Political Interview with Professor Hasan Yahya, an American Arab Scholar

by: Tina Garfield

Posted by: Hasan A. Yahya, Ph.Ds

(with permission from wfol.tv,  Malaysia, and Tina Garfield.)

 Professor Hasan Yahya is an American Arab as he likes to be called, not otherwise. His articles recently criticizes the Congress 768 resolution to reject Goldstone Report, and joined a group to stand against the resolution.  At his home, in his armchair, he received me with a smile. While I prepared a list of questions, the interview answers brought questions not included in the questions list.   

 TINA: Professor Yahya, Why are you criticizing the American Congress in your recent articles? While the Congress represent the American public legally?

 PROF. YAHYA: The second part of your question deserves attention, the old ways of the congress dealing with foreign policies is no more securing our citizens abroad, arm forces or civilians. And to represent the public, justice is ignored. My criticism of the old mentalities of American Congress carried out by the previous administration. It was misleading then, and still misleading by lobbyists on the white Hill rather than taking a sound measurement of judgment.

TINA: Is there any specific decisions made by the Congress, you may refer to?

PROF. YAHYA: Well! I think you are aware of 768 Resolution, it is in conformity with pervious decisions made by the previous administration concerning foreign policy which created hate and hostilities around the world.

TINA: Standing with Israel is not new in U.S foreign policy, it is almost all politicians support Israel.

PROF. YAHYA: Well, nothing wrong to support Israel, but what about the consequences of such decisions on American citizens? And what is the role of the President if the Congress stands against his well for change?

TINA: I make the questions, remember. And how do you think the President to act? We all know that these decisions are studied carefully by several committees before going to the House.

PROF. YAHYA: That’s true, I think the period was not enough to take that decision. And the consequences of the resolution will have negative implications on foreign policy of the U.S.

TINA: You mean, the Arab and Muslim nations?

PROF. YAHYA: In some parts, yes. The whole resolution negates what President Obama gave in his speeches in Cairo and Turkey. Speeches like that needs confirmation of something new. I think the Congress is trying to embarrass the President.

TINA: How? What do you mean?

PROF. YAHYA: It’s obvious. Standing blindly behind Occupation forces against occupied people in the Palestinian case- or Gaza Conflict, and supporting it in the UN,  does not reflect the new Administration policies. I mean, the President views for change. Otherwise, everything remains the same concerning foreign policies.

TINA: You mean the old administration.

PROF. YAHYA: You are close to be right.

TINA: What do you see of conformity in the Congress resolution to the old Administration?

PROF. YAHYA: Let me take you 19 years back, you -may be- were in the elementary school, Bush the father, was farsighted than his son, while he broke a great slogan for American education made by specialists in the 1950s and 1960s, which dealing with problems in-violently in schools, he broke that slogan by attacking Iraq (after a long friendship) where violent policies destroyed in-violent behavior in our schools. And created a new approach of using fests, instead of arguing by words. Such violation needed double efforts from educators to curb the new situation.

TINA: How then, he was farsighted than his son?

PROF. YAHYA: He was farsighted when he stopped from destroying Saddam Hussein. It was a relief for Arabs and Muslims in that time. But Bush the son was inexperienced with world affairs and created several mistakes to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, unfortunately, the American public followed its government miscalculation and misestimating of what happened in 9/11.

TINA: You mean, it was a mistake to get rid of Saddam?

PROF. YAHYA: It is no use of talking about that now. Saddam is underground. It is no more secret that Saddam was used a  propaganda to get rid of any force capable to say no for America. Which might be acceptable while U.S.A was the only power leading the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But what was the consequences of Iraq war. Is dividing Iraq as we see today into Shi’a, Kurds, and Sunnis helps democracy in the country or reduces the daily violence. Saddam may killed many, but numbers is much smaller than the victims of ousting him. Now the worse thing for America is to withdraw without respect and dignity. It was easy to get into war, but it is I believe more difficult to end it, while America still think of old ways in politics.

TINA:  What do you mean?

PROF. YAHYA: The world now is not the same as 10 years ago. And President Barack Obama is not Mr. Bush the son. I think there should be ways to deal with conflicts worldwide, taking into consideration the union between Russia and  Chine through their Shanghai Cooperation Organization (the SCO). In terms of Russia better relations with the US since September 11, While the US has taken a number of steps toward Russia that appear unfriendly.

TINA: What you mean? Give us an example!

PROF. YAHYA: Well, First of all, I think that Russian-American relations are much better now than they were ten years back. an example, the doctrine of using nuclear weapons, which lists Russia as one of the potential targets. Second: The two countries now have many things in common. Of course, the US pursues global interests. But Russia, as a result of its geographic position, has its own interests in Europe, the Near East, Central Asia, and South Asia – that is, many points of interest that are important to the Americans as well. And I must say that in the majority of cases, the interests of two countries coincide. Even though, not everything and all the time, but keep in mind that US interests sometimes diverge with those of its closest allies, especially the NATO and Europe.

 TINA: What the President can do in the face of the Congress?

PROF. YAHYA: (Laughs), Well, you know that each situation is different, and we must take the interests of America as well as others into account. I think each political situation is absolutely unique, and its resolution depends on many factors. I understand that my answer might not be  satisfying, but there is no way to answer otherwise. You know, the President knows what to do. His advisors everywhere.

TINA: This question about  Afghanistan! You wrote: “There are news of more Taliban  bases, and sophistication, facing NATO forces, as well as American forces. How do you see Afghanistan?

PROF. YAHYA: You mean withdrawal of American forces? If so, then you know that Afghanistan is formerly known as a large drug manufacturer.  I know that the situation in Afghanistan is very difficult. It’s difficult to say when the American troops will continue their actions. But I think that the Obama Administration understands that cooperation with others (for example Russia and Europe)  is important from many points of view. It is difficult to guess, when the military presence will end. In fact some, Army Generals  give the impression for more forces, which may reduce the probability of guessing to withdraw in a short time.

TINA: Thank you! Any final word you want to add!

PROF. YAHYA: Thank you,  Tina,  from my standpoint, justice have to be our measure, and taking sides may be was beneficial in old times, but surely, it is not beneficial to the United States today. There should be a solution, but such solution need to commensurate with world changes to understand, and appreciate.   

TINA: Thank you, Professor Yahya for your time and ideas.  (1312 words)