Friday, 15 May 2009


Volume One | Issue Two [PDF]

From the Margins to the Centre From the Margins to the Centre:

An Irish Republican Narrative of Resistance - Raymond McCartney

A Discourse of Demonisation - Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Introducing a New Political Discourse - Alastair Crooke

Moving Forward in South Africa - Ambassador Mohamed Dangor

Hearing the Call - Adli Jacobs

Anti-Apartheid Islam - Na’eem Jeenah

Mscnceptns of Islm - Sheikh Chafiq Jaredah

Resistance & Freedom - Raafat Murra

Friday, 8 May 2009


This speech was delivered by Saddam Hussein to the Amman Summitt
meeting on Feb. 24, 1990. Present were the heads of state of the key Arab allies of the United States: the president of Egypt and the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The president of Syria was also present. In its sweeping proposals for Arab unity against U.S.-Israeli domination, it was a blunt challenge to imperialism. It is this speech that was the flash point of the U.S.-U.N. aggression, not the Kuwait crisis which was engineered in response. (David Hungerford)

Since it is difficult in a meeting such as this to deal with all that
is negative or positive in international developments during 1989 and
prior to then, and during the period from the beginning of 1990, you
might share my opinion that discussions should deal with the most
urgent and important of these issues and within the limits of time
allowed us.

Among the most important developments since the international
conflict in World War II has been the fact that some countries which
used to enjoy broad international influence, such as France and
Britain, have declined, while the influence and impact of two
countries expanded until they became the two superpowers among the
countries of the world--I mean the United States and the Soviet
Union. Of course, with these results, two axes have developed: the
Western axis under the leadership of the United States, with its
known capitalist approach and its imperialist policy; and the East
bloc under the leadership of the Soviet Union and its communist

Among the results of World War II: The Zionist state has become a
reality, and the original owners of the land, the Palestinians, have
become refugees. While the imperialist Western world helped the
expansionist scheme and aggression of the Zionist entity in 1967, the
communist bloc sided with the Arabs in the concept of balance of
interests in the context of the global competition between the two
blocs, and sought to secure footholds for the East Bloc against the
Western interests in the Arab homeland. The East bloc, led by the
USSR, supported the Arabs' basic rights, including their rights in
the Arab-Zionist conflict. The global policy continued on the basis
of the existence of two poles that were balanced in term of force.
They are the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR.

And suddenly, the situation changed in a dramatic way. The USSR
turned to tackle its domestic problems after relinquishing the
process of continuous conflict and its slogans. The USSR shifted from
the balanced position with the United States in a practical manner,
although it has not acknowledged this officially so far. The USSR
went to nurse the wounds that were inflicted on it as a result of the
principles and mistaken policy it followed for such a long time, and
as a result of the wave of change it embarked on, which began to
depart from the charted course. It has become clear to everyone that
the United States has emerged in a superior position in international
politics. This superiority will be demonstrated in the United States
readiness to play such a role more than in the predicted guarantees
for its continuation.

We believe that the world can fill the vacuum resulting from the
recent changes and find a new balance in the global arena by
developing new perspectives and reducing or adding to this or that
force. The forces that laid the ground for filling the vacuum and for
the emergence of the two superpowers, the United States and the USSR,
after World War II at the expense of France, Britain, and Germany can
develop new forces, which we expect will be in Europe or Japan.
America will lose its power just as quickly as it gained it by
frightening Europe, Japan, and other countries through the continuous
hinting at the danger of the USSR and communism. The United States
will lose its power as the fierce competition for gaining the upper
hand between the two superpowers and their allies recedes.

However, we believe that the United States will continue to depart
from the restrictions that govern the rest of [the] world throughout
the next five years until new forces of balance are formed. Moreover,
the undisciplined and irresponsible behavior will engender hostility
and grudges if it embarks on rejected stupidities....

We all remember, as does the whole world, the circumstances under
which the United States deployed and bolstered its fleets in the
Gulf. Most important of these circumstances: The war that was raging
between Iraq and Iran; Iranian aggression had extended to other
Arabian Gulf countries, most notably the sisterly state of Kuwait. At
the time, beyond the conflicting views regarding the presence of
foreign fleets in Arab territorial waters and foreign bases on their
territory and their repercussions for pan-Arab security, that
excessive deployment was somehow comprehensible. But now, and against
the background of the recent world developments and the cessation of
hostilities between Iraq and Iran, and with Kuwait no longer being
the target of Iranian aggression, the Arabian Gulf states, including
Iraq, and even the entire Arabs would have liked the Americans to
state their intention to withdraw their fleets.

Had they said that under the same circumstances and causes they would
have returned to the Gulf, it might have been understandable also.
But U.S. officials are making such statements as if to show that
their immediate and longer-term presence in Gulf waters and, maybe,
on some of its territory, is not bound to a time frame. These suspect
policies give Arabs reason to feel suspicious of U.S. policies and
intentions as to whether it is officially and actually interested in
a termination of the Iraq-lran war and thus in contributing to much
needed regional stability.

The other side is the immigration of Soviet Jews to the occupied
Palestinian land. How can we explain the Americans' support and
backing for Jewish immigration to the occupied Arab territories,
except that the United States does not want peace as it claims and
declares. If it really and actually wants peace, the United States
would not have encouraged Israel and the aggressive trends in it to
adopt such policies, which enhance Israel's capability to commit
aggression and carry out expansion.

We the Arabs, proceeding from a long-standing friendship with the
Soviet Union, did not expect that the Soviets would give in to this
U.S. pressure in such a way that it would lead to these grave
consequences for the Arabs and their pan-Arab security. As we tackle
these challenges, it would be just as compromising to the destiny and
cause of the Arabs to feel fear as it would be to be lax in our
evaluating and working out a reaction to them. Therefore, there is no
place among the ranks of good Arabs for the fainthearted who would
argue that as a superpower, the United States will be the decisive
factor, and others have no choice but to submit. At the same time,
there is no place in our midst for those who fail to take note of
recent developments that have added to U.S. strength, thus prompting
it to the possible commission of follies against the interests and
national security of the Arabs--either directly or by fanning and
encouraging conflicts detrimental to the Arabs, irrespective of their
source. We are only making the point that the Arabs seek peace and
justice throughout the world and want to forge relations of
friendship with those who show respect to what friendship is all
about--be it the United States or any other nation. It is only
natural that the Arabs take a realistic approach to the new posture
and power of the United States that has led the Soviet Union to
abandon its erstwhile position of influence. However, America must
respect the Arabs and respect their rights, and should not interfere
in their internal affairs under any cover....

Against the backdrop of the vital issue related to the substance of
national Arab security, the question arises as to what we the Arabs
have to do.... It has been proven that Arabs are capable of being
influential when they make a decision and set their minds to it for
actual application purposes. We have much evidence of how effective
they can be; for example, the joint Iraqi-Saudi resolution of August
6,1980, and the warning the two countries issued together that
embassies must not be moved to Jerusalem, one of whose direct results
in less than a month--the duration of the warning--was not only that
the concerned countries did not transfer their embassies to
Jerusalem, but also that embassies that had already long been
transferred to the city returned to Tel Aviv.

The reason the United States stays in the Gulf is that the Gulf has
become the most important spot in the region and perhaps the whole
world due to developments in international policy, the oil market,
and increasing demands from the United States, Europe, Japan, Eastern
Europe, and perhaps the Soviet Union, for this product. The country
that will have the greatest influence in the region through the Arab
Gulf and its oil will maintain its superiority as a superpower
without an equal to compete with it. This means that if the Gulf
people, along with all Arabs, are not careful, the Arab Gulf region
will be governed by the United States's will. If the Arabs are not
alerted and the weakness persists, the situation could develop to the
extent desired by the United States; that is, it would fix the amount
of oil and gas produced in each country and sold to this or that
country in the world. Prices would also be fixed in line with a
special perspective benefitting U.S. interests and ignoring the
interests of others.

If this possibility is there and it is convincing, those who are
convinced by it must conclude that peace in the Middle East is remote
from the United States point of view because U.S. strategy, according
to this analysis, needs an aggressive Israel, not a peaceful one.
Peace between Iraq and Iran could be far off as long as Iran does not
react favorably from an aware and responsible position and with the
peace initiatives proposed by Iraq. The region could witness
inter-Arab wars or controlled wars between the Arabs and some of
their neighbors, if tangible results are not achieved on the basis of
the principles of noninterference in others' internal affairs and
nonuse of military force in inter-Arab relations.

Agreement should be reached over clear and widespread pan-Arab
cooperation programs among Arab countries in the economic, political,
and educational fields, as well as other fields. Love and peace of
mind will take the place of suspicion, doubt, mistrust, and giving in
to information and speculation propagated by rumor-mongers, such as
prejudiced Westerners and some rootless Arabs.

Brothers, the weakness of a big body lies in its bulkiness. All
strong men have their Achilles' hell. Therefore, irrespective of our
known stand on terror and terrorists, we saw that the United States
as a superpower departed Lebanon immediately when some Marines were
killed, the very men who are considered to be the most prominent
symbol of its arrogance. The whole U.S. administration would have
been called into question had the forces that conquered Panama
continued to be engaged by the Panamanian armed forces. The United
States has been defeated in some combat arenas for all the forces it
possesses, and it has displayed signs of fatigue, frustration, and
hesitation when committing aggression on other peoples' rights and
acting from motives of arrogance and hegemony. This is a natural
outcome for those who commit aggression on other peoples' rights.
Israel, once dubbed the invincible country, has been defeated by some
of the Arabs. The resistance put up by Palestinian and Lebanese
militia against Israeli invasion forces in 1982 and before that the
heroic Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal in 1973 have had a more
telling psychological and actual impact than all Arab threats.
Further, the threat to use Arab oil in 1973 during the October war
proved more effective than all political attempts to protest or to
beg at the gates of American decision-making centers. The stones in
occupied Palestine now turn into a virtual and potentially fatal
bullet if additional requirements are made available. It is the best
proof of what is possible and indeed gives us cause to hold our heads

Just as Israel controls interests to put pressure on the United
States administration, hundreds of billions invested by Arabs in the
United States and the West may be similarly deployed. Indeed, for
instance, some of these investments may be diverted to the USSR and
East European countries. It may prove even more profitable than
investment in the West, which has grown saturated with its national
resources. Such a course of action may yield inestimable benefits for
the Arabs and their national causes. Our purported weakness does not
lie in our ideological and hereditary characteristics. Contemporary
experience has shown our nation to be distinguished and excellent,
just as our nation's history over the centuries has shown this to be
the case. Our purported weakness lies in a lack of mutual trust among
ourselves, our failure to concentrate on the components of our
strength, and our failure to focus on our weaknesses with a view to
righting them. Let our motto be: All of us are strong as long as we
are united, and all of us are weak as long as we are divided.