Q.: Much criticism was levelled against the Gulf war, particularly with respect to the nature of this conflict which was termed by several observers as a "new Crusade." How do you view the situation ? Is it a North-South war, a war opposing Islam and Christianity, or simply a Bush-Saddam duel?
A.: On September 12th, that is before the war had broken out, I wrote that we were heading towards a North-South confrontation(2)
before anyone began to talk about the Crusades. The Gulf war is much more than just that. I think that, since January 17th, we have actually entered the real first world war, a war that will extend over 15 or 20 years because the basic motives are neither political nor economic, but rather civilizational. The real stakes of the 21st century will necessarily be of a civilizational nature.
I have been repeating, over and over again, that the Gulf war is the first world war for the obvious reason that the so-called "World War I" was a world war only by name. It was essentially a Euro-European conflict, although the United States of America entered the war at a later stage. The same applies to World War II," which was not universal because at that time three-quarters of the earth were under colonial rule. Conversely, the war triggered off by George Bush on January 17, 1991 is a real world war both in terms of causes and consequences.
Regardless of the military outcome of this war, it will generate radical changes over which we have to ponder today. No matter how paradoxical it may seem, Third World countries have gained 10 to 15 years because their populations have gained awareness of the stakes involved in North-South relations.
Q.: Do you think that America would have refrained from attacking had Iraq pulled out from Kuwait?
A.: Even in case Iraq had actually pulled out from Kuwait, other
pretexts would have been forged since the objective is quite obvious. According
to American observers, peace was tantamount to a "nightmarish scenario"
because Iraq would have then preserved its technological and military potential.
The real objective is to neutralize its power rather than liberate Kuwait.
Third World countries, particularly Arab ones, are not allowed to acquire
technological self-reliance.
Q.: What lessons may be drawn by the Arab individual from Iraq's resistance alone in the face of America and its allies, particularly that Iraqi missiles have hit the very heart of the Zionist entity, that is Tel Aviv?
A.: I think that the first lesson is one of credibility: one has to suit word to action. The second lesson is political will, while the third one is the Iraqi people's endurance. Such endurance and resolve become even more efficient when boosted with technological and scientific research.
Saddam Hussein may be criticized for quite a number of things and I never failed to do so in the past. however, the fact remains that Iraq is the only country in the Arab world, and even in the Third World, to have expended such considerable efforts in the field of scientific research for over a decade. This is a country which spends an annual 1.5% of its GDP on scientific research, while several other Arab nations, including the Maghreb countries, earmark less than 0.3% of their GDP for scientific research. The reason is that Maghrebian countries have opted unreservedly for a development model which was based on blind imitation and which was kept in force despite the fact it led to increased dependency for these countries.
In the meantime, Iraq has been conducting a self-centered development policy. This is the core lesson to be learnt, regardless of the military aspect of the venture. If we understand this lesson well, we will realize that progress in both the Arab world and the Third World was held up more by "technical assistance" than by any other factor. Just as our food dependence increases with each passing year, our illiteracy rates and scientific and technological backwardness increase as well. Similarly, we inject billions of dollars in the tourism sector to improve our external image and attract foreign currency although we are never sure it will keep flowing steadily, as we can see today.
Q.: But how do you explain the current rift between the Arab public opinion and stance taken by the existing regimes?
A.: This did not come as a surprise for prospective specialists. What is surprising is that it did take place earlier in such a conspicuous a manner. The current war is the actual trigger. Yet, the gap between the governments and the peoples of the Third World is bound to widen even more whatever the outcome of the conflict. This is what actually gives the shivers to the West.
This is why I said that we have gained 10 to 15 years and that our governments will finally wake up to understand their error, take stock of the distance separating them from their peoples and realize that they have no choice but to initiate genuine rather than sham democracy. Otherwise, this growing gap between public opinion and power will inevitably generate radical changes within the Third World in general.
Q.: How do you explain the schism that appeared between the Arab East and West? And what will be its consequences in the future?
A.: We must understand, first of all, that the Gulf conflict is a war of extermination - a genocide. We must also be aware of the total absence, or even overt complicity of the Organization of the United Nations. As you know, on January 1st, I wrote to the UN Secretary-General to tell him that he would have on his conscience the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi victims.(3)
He did not no reply.
We have therefore to draw the necessary lessons. To begin with, Morocco, Tunisia and Mauritania should withdraw from the French-African Summit Conferences as well as from the Francophone Summit. The position of the President of the Republic of France has been quite clear just like that of Pierre Mauroy, former Prime Minister, who made, in Israel, statements on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that astounded everybody. I hope that Arab governments will have some memory left or, at least, some respect for the memory of their populations and their dead.
To go back to your question, I think that the time factor is of crucial importance. Should the war drag on for another few weeks, we may anticipate some turmoil breaking out in Egypt, which is the largest Arab country in terms of population (55 million). The same applies to Syria. We must not be beguiled by the media which magnify the internal dissensions in the Arab world. The Arab peoples have always been united notwithstanding the fact that they are denied their freedom of speech. Discord exists only at government level.
The conflict has more to it than the Arab dimension alone. Throughout the world, Muslim populations have expressed their preoccupations through massive demonstrations. At stake is the interest of the entire Third World which feels wholly marginalized at international level. But what worries me most is the fact that the decision making process is monopolized by the permanent members of the Security Council, with the assistance of the UN Secretary-General.
I appeal to the Maghreb Arab Union countries to call for an emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly. As it is a North-South problem, there is need for the Third World, as a distinct entity, to clarify its position regarding this problem which does not concern the Arab world alone, but rather the whole Third World. It is a problem of military hegemony which threatens the diversity of civilizations the world over.
I also think that the United States does not intend to stage a ground battle, as it apprehends its possible outcome. In the meantime, changes are taking place within Saudi Arabia itself, that is within its population. Should the war go on, it is possible that, under American pressure, the Saudi Government request would ask for the withdrawal and repatriation of Arab armies from its territory because they are more of a threat than a source of comfort for the West. There is no need for them anyway as the U.S.A. has deployed over 500 thousand of its soldiers, in addition to the other Western troops which, put together, account for 100 thousand soldiers. This is the most formidable striking force and the largest concentration of troops and deadly hardware in the history of mankind.
Q.: Some people say that the outcome of the war might have an impact on the Arabs' pride, particularly if - God forbid -Iraq were to fail. What is your opinion about that?
A.: It is rather a miracle. We should not forget that the Pentagon's military advisers had assured Bush that war would last a mere two days, while Moubarak stated in the "Herald Tribune" (Sunday, February 3rd) that it would take two weeks, and King Fahd, according to the "New York Times," gave it no more than two hours!
So, here is a coalition made up of 31 countries, representing one billion inhabitants and a GNP of approximately $ 10,000 billion, which is waging a savage war against a tiny country with its 17 million inhabitants and a GNP of hardly 45 billion dollars. Still worse, this country has been subject to a 4-month stringent economic blockade. Yet Iraq has won the war right from the first two days and managed to hold out despite the ecological war launched by the West through bombing oil wells and industries. Iraq did not start the chemical war and I do not think that it is in a position to launch a nuclear war.
It is a fact that, prior to August 2nd, a decision had been jointly taken by Bush and Thatcher to defend Israel through destruction of Iraq's military, economic and scientific facilities. In addition, I think that, up to now, there had been no coordination between the Arab-Islamic countries and the other Third World countries to face up to this hegemony. Once it has destroyed Iraq, the enemy will attack other Third World countries. Maybe it will attack even Japan some day.
Q.: Do you think that America would encourage a diplomatic solution?
A.: America will not accept a diplomatic solution until it has ensured a 70 to 80% destruction of Iraq. The latter may then need 10 to 15 years to stand on its feet again. America does not want to leave things as they are for it is afraid of "instability" in the rest of the Arab-Muslim World.
Q.: What future do you foresee for the Arab States, particularly the Maghrebian countries when the war is over?
A.: Before looking at the future, we must first review past events. What is currently taking place has already been planned by the West, for several years, in the different scenarios of the Gulf invasion. Secondly, the Beirut-based Center for Studies on Arab Unity has carried out a prospective survey on the Arab world, with the participation of a large number of Arab specialists. This study includes a scenario called the "fragmentation and balkanization scenario." Everything occurring currently in the Gulf War may be found within the folds of this survey which was published in 1988!
As for the future, I am utterly pessimistic on the short-term, viz. the next 5 years, although 5 years are nothing in the life of a Nation. Conversely, I am very optimistic for both the medium-term (10 years) and the long-term (20 years), because no Third World government may henceforth apply the same policies nor use the same methods as before January 17th, 1991.
Given the changes that have taken place in the Arab Maghreb and the
unanimous stance taken by the population, I hope the Maghrebian governments
will learn the lesson and proceed with the construction of the Maghrebian
unity with more conviction and imagination. We should transcend the stage
of technocratic bureaucratism which seeks only to multiply meetings of
expert committees and of Ministers with no tangible results. In fact, up
to now, no common stance has been reached by the governments concerned.
Interview by Nejmeddine Akkari
February 2nd, 1991
* Al-Batal, Tunis, February 6th, 1991.