[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 137 (Friday, October 12, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE WASHINGTON POST PUTS ITS FINGER ON `THE ARAB PARADOX'

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 11, 2001

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, a very astute editorial was printed in 
today's Washington Post underscoring a provocative point: That the 
regimes of Arab states, which have little if any democratic legitimacy, 
use hatred for the United States and Israel to deflect criticism of 
their internal policies.
  In our hearing yesterday in our Committee on International Relations 
on public diplomacy in the fight against terror, the very same point 
was made. And, to be sure, it has even been made by some moderate Arab 
leaders.
  The fact is that these policies of blaming others are self-defeating. 
They do not lead to any long-term reform. They do not even allow any 
real release of tension. In this modern age, they lead to intolerance 
of others, support for terrorism, or terrorism itself.
  We need to fully consider these points, as do the rulers of the 
``moderate'' Arab states.
  For the information of my colleagues, I request that the Washington 
Post editorial be printed at this point in the Record:

               [From the Washington Post: Oct. 11, 2001]

                            The Arab Paradox

       Arab nations, including those considered allies of the 
     United States, have been struggling with their response to 
     the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. If their 
     contortions were not so familiar they would be hard to 
     understand: After all, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda 
     organization are sworn enemies of the Egyptian and Saudi 
     governments, which in turn depend on the United States for 
     their security. But it took Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak 
     three days to choke out a statement supporting ``measures 
     taken by the United States to resist terrorism''; and even 
     then he coupled it with a parallel demand that Washington 
     ``take measures to resolve the Palestinian problem.'' 
     Meanwhile, Mr. Mubarak's longtime foreign minister, Amr 
     Moussa, now the secretary general of the Arab League, 
     prompted first Arab states and then the 56-nation Islamic 
     Conference to adopt a resolution yesterday opposing U.S. 
     attacks on any Arab country as part of the anti-terrorism 
     campaign--a position that offers cover to Iraq's Saddam 
     Hussein.
       In effect, Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Moussa are backing both the 
     military action of the U.S. alliance and the political 
     position of Osama bin Laden, who on Sunday claimed that 
     unjust American policies in Israel and Iraq justified his 
     acts of mass murder. The world, Mr. Moussa said, needs to 
     address the ``causes'' of the terrorism, and he suggested 
     that a United Nations conference might be the best forum. 
     There's little doubt what he has in mind: After all, Mr. 
     Moussa only a couple of months ago led the attempt to hijack 
     the U.N. conference on racism and revive the libel that 
     ``Zionism is racism.''
       Behind this contradictory rhetoric lies one of the central 
     problems for U.S. policy in the post-Sept. 11 world: The 
     largest single ``cause'' of Islamic extremism and terrorism 
     is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the very 
     governments that now purport to support the United States 
     while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay off 
     Saddam Hussein. Egypt is the leading example. Its autocratic 
     regime, established a half-century ago under the banner of 
     Arab nationalism and socialism, is politically exhausted and 
     morally bankrupt. Mr. Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists 
     in Egypt only by torture and massacre, has no modern 
     political program or vision of progress to offer his people 
     as an alternative to Osama bin Laden's Muslim victimology. 
     Those Egyptians who have tried to promote such a program, 
     such as the democratic activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, are 
     unjustly imprisoned. Instead, Mr. Mubarak props himself up 
     with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid, while allowing and even 
     encouraging state-controlled clerics and media to promote the 
     anti-Western, anti-modern and anti-Jewish propaganda of the 
     Islamic extremists. The policy serves his purpose by 
     deflecting popular frustration with the lack of political 
     freedom or economic development in Egypt. It also explains 
     why so many of Osama bin Laden's recruits are Egyptian.
       For years U.S. and other Western governments have been 
     understanding of Mr. Mubarak and other``moderate'' Arab 
     leaders. They have to be cautious in helping the United 
     States, it is said, because of the pressures of public 
     opinion--the opinion, that is, that their own policies have 
     been decisive in creating. Though the reasoning is circular, 
     the conclusion has been convenient in sustaining 
     relationships that served U.S. interests, especially during 
     the Cold War. But the Middle East is a region where the 
     already overused notion that Sept. 11 ``changed everything'' 
     may just turn out to be true. If the United States succeeds 
     in making support or opposition to terrorism and Islamic 
     extremism the defining test of international politics, as 
     President Bush has repeatedly promised, then the straddle 
     that the ``moderate'' Arabs have practiced for so long could 
     soon become untenable. Much as it has valued its ties with 
     leaders such as Mr. Mubarak, the Bush administration needs to 
     begin preparing for the possibility that, unless they can 
     embrace new policies that offer greater liberty and hope, 
     they will not survive this war.

     

                          ____________________