Islam and modernity

FORMER British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in an article published in The Guardian, has compared militant Islam to Bolshevism and advocated massive use of force against it. “Islamic extremism today”, she writes, “like Bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.”

Applauding American success against “Islamic terrorism”, Mrs. Thatcher has favoured strikes at “other centres of Islamic terror” in Africa, South-east Asia and elsewhere. Also, she asks the West to cripple Muslim “rogue states” like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan because they are “enemies of western values and interests”.

Mrs. Thatcher’s call for a crusade against militant Islam is almost an endorsement of what Professor Samuel Huntington forecast some years ago in his monumental work, The Clash of Civilizations: the next round would be between Islam and the West.

If the “second crusade” prediction comes true it will be a titanic global tragedy. But the worst sufferers will be Muslims because, unlike the Richard-Saladin crusade, this will be an altogether unequal contest. It is high time religious leaders and intelligentsia in the Islamic world got together to ponder a strategy that nails the lie that Islam is an aggressive, hostile, intolerant and terror-loving religion. It should be clear to us by now that the only way to present the true image of Islam is by getting out of the downward spiral of ignorance and obscurantism, fanaticism and delusion, poverty and oppression, rage and self-pity, hate and spite, violence and suicide bombing.

We have to convince the militants that terrorist attacks have harmed Islam and Muslims more than their enemies. We have to persuade that hijacking planes, bombing shopping centres, burning women and children, slaughtering innocent civilians, killing and getting killed in order to get a ticket to heaven is a most flagrant violation of the Quranic injunctions, Islamic morality and the humane teachings of the holy Prophet.

We cannot get out of the mess in which we find ourselves today unless we first look for the real reasons for our decline. This applies to Pakistan as much as to any other country in the Islamic world.

The prerequisite for an objective analysis is to abandon the prevailing culture of victimhood. Instead of asking “what did we do wrong?” we are asking “who did this to us?” Like the ancient Romans, who put the blame for the decline of their civilization on the outsiders, we have acquired a tendency to create scapegoats and blame others for our problems. First we blamed the Crusades, then the Mongol invasions, then the western imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and now the American and the Jewish “conspiracy” for the decline of the Islamic world. But the bitter truth is that the success of our adversaries has been not the cause but the consequence of our weakness and decadence.

When Europe was living in dark ages, the Islamic world was a global leader in science, technology, statecraft, culture and the arts. The four great centres of Islamic civilization — Spain under the Moors, India under the Mughals, Iran under the Safavids and Turkey under the Ottomans — flourished as long as they kept pace with the changing times. Their decline began when they turned away from the path of reform and regeneration, resisted change, and stifled intellectual inquisitiveness and creativity.

Just one example will bring home the point. In 1492, after the fall of Grenada, the last outpost of Muslim rule in Spain, the Spanish Jews, because of Christian persecution, migrated to Turkey with their printing presses. They were granted permission by the Sultan to print books in the capital and other cities on one condition: they would not print any books in Arabic characters. Until the 18th century, books were printed in the Ottoman lands in Hebrew, Greek, Armenian, Syric and occasionally Latin characters, but not in the script used by the Turks and their Muslim subjects.

By losing receptivity to change and being impervious to thought we lost our sense of adventure, our curiosity in the new and the unknown. That was the reason the Renaissance, the Reformation and even the scientific revolution passed unnoticed in the Islamic world. In a nutshell, we fell behind because we failed to come to grips with new ideas and changing times.

The larger crisis of the Islamic world — Pakistan’s in particular — is not political or economic. The larger crisis is of a civilization that has become aware of its inadequacies but is too confused (or fearful?) to walk the path of reason and adopt the intellectual means to move ahead and regain its glory. This largely explains our social, political, economic, cultural and institutional backwardness.

The Muslim intelligentsia continues to live in two different worlds — the medieval and the modern. The Christians, the Jews, and others have adjusted their dogmas to the demands of modernity and science. But we have not resolved the conflict between obscurantism and modernism with the result that we continue to be torn between the contrary pulls and demands of two different worlds — one long dead, the other in full bloom and still evolving.

The Islamic world is faced today with a number of dilemmas. One of them, of recent origin, has attracted little attention. While Islamic zealots are denouncing and rejecting western civilization, a mass Muslim migration to Europe and North America is in full swing for reasons of economic and educational betterment. There are now 1.3 million Muslim immigrants in Britain, 3.2 million in Germany and 4.2 million in France. Figures for other West European countries are not available, but their number is also large. In North America, Islam is the fastest growing religion because of Muslim migration. 600,000 Muslims are living in New York city alone.

According to orthodox Muslim jurists, for a Muslim to live under non-Muslim rule is undesirable, and according to some, even forbidden. The classical jurists laid down that a Muslim could live under non-Muslim rule only under a dire necessity, like the practical need of a trader for a short- or long-term visit to a non-Muslim land or if a Muslim community was conquered by an infidel invader.

But what is happening today is something unique in Islamic history. Great numbers of Muslims are migrating from Islamic countries to non-Muslim lands, of their own free will, willingly subjecting themselves and their families to non-Muslim governments and non-Muslim personal laws and sending their children to be educated in non-Muslim schools, colleges and universities. The mass Muslim migration to Europe and North America will have profound implications for the West as well as for the Islamic world

The surprising thing is that most of these Muslim immigrants come from traditional and conservative societies. Being in an environment, totally alien to their beliefs and ways of life, some of them react by joining the “Tableeghi” ranks and some seek to ease their religious conscience by sporting long beards and wearing ankle-high shalwars or pyjamas to assert their Muslim identity.

After September 11, a serious debate is going on in the West whether Muslim immigrants can fit into the liberal western society. German foreign minister, Joschka Fisher, whom no one would consider racist or illiberal, remarked in May that it was necessary to find out whether Islamic traditions and teachings were compatible with the values of modern western societies. His remarks are all the more significant because most of Germany’s Muslims are Turks whose attitude towards Islam is much more relaxed than that of Pakistanis.

Is Islam an aggressive, hostile, intolerant and retrograde religion, as its opponents and denigrators claim it to be? It is for us to give the lie to this propaganda because the quality of faith depends on the quality of men who practise it. In Pakistan as much as in other Islamic countries, we have to abandon the culture of victimhood and get out of the groove of hate and spite, rage and self-pity. Instead of blaming others for our problems, we should objectively look into the whys and wherefores of our decline. La Rochefoucauld’s perceptive saying — “nature endowed us with pride to spare us the pain of knowing our imperfections” — applies equally to individuals as well as nations.

We are living in an interdependent world of accelerated changes; our times are moving so fast that unless we heed the wake-up call, the world will soon pass us by and treat us as a lost tribe. We have to regain the lost spirit and habit of inquiry and analysis, reform and regeneration to get out of the rut of moral chaos and intellectual stupor and decline.

Our best hope lies in reason, free discussion, receptiveness to thought, openness, synthesis and harmony, pluralism, tolerance, accommodation, and seeing the other fellow’s point of view. If we continue to ignore these virtues, the future will become even more bleak for us than the present.

Time to think of voter’s dilemma

CONTEMPORARY political chemistry of this Islamic republic of ours defies all standard and established terminology. What is a political party? No political party in the country today can honestly claim to have a constitution worth the name. No political party has a political policy or programme of action in government.

For over two years these political parties have been clamouring for freedom of political activity. Honest political activity begins with intelligent and coherent political thinking. On thinking no dictator has ever been able to place a ban. Poet Ghalib says, “Zindan mein bhi khayal biaban naward tha (Even in prison my thought was roaming across limitless space).”

All political parties have had more than two years in which to think out and work out their political programme, the one that they would attempt to implement if elected to form a government. Or, if not elected to form a government, to work and (if it should come to that) agitate for in the opposition, inside the parliament and out in the field.

From September 1, outdoor political activity has been permitted. What kind of activity has any political party commenced so far? Except for the symbols allotted to them by the Election Commission, no political party has anything of substance to show for its existence. Most of them are still engaged in the sterile exercise of making and breaking alliances or ‘seat adjustments.’

On the one hand we have to accept the undeniable fact that political activity in Pakistan has been rather out of fashion since General Ziaul Haq toppled and hanged Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The longest ruling dictator instituted the culture of “partyless” politics and partyless elections. The irony is that those who were Zia’s first eleven players are today the high priests of democracy.

In a country where party politics has been at a discount, there are more registered and legally recognized political parties than anywhere in the world. We have around one hundred political parties. In the United States they have been trying for a hundred years to have a third party. They have failed. In Britain, there used to be three major parties, now there are two.

Of the more than one hundred political parties, not one has a proper constitution, or policy paper or statement, not to speak of a party manifesto and programme of action. This statement is being made with an absolutely clear sense of responsibility.

While compiling-editing my latest book The Political Parties of Pakistan, I addressed personal letters to the top-ranking leaders of 17 ‘leading’ political parties, requesting them to kindly provide a copy of their party’s policy statement, document or election manifesto.

Only one took the trouble to acknowledge that letter. Air Marshal Asghar Khan wrote back to say he was too busy to oblige. I do not want to embarrass those leaders. But if the readers of this newspaper wish to know the names of those parties and leaders, I shall have no hesitation in revealing their names.

This is not a secret worth guarding. Imagine we have the much sought after general election round the corner. And it is all so quiet. Unbelievable.

Look at it from an earnest voter’s angle. There is no clearly defined programme from any political party. There are not even slogans. All we have is more than a hundred election symbols. How is he/she to decide whom to vote for? One sagely citizen said he had solved half of the problem. He is quite clear about whom not to vote for. From now till the polling day, he may be able to solve, with divine help, the other half of his problem.

It is by no means too soon to try to look beyond the elections. With nothing short of help from the heavens would it be possible to have a National Assembly with one party commanding a clear-cut majority and the strength to form a sustainable government.

Goodness knows the country needs, above all, a sustainable government with the ability to stand on its two feet and command respect.

In a situation like this the common tendency is to invent excuses or look for scapegoats to heap all the blame on for the pervasive political blight. The intelligent citizen must resist this tendency. Blaming others is no relief, let alone the remedy. Let us admit that the country has been let down by those who have over the years tended to accept the unacceptable, without so much as a whimper of resistance or protest.

Time to recall how the ‘intellectuals’ formed the Writers Guild to luxuriate in the good graces of the first military dictator.

That was the ‘original sin’ of the educated citizens. Thereafter, kow-towing to arbitrary authority became an accepted pattern of conduct for the elite. Its educated, senior citizens have betrayed this nation.

Only next in line to be castigated are the twenty-two families of the Ayub era. Today they have proliferated into more than four hundred. These families have prospered at the cost of the country and today they have come to have a weight that they keep throwing around to pervert the political mainstream of the country. Thus the better-placed citizens, who have chosen to tread the path of least resistance, are the ones who have brought Pakistan to this pass.

Of course, the political leaders have been an unrelieved disgrace. Almost all of them. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was no angel. But he did teach us a lesson that he himself was soon to consign to oblivion. That lesson was that if you are with the people, and so long as you remain with them, the people will stay with you. And if the people are with you, nobody can bully you. ZAB shook a Field Marshal and virtually had him grovelling in the dust.

These same people took ZAB’s daughter with open arms when dictator Zia was in full cry. At the first available opportunity they carried her on their shoulders to the highest seat of power. She betrayed the people. When she was thrown out there not a sigh heaved, nor a tear shed. When the dictator was being lowered into the grave, only Nawaz Sharif was sobbing uncontrollably. But when Nawaz was booted out, not a soul felt sorry.

And so, we are where we are — in political wilderness where hardly a face is to be seen that is recognizable or trustworthy. Yet, it is not an entirely unrelieved prospect. As senior citizen has said, we should be pretty clear about whom not to be voting for. But it is only fair to hope that this election will throw up some new faces with untarnished records. That is the kind of hope that keeps faith in democracy alive in the face of dangers.

The election that first brought ZAB to the fore also threw up a number of bright young people. Pity, they withered away because ZAB himself lost his sense of direction and went astray. Even so, there remains something about ZAB’s legacy that is worth returning to in moments of political unease and doubt. The essence of it is that those who respect the people shall be respected so long as they continue to be on the side of the people.

And that is what election and democracy is all about.

Who is a true democrat?

WHAT happens when a politician comes home after addressing a rally on the blessings of democracy and exhorting his listeners to subscribe wholeheartedly to the democratic way of politics.

He has been in this business for long and is convinced that there is no substitute for real democracy. There is no doubt that he is completely genuine where adherence to democracy in politics is concerned. But as he doffs the mantle of politician and dons that of the husband and father, the dedicated democrat is suddenly transformed into an autocrat, accustomed to having his every word obeyed without demur, because he is the head of the family and the bread-winner.

Like quick-change performers in popular theatre and burlesque, some people are adept at effecting a complete reversal in their personality at a moment’s notice. Some of them are of course given a dual personality by nature, one absolutely different from the other. I’ll give you an example.

I know a man who is the best of friends. His sincerity and affection towards even casual acquaintances are beyond doubt. He will do anything for you, and if you are a close personal friend you may even depend upon him to sacrifice his all for you. He is kindness and goodness personified. You can say that God has gifted him with a saint’s temperament.

And yet when it comes to dealing with his wife he is the meanest of men, selfish, petty-minded and incomprehensibly intolerant. Nothing that anyone says can make him change his attitude towards her. All that he will say in return is, “You don’t know her.” But years of proximity to both have shown clearly that she is the long-suffering victim of his personal ego and that he is completely wrong and biased in his approach towards her. Nobody can fathom the reason. Maybe he hates her and wants another wife.

But I was talking of democracy and its effects on a person’s public and private life. Day in and day out we lecture people on the need for democracy in our political dealings with opponents and those who differ with us. Experts, teachers, government leaders — even military leaders — are at pains to inculcate the democratic spirit of tolerance in students and young people. There is incessant talk of the need to acquire the democratic approach to national and parochial problems.

Of course all this is done in blatant disregard of the obvious yawning gap between precept and practice. But who am I to suspect people’s intentions? I only take them at their word when they say that democracy should prevail in every walk of life. And yet prevail it does not. Because we have decided that it is only in politics that democracy is required, to achieve a harmonious balance between ambition and the rules of society. Otherwise in our private daily life, everyone of us wants things done according to our wishes, our lights, our opinions.

Take the average head of the family, normally the father who, because he provides the money, calls the shots. He rules the home like an absolute monarch, with the “queen” going along with most of his whims and fancies. Together they believe they have to run their children’s lives for them, howsoever old the boys and girls may be. They are never supposed to grow up in wisdom and acquire the good sense to make their own decisions.

The two between them firmly believe even if their offspring are 40 years old, married, with children of their own and earning an independent living, they, the parents will always be wiser than them, all-knowing in the ways of the world. The parents may be morons, the children may be geniuses, but this belief will always hold good.

If the dependent sons and daughters so much as whisper the desire to differ, the father will threaten to throw them out of the house (economic blackmail) while the mother will utter weird oaths like “May you see my dead face,” and “I’ll never bless you the milk I fed you,” (emotional blackmail). By the way, this last, heard very often, is an inane and selfish oath, replete with material vanity, and implies that the mother is putting a price on her milk.

A daughter wishes to marry the man of her choice. She is a working girl and has probably met the man in her official work. The prospective groom may be the ideal young man around, but just because the democrat father was not initially involved, he must oppose the choice. It is like saying that nobody will vote against my wishes, democracy notwithstanding.

A son has no aptitude for science and mathematics. He knows that if he goes on with these subjects at the stage where other subjects can be taken up, he will make a mess of his educational career. But the democrat father has set his heart on engineering as a vocation for him. So the poor boy must carry on, against his own better judgment, against his inclinations.

Marriage and a profession in life are important matters. But even in making minor choices the will of the parent must hold sway. A child does not like raw tomatoes, but must be made to eat them, for “they make blood.” Of all the idiotic nonsense! No matter if the kid throws up.

I beg of you to ask yourself a question. How can one be a true democrat unless one allows the principles of democracy and respect for others’ opinions to rule in one’s entire life and in everything that one does? Democracy is a state of mind and can only be meaningful when it is practised honestly and in very sphere of one’s worldly activities.

My thesis is (for whatever it is worth) that you have first to be a democrat in your home, in your mohalla, and in your city before you can claim to be a champion of democracy at the national level, or dream of contributing to the promotion of democracy on the international plane. The more I see of “democrats” in Pakistan the more I get confirmed in this view.

A year in the world

ONE year ago the United States was the object of an unprecedented global outpouring of support and sympathy. The White House was inundated with phone calls from the presidents and prime ministers of friendly as well as not-so-friendly nations; thousands of people spontaneously marched through the streets or gathered outside the US embassies in capitals on every continent.

Some of the reaction was bound to be transient, but the Bush administration nevertheless seemed, after a bumpy start in international affairs, to have a chance to strengthen or even remake US relations with much of the world. A year later it’s worth reflecting on where in the world the administration has built those stronger relationships — and where it has not.

Both lists could be debated, but the first — those nations that have improved relations with the Bush administration — would almost certainly include Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Uzbekistan, China, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan. The opposite list, surprisingly but undeniably, would have to include much of the European Union as well as Mexico, Canada, South Korea and Japan.

With the exception of Israel, the first group is made up of countries that previously had arm’s-length relationships with Washington and were subject to heavy US criticism for their lack of democracy or their abuse of human rights — failings that in most cases have only grown worse in the last year. The second group, in contrast, consists entirely of democracies and close US allies, nations that have the greatest interest in supporting America against its enemies.

The emblem of the first group might be Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, who a year ago was regarded in Washington as an unsavoury dictator and today is embraced as a valued US partner. The latter group might be embodied by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who last September joined a pro-American demonstration by 200,000 people in Berlin and this September has made opposition to the Bush administration a central message of his re-election campaign.

It may be that much of this outcome was unavoidable. The United States needed the help of Pakistan and Uzbekistan to wage war against al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, and it saw in the offer of assistance by Russian President Vladimir Putin a chance to transform relations with Moscow.

Much-touted administration plans to upgrade relations with Mexico and Japan were bound to suffer as resources and high-level attention were redirected toward winning the war. And European leaders, such as Schroeder, bear a large measure of responsibility for the transatlantic tension; they have failed to fully face the threats to Western security revealed by 9/11 and instead cynically have lapsed into exploiting the anti-American resentment always latent in their countries.

Still, it’s hard not to conclude that the administration failed to take full advantage of a rare international opportunity. It forged a close alliance with European partners in combating al-Qaeda’s clandestine cells and financial networks, but it stunted the coalition by deliberately excluding most NATO armies from the heart of the Afghan campaign and needlessly infuriated those governments with its gratuitous campaigns against international treaties and its embrace of trade protectionism.

It not only abruptly dropped discussions with Mexico on better management of the border, but also ignored or brusquely dismissed Latin America’s growing financial problems. And despite much rhetoric about fighting terrorism through the spread of democratic values, it did little to advance these values among its new friends, or old ones in the Arab Middle East; instead it found ways to condone Russia’s brutal campaign in Chechnya and China’s against the Muslims of its western provinces.—The Washington Post

Memo to UN: You’re either with us or you’re history

NO, the world will never be the same again. The crucial transformation occurred not on September 11, 2001 but on September 12, 2002. That’s the day George W. Bush addressed the UN General Assembly.

Tony Blair dearly wishes to take credit for the supposed change of heart, although it is more likely to have been prompted by pressure from Colin Powell’s State Department as well as the broader Republican establishment. It is being projected as the triumph of multilateralism over unilateralism. That is debatable. It is less inaccurate to interpret it as a last chance. Not for peace, nor for Saddam Hussein’s regime, but for the United Nations.

The US president could have told the UN: “Look, as you must be aware, we have a problem with this Saddam fella. He used to be our friend once, when he was dedicated mainly to killing Kurds and Iranians, but that was long ago, in Daddy’s days. He may have been a bit of an s.o.b. even then, but at least he was our s.o.b.

“We gave him arms and encouragement. Our boys were drawing up battle plans for the Iraqis even after Saddam’s men were found to have done something very naughty: they actually went and used chemical weapons against their enemies. We were willing to put up with that. But Saddam went just too far when he invaded our good buddies the Kuwaitis. Can you imagine the kind of control that would have given him over the region’s oil? Could we tolerate that? Not in a thousand years!

“So we had to hit him — hit him hard. And we had to do it before the Iraqis set up a puppet regime in Kuwait and got the hell out of there (just like we had done in Panama). We had to do it before any of the diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis got anywhere. Now, as I’m sure you all know, Dad’s a great guy. He was able to set up a diverse coalition that looked really good on paper. He made sure the Security Council passed just the sort of resolution that was required. And we just went in there and sorted this Saddam fella out nice and proper.

“But we were generous in victory. In 1991 we didn’t think Saddam’s overthrow would best serve our interests. So when he lashed out against rebelling Shias and Kurds, we were willing to get out of his way. Apart from everything else, it offered proof of his cruelty. “So we got the UN to impose stringent sanctions, and in cooperation with our best friend, the United Kingdom, we kept bombing Iraq bit by bit, compounding it every now and then with a bunch of missiles — such as when Saddam tried to do Daddy in. Can you imagine that! Just who does he think he is?

“The weapons inspectors we — I mean the UN — deployed were able to root out most of Iraq’s deadliest weapons. But now they haven’t been there for five years. Who knows what Saddam has been up to since then? Actually, let me rephrase that: We all know what Saddam’s been up to in the interim. Rebuilding his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, that’s what. And one day he may even succeed in getting hold of a nuke. Doesn’t the very idea make you wanna puke?

“How do we know this? Well, I can’t compromise the sources of vital intelligence. You’ll just have to believe me. If I can take Dick and Don at their word, you’ll just have to extend me the same courtesy. And who will Saddam use these weapons against? Well, I’m sure he holds a grudge against me because of who I am — not just the president of the incomparably beautiful and almighty United States of America but also my father’s son. He may also be riled by the fact that all my best men were seconded from Dad’s army. And women too — there, Condee, I’ve said it now.

“The only one who’s turned out to be a bit of a black sheep — don’t get me wrong — is the ultra-cautious Colin Powell. Actually, just between you and me, I think the problem with Colin is that he must have come under communist influence in his youth and, despite his best efforts, has never been able to overcome completely the effects of that brainwashing. Why, I’ve been told that he proudly admits that his favourite song is We Shall Overcome! Can you believe that? That’s a red anthem. I’m sure it’s top of the pops in the barracks of Baghdad... Or maybe not. Because Saddam isn’t a communist, is he? Actually, who knows? He’s never denied that, has he?

“Oh, I do wish that Senator Joe McCarthy was still around. I don’t know what he would have said about Saddam, but you can bet your life he would have kept Colin out of the State Department. The State Department needs a regime change. But, of course, there’s no need to deploy the Pentagon’s resources. As befits a loyal retainer, Colin has chosen the path of least resistance and agreed to step aside when the Supreme Court puts me back in the White House in 2004. Now that’s what I call democracy.

“Would Saddam Hussein be willing to follow suit? Not in a million years. At least I hope not, because that would only complicate our task. See, Dad was able to establish a permanent American presence in the Persian Gulf in 1991. Kuwait was the ideal cue. But that’s no longer enough. After 9/11, nothing short of direct control will do — direct control of the oilfields, that is. In the event of unrest or rebellion in Saudi Arabia, our boys are poised to stake their claim. But Iraq is equally vital. And the time to move in is NOW.

“Why now? Well, why not? It has to be done sooner or later, and there’s no time like the present. We’ve successfully achieved regime change in Afghanistan — not for the first time, mind you, and perhaps not the last — and we’re on a roll. We’ve gotta follow it up with something bigger and better, and Saddam is... well, he’s just there. We’ve tried our best to establish links between him and Al Qaeda and, believe me, we’ll succeed one day. But even if we can’t, I’m sure Saddam Hussein was grinning when the Twin Towers were attacked. And that’s reason enough to hunt him down as part of our glorious, never-ending war against terror.

“I’ve been told by some of your leaders that we’ve got to achieve a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians before taking action against Saddam. I categorically reject that linkage. My great friend Ariel Sharon has made it clear that he is with us and against the terrorists. No one can say the same for Yasser Arafat. The Palestinians deserve a regime change, and we could turn our attention to them once we’ve finished with Iraq.

“They also deserve a state, but they keep turning down every decent offer. They want complete sovereignty over an undivided territory, secure borders, the right to trade with anyone they choose, the right to determine their own destiny. Well, they can dream on.

“I’ve been told there’s also a bunch of Security Council resolutions that Israel has ignored for much longer than Saddam’s been around. Well, I really don’t understand how they got on to the books. Didn’t America have the power of veto at the time? Or did we have a Democratic administration? Maybe it was a communist conspiracy. Or Al Qaeda may have had something to do with it. Someone must have slipped them in while we weren’t looking. The point is, they shouldn’t be there, and we support Israel’s God-given right to ignore them.

“Anyway, we can’t be expected to suspend our crusade until Yasser and all the little Arafats decide to get real and accept that they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Israel reserves the right to cut it up, remove the icing, and offer them one slice at a time as a reward for good behaviour. Take it or leave it, whichever comes first. But I have no intention of sitting back and popping pretzels in anticipation.

“We could unleash our forces against Iraq tomorrow if we wanted to. But the United States of America is nothing if not generous. We want all of you — at least the richer ones among you — to be a part of this noble enterprise. That’s why I am here today. Here’s the deal: You give us the all-clear, and we’ll send a posse after Saddam Hussein. That will be a multilateral sanction for a bilateral action, because my best chump — sorry, I mean chum — Tony will stand by me come what may. Actually, trilateral at a stretch because, for whatever it’s worth, that eager-to-please little fella from Australia has promised to chip in.

“If you refuse, well, we’ll aim for Baghdad anyway. And don’t forget, after Iraq we’ll be looking for another target, and you could be next.

“I rest my case. Thank you, and God bless America.”

Dubya made his case for a UN imprimatur rather less bluntly than that, of course. His speechwriters had clearly put a great deal of effort into the text. But the occasional eloquence of the words (one cannot say the same about the delivery, because oratory does not come naturally to Bush) could hardly detract from the selectivity of the cited facts and opinions. Nor could there be much doubt about the upshot of the speech: The UN risks irrelevance if it fails to legitimize action against Iraq.

For all that, the gesture represents a small step away from the warpath, creating an opening that Baghdad can exploit. And it would be extremely foolhardy of the Saddam regime not to do so. Although Bush has not removed his finger from the trigger, he will find it difficult to pull it if Iraq does indeed open its doors to UN weapons inspectors. (And Iraq has now agreed to do so.) And it ought to do so without waiting for a fresh resolution, given that the Anglo-American combine will be striving hard to couch it in words that any self-respecting nation would find hard to swallow. The stationing of the US Central Command in Qatar is an ominous move.

The Security Council will be littered with carrots and sticks this week, and it would be folly to count on China or Russia vetoing the use of massive force. Of course, unfettered inspections offer no guarantee that the US won’t find an excuse for blundering in anyway. But any gesture that could potentially save tens of thousands of lives is certainly worth a try.

mahirali@journalist.com