In the images coming from Iraq, racist occupation rears its ugly head , writes Amira Howeidy A new storm of images flooded media channels this week. CBS aired more evidence of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. This time it's a video diary of a female officer showing her disdain for Iraqi detainees who died in her charge in Camp Bucca, southern Iraq. Meanwhile, from Iraq, a different kind of video was released: the murder by beheading of Nicholas Berg, a 26-year old American who went to "rebuild" Iraq. This video's authenticity has not yet been verified. It was released to the world on the "Islamic" web site Muntada Al- Ansar, which previously posted statements by Osama Bin Laden. Save for one who claimed to be the West's new bogeyman, Abu Musab Al- Zarqawi, the top Al-Qaeda suspect, the identities and nationalities of Berg's hooded captors was not revealed. Whoever they might be has become irrelevant in the wake of the hysteria their video has caused. Not only does the beheading of an American divert attention from the Abu Ghraib scandal, it gives more moral justifications for those who support the war. What is certain is that an image warfare has begun, stirring emotions in both the Western and Arab worlds and further deepening distrust of the US in the region. "Why would the Pentagon release pictures of US soldiers humiliating Iraqis?" asked Galal Amin, professor of economics at the American University in Cairo. "I wonder if the pictures are deliberate; a message to the Arabs that summarises an opinion: 'This is what we think of you, this is what you deserve.'" Indeed, images of a US soldier pulling a naked Iraqi prisoner by a leash or the British soldier urinating on another Iraqi, many others argue, depict the racism at the heart of the Anglo-American occupation. It is precisely the occupation that the Arabs should be reacting to, commentators stressed this week. In a widely read article published in the daily Al-Ahram on Tuesday, columnist Fahmy Howeidy emphasised the importance of addressing the "main question" and the "real scandal", which is the occupation of Iraq. "The atrocities committed in Abu Ghraib are only a chapter of the real problem which is occupation," he wrote. In the same vein, human rights groups are outraged by America's systematic violation of international law. George W Bush's apology or the political career of Donald Rumsfeld, says Nasser Amin, head of the Arab Centre for the Independence of the Judiciary and Legal Profession (ACIJLP), "are totally irrelevant". The only acceptable reaction must be legal, he told Al-Ahram Weekly. "These are war crimes. Those who committed them must be prosecuted up to the highest point on the chain of command." After centuries of the struggle for norms of international justice, enshrined in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Landmine Treaty, the war crimes tribunals for Bosnia and Rwanda, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC), the US is systematically debasing this legacy. In the course of two years, the Bush administration launched illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, killed tens of thousands of civilians and destroyed the infrastructure and heritage of these countries. "International humanitarian law and the international system -- the UN -- are under attack by the US," argued Amin. Now, after ousting a dictatorship in Iraq that relied on torture the Anglo-American alliance has been revealed to be no better. Here in Egypt, the ACIJLP and a number of human rights groups have launched a campaign to pressure the Egyptian government to cancel its bilateral agreement with the US that grants US personnel immunity from prosecution before the ICC. The Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHR) sent a statement to the Arab League urging its secretary-general to add the issue of similar US bilateral agreements with Arab countries on the agenda of the coming Arab Summit. "The stance of Arab states," a statement by CIHR said, "must not be limited to meaningless verbal condemnation [of human rights violations] in light of the immoral bilateral agreements some of these governments signed which protect war criminals, giving them free reign to commit their crimes." But CIHR's call might fall on deaf ears. Arab states have been conspiciously silent about the situation in Iraq. Behind closed doors at the Arab League's Cairo headquarters this week, tension grew when the issue of Iraqi prisoners' torture was brought up by Syria. It was met with an angry response from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zibari, who objected to the principle of "deviating" from the "main issue" which is "building Iraq". On the other hand, Iraqi Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin said yesterday that Iraq would do everything within its power to bring the killers of Nicholas Berg to justice. "Those psychopaths who committed this immoral crime should get their deserved punishment," he said. His vitriol, and Zibari's revulsion at the suggestion of putting the war crimes of the occupation forces on the agenda of the upcoming Arab summit, is strangely in harmony with President Bush's moral evaluation of the "evil" people the US is fighting. Is this the New American Century? With Bush insisting that his defense secretary did an "outstanding" job launching two illegal wars at the turn of the 21st century, and in the light of obstacles in holding power -- in this case the United States -- to account, many Arabs are wondering if imperialism and colonialism is all the Pax Americana has to offer.
