In an apparent bid to explain Arafat’s seeming aloofness from Saddam, Saleem Al-Zaanoun, speaker of the Palestinian National Council, has said that Arafat has not visited Iraq because Saddam had advised him not to do so. According to Zaanoun, Saddam warned Arafat of the problems involved in incurring the displeasure of the United States. Does any one believe this story which apparently aroused the curiosity of many who had never been interested in such things? Why has Arafat, an ally and friend of Saddam, not visited Baghdad during the past 10 years?
He has been several times to almost every other capital during the same period. A shrewd politician, Arafat has never taken a wrong turn in his personal politics of survival. This may possibly be the reason why Arafat has become an admirer of Saddam — but from a distance.
Has anyone forgotten that Arafat was a guest in Baghdad before the allied forces unleashed their relentless bombardment of the city? At that time, he delivered a fiery speech urging Iraq to resist American aggression. He boosted Iraqi morale by stating that Iraq would be another Vietnam and American soldiers would be sent home in coffins. Less than 24 hours after Arafat left the city, UN forces began the strikes. He has never returned.
Does Zaanoun imagine that the Arab public is naïve enough to believe that Saddam who considers himself the enemy of anyone currying American favor would plead with Arafat to stay away from Iraq because if he came, the visit would make the United States turn against Arafat? On the other hand, Saddam would be the happiest man in the world if everyone left the American camp.
Arafat is neither a blind nor stupid politician; he would not visit Iraq and risk his very political existence at what is arguably the most critical moment in modern Palestinian history. And he is, surely correct in his decision to stay away from Baghdad.
Zaanoun’s memory seems to be very short. Saddam publicly criticized Arafat a few months ago for his good relations with the Americans. Has Saddam made a sudden about-face as Zaanoun suggests? Are we to believe that he is now concerned with American pleasure or displeasure? Arafat’s visit to Baghdad would be a clear political victory for Saddam. What Arafat and his people would gain, however, is nothing but false promises of billions of dollars in donations. That is the real reason why Arafat does not visit Baghdad given the current Middle Eastern scene. Moreover, nobody believes Iraq’s official statements, particularly when they concern donations. At the recent summit in Amman, when the Iraqi delegation announced a $1 billion donation in one payment to the Palestinians, nobody clapped because nobody believed it. Everybody knew what it was: an empty promise.
A journalist bluntly asked Iraqi Minister Muhammad Al-Sahaf at Ammam why Arafat had ignored Saddam. The minister replied that Arafat was welcome to Iraq at any time even without an entry-visa. The fact is that Saddam is furious because Arafat, like other Arab leaders, has not visited him in such a long time. Several Arab leaders made bold speeches calling for the immediate lifting of the UN sanctions but none seemed willing to make a friendly visit. Saddam is further infuriated because only non-Arab leaders, such as Venezuela’s president, have visited him despite American warnings. The embarrassing question is why no Arab dignitaries, except a few actors such as Adil Imam or Raghdah, have visited Saddam.
