8. THE HIDEOUS FACE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER * ⁽¹⁾ Everyone knows that the "New World Order" is a slogan of the new hegemony. As a former international civil servant who has served the UN system during twenty years of my life, I was distressed me to read such words as reported in "Panorama," the Italian magazine, in which the UN Secretary-General talks about the legitimate character of this war.⁽²⁾ It would have surely seemed inconceivable for all those who had approved the United Nations Charter in 1945, in San Francisco, that a man at the head of an organization whose raison d'être and prime vocation is to seek to maintain peace should utter such words. Yet, it is the same Secretary-General who, on some other occasion, stated that the Gulf war was not a UN war. In reality, I was not expecting such a confession when I wrote to him on January 1st 1991.⁽³⁾ In that letter I was simply appealing to him to break his silence. In fact, had he uttered these words before January 15th and had he had the needed intellectual courage and professional uprightness, people would have realized that this war had no legitimate bases. Unfortunately, that was not the case and his declarations denote the extent of pressures exerted on him. Worse still, he acknowledged in the above-mentioned interview that he had no role to play any more and that he would retire at the end of the year. This is why I stated, time and again, on the radio in Algiers, Tunis and elsewhere, that if he cared about his self-respect and if he had shown a minimal sense of responsibility - instead of standing aloof refraining from denouncing the non-respect of the United Nations Charter - we would not have had to deplore tens of thousands of victims. Therefore, the crucial nature of his responsibility should have logically induced him to hand in his resignation. That was the least to do had he had an acute sense of probity. As for the "New World Order," it has proven to be a hoax which cannot beguile anyone any more. However, it is the post-war period which worries me most. But what kind of war is it? First of all, there is the military phase which began on January 17th and which marked the onset of a real world war. This war, which will go on for some 10 to 15 years under various forms, will witness, in addition to the military arsenal, the deployment of an array of varied and insidious devices, especially that the West will have lost all credibility in the South countries. Conversely, it is refreshing to note that the intellectuals, whom I used to call the "party of France" or the party of the West" and who were naive enough to trust blindly those who claimed to support universal values and uphold human rights, peace and democracy, changed their mind as soon as they realized that the West did not intend to apply, in different contexts, the very principles it is advocating within its own boundaries. They simply understood that the West was actually applying a double-standard policy. It seems therefore that people have just started to realize the hegemonic designs of the West and of the inherent danger of Western civilizational domination. This awareness is, in itself, quite an asset. However, over and beyond the first phase, i.e. military confrontation, and no matter how long it may last, what I dread most is the actual existence of a pre-established plan aimed at partitioning the Arab world. In fact, among the States involved in the war, some, such as France, have clearly indicated that they have entered the war to be present, in due time, at the peace negotiations table, that is the place in which each partner would try to grab the part it thinks it deserves. Turkey, for instance, would want to have a piece of Iraq. Syria, too, has ambitions just like all the Western countries which foster specific designs in the region. We should, nevertheless, transcend the present situation and formulate more or less short-term projections, for there is no going back. Foregone indeed is the pre-January 17th world! The Third World will soon experience positive developments, particularly with respect to democracy and the establishment of a civil society as well as the control of scientific research. We must pay the necessary price and take the time needed not only in Iraq but throughout the Third World, bearing in mind that it is a 15 to 20-year venture. I do not think that there is any room for concern for the coming generations. I am aware of the uphill task ahead and of the price to be paid in the future. We should therefore consolidate our resolve with a perfectly reliable collective memory so that we may never forget the information circulated daily in the Western press, some of which, like the "Figaro" and "France Soir," is unfortunately published in Casablanca. Only yesterday, after I had read the "Figaro" editorial which teemed with racist connotations against migrant workers in France, I wrote a letter to its Editor-in-Chief to remind him of the proposal I had made at the December 1989 Session of the Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco. I said at the time that if the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA) is to be taken seriously, it should set up a solidarity fund to help migrant Maghrebian workers who wish to return to their countries of origin. In the same issue, the "Figaro" published an opinion poll indicating that 73% of Muslims in France feared unemployment and that 57% were anxious about their own security and were thinking of returning home. These figures constitute, as a matter of fact, an appeal to the "UMA" leaders who must show that they really care for the fate of their citizens who have to face up to an unprecedented tide of racism, particularly in these war times where their security is in serious jeopardy. Rabat, 30 January, 1991 * Al-Khadra, Tangiers, February 2nd, 1991. 1. ¹ January 1991. 2. ² See "Ciusa? Non so-Ma e legale," in an article published in "Panorama," Rome, in the last week of January and dated 3 February 1991 (pp. 30-33). 3. ³ See Annex I below.

Mahdi Elmandjra
E-mail