Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
My father was a great believer in Islamic unity. As he loved and admired King Abdul Aziz and King Faisal for their promotion of Islamic unity, so also did he admire Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. With its large population and strong army, its modernity and sophistication, Pakistan, he kept telling me, was our big brother who would never let us down in the hour of need, and when the time comes to liberate Palestine. He taught me that to be a good Muslim means to be a Pakistani at heart.
For him and his generation, the dream of a united Muslim nation was still fresh after the demise of the last great unifier, the Ottoman Empire.
I still remember the dark days when the war erupted between the two parts of Pakistan. I was too young then, but I couldn’t miss the gloom that enveloped the neighborhood majlis, where father and his peers listened to the radio and discussed the horrible stories coming from the field. I won’t forget seeing my father cry for the first time in my life when our beloved Pakistan finally disintegrated in a sea of Muslim blood and a world of destruction and despair. As he expected, this disintegration was a bad omen for the unity dream. It was downhill from that day on, one blow after another; until we reached the lowly state we are in today.
I remembered this sorry affair as I awaited my turn to speak to the Pakistan Repatriation Council celebrating Iqbal’s 126th birthday a couple of weeks ago. I remembered it because the council represents the case of one of the worst outcomes of this separation: The stranded quarter of a million Pakistanis in Bangladesh who fought for unity and have been living in miserable refugee camps since then.
In 1988 the Rabita Trust was established and signed by President Ziaul Haq and ex- Secretary General of the Muslim World League Dr. Abdullah Nasseef and assigned for the repatriation of stranded Pakistanis. Land was allocated for 40,000 houses in Punjab. One thousand houses were built, but only 60 families were brought in 1993. After that all efforts were frozen.
I bet most of us are ignorant about this tragedy, while those who know either don’t care or don’t do much. I wish I could do better and help. But, alas, I only have my heart, pen and voice. With the first I pray for them, with the rest I urge the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as international and Muslim organizations to cooperate in ending the misery of these people: They need humanitarian help, they need recognition, and above all they need just to go home.
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Not in Islam’s Name
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, (kbatarfi@al-madina.com)
I was shocked and saddened to hear the news about the terrorist attacks on Jewish places of worship and education in Turkey.
Dozens of innocent people were going about their normal life, praying, meeting, taking care of their families, educating and entertaining their kids, and suddenly — boom! All goes up in fire, smoke and blood. In minutes the world you know is suddenly a sad memory, and the new world is full of fear, anger and tragedy.
Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it is becoming too familiar. Even in places unused to such terrible tragedies like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Terrorists seem incapable of distinguishing between what is consistent with their stated principles and what is total nonsense. How would the killing of an innocent person serve a cause, any cause?
What support can the scenes of carnage, of the scattered and burned bodies of women and children, offer to a message, any message? Why would the governments of Russia, the US and Israel, or gang leaders of Al-Qaeda, the IRA, KKK, Hindu militants and Jewish settlers order the bombing and burning of civilian neighborhoods, markets and places of worship?
Who are they trying to satisfy and appease? What benefits and public relations goals do they hope to achieve?
How can educated, sophisticated and enlightened leaders of established democracies and great civilizations compete in the same dirty arena with lowlife, heartless, insane psychopaths?
When American bombers target Afghan and Iraqi mosques, wedding parties, and Bedouin convoys on unverified tip-offs that there are wanted persons there, when Sharon uses American-made F16 and Apaches to hit buildings, streets and homes to assassinate Palestinian leaders, when Putin treats the whole of Chechnya as a practicing ground for killing, burning and destruction, where is the distinction between legitimate law-abiding governments and illegitimate lawless bandits?
How can the public then be convinced that the ways of the bad guys are wrong, if the supposedly good guys are doing the same thing the same way?
As a writer, I am supposed to explain to my readers, not to add to their confusion. But the world of terror is so confused and confusing that asking questions may pass as a step toward better understanding. So, let’s keep asking and demanding answers. The doers of evil owe us, at the very least, logical if not acceptable explanations.
On behalf of all good, true Muslims, I offer my wholehearted condolences to the families of the victims in the Turkish attacks, Jewish and Muslim alike. My heart goes out to every mother and father, sister and brother, daughter and son.
I would also like them to know that whoever did this does not represent Islam, Arabs or any decent human being. This dirty deed was not committed in my religion’s, my people’s or my name.
I was shocked and saddened to hear the news about the terrorist attacks on Jewish places of worship and education in Turkey.
Dozens of innocent people were going about their normal life, praying, meeting, taking care of their families, educating and entertaining their kids, and suddenly — boom! All goes up in fire, smoke and blood. In minutes the world you know is suddenly a sad memory, and the new world is full of fear, anger and tragedy.
Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it is becoming too familiar. Even in places unused to such terrible tragedies like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Terrorists seem incapable of distinguishing between what is consistent with their stated principles and what is total nonsense. How would the killing of an innocent person serve a cause, any cause?
What support can the scenes of carnage, of the scattered and burned bodies of women and children, offer to a message, any message? Why would the governments of Russia, the US and Israel, or gang leaders of Al-Qaeda, the IRA, KKK, Hindu militants and Jewish settlers order the bombing and burning of civilian neighborhoods, markets and places of worship?
Who are they trying to satisfy and appease? What benefits and public relations goals do they hope to achieve?
How can educated, sophisticated and enlightened leaders of established democracies and great civilizations compete in the same dirty arena with lowlife, heartless, insane psychopaths?
When American bombers target Afghan and Iraqi mosques, wedding parties, and Bedouin convoys on unverified tip-offs that there are wanted persons there, when Sharon uses American-made F16 and Apaches to hit buildings, streets and homes to assassinate Palestinian leaders, when Putin treats the whole of Chechnya as a practicing ground for killing, burning and destruction, where is the distinction between legitimate law-abiding governments and illegitimate lawless bandits?
How can the public then be convinced that the ways of the bad guys are wrong, if the supposedly good guys are doing the same thing the same way?
As a writer, I am supposed to explain to my readers, not to add to their confusion. But the world of terror is so confused and confusing that asking questions may pass as a step toward better understanding. So, let’s keep asking and demanding answers. The doers of evil owe us, at the very least, logical if not acceptable explanations.
On behalf of all good, true Muslims, I offer my wholehearted condolences to the families of the victims in the Turkish attacks, Jewish and Muslim alike. My heart goes out to every mother and father, sister and brother, daughter and son.
I would also like them to know that whoever did this does not represent Islam, Arabs or any decent human being. This dirty deed was not committed in my religion’s, my people’s or my name.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
What the Terrorists Want
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Why? This is the question on everyone’s lips these days. It doesn’t make sense or seems not to. They are killing Arabs and Muslims. What is the point?
My take on this, as I told Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, is that the rope is tightening round the terrorists’ necks. Their networks are disintegrating under pressure. The ones who got caught are telling on the others. Plans are spoiled before they can be carried out. Leaders and operators are killed or captured. Cash and tools are found and confiscated. They must feel that they can wait no longer for the right moment — after the holy month of Ramadan — and the perfect target. Not with all the tightening security measures. They had to go after the softest, easiest, most vulnerable target they could find. Since their intelligence is getting as weak as their network, they might have got the wrong tip. Someone might have confused Lebanese residents of the compound with Westerners. The terrorists may have assumed that since the compound is close to the Diplomatic Quarter, it must house some Western diplomats.
What kind of statement are they making? They never had much of a point to start with. The American soldiers have already left. Saudi Arabia was not part of any campaign against Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, it was squarely in the anti-war camp. The statement-making is made the more difficult after it becomes clear that the compound was inhabited by Arabs and Muslims, not Westerners. So what can they say? Not much. It is simply REVENGE. Revenge against the government, revenge against society, revenge against the world. They felt left-out; they felt persecuted; they felt unheard. They wanted to scream for the last time before the tightening rope breaks their necks, “We matter; we can hurt you; we are here.”
I have been asked by Westerners what we can do to help. We can always increase state cooperation and increase media campaigns. As you can see, we are on the same side. But most of all, we should not panic. Closing embassies and issuing public warnings to expatriates give the terrorists the wrong message and hands them a victory. Wolves smell fear. They run after the fearful. It doesn’t become the most powerful nations in the world to act afraid. It assures the enemy and doesn’t give reassurance to allies. Besides, as I told a Western diplomat, in the war for the hearts and minds, the terrorists are losing a lot of ground. If you run now, you will have made their point for them and they will count it an achievement.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Why? This is the question on everyone’s lips these days. It doesn’t make sense or seems not to. They are killing Arabs and Muslims. What is the point?
My take on this, as I told Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, is that the rope is tightening round the terrorists’ necks. Their networks are disintegrating under pressure. The ones who got caught are telling on the others. Plans are spoiled before they can be carried out. Leaders and operators are killed or captured. Cash and tools are found and confiscated. They must feel that they can wait no longer for the right moment — after the holy month of Ramadan — and the perfect target. Not with all the tightening security measures. They had to go after the softest, easiest, most vulnerable target they could find. Since their intelligence is getting as weak as their network, they might have got the wrong tip. Someone might have confused Lebanese residents of the compound with Westerners. The terrorists may have assumed that since the compound is close to the Diplomatic Quarter, it must house some Western diplomats.
What kind of statement are they making? They never had much of a point to start with. The American soldiers have already left. Saudi Arabia was not part of any campaign against Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, it was squarely in the anti-war camp. The statement-making is made the more difficult after it becomes clear that the compound was inhabited by Arabs and Muslims, not Westerners. So what can they say? Not much. It is simply REVENGE. Revenge against the government, revenge against society, revenge against the world. They felt left-out; they felt persecuted; they felt unheard. They wanted to scream for the last time before the tightening rope breaks their necks, “We matter; we can hurt you; we are here.”
I have been asked by Westerners what we can do to help. We can always increase state cooperation and increase media campaigns. As you can see, we are on the same side. But most of all, we should not panic. Closing embassies and issuing public warnings to expatriates give the terrorists the wrong message and hands them a victory. Wolves smell fear. They run after the fearful. It doesn’t become the most powerful nations in the world to act afraid. It assures the enemy and doesn’t give reassurance to allies. Besides, as I told a Western diplomat, in the war for the hearts and minds, the terrorists are losing a lot of ground. If you run now, you will have made their point for them and they will count it an achievement.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Tackling Terrorism Is Much More Than Chasing Terrorists: UK Envoy
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
Special to Arab News
Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles, Britain’s ambassador to the Kingdom, explains a polint during the interview in Riyadh. (Arab News photo)
JEDDAH, 12 November 2003 — Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles is the United Kingdom’s new ambassador to the Kingdom. The following are excerpts from a wide-ranging interview he gave to Khaled M. Batarfi of Al-Madinah newspaper.
Khaled Batarfi: Many believe that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. This view is helped by some views from the United States, some of which accuse Islam of advocating terrorism and idol worship. What is Britain’s position?
Sherard Cowper-Coles: People who make that kind of comment about Islam are betraying their ignorance. I believe Islam is a peaceful religion. I believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all People of the Book, and that there is far more in common between the three great monotheistic religions than there are things that separate them. People who try to take that sort of negative view of Islam are ignorant and have a misguided notion of what true Islam stands for....
And my job as ambassador here in the country which is home to two of Islam’s holiest places is to build bridges. I represent a country in which a significant proportion of the population is Muslim and the great majority is nominally Christian, and we have huge common interests in emphasizing the common values the two kingdoms share.
Q: So how do you explain your war on terrorism?
A: Personally I prefer not to speak so much of the war on terror as a war against individual terrorists. We obviously need to take top security measures against terrorists and detain terrorists who have threatened violent acts. But we also need to ask ourselves what it is that causes people to resort to terrorism. Are there excuses, are there pretexts, which drive young people who are often without hope and without jobs to resort to terrorism. If those grievances have a basis in reality, we need to address them.
My Prime Minister (Tony Blair) said many times that he believes that extremists across the Muslim world have used what is happening in Palestine as a recruiting sergeant for terror, as a cause, a grievance which young Muslims everywhere care deeply about and which leads some of the more extreme ones to resort to violence and terror. I don’t believe that violence and terror are ever justified. But we nevertheless need to understand that there are people who are quite ruthless in exploiting grievances like that to recruit terrorists.
Q: But don’t you agree that without solving the Palestine problem there will always be deep, potentially aggressive anger in the Arab and Muslim world?
A: That is why Tony Blair is pressing so hard to address the problem of Palestine. Only one country can really solve it, and that is the United States, with help from others. And that is why Blair and Crown Prince Abdullah and others have now been encouraging President Bush to get him engaged, and that’s why President Bush has published a road map and has become engaged in a way which didn’t seem likely at the beginning of his administration.
Now, there is a long way to go. But the Americans are now addressing the problem of Palestine in a way that they were not before. Talking about Palestine, I want to praise Crown Prince Abdullah’s initiative, which was quite a remarkable breakthrough in getting every single Arab country around to vote in favor of a resolution recommending normal relations with the state of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the lands it occupied in 1967. And, I have to say, I don’t think that initiative has received the recognition it deserved in the Middle East, Israel or in the United States. It was a great act of statesmanship, one on which, I hope, we can build in the months and years ahead and we can use that exchange of recognition; that recognition has to be a compromise to make progress in Palestine.
Q: Does Britain contemplate an exit plan for its troops from Iraq, especially before the next election. If so, does it need an approval from its American partner? And at what price?
A: We’re constantly contemplating when and how the coalition should hand over power to the true representatives of the Iraqi people. We have to recognize that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. The threat of weapons of mass destruction has been neutralized and the Iraqi people are starting to enjoy degrees of freedom and prosperity that they never knew before. A few facts: There are well over 100 newspapers in Baghdad, and electricity generation is at levels higher than it was before the war. Most of Iraq’s schools have been refurbished; massive work is going on Iraq’s infrastructure.
There is still a serious but localized problem of security, particularly in the center of the country. That is obviously a top priority. It would not be responsible for us having got into Iraq just simply now to walk out again leaving chaos behind. Our duty is to ensure stability, in our own interests and in the interests of Iraq’s neighbors, in the interests of the whole region. That is what we’re doing. But I can give you an absolute assurance that power will be transferred just as soon as is practical.
Q: How soon? Do you have a time frame?
A: We don’t have a clear time frame, but the UN Security Council Resolution 1511 says that a timetable for establishing a representative Iraqi government has to be formalized by Dec. 15.
Q: What are the costs for Britain in Iraq, and how are you planning to cover them? Does Iraqi oil figure in the equation?
A: It doesn’t. We will not be drawing down the income from the Iraqi oil to pay for the costs of the British forces in Iraq: They will be paid by the British taxpayer.
Q: And the costs of reconstruction?
A: Britain is giving very large sums. We have pledged over £550 million to Iraq’s reconstruction.
Q: To what do you attribute the relative calm in the areas you control in Iraq, and the lesser anger directed at you from the Arab media and public, compared to the United States?
A: Well, I’m not an expert on what is going on in Iraq. But I would say there are a number of factors. First, the religious makeup of the south, the Shiite majority there. I also have to say that for historical reasons British forces have a long experience of peacekeeping in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. And that may play a small contributory part. But not having been there I can’t speculate. America is clearly the No.1 target for all sorts of desperate groups.
Q: What about the public and the media?
A: America is the only surviving superpower, America led the occupation of Iraq and America is seen by many as a symbol of the imagined tensions between the West and the Islamic world.
Q: Europe was and still is part of the group sponsoring the road map project for Middle East peace. How do you evaluate the steps taken by Israel and the Palestinian authorities?
A: Well, not enough has happened on either side. That’s quite clear. The Palestinians need to be more active in restoring security in Palestinian areas, but in doing so they need help from Israel, in particular, the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, the use of disproportionate force. It has not helped the Palestinian authorities in their efforts to clamp down on terror.
Q: How do you view the Israeli attacks and assassinations even during the cease-fire negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions?
A: There is a mixture of motives. From outside, one needs to ask whether such actions are in the best interests of Israel or moderate Palestinians.
Q: In your perspective, why is the Ariel Sharon government doing this?
A: I’m not a spokesman for the Sharon government. It is not for me to describe why a particular government does things. But I do think that suicide bombers — whoever perpetrates them — are not acting in the interests of the Palestinian people. They have perpetuated a cycle of violence. They produce a very strong emotional reaction of anger, resentment not only in Israel but also elsewhere in the world, including the United States. I condemn utterly the suicide attacks, but at the same time we have to ask those of us who want peace in the Middle East what is it that drives young people to commit suicide in this terrible fashion. And the answer must be in part the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What we need is parallel steps by both sides, and all my experience in Israel and Palestine leaves me to believe that those parallel steps will not be undertaken without a strong and benign international presence.
Q: Do you think peacekeeping will work?
A: I don’t think peacekeeping will ever work. I think the only people who can guarantee security are either the Israeli security forces in the rather unsatisfactory manner they are trying to do that or, much better, reformed Palestinian security forces with international help and support. And what needs to deliver that is not a multinational peacekeeping force — American, British or Jordanian soldiers patrolling the streets of Jenin or Beit Hanoun. But you do need international observers and monitors to give the Israelis confidence that the Palestinians are maintaining law and order and to give the Palestinians confidence that every time there is an incident the Israelis will not re-enter the territory.
Q: How does Britain see the future of the Middle East after the Iraqi war? A haven of democracy and prosperity? Or a more realistic view?
A: Our foreign policy has always been to take the world as we find it and not as we would wish it to be. We’re pragmatists rather more than we are idealists. The truth is we are in there and we have to make the best of it in the interests of the people of Iraq above all but also in the interests of the region and in the interests of the countries outside the region. And of all the European countries I would put Britain as the country with the greatest experience and the largest range of interests and assets in the Middle East — cultural assets, intellectual assets, financial and economic assets, and security assets, a whole range of British engagement in the Middle East. So we all share a common objective.
I wouldn’t like to talk about the havens of democracy. What we want in Iraq is a stable, representative government which gives the people of Iraq a better and safer and freer life than they had under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Q: You talk about political solutions, but what about economic and social ones?
A: The way to tackle terrorism is a combination of tough security policy but also a range of political, economic and social measures to drain the support to the terrorists. Chairman Mao said guerilla terrorists were fish who swam in the sea of popular support. What we have to do is to drain the sea by a range of imaginative measures.
And this is what we did in Northern Ireland with some success, where we recognized that deprivation, lack of economic opportunity, lack of political opportunity, social problems in the Catholic areas helped produce a climate in which the terrorists thrived. So as well as taking tough security measures against the terrorists we spent billions of pounds and huge amounts of political effort trying to address the wider political, economic and social problems on which the terrorists feed and which they exploit for their own ends. And in the policies we have announced in terms of spending money and offering advice and consultancy, the United States’ own Middle East partnership initiative. All these are designed to recognize that tackling terrorism is a much more complicated problem than simply chasing the terrorists.
Q: Do you believe in regime change or gradual reforms?
A: Britain believes in gradual change. Stability is most likely to be protected by gradual change. It is not really possible or desirable to produce wholesale radical change across the whole region.
Q: With the help of the United States do you think the Middle East can be pushed to effect a change in its attitude toward reforms?
A: No. We believe that many of the governments in the Middle East are committed to reform. And we are there to offer help and advice and support where we can.
Q: Arab-British relations have been subject to some tensions before and after the Iraq war. How does your country plan to restore its usual good relations with the Arab world?
A: The best thing we can do to help produce good relations not only between Britain, in fact, the West as a whole and the Arab world is to make real progress in Iraq and real progress on Palestine.
Q: How do you respond to charges that you exaggerated the Iraqi danger and fabricated evidence that it possessed WMD? And how will this affect the reelection prospect of Mr. Blair?
A: Well, the British people will make up their own mind on Mr. Blair’s future. British elections won’t be held until June 2006. Which means there is plenty of time. On the question of allegations of weapons of mass destruction, all I can say is that British intelligence believed in very good faith that Saddam had such weapons and there was a danger that he would use them. And Lord Hutton’s interim report is just that: An interim report. Let’s wait and see what the final report says.
Q: Is it affecting the credibility of charges against Iran?
A: It is too early to say whether we are wrong or right on that. All I can say is that British intelligence is believed to be honest. It genuinely believed on the basis of information it had.
Q: Some hawks in the American administration still see their job unfinished without regime changes and earthshaking in other Middle Eastern countries. Where does Britain stand on this?
A: It’s not British policy to promote regime change.
Q: How does Britain see the US project for economic and political development of the Middle East?
A: As I said earlier, we strongly believe that security is best achieved through political, economic and social development. We strongly welcome the American Middle East partnership initiative. In this regard the move of Saudi Arabia to join the World Trade Organization is something we welcome.
Q: Would Britain follow in the footsteps of the United States toward bilateral free trade agreements with Middle Eastern countries?
A: Trade is now the responsibility of the European Commission in Brussels. And the EC is hoping to start by promoting free trade among all the 12 Mediterranean partners in the European Union by 2007. That will give the Union’s Mediterranean partners access to the market of 450 million people. In parallel to that the Commission is also negotiating to improve trade arrangements with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Q: What are your views on the Sharon government’s stand on Arafat, the security wall, Syria and Jewish settlements?
A: On the wall we are concerned about its route. It’s very important that Israel does not take unilateral steps that prejudice the peace process or which unilaterally seize areas of Palestinian land. At the same time we recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect itself. On Syria we very much believe in engagement — a dialogue with Syria. Prime Minister Blair has visited Damascus, and President Assad has visited London.
On settlements, we have always taken the view that the transfer of the Israeli population to the territories occupied in 1967 is illegal under international law. That’s the view of the British government, the US and every government around the world. We believe that the problem of settlements is a major problem not just for Palestinians but for the Israeli government, too. It should be solved as part of an agreement which results in Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
Q: Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad has accused the Jews of controlling the world media. Most European countries took a strong position against him, except for France. Where do you stand on this issue?
A: We do not think that sort of racial typecasting is helpful.
Q: After the Riyadh bombing, will the UK government review its position allowing elements of Saudi opposition supporting terrorism taking residence in Britain? If so, what kind of policies and procedures will be taken?
A: We keep a very close eye not only on the Saudi opposition but also on anyone in Britain who may be seen to promote terrorism. Under the British Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offense to support or encourage the commission of terrorist acts overseas. We keep the activities of all sorts of groups in the UK under close review. At the same time we have a law which protects the freedom of speech subject to various limitations and we have to respect those laws while making sure that they are enforced.
Q: Some Saudi businessmen complain that the performance of your trade departments in Riyadh and Jeddah is below expectations. What plans do you have to improve their performance?
A: I have had good reports of the excellence of commercial departments in Riyadh and Jeddah. Of course, we are constantly looking to ways of improving.
Q: Some note the absence of the usually strong activities of companies marketing Britain as an investment venue in areas such as real estate, education and joint ventures. They wonder if this is an outcome of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
A: Well, I wasn’t aware of that. I think that there is as much eagerness in Britain as ever for investment from Saudi Arabia and from the Middle East generally.
Q: Many see the independence of Britain’s economic policies as a thorn in the side of Europe, particularly with reference to interest rate changes and lukewarm attitude to Europe’s position vis-à-vis US grievances in the WTO. How do you answer such perceptions?
A: I think the whole world, including the European Union, benefits from the success of the open UK economy and that is something people should be giving thanks for. We look at particular issues such as sanctions, particular trade issues on a case-by-case pragmatic basis; this will not certainly be a lukewarm attitude. We decide what we think is in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Q: When can we see a united European front toward major issues and world troubles? Do you see an end to the apparent rift between Britain and influential partners like France and Germany?
A: I don’t recognize the premise of the question. Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, and Prime Minister Berlusconi are in very, very close touch. I don’t see any rift between Britain and its European partners. We had differences over the war in Iraq; we are now united behind the Security Council Resolution 1511. There is a very large measure of agreement on the Middle East peace process, our support for the road map and many other areas, including European defense, which complements NATO rather than undermines it.
Q: Last question. If Britain were to choose, which camp would it prefer: Europe or the United States?
A: The whole purpose of British foreign policy is to avoid having to choose. We believe that Europe benefits from our close relationship with the United States, and the United States benefits from our position at the heart of the European Union. It’s a win-win situation.
Special to Arab News
Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles, Britain’s ambassador to the Kingdom, explains a polint during the interview in Riyadh. (Arab News photo)
JEDDAH, 12 November 2003 — Sherard Louis Cowper-Coles is the United Kingdom’s new ambassador to the Kingdom. The following are excerpts from a wide-ranging interview he gave to Khaled M. Batarfi of Al-Madinah newspaper.
Khaled Batarfi: Many believe that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam. This view is helped by some views from the United States, some of which accuse Islam of advocating terrorism and idol worship. What is Britain’s position?
Sherard Cowper-Coles: People who make that kind of comment about Islam are betraying their ignorance. I believe Islam is a peaceful religion. I believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims are all People of the Book, and that there is far more in common between the three great monotheistic religions than there are things that separate them. People who try to take that sort of negative view of Islam are ignorant and have a misguided notion of what true Islam stands for....
And my job as ambassador here in the country which is home to two of Islam’s holiest places is to build bridges. I represent a country in which a significant proportion of the population is Muslim and the great majority is nominally Christian, and we have huge common interests in emphasizing the common values the two kingdoms share.
Q: So how do you explain your war on terrorism?
A: Personally I prefer not to speak so much of the war on terror as a war against individual terrorists. We obviously need to take top security measures against terrorists and detain terrorists who have threatened violent acts. But we also need to ask ourselves what it is that causes people to resort to terrorism. Are there excuses, are there pretexts, which drive young people who are often without hope and without jobs to resort to terrorism. If those grievances have a basis in reality, we need to address them.
My Prime Minister (Tony Blair) said many times that he believes that extremists across the Muslim world have used what is happening in Palestine as a recruiting sergeant for terror, as a cause, a grievance which young Muslims everywhere care deeply about and which leads some of the more extreme ones to resort to violence and terror. I don’t believe that violence and terror are ever justified. But we nevertheless need to understand that there are people who are quite ruthless in exploiting grievances like that to recruit terrorists.
Q: But don’t you agree that without solving the Palestine problem there will always be deep, potentially aggressive anger in the Arab and Muslim world?
A: That is why Tony Blair is pressing so hard to address the problem of Palestine. Only one country can really solve it, and that is the United States, with help from others. And that is why Blair and Crown Prince Abdullah and others have now been encouraging President Bush to get him engaged, and that’s why President Bush has published a road map and has become engaged in a way which didn’t seem likely at the beginning of his administration.
Now, there is a long way to go. But the Americans are now addressing the problem of Palestine in a way that they were not before. Talking about Palestine, I want to praise Crown Prince Abdullah’s initiative, which was quite a remarkable breakthrough in getting every single Arab country around to vote in favor of a resolution recommending normal relations with the state of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the lands it occupied in 1967. And, I have to say, I don’t think that initiative has received the recognition it deserved in the Middle East, Israel or in the United States. It was a great act of statesmanship, one on which, I hope, we can build in the months and years ahead and we can use that exchange of recognition; that recognition has to be a compromise to make progress in Palestine.
Q: Does Britain contemplate an exit plan for its troops from Iraq, especially before the next election. If so, does it need an approval from its American partner? And at what price?
A: We’re constantly contemplating when and how the coalition should hand over power to the true representatives of the Iraqi people. We have to recognize that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. The threat of weapons of mass destruction has been neutralized and the Iraqi people are starting to enjoy degrees of freedom and prosperity that they never knew before. A few facts: There are well over 100 newspapers in Baghdad, and electricity generation is at levels higher than it was before the war. Most of Iraq’s schools have been refurbished; massive work is going on Iraq’s infrastructure.
There is still a serious but localized problem of security, particularly in the center of the country. That is obviously a top priority. It would not be responsible for us having got into Iraq just simply now to walk out again leaving chaos behind. Our duty is to ensure stability, in our own interests and in the interests of Iraq’s neighbors, in the interests of the whole region. That is what we’re doing. But I can give you an absolute assurance that power will be transferred just as soon as is practical.
Q: How soon? Do you have a time frame?
A: We don’t have a clear time frame, but the UN Security Council Resolution 1511 says that a timetable for establishing a representative Iraqi government has to be formalized by Dec. 15.
Q: What are the costs for Britain in Iraq, and how are you planning to cover them? Does Iraqi oil figure in the equation?
A: It doesn’t. We will not be drawing down the income from the Iraqi oil to pay for the costs of the British forces in Iraq: They will be paid by the British taxpayer.
Q: And the costs of reconstruction?
A: Britain is giving very large sums. We have pledged over £550 million to Iraq’s reconstruction.
Q: To what do you attribute the relative calm in the areas you control in Iraq, and the lesser anger directed at you from the Arab media and public, compared to the United States?
A: Well, I’m not an expert on what is going on in Iraq. But I would say there are a number of factors. First, the religious makeup of the south, the Shiite majority there. I also have to say that for historical reasons British forces have a long experience of peacekeeping in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. And that may play a small contributory part. But not having been there I can’t speculate. America is clearly the No.1 target for all sorts of desperate groups.
Q: What about the public and the media?
A: America is the only surviving superpower, America led the occupation of Iraq and America is seen by many as a symbol of the imagined tensions between the West and the Islamic world.
Q: Europe was and still is part of the group sponsoring the road map project for Middle East peace. How do you evaluate the steps taken by Israel and the Palestinian authorities?
A: Well, not enough has happened on either side. That’s quite clear. The Palestinians need to be more active in restoring security in Palestinian areas, but in doing so they need help from Israel, in particular, the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations, the use of disproportionate force. It has not helped the Palestinian authorities in their efforts to clamp down on terror.
Q: How do you view the Israeli attacks and assassinations even during the cease-fire negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian factions?
A: There is a mixture of motives. From outside, one needs to ask whether such actions are in the best interests of Israel or moderate Palestinians.
Q: In your perspective, why is the Ariel Sharon government doing this?
A: I’m not a spokesman for the Sharon government. It is not for me to describe why a particular government does things. But I do think that suicide bombers — whoever perpetrates them — are not acting in the interests of the Palestinian people. They have perpetuated a cycle of violence. They produce a very strong emotional reaction of anger, resentment not only in Israel but also elsewhere in the world, including the United States. I condemn utterly the suicide attacks, but at the same time we have to ask those of us who want peace in the Middle East what is it that drives young people to commit suicide in this terrible fashion. And the answer must be in part the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. What we need is parallel steps by both sides, and all my experience in Israel and Palestine leaves me to believe that those parallel steps will not be undertaken without a strong and benign international presence.
Q: Do you think peacekeeping will work?
A: I don’t think peacekeeping will ever work. I think the only people who can guarantee security are either the Israeli security forces in the rather unsatisfactory manner they are trying to do that or, much better, reformed Palestinian security forces with international help and support. And what needs to deliver that is not a multinational peacekeeping force — American, British or Jordanian soldiers patrolling the streets of Jenin or Beit Hanoun. But you do need international observers and monitors to give the Israelis confidence that the Palestinians are maintaining law and order and to give the Palestinians confidence that every time there is an incident the Israelis will not re-enter the territory.
Q: How does Britain see the future of the Middle East after the Iraqi war? A haven of democracy and prosperity? Or a more realistic view?
A: Our foreign policy has always been to take the world as we find it and not as we would wish it to be. We’re pragmatists rather more than we are idealists. The truth is we are in there and we have to make the best of it in the interests of the people of Iraq above all but also in the interests of the region and in the interests of the countries outside the region. And of all the European countries I would put Britain as the country with the greatest experience and the largest range of interests and assets in the Middle East — cultural assets, intellectual assets, financial and economic assets, and security assets, a whole range of British engagement in the Middle East. So we all share a common objective.
I wouldn’t like to talk about the havens of democracy. What we want in Iraq is a stable, representative government which gives the people of Iraq a better and safer and freer life than they had under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Q: You talk about political solutions, but what about economic and social ones?
A: The way to tackle terrorism is a combination of tough security policy but also a range of political, economic and social measures to drain the support to the terrorists. Chairman Mao said guerilla terrorists were fish who swam in the sea of popular support. What we have to do is to drain the sea by a range of imaginative measures.
And this is what we did in Northern Ireland with some success, where we recognized that deprivation, lack of economic opportunity, lack of political opportunity, social problems in the Catholic areas helped produce a climate in which the terrorists thrived. So as well as taking tough security measures against the terrorists we spent billions of pounds and huge amounts of political effort trying to address the wider political, economic and social problems on which the terrorists feed and which they exploit for their own ends. And in the policies we have announced in terms of spending money and offering advice and consultancy, the United States’ own Middle East partnership initiative. All these are designed to recognize that tackling terrorism is a much more complicated problem than simply chasing the terrorists.
Q: Do you believe in regime change or gradual reforms?
A: Britain believes in gradual change. Stability is most likely to be protected by gradual change. It is not really possible or desirable to produce wholesale radical change across the whole region.
Q: With the help of the United States do you think the Middle East can be pushed to effect a change in its attitude toward reforms?
A: No. We believe that many of the governments in the Middle East are committed to reform. And we are there to offer help and advice and support where we can.
Q: Arab-British relations have been subject to some tensions before and after the Iraq war. How does your country plan to restore its usual good relations with the Arab world?
A: The best thing we can do to help produce good relations not only between Britain, in fact, the West as a whole and the Arab world is to make real progress in Iraq and real progress on Palestine.
Q: How do you respond to charges that you exaggerated the Iraqi danger and fabricated evidence that it possessed WMD? And how will this affect the reelection prospect of Mr. Blair?
A: Well, the British people will make up their own mind on Mr. Blair’s future. British elections won’t be held until June 2006. Which means there is plenty of time. On the question of allegations of weapons of mass destruction, all I can say is that British intelligence believed in very good faith that Saddam had such weapons and there was a danger that he would use them. And Lord Hutton’s interim report is just that: An interim report. Let’s wait and see what the final report says.
Q: Is it affecting the credibility of charges against Iran?
A: It is too early to say whether we are wrong or right on that. All I can say is that British intelligence is believed to be honest. It genuinely believed on the basis of information it had.
Q: Some hawks in the American administration still see their job unfinished without regime changes and earthshaking in other Middle Eastern countries. Where does Britain stand on this?
A: It’s not British policy to promote regime change.
Q: How does Britain see the US project for economic and political development of the Middle East?
A: As I said earlier, we strongly believe that security is best achieved through political, economic and social development. We strongly welcome the American Middle East partnership initiative. In this regard the move of Saudi Arabia to join the World Trade Organization is something we welcome.
Q: Would Britain follow in the footsteps of the United States toward bilateral free trade agreements with Middle Eastern countries?
A: Trade is now the responsibility of the European Commission in Brussels. And the EC is hoping to start by promoting free trade among all the 12 Mediterranean partners in the European Union by 2007. That will give the Union’s Mediterranean partners access to the market of 450 million people. In parallel to that the Commission is also negotiating to improve trade arrangements with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Q: What are your views on the Sharon government’s stand on Arafat, the security wall, Syria and Jewish settlements?
A: On the wall we are concerned about its route. It’s very important that Israel does not take unilateral steps that prejudice the peace process or which unilaterally seize areas of Palestinian land. At the same time we recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect itself. On Syria we very much believe in engagement — a dialogue with Syria. Prime Minister Blair has visited Damascus, and President Assad has visited London.
On settlements, we have always taken the view that the transfer of the Israeli population to the territories occupied in 1967 is illegal under international law. That’s the view of the British government, the US and every government around the world. We believe that the problem of settlements is a major problem not just for Palestinians but for the Israeli government, too. It should be solved as part of an agreement which results in Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
Q: Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad has accused the Jews of controlling the world media. Most European countries took a strong position against him, except for France. Where do you stand on this issue?
A: We do not think that sort of racial typecasting is helpful.
Q: After the Riyadh bombing, will the UK government review its position allowing elements of Saudi opposition supporting terrorism taking residence in Britain? If so, what kind of policies and procedures will be taken?
A: We keep a very close eye not only on the Saudi opposition but also on anyone in Britain who may be seen to promote terrorism. Under the British Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offense to support or encourage the commission of terrorist acts overseas. We keep the activities of all sorts of groups in the UK under close review. At the same time we have a law which protects the freedom of speech subject to various limitations and we have to respect those laws while making sure that they are enforced.
Q: Some Saudi businessmen complain that the performance of your trade departments in Riyadh and Jeddah is below expectations. What plans do you have to improve their performance?
A: I have had good reports of the excellence of commercial departments in Riyadh and Jeddah. Of course, we are constantly looking to ways of improving.
Q: Some note the absence of the usually strong activities of companies marketing Britain as an investment venue in areas such as real estate, education and joint ventures. They wonder if this is an outcome of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.
A: Well, I wasn’t aware of that. I think that there is as much eagerness in Britain as ever for investment from Saudi Arabia and from the Middle East generally.
Q: Many see the independence of Britain’s economic policies as a thorn in the side of Europe, particularly with reference to interest rate changes and lukewarm attitude to Europe’s position vis-à-vis US grievances in the WTO. How do you answer such perceptions?
A: I think the whole world, including the European Union, benefits from the success of the open UK economy and that is something people should be giving thanks for. We look at particular issues such as sanctions, particular trade issues on a case-by-case pragmatic basis; this will not certainly be a lukewarm attitude. We decide what we think is in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Q: When can we see a united European front toward major issues and world troubles? Do you see an end to the apparent rift between Britain and influential partners like France and Germany?
A: I don’t recognize the premise of the question. Tony Blair, President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder, and Prime Minister Berlusconi are in very, very close touch. I don’t see any rift between Britain and its European partners. We had differences over the war in Iraq; we are now united behind the Security Council Resolution 1511. There is a very large measure of agreement on the Middle East peace process, our support for the road map and many other areas, including European defense, which complements NATO rather than undermines it.
Q: Last question. If Britain were to choose, which camp would it prefer: Europe or the United States?
A: The whole purpose of British foreign policy is to avoid having to choose. We believe that Europe benefits from our close relationship with the United States, and the United States benefits from our position at the heart of the European Union. It’s a win-win situation.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Testing US Democracy
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
I used to brag about American democracy. When I met with my fellow Muslims at the Islamic Center of Eugene, Oregon, we debated hot religious and political issues such as extremism and the second Gulf War. I would defend Saudi relations with America, and others would attack my position. Many were democratic and sophisticated in their debating, but there were vocal others who would use emotional arguments, strong language and outrageous accusations in order to prevail. I used to tell them they should remember what they learned in American schools.
Debate is a means of reaching the truth, bridging misunderstandings, and learning more about each other and what we stand for. We don’t have to “win” an argument, since it is a win-win situation if we end up more enlightened and informed. I tell them how I discuss even hotter issues with Jews and Communists, with people who have the wrong ideas about everything I represent — be it my religion, culture or country. But after each discussion, we become friendlier and congratulated each other on the new knowledge we brought to the table.
Some of my Arab debaters consider my experience, others say: “Oh, but that is only in liberal schools. The real America is not that democratic.” I know that difficult experiences test people principles and morals. In a disaster, the sense of survival rules and we may behave selfishly and crudely. That is what I assume happened to the American sense of democracy, justice and compassion. The Sept. 11 firestorms confused their radars.
When we write, here in Arab News, to reflect Arab feelings and reactions to the wrongs committed in the so-called “war on terror”, we expect dialogue as sophisticated as US democracy. That is why we experience shock and pain when much of the e-mail we receive carries anger and hate.
The fire storm has long passed from New York and Washington to Kabul, Baghdad and the rest of the Muslim world. It is our turn to have our senses confused, not the Americans.
I still believe in what I learnt in American schools. I still believe they meant what they taught me. I only wonder when we are all going to come to our civilized senses. Hopefully, we will do so before the American storm of anger and revenge takes over the world.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
I used to brag about American democracy. When I met with my fellow Muslims at the Islamic Center of Eugene, Oregon, we debated hot religious and political issues such as extremism and the second Gulf War. I would defend Saudi relations with America, and others would attack my position. Many were democratic and sophisticated in their debating, but there were vocal others who would use emotional arguments, strong language and outrageous accusations in order to prevail. I used to tell them they should remember what they learned in American schools.
Debate is a means of reaching the truth, bridging misunderstandings, and learning more about each other and what we stand for. We don’t have to “win” an argument, since it is a win-win situation if we end up more enlightened and informed. I tell them how I discuss even hotter issues with Jews and Communists, with people who have the wrong ideas about everything I represent — be it my religion, culture or country. But after each discussion, we become friendlier and congratulated each other on the new knowledge we brought to the table.
Some of my Arab debaters consider my experience, others say: “Oh, but that is only in liberal schools. The real America is not that democratic.” I know that difficult experiences test people principles and morals. In a disaster, the sense of survival rules and we may behave selfishly and crudely. That is what I assume happened to the American sense of democracy, justice and compassion. The Sept. 11 firestorms confused their radars.
When we write, here in Arab News, to reflect Arab feelings and reactions to the wrongs committed in the so-called “war on terror”, we expect dialogue as sophisticated as US democracy. That is why we experience shock and pain when much of the e-mail we receive carries anger and hate.
The fire storm has long passed from New York and Washington to Kabul, Baghdad and the rest of the Muslim world. It is our turn to have our senses confused, not the Americans.
I still believe in what I learnt in American schools. I still believe they meant what they taught me. I only wonder when we are all going to come to our civilized senses. Hopefully, we will do so before the American storm of anger and revenge takes over the world.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
America and the Business of Fear
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Fear has always been used to justify extraordinary measures in the Middle East. In the name of security, governments took away people’s liberty and civil rights, put them through severe economic deprivation, and enforced emergency rules that lasted for decades. Arabs, Turks and Kurds; Muslims, Christians and Jews have all been victims of this powerful tool of control.
Today, we are wiser to this cynical scheme. Israeli, Turkish, Persian and Arab intellectuals are awakening their frightened people to this terrible truth. The likes of Saddam and Sharon kept their respective nations in continuous conflict with real, imagined and manufactured enemies to justify their rule and ambitious, illegitimate, expansionist goals.
After Sept. 11, America officially joined the club. The Bush administration used the occasion to implant fear, anxiety and total submission to Big Brother in the American consciousness. They did a great job. The Americans did not mind or even question the justification of their country’s invasion and occupation of foreign land. It was enough to package and title any project “War on Terror” to have it accepted, and even when the US disregarded the Geneva Convention it went without much of a fuss. America is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Instead of guaranteeing world peace and security, it seems to be engaged in the business of fear. Homegrown and imported fears are being exported to the rest of us. Suddenly, terrorism was the number one issue on everyone’s agenda, whether we liked it or not.
The US president on his latest Asian tours told every leader, gathering and conference that he met to worry first about terrorists then discuss any other issue — starting with American interests, of course. Most were afraid and polite, few, like the Malaysian leader, were courageous and blunt enough to say: We do have agendas and interests of our own, you know. Why would we worry about the impact of our economic and security policies on USA, if the superpower of the world doesn’t give a damn about the impact of its selfish policies on us? The answer has always been: Because we say so.
I say: America shouldn’t be in the business of fear. It suits its legacy best to be in the business of liberation — from fear. It played this role during the world’s worst wars and longest peace. It led us in building the world’s greatest institutions, organizations and conventions. It helped us put freedom, democracy and prosperity at the top of our agenda, and leave fear behind.
For its sake, and ours, let’s hope it goes back to doing so.
Fear has always been used to justify extraordinary measures in the Middle East. In the name of security, governments took away people’s liberty and civil rights, put them through severe economic deprivation, and enforced emergency rules that lasted for decades. Arabs, Turks and Kurds; Muslims, Christians and Jews have all been victims of this powerful tool of control.
Today, we are wiser to this cynical scheme. Israeli, Turkish, Persian and Arab intellectuals are awakening their frightened people to this terrible truth. The likes of Saddam and Sharon kept their respective nations in continuous conflict with real, imagined and manufactured enemies to justify their rule and ambitious, illegitimate, expansionist goals.
After Sept. 11, America officially joined the club. The Bush administration used the occasion to implant fear, anxiety and total submission to Big Brother in the American consciousness. They did a great job. The Americans did not mind or even question the justification of their country’s invasion and occupation of foreign land. It was enough to package and title any project “War on Terror” to have it accepted, and even when the US disregarded the Geneva Convention it went without much of a fuss. America is doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Instead of guaranteeing world peace and security, it seems to be engaged in the business of fear. Homegrown and imported fears are being exported to the rest of us. Suddenly, terrorism was the number one issue on everyone’s agenda, whether we liked it or not.
The US president on his latest Asian tours told every leader, gathering and conference that he met to worry first about terrorists then discuss any other issue — starting with American interests, of course. Most were afraid and polite, few, like the Malaysian leader, were courageous and blunt enough to say: We do have agendas and interests of our own, you know. Why would we worry about the impact of our economic and security policies on USA, if the superpower of the world doesn’t give a damn about the impact of its selfish policies on us? The answer has always been: Because we say so.
I say: America shouldn’t be in the business of fear. It suits its legacy best to be in the business of liberation — from fear. It played this role during the world’s worst wars and longest peace. It led us in building the world’s greatest institutions, organizations and conventions. It helped us put freedom, democracy and prosperity at the top of our agenda, and leave fear behind.
For its sake, and ours, let’s hope it goes back to doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)