Ibrahim Nafie appeals for a more rational approach to resolving the current dilemma in Iraq Adverse as I am to obsessive conspiracy theorising there is a clear thread that links events in Iraq with events in Palestine and events in these two countries with developments in a number of other Arab countries. It is this thread that leads me to believe that designs are being woven for the Arab world. I feel it my duty to investigate what I can only regard as a conspiracy in order to better contribute to the formulation of a vision for collective Arab action in cooperation with those forces and nations that are not party to this weaving. Something has gone terribly wrong in Iraq. The current controversy in Washington over the US administration's policy in that country, the dispute between the five permanent members of the Security Council over the wording of a new resolution on Iraq, the furor in Britain over the forged evidence used to justify the war and over the suicide of David Kelly, which has been fuelled further by the recent announcement by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that he had tried to dissuade Prime Minister Tony Blair from participating in the military operation against Iraq but to no avail -- these are among the many phenomena indicative of the extent of the predicament in which the occupation authorities have landed themselves. One aspect of this predicament resides in the total inability of US-British forces on the ground in Iraq to control security. The nature and scope of the operations being mounted against US targets in particular puts paid to any notion that resistance is limited to remnants of the former regime. This has become palpably obvious in the emergence of previously unheard of groups and organisations, responsible for such terrorist operations as the bombings of the Jordanian Embassy and UN headquarters in Baghdad, in addition to repeated strikes against Iraqi infrastructure. In addition, the growing death toll among American soldiers is generating a tide of public opinion in the US increasingly reminiscent of the protest movement against the war in Vietnam. Another dimension of the predicament is playing itself out in the corridors of the Security Council. France, Germany and Russia, which had spearheaded the opposition of the majority of the international community to the war on Iraq, adamantly reject Washington's draft resolution to create a multinational force for Iraq because it provides no clear timetable for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people. I strongly suspect that Washington wants the Security Council to approve such a force solely for the purpose of taking the heat off US and British troops. Adding weight to this suspicion is the fact that US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in statements issued during his recent visit to Iraq, refused to specify a time frame for a political process that would transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. During his recent visit to Italy and France President Mubarak put his finger on the crux of the issue. In an interview with France's Channel 2, Mubarak said: "The only solution to the Iraqi situation is for the people of the country to assume control of their own government. Any nation that says it will govern Iraq does not know the character and psychology of the Iraqi people. If a solution is not found whereby the people are given the opportunity to rule themselves this may lead to an increase in international terrorism." The French, Germans and Russians, in their objection to Washington's draft resolution, echo the discernment of the Egyptian president. However, it was French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin who most succinctly underscored the flaws in the thinking of the US administration on Iraq. In an article appearing in Le Monde of 12 September he wrote: "In the Middle East the exclusively security-based option only maintains the cycle of violence and of reprisals with the risk of destroying any political prospects." He goes on to urge greater focus on the political dimension, towards which end he proposes several concrete steps towards the re- establishment of Iraq's sovereignty. These include elections to be held as soon as possible -- he proposes Spring 2004 -- to be followed by an international conference "to tackle together all the problems linked to reconstructing Iraq". Unfortunately the US administration remains deaf to such advice and pleas from world leaders. Indeed, it appears to be actively evading the political process by portraying Iraq as the major front in the war against terrorism. As Powell told reporters in Baghdad: "The major new threats are the terrorists who are trying to infiltrate into the country for the purpose of disrupting this very hopeful process and we will not allow that to happen." Realising that this rhetoric failed to wash with Arab and international opinion, the US administration attempted to press other emotive buttons in its bid to secure support for its continued occupation without having to commit itself to a time frame for restoring sovereignty to Iraq. True to form President Bush, in his appeal to "friends and allies to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq", said that the choice now was between civilisation and chaos and that "no free nation can remain neutral." I have little doubt that the US administration will budge from its position because this position, contrary to its claims, has no bearing on moral considerations or the interests of other peoples and nations. Washington's policy on Iraq is part of a purely self-serving agenda for the Middle East as a whole, one that intersects neatly with Israel's agenda for Palestine. But, the Bush administration should realise that we in the Arab world are fully aware of the nature of its agenda and that its attempts to disguise its plans to prolong its occupation of Iraq behind moral pretexts and humanitarian missions are futile. Washington must also understand that its current policy in Iraq is unacceptable to the Arab world and that it is certain to aggravate international terrorism. If, as Washington claims, Al-Qa'eda is present in Iraq, then it only has itself to thank. It is ironic that Washington portrayed its war against Baghdad as part of the war against terrorism only to find that its war and subsequent occupation of Iraq have created the world's foremost breeding ground for terrorism. In its determination to prolong its occupation of Iraq and its refusal to heed Arab and European advice on practical ways to resolve the current situation Washington has extended an open invitation to extremist groups to work directly against the US. Former President Bill Clinton, and other members of his Democratic administration, are now bitterly aware of the crisis to which the Bush administration has led their country. Bush had alienated the world in the war his administration waged against terrorism in the wake of 11 September, Clinton said, adding that "instead of uniting the world behind us, he has turned the world against us." Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was no less vociferous in her attack against Bush's policy on Iraq, which, she said, had caused severe strains between the US and its friends and allies. To me the US administration's adamant refusal to discuss the political dimension of the Iraqi problem and its determination to treat it exclusively from the security perspective clearly suggest that the architects of this scheme for the region are from the ultra- conservative and Zionist right. It is little wonder, therefore, that this scheme should be so heartily embraced by Israel which, having shored up the territorial edifice of the state, is now proceeding to the second phase of its project: regional domination. This makes it all the more imperative for Arab leaders to treat the situation in Iraq for what it really is. We are faced with a traditional occupation of a pivotal Arab nation, an occupation that is no more than a link in the chain of a fully-fledged plan to dismember the Arab world and destroy its identity in order to promote purely American interests, and the interests of Washington's number one ally in the region, Israel. Perhaps the first step in countering the designs of the current US administration is to work together with nations, such as France, Germany and Russia, towards ensuring a clear linkage between security and political processes in a new UN Security Council resolution. Towards this end it will be of crucial importance to stress moral and legal considerations. Specifically, Washington had justified its war on Iraq on the need to eradicate weapons of mass destruction. Having waged its war and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein Washington has failed to produce any evidence of the presence WMD. The deception was nothing less than a political ruse, made no better by subsequent rhetoric issuing from Washington and such cosmetic gestures as the creation of an Interim Council at a time when the Iraqi people are clamouring for independence and sovereign rule. The voices of reason also suggests that elections in Iraq should be held as soon as possible. De Villepin has suggested next spring and President Mubarak has stated that six months should be sufficient to prepare for such elections. However, we can expect American resistance to general elections primarily because its occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 11 September or WMD and everything to do with US plans to redraw the map of the Middle East and to secure Israel's regional hegemony. The challenges before the Arab world are formidable. Until now the poor level of inter-Arab cooperation has acted as a goad not only to the US but to a small power that aspires to become a major regional power and gobble up more Arab territory in the process. It is time to reverse that process by working together to confront the designs against us and then to move on towards the formulation of a collective project for Arab national revival. The opportunities and abilities are available and we have many ideas that can be developed. The question is whether we can summon the necessary political will.
