KARACHI, Aug 26: Efforts by the United States to install a puppet regime in Baghdad without taking wishes of the Iraqi people into account and to control that country’s oil resources, as well as US-Israeli nexus, were considered by academics as impediments to peace.
The academics were speaking on the last day of an international seminar on External Power Politics in the Middle East and Regional Responses organized by the department of international relations, University of Karachi, in collaboration with Hanns Seidel Foundation. Dr Talat Wizarat was the programme director.
Israeli terrorist attacks on Palestinians was also deplored during the deliberations.
Prof Aziz Alkazaz of the German Orient Institute maintained that economic imperialism was one of the features of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. “Hegemony over oil resources has been the greatest propellant in war against Iraq,” he said.
Prof Alkazaz, who is of Iraqi origin, maintained that the governing council propped by Americans in Iraq, was not accepted by majority of the Iraqis as it did not represent real transfer of power.
He was of the view that democratization in the region could not begin without a real democratic government in Iraq. He said that trying to restore a puppet regime in Baghdad would have far-reaching negative bearing on the region.
He was of the view that a transitional government under UN would be better than an imposed one. Lack of any post-war Iraq plan by Americans is also a great impediment to peace.
Syrian perspective was provided by Dr Faisal Khalthoum, director of the Damascus-based Centre of Strategic Studies who dealt with the role of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration.
He was critical of American focus on Muslims and Islam as a threat to its interests after the fall of Soviet Union and said that “they want to reshape economy, political system and religion, particularly of Muslims. They also want to democratize not in the real sense but to consolidate their hegemony.”
There is a deliberate attempt at pretending Islam and Muslims in negative terms and portraying Islam and Islamic countries as cradle of terrorism, he said.
He said that Palestine and Iraq were main and inter-related issues as both are occupied. Syria, he added, was opposed to theoccupation of Iraq or any other Muslim country.
Dr Khalthoum said that Damascus had tried its best to defuse the situation and had told the Americans that dialogue was the only way to improve relations.
He sad that Syria had wrongly been implicated in Iraq affair and was now being compelled to oust Palestinian organizations from its territory. He said that Palestinians were being subjected to repression by Israel, supported by the Americans. In Syrian view, he said, withdrawal of Palestinians was linked to the just and humane resolution of the Palestine question.
Dr Ross Masood Hussain dealt with the Iranian angle and said that Iran’s significance could not be ignored keeping in view the geopolitics of the region and the threats it had been facing from Israel and US.
He deplored the American attempts to destabilize Iranian government and the ongoing internal political struggle for power in that country. He also dealt with the possibilities of American options to remove the present setup but stressed that dialogue and not clash could pave the way for a better understanding between Muslims and the West.
A refreshing perspective was provided by Prof Ramazan Gozen of Atilim University, Ankara, who talked of a ‘complex inter-dependence’ of Turkey and Iraq.
Tracing the change in Turkish attitude towards the region and its compulsions owing to its relationship with the US in the context of NATO, on the one hand, and the Muslim countries on the other, Prof Gozen said things had now changed due to sheer force of public opinion and vibrant democratic forces which had been instrumental in Turkey’s refusal to assist the United States militarily in Iraq.
He said that 96 per cent of the Turkish people opposed the US invasion of Iraq.
Prof Noman Galal, a former ambassador to Pakistan, maintained that there had been extensive and deliberate attempts aimed at distorting Arab character.
This character assassination was primarily carried out by manipulating public opinion in the US and Israel, he said adding that dialogue was the only option to avert a clash of civilizations.
Dealing with the challenges for pro-American governments, he maintained that Egypt, Jordan, and the Asian members of the GCC, once generally considered to be pro-American, were pro-Western. However, on closer examination, one would notice a lot of difference in the individual approach of these countries towards the US.
On the whole, the pro-American Arab regimes face the challenges of recursion of the concept of Arabism and Arab international states; cultural change; challenge of foreign occupation; the necessity of democracy; necessity of educational change; economic development; and population problem.
Dr Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema was of the view that the Middle East roadmap was not going to succeed owing to American policies and Israeli attempts to obstruct it through terrorist attacks, including the killing of Abu Shanab, which he termed a ‘clear violation of the roadmap’.
The ME road map devised by a quartet consisting the US, UN, Russia and European Union is another bid to secure the much-desired peace in the area.
The peace process actually got under way after the Arab-Israeli war of 1973. Since then, many efforts have been made to secure peace. Among the notable efforts are Camp David Accord, Oslo process, Madrid Conference and Prince Abdullah’s peace plan, which secured the blessings of the Arabs.
Whether or not the roadmap would make any major headway is an open question. However, it is not too far fetched to assume that if the quartet is determined to have it implemented, it can be achieved, though not without some difficulties.
But one must not forget, he said, that the Zionist lobbies were not only watching the process of implementation actively, but would not hesitate to demonstrate even more aggressive attitudes under favourable circumstances and developments.
Dr Syed Minhaj-ul-Hasan spoke on the consequences of Iraq War for Turkey. He said that the events of 9/11 had shattered the impregnable image and pride of the world’s sole super power —United States — hence causing it to acquire an aggressive altitude towards not only Afghanistan but Iraq also.
Though the overall impact on Turkey of the war was negative, the quick end of war has opened some opportunities to it as well. With the change in regime and lifting of sanctions, Turkey would be getting a boost in its trade and tourism. The export of oil through Turkish pipeline has also resumed, hence alleviating some of the economic difficulties of Turkey.
Mr M. H. Askari said that extra-regional powers, such as Russia and China, had been instrumental in the ME politics. He called for a strong democratic response. Dr Adnan Sarwar of the University of Peshawar was of the view that new political realities in the region had both negative and positive implications for Pakistan. He was supportive of Gen Musharraf’s U-turn in foreign policy and stressed the need for examining the pros and cons of recognizing Israel.