|
Beware
of Americans Bearing Gifts
|
|
|
Scenes
of jubilation quickly gave way to rage at the presence of
foreign forces in the land. |
In our line of work, we’re often
confronted with the unenviable task of responding to copious volumes
of e-mail, a substantial part of which is acrimonious ranting
directed at all things Muslim and/or Arab. Admittedly, there is a
certain gratification to be had in ripping to shreds some of these
little racist diatribes, and I confess that when I finally click my
“send” button, I often do so with undeniable relish.
The
novelty starts to wear off, however, with the tenth, almost
identical such e-mail, and the sense of redundancy sets in. The
realization dawns: Something is not getting through to those people.
Their
confusion often revolves around a handful of basic issues: Why are
Muslims and Arabs so cynical and mistrustful of US intentions
towards Iraq? Why are they incapable of just being happy for all
those Iraqis being liberated? And if they claim that they know
Saddam is a tyrant, why have they done nothing for their Iraqi
brethren in their years of toil under the iron fist of Saddam and
the Baa’th?
There
are more, of course, but perhaps the above are representative of the
overarching themes that seem to plague the more electronically
inclined (and hostile) readers.
So,
to begin: Yes, we are quite cynical and mistrustful. We are possibly
among the most jaded of people, and rightfully so. The Middle East
is a good place to live if you want to watch international law in
action, or rather, in inaction. Selective application is the name of
the game in this part of the world. Cases in point: Iraq and Israel.
I won’t waste everyone’s time citing the obvious similarities in
attributes between the two nemeses, attributes used as a casus belli
in the former while being disregarded in the latter. Others have
done that much better than I ever can. Israel’s record is a
definitive response to many of the accusations leveled by the US at
Iraq. No worries there.
The
average American is at a loss as to the grievances of the
Muslim and Arab world towards the US. |
|
My
conversations revealed one thing: that the average American is
sincerely at a loss as to the grievances of the Muslim and Arab
world towards the USA. More disturbing, however, is the calculated
and feigned ignorance of the Bush administration in this regard, for
how else can one describe pathetic, reductionist statements like
“They hate us because they hate freedom”?
Were
one to organize a symposium on the causes of this hatred of the
West, it is not unreasonable to assume one would end up with enough
material to create a veritable encyclopedia.
Of
course, not all grievances against the US are Muslim and Arab. Not
by a long shot. Anti-Americanism is a phenomenon that is rapidly
sweeping the globe, as evidenced by spontaneous outbursts everywhere
from Germany to China. This is unsurprising, given the scope of US
involvement around the globe.
Not
all grievances against the US are Muslim and Arab. |
|
This
anger does not stem from envy. This is a crucial misconception
people must overcome if they actually seek to understand what’s
going on around them, a misconception that only serves to solidify
stereotypes of US arrogance. I once had the misfortune of being the
target of an extremely condescending lecture by an American, who
explained to me, (in nice, short words, out of appreciation for the
fact that I’m Arab) that hostility towards the US was merely a
facet of the “Underdog syndrome,” in which support of the weaker
party or “underdog” is also coupled with a hatred of the larger
belligerent (the US in any given case). In other words, he was
attempting to explain to me that my hostility towards US foreign
policy was generated by nothing more than my own ineptitude and
personal failures, and this farcical little theory could be
extrapolated further to explain away a couple of generations who
grew up hating America.
The
primary downside to this theory, one could hold, is that it is based
on a demented conception of US infallibility. The US administration
cannot possibly have done anything to earn such rabid hatred, and
therefore, there can be no legitimate basis for any such sentiments.
I, and many millions of others, would like to assure US citizens
that this is not the case. Allow me to elaborate.
Anger
at the US does not stem from envy. |
|
First
and foremost, it is perhaps the hypocrisy that gets to us. We can
all appreciate the fact that states act in their own interest. This
is completely normal. We take issue, however, with states that claim
to hold higher ideals and values, while only exhibiting interest in
said ideals where they coincide with major interests. Let us take
the much-touted human rights as an example.
Human
rights are ostensibly a major concern for the US. They’re a
fundamental tenet of its foreign policy. That’s a comforting
thought for many millions of Arab Muslims living under terrible
dictatorships and tyrannical rulers. Has relief materialized for
these people? No. The only Arab tyrant the US has exhibited any form
of interest in is Saddam Hussein. And, unsurprisingly to many Arabs,
Saddam’s human rights record only became an issue when he invaded
Kuwait. Prior to that, mass gassings, executions, torture,
disappearances, the war of aggression waged against Iran – all
minor details when compared to Iraq’s extensive oil wealth, and
it’s willingness to hold back the tides of Islamic militancy
emanating from Khomeini’s Iran.
And
now that the first chapter of the war is ending, human rights seem
to be a marginal issue to the US. As Robert Fisk noted, there is no
evidence of any attempt to actually investigate the houses of
horrors where Iraqi intelligence tortured, raped, maimed and killed.
Nothing. As Fisk put it, referring to the ubiquitous torturers that
Bush and Blair constantly reminded us of,
Were
they monsters, these men? Yes. Are they sought by the Americans? No.
Are they now working for the Americans? Yes, quite possibly –
indeed some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security
thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the
hope of being re-hired by the US Marines' Civil Affairs Unit.
The
names of the guards at the Qasimiyeh torture centre in Baghdad are
in papers lying on the floor. They were Ahmed Hassan Alawi, Akil
Shaheed, Noaman Abbas and Moham-med Fayad. But the Americans haven't
bothered to find this out. So Messrs Alawi, Shaheed, Abbas and Fayad
are welcome to apply to work for them.
Let
us add another question to the list so kindly provided by Mr. Fisk.
Are Muslims and Arabs shocked and surprised? No.
There
is no evidence of any US attempt to investigate Iraqi
intelligence torture, rape or murder. |
|
Promising
to make the lives of Iraqis better, US forces stood by and watched
as looters rampaged through Iraq, burning and pillaging. The
Ministries of Oil and the Interior, however, are well protected.
Rumsfeld consoles us for the chaos that has left a great deal of
Baghdad in ruins by informing us “free people are free to commit
mistakes, and to commit crimes.”
I
often ask my correspondents, particularly Americans, if they know
anything about the nature of the regimes their government considers
“moderate” or “allies” and the like.
Was
Saddam the worst dictator in the Middle East? Probably yes. Saddam
became the undisputed champion in that regard when his main rival,
Hafez “the Butcher of Hamaa” El-Assad died. Is he the only
dictator in the Middle East? Certainly not. Pick just about any
country in the region. Odds are it’s ruled by some form of
dictatorship, with varying degrees of repression. That fact,
however, does not prevent the US from pumping billions into the
coffers of these tyrants, and giving them guns aplenty. Why? Because
it is in the interests of the US to have secular, brutal dictators
in power, rather than, for example, an Islamic government,
regardless of the terrible toll these regimes inflict on their
people. Because in the final, cynical analysis, that toll is not
inflicted on Americans.
|
|
|
Iraqis
marching against US occupation in Baghdad |
Now
take a look at the various regimes that rule the Middle East,
regimes whose relations with the US cover a spectrum ranging from
“cordial” to “excellent.” Look at the “moderates.” Check
for their relations with the US. Some receive economic aid, others,
arms, some, both. Some are merely acknowledged as “democratic.”
Now, check some human rights reports on these same states that enjoy
such friendly and lucrative ties with the US. Do you see the
problem? No? Look again.
You
guessed it. Torture, creative forms thereof, is rife in most of
these countries. Democracy? Non-existent. Electoral fraud? A way of
life in countries where the incumbent is often reelected unopposed
with more than 90% of the vote. Parliament? A rubber stamp for
presidential decrees. Thousands of political and/or administrative
detainees? Naturally. Extra-judicial killings? You bet. Widespread
corruption? Uh-huh. Massive detention camps? Yes. Inhuman prison
conditions? What else?
Therein
lies much of the problem. The US cannot, with a straight face, tell
us it cares about democracy and the human rights of the people of
this region and expect us to take it at face value. A claim like
that, if not met with derisive laughter, will be met with guarded
skepticism and extreme cynicism. And automatically, the question
will follow: “What’s in it for the US?” We’ve lived far too
long and far too painfully under tyrants and dictators to fall for
an old one like “We’re coming to free the Iraqis,” or “this
is about human rights.” I’ve said this before, and it bears
repeating: We’ve lived under despots for decades, and as long as
our despots keep the US administration and its investors happy,
we’ll live under them for decades more.
Which
returns us to the one of the main questions: Why don’t Arabs do
something about it themselves?
They’ve
tried. On many occasions, and in various forms: democratic
transition, military coup, armed uprising. And these attempts have
been crushed ruthlessly, maybe even by soldiers bearing US weapons.
The
US is more likely to support a secular, repressive despot
than a democratically elected Islamist. |
|
Except,
here’s something else the average American doesn’t understand:
If you really let the people of these countries you so desperately
want to “liberate” exercise their democratic rights and choose
what kind of government they want, it almost certainly won’t be
the kind of government you’ll be comfortable with. How is this
relevant? Because ultimately, the US is more likely to support a
secular, repressive despot than a democratically elected Islamist
government.
When
I’m smugly asked why we’ve done nothing to help “liberate”
the Iraqis and thereby obviate the need for a US intervention that
unsurprisingly spends more time protecting oil wells than people and
hospitals, my response is that the average Arab has enough to worry
about with his own homegrown Saddam. Furthermore, organized and
constructive interest in the plight of neighboring regimes’
victims is often dealt with as a threat in and of itself, as it
raises potentially embarrassing questions about the state’s
foreign policy and relations with the US.
All
that said, I can’t think of any Arabs who would welcome freedom
from oppression riding into their capital on American tank turrets.
The embarrassingly short-lived scenes of jubilation in the streets
of Baghdad proved premature the gloating of the American
neo-conservatives and their ilk. Grandiose comparisons with the fall
of the Berlin wall and the liberation of Paris were rendered
obsolete and hastily discarded with the first angry and violent
demonstrations demanding the departure of US troops. “No to
Saddam, no to America.” Surprised? We weren’t.
Do
you have an opinion to share on this article? Click
here to participate in our ongoing discussion.
Azizuddin
El-Kaissouni is staff writer for IslamOnline. A graduate of
the American University in Cairo, he holds a BA in Political Science
with a specialization in International Law. He frequently writes
about the status of Muslim minorities around the world. You can
reach him at azizuddin@islam-online.net.
|
