|
Daylight
Bribery?
Promises of US Additional Aid
 |
|
Republican
Arlen Specter |
The
US explicit promise to consider additional aid to Egypt in return
for Cairo’s support to Washington’s planned invasion of Iraq is
nothing but daylight bribery. The question now becomes, would US aid
to Arab states be considered blackmail or partnership?
On
Saturday, January 4, 2003, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania lawmaker
from US President George W. Bush’s Republican Party, said that the
US hoped Arab countries would back a UN-sanctioned attack on Iraq,
adding that Washington would consider additional aid to help
alleviate the impact of a war on Egypt.
“Well,
when you talk about an aid package to Egypt, the United States
considers Egypt a very good friend and a very good ally,” said
Specter, a member of the Senate appropriations committee. “If
there were to be a situation which required further analysis and
consideration, we would make that consideration,” he added.
However,
according to an Egyptian political analyst, “The message is clear;
only a fool would miss the stinking smell of blackmail. The US is
using all its tools to achieve its goals.
“The
US aid has been used for political objectives from the very
beginning, however, that was never as clear and as blunt as it has
been since Bush came to power. In the case of Saad
Eddin Ibrahim and A
Horseman Without A Horse, the aid was used as a pressure
tool. Now, it is used as a blackmailing chip,” added the analyst,
who asked not to be named.
 |
|
Egyptian
Scholar Saad Eddin Ibrahim |
The
analyst was referring to the case of a college professor and a human
rights activist, with a US citizenship, who was arrested and tried
by Egypt for spreading false information that tarnished the
country’s image outside, as well as other charges of receiving
foreign funds (allegedly to conduct social researches) without state
permission. He was sentenced, twice, to seven years in jail, and the
US practiced huge pressure over the Egyptian government for his
release, and even canceled an additional aid package approved
earlier to Egypt.
The
other case is a TV series that Israel claimed was anti-Zionist, and
the US followed suite, demanding Egypt not to air the series. Cairo,
however, refused the pressure, went ahead and aired the series
during the Muslim month of Ramadan.
“The
US goes on with huge military buildup in the region, despite the
full Iraqi submission to all demands of cooperation with the UN
weapons inspectors. When Bush says that war is America’s last
option, he is apparently lying, as Baghdad could never be the party
seeking its own destruction,” he went on.
Even
though no evidence of Iraq possessing any banned weapons has
surfaced so far, after the inspectors examined more than 236 sites,
the United States is still massing up troops in the region, equipped
with the most sophisticated weapons.
Wide-Scale
Quest for Support
On
the political level, the US is engaged in a hectic process to garner
the support of the entire region, for use of military bases and air
space as well as world support to guarantee any UN resolution it may
find itself forced to seek before going for the kill.
Making
use of Egypt’s harsh economic situation, the US is apparently
using its aid as a bargaining chip to guarantee the Egyptian
leader’s support for its “ambiguous” plans, to put it mildly.
Egypt’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Fayza Abul Naga,
said in December 2002 that a US war on Iraq would cost her country
from six to eight billion dollars in lost tourist, export and other
revenue.
Blackmail
Through Embarrassment
The
US aid may not come in handy in case of another important
“friendly Arab state”: Saudi Arabia, where not just moral
support is needed, but ground bases and air space are also undoable
with.
Observers
believe that the news of a Saudi secret approval to an attack on
Iraq, coupled with a consent to let the US use ground bases and air
space in its military operations, published by the New York Times
late December, citing US defense officials, was a deliberate leak
with ulterior motives.
The
Saudis, of course, were quick to deny the reports, asserting they
would not take part in any aggression on Iraq, even one sanctioned
by the UN. However, one cannot help but think, why? What’s the
catch behind such leaks?
Some
observers believe that such leaked news could either be true or
untrue, but that is not the point here. In both cases, the Bush
administration apparently wants to embarrass the Saudi royal family,
send them a clear message: “you want stability at home, do not
interfere with our plans, or your opposition groups will find more
than one opportunity to discredit you before your people.”
Within
the same context, press reports started highlighting an alleged
hunger strike by suspected al-Qaeda members in a Saudi prison
Friday, January 3. Also, statements by an opposition Saudi group,
based in London, started to find their way to news headlines.
The
question now is: Will the Saudis be able to stand the pressure till
the end? Or will they play it safe and use the standard Arabic
policy of talking tough against the US imperialistic attitude in
public, while acting differently on the ground?
This
question brings to mind a similar situation, but on a lesser scale.
When the US
fired an-air-to-ground missile from an unmanned spy plane,
killing 6 Yemenis, including an alleged al-Qaeda regional leader
some two months ago, the Yemeni officials were quick to cry “foul
play” and accuse the US of taking the law into its hands,
violating the air space of a sovereign state, etc.
A
few days later, it turned out that the US sought Yemen’s
“cooperation and permission” for the operation and actually got
“both in a complete and full scale.” The confession came from
the Yemeni side.
Horse
Trading Started Long Before
An
article published in the Los Angeles Times in September 2002, showed
that horse-trading (mild description of blackmail and bribery) has
actually started several months ago. After struggling for months to
talk other nations into supporting his military campaign on Iraq,
Bush began using cards they might find easier to understand: cash,
weapons, business deals and favors.
Bush’s
speech Thursday,
September 12, before the General Assembly of the United Nations
marked the start of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to see
what “inducements will help convert countries that so far have
been balking, at least publicly, at joining the US campaign to
strike Iraq.”
It
was only natural that the US administration’s initial focus was on
members of the United Nations Security Council, notably Russia,
France and China. Their backing was important, as the United States
tried to persuade the Council to enforce resolutions demanding that
Iraq abandon its (alleged) chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
programs.
Bush
actually managed in that part, and he got resolution 1441. Now, the
case seems different, he wants to strike, so it’s only logic that
other countries up the price.
Back
then, for example, US officials expected the Turks to ask for
weapons and debt relief, the Russians and French for access to Iraqi
oilfield business, the Qataris for cash to build an air base, and
the Jordanians for guarantees of oil and trade.
Now,
Turkey, a key US ally in the region, has already declared it wants
10% of the Iraqi oil, in return for its support for a US attack on
Iraq. Turkey ‘s strategic location and frequent cooperation have
made it America ‘s most important military partner in the region.
The Turks contend that their participation this time would add a
huge burden at a time when their country is trying to cope with
crushing economic problems. They are also deeply worried that war
with Iraq might lead to an independent Kurdish state that would
threaten their own eastern territory.
No
Serious Opposition
On
the international level, observers say that Bush will eventually get
what he wants, due to the many domestic problems facing the states
whose consent he seeks. Russia has the Chechnya problem, and
Moscow’s attempts to link the Chechens’ legal aspiration for
independence to world terrorism will never yield results without
America’s blessing.
Another
permanent Security Council member, China, faces a similar problem
with its Muslim minority, along with a very bad human rights record.
France may give Bush a hard time, according to observers, but it
will not stand in the face of the only superpower for the sake of
Iraq.
Yet
political observers and human rights activists continue to warn that
a US strike on Baghdad could mean a regional and possibly worldwide
explosion the scope or implications of which cannot be predicted.
Khaled
Mamdouh is an editor and staff writer in the News Desk of
IslamOnline. He is also a radio announcer, journalist and translator
for several Arabic magazines.
|
