The Americans (or a sizable majority of them) are baffled by the Arab response to their “War of Liberation” in Iraq. They are also flabbergasted at the response of the Iraqi people to the US/UK invasion. The resistance they are facing is not exactly the welcoming flowers strewn in the path of the liberators. Faced with realities that do not conform to the Hollywood scripts they are used to, many Americans have turned emotional, throwing insults around as if the whole matter is nothing more than a private relationship gone wrong.
Well, it isn’t a private relationship. Politics are based on interests, not emotions.
Americans are not strong on history. They haven’t seen much of it anyway. That does not mean others are as oblivious or forgetful. Irony is also a major casualty of the unique American perspective of the world and the historical link in general: While they do not recognize history or historical heritage, they manage to make exceptions. For example, they conveniently forget that Israel was an independent state for only a brief time under David and Solomon, whose historical reality is greatly in doubt, and treat it as if it had always been there. When it comes to other nations, however, they forget something that is no more than a hundred years old.
When the US decided to ditch the UN and go it alone on Iraq (Britain does not count, except as a sidekick), they lost the Iraqi people and the Arab world too. The point of contention moved from Saddam to Iraq — regardless of who was running what and how. You might wonder why that happened. Allow me to remind you of a bit of history any schoolchild in Baghdad could recite from memory.
On March 19, 1917 (almost to the day of this war), Lt. Gen. Sir Stanley Maude issued a proclamation as he entered Baghdad after the defeat of the Ottomans.
“To the People of the Baghdad Wilayat,” thundered Sir Stanley. “In the name of the King and in the name of the peoples over whom he rules....”
Before we go any further with this historical charade, let me remind the readers that while “liberating” the Iraqis from the Ottomans, Sir Stanley insisted on using the Turkish title of their country. He should have said “Wilayat Baghdad”. In English, this linguistic faux pas would be equivalent to calling the White House the French way, la maison blanche — the “House White”.
Anyway, Sir Stanley went on: “Our military operations have as their objective the defeat of the enemy... but our Armies have not come into your Cities and Lands as Conquerors, or as enemies, but as Liberators.”
Sound familiar?
The Americans are now regurgitating the words, and Tony Blair has echoed them where they were first introduced: the House of Commons. Needless to say, the British stayed, occupied, mandated, and ran the country for decades after that as an occupying force. You see, the word “liberation” is haunting and full of sour memories.
Sir Stanley did not forget to wax poetic in order to reflect the Ottoman-Arabic flowery style of the time. He cooed: “Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places... It is the wish, not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the Great Nations with whom he is in alliance, that you should prosper even as in the past, when your lands were fertile, when your ancestors gave to the world literature, science and art and Baghdad was one of the wonders of the world.”
Substitute Bush for King and Australia and Eritrea for Great Nations, and you have what is going on today.
In his justification for the idea of Iraq being a threat to the national security of Britain, Sir Stanley was firm: “... the Germans and Turks... have for 20 years made Baghdad a center of power from which to assail the power of the British and the Allies of the British in Persia and Arabia. Therefore, the British government cannot remain indifferent as to what takes place in your country, now or in the future, for, in duty to the interests of the British people and their Allies, the British government cannot risk that being done in Baghdad again which has been done by the Turks and Germans during the war.”
The Germans are no more. The Turks, well, we have to wait and see. And Saddam and the Baath Party are the new villains. The Iraqis didn’t need Sir Stanley to tell them how horrible the Ottoman occupation was; nor do they need to be told by Rumsfeld how horrible Saddam is.
But the echoes of the same words haunt us all since such proclamations were made by the British in Cairo, Jerusalem, and the Hijaz, and by the French in Lebanon and Syria.
The Turks left, but the cities of Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut still have public squares where nationalists were hung by the “liberators”.
You might wonder how Sir Stanley incorporated the oil issue almost 90 years ago. Here’s how he did it: “The people of Baghdad shall flourish and enjoy their wealth and substance under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws and their racial ideals...”
Blair gave it the modern touch: Oil funds in a trust. I wouldn’t be surprised if the trust is run by Enron’s defunct executives.
Finally, Sir Stanley went for realpolitik that is as thinly disguised as what is being echoed by today’s “liberators”: “Therefore, I am commanded to invite you,” he said, “through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives, to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political Representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West in realizing the aspirations of your race.”
These same words are used today. True, they are less formal and have an American twang to them, but the substance is chillingly familiar. The Arabs know these sentiments; they have lived through the catastrophe of believing them, and suffered endlessly — since the Saddams of this world are a nasty by-product of this proclamation.
When the Americans think the Arabs or the Muslims are genetically anti-American or anti-West, they should do more reading and look into history. The Iraqis today are not defending Saddam; they are defending their homes from another Sir Stanley.
Arab News Features 3 April 2003
