JEDDAH — At any one point in time in international relations a number of forces can be found in action. For major powers, especially superpowers, these forces emanate from global strategies involving political, military, economic as well as local political and social considerations.
Besides being in action these forces interact with one another to produce a movement in relations between the superpower and other states. This movement can go forward, backward or remain static.
It takes expert minds to detect infinitesimal movements in international relations in a span of few weeks. But this detection is of paramount importance for affected states if they are to react at least in tactical terms. This writer was especially gratified to see evidence of this talent shown in an article written by Raghda Durgham, a distinguished journalist in the Arabic daily Al Hayat (April 19). Dealing with the current Middle East crisis she managed to weed through a myriad of military and diplomatic activities as well as news coverage and news analyses of recent weeks.
Her conclusions, in effect, explained the shyness and apparent inaction (or mild reaction) displayed by major players in the Arab region.
To the layman, Arab leadership’s polite statements and inaction on the ground appears inadequate, at least disproportionate to their countries’ REAL political and/economic clout.
America’s global strategy following the Sept. 11 events rests on the assumption that “terrorism” is now the real adversary she faces in her effort to maintain her grip on and her continued control of global political and military movements. America’s definition of “terrorism” includes all armed struggle for change by individuals and opposition movements. This definition erroneously extends to cover armed action by local resistance movements fighting for independence from foreign occupation. For America this classification, even when the resistance movement has no regional or international objectives or affiliations, is that the movement, if left to succeed on the local scene, could extend itself or its support to others operating in outside territories.
This way they are seen as a potential threat, hence a legitimate target. Given Washington’s declared vision of an independent and viable Palestinian state how else could Sharon gain Washington’s acquiescence in his ruthless military campaign against the Palestinians?
It is obvious that Sharon and his government managed to persuade Washington that the freedom fighters of Palestine fitted this definition and therefore should be fought. They made it easy for Washington to accept by volunteering to do the job on their own behalf citing Israel’s own “security” and on behalf of America should the armed struggle by the Palestinians, if left to succeed, extends elsewhere.
This is irreconcilable but explains the motive behind the simultaneous projection by Washington of a Palestinian state and the proxy military action against Palestinian armed struggle. Note that even infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority security force has been targeted and probably seriously damaged in Sharon’s current war.
Here again you can see Sharon’s hands. He would have argued that this force included members of Fatah Movement who returned to Palestine after Oslo.
The injured American giant has been calling the shots since Sept. 11. Even Europe, a giant in its own right and the principle global ally of Washington, has been treading carefully in its objections to America’s conduct in the Middle East. Following World War II America some times discretely, some times openly, fought hard to dislodge European influence from the region. It registered a major success when Britain and France in partnership with Israel waged a tripartite war on Egypt in 1956. President Eisenhower forced the withdrawal of the three armies, which resulted in the final exit of Britain from Egypt and the return to Egypt of occupied Sinai. America was not supporting Egyptian independence nor was she condoning the nationalization of the Suez Canal. America was evicting Europe from the Middle East only to replace it thus securing the region as an American sphere of influence. The political cost to America in moving against her major allies in the Cold War is obvious. But conduct of a superpower on the international scene is sometimes difficult to fathom in the short term.
Raghda Durgham is telling us that Washington’s real moves in the Middle East are different from what Washington says they are in public. We must admit that local politics in the US play a big role in America’s apparent conduct of relations when it comes to the Middle East.
It is doubtful that local political considerations have been the only factor behind Washington’s formulation of policy for the region. To be sure, local American politics does influence language and style when dealing with the Middle East.
We need to probe deeply to understand the real national interests of America in our region following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Does Israel continue to provide the only reliable ally? When Israel was excluded from military action against Iraq it was evident that America saw in Israel a liability, not an asset. During that war Israel, for the first time since its creation, was subjected to extensive military attack. Yet Israel was not allowed to even retaliate, not even cosmetically. What does this tell us?
This is not to say that Israel will in the foreseeable future be relegated to the status of a secondary ally of the US. But our understanding of what America’s real interests in our region are will enables us to forge our own long-term policies and guide us in handling tactical moves when we deal with this superpower. We cannot ignore certain other factors behind America’s relentless support for Israel and insistence on her security. America inherited and continues to pursue certain aspects of Western policies in the Middle East.
• The region should be controlled because of its strategic location. Arab countries’ shorelines skirt the strategic waterways security of which should be insured for trade and military purposes.
• The region contains the largest oil reserves in the world. Accessibility and free flow of this global energy source is vital for the function of Western and world economies.
• The region offers a huge market for the industrial nations of the world which still largely consist of Western nations.
For the West, led by America, not until the Arabs cease to pose a threat to these vital interests could the West loosen its grip on the region. Among other reasons Israel was created for and continues to receive unrestricted support is to help check this perceived potential threat. Europe’s on going transformation of political and economic relations with the Arab World indicate a change of assessment of and a change in the perception of strategic interests in the region. Will Washington reach the same conclusion? If it has already, will she reformulate its relations with the region including Israel? If Washington is in fact pursuing a reformulation of policy for the Middle East should it not announce that publicly and give specific time tables for implementation? Shouldn’t leadership in the region, if convinced of Washington’s real good intentions, prod her by reminding her of her vital interests in the region and pressure her by reminding her of the risk she runs in delaying the announcement? Washington continues to pursue tactical moves and allow those to override her new strategic objectives and moves.
Not unlike America, Europe has a large and influential Jewish community. Europe who has more reason to appease this community, has managed to give priority to national strategic interests over the emotional interest of a minority group living on its soil.
