SANITY, EXPERTISE FROM ROBERT FISK
"The problem is that America wants its own version
of
justice, a concept rooted, it seems, in the Wild
West
and Hollywood's version of the Second World War.
President Bush speaks of smoking them out, of the
old posters that once graced Dodge City: 'Wanted,
Dead or Alive'."
"President Bush's talk of a 'crusade' caused near
heart attacks among the Saudi rulers while the idea
of a 'long war on terror' has an unhappy ring for
the emirs and sultans of the Gulf."
HOW CAN THE U.S. BOMB THIS TRAGIC PEOPLE?
By Robert Fisk
[The Independent, UK - 23 September 2001]: We are witnessing this
weekend
one of the most epic events since the Second World War, certainly since
Vietnam. I am not talking about the ruins of the World Trade Centre in
New York and the grotesque physical scenes which we watched on 11
September, an atrocity which I described last week as a crime against
humanity (of which more later). No, I am referring to the extraordinary,
almost unbelievable preparations now under way for the most powerful
nation ever to have existed on God's Earth to bomb the most devastated,
ravaged, starvation-haunted and tragic country in the world.
Afghanistan, raped and eviscerated by the Russian army for 10 years,
abandoned by its friends -
us, of course - once the Russians had fled, is about to be attacked by
the surviving superpower.
I watch these events with incredulity, not least because I was a witness
to the Russian invasion and occupation. How they fought for us, those
Afghans, how they believed our word. How they trusted President Carter
when he promised the West's support. I even met the CIA spook in
Peshawar, brandishing the identity papers of a Soviet pilot, shot down
with one of
our missiles - which had been scooped from the wreckage of his Mig.
"Poor guy," the CIA man said, before showing us a movie about GIs
zapping the Vietcong in his private cinema. And yes, I remember what the
Soviet officers told me after arresting me at Salang. They were
performing their international duty in Afghanistan, they told me. They
were "punishing the terrorists" who wished to overthrow the (communist)
Afghan government and destroy its people. Sound familiar?
I was working for The Times in 1980, and just south of Kabul I picked up
a very disturbing story. A group of religious mujahedin fighters had
attacked a school because the communist regime had forced girls to be
educated alongside boys. So they had bombed the school, murdered the
head teacher's wife and cut off her husband's head. It was all true. But
when The Times
ran the story, the Foreign Office complained to the foreign desk that my
report gave support to the Russians. Of course. Because the Afghan
fighters were the good guys. Because Osama bin Laden was a good guy.
Charles Douglas-Home, then editor of The Times would always insist that
Afghan guerrillas were called "freedom fighters" in the headline. There
was nothing you couldn't do with words.
And so it is today. President Bush now threatens the obscurantist,
ignorant, super-conservative Taliban with the same punishment as he
intends to mete out to bin Laden. Bush originally talked about "justice
and punishment" and about "bringing to justice" the perpetrators of the
atrocities. But he's not sending policemen to the Middle East; he's
sending B-52s. And F-16s and AWACS planes and Apache helicopters. We are
not going to arrest bin Laden. We are going to destroy him. And that's
fine if he's the guilty man. But B-52s don't discriminate between men
wearing turbans, or between men and women or women and children.
I wrote last week about the culture of censorship which is now to
smother us, and of the personal attacks which any journalist questioning
the roots of this crisis endures. Last week, in a national European
newspaper, I got a new and revealing example of what this means. I was
accused of being anti-American and then informed that anti-Americanism
was akin to anti-Semitism. You get the point, of course. I'm not really
sure what anti-Americanism is. But criticising the United States is now
to be the moral equivalent of Jew-hating. It's OK to write headlines
about "Islamic terror" or my favourite French example "God's madmen",
but it's definitely out of bounds to ask why the United States is
loathed by so many Arab Muslims in the Middle East. We can give the
murderers a Muslim identity: we can finger the Middle East for the crime
- but we may not suggest any reasons for the crime.
But let's go back to that word justice. Re-watching that pornography of
mass-murder in New York, there must be many people who share my view
that this was a crime against humanity. More than 6,000 dead; that's a
Srebrenica of a slaughter. Even the Serbs spared most of the women and
children when they killed their menfolk. The dead of Srebrenica deserve
- and are getting - international justice at the Hague. So surely what
we need is an International Criminal Court to deal with the sorts of
killer
who devastated New York on 11 September. Yet "crime against humanity" is
not a phrase we are hearing from the Americans. They prefer "terrorist
atrocity", which is slightly less powerful. Why, I wonder? Because to
speak of a terrorist crime against humanity would be a tautology. Or
because the US is against international justice. Or because it
specifically opposed the creation of an international court on the
grounds that its own citizens may one day be arraigned in front of it.
The problem is that America wants its own version of justice, a concept
rooted, it seems, in the Wild West and Hollywood's version of the Second
World War. President Bush speaks of smoking them out, of the old
posters
that once graced Dodge City: "Wanted, Dead or Alive". Tony Blair now
tells us that we must stand by America as America stood by us in the
Second World War. Yes, it's true that America helped us liberate Western
Europe. But in both world wars, the US chose to intervene after only a
long and - in the case of the Second World War - very profitable period
of neutrality.
Don't the dead of Manhattan deserve better than this? It's less than
three years since we launched a 200-Cruise missile attack on Iraq for
throwing
out the UN arms inspectors. Needless to say, nothing was achieved. More
Iraqis were killed, and the UN inspectors never got back, and sanctions
continued, and Iraqi children continued to die. No policy, no
perspective. Action, not words.
And that's where we are today. Instead of helping Afghanistan, instead
of pouring our aid into that country 10 years ago, rebuilding its cities
and culture and creating a new political centre that would go beyond
tribalism, we left it to rot. Sarajevo would be rebuilt. Not Kabul.
Democracy, of a
kind, could be set up in Bosnia. Not in Afghanistan. Schools could be
reopened in Tuzla and Travnik. Not in Jaladabad. When the Taliban
arrived, stringing up every opponent, chopping off the arms of thieves,
stoning women for adultery, the United States regarded this dreadful
outfit as a
force for stability after the years of anarchy.
Bush's threats have effectively forced the evacuation of every Western
aid worker. Already, Afghans are dying because of their absence. Drought
and
starvation go on killing millions - I mean millions - and between 20 and
25 Afghans are blown up every day by the 10 million mines the Russians
left
behind. Of course, the Russians never went back to clear the mines. I
suppose those B-52 bombs will explode a few of them. But that'll be the
only humanitarian work we're likely to see in the near future.
Look at the most startling image of all this past week. Pakistan has
closed its border with Afghanistan. So has Iran. The Afghans are to stay
in their prison. Unless they make it through Pakistan and wash up on the
beaches of France or the waters of Australia or climb through the
Channel Tunnel or
hijack a plane to Britain to face the wrath of our Home Secretary. In
which case, they must be sent back, returned, refused entry. It's a
truly terrible irony that the only man we would be interested in
receiving from Afghanistan is the man we are told is the evil genius
behind the greatest mass-murder in American history: bin Laden. The
others can stay at home and die.
NERVOUS SAUDIS TELL U.S.:
WAR ON TERRORISM WILL NOT BE LAUNCED FROM OUR AIRFIELDS
By Robert Fisk
[The Independent, 24 September 2001, BEIRUT]: Supposedly allied in
close
friendship with the United States, Saudi Arabia declined to allow
America to use its airfields for President George Bush's "war on
terrorism'' yesterday. It specifically forbade US bombers to take off
for retaliatory strikes from the massive Prince Sultan airbase near the
capital, Riyadh.
The decision comes only a week after Lt-Gen Charles Wald, the head of
air operations for US Central Command, moved his headquarters to the
airbase
from South Carolina.
With truly ambiguous courtesy, a Saudi official announced that "Saudi
Arabia will not accept any infringement on its national sovereignty, but
it fully backs action aimed at eradicating terrorism and its causes.''
Many
thousands of Saudis - not least the "prime suspect" himself, Osama bin
Laden - will ask how Saudi Arabia suddenly intends to protect its
sovereignty when 4,500 US military personnel are still stationed in the
kingdom and when American planes still use its airfields - including the
Prince Sultan base - for bombing raids over southern Iraq. In any event,
eradicating the "causes'' of the atrocities in New York and Washington
are not President Bush's priority.
Off the record, the Saudis are saying they are worried about possible
strikes on other Muslim states - presumably including Afghanistan - and
that they want some power of decision over air operations, an idea that
is not going to commend itself to Messrs Bush and Powell. In reality,
however, Saudi authorities know that many thousands of Muslims in the
kingdom - including, it is said, prominent ulema (religious teachers)
and a number of Saudi princes - have voiced quiet support for Mr bin
Laden's demand that
the Americans pack up and leave Saudi Arabia.
The Americans will not be amused. More than half of the 19 hijackers who
took over the four American airliners on 11 September appear to have
been Saudi nationals - even those who used the identities of other
Saudis - and Mr bin Laden is himself a Saudi, though long since deprived
of citizenship. The Taliban, whom Washington now holds responsible for
Mr bin Laden, were the theological creation of the Saudi "wahabi" Sunni
sect, and - until sanctions were imposed on Afghanistan - a regular
flight linked Riyadh and the south-western Afghan city of Jalalabad.
The kingdom's alliance with the US began more than half a century ago
when President Franklin D Roosevelt invited King ibn Saud on board the
USS Quincy in 1945. The king set up his desert tent on the deck of the
American destroyer with seven sheep tied to the fantail to provide daily
fresh meat. He was promised that the US would never do anything which
might prove hostile to the Arabs. Three days later, Winston Churchill
forfeited Britain's hitherto leading influence with the Saudis by
declaring to the
king that "if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of
smoking and alcohol, I must point out that my rule of life prescribes as
an almost sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol
before, after, and - if need be - during all meals and in the intervals
between them.''
These days, the Saudis might prefer a less forceful British prime
minister to a US president whose nation so swiftly betrayed Roosevelt's
promise. But it was King Fahd who invited half a million US forces into
the kingdom after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 - a
"historical decision'' according to the king, a historical betrayal
according to Mr bin Laden - and it is Crown Prince Abdullah's burden to
support a continued US presence to deter further aggression from Iraq.
No such doubts assail President Saddam's victim, Kuwait. Although the
Emir, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah, only recently suffered a brain
haemorrhage, the Kuwaiti government has been more than happy to invite
the Americans - the liberators of 1991 - to send more armour and
fighter-bombers to the emirate. Bahrain, cleansed of its sinister secret
policemen and their British mentors, has also offered its facilities to
the US; its Gulf fleet has for years been based in the Bahraini capital
of Manama. The United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic relations with the
Taliban at the weekend, a decision which may be followed by Saudi
Arabia.
Yet it is not difficult to see the predicament of the Saudis and their
neighbours. The real problem for Gulf Arabs is the vagueness of
America's proposed military response to the mass murders in New York and
Washington. President Bush's talk of a "crusade'' caused near heart
attacks among the Saudi rulers while the idea of a "long war on terror''
has an unhappy ring for the emirs and sultans of the Gulf. They would
much prefer their own dictatorial stability than the necessity of
explaining to their own people why it is necessary to host another
American bombing campaign against Muslim nations.
The Saudis are genuinely mystified about American plans. Do they intend
to fire cruise missiles into Afghanistan, as President Bill Clinton did
after the US embassy bombings in Africa? Is Iraq to be included in the
list of
nations to be punished for the World Trade Centre atrocities? Or the
Hizbollah in Lebanon, who clearly have no connection with the crime but
who are eagerly being fingered by the Israelis? The FBI were infuriated
when
they were refused permission by the Saudis to interrogate the men
accused of bombing the Al-Khobar military barracks in which 24 US
soldiers were killed. The Americans were still pleading for the right to
talk to the three accused on the day they had their heads chopped off.
Last night, Saudi and US diplomats were dancing a very odd tango. The
Saudis would make no official statement about their refusal to deny
their bases to the Americans while the US embassy in Riyadh referred all
questions to the Pentagon. In turn, the Pentagon told journalists to
call the State Department - which declined to make any comment at all.
In retrospect, the Saudis may look back with some nostalgia to the
tough-talking, cigar-chomping, whisky-drinking British prime minister
who made a last vain attempt to maintain his country's supremacy in the
kingdom by sending King ibn Saud a veteran Rolls Royce - complete with a
throne behind the steering wheel.
ANTI-TERRORIST MOVE RAISES SUSPICION AMONG SAUDIS
[Pravda (Moscow) - Riyadh - 21 September]: U.S. President George W.
Bush's call to form an international coalition against terrorism has
raised the suspicion and fear among Saudis that such a coalition will
target Muslims, sources said yesterday. They said such a coalition will
give Washington and its Western allies the green light to level a
military strike against any Islamic country under the pretext that it
sponsors terrorism and will give America a free hand to accuse any
country. They added that this applies to Afghanistan.
Aqeel bin Saeed Al Anzi, a Saudi political analyst, warned that "the
U.S. scheme seems to target Muslims only. The world's countries,
especially the Arab and Islamic ones, must not comply with what
Washington attempts to
impose. "They should instead thoroughly study the implications of this
coalition, which is being dictated by Bush who threatens to regard any
country which rejects or expresses reservation over his orders as a foe
of the U.S.," he noted. He added: "All Arab countries wish to cooperate
with the international community to eliminate terrorism. However, this
should
not be the U.S. approach which gives no one a chance to think about or
study the type and goals of such a coalition."
Bush, he said, wanted the world's countries to follow him like sheep or
be punished. Al Anzi noted that he believed Washington had revealed its
ugly face after last Tuesday's attacks. "The U.S. uses the Arab and
Islamic countries to execute its goals. The American forces in the Gulf
have now become a sign of pressure being put on these countries to
comply with what Washington sees appropriate, giving them no time for
thinking."
Al Anzi said that no country in the region will allow U.S. troops to use
its land to launch attacks against any Arab or Islamic country, unless
this happens under extreme pressure. He stressed that the U.S. military
intervention to liberate Kuwait cannot be likened to the so-called
coalition to eradicate terrorism. The coalition's goals are indefinite,
and give it a mandate to launch attacks against any country at any time.
Al
Anzi expressed the hope that the Arab officials will convince Bush that
any coalition that groups their countries together should be an
international one under the UN umbrella. "Under such a coalition, no
country, including the U.S., should have the right to act on its own.
Any other form of coalition creates a tide of hatred against Washington
and its allies."
----------------------------------
MiD-EasT RealitieS - http://www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: 202 362-5266
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
