American morality in the middle east

In recent weeks, many have argued that the magnitude of the attacks on America makes any critical engagement with U.S. foreign policy inappropriate, even offensive. According to this logic, the United States should not give its policies a second thought lest such a reevaluation seem to reward 'terror.' However, to ignore the current state of U.S. policy in the Middle East is still more craven and entirely incompatible with America's need to rally global opinion around its 'war on terror.' If U.S. policies in the region are themselves just, America should strongly defend them as it develops its coalition against al-Qaida. If American policies are lacking, however, the United States must quickly remedy its actions and shore up its moral claims in this conflict.

Unfortunately, the United States finds itself playing catch-up in the wake of Sept. 11. Although there is wide sympathy for the innocent victims of the attacks, Arabs and Muslims can also draw on a vast reservoir of despair at recent and on-going American policies in the Middle East. There are at least two good reasons to consider these policies in some detail: to understand the appeal of Osama bin Laden to a much broader Arab and Muslim public and to assess what's at stake for the United States in continuing its current course of action in the region.

Bin Laden's first complaint, delivered in his videotaped message released on Oct. 7, concerned the on-going presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia since 1991. The official reason the U.S. military — to keep an eye on Iraq — makes little sense given the Saudi government's own enormous military spending and the ease with which American troops could continue this job from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. However, the United States retains its presence because it fears the prospect of an Islamic revolution in the country. Recognizing that many Saudis see the ruling family as rotten and corrupt, the United States continues not only to prop up the Kingdom with arms sales but to station its troops to defend the old guard against political change. Thus America puts its own interests — specifically the defense of oil — ahead of the wishes of the Saudi people.

Bin Laden's second grievance involved the U.N. sanctions against Iraq. Imposed after the Gulf War at the insistence of the United States, the sanctions were intended to inhibit the development of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs but have in fact denied ordinary Iraqis access to electricity grids, sewage systems, medical centers and other crucial facilities. The people of Iraq have suffered an astonishing decline in their living standards; more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died of preventable diseases and malnutrition, and Saddam's hold over the country has been strengthened. The United States, meanwhile, has been satisfied with the 'containment' of Saddam, reassured that the near-genocidal effects of the sanctions have at least kept the country 'safe' from militant Islam, Kurdish separatism or internecine warfare.

Finally, bin Laden accused the United States of a grossly biased role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has followed a calamitous track similar to the Iraqi situation in the past 10 years. Although the loss of life has been smaller, the Palestinians have been forced to endure the wholesale colonization of their land and the continued denial of their territorial and political rights even as Israeli governments have been given political legitimacy and economic benefits. Israel has more than doubled its settlers during the course of the Oslo process, and in the past year it has used violent force to kill more than 750 Palestinians (overwhelmingly civilians and more than five times the number of Israeli dead) while reoccupying sovereign Palestinian territory. Meanwhile, the United States continues to provide Israel with $3 billion of aid annually and then to speak of itself as an 'honest broker' in negotiations.

Many people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere were complaining about precisely these policies — and the massive injustice they've caused in the Middle East — long before bin Laden chose to exploit these issues. Moreover, if America holds its course in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Israel-Palestine conflict, it will undermine not only its own claims to represent morality in the face of terror, but also the prospect of continued support from the rest of the world. The choice is clear: America continues these policies, confers an undeserved legitimacy on bin Laden and loses its allies in Europe and elsewhere; or the United States seizes this opportunity to reverse course and recognize that the only long-term deterrent of terrorism is justice. Although we've cut off bin Laden's financial assets, we've so far ignored his most potent weapon: the argument that America's foreign policies inflict misery on millions of people in the Middle East. If this really is a 'war on terror,' we need to make it quite clear to Arabs and Muslims which side we're on. Nicholas Guyatt, a graduate student in the history department, is from Bristol, England. He can be reached at nsguyatt@princeton.edu.