| |
COMMENTARY
On Iraq, Asia waits,
watches and wonders
By Mushahid
Hussain
On Saturday, a day after the passage of
the UN resolution on Iraq, Ahmad Hosseini, Iran's deputy
interior minister, who also heads the Bureau for Foreign
Immigrants, told an Iranian news agency that Iran would
"allow those Iraqi refugees to enter Iran who are
fleeing for safety" in the event of a US-led attack on
that country.
Such contingency planning - a
process currently under way in most Middle Eastern and
South Asian countries - reflects the evolution of state
policy in the region over the prospect of a US attack on
Iraq. In Iran's case, it at present hosts a major
opposition group, the Shi'ite Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
The unanimity
demonstrated at the UN Security Council on Iraq reflects
both the awesome political influence of the United
States and the virtual absence of serious resistance
among nations that otherwise have strong reservations
regarding a war against Iraq. In the end, doubters like
Russia and France and even Syria fell in line, unwilling
to pay the political and economic price of standing up
to the American juggernaut.
In the days since it
was passed Friday, the UN resolution has been open to
varying interpretations. The optimists, Syria and the
Arab League included, are hoping against hope that by
giving diplomacy and inspections "one last chance", war
may be averted.
At their November 10 meeting in
Cairo, Arab foreign ministers supported the UN
resolution on the plea that it "does not constitute
automatic military action". Syria justified its
surprising acquiescence to the resolution on the same
grounds, citing the absence of any "automaticity" in
military action following the inspections of Iraq's
weapons.
The realists, chiefly the Americans
plus other more hard-nosed countries in the region like
Iran, see the UN resolution as merely providing the
prelude to what is an impending military strike,
although certainly not an imminent one.
The
prevailing view among Muslim regimes is that of
pragmatism. They are basically acquiescing to a war that
they feel is inevitable and which they are not in a
position to prevent. Hence, for them, it is better to be
on the winning side than to earn American wrath, a
safety first approach that Syria has taken, along with
other countries, such as Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain. Key
countries like Pakistan and Jordan have formally
enunciated policies coined around the slogan: "Pakistan
First" and "Jordan First", thereby subordinating
pan-Islamic solidarity to the national interest.
However, there are three concerns and trends
that may not be Iraq-specific but which certainly
impinge on perceptions and policies in the Islamic
world.
First, the results of democratic
elections in four Muslim countries within a span of
eight weeks have spawned successes for Islamist
political forces. Morocco, Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey
have shown striking strides for such political forces,
all of which are either suspicious or critical of any US
plans to militarily attack Iraq.
This is an
expression of Muslim popular sentiment that certainly
cannot be ignored, since at least three of these
countries - Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey - are key
allies of the United States and host US forces and bases
on their soil.
Second, there is concern about
human rights and due process for Muslim detainees held
by the United States for alleged terrorism, in the wake
of the killings of alleged al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen
on November 3 by the US Central Intelligence Agency,
through missiles fired by an unmanned, armed aircraft.
Six men were killed, including a US citizen.
Such murders by a state against citizens, even
if they are presumed to be terrorists, are a violation
not only of international law but also US law itself.
None of these men were arrested, charged, tried and
convicted, they were just liquidated by a missile.
In this regard, the British and Pakistani judiciary
deserve to be commended for upholding the rule of law.
The Lahore high court stopped the government from
handing over Dr Amer Aziz, a Pakistani doctor being
questioned for alleged al-Qaeda links, to the Americans.
Similarly, a panel of three British judges on November 8
criticized the indefinite detention of more than 10
months of a British citizen of Pakistani origin at
Guantanamo Bay, without charges or a trial.
Third, there are worries about the virtually
racist comments of former French president Valery
Giscard d'Estaing about mainly Muslim Turkey. In the
November 8 issue of Le Monde newspaper he said, "Turkey
has no place in the European Union, because it has a
different culture, a different way of life, and
admitting Turkey would be the end of the European
Union."
As for Iraq, in the end it will have no
choice but to accept the inspections mandated by the UN
resolution. But the Islamic world's concerns boil down
to a key question: Given the talk of Iraqi occupation,
what is the American agenda in Iraq, and after Iraq? In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, many are
finding themselves wondering, along with Malaysian Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad, whether the "war against
terror" is indeed being transformed into a "war against
Muslims".
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
