An early Christmas for the Middle East

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

looks like Santa’s being very generous this year - lots of goodies under the tree for some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Kuwait - women aren’t allowed to vote; UAE - all non-Emiratis are treated as second class citizens, children are exploited as camel jockeys, restricted rights for non Muslims; Egypt - govt. jails political dissidents and any other critics of the govt.

US pushes Middle East arms sales
BBC, 6 September 2002

The US has recommended that Congress approve $2.86bn in arms deals with foreign countries including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The sales come as the US escalates its military action in Iraq and threatens to start a war. The Pentagon said the proposed sales would enhance the security of friendly states who are "an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East".

In a notice to Congress on Wednesday, which was made public on Thursday, the US Defense Security Co-operation Agency recommended the deals be approved along with sales to Taiwan, India and Malaysia.

Congress has 30 days to approve the deals but it has never rejected a Defense Department recommendation for foreign weapons sales.

The UAE could buy five refurbished and up-graded E-2C Hawkeye tactical warning aircraft, made by Northrop Grumman, plus radar units and parts for up to $400m. The Hawkeye planes are used to direct armed forces and co-ordinate communications.

Egypt wants to buy missiles, vehicles and radars worth $315m.

The deal includes more than 450 Hellfire air-to-ground anti-tank missiles for use by Apache attack helicopters, plus 500 Humvee vehicles and a dozen Sentinel air defence radars, the Pentagon said.

Another proposed sale covers two Gulfstream G-IV SP aircraft and two VIP Blackhawk helicopters for transporting Egypt’s top brass, the Pentagon said.

On Tuesday, Boeing said Kuwait would buy 16 Apache Longbow AH-64 attack helicopters plus missiles, guidance systems, spare parts and maintenance worth $2.1bn as recommended by the Pentagon in April.

The Pentagon’s notice to Congress also included proposals for a $1.5bn sale to Malaysia of 18 F/A-18F fighters built by Boeing, four Firefinder counter-battery artillery radar systems for India worth $100m and amphibious assault vehicles, air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground anti-tank missiles worth $250m for Taiwan.

2

Nadia. It is called killing one bird with two stones. USA gets rid of its old and refurbished weaponry for a hefty price, and it saves countries like Kuwait from being occupied by idiots like Saddam. I see it as a win win proposition. Only Saddams is a loser in such a scenario. And by the way, we don’t hear you advocate democracy for Iraq (why only for Kuwait where women can’t vote?) Your double standards are very saddening.

3

And i don't hear Bush advocating democracy for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt - only for Iraq. Why?

Manifest double standards...very saddening.

4

Nadia, Whether countries have democracies or theocracies, US gives a crap. You should at least be consistent in your display of favoritism. The only consistency you show is your hatred of the US. It seems never to do anything right. Right?

Do you not appreciate that it is helping Kuwait so it wont be occupied again by idiots like Saddam? Or do you want it to be occupied by idiots like Saddam?

5

OK, you want to talk about consistency - fair enuf, let's talk about consistency.
Consistency would be...

...while harping on about Iraq not abiding by UN resolutions, the US would take concrete measures to force Israel to abide by numerous UN resolutions.

...while harping on about the monster Sad-damn invading poor hapless Kuwait, the US might have thought twice before invading poor hapless (but sadly not oil-rich, therefore, useless) Panama.

...while harping on about Sad-damn's brutalities against his own people, the UK and US might have thought twice before selling the repressive Indonesian regime Apaches and munitions so that Suharto could continue his rampage of raping East Timorese women, slaughtering their husbands, razing their fields, turning them into refugees in their own country.

Despite or perhaps due to all the arguments we have had, i give you some credit for possessing intelligence. If Kuwait's main export was almonds instead of oil, do you seriously believe that the US would have started the Gulf War?

Go ask a Kuwaiti woman, who has never voted in her life, what liberation Uncle Sam has given her.

6

Nadia, Let me state it again. Do you not appreciate that it is helping Kuwait so it wont be occupied again by idiots like Saddam? Or do you want it to be occupied by idiots like Saddam? You can say NO/YES/MAY BE and I will understand that. I really don’t need lectures in history from your prejudiced expression of it.

No one is saying that the US has always done right (even liberating Afghani women from opression is probably 'wrong' in your view), let’s just talk about Arms to Kuwait and let’s leave other things aside for the time being.

7

more advances still need to be made but…

Kuwaiti women, seen as the most liberated in the Arab Gulf, run businesses and newspapers, head diplomatic missions and help run the oil industry.

They make up about 30% of the country’s workforce.

“We are more than delighted … this is a very daring step by His Highness the Emir,” said Seham Razzouki, one of two women on the board of state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corps.

“For those women who have campaigned long and hard for their constitutional rights, it is a great achievement,” said prominent female activist Masoumah al-Mubarak.

The order would allow women to vote and run for public office - but not until 2003, when the next but one parliamentary elections are scheduled.

8

In these types of discussions, a monosyllabic 'yes' or 'no' answer doesn't cut it - nothing is ever so black and white, cut and dry.

Who wants a person like Hussein as head of Iraq? i would never want to live in such a country. For the love of God, get it out of your head that i secretly adore the guy. i don't, ok. i've been on this board for more than a year, you should know that i am not the fanatic-despotic type. Dimaagh sai bilkul haTa do that i have any secret respect for Hussein, i don't i don't i don't.

Now.... i can go into a thousand reasons as to what the US did wrong in the Gulf War - they had an opportunity back then to oust Hussein & they deliberately let it slip through their fingers (better the devil you know as one former US official said). And what peeves me is that if the US is so hell bent on removing dictators, Hussein is not the only dictator in the world - al Sabahs of Kuwait, Kingdom of Sauds, Zayed al Nahyan of the UAE, Abdullah of Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt.... Iraq kai peechay keoun paRay huay hain sab?

And for the benefit of any newcomers, the US is not the Great Satan for me. i don't think it is the epitomy of evil incarnate. i have lots of relatives and friends who are Americans. If it paid more heed to the consequences of its foreign policies, and did a little bit more introspection (which Muslim countries should ALSO do), then i would be less critical on this board.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Hussein is not the only dictator in the world - al Sabahs of Kuwait, Kingdom of Sauds, Zayed al Nahyan of the UAE, Abdullah of Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt.... Iraq kai peechay keoun paRay huay hain sab.
[/QUOTE]

None of those dictators attacked another country and None of those dictators are a threat to US interests, when they are, they will be dealt with as well.

10

The order would allow women to vote and run for public office - but not until 2003, when the next but one parliamentary elections are scheduled. <<
This is very good news, but unfortunately as early as Feb of this year, Kuwaiti women activists “marched into voter registration stations to demand the right to add their names to electoral lists” - because the 1999 decree by Emir Sabah granting them the right to vote had not passed through. http://www.middleeastwire.com/kuwait/stories/20020218_meno.shtml

i’m glad that more Kuwaiti females are entering the workforce. Let’s hope that, in time, the monarchical, dynastic political structure of Kuwait - antithetical to Islam - is demolished to be replaced with something truly compatible with Islam. And i hope that all non Muslims in Kuwait are given full freedom of expression to worship as they please.

11

Nice to see you back home safe and sound Nadia.

I found the following part of the article UTD linked to to be quite interesting.

"Western allies who led the 1991 Gulf War have been lobbying for the female vote since the emir restored parliamentary life in 1992 after a break of six years.

US embassy spokesman Claud Young said: "We welcome any steps that widen the participation in the political process and in this light we applaud the step taken today."

Kuwait is the only Gulf Arab state with an elected parliament, with about 113,000 Kuwaiti men able to vote for 50 parliamentary seats. "

Maybe you should stick with "poor hapless Panama" on this one. :)
Although, I believe most Panamanians were and are pretty happy about the return of democratic institutions with the removal of Noriega.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: * None of those dictators attacked another country and None of those dictators are a threat to US interests, when they are, they will be dealt with as well.
[/QUOTE]

What about Indonesia that invaded East Timor? What about the US itself that invaded Panama? What about Israel that is illegally occupying another people's land? What about Iraq when it gassed 5000 Kurds, why did the US block Senate moves to stop selling Iraq weapons? What about the dictatorship of Pinochet? Why were we sucking up to all these dictators?

Waiting until dictators become a threat to "US interests" works well for the US.
Not so well for the people who live under these Arab dictatorships... like academic figures jailed in Egypt for their political views on democracy. There is a reason that we create into existence treaties of international laws - applying one standard to one country while letting others run amok makes a mockery of everything related to freedom and justice.

13

Nadia

it all boils down to this, all countries and all groups work for their own interest. Maybe governments, groups and people in these countries can start working in their own interest.

International treaties and laws mean jack...theya re alos used, abused, ignored in self interest.

What it boils down to is this. Do I agree with everything that US does, not at all. I dont agree a 100% with anything anyone does..but..the fate and future of any nation is in its own hand.

Let the Iraqis rebel and throw the guy out...if everyone hates him so much would it not happen..You can work in teh system to change it or against the system to destroy it. Whichever path is needed should be done by the people who are most affected by it.

Is it fair..no. But nothing is fair. The most important lesson I learnt was that life is unfair, you cant whine about how its unfair..you have to try and make it fair, but thats not th eonly thing you should do, you should also try to excel;, and do the ebst you can even under the unfair conditions. people should learn this, and nations should too.

have a good weekend

14

Thanks, MyVoice. It's nice to be back in one piece.

Fraudia,
International laws mean jack? If so, then Iraq should be allowed to possess as many WMD as it wants despite UN resolutions. Any country can invade another, and as many times as it wants. If int'l laws mean jack, then Canada can impose as severe logging timber tariffs it wants on US products. There is a REASON that the we have intl laws, albeit they are disused in today's world - i'm not living in a fantasy bubble where everything is perfect. i realize life is not fair. But if we sit back and hopelessly exclaim that, oh well - people are dying, it's not fair, but que sara that's life, then that's a pretty fatalistic perspective. Imagine if that had been the prevailing societal pointofview when Hitler was at the peak of his power. So there's a REASON that we have intl laws, albeit they are grossly misused. Life's not fair for anyone, but it doesn't mean that those of us who have so much privilege should be silent when those less-privileged have their rights trampled.

As for your argument that Iraqis should oust Hussein themselves - ya Khuda. Leave them be, they will do as they see fit. As much as i respect Musharraf, the rest of the world sees Musharraf as a dictator, why don't Pakistanis oust him? Perhaps Iraqis are a bit more busy burying their dead children - more than 160 a day, according to UNICEF - than worrying about how to start a revolution.

Sorry if i caused any offence with any of the above; i'm not here to argue, showoff or cause conflicts. Just here to learn.
Have a very safe and enjoyable weekend as well.

15

Nadia

you did not cause any offense so no need to apologize.

The point is that we are all too concerned with "fairness" which does not exist, has not existed and will not exist, not anytime in near future. You have to make do with what circumstances you have as a nation or as a person.

The destiny of Iraqis is in no one's hands but theirs. they can ouster saddam, they can let the inspectors in. Yes probably not the optimal or most preferred solution, but the most feasible for themselves.

They screwed up, they attacked another country, they gave someone an excuse...now deal with it. I gave my prof an excuse by missing an exam in my final semester, he made me work like a dog on his research to compensate for it. Was it fair not at all..too bad he had my by the ding dongs and I had to watch out for my interests, and they meant getting that thing done and over with..so I slaved and finished the class and graduated..I could have complained, i could have refused, I could have done many things, all it would have done is delayed my graduation...that would have its own issues and consequences. I chose the other route and slaved.. US has Iraq by the ding dongs, Iraq needs to do what it can to get this done and over with and move on.

Iraqis have a similar choice, they can complain, suffer and complain and suffer. or they can just get this done and over with...yank the bandage..yeha it will hurt..but everyday that you let it sit and not pull it off it becomes harder to get off..

yeah thre are laws, and yes they get abuded and misused and ignored and stuck in red tape...once u know that happens, you should deal with it appropriately. the optimal solution may not be available, but a feasible one could be.

I have all my sympathioes with Iraqi people, and I despise their regime...they need to despise it even more and get rid of it. If the regime is not going to look out for their interests who will?

How many of us complained with Iraqi authorities killed their own people, how about when they killed iranians...

16

Fraudia,

Thank you for not taking offence at my post. i hope the same will happen with this reply.

Perhaps you don't even realize what you did in your last post - you equate the decision of the invasion of Kuwait as a decision made by the people of Iraq. So somehow, in your justification, 22 million civilians are supposed to pay for the punishment of that invasion. You write "They screwed up, they attacked another country, they gave someone an excuse" - who is "they"? For God's sake, Hussein ordered that invasion - what decision did the average Ahmed on the street have? Was any Iraqi civilian asked in a referendum, or a plebiscite, whether she/he wanted to invade Kuwait? Was any Iraqi civilian asked for her/his opinion? Of course the answer is no, because Iraq is a dictatorship.

It's a whole different ballgame if Bush decides to invade another country - at least you, as an American citizen, have some freedom of expression. You have avenues where you can express your dissenting opinions. Dictatorship is completely different - it is wrong to level political rights to the Iraqi people that they have never possessed. So there is no - NO - justification whatsoever for punishing the Iraqi people for that invasion.

Then you talk about the Iraqis ousting Hussein. When twelve years have gone by and the world's most militarily and economically powerful nation is not able to oust Hussein, somehow magically we sit around complaining that the people of Iraq - slaving under the most repressive sanctions regime in history - must do the magical act of ousting Hussein which even the US, with all its economic and military muster, hasn't been able to do thus far. In twelve years. Wow look at the hypocrisies.

It's been more than a year since i've been on this board, i guess i should get used to it by now - it's my own fault i never cease to be amazed at how easily we blame Hussein for doing this and that, and simultaneously utterly close our eyes to the destruction wreaked upon the society by the sanctions. i have quoted and quoted UN reports like an idiotic broken record - here it goes again. The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, in 2000, declared that, "...the sanctions upon Iraq have produced a humanitarian disaster comparable to the worst catastrophes of the past decades." Note: no mention of Hussein in that sentence "The economic, social and cultural rights of the Iraqi people are being swept aside, as are their rights to development and to education... The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law... Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in the future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect - the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions."

Before anyone talks to me about Hussein being the ultimate Mad Evil Dictator who needs to be eradicated to make this world safe from "Terrorism", they should read the above United Nations report, and then determine for themselves who has killed more innocent civilians - the Mad Evil Dictator, or the world's most powerful countries.

17

Ramdhan is coming up.. soon..better bomb the Iraqis now---said bush advisor.

18

Nadia. I am a bit confused, on the one hand you are saying that Saddam is a monster, but on the other hand you don’t want to see him removed. Why?

And why is there a need to compare one monster with other monsters? Why should that be an excuse? Would you let your kid experiment with drugs if other kids in his class do so? Just as Germans as a society paid for the wrongs committed by their leaders, Iraqis can also get to the plate. In political science, it is called ‘Getting to point B from point A’.

The entire world has seen what he is capable of doing, it is about time that someone gets rid of him. The UN ‘sub-committees’ come dime a dozen.

Since you wish to see him go, do you have any suggestions as to how that goal can be accomplished?

19

I don’t believe it is anything to do with not wanting Saddam removed. It is the convenience of the present time and circumstance for the powers that be, which arises suspicion especially when they insist uncorroborated on Saddam’s so-called Nuclear armoury (you know, I’d be much more to inclined to agree with them had they not used this feeble excuse time and again). Two no-fly zones have been enforced since ’91: the Oil-rich North Kurd-Torkman area and the more extensive southern Shi’ite area. These areas are effectively under US/GB “protection” or occupation, depending on you viewpoint. The central administrative area including Baghdad is what remains of Iraq.

Iraq has already been effectively dismantled and fragmented. There is no “Iraqi Threat”. The question for the Mighty US, having already ruled by proxy, is “whats next”? The logical step would be to take an opportunity whether its with UN mandates or otherwise to complete the transition of power in Baghdad. It will quell any upsurge and brotherhood the southerners feel for their brethren-in-faith-next-door and at the same time allow free access to the oil reserves. Really is no need to even "get rid" of Saddam; it is an optional formality.

Dead children, widows, and anything else is just a bonus.

20

Ndia

perhaps you did notunderstand my point so let me make it simple in yes or no answers.

1) should iraqis suffer- No
2) are sanctions hurting civilians- yes
3) should saddam be removed - yes

the question nwo is who will remove it.. thsi seems to be a case where a deranged murderer who takes his own children hostage and tortures them unless he is allowed to get away.

hey I am sorry if the kids are getting hurt, I feel for them. But this man must be stopped, his track record with his own family and his neighbours alone warrants that.

Now is the best way to stop him via war, I am not so sure. But something needs to be done.

So whats the solution here? We can complain about how the people are being impacted all we want but do we have a solution..do we want to let life contiunue for this guy and drop all efforts, or do we continue doing something somehow.

Hey and you and I may be beighbirs of this guy and know the kids and feel for them, maybe we can try talking some sense into him. But if we just sit on the fence and watch the show and are against everything that is being done to stop this guy, what value are we providing?

At the minimum, are we forgetting that maybe, just maybe, if this guy is just let go and alowed to continue whatever he wants, maybe our kids will be his next target?

As far as oustering saddam being tough. heck yeah its going to be tough, if it was easy I would have gone over spring break, slapped him around a bit and removed him but its not easy. Not being easy does not mean its not worth doing and not warranted.

There are no perfect solutions in cases like these. I am not in favour of war, atleast not the fly by bomb dropping..diplomatic route does exist..however, the whole talk of diplomacy comes up when the guy wont budge and someone starts talking about war, all of a sudden there is great activity on diplomatic front, as the prospect of war decreases, so do these diplomatic efforts and status quo sets back in.

So whats the solution, who is going to do something about it.