-Caveat Lector- World dispatch http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,897483,00.ht ml
Poodle power Far from being the subservient partner in the transatlantic relationship, many Arabs believe that Britain actually holds the key to preventing a US- led invasion of Iraq, writes Brian Whitaker Brian Whitaker Monday February 17, 2003 The Guardian Arabs, unlike the British, are not particularly fond of dogs. "Kalb!" (dog) is what Arab drivers call other motorists who cut in or pinch their parking space. Dogs in the Middle East are dirty, snarly creatures and the idea of cuddling them or letting them lick your chin is thoroughly repulsive. So while everyone in Britain knows exactly what is meant by describing Tony Blair as President Bush's poodle, Arabs are usually baffled. There isn't, in fact, a genuine Arabic word for poodle. One English-Arabic dictionary (since there's no letter P in Arabic either) suggests "al-boodil" but adds, for the benefit of those who are still puzzled, that a boodil is "an intelligent dog with thick curly hair". It is therefore unsurprising that Arabs have developed their own, rather different, perceptions of the transatlantic relationship. Many of them ascribe much more importance to the British side of it than Britons themselves do: Britain, they believe, provides the brains while the US supplies the money and the muscle. In doggie terms, it's as if the poodle were taking Mr Bush for a walk rather than the other way round. The idea itself is not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. In the case of Iraq, Arabs point out that Britain plays a key role in drafting UN resolutions, and it was probably Mr Blair, with some help from Colin Powell, who persuaded Mr Bush to give the UN route a try instead of resorting immediately to Lone Ranger gunslinging. Such examples are certainly important but they don't tell the whole story. Mr Blair also went off to Washington to demand a solution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict in return for supporting the US on Iraq, and all he got was a little bone to gnaw on, in the shape of the "Road Map to Peace". The real nature of the British-American relationship is certainly difficult for outsiders - and sometimes insiders too - to understand. But it's particularly important at the moment that Saddam Hussein does not misunderstand it, since it figures large in his calculations. Iraq has made no secret of its view that Britain holds the key to avoiding war. It argues (rightly, I think) that, whatever unilateral action Mr Bush may threaten, he will not actually attack Iraq without British support. Iraq's goal, therefore, is to drive a wedge between Britain and the US. Mr Blair, in turn, is well aware of Iraq's goal and has made sure so far that no wedge can be driven. But Mr Blair is now paying the price for his solidarity with the US domestically. The protest march in London on Saturday - probably a million strong and certainly the largest anti-war demonstration Britain has ever seen - must be especially worrying for him. The participants included the usual leftwing elements but, overwhelmingly, the protesters were ordinary folk of the kind who elected Mr Blair and are now troubled by the direction in which the government is moving. A few days earlier, the government's latest horror dossier on Iraq was deservedly mocked when it emerged that whole pages had been copied from academic articles on the internet and passed off as coming from intelligence sources. Next came the strange affair of the "terror threat", when tanks that most people imagined were en route to Baghdad suddenly surrounded Heathrow airport. It is a measure of how Ba'athised Britain has become that, despite official insistence that the threat was genuine, many people dismissed it as a crude attempt to put us in the mood for war. Where Iraq and terrorism are concerned, the British public now treat their government's statements with the same incredulity that the Iraqi public treat the regime in Baghdad. The danger is that these events could easily be misinterpreted by Saddam. Just because Britain is a democracy (something that Saddam knows little, if anything, about), it doesn't mean that Mr Blair is going to fall from power or will be forced to change his policy. He could be punished at the next election, but that's too distant to be relevant just now. Even so, there are differences between Britain and the US that Saddam can exploit in order to save his skin. Britain's primary aim is to "disarm" Iraq and it favours removing Saddam by military means only if disarmament fails. The aim of the US, on the other hand, is the removal of Saddam, with the weapons issue merely providing legitimacy for his removal. The American neo-conservatives go even further, regarding regime change in Iraq as the trigger for toppling other governments in the region. What this means in practical terms is that effective disarmament of Iraq would satisfy Mr Blair and thus deprive Mr Bush of the support - and the excuse - that he needs for an invasion. Effective disarmament, to Mr Blair, means more than just getting a clean bill of health from the weapons inspectors. It requires active steps by Iraq to disarm and it means putting in place mechanisms to ensure it will not re-arm in the future. The big question is whether Saddam can be persuaded to do this. While some of the signs indicate that he would be very reluctant, others indicate that he might consider it. No one has ever satisfactorily explained why Saddam did not come clean about his weapons early in the 1990s, during the Unscom inspections. If he had, sanctions could have been lifted and Iraqi would be in a very different position today. The explanation may be psychological as much an anything; it is as if Saddam regards these weapons as part of his manhood. If so, then the choice he faces now is between castration and execution. Confronted with that, most men would probably opt for castration. The second reason for Saddam's reluctance is the obvious double standards applied to Iraq and Israel regarding weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has always argued that it should not be singled out for disarmament: Israel should give up its nuclear weapons too. This is a reasonable point, but pressing it will achieve nothing in the present circumstances. On the other hand, there are at least three strong reasons why Saddam should opt for proactive disarmament now. The first is that it will avoid war and allow his regime to survive. The second is that since Iraq claims to have no weapons of mass destruction anyway, renouncing them would involve no loss at all. The third is that since Iraq will never be allowed to develop such weapons in the future, it might as well make a virtue of the fact. It could even put the US on the spot by renouncing types of weapons that Washington itself insists on retaining. The White House website recently issued a long document hailing South Africa as a model of proactive disarmament. This was actually in the context of making a case for war - arguing that UN weapons inspections could never be an adequate solution - but it also (accidentally, perhaps) set out a possible escape route for Saddam. When Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, delivered his report to the security council last week, he revealed that a South African delegation had already visited Baghdad to explain what they had done to disarm, and would shortly be making a second visit. In addition, just two hours before Mr Blix spoke, Saddam belatedly issued a decree banning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These, it has to be said, are only small, tentative steps. But they do point to a way forward if Saddam is willing to take it - and take it quickly. This would also be very helpful to the beleaguered Mr Blair. Since he is less committed to regime change than Mr Bush, he would be able to claim that Britain's role in the military build-up had achieved success through the disarmament of Iraq. The US would then be isolated, deprived of any plausible grounds for an invasion, and the neo-conservatives would find their sinister plans frustrated. If Saddam plays it cleverly - and it's still a big if - we may yet see the poodle taking Mr Bush for a walk. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
