It has been painfully clear, since it came to office, that the Bush Administration does not listen to Arab views. It does not matter what the subject is, be it the Israel-Palestine issue, a possible strike against Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein or, indeed, anything else. In the past few days alone, there has been a fresh roar of Arab warnings to the US not to attack Iraq — from the Kingdom, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, the UAE, and other friends of the US in the region. It is not because they have any affection for Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, the day he ceases to be president of Iraq will be one of general rejoicing in the Arab world. But despite the fact that he is a most vicious tyrant with hands steeped in the blood of so many of his own people, there is the unavoidable fact that an attack at this present time against Iraq would destabilize the region dangerously. That may sound like putting practicality before morality, but it is not. Far more people would die if the Middle East were convulsed in political uproar than are presently threatened by Saddam Hussein — which, in the event, is much disputed.
Any exasperation at Washington’s firmly closed ears, or even bitterness that it so vigorously casts its friends’ opinions to the wind, might be tempered by the knowledge that the Arabs are in good company. The rest of America’s friends and allies, with the exception of the British government (even it is sorely divided), are firmly opposed to any present military action against Iraq. They too are studiously ignored. That is in itself one of the more astonishing aspects of Washington’s Iraq policy. Normally, it would be inconceivable that it would opt to go it alone against the advice and wishes of its NATO partners. Unfortunately, the fact that it also ignores its closest allies is small consolation when compared to the awesome possibility that a war may be imminent.
But if Bush is not listening to the Arabs, or even to his European partners in NATO, will he listen to warning voices at home? We now hear American elder statesmen concurring that this is not the time to attack Iraq; that to do so alone could split NATO, destroy the American-led war on terror and unleash massive international economic recession if oil supplies are disrupted in consequence. They imply that the White House has not taken on board such possibilities. In normal circumstances President Bush cannot afford to ignore the views let alone the implicit criticism of men like former US Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Laurence Eagleburger. If he now does, it will be proof of how deaf to reason he and his administration have become.
Meanwhile, what he must think of Russian president Vladimir Putin announcing this week a $40-billion trade pact with Iraq is probably unprintable. This is the man he presented as his buddy in the fight against international terrorism. The timing cannot have been accidental: Russia too is sending an unmistakable message that a strike against Iraq would be folly. Sadly, Bush and his team will probably simply see it as further evidence that the rest of the world is out of step and fickle.
That is how a superpower proves itself a superpower — by showing that it has no need for friends. And that is also how it turns friends into enemies.
