From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 12:40:10 MDT
America's case for war is built on blindness,
hypocrisy and lies. George Bush and Donald
Rumsfeld are wilfully ignoring the realities of the
Middle East. The result can only be catastrophic
By Robert Fisk
[The Independent - 15 September 2002]: Years ago, in a snug
underground restaurant in downtown Tehran, drinking duq - an
Iranian beverage of mint and yoghurt - Saddam Hussein's former
head of nuclear research told me what happened when he made a
personal appeal for the release of a friend from prison. "I was
taken directly from my Baghdad office to the director of state
security," he said. "I was thrown down the stairs to an
underground cell and then stripped and trussed up on a wheel
attached to the ceiling. Then the director came to see me.
" 'You will tell us all about your friends - everything,' he
said. 'In your field of research, you are an expert, the best.
In my field of research, I am the best man.' That's when the
whipping and the electrodes began."
All this happened, of course, when Saddam Hussein was still our
friend, when we were encouraging him to go on killing Iranians
in his 1980-88 war against Tehran, when the US government -
under President Bush Snr - was giving Iraq preferential
agricultural assistance funding. Not long before, Saddam's
pilots had fired a missile into an American warship called the
Stark and almost sunk it. Pilot error, claimed Saddam - the
American vessel had been mistaken for an Iranian oil tanker -
and the US government cheerfully forgave the Iraqi dictator.
Those were the days. But sitting in the United Nations General
Assembly last week, watching President Bush Jr tell us with all
his Texan passion about the beatings and the whippings and the
rapes in Iraq, you would have thought they'd just been
discovered. For sheer brazen historical hypocrisy, it would have
been difficult to beat that part of the President's speech.
Saddam, it appears, turned into a bad guy when he invaded Kuwait
in 1990. Before that, he was just a loyal ally of the United
States, a "strong man" - as the news agency boys like to call
our dictators - rather than a tyrant.
But the real lie in the President's speech - that which has
dominated American political discourse since the crimes against
humanity on 11 September last year - was the virtual absence of
any attempt to explain the real reasons why the United States
has found itself under attack.
In his mendacious article in this newspaper last week, President
Bush's Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, also attempted to
mask this reality. The 11 September assault, he announced, was
an attack on people "who believe in freedom, who practise
tolerance and who defend the inalienable rights of man". He
made, as usual, absolutely no reference to the Middle East, to
America's woeful, biased policies in that region, to its
ruthless support for Arab dictators who do its bidding - for
Saddam Hussein, for example, at a time when the head of Iraqi
nuclear research was undergoing his Calvary - nor to America's
military presence in the holiest of Muslim lands, nor to its
unconditional support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian
land in the West Bank and Gaza.
Oddly, a very faint ghost of this reality did creep into the
start of the President's UN address last week. It was contained
in two sentences whose importance was totally ignored by the
American press - and whose true meaning might have been lost on
Mr Bush himself, given that he did not write his speech - but it
was revealing nonetheless. "Our common security," he said, "is
challenged by regional conflicts - ethnic and religious strife
that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there
can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides."
Then he repeated his old line about the need for "an independent
and democratic Palestine".
This was perhaps as close as we've got, so far, to an official
admission that this whole terrible crisis is about the Middle
East. If this is a simple war for civilisation against "evil" -
the line that Mr Bush was so cruelly peddling again to the
survivors of 11 September and the victims' relatives last week -
then what are these "regional challenges"? Why did Palestine
insinuate its way into the text of President Bush's UN speech?
Needless to say, this strange, uncomfortable little truth was of
no interest to the New York and Washington media, whose wilful
refusal to investigate the real political causes of this whole
catastrophe has led to a news coverage that is as bizarre as it
is schizophrenic.
Before dawn on 11 September last week, I watched six American
television channels and saw the twin towers fall to the ground
18 times. The few references to the suicide killers who
committed the crime made not a single mention of the fact that
they were Arabs. Last week, The Washington Post and The New York
Times went to agonising lengths to separate their Middle East
coverage from the 11 September commemorations, as if they might
be committing some form of sacrilege or be acting in bad taste
if they did not. "The challenge for the administration is to
offer a coherent and persuasive explanation of how the Iraq
danger is connected to the 9/11 attacks" is about as far as The
Washington Post got in smelling a rat, and that only dropped
into the seventh paragraph of an eight-paragraph editorial.
All references to Palestine or illegal Jewish settlements or
Israeli occupation of Arab land were simply erased from the
public conscience last week. When Hannan Ashrawi, that most
humane of Palestinian women, tried to speak at Colorado
university on 11 September, Jewish groups organised a massive
demonstration against her. US television simply did not
acknowledge the Palestinian tragedy. It is a tribute to our own
reporting that at least John Pilger's trenchant programme -
Palestine is Still the Issue - is being shown on ITV tomorrow
night, although at the disgracefully late time of 11.05pm.
But maybe all this no longer matters. When Mr Rumsfeld can claim
so outrageously - as he did when asked for proof of Iraq's
nuclear potential - that the "absence of evidence doesn't mean
the evidence of absence", we might as well end all moral debate.
When Mr Rumsfeld refers to the "so-called occupied West Bank",
he reveals himself to be a very disreputable man. When he
advances the policy of a pre-emptive "act" of war - as he did in
The Independent on Sunday last week - he forgets Israel's
"pre-emptive" 1982 invasion of Lebanon which cost 17,500 Arab
lives and 22 years of occupation, and ended in retreat and
military defeat for Israel.
Strange things are going on in the Middle East right now. Arab
military intelligence reports the shifting of massive US arms
shipments around the region - not just to Qatar and Kuwait, but
to the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.
American and Israeli military planners and intelligence analysts
are said to have met twice in Tel Aviv to discuss the potential
outcome of the next Middle East war. The destruction of Saddam
and the break-up of Saudi Arabia - a likely scenario if Iraq
crumbles - have long been two Israeli dreams. As the United
States discovered during its fruitful period of neutrality
between 1939 and 1941, war primes the pumps of the economy. Is
that what is going on today - the preparation of a war to
refloat the US economy?
My Israeli colleague Amira Haas once defined to me our job as
journalists: "to monitor the centres of power". Never has it
been so important for us to do just that. For if we fail, we
will become the mouthpiece of power. So a few thoughts for the
coming weeks: remember the days when Saddam was America's
friend; remember that Arabs committed the crimes against
humanity of 11 September last year and that they came from a
place called the Middle East, a place of injustice and
occupation and torture; remember "Palestine"; remember that, a
year ago, no one spoke of Iraq, only of al-Qa'ida and Osama bin
Laden. And, I suppose, remember that "evil" is a good
crowd-puller but a mighty hard enemy to shoot down with a missile.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:05 MST