DOHA, 10 October — Arab leaders yesterday voiced their opposition to any US-led strikes on any Arab country, a day after Washington warned that the war against terrorism may not be limited to Afghanistan.
“The Arab position on US military operations in Afghanistan, inasmuch as they come within the anti-terror fight, is consistent with the international position,” Omani Foreign Minister Yussuf ibn Alawi ibn Abdullah said. “But if these operations were to target other objectives, including certain Arab countries, we would reject that and could not cooperate with it,” Abdullah said, quoted by the official ONA news agency. According to Abdullah, the “Arab League will not accept any move that might target an Arab country.”
Arab League chief Amr Mussa said in Cairo that the League rejected any US attack on an Arab country in its war on terrorism. “The Arab position is clear. We reject any strike against an Arab country,” Mussa said.
“If there are accusations against anyone or any organization, there must be consultations and necessary diplomatic and legal measures must be taken,” Mussa said.
“There must not be military measures or actions,” he added. The United States warned the UN Security Council Monday it could take “further actions” against other countries in its “war on terrorism” and invoked the right of self-defense to justify its military riposte in Afghanistan after last month’s terror strikes on Washington and New York.
Washington has not ruled out making Iraq a target of its campaign, particularly if evidence surfaces linking it to prime terror suspect Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite television channel yesterday that if US and Britain forces target Iraq using the pretext of terrorism it would be “to settle old scores”.
“The United States and its allies know very well that Iraq had nothing to do with the groups Washington accuses of being behind the attacks” in New York and Washington last month, Sabri said.
“If the United States and its British ally want to widen attacks on Iraq under the pretext of terrorism, that would reflect their desire to settle old scores with Iraq,” the minister said.
He warned that if strikes were aimed at Iraq, “we will resist with all our means.”
Sabri described as “normal” a reference made by Bin Laden to the suffering of the Iraqi people and the Palestinian issue to justify his hostility to the United States.
“Iraq and Palestine are two issues that raise sadness, suffering and pain among millions of Muslims in the world and the reference made to Iraq and Palestine is normal and common among all Muslims,” he said. “I don’t think we need to read any other meaning into this reference,” he added.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting scheduled for today will try to ensure that Washington does not extend its war on terrorism to any other Muslim country, analysts said.
Some officials said the 56-nation OIC meeting was likely to face difficulties in forging a consensus among member nations opposed to the strike and those who tacitly supported it.
Iran had called for the emergency OIC meeting, which was intended to formulate a Muslim reaction to last month’s suicide attacks on US cities, which Washington blamed on Bin Laden.
Meanwhile, there is increasing unease within British government at the prospect of the US targeting Iraq in its war on terrorism. Senior Whitehall officials fear the “superhawks” in the US administration may be winning their argument for broadening the conflict and Britain is likely to get dragged along.
In a letter to the UN Security Council justifying Britain’s part in the military campaign alongside the US, the government said Britain was engaged “against targets we know to be involved” in acts of terror, and did not specify that the campaign would be limited to Afghanistan.
British forces were operational “against targets we know to be involved in the operation of terror against the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries around the world, as part of a wider international effort”, said the letter, written by Stewart Eldon, the British charge d’affaires to the UN.
The United States also said yesterday it was generally pleased with the response of the Muslim world to airstrikes launched against Afghanistan, but admitted that not everyone there was getting the message that Islam is not the target.
“I think generally we would say we found a very positive response in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, from governments,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
“We do realize there’s some demonstrations going on,” he said, referring to violent protests occurring in the streets of Baghdad, Jakarta, Cairo, and various other Muslim cities, particularly in Pakistan.
“This is not unexpected,” Boucher said. “But I would say that they’ve been somewhat limited in scope and that we have felt that there is not only government support in most of these countries but that we also have a degree of popular support as well.”
Before the US retaliatory strikes, Qatari officials had predicted that the Doha meeting would have no trouble meeting its objectives: agreeing on a common definition of terrorism and a mechanism to grant humanitarian aid to Afghan refugees.
Analysts now expect a final communiqué that largely focuses on the plight of the Afghans but features little, if any, criticism of the United States.
Another key issue will be renewed support for the Palestinian uprising against Israel, particularly after Bin Laden used the emotive issue as a rallying cry in a taped interview on Qatar’s widely-watched Al-Jazeera television network.
