Unity Needed in Gulf Crisis

IN recent weeks the Harvard community has been exposed to an avalanche of pro-Iraqi propaganda from a broad spectrum of interest groups such as the Democratic Socialists, Students Against War in the Middle East and the Society of Arab Students (SAS). Implicit in their writings is the claim to represent the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Arabs. In reality, their viewpoints would be more correctly characterized as representing only a small but vocal minority of the Arab people.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence testifying to this fact is the recent vote of the Arab League regarding the situation in the Gulf: 12 of the 23 members of that organization (representing a majority of the population of the Arab world) condemned the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demanded that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally. In addition, the League called upon Iraq to pay reparations to the Kuwaiti people for its brutal and wanton destruction of that peaceful nation.

With unbelievable contempt for these facts Arab student organizations on campus arrogantly presume to be able to "educate" the Harvard community about the politics and culture of the Middle East. Unfortunately, this "education" boils down to a simplistic and anti-Kuwaiti program: "The main idea is to get the U.S. troops out of the Gulf" according to SAS president Samia Mora. Mora would do well to remember that this conflict is grounded not only in "cultural differences," but also in a phenomenon all too common among the peoples of the world: aggression.

The decision by these groups to take the stance they have has simply perpetuated the split among Arabs at Harvard. By condemning international efforts to counter Saddam Hussein's atrocities, these groups have effectively alienated and silenced the voice of the majority in the Arab world. The Society of Arab Students simply does not live up to its name; the members of this group would do moderate Arabs a favor if they changed their name to "Society of Pro-Iraqi Students."

AFAVORITE argument of pro-Iraqi Arabs holds that Saddam Hussein is rectifying grave economic ineqalities that exist between the wealthy Gulf Arabs and their less fortunate brothers in other parts of the Arab world. This is to question the commitment of Gulf Arabs in aiding poorer Arabs. In reality, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have long been active benefactors--within leagal and internationally supported frameworks--of inter-Arab relief organizations.

Since 1961, Kuwait has provided capital to developing Arab countries through the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. Kuwait was a principal contributor to the Fund, established to help Egypt and Jordan recover from the 1967 and 1973 wars, and along with Saudi Arabia, has contributed to the more moderate Palestinian faction. Kuwait became one of the world's major aid donors in 1977, when its contributions reached eight percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This percentage was the largest in the world from 1981-85. In addition, Kuwait has been active in directing economic, medical and humanitarian aid to Pakistan, the Sudan and the Mujaheddin resistance in Afghanistan. In short, Kuwait has always recognized the regional responsibilities that come with economic prosperity.

Furthermore, these groups seem reluctant to take issue with Iraq's claim to sovereignty over Kuwait. They hold a view similar to that of King Hussein of Jordan: that the legitimate claim of Kuwait to independence is a fossilized remnant of British imperialism, and that Iraq's claim cannot be brushed aside. However, this view also rests on the legacy of colonialism. Under the Ottoman Turks, Kuwait was supposedly to be administered from the Iraqi city of Basra. In actuality, none of the Ottoman attempts to extend control over Kuwait suceeded. The de facto independence of the Kuwaiti people led by the Al-Sabah family could not be questioned. Thus, Saddam Hussein does not categorically oppose colonialism; rather, he utilizes that form of (Ottoman) imperialism which best serves his own meglomanical ends.

PERHAPS the most compelling reason why all Arabs ought to condemn this modern "Saladin" (sic) is because of the endless number of atrocities which he is currently committing against his fellow Arabs and Muslims, against helpless human beings. There can be no justification for the systematic executions, imprisonment, rape, wholesale looting and robbery in Kuwait. Can we simply chalk up these crimes to the neccessities of subduing a conquered land? Would they in time abate? The answer, judging from Saddam's history of human rights violations, is an uniquivocal "no."

Saddam committed his first murder at fourteen. Saddam ordered the execution of 29 children whose parents were political activists. Saddam ordered the genocidal murder with poison gas of 8000 Kurds in the town of Halabja. Saddam kidnapped over 90 members of his own dissident family, and more than 20 have been executed. Saddam executed 600 members of a Shiite opposition group in 1984. To compare Saddam Hussein to the noble Saladin would be a gross affront to Islam. To fail to oppose him would be nothing short of criminal.

What is needed at this tragic juncture is not short-sighted sectarianism, but rather the unity and moral courage to redress injustice. It is tragic that even the Arab students at Harvard have fallen victim to compromising their sense of justice. It is time for all Arabs to recliam their sense of dignity, to uphld their common morality, by acting together to oppose aggression and liberate Kuwait.

Bader El-Jean, a visiting undergraduate from Kuwait, and Stephen W. Gauster '92 are the founders of Students for a Free Kuwait.