 |
 |
DECEMBER 1999, pages 107-113 Waging Peace
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974, received the first annual Liberty Award at a Sept. 21 luncheon at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, DC. A number of retired Navy admirals joined members of the USS Liberty Veterans Association in paying tribute to the outspoken admiral, who over the years has provided unstinting support to the demands of the Liberty crew members for a congressional investigation into the causes of the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the U.S. electronic listening ship in which 34 Americans were killed and 171 wounded on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day Arab-Israeli war. The Israeli government insists that the attack was a case of mistaken identity. Members of the crew have insisted that the action, in which Israeli aircraft swept the ship’s deck with cannon fire and napalm, and Israeli motor torpedo boats then hit the ship with a torpedo below the water line and deliberately destroyed the rubber life rafts with machine gun fire, was an attempt to send the Liberty and its entire crew to the bottom for reasons that call for investigation at the highest level. Crew members also have demanded an investigation into the reasons that two flights of U.S. Naval aircraft sent to protect the Liberty after it reported it was under attack were ordered back to their Sixth Fleet carriers before they could provide assistance. Admiral Moorer, who had been Navy chief of staff until just before the incident, and who assumed his position as joint chiefs chairman—the highest uniformed position in the U.S. armed forces—shortly afterward, has always been supportive. He has called the Israeli attack “absolutely deliberate” and has said the effort to hush up the entire matter for several years afterward “was not actually for security reasons but for domestic political reasons [because] President Johnson was worried about the reaction of Jewish voters.” Master of ceremonies at the award luncheon was filmmaker Tito Howard, who is completing a documentary film on the attack and the subsequent coverup. Speakers included Adm. William D. Houser, Col. H.C. “Barney” Barnum of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, Adm. Clarence “Mark” Hill and Commander George Golden, chief engineering officer on the Liberty. After receiving the award from Liberty survivor Donald Pageler, who is editor of the association’s newsletter, and Liberty Veterans Association president Phillip Tourney, Admiral Moorer declared that “I have come to the conclusion that that attack was directed from [Israeli] headquarters and that the target was agreed to by all hands.” He was equally scathing about what he called “ the coverup on the part of the Israelis as well as the coverup on the part of the Navy,” Discussing the American rescue aircraft that never arrived, the admiral charged that “in both cases those aircraft were recalled from Washington” and that the recalls contributed to the loss of life on the Liberty. Reaffirming his charges of Israeli responsibility for the tragedy, and of a high-level failure within the Johnson administration for the aborted rescue effort, Admiral Moorer said: “The position I took in June 1967 and the position I take today are exactly the same. —Richard Curtiss
Although the American component of what were supposed to be simultaneous announcements Sept. 16 in New York and Cairo was foiled by the arrival of Hurricane Floyd, the selection by the American University in Cairo (AUC) of the winner of an international competition for the design of its new 260-acre, $200 million campus will undoubtedly have a more lasting impact than did its meteorological nemesis. Located since 1919 on Tahrir Square in the heart of Cairo, AUC plans to expand from its current 100,000 square feet owned and rented space to a new campus comprising some 2 million square feet on a 260-acre site in the planned community of New Cairo, a development with a projected population of 2 million to 3 million people located approximately 20 miles east of the capital. AUC president Dr. John D. Gerhart announced that the master plan for the new campus will be developed by the architecture firm of Boston Design Collaborative, in partnership with the landscape architecture firm of Carol R. Johnson Associates. The two firms currently are collaborating in the design and construction of Koç University in Istanbul. The master plan and preliminary design are expected to be completed by next June, with groundbreaking for the new campus scheduled for June 2001. —Janet McMahon
Muhammad Akram Zaki, chairman of the Pakistani Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs, delivered a speech entitled “The Current Situation in South Asia” at the Middle East Institute on Sept. 17. He raised two key issues of concern—nuclearization of the region and self-determination in Kashmir. According to Zaki, India holds an arsenal of 400 nuclear weapons at an estimated cost of U.S. $20 billion. Zaki said that although most countries have cut down on defense spending since the Cold War ended, India has maintained a continuous annual increase of 10 to 11 percent. He argued that since 1974 Pakistan has made numerous proposals for denuclearizing the region, yet India has rejected them. When India tested nuclear weapons on May 11 and 13, 1998, Pakistan became particularly concerned. According to Zaki, Pakistan was forced to respond with its own test 17 days later. Zaki then turned to a discussion of the conflict in Kashmir, which, he said, has led to the deaths of between 65,000 to 70,000 people since the partition of the Indian subcontinent between India and Pakistan in 1947. In 1989, with the global movement toward self-determination within the former U.S.S.R. and elsewhere, Kashmiris wished to resume their own struggle for the self-determination promised them by the United Nations more than 40 years earlier, Zaki said. But India imposed an authoritarian rule enforced by the presence of 700,000 soldiers in Kashmir. Soldiers participated in gang rape, murder and other atrocities to suppress the movement, and yet the struggle continued. “Something must be done to tackle the basic issue of Kashmir,” Zaki said. He argued that the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination must be supported by the nations of the world. —Wendy Lehman
Moonis Ahmar, professor of international relations at the University of Karachi in Pakistan, spoke at the Middle East Institute on Oct. 7, on similarities and differences in the Arab-Israeli and India-Pakistan conflicts. Ahmar based the presentation on findings from a research project sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the University of Karachi. Discussing areas of convergence between the two conflicts, Ahmar said both are to some extent the outcomes of British policy. Britain played a key role in the creation of Israel and in the partition of India and Pakistan. Another similarity, Ahmar said, is that both conflicts suffer from elements of religious extremism. The creation of Israel and Pakistan on religious grounds accentuated animosity between Muslims and Jews and Muslims and Hindus. These tensions have also led to the growth of terrorist groups and subversion at the hands of extremist elements. The issue of refugees also exists in both the Middle East and in South Asia, Ahmar continued. The creation of Israel and its annexation of territories produced hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, just as Indian control of Kashmir and Jammu since 1947 has created an influx of refugees into Pakistan. Another significant similarity, Ahmar said, is the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons in both regions. Neither Israel, India, nor Pakistan are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, leaving the possibility of an outbreak of nuclear war. At the same time, Ahmar said, eventually nuclear balance in the Middle East may resolve tension between Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, and its Arab neighbors. Lastly, Ahmar said, both the Palestinians and Kashmiris are experiencing a great sense of betrayal and frustration. It led to the intifada in 1987 and to the insurgency of the Kashmiris in 1990. Concluding, Ahmar explored some of the useful lessons India and Pakistan may be able to derive from the Middle East peace process. Third-party mediation in the Middle East paved the way for resolving disputes after 1973, according to Ahmar, but India has rejected the option of outside mediation in favor of involving individuals and organizations within the region. Ahmar also discussed the use of a step-by-step approach in both conflicts. Both the Israelis and Indians favor that approach, Ahmar said, because they see it as a means of confidence-building between the two parties. On the other hand, Ahmar explained, the Palestinians and Pakistanis view it as a means of delaying real progress and as a means of legitimizing the territorial status quo. “Although the Middle East can provide a better sense of understanding of conflict resolution to India and Pakistan,” Ahmar said, “the two countries will have to sort things out themselves for a better future.” —Sadia Razaq
Senator J. Robert Kerrey (R-NE) addressed an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center Sept. 29 on the topic of “Are Freedom and Democracy Possible in Iraq?” Senator Kerrey feels that the current air of resignation and depression over U.S. Iraq policy is misplaced. While he agrees that current policy has not succeeded, he sees cause for hope—and for a new policy. It is Kerrey’s view that “the liberation of Iraq is inevitable.” The current situation in Iraq, he said, must be changed because it is “intolerable”: for the Iraqi people on humanitarian grounds; for the surrounding Arab states for the stresses and strains put on their economies and social systems by the sanctions and the American military presence; for Israel due to the threat of missile attack; and for Iran because Iraqi President Saddam Hussain’s presence “gives Iranian hard-liners another excuse not to liberalize.” Kerrey said it also is intolerable for the U.S., because American military forces are engaged in almost daily strikes against Iraqi targets and the U.S. has suffered casualties as a result of the crisis. Senator Kerrey links both the attack on U.S. Air Force personnel housed in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to anger at American policy and U.S. military presence in the Gulf. Elaborating on what he described as a moral necessity to bring about a change of regime in Baghdad, Senator Kerrey said the Iraqi people are suffering because the aid due them from the oil-for-food program is not being delivered. Basing his statements on U.N. findings, he cited $200 million worth of medicine sitting in Iraqi warehouses undistributed. As of last April, he said, 60 percent of all the agricultural supplies and 45 percent of all the medicine purchased by the oil-for-food program remained undistributed. Given the brutality of Saddam’s regime, Kerrey said, U.S. unwillingness to assist in the liberation of Iraq would be a “moral failure.” He praised President Bill Clinton for signing the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), which instructs the administration to “actively and publicly assist the Iraqi opposition in their efforts to get rid of Saddam, to free the Iraqi people, and to begin a transition to democracy and the free market.” The administration has not done enough, the senator said, especially with regard to providing the Iraqi opposition with arms. He credits the ILA with bringing together the previously disunited opposition groups outside of Iraq. It is now necessary for them to unite with the internal Iraqi opposition and together inspire the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, Kerrey said. Kerrey calls for supporting the Iraqi opposition with military equipment. Senator Kerrey said he himself would go further and support using U.S. forces, including ground troops, to liberate Iraq, especially if this could be done like Desert Storm. He advised, however, against the U.S. trying to do this alone. —Hugh Galford
In an Oct. 14 panel with other Middle East specialists at the U.S. government-funded U.S. Institute of Peace, Adnan Abu Odeh, a Palestinian-born official in Amman who has been close to the Jordanian royal family for three decades, offered an insider’s glimpse into what he called “the divisive dynamic” of the sometimes volatile relationship between Jordanians of Palestinian origin and Transjordanians. The two countries he cited in the introduction to his new book, Jordanians, Palestinians, and the Hashemite Kingdom in the Middle East Peace Process, which he unveiled at the panel discussion, were the Palestine and the Transjordan mandates established by the colonial powers in 1920 astride three peoples: the Jews, Palestinians, and Jordanians. As he pointed out in his presentation, trying to predict future relationships among the three after the anticipated declaration of a Palestinian state is a daunting challenge for analysts and policymakers alike. Mr. Abu Odeh, now an adviser to King Abdullah II, estimated that there are 1.42 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, as well as those like himself who were born in Palestine but have settled permanently in Jordan. Palestinians feel—with some justification—that although they comprise perhaps half the population of Jordan, they have been largely excluded from the political process. They are substantially underrepresented in parliament and in the cabinet. This limitation stems at least in part from the determined Transjordanian reaction to the attempt by the PLO in 1970 to topple King Hussein. Both before that and ever since, Transjordanian nationalists have viewed the motives of Palestinians with suspicion. The cleavage between the two groups moves in fits and starts, Mr. Abu Odeh explained. Most recently, he said, tensions rose when the Jordanian government closed down the Hamas office in Amman. The government justified its action on the grounds that there were criminal elements in the office. Many, however, interpreted it as an anti-Palestinian political move similar to the 1970 action. This comparison on state-run media, Abu Odeh said, frightened Jordanians of Palestinian origin. In Abu Odeh’s words: “They thought that such an argument signaled a bad omen that would adversely affect their daily lives.” But King Abdullah moved swiftly to contain the latest flare-up. In a message to the Jordanian Press Association on Oct. 5, he emphasized that Jordan’s 1988 disengagement with the West Bank never meant, nor will it ever mean, a disengagement of Transjordanians from Jordanians of Palestinian origin in the kingdom. “All,” said King Abdullah, “are one people. Good citizenship is not determined by the territorial origin from which a man or woman comes.” According to Abu Odeh, the new king’s statement “sent a dual message: one to the Palestinian-Jordanians that they are full citizens, and another to Transjordanian nationalists that the country is not exclusively theirs.” The Peace Institute panel was chaired by former White House Middle East adviser William Quandt, now of the University of Virginia. Other participants were Khalil Jahshan, president of the National Association of Arab Americans, and Malik Mufti of Tufts University. Asher Susser of Tel Aviv University participated by phone. All praised Mr. Abu Odeh’s new book, published by the U.S. Institute of Peace in 1999, and added their own insights about the impact of the triangular Palestinian-Israeli-Jordanian relationship on the peace process. Dr. Quandt took note of Jordanian columnist Rami Khoury’s expression of hope on Oct. 12 that issues raised by Adnan Abu Odeh would be discussed among officials and decision-makers at the highest level, essential, he said, “for the long-term well being of Jordan as a vibrant, healthy state and society.” Professor Mufti suggested that the Jordanian monarchy move as rapidly as possible to increase Palestinian representation in the parliament. He urged Jordan to “accept, welcome and embrace a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank” as soon as that state is declared. He praised Jordan’s past statesmanship, but said the Jordanian Hashemite leadership would be challenged to reckon with both the Israeli threat in the event of an interim Palestinian-Israeli agreement, and the perceived Palestinian threat within Jordan. Tel Aviv University’s Asher Susser said Jordan would be of vital importance, economically, to a future Palestinian state and what he called “the landlocked West Bank. The future relationship between Palestinians in the East Bank and West Bank,” he said, “is of much less concern to Israel than it has been in the past.” Two things are certain, in his view: 1) Both Israelis and Palestinians have at last reached the same conclusion: the inevitability of separate states for each of them, and 2) Jordan and the Palestinian state must have an association, perhaps a federation or confederation. The Hashemite kingdom, said NAAA president Khalil Jahshan, must move to redefine itself as “a modern, democratic state.” He said that Amman, in shaping its ties with the future Palestinian state, must take into account public opinion on both banks of the Jordan. Jahshan observed that a significant majority of Palestinians and Jordanians view the relationship warmly, see it as unique in the Arab world, and hope it will develop into wider cooperation in political, economic and educational realms. He also cited a December 1997 poll by the Center for Palestinian Studies in Nablus which shows different perspectives: more support on the East Bank than on the West Bank for complete unity of the kingdom with an independent Palestinian state, but Palestinians decidedly more enthusiastic about confederation than Jordanians. Several panelists said competition in trade and tourism between Palestine and Jordan might potentially complicate their future relationship. In response to a series of questions from the floor about the issue of refugee returns and compensation, Abu Odeh felt that only a relatively few Palestinian refugees would choose to return to Israel proper. Jordan, he noted, gave Palestinians citizenship in 1950. The kingdom, he added, is very much affected by the progress of final status talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, but—like Syria and Lebanon—is not “at the table.” Perhaps, he added, there should be some sort of coordination among Amman, Damascus and Beirut as the peace process moves forward. Mr. Abu Odeh also tempered his optimism. He noted that despite high hopes on the part of Arabs for the new government in Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Barak already has stated that Jerusalem is indivisible, Israeli settlements are to be retained, and water from the Jordan River is to be controlled by Israel as well as security in the Jordan Valley. He expressed hope that Israel would start to focus on the attainment of peace, rather than maintaining the peace process indefinitely. “Indeed,” he said, “it is a moment of truth looming on the horizon…A long interim agreement is not a final peace,” he concluded, “nor is a peace process a substitute for peace attainment.” —Alan Heil
Professor of philosophy and humanities Stephen Infantino presented “An Arabian Cultural Mosaic,” a program of art, music, and dance at the College of Lake County in Grayslake, Illinois on Sept. 26. The event was funded by a CLC Foundation grant and sponsored by CLC’s Communication Arts, Humanities, and Fine Arts Division. The program, consisting of Middle Eastern artists and performers living in the Chicago area, was designed to provide cultural content to Dr. Infantino’s Mid-Eastern Civilizations classes; to introduce Arab culture to CLC students and Lake County residents unfamiliar with it; and to attract Muslim- and Arab Americans to the college. Dr. Assad Busool, in Arab clothing, welcomed the audience in Arabic. Calligrapher Dr. Nihad Dukhan then presented a slide-lecture on the history of calligraphy. The Issa Boulos Quartet—Issa Boulos, Jennifer Trowbridge, Najib Bahry, and Donald Jacobs—performed classical and popular Arabic music. And the Star Turmos Aia Debke dance troupe, directed by Ala Saada, provided a rousing finish to the program. During the intermission, Dr. Dukhan exhibited his calligraphy, and a representative from Sunbula displayed Palestinian needlework. Members of the audience expressed positive feedback after the performances. For many, it was their first encounter with Arabic culture. As a follow-up activity, two films will be shown during November in conjunction with CLC’s international film series: “Umm Kulthum: A Voice Like Egypt,” and “Subyan wa-Banat” (“On Boys, Girls, and the Veil”). —Cindy Infantino
“Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur,” a traveling exhibit of some of the most celebrated archeological objects in the world, has reached the halfway mark on a more than two-year tour of U.S. museums while the University of Pennsylvania Museum, where the treasures are permanently housed, undergoes refurbishing. The exhibit of 150 objects, many of them excavated by famed British archeologist C. Leonard Woolley from the tomb of Queen Puabi, who lived almost five thousand years ago in southern Iraq, opened Oct. 17 in Washington, DC at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution and will remain on display through Jan. 17. After leaving Washington the exhibit will be shown at the Cleveland Museum of Art Feb. 22-April 24, 2000; the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York City, May-September 2000; the Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago, October 2000-January 2001; and the Detroit Institute of Arts, February-May 2001. Before arriving in Washington the exhibit was shown at the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, CA; the McClung Museum in Knoxville, TN; and the Dallas Museum of Art. An exhibition catalog may be obtained from the University of Pennsylvania Museum for $34.95 paper or $49.95, cloth. —Richard H. Curtiss
The historic Virginia Military Institute (VMI) hosted for the eighth consecutive year the annual U.S. Mideast Policymakers Conference, sponsored jointly by the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations (NCUSAR) and the U.S.-GCC Corporate Cooperation Committee on Sept. 12 and 13 in Lexington, Virginia. This conference, the inspiration of Dr. John Duke Anthony, NCUSAR president and VMI graduate, allows senior U.S. and Arab government and military officials to meet in an informal atmosphere with American corporate and academic representatives. As in previous years, VMI and its superintendent, Maj. Gen. Josiah Bunting III, pulled out all stops to provide appropriate campus sites for the various conference events, including the opening dinner and the day-two luncheon. Bunting hosted a reception at his residence on the first day, and several VMI faculty members and cadets participated in the substantive sessions. At the conference’s conclusion, the entire 1,200-strong corps of cadets, including the VMI band and bagpipers, performed a full-dress parade and retreat in honor of the conference attendees. Keynote speakers on the first day were Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of Central Command, and Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee. The second-day keynote speaker was Dr. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. Zinni, who is scheduled to retire next July, made the most optimistic address. He said he is concerned about such issues as the strains on Mideast economies as populations grow, the vagaries of the oil market, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the growth of extremism, although he also believes the latter is exaggerated. However, he said, everyone he has met throughout the area is concerned about these problems and working to control them. Since, he said, he will not be held accountable next year, he made a few “bold predictions.” Matters in Iraq will either be resolved or the end of the current regime will be in sight next year, Zinni said. He also believes that in 2000 a confrontation between moderates and hard-liners in Iran “will take place, has to take place.” He further predicted, “with some trepidation,” that in 2000 the Middle East peace process may move in a positive direction. Finally, Zinni believes the region “will come to grips with extremism.” Senator Warner’s and arms expert Cordesman’s speeches were not so upbeat. Using past and present examples, Warner expressed frustration at the seeming inability of the U.S. Congress to do the right thing on international issues in terms of America’s vital national interests. He praised the U.S. diplomatic and military forces, but questioned Congress’s will to employ “credible forces to implement our diplomacy.” Cordesman emphasized the demographic, economic, and social problems facing the countries of the region, saying that the future of the Middle East will be shaped at least as much by the policy decisions addressing these areas as by the outcome of its various political and security crises. He predicted that the region’s success ultimately will be judged largely by its global competitiveness with other developing regions, and its ability to integrate itself into a stable global economy. —Shirl McArthur
A delegation of a dozen members of the Legal Committee of the Palestine Legislative Council visited Washington, DC in late October as part of a special project sponsored by the West Bank-Gaza Mission of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Legal director Kamal Nawash of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) organized an Oct. 21 dinner at Mama Ayesha’s Lebanese restaurant in Washington, DC and invited various legal professionals and activists to meet the visiting Palestinian attorneys and councilmen. The diners were told the delegation members almost didn’t make it to Washington because Marwan al Bargouti, a respected leader and organizer of Fatah, the largest party faction in the Palestine Authority, was denied a visa by the American Consulate General in Jerusalem. He received one only after all of the other members of the delegation refused to travel without him. Bargouti had been arrested twice, tortured, and sent to Israeli prisons for a total of seven years in the 1980s, during which he learned Hebrew and English. Bargouti is now working on the problem of corruption in the Palestinian Authority and meeting with Hamas and members of the PFLP in hopes of building bridges with the opposition. Asked what he thinks will happen in the final status talks, he said he expects little will be decided that will affect life on the West Bank during the coming year. —Eugene Bird |
|
|