Gulf Diary

Gulf Diary

1992 3-4 March-April 19-25 Gulf Diary (2187) 5

23rd February, 1991

Saddam Hussain had indulged in such tall talk before January 17 and during the early days of the war, that nothing could induce him to withdraw his forces from Kuwait, which he had already declared to be the 19th ‘province’ of Iraq. Now the Allied forces under American leadership have succeeded in destroying the military might of Iraq and Saddam Hussain has expressed his willingness to withdraw his troops unconditionally from Kuwait. Today’s front page news is all about his altered stand, which he has communicated to the Russians. The Hindustan Times of February 23 carries this headline: ‘Iraq Agrees to Unconditional Pullout.’

Another news item alongside this says that the US ‘rejects peace offer’. Prior to January 17, when the war had not yet started, all that the Americans demanded was that Iraq pull out its troops from Kuwait. Shah Fahd had announced that, Saddam Hussain would receive brotherly treatment and would be given all possible help if he vacated Kuwait. But this proposal was summarily rejected by Saddam Hussain. Now it is the turn of the Americans and their allies. Now that they have almost won the war, they will not be willing to stop short of crushing Saddam Hussain.

Saddam Hussain’s present stance displays his immaturity. What the wise man does is no different from what the unwise man does. It’s just that the wise man acts before the calamity and the unwise man afterwards. A Persian poet has rightly asked why a man should do something which will bring him only shame. (Chera kare kunad aaqil ke baz aayad pashemani).

A positive step must take you to a positive result. Any step that leads to destruction is not positive. It is suicidal. Unfortunately, most of the Muslim leaders of today are engaged in such fruitless activities. Their unrealistic steps have done no good to the Muslims and have surely been the cause of greater destruction.

24th February, 1991

Time magazine (February 14) reports that there are people in the US who do not want to participate in the Gulf war. The Afro Americans, who hate the whites, say that this war is being fought to establish the supremacy of the white race and, for this reason, they should not be asked to participate. (p. 39). Similar views are held by the American Muslims, who regard the USA as an anti-Islamic country. They consider this war as being between the faithful and the infidels and, in consequence, they too are against participating in it. (The Times of India, February 12, p. 6)

A Korean, David E. Scott, has written to Time magazine to say that, in his view, it is not right for anyone to adopt such a stance after acquiring US citizenship. He says: “My son is an American. The fact that he was born in Korea does not in any way diminish his responsibility to defend his country. If you accept the benefits, you must also accept the responsibilities (p.8).”

I am in agreement with the Korean’s standpoint. Once you have become a citizen of a country other than that of your origin and have taken the oath of loyalty to it, it becomes your duty to set aside other loyalties and to fight for your new country in times of need. A man may renounce his citizenship and migrate elsewhere, but so long as he lives in the country of his adoption, he is morally bound to defend it.

It is very unethical to enjoy the benefits a country has to offer without being prepared to accept the responsibilities which go along with them. It is only by discharging your responsibilities that you become entitled to the benefits. Anyone ‘who refuses to accept such responsibilities should be required to renounce his right to any benefits.

25th February, 1991

The Reader’s Digest (February, 1991) has published a six-page report by one Ms Rachel Flick giving details of how the western countries hoodwinked Mr. Saddam Hussain into allowing them to siphon off Iraqi funds. A large part of Iraq’s 45 billion- dollar annual revenue, and a large quantity of oil used to flow to these countries. For the last 20 years Iraq has been spending about 14 billion dollars annually on arms purchase. Numerous underground shelters for the air force were constructed by western contractors.

Saddam Hussain’s obsession with the thought of becoming the leader of the Arab countries was fully exploited by the west, who bought Iraqi oil from him at very low prices while selling armaments to him at very high prices. Actually, it was in pursuit of their own economic gain that the west armed the Iraqi leader. There was also a political motive. The west was under the impression that Iraq would use these weapons against Iran, which was the sworn enemy of the west.

With his dictator’s mental make-up, Saddam Hussain chose to ignore the reality. He failed to understand the difference between the invasion of Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. While the invasion of Iran was looked upon with favour by the west, the invasion of Kuwait was certainly not. By invading Kuwait, Saddam actually hit western interests. ‘The west, there fore, joined forces to crush Saddam Hussain. The same article quotes a commentary by professor Hans-Heino Kopietz of London.

“We closed our eyes because some businessmen wanted to make money and because Saddam Hussain was a useful tool against Iran. Saddam is a Frankenstein monster that the West created.” (p. 150)

If Saddam Hussain had made plans to build his nation along constructive lines, he would have sought help from the west to build his industrial and agricultural bases. If he had concentrated on the education of his countrymen, the future of Iraq would have been very different from what is indicated at present.

26th February, 1991

The following is an extract from a commentary on the Gulf war which appeared in Qaumi Awaz of February 26:

A Saudi diplomat, based in New Delhi, while talking to this reporter, expressed his displeasure over the shift of consensus among the world Muslims and said that Saudi Arabia would review its policy towards the various Muslim groups and organizations at the end of the war, because all of these have failed in rallying support in favour of the Saudi stand. (p. 7)

Saudi Arabia has been giving liberal aid to all the Muslim organizations of the world. But during the war, Muslims, everywhere deserted Saudi Arabia and supported Saddam Hussain, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia’s role was that of a defender, while Saddam Hussain’s was clearly that of invader and oppressor. This is because of the emotion-based policy of the Muslim leaders. The Muslim leaders had their own axe to grind, by collecting crowds under their banners; they could claim to the Arab world that the Muslim masses were with them. Under this compulsion, they resorted to emotional slogans. Knowing that masses respond better to an emotional appeal, they presented the Palestinian issue in its most exaggerated light, and made the best use of the power of the pen and other media to prove that the US is the greatest enemy of Islam.

The result was that Muslims became ultra-sensitive, and emotions rose to an even higher pitch against the US and Israel. When they saw Saddam Hussain challenging Islam’s greatest enemy and raining down Scuds upon Israel, with the warning that they should come to their senses in the face of the resurrected Salahuddin Ayubi, the Muslims were swayed. Saddam’s words worked like magic on them. Their perception was now of Saudi Arabia supporting Islam’s enemy number one, while Saddam Hussain pledged himself to drowning the enemy in the sea. Predictably, they deserted the Saudis and rallied behind Saddam.

While it may serve our own interests to climb the ladder of leadership by whipping up communal Sentiments, this will in the long run prove disastrous for the community.

27th February, 1991

Today’s Al-Majalla carries an article by Dr. AIiuddin Hilal, Director, Centre for Political Studies, University of Cairo, regarding the Gulf crisis. It is entitled, ‘Let’s ponder over the causes, and we are at the helm of affairs.’

He maintains that we have fallen into the habit of taking a peripheral view of things without ever going below the surface. He feels it imperative that we should all equip ourselves with the intelligence which would enable us to study the problems of the Gulf countries and their people in depth.

In principle, this is a very important point, but it serves no great purpose in the present context. To acquire the necessary intelligence, it is essential to have the freedom to level criticism, not in general terms, but at specific personalities. Muslims abhor such criticism and unless they can overcome their ultra-sensitivity on this score, they will always suffer from intellectual immaturity.

The Gulf crisis is a case in point. The root cause is the adoption of an attitude which fails to decry the oppression of others. We voice our protests only when we ourselves are directly affected. When Saddam bombed Iran in 1980, the entire Arab world remained silent. When the same Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait, every Arab state cried out in horror. This is the attitude which is at the root of all ills. But not even our most pious men are willing to listen to just criticism.

Condoning this kind of attitude while talking of equipping oneself with intelligence is nothing but wishful thinking,

28th February, 1991

The Time magazine, dated March 4 arrived today. It carries a commentary on the Gulf crisis and Saddam Hussain by Yevgeni Primakov, an advisor to the USSR government.

Mr. Primakov says that he has met with Saddam Hussain on a number of occasions. The first meeting was in 1969 when he was correspondent for Pravda. At that time, Saddam Hussain was the leader of the party and was yet to become the President of Iraq. After he became president, Mr. Primakov met him regularly in Baghdad as well as in Moscow. “We developed an informal relationship,” says Mr. Primakov who, as the special envoy of Mikhail Gurbachov, met Saddam Hussain in 1991, to discuss the withdrawal of troops from Kuwait. “I realized that it was possible that Saddam did not have complete information. He gave priority to positive reports; for example, about the support Iraq was receiving in the Arab world, about the anti-war demonstrations in the West, about the first hints of difference between the Allies in the anti-Iraqi coalition. And as for bad news, the bearer could pay a high price.”

The same weakness is also to be found in other Muslim leaders even in religious leaders of stature. They live in their own make believe world, and if anyone disagrees with them, he becomes despicable in their eyes. This is how they become cut off from reality. As a result, they take such ill-considered steps as can lead only to destruction.

1st March, 1991

The Gulf War that started with a blunder ended in a catastrophic defeat. Today’s papers are full of news that should serve as a warning. The Times of India of March 1st displays in large bold letters the headline: Gulf War Ends. There is a photograph of Iraqi prisoners of war packed into trucks that are being escorted to special camps by American soldiers. This photograph testifies not only to the Iraqis’ defeat but also to their humiliation. Never before have the Muslims been subjected to such a crushing defeat. This reminded me of an incident dating back to 586 BC in which the Jews suffered at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar II. This is mentioned briefly in the Qur’an (17:5) while it is recounted in detail in the Bible.

The Allied forces under the American command have destroyed the economy of Iraq by their non-stop bombing. Iraq possesses 10% of the world’s oil deposit; its annual revenue from the sale of oil used to be of the order of 45 billion dollars. But now the citizens of Iraq are to be seen collecting bits and pieces of refuse from the roads to use as fuel. After the destruction of Iraq, the Allied forces cut the supply line to Kuwait, leaving the Iraqi garrison helpless. Two days of ground warfare was enough to rout the Iraqis. Over one lakh troops were killed and thirty thousand were taken prisoner. This was war between high-tech armaments and conventional weaponry. The conventional weapons were bound to lose.

Considering that the entire Muslim population of the world was supporting Saddam Hussain, the latter’s defeat is, in a way, the defeat of the whole Muslim world. The Iraqi leaders and the Muslim leaders of the world have brought this humiliation upon themselves through their own foolishness. There is a saying of the Prophet to the effect that “it is not proper for a believer to bring about his own humiliation.” Asked how one could be the cause of one’s own humiliation, he replied that this could happen by willingly facing an ordeal without possessing the necessary strength to deal with it. (Mishkat Al-Masabih, 2/771)