I highly respect Sheikh Zayed ibn Sultan Al-Nahyan, president of the United Arab Emirates. I appreciate his credibility, frankness and courage when addressing the destiny of the Arab nation. I believe many others share the same feeling toward this leader, who has come to be known as “the wise man of the Arabs”.
His place in the Arab world has not been shaken even after he floated his political initiative calling on President Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership to step down and go into exile to spare their people the misery of war.
Despite the controversial proposition, Sheikh Zayed continues to enjoy the same respect and reverence from all including those who opposed his initiative.
He was not subjected to any personal attack over the proposal, which angered so many, not even from members of the Iraqi leadership — some of whom adopted the most abusive language in attacking supporters of the initiative.
I have always appreciated Sheikh Zayed’s wisdom. He is known for drawing on his experience, knowledge, good judgment and prudence. I have no doubt that his initiative was motivated by a genuine concern for the fate of the Iraqi people and their country. Deep inside him, he might have been convinced that the initiative would be accepted by the Iraqi regime because it represented the only alternative for them to save their people and their country. Otherwise, a man of such farsightedness would not have risked floating the idea in the first place.
Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that the initiative did not represent the only alternative for Saddam to save his people and country from the fate that awaits them at the hands of the Americans. Saddam has another and even better alternative that would save his people from war, and allow him to clinch to power. That explains why the Iraqi leadership would never accept Sheikh Zayed’s initiative.
You want to know why?
President George Bush and his entire administration never ceased echoing the demand that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences. Bush even offered him the opportunity of stepping down. The resolution that the United States, Britain and Spain plan to put for a vote at the Security Council will give Saddam a 10-day period to disarm or face war.
The White House has said that if war breaks out they will not allow Saddam to remain in power. This may be taken to mean that if Saddam disarmed before the start of the war, the US would have no problem with him and he may still remain in power. It means Saddam could still be in power if he agreed to American demands to disarm.
If this is the case, then how could Sheikh Zayed imagine that Saddam may still choose to step down and leave the country while he has already been offered a much better alternative: Disarm and remain in power?
Why hasn’t Sheikh Zayed asked Saddam to disarm instead of demanding he resign?
Does this mean that Sheikh Zayed was convinced the US has been lying to us about how they know there were no weapons of mass destruction while claiming the opposite to press unfeasible terms? Does it mean that Sheikh Zayed was from the beginning convinced that US has throughout the past 10 years been selling a big lie and that Saddam cannot save himself even if he disarmed because there are no weapons to dispose of?
No, I don’t think so. I don’t think Sheikh Zayed, the wise and realistic leader, has known America was lying and it wanted to invade Iraq for a different agenda and yet comes forward with a proposal calling for the Iraqi leadership to step down.
So what is it, wise man of the Arabs? Please let us know.
