JEDDAH, 12 February 2004 — America’s strategic objectives in the Middle East remained more or less the same until the late 1980s. With the collapse of the Soviet Union America emerged as the only superpower on the scene. Following the successful Gulf War for the liberation of Kuwait, which was led by America, the notion of global domination began to stir in some minds in Washington. With the disaster of Sept. 11 and the fact that advocates of global domination had taken over the White House and secured majority in Congress, the decision was made to move swiftly to realize the goal. There could not have been a more opportune moment to ensure success: An outraged American public, global sympathy and a favorable international diplomatic environment — all worked to the benefit of the advocates of global domination.
America’s objectives may not have changed considerably following these events. But the tools of pursuit have. Historically Washington used diplomacy and persuasion; in some cases soft or indirect diplomatic and economic pressure. But the tools became different: No less than flagrant military action, at least the threat of it, regardless of the consent of the international community. Unilateralism is the name of the game now. We need only to recall the manner in which the Iraqi issue was handled in the early months of 2003.
Let us look at current US policy objectives in the Middle East:
1. Ensure that all countries in the region align their political, economic and military policies with those of the US;
2. Ensure the free flow of oil to the world;
3. Ensure that oil prices are at levels acceptable to the US;
4. Ensure military superiority for Israel (less than 6 million people) over that of the combined 22 Arab countries (A combined population of 300 million).
5. That no other power in the world is allowed a strategic foothold in the region.
These objectives are not too different from those of previous decades. The means to achieve them are. But the new means (tools) permit that previous allies can now be treated as enemies, diplomatic tools can be abandoned and established international law and treaties ignored. Most conspicuous is the disappearance of civilized conduct in international relations and pride in projecting, in foreign relations, a policy of “good intentions”. US mode of conduct in the handling of foreign relations, including that with some allies, has now become bluntly belligerent.
America presently appears to be witnessing a wave of new but mostly international McCarthyism. Only the name of the “enemy” is changed. Formerly, it was communism, now it is Islamic terrorism. Not curiously, the present McCarthyism is being energized by the same kind of leadership and ideology, as evident in today’s Cabinet and Congress.
The new ideology rests on one simple but ruthless premise: Achieve your objectives at the lowest possible cost and within the shortest span of time. Ever since America emerged as the unchallenged global superpower, Washington’s perceived shortest route to achieving its policy objectives, especially in the Middle East, has been the threat or the use of military force.
US imperial history has been, to a large extent, benign when compared with European or Japanese imperialism. The world has grown accustomed to this impression, hence the expectations from and respect for America by foe and friend. Had Washington maintained this credibility, it would have been the most effective way to achieve world leadership in a unipolar system. The neoconservatives in Washington do not realize the damage they have already inflicted on their nation and the short and long-term costs involved.
All this talk of democratizing the Arab and Muslim Middle East, the introduction of civil liberties, free trade, social and educational reforms and the routing out of terrorism are designed to appeal to the American public. The neoconservatives need the approval of the American people, their purse and their votes.
These ideals are easily understood in America. They are close to the heart of the average American. Together with the threat of terrorism in the “homeland” they serve to justify Washington’s abandonment of some domestic liberties. They are also calculated to secure approval for the militaristic approach and public consent for a greater public debt (deficit) to allow huge additional appropriations for the defense budget.
The American people have not been told that fifteen Saudi criminals or even fifteen hundred don’t represent or speak for the ideology, humanity or sentiments of a nation of 17 million. They were not told that this breed of terrorists was trained by the CIA to fight and help drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan.
They were not told (or reminded) that Saudi-American relations remained friendly, stable, and mutually beneficial to the two sides for over 65 years They were not told that terrorism is a global phenomenon; that it could be routed out only by dealing with the economic and political roots of the problem, that cooperation is possible without the infringement on peoples’ sovereignty or attack on their faith and culture.
They were not told that Islam, the source of law in Saudi Arabia, has maintained domestic social and political stability and commanded regional and global respect and admiration. They were not told that the civilization Islam produced is credited with safeguarding the mankind’s civilization from the 7th century AD to the European Renaissance.
They were not told that Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading supplier of oil has maintained the free flow of oil to the world without interruption for the past 30 years. They were not told that Saudi Arabia, in spite of strong pressure from opposition, has been the major factor in maintaining stable oil prices within the formula agreed upon between OPEC and major consumer countries.
They were not told that Saudi Arabia’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been understood by all previous administrations in Washington who accepted that allies could differ on some matters of principle.
The American people have not been told, because Washington is oblivious to these facts? Or is it because the neoconservatives have some sinister designs?
— Hani Emam is a Saudi businessman based in Jeddah.
