Friday, April 30, 2004
By: Tashbih Sayyed
UN Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi joined the ranks of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda
by echoing the well known radical Islamist positions of Osama bin Laden, Yasser
Arafat, Sheikh Yassin and Rantisi. UN Envoy also reinforced that a world body
that is dominated by undemocratic states can neither advance the cause of peace
nor can be entrusted with the job of establishing a democratic basis in Iraq.
In fact, Barahimi's anti-American statement underlined that the United Nations
with its present composition can never be expected to share the burden of the
Brahimi told France's Inter radio that Israeli policies toward Palestinians and
Washington's support for them hindered his search for a caretaker Iraqi regime
that would take power on June 30 when the U.S.-led occupation ends." He
said, "The problems are linked, there is no doubt about it." Brahimi
said his job was complicated by Iraqi perceptions of "Israel's completely
violent and repressive security policy and determination to occupy more and more
Palestinian territory." The United Nations Envoy reminded the world of Islamists
who hide their hatred for the open societies and anti-Semitism by blaming U.S.
and Israeli policies.
In a March 1997, CNN interview, Osama bin Laden said, "We
declared jihad against the US government, because the US government
is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that
are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or
through its support of the Israeli occupation."
And Barahimi endorsed Osama's views when he said, on French radio
that "the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy
of domination and the suffering imposed on the Palestinians," as
well as the "equally unjust support of the United States for
this policy." He ignored the fact that by supporting Osama
bin Laden's anti-U.S. views, he was also encouraging those who
want to wage a jihad against all the infidels. Osama says, "For
this (US support for Israel) and other acts of aggression and injustice,
we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion
it is our duty to make jihad so that God's word is the one exalted
to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all
The Middle East observers familiar with Mr. Barahimi's views doubt
if any government formed on his recommendations will be able to
reflect the true ethos of free societies. Barahimi who believes
that the U.S. policies in the Middle East are responsible for the
chaos in Iraq, he will naturally pick up those Iraqis to run the
administration who agrees with him who is definitely going to be
The UN Envoy has made it obvious that he like other anti-Americans
wants the United States to fail in its quest to establish an outpost
of democratic traditions and pluralist values in the middle of
barren and scorching desert of intolerance and religious fundamentalism.
Anti-US forces having failed in their campaign to discourage the
free world from liberating Iraqis are now trying to frustrate the
coalition efforts to establish democracy in Iraq by helping the
resistance. They know that longer the resistance continues, more
and more Iraqis will become wary of the coalition presence and
join them. The perception that the U.S. is ready to give up and
leave, will help the radical Islamists in recruiting more and more
Muslims in their cause.
The enemies of freedoms are experienced. They have been resisting
the open societies for many years and have learned a great deal
by fighting as the Soviet proxies (Third world Champions and the
exponents of Non-Aligned movement). They are not just Islamists.
Arab Nationalists, Socialist activists, Left and liberal Civil
libertarians have all joined hands in Iraq.
The anti-Americans are using their cold war tactics all over again.
Throughout the cold war era, they were able to create a fashion
of being anti-American. "Yankee Go back," was the slogan
of the day. Mao's sayings, Che Guevara's struggle, Castro's revolution,
Non-Aligned movement and Gemal Abdul Nasser's defiance against
the U.S. were examples to be followed. And the Kremlin was there
to back them all. The liquidation of the Soviet Empire was a great
set back for these elements. They had almost given it up.
But Saudi Arabia's Petro-dollars, Wahhabi yearning to re-establish
Khilafah, Palestanization of all that is Muslim and the perception
that it was the power of Jihad that defeated the Soviet Empire
rejuvenated the cold war fervor. Everyone irrespective of their
disparate beliefs, ideologies and long term objectives joined hands
in completing their mission of defeating the U.S. Iraq is their
final theater. And radical Islam is the sole beneficiary of this
The United Nations has become a tool in the hands of anti-Americans.
And Mr. Brahimi, according to many is not a neutral individual.
He has displayed, time and again, an open tilt towards Palestanized
and radical Islamist passions. His bigotry prevents him from seeing
the real causes of instability in the Arab societies.
He believes that the root cause of the problems afflicting the
Muslim and Arab states is not the absence of tolerance, democracy,
pluralism, freedom and human rights but the United States of America's
desire to bring equality and social justice to the door-steps of
these oppressed peoples. His Arab anti-Semitism has rendered him
incapable of recognizing the only democratic and free society in
the Middle East - Israel. In short, he is a person who represents
the racist sociology of Islamist fundamentalists.
Lakhdar Brahimi wants the world to believe that the coalition
authorities and the U.S. are responsible for the chaos in Iraq.
He criticizes U.S. methods of fighting the terrorists. He does
not want the coalition forces to enforce order by arresting insurgents.
He does not make a distinction between peacetime conditions and
war-time emergencies. He calls the arrests of people, responsible
for the deaths of coalition troops, a brutality.
He, like, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Baathists, says that
Iraqis are fighting Americans because they were tired of the American
arrests of people without charges, holding them without trials,
torturing and brutalizing people who were under arrest, and often
killing those they arrested. In his view, U.S. had no valid reason
for going after Al Sadr and the attacks on Fallujah are criminal
acts. He wants America to withdraw as soon as possible.
It is people like Mr. Barahimi who are responsible for the Muslim
radicalism. Instead of educating the masses about the real reasons
for their backwardness, voices like him always hide behind cold
war era rhetoric. Saudi kings, Husni Mubaraks, Musharrafs and their
ilk, all blame the U.S. policies for turning the Muslim peoples
against the Washington. Mr. Barahimi, instead of becoming a mouth
piece of radical Islam, should be condemning such rulers. It is
their corruption not the U.S. policies which is responsible for
the sorry conditions of the Muslim peoples. But he cannot do that
because his job depends on their votes.
If the United Nations would have been straight and honest; there
would not have been one single dictator at the helm of affairs
anywhere. But the world has witnessed how the international body
worked to prolong the reign of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. United
Nations "is revealed to have kept Saddam's regime in money
through years in which it might have collapsed under the pressure
of U.S.-led sanctions.
For there is no remaining doubt that the UN's "oil-for-food" program
became Saddam's principal source of hard cash, and that far from
being used to feed and medically treat the country's suffering
children and innocents, billions and billions were systematically
diverted to building more palaces, acquiring new weapons, and to
lining the pockets of a rogues' gallery of self-interested Russians,
Frenchmen, Arab and leftist journalists, probable terrorist front-men,
and the UN's own staff and connections."
United Nation's corruption and perennial anti-Americanism has
prevented it from solving many of the problems it was created to
solve. The Middle East, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Rawanda, Bosnia and
now Iraq are the best examples of this corruption. I have said
it before that UN's failure to prevent undemocratic and totalitarian
states from becoming its members has made the UN the most anti-democratic
organization in the world. It has now been transformed into an
entity where the envoys of the totalitarian states, being in majority,
use democracy to defeat democracy.
Such a body could not have found a better and more accomplished
envoy for itself than Lakhdar Brahimi. According to David Warren, "As
the envoy of the Arab League in October 1989, he (Mr. Brahimi)
conned the Lebanese Christian prime minister, Michael Aoun, into
accepting the "temporary" Syrian occupation of his country.
Mr. Brahimi was the author of the Taif Agreement, which then permanently
legitimated this occupation of Lebanon; by a Syrian Ba'athist regime
which remains among the most murderously evil that exists. As UN
envoy to Afghanistan in 1997-99, Mr. Brahimi allowed his "peace
brokering" between Taliban and Northern Alliance to be used
as a front for the Taliban and Al Qaeda to launch a successful
surprise military thrust into Northern Alliance territory.
Middle East observers point out that Lakhdar Brahimi's statements
and comments as a UN Envoy to Iraq have in most part been directed
at undermining the U.S. credibility and bolstering the position
of the insurgents. He deliberately tried to sow the seeds of distrust
in the minds of the Iraqis by suggesting that the US-appointed
interim Governing Council is not known for its honesty, integrity
and competence and therefore it should be removed.
Brahimi's criticism of the US led coalition on a number of specific
human rights issues, in view of many Middle East experts, is aimed
at appeasing the insurgents. His allegation that the Iraqis are
detained without charge or trial is a very crude attempt to discredit
coalition efforts. He ignores the fact that only those Iraqis are
detained who are suspected of crimes which in many cases have resulted
in the deaths of our brave troops. Playing to the anti-American
gallery, Barahimi insists that they should either be charged or
He also wants the Saddam supporters and Baathists to be given
jobs and to be reintroduced in administration in positions of power
and authority. Such a plan is only going to benefit the Saddam
loyalists. It is an open secret that the Saddam loyalists are desperately
trying to infiltrate the post Saddam administration being set up
by U.S. led coalition authorities. Once inside, it will become
easier to sabotage. Barahimi's insistence on re-Baathification,
to many, appears to be an attempt to facilitate this phenomenon.
He said, " It is difficult to understand that thousands upon
thousands of teachers, university professors, medical doctors and
hospital staff, engineers and other professionals, who are sorely
needed in the country, have been dismissed within the de-Baathification
process and far too many of those cases have yet to be reviewed."
Such a talk of re-Baathification is dangerous. Any suggestion
that old regime people can come back to run the Iraqi lives is
enough to scare the pro-democracy people from helping the coalition.
Brahimi's assessments fail to accommodate this reality that the
only reason many pro-democracy Iraqis have not come forward to
help the coalition authorities is the impression that sooner or
later Baathists will succeed in acquiring the positions of power
and then they will punish all those who collaborated with the coalition.
Independent analysts are convinced that any move or talk of re-Baathification
will doom the prospects of democracy in Iraq for ever.
Similarly, Barahimi's criticism of the US military show of strength
against Fallujah and Shiite rebels in the south and insistence
that negotiation was the only way forward cannot be helpful in
solving the problem. The UN Envoy needs to be told that negotiations
with the Baathists, Al-Qaeda sympathizers and Shia radicals will
only empower the insurgents who are waiting to see a sign of weakness
in the coalition resolve.
It is true that the U.S. needs the assistance of the United Nations
in Iraq to establish a secure, stable and democratic environment
in the region. But can a UN that does not believe in democratic
values and has shown open hostility toward US's policies be that