Saturday, September 27, 2003

[11:46 AM] In reading some of the obituaries for Edward Said, who passed away this week, I came across this excellent essay adapted from the introduction to the new edition of his book OrientalismOrientalism, by Edward Said

I wish I could say that general understanding of the Middle East, the Arabs and Islam in the US has improved, but alas, it really hasn't. For all kinds of reasons, the situation in Europe seems to be considerably better. What American leaders and their intellectual lackeys seem incapable of understanding is that history cannot be swept clean like a blackboard, so that "we" might inscribe our own future there and impose our own forms of life for these lesser people to follow. It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of changing the map of the Middle East, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar. But this has often happened with the "orient", that semi-mythical construct which since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in the late 18th century has been made and remade countless times. In the process the uncountable sediments of history, a dizzying variety of peoples, languages, experiences, and cultures, are swept aside or ignored, relegated to the sandheap along with the treasures ground into meaningless fragments that were taken out of Baghdad.

[…]

The major influences on George W Bush's Pentagon and National Security Council were men such as Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, experts on the Arab and Islamic world who helped the American hawks to think about such preposterous phenomena as the Arab mind and the centuries-old Islamic decline which only American power could reverse. Today bookstores in the US are filled with shabby screeds bearing screaming headlines about Islam and terror, the Arab threat and the Muslim menace, all of them written by political polemicists pretending to knowledge imparted by experts who have supposedly penetrated to the heart of these strange oriental peoples. CNN and Fox, plus myriad evangelical and rightwing radio hosts, innumerable tabloids and even middle-brow journals, have recycled the same unverifiable fictions and vast generalisations so as to stir up "America" against the foreign devil.

Without a well-organised sense that the people over there were not like "us" and didn't appreciate "our" values - the very core of traditional orientalist dogma - there would have been no war. The American advisers to the Pentagon and the White House use the same clichés, the same demeaning stereotypes, the same justifications for power and violence (after all, runs the chorus, power is the only language they understand) as the scholars enlisted by the Dutch conquerors of Malaysia and Indonesia, the British armies of India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, West Africa, the French armies of Indochina and North Africa. These people have now been joined in Iraq by a whole army of private contractors and eager entrepreneurs to whom shall be confided everything from the writing of textbooks and the constitution to the refashioning of Iraqi political life and its oil industry.

Click here to read the entire essay.

# posted 11:46 AM

[10:54 AM] This shouldn’t have been entirely unexpected

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said today that he told President Bush at a Camp David meeting that he would send "a clear but respectful signal to Iran" that it must comply with international inspections of its suspected nuclear weapons program, but Mr. Putin insisted that Russia would go forward with its plans to help Iran to build a nuclear reactor.

But no worries and I’m sure Bush knew this was coming, with his ability to see Putin’s soul and all.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the U.S. is eager to improve relations with Iran though unwilling to say so publicly. According this article back-channel meetings between Iran and the U.S. have been going on for the past two years (as they likely were during the Clinton years).

The CSM also runs a poorly written editorial with the provocative title “Avoiding an Iraq in Iran.” Only the last paragraph has anything remotely editorial and it’s pretty lame

But there's tension over whether to keep one card on the table: the threat of a military strike on Iran, or at least on its nuclear facilities. The US and Europe should avoid splitting over this issue and do everything short of war to make Iran comply.

#
posted 10:55 AM

Thursday, September 25, 2003

[5:42 PM] What’s going on with Iran’s nuclear program? Fields Report will attempt a somewhat sustained look at this subject for the next couple of weeks or so. Start here with this very recent article for some background.

#
posted 5:42 PM

Monday, September 22, 2003

[9:40 AM] Let’s put aside any pleasantries for a moment. The Bush administration may have genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction before Gulf War II. That’s not an untenable position by any stretch. However, it simply lied and misled when it made accusations of Saddam’s link to terrorism. As I’ve written here before, it had to; terrorists had to be the delivery vehicles for any WMD for them to be an imminent threat to the United States. But the fact is there just isn’t any evidence of a Saddam-al-Qaida link. Mr. Bush though has not let that stop him. He’s not going to let the inconvenience of a lack of evidence stop him from continuing to make these accusations. Now Iraq has become “the front line in the war on terror”. How? Because there are opposition forces fighting the U.S. occupation? That doesn’t make them terrorists. And there still has not been to my knowledge concrete evidence that the bombings targeting the U.N. and the Jordanian embassy were perpetrated by al-Qaida. Today Bush makes this statement

The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.

He slips in the still unproven terrorist accusation alongside the already proven fact that Saddam had a weapons program.

Okay, this is nothing new or surprising. But it is disappointing that Bush is allowed to make such egregiously false statements with little challenge from the media. No wonder Americans still believe Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks.

#
posted 10:49 PM

Thursday, September 18, 2003

[9:02 PM] Thomas Friedman thinks the French are hoping and waiting for the United States to fall on its face in Iraq

What is so amazing to me about the French campaign — “Operation America Must Fail” — is that France seems to have given no thought as to how this would affect France. Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run. To think that France, with its large Muslim minority, where radicals are already gaining strength, would not see its own social fabric affected by this is fanciful.

Who says France doesn’t? Does Friedman really think that France is stupid? It expects despite how it’s going right now for the U.S. to prevail. If it can get a dig in because of administration arrogance, of course it’s going to. Duh! The United States says that it will prevail in Iraq no matter what. So what makes more sense, for France to believe that and be uncooperative and thumb its nose at GWB or actually believe that it has to come to the “rescue” of the world’s only superpower?

This does not mark the return of my semi-regular “What’s wrong with Tom Friedman’s logic?” feature. It only signifies the first time in weeks I’ve been able to sit down and read the NYT thoroughly.

#
posted 9:03 PM

Monday, September 15, 2003

[11:34 PM] Here’s a bizarre if entirely misleading/inaccurate little tidbit from the Christian Science Monitor.

In Iraq, the United States can't find new allies to help it finish the job, but on another front in the war on terrorism, it's doing just fine.

Last week, the US convinced the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to give Iran an Oct. 31 deadline to suspend its uranium- enrichment program - a precursor to making nuclear weapons.
Europe worries as much as the US that a nuclear Iran - already a supporter of terrorist groups - would upset the Middle East power balance.

After the IAEA caught Iran cheating on treaty obligations in building a nuclear power plant, the US and Europe put Tehran's Muslim clerics on the spot: If Iran really has no intention to make nuclear weapons, then it can come clean with the IAEA.

It's a moment of truth for Iran.

Just a couple of points:

When did Iran become a front in the war on terrorism?

The deadline referred to here was for Iran to come clean with greater transparency on what it is doing at a site purported to be a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility – not to suspend an enrichment program (as I’ve mentioned here before, Iran is perfectly entitled to enrich uranium under IAEA safeguards).

There was no “cheating” in building a nuclear power plant. I assume this refers the light-water reactor the Russians are building for Iran. Either that, or the blurb is confusing nuclear power plant with uranium enrichment facility. Actually, I have no idea what this reference means.

A strange editing mishap I’m guessing.

#
posted 11:34 PM

Thursday, September 11, 2003

[2:25 PM] Understatement of the day

Speaking before the Israeli decision [to expel Yasser Arafat] was announced, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that while Washington saw Mr Arafat as part of the problem, it would not be helpful to expel him.

#
posted 2:32 PM

[10:10 AM] Today the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will have an event titled "Can Democracy Work in the Middle East?" featuring among others (and not to elevate him about them) Thomas Friedman. You can listen live here.

#
posted 10:00 AM

[9:46 AM] In his address to the nation last Sunday, George W. Bush said that “We've been tested these past 24 months and the dangers have not passed.” It was curious yet predictable and disappointing that he didn’t mention most of the foreign policy and security tests that the U.S. still faces. Of course many of those issues are the usual suspects and my favorite topics: de facto nuclear power North Korea; Iran’s burgeoning nuclear weapons program, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and the location of Usama bin Laden. I would consider all of those issues equal to the situation in Iraq. And perhaps there isn’t even a need to prioritize. When the President faces the nation (which despite being “at war” he never does) it’s outrageous that someone who over-hyped Iraq as an immediate threat didn’t bother to mention any other threats to international security.

#
posted 9:54 AM

Thursday, September 04, 2003

[3:29 PM] A great story in the WP describes how Colin Powell told George W. that he had to go “to the United Nations with a resolution seeking a U.N.-sanctioned military force in Iraq.” One can only wonder what would have happened had Powell not taken the chance.

#
posted 3:34 PM

Tuesday, September 02, 2003

[5:58 PM] Now the U.S. finds some humility (and common sense)?

The Bush administration is preparing to ask the United Nations to transform the U.S.-led force in Iraq to a multinational force and to play a leading role in forming an Iraqi government.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell met on the issue Tuesday and agreed to move forward with a new U.N. resolution, an effort to attract more foreign contributions to postwar Iraq, three senior administration officials said on condition of anonymity.

Powell and his aides will begin talking about the new resolution in coming days with key members of the Security Council whose support is critical -- close ally Britain, as well as France and Russia, two countries that opposed the U.S.-led war.

Five months after the United States was forced to drop a U.N. resolution seeking authority to attack Iraq, administration officials say they do not want a repeat of that brawl. They say they expect the United States to engage in quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations on the text of the resolution, to ensure it would be agreeable to the veto-wielding permanent members and the rest of the Security Council, and to project a unanimous, internationally backed stand on what happens next on Iraq.

So does this mean that John Bolton won’t be involved?

#
posted 6:03 PM

Monday, September 01, 2003

[11:11 PM] An interesting article appears in this past Sunday’s NYT Magazine. In it, author Ian Buruma examines myths, reality, and history surrounding Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. Here’s the penultimate paragraph

Disentangling American and Israeli interests and government actions is, if anything, even harder. To see Israel as nothing but a cat's paw of American imperialism in the Middle East is a crude distortion. And to hold Washington responsible for every Israeli action against the Palestinians is equally misguided. But it is neither anti-Semitic nor blindly anti-American to point out that the United States could have done much more to stop Israel from humiliating the Palestinians by turning the occupied territories into a kind of Wild East of gunslinging settlers and hounded natives.

In his examination, Buruma ponders European attitudes that lean decidedly pro-Palestinian. I find it interesting and somewhat related to the European debate over war in Iraq that so many analysts and pundits look for reasons other than principle to delineate rationales for public feelings over both of these issues. Buruma touches on it as he goes through a history of U.S.-Israeli relations; but it’s almost if he feels he needs to find reasons (anti-Semitism) other than morality or passion to explain the feelings of those who question Israel’s influence in American foreign policy (and Buruma doesn’t suggest by any means that it is entirely anti-Semitism). Anecdotally, it would seem that many Europeans simply see injustice. We’ve grown so accustomed to the phrase “occupied territories” that it’s almost become a name rather than a state of existence. Isn’t it entirely possible that many Europeans have not forgotten this? Buruma himself does say that things changed after the 1967 war. When talking with ordinary Europeans, they’re quick to remind you of history. Americans often don’t seem to have any sense of that history. But at the same time those same Americans are quick to brand pro-Palestinian Europeans (or Americans for that matter) as terrorist sympathizers (Buruma doesn’t touch American prejudice toward Arabs).

The same argument could be used in examining European opposition to a second war in Iraq. American’s were quick to bring out all sorts of ugly charges against the French especially. But it seem almost impossible to us to imagine that a principled stand against a war and its requisite civilian casualties could be the root of European sentiment. America’s physical isolation certainly plays a role, but still it’s a shame that we have can be selectively so cynical and insensitive about important issues in the world.

#
posted 11:16 PM