Hans Rustad Arabernes uvilje mot USA er sterkere enn det egeninteressen skulle tilsi. Economist har et godt eksempel. Under Colin Powells besøk i Saudi nylig sa utenriksminister Saud al-Faisal at flere muslimske land var villig til å sende soldater til Irak, blant dem Saudi selv. Men ikke før var Powell tatt av før korrigeringen kom: Tilbudet gjaldt bare hvis dagens koalisjon trakk seg ut, og Irak hadde en virkelig demokratisk regjering.
After meetings last week with Colin Powell, the American secretary of state, and with Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, suggested that several Arab and Muslim countries were prepared to send an armed force to help police Iraq. By lending Islamic legitimacy to Iraq’s transitional government, such a move could do much to quell the lingering hostility to it, both within Iraq and the surrounding region. This would please the beleaguered Mr Allawi and the equally beleaguered American-led coalition backing him. Government sources in Baghdad were quick to announce that six predominantly Muslim countries (Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tunisia and Yemen) had agreed to send troops, with Egypt offering technical support and oil-rich Gulf states some $2 billion to pay for the operation.
Yet scarcely was Mr Powell’s plane out of Saudi skies before the caveats blew in. The Islamic force was meant to replace the current coalition, not complement it, elaborated Prince Saud, and even then only at the express request of an Iraqi government that had «the full and clear support of the Iraqi people». Rushing to Saudi Arabia with more cold water, Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, said that it was simply «not possible» for Arab or Muslim intervention forces to operate under anything but a United Nations command. Yemen flatly denied that it had any intention of sending soldiers to Iraq.
Ingen våger å opptre som støttespiller for USA, selv om det er i deres egen interesse. Mediene sørger for å holde denne stemningen ved like. Alt tolkes som konspirasjon, og tillegges skjulte motiver. Også Darfour.
The Arab response to the Darfur crisis has been similarly fork-tongued. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have dispatched planeloads of aid to the stricken region but also lobbied to ensure that the UN Security Council refrained from threatening sanctions against the Sudanese regime, which is largely responsible for creating the mess. Sudan’s Arab neighbours do have an interest in supporting the government in Khartoum. They do not want Iraq-style chaos next door that could ensue if it falls. But they are also exposed to public pressure to prevent another western intrusion into Arab land.
Den humanitære krisen bryr man seg mindre om. Den er lett å avfeie som skapt av vestlige medier.
Al Jazeera fører an i kampen mot amerikansk innflytelse. Nå mistenkeliggjøres lliberale arabiske stemmer som bruker internett. Bare tonen og språkbruken sier sitt om at dette ikke er arabernes CNN, men noe ganske annet:
In his weekly program on Al-Jazeera television, the moderator Dr. Faysal Al-Qassem summarized the 2_kommentar criticisms against them: «I wish we had never scolded the traditional Arab liberals… At least they were nationalists, while the new Arab liberals stand to the right of Fascism and Zionism… Are they not closer to the neo-conservative Americans who are destroying the world, than to the real liberals…? Are they not part of the enmity to Islam, Arabism, nationalism, the [armed] resistance, and all the noble Arab and Islamic values? Why do they lean blindly toward anything Western? Why do they praise and extol normalization with Israel…? Why do they depict America as a benevolent angel who has come to save us from our evils…? Why do they absolve the ene!
mies from being responsible for the backwardness of the Arab world? Why do they despise the nations that embraced Arab and Islamic values? How is it that the neo-liberal Arabs call for tolerance while taking the lead in accusing [others] of heresy? Doesn’t liberalism advocate acceptance of others and interaction with all factions? Why do they call for uprooting the Islamists and the proponents of Pan-Arabism? Aren’t the neo-liberals more fundamentalist and radical than Osama bin Laden? Why are they antagonistic to anyone who opposes them? Is this Liberalism or a repulsive Fundamentalism? Are they anything more than a fifth column…?»
