Nuri Al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister threatened that he would review relations with any country that dared to criticize his government’s handling of Saddam’s execution. Now that the American president is doing exactly that soon after the British prime minister dared to, I wondered what he is going to do. George W. Bush went even further than most Arab critics by saying that it is hard now to convince Americans to support Al-Maliki government, which he described as a less than matured and trustworthy regime. Still, our usually macho Iraqi prime minister has, so far, nothing to say to his Western critics. It wasn’t his mistake to start with. America redrew the geopolitical maps, re-dealt the sectarian cards and helped in putting him where he doesn’t belong — or was it Iran who did so?
Politics is a confusing business. Its games have few rules and its cards are mostly dealt under the table. What we see is hardly what we get. The clearest rule is attributed to late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
We will have to assume some hidden friends-foes understanding if we are to explain the unexplainable in the American foreign policies. Take for example hating Iran, then delivering Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon to her on a silver plate. Al-Maliki, like Ibrahim Al-Jafari before him, came from Iran. These are not even their true names — the real ones are Farsi. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is an Iranian. So is Abdulaziz Al-Hakim and most of his gang leaders. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were allowed to settle in Iraq after the invasion. They changed its demographics and infiltrated its government, security forces and army.
Today, some 150,000 American soldiers, not including the 20,000 extra troops due soon, are virtual hostages in Iraq. With a push of a remote control button, Tehran can, in a minute, put them all in jeopardy. The Iraqi Shiite militias as well as the sectarian government, the US-trained police and the rest of the Ministry of Interior forces are loyal to Tehran. The army is still mixed, Sunni and Shiite, but Iran’s stooges are working hard on changing it. Most recruits today are Shiite, many not be even Arab. Leading positions are given to them. Sunni soldiers are forced to leave. In short, you may say that an Iranian Army is ruling Iraq. How can you threaten a war with a country that had your boys under her thump?
Bush talks about mistakes his administration committed in Iraq. He doesn’t specify, so should we assume that one of them is invading Iraq under false pretexts and with the guidance of self-interest parties, such as Israel, Tehran-based or allied opposition groups, and arm, oil and construction businesses? Or that after the invasion the Iraqi Army, the security forces and many government leaders and autocrats were dismissed overnight, and let go with their expertise, secrets and guns? Or was the biggest mistake, after the invasion, turning the government over to people who are known to be Iranian agents and stooges like Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Jafari, Al-Hakim and Al-Maliki?
Maybe the smart American president meant to apologize for delivering Sunni Hamas to Shiite Iran by supporting the Israeli torture of the Palestinians as punishment for choosing, in an internationally certified elections, a decent government that doesn’t suit Israel? Or maybe he was now regretting handing pro-West Lebanon to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria by supporting Israeli devastation of a peaceful country? Or could it be that he finally realized that his blind support of Israel and following its orders is turning 1.3 billion Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, away from the Zionist-Christian crusaders toward the other camp, be it Al-Qaeda (Sunni) or Iran (Shiite)?
If I were an Iranian leader I should declare George W. Bush my hero. My country fought Iraq for eight years without getting one inch or oil well. Taleban was a thorn on her side. The Sunni world was suspicious of us. But with one masterstroke after another this wonderful Superman brought down both regimes, and installed friendly governments.
In the midst of the chaos and mess he created, I managed to get my hands full of all resources of power in Iraq. I was also able to build a nuclear infrastructure that will eventually give me the ultimate deterrent power.
Now the redneck is making me a hero in the Muslim world. All these threatening cowboy postures and stupid strategic and tactical mistakes helped me unite the Iranian people around my leadership and improve my economics by the rise in oil prices. I wouldn’t have it better if I tried. But here is the superpower of the world delivering all these rewards and spoils of war to my door without costing me a single shot. Long live USA! Long live George W. Bush!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation
A western journalist asked us, a group of citizens from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: “Is Arab nationalism still alive? Is regional grouping a realistic alternative or a step on the road to Arab unification? Are you today more or less committed to your national unity, and why?”
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Ongoing Case Against Israel
Criticizing Almighty Israel and the Mafiosi Israel Lobby in Washington is dangerous business. My last article about them brought me accusations and threats.
Not all Israel supporters are as bad as they may sound. Some are simply brain washed. Most Americans grew up in an environment that reveres and fears the Almighty Israel. They are constantly fed guilt for the Holocaust because their ancestors hadn’t done enough to prevent it, and then convinced that Israel is Jews ultimate haven. Therefore, any objective review of Israel’s actions and policies disgracing peaceful Judaism is regarded as anti-smite and hate speech. Many decent people, including brave Jews, lost their reputation, life achievement and professional future for committing the crime of criticizing Holy Israel or doubting its authoritative linkage to the Jewish faith and race.
The unprecedented American support and protectiveness of Israel might be understandable if it was a vital strategic asset or if there was a compelling moral case. But neither explanation is convincing.
With the accumulated $140 billion in direct aid, not including costly military and diplomatic support, Israel wasn't much of help when needed, like during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. To secure oil routes and fields, America had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force.
Again, in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, Israel was an embarrassing liability. To maintain its alliance with the Muslim world, the US could not use Israeli bases or ask for its help.
As a crucial ally in the War on Terror, Israel was given a free hand in Palestine and Lebanon. But the terrorists who threaten Israel do not threaten America, except when it threatens them, directly or via proxies, like Israel. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel’s cruel colonization of their territories. America is attacked largely as punishment for its alliance with Israel. For more on this, read Jimmy Carter’s book " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
As for Syria and Iran, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests. Here again, the alliance with Israel is a burden. Its vast nuclear arsenal is why Iran sought nuclear weapons in the first place. Still, Iran knows too well the dire consequences if it attacked America or its allies directly or via proxies. Israel stead-fast refusal to make land for peace deal with Syria and accept the Arab League 2002 Peace Initiative based on UN Resolution 242 prolonged the Arab-Israeli conflict and soured US crucial relations with 1.5 billion Muslims. For a bi-partisan American perspective, read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group’s report.
For all the support and sacrifices, Israel doesn’t act the loyal partner. It habitually ignores US requests and renege on promises like refraining from building new settlements and ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders and not spying on its benefactor. According to the US General Accounting Office, Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.” Some of the large quantities of classified material Jonathan Pollard provided Israel in early 1980s were passed on to the Soviet Union to secure more exit visas for Soviet Jews, comprising US security and exposing its intelligent posts and agents in Europe and the Communist Block. Sensitive American intelligence and military technologies were sold to China by Israelis. As recently as 2004, Larry Franklin, a key Pentagon official, passed sensitive classified materials to an Israeli diplomat with the help and cover of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
If backing the underdog is a justification, America should support the Arabs. A 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies concludes that “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.”
Israel aggressive past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians who, by the way, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, Jews in Palestine were treated far better than in Europe and America. Today, Israeli Arabs are treated as second class citizens. A recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them. Unlike the US, where the Constitution grants equal rights to people irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship—so much so for the "democratic state" myth.
I, finally, rest my case with a statement I copied from the Harvard study, “Israel Lobby,” attributed to the Jewish State founding father and its first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, who told the president of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Not all Israel supporters are as bad as they may sound. Some are simply brain washed. Most Americans grew up in an environment that reveres and fears the Almighty Israel. They are constantly fed guilt for the Holocaust because their ancestors hadn’t done enough to prevent it, and then convinced that Israel is Jews ultimate haven. Therefore, any objective review of Israel’s actions and policies disgracing peaceful Judaism is regarded as anti-smite and hate speech. Many decent people, including brave Jews, lost their reputation, life achievement and professional future for committing the crime of criticizing Holy Israel or doubting its authoritative linkage to the Jewish faith and race.
The unprecedented American support and protectiveness of Israel might be understandable if it was a vital strategic asset or if there was a compelling moral case. But neither explanation is convincing.
With the accumulated $140 billion in direct aid, not including costly military and diplomatic support, Israel wasn't much of help when needed, like during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. To secure oil routes and fields, America had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force.
Again, in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, Israel was an embarrassing liability. To maintain its alliance with the Muslim world, the US could not use Israeli bases or ask for its help.
As a crucial ally in the War on Terror, Israel was given a free hand in Palestine and Lebanon. But the terrorists who threaten Israel do not threaten America, except when it threatens them, directly or via proxies, like Israel. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel’s cruel colonization of their territories. America is attacked largely as punishment for its alliance with Israel. For more on this, read Jimmy Carter’s book " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
As for Syria and Iran, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests. Here again, the alliance with Israel is a burden. Its vast nuclear arsenal is why Iran sought nuclear weapons in the first place. Still, Iran knows too well the dire consequences if it attacked America or its allies directly or via proxies. Israel stead-fast refusal to make land for peace deal with Syria and accept the Arab League 2002 Peace Initiative based on UN Resolution 242 prolonged the Arab-Israeli conflict and soured US crucial relations with 1.5 billion Muslims. For a bi-partisan American perspective, read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group’s report.
For all the support and sacrifices, Israel doesn’t act the loyal partner. It habitually ignores US requests and renege on promises like refraining from building new settlements and ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders and not spying on its benefactor. According to the US General Accounting Office, Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.” Some of the large quantities of classified material Jonathan Pollard provided Israel in early 1980s were passed on to the Soviet Union to secure more exit visas for Soviet Jews, comprising US security and exposing its intelligent posts and agents in Europe and the Communist Block. Sensitive American intelligence and military technologies were sold to China by Israelis. As recently as 2004, Larry Franklin, a key Pentagon official, passed sensitive classified materials to an Israeli diplomat with the help and cover of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
If backing the underdog is a justification, America should support the Arabs. A 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies concludes that “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.”
Israel aggressive past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians who, by the way, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, Jews in Palestine were treated far better than in Europe and America. Today, Israeli Arabs are treated as second class citizens. A recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them. Unlike the US, where the Constitution grants equal rights to people irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship—so much so for the "democratic state" myth.
I, finally, rest my case with a statement I copied from the Harvard study, “Israel Lobby,” attributed to the Jewish State founding father and its first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, who told the president of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation
A western journalist asked us, a group of citizens from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: “Is Arab nationalism still alive? Is regional grouping a realistic alternative or a step on the road to Arab unification? Are you today more or less committed to your national unity, and why?”
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)