Posted on 12-3-2003
Opposition
Attracts
Public opinion in the Middle East is increasingly
backing western critics of a war in Iraq, and questioning the
region's own leaders. Brian Whitaker explains, Monday
March 10, 2003, The Guardian.
"Vive la France!" The placard would not have looked
out of place at a Gaullist election rally in Paris, or a protest
by French farmers objecting to imports of British cabbages.
However, the bearer of the message was an Egyptian citizen who
was demonstrating, in Cairo, against the threat of war in Iraq.
For good measure, a second line on the placard added, in Arabic,
"Arab leaders, go to hell!"
Something very odd is happening in the Middle East. To declare
such public support for a former imperial power, which once
vied with Britain for the spoils of the region, and throw in
a disparaging comparison with today's Arab leaders, is enough
to make the late President Nasser turn in his grave. It casts
aspersions on decades of Arab nationalism. The point, of course,
is that, while Arab leaders whimpered vainly during their emergency
summit in Egypt on March 1, it was France, together with other
countries in the axis of reason (Germany, Russia, China and
so on), that succeeded in mustering genuine resistance to US
policy.
So far, little attention has been paid to the impact that this
western, non-Arab opposition to war is having on the Middle
East, but it could be far-reaching. Through television, newspapers
and the internet, ordinary Arabs are well aware of protests
from other countries, both at street level and among governments.
Although they welcome the news, they are also embarrassed by
it, because it highlights their own impotence in what, after
all, is matter occurring in their own backyard. In effect this
is a double humiliation, at the hands of a domineering US administration,
and at those of anti-war westerners, who have proven to be more
capable of getting their act together than the Arabs themselves.
As far as the regional impact of war is concerned, there are
two currently fashionable, but opposing, predictions. One, favoured
by neo-conservatives in the US, suggests that, once Saddam Hussein
has gone, Arabs everywhere will treat it as a signal to topple
their rulers and happily espouse the American way of life: the
"creative destruction" theory. The other is that war
will bring catastrophe, creating, among other things, a wave
of anti-western sentiment. In anticipation of attacks on westerners,
the British government has recently added more countries to
its travel warning guidelines. In the Middle East, these include
Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel and the occupied territories,
Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen.
However, the popular perception of the Middle East as being
a dangerous place to visit, especially at the moment, extends
well beyond the Foreign Office list. Last week, after reporting
for the Guardian on the Arab summit in Sharm al-Sheikh, I decided
to spend a few days in Cairo, much to the alarm of my mother.
Following my return, several friends also asked whether or not
the city is safe. I am happy to say that nobody shot at me,
spat at me in the street, or even gave me a menacing look. The
attitude I found was not one of hostility, but of solidarity:
a feeling that "we" are all on the same side against
"them". Egyptians have followed reports of anti-war
demonstrations in the west with great interest. Amazingly, one
Egyptian TV channel even interrupted its programme to bring
news of the British parliamentary rebellion on Iraq.
The result is a belief that everyone in Britain, with the exception
of Tony Blair and a handful of his ministers, opposes the war.
(The vast majority of Americans, incidentally, are thought to
oppose it too.) In Egyptian eyes, therefore, Britain's policy
on Iraq belongs to Mr Blair alone, not to the country as a whole.
Rather than asking British visitors to explain or justify the
policy, Egyptians focus all their attention on Mr Blair's behaviour.
"What on earth does he think he's doing? Has he gone mad?
Why is he so nice to Mr Bush?"
Although Arabs are thoroughly accustomed to leaders who ignore
public opinion, many are baffled about how this can happen in
a functioning democracy such as Britain, rather than the "display"
democracies existing in much of the Middle East. Over-simplified
though perceptions of western resistance to war may be, they
are extremely important. Not least, this is because they establish
a common bond between Muslims and non-Muslims, and dispel any
idea that a clash of civilisations is taking place. That, in
turn, could help to combat terrorism by minimising popular support
in the Middle East for attacks on western civilians (although
those associated with the US and British governments, or the
military, might be a different matter).
If the anti-war movement does succeed in dampening anti-western
feeling, how likely is that Arabs will take revenge on their
own leaders instead? Contrary to what neo-conservatives
think, the question here has little to do with Arab yearnings
for democracy: it is primarily about leadership qualities. Have
the Arab leaders done enough, in the eyes of their people, to
resist US bullying, to oppose the war and to avoid bringing
shame on their country? So far, the verdict is mixed. Most leaders
have played a double game, trying not to offend the US while
making token gestures to placate public opinion. While staying
in Cairo, I got into conversation with the duty manager of my
hotel. The place was almost empty, and he blamed this entirely
on the Iraq crisis, which he said had scared away many tour
groups.
In the absence of other guests to attend to, he posed the inevitable
questions about Mr Blair's relationship with the US president,
George Bush, which he augmented by reciting lines from George
Michael's song, Shoot the Dog. After a while, I asked him what
Arab leaders were doing to stop the war. "Our president
is a clever man," he said. "He will think of something."
It didn't sound very convincing and, after a pause, he added:
"Of course, Mubarak is getting old now, but maybe the Saudis
will stop their oil." I asked whether he really believed
that the Saudis would do that. Surely, if they stopped selling
oil, they would starve. "No," he replied, "Sheikh
Osama [bin Laden] says that Saudi Arabia will never be poor.
If they don't have oil, God will provide something else. They
have gold besides oil."
It struck me as being rather curious that someone could quote
George Michael with approval one moment, and bin Laden the next,
but a long-time British resident of Cairo told me later that
it is perfectly normal. The point about bin Laden, George Michael,
Saddam Hussein, the French government, the rebellious British
MPs and the 1 million protesters in Hyde Park is that they have
all, in various ways, stood up to the US. That is the only thing
that matters.
Whatever the differences between them, and whatever else they
may have done, they all fit the concept of "shaheed",
not necessarily a martyr, but someone who bears witness for
a cause, in this case against US domination. This is the crucial
factor ignored by neo-conservatives when they talk about regime
changes in the Middle East. Regardless of how democratic any
new regime may be, it will have no credibility with the public
unless it is demonstrably capable of resisting pressure from
Washington.
|