Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com
He told me angrily: You generalize things about us and speak little on others. Fear God. Who told you that all our curricula and all our religious views are set against others, that we do not tolerate others’ views, we do not accept other schools of thought and movements, and we want to establish domination over all other views, thoughts, beliefs and trends?
I replied: I did not use these words, and it would not have been right if I had told you such things. What I talked about was the reality we are living in for several years. I have read our curricula, heard Friday sermons at mosques and listened to the cassettes, read the books, fatwas and other publications which prove that there is a movement that calls for the “unification” of curricula and sermons. Advocates of this movement also address the public with a narrow viewpoint, a single interpretation and a single school of thought.
This movement was not confined to the Kingdom but was taken to other countries by students and preachers. I still remember a case while I was in the United States. It was about to create division among the Muslim community and create confusion among the new Muslims there.
The issue started when a Saudi woman told her American Muslim counterparts that covering her face is a part of the religion and that their faith would not be complete without that. She also explained to them an edict issued by a prominent Saudi scholar in this respect. When the issue created a din and bustle, my wife contacted me from the women’s section of the Islamic center and informed me what had happened.
I approached the husband of the Saudi woman who raised the issue and told him to convince his wife that there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars. These differences are sometimes good for the Ummah. I also reminded that his wife (who raised the issue) used to reveal face while driving her car.
His reply was not very encouraging: “We Saudis follow our own school of thought and our own scholars. It is not good that we promote the views of others, especially at this situation when our Ummah is facing so many problems and many scholars show leniency in expressing their views. Many have left the school of the puritan Muslims.” His reply compelled me to intervene to settle the crisis. I asked my wife to tell the American women about another edict on the issue and this helped cool down the situation and resolve the crisis which was about to divide the community into “foreign” and “Salafi Arab” Muslims.
But it did not change the stand of this man. He instead rallied Gulf Muslims against me and accused me that I was attacking Islamic scholars, that I lacked allegiance toward the nation, that I was playing with the religion to win the friendship of the Americans. He also raised doubts about my beliefs and he was even about to declare me an “infidel”.
I said: Don’t you think that the reasoning of this man is the prevalent one in our society? We have to frankly admit that we have a problem, because admission is the first step on the road to successful treatment.
He said: The problem is limited to a few individuals like your friend and some extremist thinkers and jihadists. But this is not so widespread as to be called a phenomenon. Punishing the perpetrators of crimes would be adequate to deter others and establish justice.
Speaking of thinkers, even if they are extremists, they are just reactionaries who came to oppose secularists and atheists.
I said: But it is a phenomenon and we should not ignore it. What we see today is a reality. The same way we fought drug traffickers and traders, we have to fight terrorism, starting from its advocates and supporters to those who issue edicts in favor of them. They show others the way to paradise while of course steering themselves, their children and friends away from that path. It is not justice to describe a deviant thought as reactionary to opposite thinking. The view that calls for committing crimes, declaring others as “infidels” and pouring hate on opponents is not true belief. The opening of the door of dialogue to all schools of thought is necessary — it is not possible to shut away with the advent of satellite TV.
He said: It’s clear that you are biased in your viewpoint, because you speak a lot against one side but little against the other. Why don’t you explain the situation which led these mujahedeen to adopt extremism and prefer violence in place of dialogue? As long as you search for the roots, why don’t you speak profusely on the political, security and social aspects of the issue?
I told him: It appears that you don’t read what we write. Because we have discussed these issues before they were raised by the extremists. We still talk about reforms, the conspiracies of enemies and their injustices. But focusing on such topics now with the reasoning of “Yes, but...” will only justify these crimes — the criminals from those who provide them with intellectual support to those who carry out the operations must be punished with no “buts”. If they asked for a dialogue we would have talked our differences with them, but since they started a war, war is what they shall get.
Arab News Features 25 May 2003
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Yes, We Have Problems
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
He told me angrily: You generalize things about us and speak little on others. Fear God. Who told you that all our curricula and all our religious views are set against others, that we do not tolerate others’ views, we do not accept other schools of thought and movements, and we want to establish domination over all other views, thoughts, beliefs and trends?
I replied: I did not use these words, and it would not have been right if I had told you such things. What I talked about was the reality we are living in for several years. I have read our curricula, heard Friday sermons at mosques and listened to the cassettes, read the books, fatwas and other publications which prove that there is a movement that calls for the “unification” of curricula and sermons. Advocates of this movement also address the public with a narrow viewpoint, a single interpretation and a single school of thought.
This movement was not confined to the Kingdom but was taken to other countries by students and preachers. I still remember a case while I was in the United States. It was about to create division among the Muslim community and create confusion among the new Muslims there.
The issue started when a Saudi woman told her American Muslim counterparts that covering her face is a part of the religion and that their faith would not be complete without that. She also explained to them an edict issued by a prominent Saudi scholar in this respect. When the issue created a din and bustle, my wife contacted me from the women’s section of the Islamic center and informed me what had happened.
I approached the husband of the Saudi woman who raised the issue and told him to convince his wife that there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars. These differences are sometimes good for the Ummah. I also reminded that his wife (who raised the issue) used to reveal face while driving her car.
His reply was not very encouraging: “We Saudis follow our own school of thought and our own scholars. It is not good that we promote the views of others, especially at this situation when our Ummah is facing so many problems and many scholars show leniency in expressing their views. Many have left the school of the puritan Muslims.” His reply compelled me to intervene to settle the crisis. I asked my wife to tell the American women about another edict on the issue and this helped cool down the situation and resolve the crisis which was about to divide the community into “foreign” and “Salafi Arab” Muslims.
But it did not change the stand of this man. He instead rallied Gulf Muslims against me and accused me that I was attacking Islamic scholars, that I lacked allegiance toward the nation, that I was playing with the religion to win the friendship of the Americans. He also raised doubts about my beliefs and he was even about to declare me an “infidel”.
I said: Don’t you think that the reasoning of this man is the prevalent one in our society? We have to frankly admit that we have a problem, because admission is the first step on the road to successful treatment.
He said: The problem is limited to a few individuals like your friend and some extremist thinkers and jihadists. But this is not so widespread as to be called a phenomenon. Punishing the perpetrators of crimes would be adequate to deter others and establish justice.
Speaking of thinkers, even if they are extremists, they are just reactionaries who came to oppose secularists and atheists.
I said: But it is a phenomenon and we should not ignore it. What we see today is a reality. The same way we fought drug traffickers and traders, we have to fight terrorism, starting from its advocates and supporters to those who issue edicts in favor of them. They show others the way to paradise while of course steering themselves, their children and friends away from that path. It is not justice to describe a deviant thought as reactionary to opposite thinking. The view that calls for committing crimes, declaring others as “infidels” and pouring hate on opponents is not true belief. The opening of the door of dialogue to all schools of thought is necessary — it is not possible to shut away with the advent of satellite TV.
He said: It’s clear that you are biased in your viewpoint, because you speak a lot against one side but little against the other. Why don’t you explain the situation which led these mujahedeen to adopt extremism and prefer violence in place of dialogue? As long as you search for the roots, why don’t you speak profusely on the political, security and social aspects of the issue?
I told him: It appears that you don’t read what we write. Because we have discussed these issues before they were raised by the extremists. We still talk about reforms, the conspiracies of enemies and their injustices. But focusing on such topics now with the reasoning of “Yes, but...” will only justify these crimes — the criminals from those who provide them with intellectual support to those who carry out the operations must be punished with no “buts”. If they asked for a dialogue we would have talked our differences with them, but since they started a war, war is what they shall get.
Arab News Features 25 May 2003
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
He told me angrily: You generalize things about us and speak little on others. Fear God. Who told you that all our curricula and all our religious views are set against others, that we do not tolerate others’ views, we do not accept other schools of thought and movements, and we want to establish domination over all other views, thoughts, beliefs and trends?
I replied: I did not use these words, and it would not have been right if I had told you such things. What I talked about was the reality we are living in for several years. I have read our curricula, heard Friday sermons at mosques and listened to the cassettes, read the books, fatwas and other publications which prove that there is a movement that calls for the “unification” of curricula and sermons. Advocates of this movement also address the public with a narrow viewpoint, a single interpretation and a single school of thought.
This movement was not confined to the Kingdom but was taken to other countries by students and preachers. I still remember a case while I was in the United States. It was about to create division among the Muslim community and create confusion among the new Muslims there.
The issue started when a Saudi woman told her American Muslim counterparts that covering her face is a part of the religion and that their faith would not be complete without that. She also explained to them an edict issued by a prominent Saudi scholar in this respect. When the issue created a din and bustle, my wife contacted me from the women’s section of the Islamic center and informed me what had happened.
I approached the husband of the Saudi woman who raised the issue and told him to convince his wife that there are differences of opinion among Islamic scholars. These differences are sometimes good for the Ummah. I also reminded that his wife (who raised the issue) used to reveal face while driving her car.
His reply was not very encouraging: “We Saudis follow our own school of thought and our own scholars. It is not good that we promote the views of others, especially at this situation when our Ummah is facing so many problems and many scholars show leniency in expressing their views. Many have left the school of the puritan Muslims.” His reply compelled me to intervene to settle the crisis. I asked my wife to tell the American women about another edict on the issue and this helped cool down the situation and resolve the crisis which was about to divide the community into “foreign” and “Salafi Arab” Muslims.
But it did not change the stand of this man. He instead rallied Gulf Muslims against me and accused me that I was attacking Islamic scholars, that I lacked allegiance toward the nation, that I was playing with the religion to win the friendship of the Americans. He also raised doubts about my beliefs and he was even about to declare me an “infidel”.
I said: Don’t you think that the reasoning of this man is the prevalent one in our society? We have to frankly admit that we have a problem, because admission is the first step on the road to successful treatment.
He said: The problem is limited to a few individuals like your friend and some extremist thinkers and jihadists. But this is not so widespread as to be called a phenomenon. Punishing the perpetrators of crimes would be adequate to deter others and establish justice.
Speaking of thinkers, even if they are extremists, they are just reactionaries who came to oppose secularists and atheists.
I said: But it is a phenomenon and we should not ignore it. What we see today is a reality. The same way we fought drug traffickers and traders, we have to fight terrorism, starting from its advocates and supporters to those who issue edicts in favor of them. They show others the way to paradise while of course steering themselves, their children and friends away from that path. It is not justice to describe a deviant thought as reactionary to opposite thinking. The view that calls for committing crimes, declaring others as “infidels” and pouring hate on opponents is not true belief. The opening of the door of dialogue to all schools of thought is necessary — it is not possible to shut away with the advent of satellite TV.
He said: It’s clear that you are biased in your viewpoint, because you speak a lot against one side but little against the other. Why don’t you explain the situation which led these mujahedeen to adopt extremism and prefer violence in place of dialogue? As long as you search for the roots, why don’t you speak profusely on the political, security and social aspects of the issue?
I told him: It appears that you don’t read what we write. Because we have discussed these issues before they were raised by the extremists. We still talk about reforms, the conspiracies of enemies and their injustices. But focusing on such topics now with the reasoning of “Yes, but...” will only justify these crimes — the criminals from those who provide them with intellectual support to those who carry out the operations must be punished with no “buts”. If they asked for a dialogue we would have talked our differences with them, but since they started a war, war is what they shall get.
Arab News Features 25 May 2003
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Drying Up The Wells of Terrorism
DR. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@yahoo.com
If a swamp contains the mosquitoes known to be spreading malaria and it has begun to spread it all over world, it is the right of each person harmed by the insect to demand that its life source be dried up. Terrorists are like mosquitoes and the sources of their nourishment are numerous and need to be dried up.
The most important source is ideological. It is no secret that there has for a long time been an active current determined to disregard, discredit and demonize others. These people believe in one truth, and they regard themselves as its founders, keepers and executioners. The weakness of their “truth’s” logic and its even weaker legislative base, especially in a tolerant, multi-doctrinal, living and abundant religion, meant that they had to resort to callousness in its application, in order to impose a single vision and thought.
This ideology managed in the last few decades to impose itself and to infiltrate all areas that affect public consciousness from media to education, from mosque to university, from books to tapes. Since we are by nature a Muslim and conservative nation, and because many in our society have become used to receiving without question, believing without investigation, and to learning from that single source without research or investigation, it was easy for this force to convey what it wanted and direct us in the manner that it wished.
As a result, people’s stand was antagonistic from the start toward everything that differed from them in such details as modes of worship, greetings, the length of thobe and dealings with “infidels.” Consequently, people dealt on the basis of suspicion, hate, enmity, spite and rancor toward anyone different from himself, even if that other person also believed in the oneness of God and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his Messenger.
Drying up these ideological wells must start from the principle that Crown Prince Abdullah adopted in his statement last Tuesday, that anyone who incites someone to commit a crime is partner in it. I hope that this includes a rectification of incorrect directions and the expulsion of such people from centers of influence, whatever they may be, starting with universities and all the way through to mosques. Their ideological vessels must be confiscated and their methods of guidance must be monitored and curbed — whether from the pulpit, through the media or through cassettes. In return, we must open the door to transparent dialogue which we must all be witness to and in which we must all participate so that the average person can respond, correct and clarify in a manner that eliminates confusion, exposes immoderation and reveals any hidden agendas.
At the same time, we must also dry up other wells of terrorism, by rectifying the financial, political and security issues that led to the emergence and the dangerous spread of such movements. The young man who cannot find a college or work to occupy him, a father who watches out for him, or a law that forbids him from doing what he wants, will either stand still or he will deviate to right or left.
Deviation leads the wealthy to false friendships, the loss of religion and morals, while for the poor it leads to crime. Deviation to the right for all social classes leads to a search for an explanation as to why they failed to secure a better future, and the desire to punish the whole society for it and to work secretively for change either through persuasion or by force.
Rectifying these circumstances is a huge national project, which the government has begun through plans to combat poverty, find employment for everyone, expand universities, provide services, improve the performance of public utilities and establish the basis for a civil society and combat corruption and disseminate social justice. Through continued achievements of that sort and by speeding up the development of school curricula, training facilities and educational institutions in a manner that conforms with the needs and demands of the labor market, we will be able to dry up the basic sources that have been exploited by those instigators to entice their victims, kindle their hate and justify their crimes.
The project is huge and diverse. However, the leadership’s determination is even bigger, and the national consensus has rallied around it. The immediate popular reaction against those who committed the latest terrorist action and against their extremist ideology is important in revealing the true face of this destructive tide and in exposing its targets and revealing its true motives.
It is also an important indicator that the leadership and the Ummah are in agreement about the necessity resolutely and doggedly to confront this phenomenon and those behind it, and to work toward liquidating its resources and drying up the wells of terrorism.
Arab News Features 18 May 2003
kbatarfi@yahoo.com
If a swamp contains the mosquitoes known to be spreading malaria and it has begun to spread it all over world, it is the right of each person harmed by the insect to demand that its life source be dried up. Terrorists are like mosquitoes and the sources of their nourishment are numerous and need to be dried up.
The most important source is ideological. It is no secret that there has for a long time been an active current determined to disregard, discredit and demonize others. These people believe in one truth, and they regard themselves as its founders, keepers and executioners. The weakness of their “truth’s” logic and its even weaker legislative base, especially in a tolerant, multi-doctrinal, living and abundant religion, meant that they had to resort to callousness in its application, in order to impose a single vision and thought.
This ideology managed in the last few decades to impose itself and to infiltrate all areas that affect public consciousness from media to education, from mosque to university, from books to tapes. Since we are by nature a Muslim and conservative nation, and because many in our society have become used to receiving without question, believing without investigation, and to learning from that single source without research or investigation, it was easy for this force to convey what it wanted and direct us in the manner that it wished.
As a result, people’s stand was antagonistic from the start toward everything that differed from them in such details as modes of worship, greetings, the length of thobe and dealings with “infidels.” Consequently, people dealt on the basis of suspicion, hate, enmity, spite and rancor toward anyone different from himself, even if that other person also believed in the oneness of God and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his Messenger.
Drying up these ideological wells must start from the principle that Crown Prince Abdullah adopted in his statement last Tuesday, that anyone who incites someone to commit a crime is partner in it. I hope that this includes a rectification of incorrect directions and the expulsion of such people from centers of influence, whatever they may be, starting with universities and all the way through to mosques. Their ideological vessels must be confiscated and their methods of guidance must be monitored and curbed — whether from the pulpit, through the media or through cassettes. In return, we must open the door to transparent dialogue which we must all be witness to and in which we must all participate so that the average person can respond, correct and clarify in a manner that eliminates confusion, exposes immoderation and reveals any hidden agendas.
At the same time, we must also dry up other wells of terrorism, by rectifying the financial, political and security issues that led to the emergence and the dangerous spread of such movements. The young man who cannot find a college or work to occupy him, a father who watches out for him, or a law that forbids him from doing what he wants, will either stand still or he will deviate to right or left.
Deviation leads the wealthy to false friendships, the loss of religion and morals, while for the poor it leads to crime. Deviation to the right for all social classes leads to a search for an explanation as to why they failed to secure a better future, and the desire to punish the whole society for it and to work secretively for change either through persuasion or by force.
Rectifying these circumstances is a huge national project, which the government has begun through plans to combat poverty, find employment for everyone, expand universities, provide services, improve the performance of public utilities and establish the basis for a civil society and combat corruption and disseminate social justice. Through continued achievements of that sort and by speeding up the development of school curricula, training facilities and educational institutions in a manner that conforms with the needs and demands of the labor market, we will be able to dry up the basic sources that have been exploited by those instigators to entice their victims, kindle their hate and justify their crimes.
The project is huge and diverse. However, the leadership’s determination is even bigger, and the national consensus has rallied around it. The immediate popular reaction against those who committed the latest terrorist action and against their extremist ideology is important in revealing the true face of this destructive tide and in exposing its targets and revealing its true motives.
It is also an important indicator that the leadership and the Ummah are in agreement about the necessity resolutely and doggedly to confront this phenomenon and those behind it, and to work toward liquidating its resources and drying up the wells of terrorism.
Arab News Features 18 May 2003
Sunday, May 11, 2003
The ‘Beautiful’ American
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Months after Sept. 11, I was walking with a couple of Saudi friends toward the White House. We were part of a Saudi press group invited by the State Department. One of us suggested going on a guided tour of the White House, so we approached one of the guards to ask for directions. She told us that tours were canceled at the moment except for school kids, but suggested this could change the following week. Then she asked in a friendly tone: “Where are you from?”
I thought to myself: “Oh boy, here comes the tough part.” One of my friends wore a beard. We all fitted the profile of young Middle Eastern males suspect in American airports and government offices.
That very morning we had had to undergo rigorous checks at the National Security Council, and a colleague’s passport was kept for extra checking. The bearded friend cut my thoughts short with a clear and loud answer: “We are Saudi, madam.” I looked carefully at the guard’s eyes as she answered without any apparent change in tone or attitude: “Welcome to America.” Then she went on to suggest alternative landmarks to visit that day, reminding us to check next week for possible change in the White House tour policy.
After we left, I said to my friends: Now this is the real America, and those are the real Americans.
With hundreds of e-mails from American readers in answer to my question: “What does America want from us,” I was reminded again of this beautiful lady. Storms calm, fear subsides, anger boils down, and the true nature of people rises and shines. After years of living in the States, and more with fine American friends, I do have great faith in the American people. With so many polite questions based on misinformed intelligence and misled goodness, I felt guilty. While our enemies have been working for ages to manipulate American knowledge of the world, we were busy helping them achieve their goals with our shouts and calls for war.
While pro-Israel groups took to the stage in every academic center, publishing house, media unit and information channel to propagate their side of the story, we were competing with the high-pitched rhetoric of the like of Nasser and Saddam.
Israel’s friends were making alliances with every religious, business and political powerhouse in America, while we were either fast asleep or working on our relations with administrations captive to internal politics and subject to change in every election. They focused on getting their message across to the public, and we forgot that in democracies, governments come and go, but the people stay and...rule.
When I was asked on Saudi TV the other night what I thought of the PR campaign we sanctioned last year in the US, I said it was “counterproductive.” If we were to sell our culture and values as a product, at least we need to make this product available for checking. How can an American know what we are and what our country is all about if it is so difficult to visit and meet Saudis?
We need to open up and establish human links and channels. We need to send groups after groups of Saudi intellectuals, professional and school kids to communicate with their peers in universities, schools, community centers and the media. We should, in turn, open our doors for the curious to come and check us out. We don’t have things to hide. In fact, we have a lot of good things to show. That was not my conclusion but what I heard from many American visitors, mostly in the media and academia, who came after Sept. 11 to “check us out.”
“But what about the biased media?” I was asked. They might not be on our side, in part due to our own failure and our rivals’ success, but the professional Western media would welcome good Arab communicators any time. With the invention of the Internet, we can reach the American public directly. The space is wide and clear for those who understand their audience and communicate in their language. Our problem has always been that we have the best case and the worst lawyers, while the competition has the best lawyers for the worst case. If we improve our lingo, our image will follow suit.
Will this be enough? If it is well done, it can certainly help. Americans are good people.
They are the best fighters for what they believe in. Most charities, environment and human rights groups in the world are either American or get lots of American support. Their stand on the Palestinian issue is mostly a result of communication errors on our part, and of masterful work from the other side. Talking to the American consciousness will work. It worked during the first intifada. It could work today. What is missing is a concerted, consistent and well thought-out communication project to build a human bridge between us — the people of two great cultures and civilizations.
Arab News Features 11 May 2003
Months after Sept. 11, I was walking with a couple of Saudi friends toward the White House. We were part of a Saudi press group invited by the State Department. One of us suggested going on a guided tour of the White House, so we approached one of the guards to ask for directions. She told us that tours were canceled at the moment except for school kids, but suggested this could change the following week. Then she asked in a friendly tone: “Where are you from?”
I thought to myself: “Oh boy, here comes the tough part.” One of my friends wore a beard. We all fitted the profile of young Middle Eastern males suspect in American airports and government offices.
That very morning we had had to undergo rigorous checks at the National Security Council, and a colleague’s passport was kept for extra checking. The bearded friend cut my thoughts short with a clear and loud answer: “We are Saudi, madam.” I looked carefully at the guard’s eyes as she answered without any apparent change in tone or attitude: “Welcome to America.” Then she went on to suggest alternative landmarks to visit that day, reminding us to check next week for possible change in the White House tour policy.
After we left, I said to my friends: Now this is the real America, and those are the real Americans.
With hundreds of e-mails from American readers in answer to my question: “What does America want from us,” I was reminded again of this beautiful lady. Storms calm, fear subsides, anger boils down, and the true nature of people rises and shines. After years of living in the States, and more with fine American friends, I do have great faith in the American people. With so many polite questions based on misinformed intelligence and misled goodness, I felt guilty. While our enemies have been working for ages to manipulate American knowledge of the world, we were busy helping them achieve their goals with our shouts and calls for war.
While pro-Israel groups took to the stage in every academic center, publishing house, media unit and information channel to propagate their side of the story, we were competing with the high-pitched rhetoric of the like of Nasser and Saddam.
Israel’s friends were making alliances with every religious, business and political powerhouse in America, while we were either fast asleep or working on our relations with administrations captive to internal politics and subject to change in every election. They focused on getting their message across to the public, and we forgot that in democracies, governments come and go, but the people stay and...rule.
When I was asked on Saudi TV the other night what I thought of the PR campaign we sanctioned last year in the US, I said it was “counterproductive.” If we were to sell our culture and values as a product, at least we need to make this product available for checking. How can an American know what we are and what our country is all about if it is so difficult to visit and meet Saudis?
We need to open up and establish human links and channels. We need to send groups after groups of Saudi intellectuals, professional and school kids to communicate with their peers in universities, schools, community centers and the media. We should, in turn, open our doors for the curious to come and check us out. We don’t have things to hide. In fact, we have a lot of good things to show. That was not my conclusion but what I heard from many American visitors, mostly in the media and academia, who came after Sept. 11 to “check us out.”
“But what about the biased media?” I was asked. They might not be on our side, in part due to our own failure and our rivals’ success, but the professional Western media would welcome good Arab communicators any time. With the invention of the Internet, we can reach the American public directly. The space is wide and clear for those who understand their audience and communicate in their language. Our problem has always been that we have the best case and the worst lawyers, while the competition has the best lawyers for the worst case. If we improve our lingo, our image will follow suit.
Will this be enough? If it is well done, it can certainly help. Americans are good people.
They are the best fighters for what they believe in. Most charities, environment and human rights groups in the world are either American or get lots of American support. Their stand on the Palestinian issue is mostly a result of communication errors on our part, and of masterful work from the other side. Talking to the American consciousness will work. It worked during the first intifada. It could work today. What is missing is a concerted, consistent and well thought-out communication project to build a human bridge between us — the people of two great cultures and civilizations.
Arab News Features 11 May 2003
The ‘Beautiful’ American
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Months after Sept. 11, I was walking with a couple of Saudi friends toward the White House. We were part of a Saudi press group invited by the State Department. One of us suggested going on a guided tour of the White House, so we approached one of the guards to ask for directions. She told us that tours were canceled at the moment except for school kids, but suggested this could change the following week. Then she asked in a friendly tone: “Where are you from?”
I thought to myself: “Oh boy, here comes the tough part.” One of my friends wore a beard. We all fitted the profile of young Middle Eastern males suspect in American airports and government offices.
That very morning we had had to undergo rigorous checks at the National Security Council, and a colleague’s passport was kept for extra checking. The bearded friend cut my thoughts short with a clear and loud answer: “We are Saudi, madam.” I looked carefully at the guard’s eyes as she answered without any apparent change in tone or attitude: “Welcome to America.” Then she went on to suggest alternative landmarks to visit that day, reminding us to check next week for possible change in the White House tour policy.
After we left, I said to my friends: Now this is the real America, and those are the real Americans.
With hundreds of e-mails from American readers in answer to my question: “What does America want from us,” I was reminded again of this beautiful lady. Storms calm, fear subsides, anger boils down, and the true nature of people rises and shines. After years of living in the States, and more with fine American friends, I do have great faith in the American people. With so many polite questions based on misinformed intelligence and misled goodness, I felt guilty. While our enemies have been working for ages to manipulate American knowledge of the world, we were busy helping them achieve their goals with our shouts and calls for war.
While pro-Israel groups took to the stage in every academic center, publishing house, media unit and information channel to propagate their side of the story, we were competing with the high-pitched rhetoric of the like of Nasser and Saddam.
Israel’s friends were making alliances with every religious, business and political powerhouse in America, while we were either fast asleep or working on our relations with administrations captive to internal politics and subject to change in every election. They focused on getting their message across to the public, and we forgot that in democracies, governments come and go, but the people stay and...rule.
When I was asked on Saudi TV the other night what I thought of the PR campaign we sanctioned last year in the US, I said it was “counterproductive.” If we were to sell our culture and values as a product, at least we need to make this product available for checking. How can an American know what we are and what our country is all about if it is so difficult to visit and meet Saudis?
We need to open up and establish human links and channels. We need to send groups after groups of Saudi intellectuals, professional and school kids to communicate with their peers in universities, schools, community centers and the media. We should, in turn, open our doors for the curious to come and check us out. We don’t have things to hide. In fact, we have a lot of good things to show. That was not my conclusion but what I heard from many American visitors, mostly in the media and academia, who came after Sept. 11 to “check us out.”
“But what about the biased media?” I was asked. They might not be on our side, in part due to our own failure and our rivals’ success, but the professional Western media would welcome good Arab communicators any time. With the invention of the Internet, we can reach the American public directly. The space is wide and clear for those who understand their audience and communicate in their language. Our problem has always been that we have the best case and the worst lawyers, while the competition has the best lawyers for the worst case. If we improve our lingo, our image will follow suit.
Will this be enough? If it is well done, it can certainly help. Americans are good people.
They are the best fighters for what they believe in. Most charities, environment and human rights groups in the world are either American or get lots of American support. Their stand on the Palestinian issue is mostly a result of communication errors on our part, and of masterful work from the other side. Talking to the American consciousness will work. It worked during the first intifada. It could work today. What is missing is a concerted, consistent and well thought-out communication project to build a human bridge between us — the people of two great cultures and civilizations.
Arab News Features 11 May 2003
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Months after Sept. 11, I was walking with a couple of Saudi friends toward the White House. We were part of a Saudi press group invited by the State Department. One of us suggested going on a guided tour of the White House, so we approached one of the guards to ask for directions. She told us that tours were canceled at the moment except for school kids, but suggested this could change the following week. Then she asked in a friendly tone: “Where are you from?”
I thought to myself: “Oh boy, here comes the tough part.” One of my friends wore a beard. We all fitted the profile of young Middle Eastern males suspect in American airports and government offices.
That very morning we had had to undergo rigorous checks at the National Security Council, and a colleague’s passport was kept for extra checking. The bearded friend cut my thoughts short with a clear and loud answer: “We are Saudi, madam.” I looked carefully at the guard’s eyes as she answered without any apparent change in tone or attitude: “Welcome to America.” Then she went on to suggest alternative landmarks to visit that day, reminding us to check next week for possible change in the White House tour policy.
After we left, I said to my friends: Now this is the real America, and those are the real Americans.
With hundreds of e-mails from American readers in answer to my question: “What does America want from us,” I was reminded again of this beautiful lady. Storms calm, fear subsides, anger boils down, and the true nature of people rises and shines. After years of living in the States, and more with fine American friends, I do have great faith in the American people. With so many polite questions based on misinformed intelligence and misled goodness, I felt guilty. While our enemies have been working for ages to manipulate American knowledge of the world, we were busy helping them achieve their goals with our shouts and calls for war.
While pro-Israel groups took to the stage in every academic center, publishing house, media unit and information channel to propagate their side of the story, we were competing with the high-pitched rhetoric of the like of Nasser and Saddam.
Israel’s friends were making alliances with every religious, business and political powerhouse in America, while we were either fast asleep or working on our relations with administrations captive to internal politics and subject to change in every election. They focused on getting their message across to the public, and we forgot that in democracies, governments come and go, but the people stay and...rule.
When I was asked on Saudi TV the other night what I thought of the PR campaign we sanctioned last year in the US, I said it was “counterproductive.” If we were to sell our culture and values as a product, at least we need to make this product available for checking. How can an American know what we are and what our country is all about if it is so difficult to visit and meet Saudis?
We need to open up and establish human links and channels. We need to send groups after groups of Saudi intellectuals, professional and school kids to communicate with their peers in universities, schools, community centers and the media. We should, in turn, open our doors for the curious to come and check us out. We don’t have things to hide. In fact, we have a lot of good things to show. That was not my conclusion but what I heard from many American visitors, mostly in the media and academia, who came after Sept. 11 to “check us out.”
“But what about the biased media?” I was asked. They might not be on our side, in part due to our own failure and our rivals’ success, but the professional Western media would welcome good Arab communicators any time. With the invention of the Internet, we can reach the American public directly. The space is wide and clear for those who understand their audience and communicate in their language. Our problem has always been that we have the best case and the worst lawyers, while the competition has the best lawyers for the worst case. If we improve our lingo, our image will follow suit.
Will this be enough? If it is well done, it can certainly help. Americans are good people.
They are the best fighters for what they believe in. Most charities, environment and human rights groups in the world are either American or get lots of American support. Their stand on the Palestinian issue is mostly a result of communication errors on our part, and of masterful work from the other side. Talking to the American consciousness will work. It worked during the first intifada. It could work today. What is missing is a concerted, consistent and well thought-out communication project to build a human bridge between us — the people of two great cultures and civilizations.
Arab News Features 11 May 2003
Monday, May 05, 2003
The War Against … Whom?!
By: Dr. Khaled Batarfi
My Saudi taxi driver was explaining to me why America is trying to lead, yet, another military campaign against Iraq, even before the Afghani blood dries. The drive from home to airport was less than half an hour, and the middle-aged man was trying to cover more than fifty years of the American history in the Middle East. Of course it was a typical opinionated analysis.
He started off with how President Roosevelt, just before he died, promised King Abdulaziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, in an official letter that he won't make a stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict without consulting first with Arab leaders. Then he went on to praise Pr. Eisenhower who forced attacking English, French and Israeli troops to withdraw from Egyptian Sinai "at once". Pr. Kennedy, he assured, was killed because he didn't accept the Israeli pressure and demands for a strong stand against Egypt's Nasser. Finally, his anger and disgust showed as he talked about what he called the "Zionist" presidents—Truman, Reagan and … Bush Jr.
As we arrived at the airport he was about to tell me, as he reached a climax, what he thinks of US policies these days … I was relieved. It was just the personal opinion of a taxi driver, but it represents widely shared views among Arabs, young and old, educated and illiterate, liberal and conservative. As the theory goes, the evangelist American leadership has made an unholy alliance with the Zionists to redraw the maps in the Middle East for Israel's benefit … and, conservative will add, to westernize the last haven of Islam—Saudi Arabia. Unlike previous stands and plans, however, this time the alliance wants to rearrange the table using sheer force—a combination of high-charged military, economic, diplomatic and media campaign. The short-term goals, they believe, include the rewriting of the peace agreements handing the Palestinians no more than the red Indians were given in America. By creating pressure on them, they will be thankful to accept any kind of deal, no matter how unfair in return for peace.
The campaign against Iraq is part of the grand plan, as well, they would argue. By controlling Iraq via an Afghani-like government that owes its existence to America, and by extension to Israel, Opec and Saudi Arabia will have even less say in deciding oil prices and level of supplies.
The next step, they fear, even before the confirmation of the Rand report presented recently to a number of senior US defense leaders, is to work towards controlling Saudi Arabia itself, or its oil fields. Neighboring Syria, Jordan and Egypt could go next, with forced changes of governments and policies that serve Israeli and American interests. The concept of "If I don't like him, he must go" that was used against elected Palestinian leader, Arafat, could easily be applied to all—Saddam being first.
These views, shared by many in the Arab world and discussed daily in the media, are taking hold by the day. Only recently a civil law suit in America was filed against senior Saudi and Sudanese government officials and a long list of charities and businesses. The suit claims that the accused had supported Osama Bin Laden in the past, and therefore are responsible for the Sep. 11 events. The families of the twin-tower victims demand trillions of US dollars in compensation. Since the claims are based on so called "unpublished official intelligence documents", the assumption is that they came form the CIA. The same organization that up to the nineties was the major backer and organizer of help and support to the Mujahedeen, Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Accusations of American double standards and Saudi targeting and pressuring are therefore proven right to Arab critics and masses, once more.
In such an environment of suspicion, anger and fear, the bad guys, such as Saddam and his gang, win. For even though most Arabs, especially in moderate countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan, would very much like to see Saddam toppled, they can't fathom, let alone accept, the justification for a grand, bloody and inevitably messy invasion of Iraq. The same people who asked for or accepted Western help to drive Saddam from Kuwait a decade ago, cannot justify wasting the lives of so many fellow Arabs and the destruction of their cities and civil infrastructure today.
A year after September 11, American-sponsored War on Terrorism—which has a different meaning in the Arab world as the US-sponsored New World Order—has few fans in the Middle East, except for a perceived co-author … Israel.
My Saudi taxi driver was explaining to me why America is trying to lead, yet, another military campaign against Iraq, even before the Afghani blood dries. The drive from home to airport was less than half an hour, and the middle-aged man was trying to cover more than fifty years of the American history in the Middle East. Of course it was a typical opinionated analysis.
He started off with how President Roosevelt, just before he died, promised King Abdulaziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, in an official letter that he won't make a stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict without consulting first with Arab leaders. Then he went on to praise Pr. Eisenhower who forced attacking English, French and Israeli troops to withdraw from Egyptian Sinai "at once". Pr. Kennedy, he assured, was killed because he didn't accept the Israeli pressure and demands for a strong stand against Egypt's Nasser. Finally, his anger and disgust showed as he talked about what he called the "Zionist" presidents—Truman, Reagan and … Bush Jr.
As we arrived at the airport he was about to tell me, as he reached a climax, what he thinks of US policies these days … I was relieved. It was just the personal opinion of a taxi driver, but it represents widely shared views among Arabs, young and old, educated and illiterate, liberal and conservative. As the theory goes, the evangelist American leadership has made an unholy alliance with the Zionists to redraw the maps in the Middle East for Israel's benefit … and, conservative will add, to westernize the last haven of Islam—Saudi Arabia. Unlike previous stands and plans, however, this time the alliance wants to rearrange the table using sheer force—a combination of high-charged military, economic, diplomatic and media campaign. The short-term goals, they believe, include the rewriting of the peace agreements handing the Palestinians no more than the red Indians were given in America. By creating pressure on them, they will be thankful to accept any kind of deal, no matter how unfair in return for peace.
The campaign against Iraq is part of the grand plan, as well, they would argue. By controlling Iraq via an Afghani-like government that owes its existence to America, and by extension to Israel, Opec and Saudi Arabia will have even less say in deciding oil prices and level of supplies.
The next step, they fear, even before the confirmation of the Rand report presented recently to a number of senior US defense leaders, is to work towards controlling Saudi Arabia itself, or its oil fields. Neighboring Syria, Jordan and Egypt could go next, with forced changes of governments and policies that serve Israeli and American interests. The concept of "If I don't like him, he must go" that was used against elected Palestinian leader, Arafat, could easily be applied to all—Saddam being first.
These views, shared by many in the Arab world and discussed daily in the media, are taking hold by the day. Only recently a civil law suit in America was filed against senior Saudi and Sudanese government officials and a long list of charities and businesses. The suit claims that the accused had supported Osama Bin Laden in the past, and therefore are responsible for the Sep. 11 events. The families of the twin-tower victims demand trillions of US dollars in compensation. Since the claims are based on so called "unpublished official intelligence documents", the assumption is that they came form the CIA. The same organization that up to the nineties was the major backer and organizer of help and support to the Mujahedeen, Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Accusations of American double standards and Saudi targeting and pressuring are therefore proven right to Arab critics and masses, once more.
In such an environment of suspicion, anger and fear, the bad guys, such as Saddam and his gang, win. For even though most Arabs, especially in moderate countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan, would very much like to see Saddam toppled, they can't fathom, let alone accept, the justification for a grand, bloody and inevitably messy invasion of Iraq. The same people who asked for or accepted Western help to drive Saddam from Kuwait a decade ago, cannot justify wasting the lives of so many fellow Arabs and the destruction of their cities and civil infrastructure today.
A year after September 11, American-sponsored War on Terrorism—which has a different meaning in the Arab world as the US-sponsored New World Order—has few fans in the Middle East, except for a perceived co-author … Israel.
Sunday, May 04, 2003
‘Reformat’ Hard Disk
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
When I wrote my article last week about what we want from America, I asked American readers to help me out with what they want from us. I also talked with the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan.
Many who responded sounded angry. Some were very angry, even insulting. I can’t say that surprised me. I have written before about our problem with the American public’s lack of interest in foreign affairs and the influence of pro-Israel groups on the media from cinema to TV, magazines to radio shows. Testifying to the success of government propaganda, the issues many raised were based on unfounded assumptions and connections. A link was somehow established between Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq’s alleged possession of nuclear and chemical weapons, Al-Qaeda, the Arab dictatorships, the “clash of civilizations” and — of course — Sept. 11.
The link made by readers was that Arabs and Muslims are dangerous and have too much unchecked extremism and hatred against the West and Israel. Unless they reform, the West will not be safe. America will never “dump” Israel because it is the only democracy in the region, the underdog, and the best ally. The best option for the Arabs is to make peace at any cost, and meanwhile, stop blaming Israel for every problem. Finally, Arabs should free their women and religious minorities and generally liberalize their societies.
To understand the present situation, let’s compare US experience with that of their closest allies, the British. The British Empire has a long experience with what it defined as terrorism and terrorists. Most of these organizations and movements were funded by Americans. The IRA, for instance, is dependent on its American supporters. The same can be said of terrorist organizations all over the world. From India to South America, Israel to South Africa, the money-trail starts in the US, via US banks, with government knowledge, and/or direct support (remember the Iran-Contra scandal?).
In the 1980s, the US appropriated some $5 billion as a first installment to support the same Islamic groups and schools it attacks today. American individuals and groups still openly support the most extreme and bloody Jewish settlers and “kill-&-kick Palestinians” advocates.
So the empire suffered and bled, but the British never accused the whole Irish population and Catholic community of being terrorists and/or responsible for harboring terror. They didn’t bomb Ireland, invade Boston, and demand the Vatican take a stand or else. What they rightly, if belatedly, did is decide to leave Ireland after years of occupation, and work hard to establish peace in Northern Ireland.
Now, let’s go back to what America “reasonably” wants from us. The American ambassador would like to see a better and safer environment-reforms, progress, prosperity, freedom, tolerance and “human rights” for women and minorities. They agree that we need peace to encourage such a project. The Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, must be solved fairly and quickly. They rightly think that only in such an environment we could end hostility to the West that produced so much threat to its security and commercial/political interests with more than a billion Muslims.
Now, that is a reasonable expectation. Yes, we urgently need to “reformat” our hard disk, reinstall our operating system, update and debug our software, and then reconnect to the worldwide web. Moreover, we shouldn’t wait for the peace process to be complete before we start our project on “our own” or with some technical help from our expert friends. We should do that right away, not only because we are in desperate need of reforms, but also because we need our peoples to actively participate in the peace project, and our nations to be stronger partners for peace. If that is what America is all about today, then count me in. But if it’s just a distraction and lip-service, count me out.
Arab News Features 4 May 2003
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
When I wrote my article last week about what we want from America, I asked American readers to help me out with what they want from us. I also talked with the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Robert Jordan.
Many who responded sounded angry. Some were very angry, even insulting. I can’t say that surprised me. I have written before about our problem with the American public’s lack of interest in foreign affairs and the influence of pro-Israel groups on the media from cinema to TV, magazines to radio shows. Testifying to the success of government propaganda, the issues many raised were based on unfounded assumptions and connections. A link was somehow established between Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq’s alleged possession of nuclear and chemical weapons, Al-Qaeda, the Arab dictatorships, the “clash of civilizations” and — of course — Sept. 11.
The link made by readers was that Arabs and Muslims are dangerous and have too much unchecked extremism and hatred against the West and Israel. Unless they reform, the West will not be safe. America will never “dump” Israel because it is the only democracy in the region, the underdog, and the best ally. The best option for the Arabs is to make peace at any cost, and meanwhile, stop blaming Israel for every problem. Finally, Arabs should free their women and religious minorities and generally liberalize their societies.
To understand the present situation, let’s compare US experience with that of their closest allies, the British. The British Empire has a long experience with what it defined as terrorism and terrorists. Most of these organizations and movements were funded by Americans. The IRA, for instance, is dependent on its American supporters. The same can be said of terrorist organizations all over the world. From India to South America, Israel to South Africa, the money-trail starts in the US, via US banks, with government knowledge, and/or direct support (remember the Iran-Contra scandal?).
In the 1980s, the US appropriated some $5 billion as a first installment to support the same Islamic groups and schools it attacks today. American individuals and groups still openly support the most extreme and bloody Jewish settlers and “kill-&-kick Palestinians” advocates.
So the empire suffered and bled, but the British never accused the whole Irish population and Catholic community of being terrorists and/or responsible for harboring terror. They didn’t bomb Ireland, invade Boston, and demand the Vatican take a stand or else. What they rightly, if belatedly, did is decide to leave Ireland after years of occupation, and work hard to establish peace in Northern Ireland.
Now, let’s go back to what America “reasonably” wants from us. The American ambassador would like to see a better and safer environment-reforms, progress, prosperity, freedom, tolerance and “human rights” for women and minorities. They agree that we need peace to encourage such a project. The Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, must be solved fairly and quickly. They rightly think that only in such an environment we could end hostility to the West that produced so much threat to its security and commercial/political interests with more than a billion Muslims.
Now, that is a reasonable expectation. Yes, we urgently need to “reformat” our hard disk, reinstall our operating system, update and debug our software, and then reconnect to the worldwide web. Moreover, we shouldn’t wait for the peace process to be complete before we start our project on “our own” or with some technical help from our expert friends. We should do that right away, not only because we are in desperate need of reforms, but also because we need our peoples to actively participate in the peace project, and our nations to be stronger partners for peace. If that is what America is all about today, then count me in. But if it’s just a distraction and lip-service, count me out.
Arab News Features 4 May 2003
Saturday, May 03, 2003
American Fear and its Crusade War
A group of Saudis, some having beard, were standing in the departure lounge at New York's airport on their way to San Francisco after undergoing security checks specially designed for citizens from blacklisted countries.
The Americans who were in the hall were silent. Tension and anxiety were visible on their faces. Suddenly, some of them rushed to the airline office to cancel or postpone their trips, giving different excuses. But the real reason was the presence of a number of Middle Eastern passengers on the flight.
The Saudi group again underwent security checks at the aircraft's door. There was a thorough check of every person and his hand luggage. All of them, except one, got seats in the First Class cabin. The same scenario repeated inside the aircraft. No sooner had the other passengers seen the Saudi passengers that they went into a panic. Some of them started murmuring. In the meantime, nine women, one after the other, left the plane.
On another flight, a female passenger started crying hysterically when she found herself sitting in the midst of a group of Arabs. An air stewardesses was forced to take the woman out of the aircraft when they failed to pacify her. Naturally, on both occasions the flight was delayed by more than an hour.
In fact, the experience I had during my recent visit to Washington as well as the journalistic trips I had following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was quite different.
I visited the US capital again last week, as a representative of the World Islamic Forum for Dialogue, to attend a meeting organized by the United Nations in search for peace in the Middle East.
I was treated decently and with understanding by the embassy officials here and had good reception from the organizers there.
Even at the airports, despite the thorough checking, the officials behaved nicely. An officer at New York airport asked me about the purpose of my visit and sought some personal information. He also took my picture and fingerprints. But he was very kind to me and expressed his regret for the thorough checking imposed by the current situation. He also expressed his hope that one day such checking would not be necessary.
The officers who were checking me and others were intelligent and professional. They did their job perfectly, without insulting us or causing any trouble. The behavior of people outside the airport was also pleasant, just like what I expect from Americans everywhere.
However, I understood that the Americans' fear was real and astonishing, especially when they travel by plane. Nobody can blame them after the worst experience they had. A plane journey in the US used to be as simple as train or bus journey in other countries. It has now become tedious as well as expensive because airline companies suffer billions of dollars in losses as a result of the decrease in number of passengers and increase in insurance and security expenditures.
The fear was not limited to airline passengers. It has covered also all consumer and investment sectors. I heard American experts saying how the hesitation of consumers and investors to spend or invest their money caused economic depression in the country, which it had never experienced after the end of the second Gulf war in 1992.
Things went bad to worse when the present administration decided to increase military spending, which is expected to exceed $100 billion this year. This is in addition to the expenditures on war on terrorism inside and outside the US. The administration has not back down from its election promises of cuts in taxes and increase in health and education spending.
Let me return to the issue of fear and tell you what some American thinkers and politicians -- including former Congressman Paul Findley, Republican politician Dr. Cliff Karikov, Stanley Cohen, a lawyer specialized in Arab and Islamic issues, and William Baker, a political activist who backs Arab issues -- told me recently.
The gist of what they have told me is that the current American administration has taken its plan word by word from Sharon and wanted to spread fear and anxiety in the minds of its citizens. In this atmosphere of fear and tension, the government can play the role of a spiritual father and savior and justify its security measures and military adventures, which would be rejected by Americans under normal circumstances, for not conforming with their constitution and because of their secular culture.
But most American intellectuals including Martin Saif, managing editor of United Press International (UPI) for foreign affairs, told me that the current administration was carrying out the agenda of extremist Crusaders and Zionists led by Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz and influential advisers like Richard Pearl. Pearl prepared a study in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahoo, urging him to pressure the US administration to change the region's map by launching a war on Iraq.
We see the same recommendations made by Pearl dominating American policy today. If we put this picture in the wider perspective of the existing alliance that supports the rightist Israeli government, it becomes clear for us the relation between the inflated fear in the US after the 9/11 events and the fear triggered by Sharon. Sharon provoked the Palestinians by visiting the Ibrahimi Mosque before elections in 2000.
Fear gives birth to terrorism and terrorism creates more fear. The producers and directors of horror films should understand that the fear and fire they spread would hit back them one day.
* Managing Editor of Al-Madina Daily,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
The Americans who were in the hall were silent. Tension and anxiety were visible on their faces. Suddenly, some of them rushed to the airline office to cancel or postpone their trips, giving different excuses. But the real reason was the presence of a number of Middle Eastern passengers on the flight.
The Saudi group again underwent security checks at the aircraft's door. There was a thorough check of every person and his hand luggage. All of them, except one, got seats in the First Class cabin. The same scenario repeated inside the aircraft. No sooner had the other passengers seen the Saudi passengers that they went into a panic. Some of them started murmuring. In the meantime, nine women, one after the other, left the plane.
On another flight, a female passenger started crying hysterically when she found herself sitting in the midst of a group of Arabs. An air stewardesses was forced to take the woman out of the aircraft when they failed to pacify her. Naturally, on both occasions the flight was delayed by more than an hour.
In fact, the experience I had during my recent visit to Washington as well as the journalistic trips I had following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was quite different.
I visited the US capital again last week, as a representative of the World Islamic Forum for Dialogue, to attend a meeting organized by the United Nations in search for peace in the Middle East.
I was treated decently and with understanding by the embassy officials here and had good reception from the organizers there.
Even at the airports, despite the thorough checking, the officials behaved nicely. An officer at New York airport asked me about the purpose of my visit and sought some personal information. He also took my picture and fingerprints. But he was very kind to me and expressed his regret for the thorough checking imposed by the current situation. He also expressed his hope that one day such checking would not be necessary.
The officers who were checking me and others were intelligent and professional. They did their job perfectly, without insulting us or causing any trouble. The behavior of people outside the airport was also pleasant, just like what I expect from Americans everywhere.
However, I understood that the Americans' fear was real and astonishing, especially when they travel by plane. Nobody can blame them after the worst experience they had. A plane journey in the US used to be as simple as train or bus journey in other countries. It has now become tedious as well as expensive because airline companies suffer billions of dollars in losses as a result of the decrease in number of passengers and increase in insurance and security expenditures.
The fear was not limited to airline passengers. It has covered also all consumer and investment sectors. I heard American experts saying how the hesitation of consumers and investors to spend or invest their money caused economic depression in the country, which it had never experienced after the end of the second Gulf war in 1992.
Things went bad to worse when the present administration decided to increase military spending, which is expected to exceed $100 billion this year. This is in addition to the expenditures on war on terrorism inside and outside the US. The administration has not back down from its election promises of cuts in taxes and increase in health and education spending.
Let me return to the issue of fear and tell you what some American thinkers and politicians -- including former Congressman Paul Findley, Republican politician Dr. Cliff Karikov, Stanley Cohen, a lawyer specialized in Arab and Islamic issues, and William Baker, a political activist who backs Arab issues -- told me recently.
The gist of what they have told me is that the current American administration has taken its plan word by word from Sharon and wanted to spread fear and anxiety in the minds of its citizens. In this atmosphere of fear and tension, the government can play the role of a spiritual father and savior and justify its security measures and military adventures, which would be rejected by Americans under normal circumstances, for not conforming with their constitution and because of their secular culture.
But most American intellectuals including Martin Saif, managing editor of United Press International (UPI) for foreign affairs, told me that the current administration was carrying out the agenda of extremist Crusaders and Zionists led by Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz and influential advisers like Richard Pearl. Pearl prepared a study in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahoo, urging him to pressure the US administration to change the region's map by launching a war on Iraq.
We see the same recommendations made by Pearl dominating American policy today. If we put this picture in the wider perspective of the existing alliance that supports the rightist Israeli government, it becomes clear for us the relation between the inflated fear in the US after the 9/11 events and the fear triggered by Sharon. Sharon provoked the Palestinians by visiting the Ibrahimi Mosque before elections in 2000.
Fear gives birth to terrorism and terrorism creates more fear. The producers and directors of horror films should understand that the fear and fire they spread would hit back them one day.
* Managing Editor of Al-Madina Daily,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Thursday, May 01, 2003
On War, Peace & Democracy
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi interviews US Ambassador Robert Jordan.
Question: The Emir of Qatar announced recently in a formal speech that political democracy and economic democracy are inseparable. To what extent does such a position support your view of a new economics in the Middle East?
A: In answer to the first question about political and economic democracy being important, our country strongly supports democracy in the Middle East — both political and economic democracy.
On Dec 12th 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a speech in which he referred to the Middle East partnership initiative. He stated that the United States is going to seek to support the economic and social participation in the Arab countries by the people of these countries.
Really what led to that speech was, as you know, the United Nations Arab Human Development Report by about thirty Arab scholars under the United Nations.... That report found that Arab countries seem to lag behind other areas of the world, and their income levels also, and education and civic institutions as well.
This Middle East Partnership Initiative recognizes that the Arab World is very diverse and that the way in which public participation in Arab society will occur is going to be different for each country. So what we are simply trying to do is say that we are interested in these principles.
As Secretary Powell put it: “There is a job gap, an education gap and an opportunity gap.” We want to find ways to empower the people in those countries to empower women and to revive economic opportunity, but it has to be done in the way that each country wants it done.
We are saying that we support these goals, we are here to help you, tell us and we will support it.
Q: Are you asking the governments or the people?
A: The government is the representative of the people in a theoretical sense. We make the request but we don’t stay simply with that, so we will be writing some pieces in some of your newspapers here in the Kingdom expressing our support of these goals, of these objectives, and asking the people to come to us.
Q: From what I hear the budget you appropriated for the project has been criticized for being so meager.
A: No, that was only for the first year, and I think there has been some misunderstanding about that — in the first year it was $29 million — but for the next year we are asking for several hundred million, and because the speech came in the middle of our budget cycle, that was all the money there was available that had already been appropriated by congress.
Now we are going back to Congress, the representatives of the people in our democracy, to approve several hundred million for the coming year; we’re optimistic that we’ll have that kind of money.
Q: That’s for the Arab World?
A: That’s correct. The Arab world is the only area we are directing this money to.
Q: Many expect the US to use Iraq to dismantle OPEC. From your perspective, are these concerns founded?
A: There is no plan to dismantle OPEC. What we’re trying to do is to remove the UN sanctions from Iraq and quickly phase out the oil for food program, which right now is the only real way Iraq can sell its own oil. As the Iraqis establish their own government, it’s going to be up to them to decide what international institutions, if any, they want to participate in.
Q: Will you put pressure on them or try to influence or persuade them to participate?
A: I don’t think there are any specific plans in that regard — it is something that the Iraqi people are really going to have to come to terms with, and I am sure they are going to want to explore participation — but they are going to want to explore other options as well, and we support the result that is consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people.
Q: Gulf oil producing states have huge financial and real estate investments abroad, especially in the US and Europe, estimated to exceed $2.75 trillion. Do you expect a reorientation of these investments toward Europe as a result of local worries?
A: We are not concerned about the loss of investment from this part of the world in the US. Wealth investors invested billions of dollars all around the world. They are very sophisticated and the decisions they make on their investments are based on risk and return. They are going to put money where it is safest and where there is the best chance of making the smartest investment.
The US is the largest and the fastest and most transparent of the three major financial markets in the world, the US, the EU and Japan. I am completely confident that the US will continue to attract a very large percentage of the investment dollars from abroad.
Q: But don’t you agree that some lawsuits do frighten investors, such as the one filed on behalf of the victims’ families against the alleged Arab supporters of Sept. 11 terrorist?
A: I don’t want to comment directly on the lawsuit, but I think it is safe to say that we have a very transparent legal market and system — your money cannot be seized in the US without what we call “due process of law.”
We have to have a proper court procedure, so any individual investor would not be subject to losing their investment merely because someone has filed a lawsuit against someone else in the US. We want to make it very clear that investment opportunities will exist under a very clear rule of law.
This is something that distinguishes the United States from many other countries.
Q: The US started a PR campaign to win Arab and Muslim hearts and minds before the war. Now the war is over and in the light of Arab and Muslim reaction to it, what changes do you envisage to the original plans?
A: I’m not sure I would say we have a PR campaign as such. We obviously want to get information out to the public about what we are trying to do, and I don’t think we need to change those efforts. The reaction to the liberation of Iraq so far has been mixed.
Q: We are talking about the campaign directed toward the Arab world — do you still have plans to put out “useful information” to Arabs?
A: Yes, and this goes back to the Middle East partnership initiative and what Sec. Powell announced on Dec. 12th. We want to explain ourselves to the Arabs in a way that shows we are partners — that’s why we call it a partnership initiative.
Q: Disarming Iraq of WMDs was a US main objective in this war. Still, the US seems reluctant to allow the UN to send back inspectors to do a neutral, credible search. From a legal point of view, how can the world verify any US claim in this case?
A: First of all, I think that sometimes we get caught up in labels. There is nothing about the UN that says that the finding of WMD by a UN inspector is more legal than finding WMDs by someone else. In fact, the US has hired former UN inspectors to help us in this search. The question that should be asked is not whether there is some label attached to the people conducting the search but: Have they found those weapons, and how persuasive is it that they have made that discovery?
Q: Why not the UN inspectors?
A: We’re putting a thousand people in the field — that’s many times more than the UN had — they did not succeed during the efforts they made previously.
We are on the ground now, we’re building the organization, we are already there, we can move more quickly and we have the expertise of the former UN inspectors available to us, so it makes much more sense to us to proceed along this basis as we are moving into areas that have, in some cases, been subject to heavy fighting, and a destabilized environment. We have our ability to provide security, and at the same time we engage in the search for the weapons.
It’s also important for us to be able to interrogate some of the former regime members who may be able to lead us to those WMDs — that is something that the UN is not currently organized to do. There are individuals we are pursuing, detaining and interrogating.
Q: When you find something, what do you do? Do you bring the UN to verify or the journalists to see what you have found?
A: I can’t predict the exact mode or method in which it will be done, but we will do it in a way that ensures the maximum credibility and reliability so that the people of the world will know for certain that these are actual weapons that have been discovered.
Q: How does the US justify deciding alone who gets what of the contracts to rebuild Iraq? How do you explain giving certain companies huge contracts worth tens of billions without due competitive process? How could other non-US/British companies participate? Would Saudi companies be allowed to take part?
A: It’s important to understand that these first contracts are essential emergency contracts. The people have many urgent needs right now. These are contracts that are going to be paid for out of the US treasury, this is not Iraq’s money that is being used at this point. If it’s the US treasury that is involved, then it’s fair to look at US contractors to lead the effort.
Q: You are not going to take that from Iraq’s oil?
A: These contracts that have been awarded to US general contractors have not been taken out of Iraqi oil money. It’s from the US Treasury.
Q: And it never will be?
A: No, not on these contracts. At the same time, these contracts are awarded to general contractors who are going to hire sub-contractors — and this could well involve Iraqi contractors, Saudi or other contractors from other parts of the world.
Q: Are you including France and Germany?
A: I don’t know specifically what contractors are being considered for which projects right now, but I am sure we will see the best people selected for the task at hand; this is US money that’s being used.
Q: Syria received prior assurances that it won’t be next on the US list and was thanked for its help during the previous Gulf War and the War on Terror. How do you explain the sudden change of attitude?
A: First of all, there’s no list. Our government’s made it very clear, there is no list. For many years, Syria has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States. We have expressed a lot of concern that Iraqi war criminals were making their way into Syria, and in fact several have been captured as they were making their way toward the Syrian border. But we are very pleased that Syria has stated that it’s not going to let the Baathist regime leaders into Syria.
There is no great change in our position at all. We have had some successes in the war on terror with Syria, but we have also had a great concern that we have expressed very consistently for a number of years over their sponsorship of terrorism and more recently their inviting their country to these war criminals.
Q: Would you expect more assurances about their support of Hezbollah and Al-Jihad and others?
A: We are extremely concerned about Hezbollah and their role in arms shipments and other means of support for terrorists, and so I am sure we will continue to have a dialogue with them on this very serious and important topic.
Q: How does the US view the recent meeting of Iraq’s neighbors? Does the US appreciate these countries’ concern regarding the religious and racial re-mapping of the geopolitical map?
A: Regional stability is extremely important to the US — we believe that all countries in the region ought to be interested and involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. We applaud that interest. We don’t think that the US should determine what role these countries should play in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Q: Were you consulted about the meeting?
A: We were advised that the meeting was taking place, but they certainly didn’t need our permission to conduct the meeting and they would not seek that permission.
Q: Did you give them a message — for example not to interfere in Iraq’s politics?
A: The group that met in Riyadh didn’t need any instruction from us and they were very capable about making their own determination about not interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. And I think they made a statement after that meeting that was their intent. We support their interest in maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the will of the Iraqi people can be accomplished, and so we were very much in tune with their interests in that regard.
Q: Has there been interference or meddling from concerned countries — e.g. Iran?
A: We have expressed our interest and so did the meeting of the neighboring states in Riyadh, that no individual state should attempt [to interfere] in the internal affairs of Iraq as they move through this critical period of establishing a new government. This ought to be something decided by the Iraqi people.
Q: How does the US value the Saudi Government’s stand in this war and the war on terrorism in general? What is expected of Saudi Arabia in the near future?
A: First of all, we deeply appreciate the role that Saudi Arabia has played in the War on Terrorism. We both have interests in this region — they are not identical interests, but I think the length and depth of our relationship with Saudi Arabia has allowed us to have differences yet at the same time to respect each other’s position. I have personally worked with many Saudi officials on the war on terrorism, and it’s important — not simply because the US expects this help, but because it’s important to Saudi Arabia as well. This is an area where our interests are very similar. We both hate terrorism, we both hate the idea of the threat of terrorism to any of our people. Terrorism threatens the people of Saudi Arabia and it threatens the security of the region. What we expect is Saudi Arabia to continue its efforts to confront extremists wherever they are found — and this is very much a common interest that we both share.
Q: We hear media reports about US demands for changes to the educational system, and watching some preachers. Is it true?
A: We have made no demands of any kind on the Saudi government in that regard. If the education system is to be changed or if the government is going to deal with religious extremists, then that’s because the Saudi government believes that’s in their best interests, not doing it to do us a favor of any kind. It’s simply a matter of internal decisions by the Saudi government itself.
Q: Also we hear that there is some kind of pressure on the government about women and human rights.
A: We have made no secret of the fact that we support human rights and religious freedom. Each year we publish our statement of religious freedom and we provide this information to the Saudi government. And we continue to express our support for ways in which women can participate more fully in any society and have rights consistent with their status.
Q: Many here suspect that what you have in mind is liberal freedom equal to what you have in the West, which means that women can go in bikinis or go without hijab — things like that. I don’t know if that’s true or whether this represents your official attitudes, but at least that is what many of the US-based women’s organizations say. What is your government’s stand on this?
A: We are very respectful of the traditions of the Arab world and the traditions of the religion of Islam. The men and women of Saudi Arabia will ultimately have to decide for themselves on how they want to adjust to the evolution of women’s rights. But what we are really talking about is ways in which women can participate in the economy, the society, so that they have the ability to decide for themselves what environment they want. At least have the ability to participate in those decisions. I think it trivializes the importance of this issue to suggest that any manner of dress or any way in which they present themselves defines this participation. This is not about wearing abayas, it’s about having a role in their own future.
Q: Do you have any details on this?
A: The US has always stood for religious tolerance; you can come to America and it’s one of the few countries in the world where you can worship any God you wish. No one will tell you how to worship or whether to worship. That’s something that really just needs to be accommodated and dealt with by each country. We’re just saying that we don’t think it’s appropriate to discriminate against individuals because they are Shia, any more than it’s appropriate to discriminate because they worship in some other creed. If the Shia don’t have the right to participate in the government, then we view that as a problem, quite frankly. I am pleased to see that in Saudi there is a Shia ambassador to Iran for example, there is some Shia representation on the Shoura Council, there is some representation, of course, Shia in business and other endeavors...
Q: In the future in Iraq, if they choose anti-American parties, will you respect the result?
A: Democracy doesn’t simply mean being pro US. Democracy means respecting the will of the people. This means having a system in place that means you can realize the will of the people. We certainly would hope that the two countries would have good relations, and we believe that if a democracy is instituted in Iraq, it does respect the will of the people, then we hope that the people of both countries would work hard to have good relations, and I would expect us to have good relations.
Q: Arafat was also elected by a democratic mechanism. America didn’t like him and objected to his election — will this happen again in Iraq, if the same mechanism produces someone like Arafat?
A: I hesitate to speculate — certainly not that far down the road. Our concerns about Mr. Arafat had a great deal to do with his support for terrorism and his refusal to use the power at his disposal to stop terrorist activity at a time when the Palestinian people were crying out for leadership and an opportunity to move forward.
Q: But for example a leader who is very much influenced by neighbors like Iran and who is really Anti-American but is produced democratically — like what happened in Algeria, for example, when some Muslim parties won the election. As a matter of principle, if you don’t like them, will you object to them or accept them?
A: I think that saying that we don’t like someone is a little bit of an oversimplification. There are certainly democratically elected leaders in the world with whom we have had disagreements from time to time. I don’t want to name names, but recent history can give you a few suggestions. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have a great deal in common and common interests, either with the leadership or the people of those countries. So, I would expect in any democratic environment, you are going to have issues on which you agree and issues on which you disagree.
Q: In the case of Venezuela, for example, which has no support for terrorism or anything, you just didn’t like the leader and you objected to him — and there was some kind of support for the revolution against him, at least in the beginning — how do you explain that?
A: I don’t think we have ever agreed that we support a revolution against the leader of Venezuela — we may have disagreements from time to time, but we are very much committed to the determination by the people of any particular country of who their leadership to be. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have vigorous disagreements from time to time, and that when we do, we try and diplomatically work them out as we are trying to do in so many areas of the world right now.
Q: Will the US publish the original peace map, and if Israel continues to object and demand modification, what will be your stance? How much investment and involvement will the US continue to make in this process?
A: First of all, we will publish the road map, we are simply awaiting the approval of the final Palestinian Cabinet by the Palestinian Legislative Council. We’re encouraged that that can be done soon, and we are vigorously committed to moving forward on the road map. President Bush and National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice have both said that the road map is not negotiable. This is a plan that is a guideline on which we expect the two parties to sit down and develop.
Q: There are some speculations that since the US administration is going into elections soon that they might be reluctant to make pro-Israel groups angry. And that is why they might agree to some modification to the plan as Sharon wanted.
A: The president is very much known as a man of his word and he has made it very clear that the principles set forward in the road map are critically important. At the same time, at some point in the process, the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis, are going to have to sit down and they are going to have to negotiate.
Q: But if the Palestinians agree to the map “as is,” and demand that is what we want, would they be forced to negotiate on this if the Israelis objected?
A: I think the president has been as clear as he can possibly be. The road map is the road map.
- Arab News Features 1 May 2003
Question: The Emir of Qatar announced recently in a formal speech that political democracy and economic democracy are inseparable. To what extent does such a position support your view of a new economics in the Middle East?
A: In answer to the first question about political and economic democracy being important, our country strongly supports democracy in the Middle East — both political and economic democracy.
On Dec 12th 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a speech in which he referred to the Middle East partnership initiative. He stated that the United States is going to seek to support the economic and social participation in the Arab countries by the people of these countries.
Really what led to that speech was, as you know, the United Nations Arab Human Development Report by about thirty Arab scholars under the United Nations.... That report found that Arab countries seem to lag behind other areas of the world, and their income levels also, and education and civic institutions as well.
This Middle East Partnership Initiative recognizes that the Arab World is very diverse and that the way in which public participation in Arab society will occur is going to be different for each country. So what we are simply trying to do is say that we are interested in these principles.
As Secretary Powell put it: “There is a job gap, an education gap and an opportunity gap.” We want to find ways to empower the people in those countries to empower women and to revive economic opportunity, but it has to be done in the way that each country wants it done.
We are saying that we support these goals, we are here to help you, tell us and we will support it.
Q: Are you asking the governments or the people?
A: The government is the representative of the people in a theoretical sense. We make the request but we don’t stay simply with that, so we will be writing some pieces in some of your newspapers here in the Kingdom expressing our support of these goals, of these objectives, and asking the people to come to us.
Q: From what I hear the budget you appropriated for the project has been criticized for being so meager.
A: No, that was only for the first year, and I think there has been some misunderstanding about that — in the first year it was $29 million — but for the next year we are asking for several hundred million, and because the speech came in the middle of our budget cycle, that was all the money there was available that had already been appropriated by congress.
Now we are going back to Congress, the representatives of the people in our democracy, to approve several hundred million for the coming year; we’re optimistic that we’ll have that kind of money.
Q: That’s for the Arab World?
A: That’s correct. The Arab world is the only area we are directing this money to.
Q: Many expect the US to use Iraq to dismantle OPEC. From your perspective, are these concerns founded?
A: There is no plan to dismantle OPEC. What we’re trying to do is to remove the UN sanctions from Iraq and quickly phase out the oil for food program, which right now is the only real way Iraq can sell its own oil. As the Iraqis establish their own government, it’s going to be up to them to decide what international institutions, if any, they want to participate in.
Q: Will you put pressure on them or try to influence or persuade them to participate?
A: I don’t think there are any specific plans in that regard — it is something that the Iraqi people are really going to have to come to terms with, and I am sure they are going to want to explore participation — but they are going to want to explore other options as well, and we support the result that is consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people.
Q: Gulf oil producing states have huge financial and real estate investments abroad, especially in the US and Europe, estimated to exceed $2.75 trillion. Do you expect a reorientation of these investments toward Europe as a result of local worries?
A: We are not concerned about the loss of investment from this part of the world in the US. Wealth investors invested billions of dollars all around the world. They are very sophisticated and the decisions they make on their investments are based on risk and return. They are going to put money where it is safest and where there is the best chance of making the smartest investment.
The US is the largest and the fastest and most transparent of the three major financial markets in the world, the US, the EU and Japan. I am completely confident that the US will continue to attract a very large percentage of the investment dollars from abroad.
Q: But don’t you agree that some lawsuits do frighten investors, such as the one filed on behalf of the victims’ families against the alleged Arab supporters of Sept. 11 terrorist?
A: I don’t want to comment directly on the lawsuit, but I think it is safe to say that we have a very transparent legal market and system — your money cannot be seized in the US without what we call “due process of law.”
We have to have a proper court procedure, so any individual investor would not be subject to losing their investment merely because someone has filed a lawsuit against someone else in the US. We want to make it very clear that investment opportunities will exist under a very clear rule of law.
This is something that distinguishes the United States from many other countries.
Q: The US started a PR campaign to win Arab and Muslim hearts and minds before the war. Now the war is over and in the light of Arab and Muslim reaction to it, what changes do you envisage to the original plans?
A: I’m not sure I would say we have a PR campaign as such. We obviously want to get information out to the public about what we are trying to do, and I don’t think we need to change those efforts. The reaction to the liberation of Iraq so far has been mixed.
Q: We are talking about the campaign directed toward the Arab world — do you still have plans to put out “useful information” to Arabs?
A: Yes, and this goes back to the Middle East partnership initiative and what Sec. Powell announced on Dec. 12th. We want to explain ourselves to the Arabs in a way that shows we are partners — that’s why we call it a partnership initiative.
Q: Disarming Iraq of WMDs was a US main objective in this war. Still, the US seems reluctant to allow the UN to send back inspectors to do a neutral, credible search. From a legal point of view, how can the world verify any US claim in this case?
A: First of all, I think that sometimes we get caught up in labels. There is nothing about the UN that says that the finding of WMD by a UN inspector is more legal than finding WMDs by someone else. In fact, the US has hired former UN inspectors to help us in this search. The question that should be asked is not whether there is some label attached to the people conducting the search but: Have they found those weapons, and how persuasive is it that they have made that discovery?
Q: Why not the UN inspectors?
A: We’re putting a thousand people in the field — that’s many times more than the UN had — they did not succeed during the efforts they made previously.
We are on the ground now, we’re building the organization, we are already there, we can move more quickly and we have the expertise of the former UN inspectors available to us, so it makes much more sense to us to proceed along this basis as we are moving into areas that have, in some cases, been subject to heavy fighting, and a destabilized environment. We have our ability to provide security, and at the same time we engage in the search for the weapons.
It’s also important for us to be able to interrogate some of the former regime members who may be able to lead us to those WMDs — that is something that the UN is not currently organized to do. There are individuals we are pursuing, detaining and interrogating.
Q: When you find something, what do you do? Do you bring the UN to verify or the journalists to see what you have found?
A: I can’t predict the exact mode or method in which it will be done, but we will do it in a way that ensures the maximum credibility and reliability so that the people of the world will know for certain that these are actual weapons that have been discovered.
Q: How does the US justify deciding alone who gets what of the contracts to rebuild Iraq? How do you explain giving certain companies huge contracts worth tens of billions without due competitive process? How could other non-US/British companies participate? Would Saudi companies be allowed to take part?
A: It’s important to understand that these first contracts are essential emergency contracts. The people have many urgent needs right now. These are contracts that are going to be paid for out of the US treasury, this is not Iraq’s money that is being used at this point. If it’s the US treasury that is involved, then it’s fair to look at US contractors to lead the effort.
Q: You are not going to take that from Iraq’s oil?
A: These contracts that have been awarded to US general contractors have not been taken out of Iraqi oil money. It’s from the US Treasury.
Q: And it never will be?
A: No, not on these contracts. At the same time, these contracts are awarded to general contractors who are going to hire sub-contractors — and this could well involve Iraqi contractors, Saudi or other contractors from other parts of the world.
Q: Are you including France and Germany?
A: I don’t know specifically what contractors are being considered for which projects right now, but I am sure we will see the best people selected for the task at hand; this is US money that’s being used.
Q: Syria received prior assurances that it won’t be next on the US list and was thanked for its help during the previous Gulf War and the War on Terror. How do you explain the sudden change of attitude?
A: First of all, there’s no list. Our government’s made it very clear, there is no list. For many years, Syria has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States. We have expressed a lot of concern that Iraqi war criminals were making their way into Syria, and in fact several have been captured as they were making their way toward the Syrian border. But we are very pleased that Syria has stated that it’s not going to let the Baathist regime leaders into Syria.
There is no great change in our position at all. We have had some successes in the war on terror with Syria, but we have also had a great concern that we have expressed very consistently for a number of years over their sponsorship of terrorism and more recently their inviting their country to these war criminals.
Q: Would you expect more assurances about their support of Hezbollah and Al-Jihad and others?
A: We are extremely concerned about Hezbollah and their role in arms shipments and other means of support for terrorists, and so I am sure we will continue to have a dialogue with them on this very serious and important topic.
Q: How does the US view the recent meeting of Iraq’s neighbors? Does the US appreciate these countries’ concern regarding the religious and racial re-mapping of the geopolitical map?
A: Regional stability is extremely important to the US — we believe that all countries in the region ought to be interested and involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. We applaud that interest. We don’t think that the US should determine what role these countries should play in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Q: Were you consulted about the meeting?
A: We were advised that the meeting was taking place, but they certainly didn’t need our permission to conduct the meeting and they would not seek that permission.
Q: Did you give them a message — for example not to interfere in Iraq’s politics?
A: The group that met in Riyadh didn’t need any instruction from us and they were very capable about making their own determination about not interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq. And I think they made a statement after that meeting that was their intent. We support their interest in maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and that the will of the Iraqi people can be accomplished, and so we were very much in tune with their interests in that regard.
Q: Has there been interference or meddling from concerned countries — e.g. Iran?
A: We have expressed our interest and so did the meeting of the neighboring states in Riyadh, that no individual state should attempt [to interfere] in the internal affairs of Iraq as they move through this critical period of establishing a new government. This ought to be something decided by the Iraqi people.
Q: How does the US value the Saudi Government’s stand in this war and the war on terrorism in general? What is expected of Saudi Arabia in the near future?
A: First of all, we deeply appreciate the role that Saudi Arabia has played in the War on Terrorism. We both have interests in this region — they are not identical interests, but I think the length and depth of our relationship with Saudi Arabia has allowed us to have differences yet at the same time to respect each other’s position. I have personally worked with many Saudi officials on the war on terrorism, and it’s important — not simply because the US expects this help, but because it’s important to Saudi Arabia as well. This is an area where our interests are very similar. We both hate terrorism, we both hate the idea of the threat of terrorism to any of our people. Terrorism threatens the people of Saudi Arabia and it threatens the security of the region. What we expect is Saudi Arabia to continue its efforts to confront extremists wherever they are found — and this is very much a common interest that we both share.
Q: We hear media reports about US demands for changes to the educational system, and watching some preachers. Is it true?
A: We have made no demands of any kind on the Saudi government in that regard. If the education system is to be changed or if the government is going to deal with religious extremists, then that’s because the Saudi government believes that’s in their best interests, not doing it to do us a favor of any kind. It’s simply a matter of internal decisions by the Saudi government itself.
Q: Also we hear that there is some kind of pressure on the government about women and human rights.
A: We have made no secret of the fact that we support human rights and religious freedom. Each year we publish our statement of religious freedom and we provide this information to the Saudi government. And we continue to express our support for ways in which women can participate more fully in any society and have rights consistent with their status.
Q: Many here suspect that what you have in mind is liberal freedom equal to what you have in the West, which means that women can go in bikinis or go without hijab — things like that. I don’t know if that’s true or whether this represents your official attitudes, but at least that is what many of the US-based women’s organizations say. What is your government’s stand on this?
A: We are very respectful of the traditions of the Arab world and the traditions of the religion of Islam. The men and women of Saudi Arabia will ultimately have to decide for themselves on how they want to adjust to the evolution of women’s rights. But what we are really talking about is ways in which women can participate in the economy, the society, so that they have the ability to decide for themselves what environment they want. At least have the ability to participate in those decisions. I think it trivializes the importance of this issue to suggest that any manner of dress or any way in which they present themselves defines this participation. This is not about wearing abayas, it’s about having a role in their own future.
Q: Do you have any details on this?
A: The US has always stood for religious tolerance; you can come to America and it’s one of the few countries in the world where you can worship any God you wish. No one will tell you how to worship or whether to worship. That’s something that really just needs to be accommodated and dealt with by each country. We’re just saying that we don’t think it’s appropriate to discriminate against individuals because they are Shia, any more than it’s appropriate to discriminate because they worship in some other creed. If the Shia don’t have the right to participate in the government, then we view that as a problem, quite frankly. I am pleased to see that in Saudi there is a Shia ambassador to Iran for example, there is some Shia representation on the Shoura Council, there is some representation, of course, Shia in business and other endeavors...
Q: In the future in Iraq, if they choose anti-American parties, will you respect the result?
A: Democracy doesn’t simply mean being pro US. Democracy means respecting the will of the people. This means having a system in place that means you can realize the will of the people. We certainly would hope that the two countries would have good relations, and we believe that if a democracy is instituted in Iraq, it does respect the will of the people, then we hope that the people of both countries would work hard to have good relations, and I would expect us to have good relations.
Q: Arafat was also elected by a democratic mechanism. America didn’t like him and objected to his election — will this happen again in Iraq, if the same mechanism produces someone like Arafat?
A: I hesitate to speculate — certainly not that far down the road. Our concerns about Mr. Arafat had a great deal to do with his support for terrorism and his refusal to use the power at his disposal to stop terrorist activity at a time when the Palestinian people were crying out for leadership and an opportunity to move forward.
Q: But for example a leader who is very much influenced by neighbors like Iran and who is really Anti-American but is produced democratically — like what happened in Algeria, for example, when some Muslim parties won the election. As a matter of principle, if you don’t like them, will you object to them or accept them?
A: I think that saying that we don’t like someone is a little bit of an oversimplification. There are certainly democratically elected leaders in the world with whom we have had disagreements from time to time. I don’t want to name names, but recent history can give you a few suggestions. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have a great deal in common and common interests, either with the leadership or the people of those countries. So, I would expect in any democratic environment, you are going to have issues on which you agree and issues on which you disagree.
Q: In the case of Venezuela, for example, which has no support for terrorism or anything, you just didn’t like the leader and you objected to him — and there was some kind of support for the revolution against him, at least in the beginning — how do you explain that?
A: I don’t think we have ever agreed that we support a revolution against the leader of Venezuela — we may have disagreements from time to time, but we are very much committed to the determination by the people of any particular country of who their leadership to be. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have vigorous disagreements from time to time, and that when we do, we try and diplomatically work them out as we are trying to do in so many areas of the world right now.
Q: Will the US publish the original peace map, and if Israel continues to object and demand modification, what will be your stance? How much investment and involvement will the US continue to make in this process?
A: First of all, we will publish the road map, we are simply awaiting the approval of the final Palestinian Cabinet by the Palestinian Legislative Council. We’re encouraged that that can be done soon, and we are vigorously committed to moving forward on the road map. President Bush and National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice have both said that the road map is not negotiable. This is a plan that is a guideline on which we expect the two parties to sit down and develop.
Q: There are some speculations that since the US administration is going into elections soon that they might be reluctant to make pro-Israel groups angry. And that is why they might agree to some modification to the plan as Sharon wanted.
A: The president is very much known as a man of his word and he has made it very clear that the principles set forward in the road map are critically important. At the same time, at some point in the process, the parties involved, the Palestinians and the Israelis, are going to have to sit down and they are going to have to negotiate.
Q: But if the Palestinians agree to the map “as is,” and demand that is what we want, would they be forced to negotiate on this if the Israelis objected?
A: I think the president has been as clear as he can possibly be. The road map is the road map.
- Arab News Features 1 May 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)