Last week I read an article written by Jamal Khashoggi, “Riyadh is closer to Baghdad than Washington.” In it, Khashoggi insists that the Kingdom must join the US-led coalition to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. In support of this argument, he quoted a statement by Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, which was carried by The Washington Post. While addressing a meeting organized by Al-Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, Prince Bandar had urged Arabs to participate in the US-led war on Iraq.
The prince believes that if we join the club we would have a role in determining the nature and structure of the new government in Baghdad, which the US wants to establish on the debris of Iraq.
The prince has warned that if we miss this opportunity of joining the coalition, the US will do whatever it wants in Iraq without consulting the Kingdom.
However, the US has not paid any attention to the opposition it faced at the United Nations and the Security Council, as well as the opposition of countries with more clout than all the Arab countries put together.
Among the opponents were France, Russia and China, which have veto powers. They are supported by countries like Germany and Mexico, who do not have them. America’s response to this opposition was an insult to these countries and the United Nations.
With regard to America’s friends in the club — Britain, Spain and Australia — we have to understand that the people of all these countries have voiced their opposition to their countries’ participation in the war against Iraq.
We have seen massive demonstrations in the capitals of these countries rejecting the war. Did their governments listen to them and to their views?
Did America listen to the millions who came out to oppose the war?
What, then, makes Khashoggi think that Washington will pay greater attention to the Arabs once the war was over?
Khashoggi knows that there are several reports in the White House and Pentagon that call for redrawing the map of the Arab region, beginning with Iraq.
What would be his stand if a new club were formed to attack another Arab country after completing the Iraqi mission?
And if it was his Kingdom, the next time round?
We should not neglect the moral side of things. To keep in mind material interests alone is catastrophic.
We should put an end to the theory that a no to moral considerations in international politics means a yes to self-interest. Otherwise we are planting the seeds for the rule of jungle.
Even if we are powerless, we should have the guts to say no to war.
Arab News Opinion 16 March 2003
