Backed into so many corners, both Arab governments and Arab liberals are out-manoeuvred by Washington's guile, writes Gamil Mattar* We issue proclamations, visit and are visited by dignitaries and make public announcements. We respond a lot, object a little, and march in demonstrations. We get killed daily in Jenin, Gaza, Falluja, and Baghdad, and sometimes kill some of them. But most of the time we contemplate in sadness, soak in stupidity, and remain where we are. We didn't go over the top when hundreds of Iraqis were killed in Falluja. We didn't show much emotion when one child after another was killed in Jenin, Tulkarm and Gaza. Israel must be saying this to the Americans: "Don't worry about the reaction of the Arabs, they will buckle under sooner or later, particularly once their governments feel their own future is at stake." The Americans got the message and went about killing with a swagger. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the government in Iraq -- the one that will assume power in that country in two months -- will be of partial sovereignty. Not one Arab government expressed dismay, not one Arab official objected. One has to admit that the scene in our region is quite different from how it was for many years. One has to understand that many of our governments are "embarrassed" -- an apt, safe, description, I believe. I imagine that our officials must be embarrassed because they are called upon everyday to take a position on the massacre of Arabs in Iraq, the massacre of Arabs in Palestine, and the many other massacres, battles and abuses going on all around us. But they never speak out, never lose their temper. People ask the leaders to act, then give up, and not because they have forgotten. There is also the matter of that landmine which the Americans, duplicitously, have implanted. The Americans are intensely pressuring certain Arab governments to undertake reforms, most of which touch on hitherto unquestioned privileges of the rulers; on hitherto denied rights of their peoples. But the Americans do not apply the same degree of pressure on all Arab governments. They make exceptions and this can be embarrassing. Embarrassment has insinuated itself into relations among Arab governments that are almost alike in every detail. Some are being asked to reform, which is a slur on their international reputation, a slight to their domestic dignity, and a smudge on their regional, Islamic and Third World credentials. Others are given a clean bill of health. In the eyes of their brethren, this last group is just as guilty as everyone else. Another embarrassment. The countries on which reform is being imposed are being asked to publicise their compliance, even if conditional. The aim of the public compliance requirement is to make rulers commit to reform before their nations. The embarrassment lies in the fact that many Arab governments feel that should they comply they would be accused by their own people of reforming without zeal -- only after coming under foreign pressure. Should they rebuff these pressures, these same governments would face a barrage of charges from all Western countries, all reform movements in the developing world, all civil society organisations worldwide, and their own peoples. They would be called dictatorial, denounced for refusing change and reform, and considered liable to indictment and punishment. Another embarrassment. In Arab countries, liberals have been working long and hard and making sacrifices to persuade their governments to introduce political reform. But Arab liberalism has mostly failed. It lost much of its credibility when it accepted the claim made by many governments to the effect that democracy may bring Islamist and rightwing extremists to power. Arab liberals took a position that was at once isolationist and contradictory. They didn't say, "We'll risk it." They didn't believe, with Fukuyama and other staunch liberals, that liberalism is an unstoppable force of history. The opposite happened. Arab liberals threw in the towel at the first challenge, preferring the comfort of being a liberal wing in an undemocratic regime to the honour of vying with others for power in a democracy. The liberals are embarrassed, not just because they no longer make sense, or because their leaders are obviously vying for the crumbs of power in a non-liberal context, but because Washington has hijacked the slogan of economic reform from under their noses. Suddenly the Arab liberals were challenged by liberal initiatives from abroad. This is an embarrassment. Should the liberals continue to call for reform, governments and those who benefit from the status quo would accuse them of siding with outsiders. Should they abandon the call for reform, critics would accuse them of forfeiting their principles and toeing the line of their governments. They would lose the glamour they have in the West, the support of human rights groups, all of which have been a source of strength and assorted privileges for years. Despite the abundance of embarrassment, I see no sign of embarrassment in Washington. If the latter is embarrassed, it has done a good job hiding this sentiment. How would one explain the fact that the US president showed signs of discomfort during his news conference with the UK prime minister, but not during the news conferences with President Mubarak or Sharon? It seems to me that the US president does not feel embarrassed so long as he is on the offensive. And he was on the offensive when he talked about the Palestinians, about reform in the Middle East and about the situation in Iraq. His air was triumphant as he stood next to the Arab leader, grateful and thankful when he stood next to the Israeli one. He was only defensive when he was with Tony Blair, but not in any way befitting the responsibility of his country in what has happened and is still happening. Washington is not telling the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine. Europe sees clearly the dimensions of the current international ordeal, of the US intervening everywhere under the leadership of a reckless elite that is a threat to world peace and stability. Yet America's withdrawal or a "hands-off" policy wouldn't be in the interest of peace and stability either. A sudden US pullout of Iraq, for example, would cause a massive conflagration while the continued occupation is equally disastrous. What is tragic is that there seems no middle way, at least not until the outcome of the US elections is known. The worst embarrassment, however, is that of our regional standing. Embarrassment disrupted the Tunis Arab summit and I expect the next summit to be just as hard going -- a summit of embarrassment, so to speak. Nothing can end the embarrassment except Arab leaders coming out to tell their peoples that they reject everything the US president told Ariel Sharon, that they reject the scrapping of prior agreements, breaches of international norms and the imposition of "realities on the ground". The Balfour Declaration was issued at a time when not one Arab country was free or independent. Now, a new Western promise that is more unjust than the Balfour Declaration has been made; a promise that is damaging and insulting to 20 independent, sovereign and proud Arab countries. Will an Arab summit, if held, keep silent on the Bush promise? Will it bless US actions against those Iraqis disgruntled with the occupation of their country? Will it accept reform imposed from abroad without qualification? Will the Arabs deign to be reduced to the status of their forefathers a century ago? Has anything changed since then? * The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
