kashmiri leader Sardar Abdul Qayyoum said after a recent visit to the United States. “It's a real fear. I have felt it during my meetings with the American president, congressmen, businessmen and journalists," he added,
I heard the same words from Thomas Friedman when I met him about a year ago. He told me he had failed to convey to us the fear of what he called the Arab and Islamic terror that arrived at their doorstep in September 2001.
The Arab writer Mohammed Hussein Haikal explained America’s state of mind in his book "The American Age: From New York to Kabul.”
The US does not know, he wrote, "the concept of security" -- because it was established on the concept of interests. America has not been as affected by wars as other parts of the world, even when it participated in the two world wars. None of its cities were ever threatened, although its soldiers were killed abroad."
After the Sept. 11 crisis, I wrote an article "Fearful America Frightens the World". It was an attempt to understand what is happening and what will happen after the US saw the largest and fiercest attack in living memory on its own soil.
It created a feeling of insecurity among Americans inside their own country. Suddenly, Americans were as exposed to death and destruction at home as other people in the world.
Recently, I spoke with a group of friends to a visiting American journalist. He told us that his newspaper had sent him to Wales, UK, to attend an intensive training course on how to deal with dangers in war zones, and that all his friends and relatives called to warn him when they heard he was traveling to Saudi Arabia. They even advised him to make a will in case he did not come back alive.
We heard and felt similar comments and sentiments from visiting journalists regarding unfortunate incidents and events in the US. But the death of a small number of people from anthrax or 10 people at the hand of a gunman are events that could occur anywhere in the world without raising much of an uproar. If they happen in the US they are front-page news and daily concern for every citizen.
This again reaffirms my point that the US is spearheading a destructive and costly war against terrorism because it is afraid. But fear on the part of a superpower is a dangerous weapon that can backfire.
And on top of the fear, there are other considerations. Christian and Jewish extremism are also pushing for war. And Washington wants to realize strategic interests by establishing military bases and allied governments.
Afghanistan is surrounded by three regional powers -- China, Russia and India -- as well as countries with the capability to produce nuclear weapons such as Pakistan, Iran and the Central Asian republics.
There are also petroleum producing countries near the Caspian Sea. Iraq, more conveniently, is located in the center of the Middle East and in the Gulf region, which has the world's largest oil reserves. Iraq also happens to be close to America's 51st state, Israel.
But as a French thinker has put it: Empires collapse when they start exploiting others, and feel no need to consider their points of view.
*Managing Editor, Al Madina Daily
Kbatarafi@al-madinah.com
Saturday, March 01, 2003
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley:
Arab Women Should Not Give In to the Restrictions of Their Cultural Environment
Khaled M. Batarfi, Al-Madinah
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the US consul general in Jeddah, is an African-American woman and has experienced racial discrimination first-hand. But she overcame the obstacles that were put in her path, reaching senior positions in the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department and the UN, and finally the highest diplomatic post held by an African-American woman in the Middle East. To coincide with American black history month, she told Al-Madinah newspaper her story.
I was born in 1957 at a time blacks had few civil rights in America. The first civil rights law that gave blacks equal rights to the whites was issued in 1957.
My father was a lawyer, a university graduate, and my mother was a secretary with a high school diploma. Both qualifications were an achievement for them as African-Americans in the 1940s. They made sure I got the education I needed to progress in life because education was and still is the key to progress in America, especially for minorities and those with limited income and limited connections. Perhaps that is the case in most modern societies.
When I was in high school, I decided to study Hebrew because I heard it spoken in my neighborhood in Ohio. I also participated in an exchange program in college. I went to Israel from 1978 to 1979. This coincided with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem to build bridges of peace between Arabs and Israelis for the first time, and it was the beginning of a lifelong interest in the Middle East.
Being at the heart of events made me want to understand the nature of the conflict in the region, and through relations I’ve built with Arabs and Jews I have been able to gain a better understanding of the nature of the conflict and opportunities and ways to find a solution.
After this journey, I had the chance to go back to the region one other time: this time to a Gulf country. I volunteered to work in the Peace Corps. It’s an American organization that sends volunteers to developing countries for educational services in different sectors.
You can imagine the negative reaction I got from some of my family and friends. Many of them could not imagine that someone would work without salary, but their misgivings evaporated in the face of my insistence and belief.
The reason for my interest in this organization started as a child, when I saw an ad that said, “Peace Corps: The toughest job you’ll ever love.” With pictures of volunteers working in developing countries, helping the people, I got hooked on the idea, and when the chance came I didn’t hesitate.
The country I chose was Oman. That was my good fortune. In this beautiful country, I moved from village to village, from town to town, spreading health education and how to use antibiotics and medications for diseases after I received courses in this field back in America.
In Oman I got to know the Arab character and Omani women. I learned from them as much as they learned from me. In Oman, I met an Englishman, and despite cultural and racial differences in background, we got married and now have two lovely children. It was a wonderful time.
I got my BA from George Washington University and an MA from Johns Hopkins University. My studies included nuclear nonproliferation courses at a time when we were at the peak of the Cold War and international polarization. I applied to work for the State Department and I began a journey of personal meetings, exams, procedures, and finally I received my security clearance.
One of my best memories, when I recognized I had achieved something for myself, was my first day in the White House. I felt I was entering the house of American authority with all its history. I remember all the stories that were written in history books about the burning of the White House at the hands of the British and salvaging what could be salvaged from that fire and then its reconstruction.
I remembered all the great presidents who ruled this country from this place, those who walked the same corridors that I was in, and helped in the governance of my great country. I was overwhelmed with emotions and thoughts. Then I called my mother from my new office and I told her about this historic moment in my life and about my feelings. I worked for two sections of the National Security Council in the White House, as director for legislative affairs, and later for the Arabian Peninsula.
I started working for the State Department in 1985. I had a choice between an easy job in London or a dangerous one in Baghdad. You might be surprised that I chose Baghdad, because the Iran-Iraq war in 1985 was at its peak. The Iranian missiles were hitting the capital. This wasn’t the only problem. In addition, there was a shortage of food supplies and medicine. Our time was very difficult considering the oppressive nature of the regime and their secret police. Communicating with the Iraqis on the street was not easy, nor was movement in Iraq and between cities. Movement in the capital itself without escort from secret service and national security was impossible. The reason why I didn’t choose London is because I know it. My in-laws live there and I frequently visited it. Baghdad was an adventure and an unknown world to me. I stayed there as Consul General for a year and a half before I was transferred to Jakarta and then to Cairo.
From Egypt to Washington, I worked for Deputy Assistant Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger for a year and a half. After a year of studying Arabic in Tunis, I worked in our embassy in Tel Aviv for three years, 1994-97. I was responsible for reporting on Palestinian-Israeli relations and had the opportunity to meet Arafat many times. Then I went back to America to work as an advisor to the Ministry of Defense and the American mission to the UN. I also worked on the committee for international relations in Congress until 2001. I was then lucky enough to be chosen as US consul general in Jeddah.
My experience with Arab women has been diverse. I’ve was there when Omani women entered a new world through education and employment. I also lived through the Palestinian experience, which is more mature and developed, and the Tunisian and Egyptian experiences during my stay in these two countries
The most exciting to witness were the Iraqi women. I was surprised when I learned that Iraq had a female ambassador before America did. (She was appointed in the 1920s.) I witnessed the scientific and practical progress that the Iraqi women achieved although they were living under the Saddam Hussein regime.
Despite the limited chances to meet with Iraqi women, I saw how they fulfilled their complete role in society, at school and university and in private and public services, how they achieved their goals and proved themselves in society — especially during the Iraq-Iran war when they took the place of men in many places.
I still remember my surprise when I visited Riyadh as a White House official a few years back and I stayed there for three days, during which I saw only one Saudi woman. But my current experience has improved the picture.
I have been able to meet a large number of the best women in your country who work in different fields, private and public, and I was pleased to hear of their achievements. I think they have a long road ahead to achieve their goals and effectively participate in the development of their country. I honor their achievement. I would never have achieved what I did without the opportunities provided by my government and the support of others.
It’s difficult for me to say what it has been like to be a black woman in a world dominated by white men, especially when most of the challenges have become a part of the past. But we cannot ignore that women and minorities in America have faced enormous challenges in the past. I personally have had many difficulties and I have been looked down on by colleagues at different stages of my life.
But I refuse to give up, and I challenge them, and I insist on my rights as a woman and as an African-American to be treated as equal to others. I try to give my experience to the Arab women and ask them not to give in to the restrictions of the cultural environment. They should equip themselves with knowledge, self-confidence and insistence on self-achievement. This is how they can contribute to their country in whatever way they choose.
Arab Women Should Not Give In to the Restrictions of Their Cultural Environment
Khaled M. Batarfi, Al-Madinah
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the US consul general in Jeddah, is an African-American woman and has experienced racial discrimination first-hand. But she overcame the obstacles that were put in her path, reaching senior positions in the National Security Council, the White House, the State Department and the UN, and finally the highest diplomatic post held by an African-American woman in the Middle East. To coincide with American black history month, she told Al-Madinah newspaper her story.
I was born in 1957 at a time blacks had few civil rights in America. The first civil rights law that gave blacks equal rights to the whites was issued in 1957.
My father was a lawyer, a university graduate, and my mother was a secretary with a high school diploma. Both qualifications were an achievement for them as African-Americans in the 1940s. They made sure I got the education I needed to progress in life because education was and still is the key to progress in America, especially for minorities and those with limited income and limited connections. Perhaps that is the case in most modern societies.
When I was in high school, I decided to study Hebrew because I heard it spoken in my neighborhood in Ohio. I also participated in an exchange program in college. I went to Israel from 1978 to 1979. This coincided with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem to build bridges of peace between Arabs and Israelis for the first time, and it was the beginning of a lifelong interest in the Middle East.
Being at the heart of events made me want to understand the nature of the conflict in the region, and through relations I’ve built with Arabs and Jews I have been able to gain a better understanding of the nature of the conflict and opportunities and ways to find a solution.
After this journey, I had the chance to go back to the region one other time: this time to a Gulf country. I volunteered to work in the Peace Corps. It’s an American organization that sends volunteers to developing countries for educational services in different sectors.
You can imagine the negative reaction I got from some of my family and friends. Many of them could not imagine that someone would work without salary, but their misgivings evaporated in the face of my insistence and belief.
The reason for my interest in this organization started as a child, when I saw an ad that said, “Peace Corps: The toughest job you’ll ever love.” With pictures of volunteers working in developing countries, helping the people, I got hooked on the idea, and when the chance came I didn’t hesitate.
The country I chose was Oman. That was my good fortune. In this beautiful country, I moved from village to village, from town to town, spreading health education and how to use antibiotics and medications for diseases after I received courses in this field back in America.
In Oman I got to know the Arab character and Omani women. I learned from them as much as they learned from me. In Oman, I met an Englishman, and despite cultural and racial differences in background, we got married and now have two lovely children. It was a wonderful time.
I got my BA from George Washington University and an MA from Johns Hopkins University. My studies included nuclear nonproliferation courses at a time when we were at the peak of the Cold War and international polarization. I applied to work for the State Department and I began a journey of personal meetings, exams, procedures, and finally I received my security clearance.
One of my best memories, when I recognized I had achieved something for myself, was my first day in the White House. I felt I was entering the house of American authority with all its history. I remember all the stories that were written in history books about the burning of the White House at the hands of the British and salvaging what could be salvaged from that fire and then its reconstruction.
I remembered all the great presidents who ruled this country from this place, those who walked the same corridors that I was in, and helped in the governance of my great country. I was overwhelmed with emotions and thoughts. Then I called my mother from my new office and I told her about this historic moment in my life and about my feelings. I worked for two sections of the National Security Council in the White House, as director for legislative affairs, and later for the Arabian Peninsula.
I started working for the State Department in 1985. I had a choice between an easy job in London or a dangerous one in Baghdad. You might be surprised that I chose Baghdad, because the Iran-Iraq war in 1985 was at its peak. The Iranian missiles were hitting the capital. This wasn’t the only problem. In addition, there was a shortage of food supplies and medicine. Our time was very difficult considering the oppressive nature of the regime and their secret police. Communicating with the Iraqis on the street was not easy, nor was movement in Iraq and between cities. Movement in the capital itself without escort from secret service and national security was impossible. The reason why I didn’t choose London is because I know it. My in-laws live there and I frequently visited it. Baghdad was an adventure and an unknown world to me. I stayed there as Consul General for a year and a half before I was transferred to Jakarta and then to Cairo.
From Egypt to Washington, I worked for Deputy Assistant Secretary Lawrence Eagleburger for a year and a half. After a year of studying Arabic in Tunis, I worked in our embassy in Tel Aviv for three years, 1994-97. I was responsible for reporting on Palestinian-Israeli relations and had the opportunity to meet Arafat many times. Then I went back to America to work as an advisor to the Ministry of Defense and the American mission to the UN. I also worked on the committee for international relations in Congress until 2001. I was then lucky enough to be chosen as US consul general in Jeddah.
My experience with Arab women has been diverse. I’ve was there when Omani women entered a new world through education and employment. I also lived through the Palestinian experience, which is more mature and developed, and the Tunisian and Egyptian experiences during my stay in these two countries
The most exciting to witness were the Iraqi women. I was surprised when I learned that Iraq had a female ambassador before America did. (She was appointed in the 1920s.) I witnessed the scientific and practical progress that the Iraqi women achieved although they were living under the Saddam Hussein regime.
Despite the limited chances to meet with Iraqi women, I saw how they fulfilled their complete role in society, at school and university and in private and public services, how they achieved their goals and proved themselves in society — especially during the Iraq-Iran war when they took the place of men in many places.
I still remember my surprise when I visited Riyadh as a White House official a few years back and I stayed there for three days, during which I saw only one Saudi woman. But my current experience has improved the picture.
I have been able to meet a large number of the best women in your country who work in different fields, private and public, and I was pleased to hear of their achievements. I think they have a long road ahead to achieve their goals and effectively participate in the development of their country. I honor their achievement. I would never have achieved what I did without the opportunities provided by my government and the support of others.
It’s difficult for me to say what it has been like to be a black woman in a world dominated by white men, especially when most of the challenges have become a part of the past. But we cannot ignore that women and minorities in America have faced enormous challenges in the past. I personally have had many difficulties and I have been looked down on by colleagues at different stages of my life.
But I refuse to give up, and I challenge them, and I insist on my rights as a woman and as an African-American to be treated as equal to others. I try to give my experience to the Arab women and ask them not to give in to the restrictions of the cultural environment. They should equip themselves with knowledge, self-confidence and insistence on self-achievement. This is how they can contribute to their country in whatever way they choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)