4 - 10 October 2001
Issue No.554
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 4 - 10 October 2001 Issue No.554 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
At the grand bazaar
When selling off principles, Mohamed Al-Azaar* advises, no price is too high
In international relations, when principles conflict with interests, interests win out. Those who have been on the losing end of this axiom -- the Palestinians among them -- have been less concerned by the global outcry against the disaster that struck the US on 11 September than by how various nations are responding to the US call for an international coalition against what it calls terrorism.
The nations that queued up to pay their respects and condolences to the US over the tragedy included some of the US foreign policy's foremost opponents. To sympathise with Washington is one thing, however; to ignore its dismal international record or fail to seize the opportunity to negotiate with it before rushing to its side in some vague war of retribution against an ambiguous enemy is another altogether.
Negotiations between the US and international parties in the days following the strikes offer a prime example of how principles are shunted aside in favour of narrow and coldly- calculated interests. Many involved in the negotiations were quick to overlook Washington's previous misdeeds against them, particularly those committed under the present Bush administration, in order to concentrate on the advantages that could be extracted from the US's zeal for felling the ogre called terrorism. Then again, US foreign policy has been the first to encourage this blatant cynicism in international relations, so Washington should not have been taken aback by the haggling it had to engage in following the carnage. As Washington's prime targets (at least for starters) are the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, bartering positions were based on the ability of various countries to market their potential services to the US in this regard.
Naturally, the countries closest to the theatre of operations, notably India and Pakistan, held the strongest hands, as they were in a position to offer everything from intelligence, logistic facilities, military bases and airspace to the ability to close off escape routes that Bin Laden, his supporters and his Taliban hosts might want to take. Still, other countries could play on other assets: for instance, their willingness not to obstruct US efforts to mobilise the family of nations by raising such uncomfortable issues as international law and the questionable legitimacy of Washington's war in light of UN principles. They could also emphasise their ability to tighten the snare around those elements -- groups or individuals -- the US categorises as terrorists. Washington, in turn, countered with various forms of financial enticement or economic arm- twisting, as the case required.
Through this bartering process and with the backing of its European allies, the US has paved the way for its military enterprise, having won over powers that were until recently its most obdurate critics. All bowed before the law of self- interest, with little heed for the extent to which their actions might violate universally held humanitarian ideals and legal principles.
All the parties that negotiated with Washington scored the gains they sought in exchange for relinquishing their cards, for the US campaign has driven up the price. India and Pakistan, for example, managed to obtain a lifting of the sanctions imposed following their nuclear tests of 1998, and to secure the resumption of aid, the rescheduling of billions of dollars in debt and the cancellation of sizeable portions of this debt. Russia purchased US-European blindness to its ferocious war on Chechnya, which Moscow has now had the audacity to declare part of the international campaign against terrorism. Russia undoubtedly stands to gain financially, too, from its pro-US position. China also hopes for Western indulgence toward its treatment of its autonomy-seeking, predominantly Muslim provinces, and awaits possible shifts in policy on Tibet and Taiwan. The republics of Central Asia can expect large influxes of Western aid because of their strategic position in that region and because of their enormous petroleum resources. Israel, of course, was among the first countries to cast its net into the waters of American anger. Its aim was to secure approval for its branding of the Palestinian resistance as terrorism, which will enable it to perpetuate its campaign of state terror against the Palestinians with even greater impunity.
The question that remains is how the Arabs will fare in this grand bazaar of self-interest.
* The writer is a Cairo-based Palestinian political analyst.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page