Archives

From a recent parliamentary speech by Rauff Hakeem (Minister of Port Development and Shipping and Minister of Eastern Development and Muslim Religious Affairs).

Madam Chairperson, whilst thanking the Opposition for bringing up this timely motion, I must, at the very outset, mention that when the Leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress gets up to speak in a debate such as this particularly when a Muslim country and its future is at stake there would be expectations that I would resort to US bashing which is a very natural expectation.

Madam Chairperson, why should I resort to US bashing when their own allies are bashing them sufficiently enough? That is the situation today and in saying this, I would also like to mention that the New York Times today has gone to the extent of saying that US is no more the sole superpower. The New York Times has identified another super power. The other superpower is the world public opinion.

Today, it is a war between the two super powers. One the sole super power, the United States and the other important superpower that has emerged, the world public opinion. Taking solace under this type of counter balance that has now come about against any aggressiveness that might emanate out of the status of the United States I must, as the Leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, say that we have noticed a spontaneous and unsolicited support in terms of strong statements being issued by US officials concerning the harassment and treatment of Muslims in the post MoU situation in the North East.

We do certainly appreciate and thank the United States administration for their consistent policy in ensuring that the rights of the Muslims are specifically addressed in this difficult transition phase of the peace talks.

That does not and should not inhibit our commitment to stand up with the international community and its conscience when it comes to the attack or an impending attack on a sovereign state such as Iraq. Therefore, Madam Chairperson, I thought it is very pertinent here to deal with the way in which the United States Senators themselves, their own citizens, are ridiculing and criticizing their own administrative in their attitude that they are taking today.

I would like to quote extensively from the speech of the US Senator Robert Byrd who spoke on the Floor of the Senate on 12th February 2003, a few days ago. He says, I quote:

"this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

"This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in US foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption". I heard Hon. Anura Bandaranaike too was referring to this particular new attitude of the United States and the dangerous consequences that it can bring.

He further says, I quote:

"the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future - is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defence. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our - or some other nation's - hit list."

"There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honoured alliances."

A US Senator is saying this.

".... and US intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11".

Madam Chairperson, he further says, I quote:

"In foreign policy, this Administration has failed..."

"This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO..."

"This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labelling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labelling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant - these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good".

A US Senator 'himself is deriding his administration in this way. That is why I say that it is not necessary for the Leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress to start US bashing today. Their own nationals are bashing the administration. The entire international community is bashing them. The mass demonstrations that took place in more than 600 cities have jolted the conscience of this world. It has resulted in Mr. Tony Blair himself retracting from his position. He has been shaken.

There is a common saying that is said all over Britain that Mr. Tony Blair never gets sun burnt because he is always under the shadow of Bush. But Mr. Blair himself finally has had to retract because there is a strong opinion within his own party, the Labour Party. I must take my hats off - I am not wearing a hat today - to the lady Ms. Clare Short, his Minister in charge of Overseas Development.

We met her in Norway when we went for the peace support meeting in late November and early December. She has taken a very strong position. Finally, Mr. Blair has had to retract and that is the position today.

This same Senator, Madam Chairperson, is talking of what kind of damage would result by the attitude of the current US administration. He says, I quote: "The war in Afghanistan has cost US$ 37 billion so far.."

US Dollars, 37,000 million has been spent in the war on Afghanistan which for all purposes is not over yet. Yet, there is evidence that the war may already be starting to regain its hold in the region. They have not found Bin Laden. They are only chasing his shadow.

".... and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land".

This is what the Senator says. Whether we agree with him or not, he is talking sense to some extent, particularly in trying to find fault with his own administration's attitude. It always happens. It has happened to many administrations all over the world.

Sometimes we mistake the symptoms for the disease. We cannot differentiate between the disease and the symptom. Terrorism is simply the symptom of a larger disease. The disease is the satisfaction with the way in which the resources of a country or any part of the world is being enjoyed by a few.

When the mandate of the people is not there, when there is no democracy, when there is imposition of imperialism, there can be some revolt and that would result in certain tactics being adopted. For that we have evidence from all over the world and we have seen how this country itself has suffered as a result of mistakes that have been made in the past by our own administrations.

Therefore, Madam, in trying to fault the US Adminstration we must be thankful to certain conscious leaderships that have emerged in many parts of the world. For instance, take France. I would say, Jacques Chirac can come and contest in election in any Muslim nation and win the election today. He has become so popular. But this is not a Muslim issue. Mr. Anura Bandaranaike said that I and Mr. Azwer would be quite pleased with what he said. But it is not because he is standing up for a Muslim cause. We are standing up for the innocent people of Iraq.

It is not a question whether they belong to one faith or the other. They are made to suffer for no fault of theirs. This is the very reason why nations like France are also looking at it quite consciously. Madam, I quote from the speech made by Dominique de Villepin at the UN Security Council. He says, "In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified."

Madam, what is most striking is the courageous stand that now Russia too is taking. Russia is a traditional friend of Iraq, a traditional friend of the Arab bloc in the past. But the economic tragedy that befell the post Cold War Russia had sometimes made them meek. But now they are finding new alliances across the Cold War borders with nations like France and Germany.

This is what Russian Foreign Minister said on February 14 I think his making the statement on February 14, Valentines' Day, is quite appropriate because there is a lot of messages of peace and love is very much evident in his speech. He says, I quote.

"The end of the Cold War has allowed for interaction among states on a fundamentally new basis. Every state can speak with its own voice in defence or its own interests. And yet all countries are now responsible for the problems of the world and are finding new and deeper forms of international co-operation for dealing with them. These developments reflect an emerging multipolar order.

'The settlement of the Iraqi crisis is a significant problem in that respect. The world community, via the United Nations Security Council, has set itself a clear task to find out whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Madam, I would also like to quote what Adlai E. Stevenson III, son of a former advisor to the US Administration. He says,

"Why, then, the enthusiasm for war? Even top officials at the Central Intelligence Agency have acknowledged that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are only a threat if Iraq is attacked. And Iraq's government, after all, is the same Baathist regime aided by the Reagan administration when Baghdad used chemical weapons in its bloody war against Iran.There is another very important statement made by Mr. Adlai E. Stevenson III, I quote.

"Whether made by Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, today's threats require a multidimensional response, including efforts to address the widening gap between the haves and the have nots, the horrible conditions in which most people around the world struggle to survive. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good place to begin. The United States loses credibility when perceived as supporting terror in one part of the Mideast, while professing to fight is elsewhere."

I think, it is a very courageous statement by US national, coming from such lineage. Therefore, Madam Chairperson, it is important for us to reflect in this statement by the Russian Foreign Minister. He says,

"Like the overwhelming majority of states, Russia believes this task can and should be fulfilled by peaceful means. Force should only be used as a last resort to settle this issue. Indeed, it is clear that an armed attack against Iraq would inevitably entail mass casualties, particularly among civilians. It would destabilise the Middle East and the world in general. Such instability would compromise the common struggle against international terrorism, and there is no excuse for that.

That is why Russia, France and Germany have come forward with a proposal that offers an alternative to war. We are committed to using all available means to bring about a peaceful and lasting solution to the problem.

Attempts to portray this initiative as an anti-American manoeuvre are completely unfounded. Those who make such suggestions are either unable to discern new trends in world politics or are unable to abandon a Cold War mentality with slogans such as "Those who are not with us are against us".

I think, this is very pertinent. This is one statement by President Bush in the aftermath of the September 11th attack. It shocked the conscience of the entire world. True, everybody grieved for those who died. But his arrogance in saying, "Those who are not with us are against us", really shocked the conscience of all those people who grieved at the loss of innocent lives. It is that attitude that has got to change. I am sure, as the Leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress and as I said before, this needs not be construed as US bashing. But this is a matter of the rights of anyone to stand up for the sake of others.

The Foreign Ministers of the Arab League met in Cairo two days ago and made this statement that the Foreign Ministers affirm the necessity for their countries to refrain from offering any assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq's security, safety and territorial integrity. Only one nation dissented.

That is Kuwait, understandably so. But all the countries including those countries which have given space for US bases Bahrain, Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all are clearly opposed and they have very clearly said that they cannot allow the use of their soil against any aggressive action on Iraq.

The Hon. Azwer, the Hon. Fowzie, the Hon. Alavi Mowlana and I were at Hadj, the whole pilgrimage, a few days ago. We saw thousand millions of Muslims praying for the people of Iraq. I do not think those prayers will go waste. The Hon. Alavi Mowlana, our Western Province Governor was there in the Gallery today. He was constantly talking about this. He just could not be without talking about the situation in Iraq. A very worried man, he was.

Yes, Madam. All of us are worried. The entire nation is worried. Sri Lanka is more worried today, because it is simply not a question of the plight of Iraq alone. It is our own plight, our own economy. We depend so much on the stability of the world economy. Our tea prices have fallen 15 per cent already just for the fear of war. The migrant labour is already getting perturbed.

The Hon. Minister of Labour described the steps that he was taking to meet with the eventuality and take immediate action if the inevitable happens. It is very clearly said that it is not more thought to be inevitable.

The EU in their statement says 'War is not inevitable. Force should be used only as last resort. It is for the Iraq regime to end this crisis by complying with the demands of the Security Council. We reiterate our full support for the on-going work of the UN inspectors.

They must be given the time and the resources, the UN Security Council believes, they need and Mr. Hans Blix and Mr. Elbaradei has very clearly said that even if there is non-cooperation by the Iraqi regime that they have the confidence that they can go after the complete their task of inspecting and finding weapons of mass destruction. It is common knowledge. Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction as it is said today. The American agencies have confirmed it.

Therefore, I believe that the attitude of the United States have got to change and change for the better. If it happens, would certainly win them friends they are fast losing. They must also remember that it does not take much to make a case against Saddam Hussein, they say. But that is not the same as making a case for the war. This is US citizens themselves saying - a columnist James Coburn writing in one of the Arab newspapers 'Arab News' - that the question of making a case against Saddam Hussein does not justify making a case for war.

Therefore, Madam Chairperson, the sentiments of all communities, not only the Muslims, have been roused and it is time that we stand up for what is right, stand up for issues in this manner, in a manner not because, it is simply because they are Muslims.

It is not simply because they are Arabs, but because they are innocent people, people whose livelihood could be threatened by the unilateral action. If it is taken that would be the sad day for international order.

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager