Deep-level Western racism has kept Arabs from fully realising their rights of self-determination, writes Ghassan Moukahal* The recent twist of events in Lebanon may seem extraordinary, but it's not. Events in Lebanon have much in common with other things happening around the region. Once again, the Arab state is being portrayed as the root of all evil. Once again, the Arab state is blamed for the region's lack of peace and reform. Time was that all the ills in this region were blamed on Israel, an aggressive state created with the blessing of Western imperialism and racism. Time was that Western countries, particularly the US, were blamed for keeping the Arabs down. Not anymore. Israel and the West, particularly the US, are no longer the culprits. The woes of the region are now commonly attributed to the corruption, repression and irrationality of the "Arab state". There is no denying that Arab states bear a certain responsibility for how things are. But it is unfair to disregard their achievements with regard to construction, education and other signs of development in the Arab world. It is unfair to focus solely on the shortcomings. It is unfair to assess the Arab state without taking external factors into consideration, without taking the Arab-Israeli conflict into account, and without recalling how slow the wheels of international justice were each time the Arabs were wronged. The assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri cannot be taken lightly, and yet many in Lebanon are trying to use the assassination to stage a coup against the "Arab state". Many are feigning outrage at Syrian domination and security incompetence for purposes of their own. The report by the fact-finding mission on Al-Hariri's assassination reads as if it had been prepared in advance, as if its aim was to prepare the local, regional, and international ground for the dismantling of the current Lebanese state. Many want to see a different kind of state in Lebanon, one with no clear identity, one that is merely a collation of sectarian mini-states, of easily manipulated entities. It is interesting how the UN secretary- general and major powers leaned towards the very conclusions drawn by the fact-finding mission even before the latter was formed. The Lebanese opposition also was discussing the conclusions of that mission weeks before these conclusions were published. The report may have been phrased in technical language but its aim was political: to lay the ground for the formation of an international investigating committee drawn up by UN resolution. I would not be surprised if some people begin suggesting that international forces be sent to Beirut to provide protection for the work of an international investigation committee. I would not be surprised if others begin suggesting that an international court be formed, for such a court would give the US the leverage it needs to bring Syria and Lebanon to heel. If this happens, the US would not even need to intervene militarily in these countries in the same way it did in Iraq. The US intervention in Iraq, if anything, has greatly curtailed US ability to intervene militarily in Syria and Lebanon. The Al-Hariri assassination is just a façade. The true aim of that investigation is to bring about changes in Lebanon and Syria. The true objective of that investigation is to reshape both countries in a manner that best suits US and Israeli purposes -- for example, to get rid of Hizbullah. The US wants to see the end of the "Arab state" in Lebanon. The US wants to end the political formula on which the state was created following the Taif agreement. This agreement was borne from the defeat of US and Israeli policy in Lebanon in the 1980s. The US and Israel are still seeking the same objectives for which Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. Lebanon's chieftains must be aware of US and Israeli goals, and apparently, they have no objection. What the state would lose in power, the chieftains would gain in stature. They may be clamouring for democracy and progress, but Lebanon's chieftains are feudal at heart. Needless to say, democracy cannot survive unless backed by a strong state. Current developments in Lebanon and the region have one thing in common. All are geared to boosting Israel's regional status and promoting US interests. The Sykes-Picot agreement never gave the West what it really wanted in this region. It neither guaranteed Western domination nor silenced Arab nationalism. The reason Sykes-Picot failed was that the Arab state stood fast. The Arab state has many failings, but it stood against Israel's domination of the region. Israel cannot thrive except in an atmosphere of proximate disputes, in a climate of division, preferably of a sectarian strain. The very concept of an Arab state, of a state loyal to pan-Arab ideals, is therefore a threat to Israel. Consequently, Israel cannot be properly protected unless the ideals of the Arab state are crushed. This was exactly what happened in Iraq. Following the war, the Americans dismantled the Iraqi state against the advice of many politicians in Iraq and even the US. The pan-Arab garb of the Iraqi state was shredded to pieces, and Lebanon is next in line, then Syria. Sudan has already gone some distance along this path. There, the West is attempting, on various pretexts, to strip the state of its Arab identity, prior to dismantling it altogether. The West is hoping to see a domino effect emerging across the region. It hopes to see the region populated by dissenting sects and tribes, not by cohesive and purposeful states. It has become fashionable for all sectarian and ethnic groups in the region to brag about their identity. Diverse factions can ask for anything, so long as it is not pan-Arab. It is fine to boast of one's Kurdish, Berber, Sunni, or Shia loyalties, but not of pan-Arabism. The latter is seen as a stigma, as something resonant with fascism, dictatorship and backwardness. This is the mood US policy wants to spread around the region, so as to control it better, so as to make Israel's dominance more palatable. The Kurds are acting as if they are the victors; not just in Iraq, but in the entire region. They have gone so far as to demand the control of land that has been Arab for hundreds, if not thousands, of years in Iraq and Syria. The Kurds even reject the Iraqi national flag on the pretext that they have been oppressed under that flag, even though they are not the only ones who were persecuted by Saddam. I would like to remind all that the modern Iraqi state bore the legacy of the British occupation that preceded it. The Iraqi state inherited the use of military violence against the Kurds from the British. It was the latter who used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1920s -- the first ever instance of chemical weapons used against civilians in human history. The Americans are encouraging racism against Arabs so as to deepen divisions in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. And yet it was not the Arabs who deprived the Kurds of their national rights to start with. The West drew the map of the region. The Arabs were victims along with everyone else in the region. The US wants to give the impression that the Arabs are not qualified to have a state, nor to pursue democracy on their own. Arab states are portrayed as being incapable of protecting their citizens and meeting their needs, the fact-finding report about Lebanon being merely one example. The solution, according to the US, is to place the Arabs and their countries under international custodianship. This is what has already happened in Iraq and is what the US wants to see happen in Lebanon, Syria, Sudan and elsewhere. * The writer is a Lebanese journalist.
