American purposes in Middle East
US President George Bush is in the Middle East. His first port of call was Tel Aviv. His visit was billed as one for trying to broker an Arab-Israel peace in Palestine before he leaves office.
In the course of his stated peace efforts, he visited other important Arab capitals. While American interest in a settlement of the Palestinian question may be accepted, it is not necessarily the purpose that brought him to the Middle East. America has other strategic interests, preoccupations and personal predilections of this Republican US administration in its last year.
It will be odd if Mr. Bush were to devote himself to the Palestine problem alone, as it presents itself to the world today. He is spending a whole week in the area, and it is unlikely that he would leave other American preoccupations in ME. Everybody knows that America is weighed down by its commitments in, and current situation of, Iraq and Afghanistan.
American worries prominently include the supposed serious threat from Iran, supposedly with nuclear ambitions. The kind of propaganda that is emanating from western capitals against Iran indicates a coming war, either by Israel or by the US.
Insofar as American interest in the Palestine question is concerned, some aspects of it must be clearly kept in mind. First, America is not an honest broker. The record since 1967 shows that the US is now primarily the closest possible ally of Israel.
Peace-making requires the acceptance of the peacemaker's neutrality by both sides. It is true that America has actually become acceptable to much of the Arab (even Palestinian) side by default -- and not by choice. The position of the Arabs has so deteriorated, largely as a result of American and western machinations, that they now have no option but to look up to the US to ensure some minimal conditions on which the Israeli occupation can end -- so they can breathe a little more easily in their separated ghettos or cantons that the Israelis have confined them to.
Even so, it would be odd if, during the time left for Mr. Bush to conduct his diplomacy on the Palestinian question, he can succeed where all American administrations since 1967 have not been able to stitch up a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinian Authority after the Palestinians gave up their one-state solution way back in early 1970s.
It does look as if the Bush administration has chosen to bill the visit in the name of Palestinian-Israeli question on purpose; it is likely to have some other aim(s).
For assessing the current trip, one gets thrown back to considering America's strategic purposes and preoccupations. The highest preoccupation of America today -- strictly in accordance with the American perceptions of its strategic needs -- is the question of Iran. A regime change in Iran has to be brought about and, since it is not thought to be possible or feasible to effect it peacefully, a war is said to be built into the situation.
The whole world has been arguing against such a war with Iran. Iran can inflict a tremendous lot of damage of a non-military kind, i.e. economically. Stoppage of oil exports by Iran can amount to 4 million barrels a day less available oil. Such a shortage would upset the global oil market. Oil prices would shoot through the roof -- this time maybe $ 200 a barrel or beyond, unimaginable as it is today.
True, on the purely military plane Iran stands no chance of winning against America, except through perseverance in fighting hopeless battles and forcing the American soldiers to fight on its own territories.
Both aerial bombing or nuking have their problems. Nuking Iran on a large enough scale, whether by US or by Israel or by both, would not be acceptable to any Arab friend of America like Egypt, various Arab Sheikhdoms and even Saudi Arabia. The political consequences would be too many, and not necessarily favourable to American and Israeli purposes.
While Iranian casualties can be unimaginably high if nukes are used, as they may have to be, a regime change without occupation of Iranian territories may still not be feasible. American and/or Israeli or western troops on Iranian soil will call forth a resistance that would be worse than what they have met in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US-Israel duo, despite their military superiority, look like failing in a regime change.
Question is: have the Americans given up their strategic goals in Asia after their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan? Bold would be the observer who would say that America has given up its long-term strategic goals in Asia. Indeed, the destruction of the old Iraqi state and American military bases in Afghanistan without full pacification might even be a part of an American-desired map of Asia, no matter who rules in Kabul or Baghdad.
Whichever way one looks at the American ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is hard to accept that a sophisticated superpower can act on an Emperor's whim. The stated purposes simply do not stand up, neither for Iraq nor for Afghanistan. The Americans' ambivalence in dealing with the Taliban can scarcely be ignored. The emotional reasoning for attacking Afghanistan is too simplistic.
Anyway, the world will long remember the American efforts for a hoped for design of sewing up an anti-Iran alignment in the Middle East, that would largely be Sunni Arab states against a Shia Iran. No Sunni Arab seems to have any stomach for it. This is entirely unacceptable to America's Sunni friends because it will cause tremendous long-term instability and conflict. Many hereditary rulers will become altogether too insecure, and they seem to have told Bush so.
As for Palestine itself, America's unwillingness to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to vacate its clearly illegal and politically unjustifiable colonising of Palestinian territories in West Bank and Gaza area ensures all Palestinian interlocutors being discredited, as President Mahmoud Abbas has become. Israel is in the 41st year of its military occupation of these areas. The socalled freedom-loving western powers are not worried about the human rights of the Palestinians, or with Israeli treatment of Palestinians that is inconsistent with civilised standards of behaviour even vis-à-vis military occupied territories.
There is a lot of ballyhoo about Arab terrorism. Resistance against occupiers in the 41st year, with whatever means at hand, cannot be termed terrorism. The easy requirement of stopping "Arab terrorism" is to end the Israeli military occupation and letting Palestinians be in their own areas that America recognises to be Palestinian areas. The language and body language of Mr. Bush's first speech in Tel Aviv showed that he was more interested in Israel's security than in peace or the human rights of Arabs.
Insofar as Iran and other issues of American strategy for Asia are concerned, Pakistan needs to take up a consistent and honourable position on them. Pakistanis have no business remaining America's bag carriers. There is no reason why Pakistanis should do as Americans tell them to, even in matters of domestic politics.
True, Pakistan faces the problem of Islamic extremism. It is likely to destroy Pakistan polity's integrity; it can unravel the society, and cause a total collapse of the state.
This danger is real and cannot be denied. And yet, this is Pakistans problem and Pakistan has to solve it mainly by itself. True, friends can lend support, if they are friends -- and not masters. American behaviour in recent years was one of a master toward his servant. This treatment, which was characteristic of a Suzerain-vassal state relationship, has been accepted by Pakistan's military rulers. This, too, would surely unravel Pakistan before long. A change in this relationship is urgent.
Comments