Global hegemony and the victims
Discord over the nuclear defense shield of the United States in Eastern Europe, particularly in the Czech Republic and Poland, is intensifying. Especially Russia is vehemently opposing the plan. Although the US claims that the shield will be a deterrent to North Korea and Iran, there are many in the world who believe otherwise. Justification of these dissidents' opinions is very much crucial given the present global geo-political situation. Because, over the last few years, the US has initiated a new war the War on Terror throughout the world. The first victim of this war was Afghanistan and then Iraq. Now, everyone is looking for the next: who's next? Iran? Is this war to protect the US (or the world) from terrorism and maintain global peace and security or to expand the US military grip to gain strategic dominance against other rivals?
Let's talk about the missile defense shield. First of all, North Korea and Iran still do not have the capacity to hit Eastern Europe or US territory. Secondly, there is a high degree of probability that the proposed defense shield will become a controversial part of the US National Missile Defense (NMD) which is designed to protect the whole of US territory against any incoming ICMBs. The current NMD project involves using radars in Alaska and California in the US and at Fylingdales in the UK, and in Greenland. The latest plan of deploying the radar base in the Czech Republic is basically relocating the existing radar base at Kwajalein Atoll, Marshal Island. Besides, the US plans to install 10 more interceptors in silos in Poland.
Here we can see that although the US is terming its recent military engagement in Eastern Europe as a European Missile Defense Shield, it is apparently becoming a part of its long planned NMD project. Iran, Iraq and North Korea simply became the scapegoat to justify the plan. For this, in the last several years, by distorting intelligence and misguiding the nations with false threats, the US conservative administration totally mislead the world. And as a way of implementing the hidden agenda- Iran, North Korea, and Iraq were clustered as 'rogue states' and 'axis of evil'. Earlier in January 2002, President Bush at his State of the Union speech said, "…today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator …must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorise nations which love freedom." After all these rhetoric we all came to know that a president had misguided his fellow citizens and the world community. All of these distortions, lies and misguidance… for what? Establishing US supremacy in a more unparallelled way?
This is certainly one aspect. Another aspect is that the US is transforming. It is transforming politically, socially and culturally. A new conservative group (neo-cons) has emerged in Washington. Its belief in the clash of civilisation is alarming. It is worth noting that the neo-cons are heavily dependent on the military-industrial complex. Therefore, military adventurism takes the highest priority on the table nowadays. Many critics pointed to the US's quest for military dominance and hegemony throughout the world which naturally requires envisaging possible threats at all times and preemptive war.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the peace-loving people of the world thought that the world would turn into a safer place than before since no big threats remained. They hoped that the United Nations would take control of the world events with its unilateral position in the dispute settlement matters bypassing individual actors. People dreamt that the decision making process at the United Nations would be more participatory and the distortions in exercising veto-powers would be reduced to a minimal level. Nations also expected controlling the vicious arms race and better use of scientific research and innovation. That was the hope and aspiration of each and every nation. On the part of the US, it also claimed victory and declared the end of a hostile and intimidating era. George Bush, then the US president, greeted the event as: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War… (and the country is) the undisputed leader of the age" (Walter LaFeber, 'America, Russia and the Cold War, 1945-1996", 1997).
The question is: why does the United States go frantically after issues like missile defense after the successful end (according to them) of the Cold War? Why does it continue to focus on indiscernible enemies? Even after 1991, it did not go for closing down its military bases scattered around the world rather, continued expanding the network in many strategic positions. In Eastern Europe it basically filled the vacuum created by the end of the Warsaw Pact. Moreover, Central Asia, a very crucial passage of the global oil supply chain, also came under the purview of US dominance. These deliberate moves created lots of irritation among regional powers like Russia and China. On the other hand, small states' (buffer states) sovereignty and national security are facing enormous external threats and they fear being bogged down in the complex intelligence game of the super power once again.
Why does America need more military bases after 1991? Is that for exporting democracy and capitalism at gun point? Some may argue that it is military adventurism. We learnt from the past political history that similar tendencies were exercised by the imperialist powers to expand their grip. For that, no matter who was being taken out of the list of enemies, they picked new foes to fight and defeat. It is such a continual and destructive process that it ultimately brings on their fatal collapse. Imperialist powers usually envisioned their goals to increase their dominance to such an extent that they could easily deploy their forces anywhere at any time. But that was a tragedy for them too. Very soon it became an unmanageable task to deal with. The Roman Empire is one of the foremost examples of how an empire could make an ultimate burden on its capability. Many political analysts also see the same consequence for the so-called American Empire. Now, all around the world, there are some 725 military bases of the United States and it is frantically trying to plant more.
Few may be puzzled that initiating a war with Iraq will hamper its long-term strategy and hinder its main purpose. And because of the economic woes created by this war, there is also a high degree of probability that American citizens may put pressure on the congress not to spend more for military expansions. Yet, the reality is that the US administration masterminded the plan of taking control of the Gulf region 35 years back!
After the Yom Kippur War (third Arab-Israel War) in 1973, the defeated Arab countries retaliated against the western allies of Israel by imposing oil embargo, which distorted and destabilised the global oil market seriously. Fuel prices sky-rocketed and reached nearly to $17 per barrel. It was one of the most significant geo-political games during the cold-war era. Since then, for the past 35 years, the Gulf has been in the cross-hairs of an influential group of Washington foreign policy strategists who believe that in order to ensure global dominance the US must seize control of the region and its oil.
Washington foreign policy strategists also believe that, if you were to spin the globe and look for real estate for building an American empire, your first stop should have to be the Persian Gulf. Because the dessert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world (Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China and Mexico combined!). Apparently, the United States is driven by this theory. Though risk remains high, the main answer is there: to establish unparallel global dominance, seize control of the Persian Gulf first.
As former US ambassador to Saudi Arab Mr. Chas Freeman (1991) mentioned, "the US administration believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them." and "the end of the cold war left the US able to impose its will globally and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology." he added. Professor Michael Klare of Peace and Security Department, Hemispheres College and author of 'Resource War', says "Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel" and "Controlling Persian Gulf translate into control over Europe, Japan and China. It is having our hand on the spigot." Considering the comments mentioned above, all ambiguous and rhetoric claims such as 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', 'Terrorism', 'Threat to West', and 'Al-Qaida' etc. turns into much politicised words which are being emphasized for a special purpose to achieve. Besides, America's ambition was further unearthed by President Bill Clinton in his presidential poll campaign speech: "I believe it is time for America to lead a global alliance for democracy…."
It will be interesting to see how the US implants a new form of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush had in fact very little things to do. Pentagon, the US administration, and the US military-industrial complex, got a long due plan and they needed an impotent leader like George W. Bush to carry out their plan. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush was not supposed to be an US president. But they ardently wanted him to be and they brought him to power through a master ballot-rigging in US history.
Now, a new threat has appeared in the Persian Gulf region. That is Iran's growing economic and military strength. Undoubtedly, a powerful Iran could thwart any US plan in the region and could jeopardise its objective of seizing control over the strategically important Hormuz Strait. Further, Iran's nuclear programme also wrinkled Pentagon's master-minds too as if Iran, by any means, could become a nuclear power, it could have the means to retaliate against possible attack from the US. Hormuz Strait, the biggest sea passage supplying some 40 percent (between 15 to 16.5 million barrels) of world's petroleum, will also be subjected to Iran's wish. Although Iran continues to claim that its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purpose, but again it is the United States who is recklessly trying to establish a case that Iran is going to build a nuclear bomb. It is ludicrous that the US also played the same game in Iraq. "I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program!" Yes, that was one of the fanciful statements of President George W. Bush which he made while discussing on War on Terrorism at White House on 17 July 2003.
Surely the proposed radar base in the Czech Republic and missile interceptor in Poland are not to protect the US from Iran or North Korea's missile but to ensure that the US plan to establish and exercise stringent control over the world using its prevailing 725 military bases. Already a wide range of scholars from Europe and Russia has expressed deep concerns that the US is still intensely driven by the NMD theory which might give it an unparalleled position and immunity in any strategic confrontation, whether with Russia, China, or with Europe. But Europe's response is quite surprising in this regard. May be it will be too late for it to get the point. Fear is that: If once the US ventures get accomplished, Europe itself will struggle over finding its own deterrence against the 'Hyper Power'. History suggests that imperialism knows no permanency in friendship or tie, whatever its religion, faith, or culture.
Comments