& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Is Syria next and then Iran?

The US must not translate Huntingtonian "Clash of Civilizations" into reality by antagonising the Muslim and the so-called Confucian worlds by posing threats of "preemptive" attacks. No peace-loving and civilized person in the East and the West want more Nine-Elevens or "preemptive" attacks in the name of freedom and democracy.
Thousands of Iraqis have already started demonstrating on the streets, chanting "No Saddam, No America" slogan. And this strengthens the hypothesis that longterm Anglo-US presence in Iraq, let alone any attempt to invade Syria and Iran, would be disastrous both for the region and the would-be hegemons, writes TAJ HASHMI
DESPITE the opposition of most people in the world -- including those in Britain and Australia (partners in the Coalition) -- and without the sanction of the UN, the US-led coalition attacked Iraq in the name of destroying "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) and replacing autocracy with democracy in the country. And now we hear from the US government that there is yet another country in the region, Syria, which is also guilty of committing so many crimes, including developing chemical weapons and harbouring terrorists to the detriment of the Free World. Is the US going to invade Syria next and afterwards Iran, another member of George Bush's "axis of evil", along with North Korea and Iraq? One does not know where the US paranoia about terrorist attacks on its territory and interests would lead the whole world to! However, one thing has become clear from the so-called preemptive attack on Iraq by the US-led coalition is that the world fast going backward to the days of Napoleon, Hitler and Mussolini.
So far what has been achieved in Iraq after the removal of the tyrannical Saddam regime is not at all impressive. And the way the US-led coalition has been mishandling the situation in post-Saddam Iraq gives one every reason to question the modus operandi and the intentions of the occupying forces. One does not see any positive sign in the direction towards "bringing democracy" to Iraq. Not only has the post-Saddam Iraq witnessed unprecedented looting, pillaging and destruction of museums and libraries (reminiscent of the Sack of Baghdad by Halagu Khan in 1258?) but it has also been giving ominous signals to the world.
Now people everywhere, including the streets of Baghdad, Mosul and Basra, without much ambiguity are raising the question about the veracity of the so-called Road Map of the Bush-Blair duumvirate. Is the US going to formalise Pax Americana with a view to controlling the oil fields and other US interests in the region by turning Iraq, and eventually Syria and Iran, the two betenoires in the region, into US satellites(?) is the question. Thousands of Iraqis have already started demonstrating on the streets, chanting "No Saddam, No America" slogan. And this strengthens the hypothesis that long-term Anglo-US presence in Iraq, let alone any
attempt to invade Syria and Iran, would be disastrous both for the region and the would-be hegemons.
Despite their repeated denials that no military action against Syria is imminent or likely, the way the Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell triumvirate is pointing finger at Syria, as the new target is least comforting for the country and the peace loving people of the world. One wonders if the Coalition is going to "restore democracy" in Syria as well, in accordance with their "Road Map", which one believes is very different from the published version of it, which prom-
ises a Palestinian state and liberal democracy in the whole of Middle East.
It is preposterous to suggest that only Syria violated the UN sanctions against Iraq by trading with the country up to the last days of Saddam regime. It is amazing that the blaming game of the US stops at the gates of Syria while Turkey and Jordan could also be dragged into the game for their "association" with Saddam regime. The most surprising (and amusing) part of the allegation is about Syria violating the UN sanctions against Iraq. It gives the impression that as if the US has been so respectful of the world body, its charter and resolutions!
While George W. Bush is harping on: "Syria just needs to cooperate with us", in the most unconvincing manner devoid of any conviction, Donald Rumsfeld is telling the world that Syria committed "a lot of bad mistakes" by providing vital spare parts, including night-vision goggles, to
Iraq during the recent invasion of the country, and by allowing "senior Iraqi people" to moving into Syria. He is also critical of Syria for allowing Arab volunteers to cross the border into Iraq to fight the Coalition. Most of these charges are spacious and unsubstantiated. And again, as one British analyst has put it, if pro-Israeli American volunteers could be allowed to go and fight for Israel, why the US should have a double standard with regard to pro-Iraqi Arab volunteers going to Iraq to fight for the country?
The most serious allegations about Syria's harbouring
"terrorist groups operating against Israel" and its promotion of WMD seem to be lop-sided as well. While Syria's Golan Heights is still under Israeli occupation, in contravention of several UN resolutions since 1967, it is only natural that Syria would do everything possible to regain its lost territory. It is altogether a different matter how one defines the Syrian and other anti-Israeli Arab forces. Throughout history, someone's "freedom fighter" has always been someone else's "terrorist" as the British government rejected the American freedom fighters as "gangs of miscreants" in the 18th century. This denial of the truth is universal.
Any attempt to single out Syria or Iran does not smack of objectivity and impartiality on part of the US while Israel has more than a hundred nuclear war heads and tons of chemical and biological weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles. And neither the US nor its allies have ever pointed finger at Israel. We know Syria has stocks of sarin, mustard gas and VX but no nuclear capability to match, let alone overpower Israel, in the most unlikely event of a Syrian invasion of Israel. What is interesting is that Syria has proposed through the UN to declare (and make) the Middle East free from all WMD, including nuclear arms. Will the US and Israel agree to denuclearise Israel and destroy its WMD(?) is the question.
In view of the above, one has every reason to argue that the US paranoia about the so-called WMD is just a distraction from the real issues. By now it has been established that the US did not invade Iraq to get rid of WMD, as nothing has been found there to buttress the assertion. One possibly does not go that far as one former CIA official has publicly asserted that the US is going to plant such weapons in Iraq just to justify the invasion.
The not-so-implicit threat against Syria suggests that Syria's anti-Israeli stand is the casus belli as Iraq's oil along with its anti-Israeli policy have been its nemesis. One may, in this regard, quote one American general who during the Gulf War of 1991 quite candidly confessed: "Had Kuwait grown carrots, we would not have been there". Perhaps it is not out of the place to argue that had Syria been timid and loyal enough to cow tow the US and Israel like most of its Arab neighbours, Bashar Asad would not have any reason to worry about any invasion of his country.
Now, if the US finally decides to attack Syria first and then Iran (and eventually Pakistan?) would it make America safer than ever before? Bush administration's irresponsible rhetoric about Syria and Iran suggests that it has simply failed to grasp the intensity of Muslim antagonism towards
the US (thanks to the wrong advice and slanted analyses of US think tanks and the CIA) in the wake of the fall of Baghdad. One may point out in this regard how the CIA and Pentagon could not foresee the Iranian Revolution and afterwards miserably failed to realise that Khomeini and his associates were interested in political power. It seems, Bush and his advisers are still in the dark, not being able to realise how the world sympathy in general, and Muslim sympathy in particular, for the US evoked in the wake of the ghastly Nine-Eleven is waning fast after the attack on Iraq which has so far only brought death, destruction and misery to millions of innocent Iraqi civilians.
What is also missing in the analyses of US experts and wishful thinking of the Bush administration is their total disregard for how humiliated, helpless and angry Arabs in particular and Muslims in general feel about the fall of Baghdad. The US alienation, a by-product of power-drunk arrogance, is shrouding the reality for the average American. It seems the US is totally unaware of the reality that for its duplicity and violation of international law in the name of democracy and freedom, it has hardly any credibility in the Third World in general and the Muslim world in particular.
It is high time that the US administration pay heed to the danger of further terrorist attacks on US interests at home and abroad. An understanding of the root causes of terrorism is much more important than finger pointing at its possible or likely sources (often based on convoluted intelligence). The US should try to understand that terrorists do not always leave a home address. And is there any point in finding out the details about a suicide bomber? Terrorism is not an end in itself -- it is just a means. And like any other organic growth, it is nurtured by various factors. Ignoring the socio-economic and political roots of the so-called Islamic terror, as the US has been unwittingly doing, does not weed out the syndrome. In sum, terrorism is the last resort of the desperate people. Unless some positive steps are taken to redress the grievances of the Palestinians and other aggrieved people in the Middle East and elsewhere in accordance with international law, peace would remain elusive forcing the US to fight the fictional windmill.
What the US should do now to gain respect not fear of the Muslims in general and Arabs in particular is by placing its "Road Map" on the table. Meanwhile, it must withdraw from Iraq within a couple of months by apologising to the Iraqis for the deaths and suffering caused by the attack. The US must also grab the Syrian proposal to make the Middle East WMD free as soon as possible. There is no point in evading the question about Israel's WMD (including the nuclear ones), as Colin Powell did quite amateurishly during his press briefing on April the 15th.
The US must not translate Huntingtonian "Clash of Civilizations" into reality by antagonising the Muslim and the so-called Confucian worlds by posing threats of "preemptive" attacks. No peace-loving and civilized person in the East and the West want more Nine-Elevens or "preemptive" attacks in the name of freedom and democracy. We do not want the US to answer the question posed by Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, by naming a country or two. After George Bush had insisted on "regime change" in Iraq by violent means, Chretien raised the question in disgust: "Who is next? Give me the list."
Taj Hashmi is Visiting Professor, Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, Canada.