20 - 26 December 2001
Issue No.565
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 20 - 26 December 2001 Issue No.565 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Recycling violence
The world's sole superpower is showing leadership, but to what end? Ahmed Abdel-Halim examines the implications
The 11 September attacks on the United States, and the subsequent international war against terror -- a term viewed differently by different people -- have raised vital issues. One is the relationship of a superpower to regional affairs. Another is the impact of US military force on Afghanistan, and the latter's newfound geopolitical and strategic importance. Of course, there is also the US campaign's impact on the Middle East.
When superpowers are moved to tackle a regional crisis, they invariably have their own interests in mind. In other words, they are likely to be more interested in promoting their own agenda than in finding a solution. When the United States reacted to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it had more in mind than the restoration of the status quo ante. It wanted to reshape the Gulf, rearrange the Middle East, and show the world, allies and all, who would be calling the shots in the post- Cold War era.
Matters have changed since the Gulf War. The US's use of violence since 11 September demonstrates clearly that violence has become permissible, internationally as well as regionally. Sharon picked up this signal and upped the ante in his war on the Palestinians, his aim being not to reach a settlement, but impose Israel's unilateral solution. His terror tactics instigated a cycle of violence and counter-violence, which is still spiralling out of hand. There is no end in sight.
The US is running the international show and will continue to do so for some time to come. At the same time, Washington is making the most of every crisis that erupts. This was the case with Afghanistan. The war-torn, impoverished country has undeniable geo- political and strategic potential. It is neighbour to some impressive nuclear powers: China, Russia, India, and Pakistan. Iran, another neighbour, is likely to join the nuclear club soon. Afghanistan is also conveniently close to oil sources of considerable future significance. Anyone who controls Afghanistan will enjoy tremendous leverage over the entire region. For the US, this will entail the added bonus of completing its containment of China, a country widely billed as a future superpower.
With the Cold War over, the US is more eager than ever to throw an invisible net around China. As the world's sole superpower, the US wishes to see rivals emerging very slowly, if at all.
China's encirclement is central to US foreign policy. This is why the US is backing the countries once dubbed the Asian tigers, all close to China's borders, as well as encouraging the secession of East Timor from Indonesia and the deployment of Australian forces there. When India and, soon afterward, Pakistan tested nuclear bombs, Washington was not terribly upset, for this would blunt China's military leverage in the region. The US is also laying great stock by Taiwan, where it keeps handy an arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, and a sympathetic president.
This determined endeavour to rearrange the Asian geo-political scene is the key to the US campaign in Afghanistan. And it has been reproduced, with some variations, in the Middle East.
When Sharon, throwing all ethical and legitimate caution to the wind, went on a rampage, he received public and tacit endorsement from the US, which, the world was told bluntly, understands the motives for Israel's use of violence and does not object to US weapons being used to maim and kill Palestinian civilians. The US has thus created a new "Bin Laden" in the region, whose name is not Arafat but Sharon. Israel's actions against the Palestinians have surpassed, in brutality and venom, not only anything Bin Laden has dreamt of but even those committed by history's most homicidal tyrants.
The world's sole superpower may claim to be fighting international terror. In true fact, it is creating new forms of regional and international terror, primarily state terror. The US is creating organisations it will eventually have to fight, and teaching people to become as lethal as Bin Laden. It never learns.
Back in Afghanistan, the most obvious question is: what next? In the last quarter of the 20th century, the Soviet Union tried, for reasons of its own, to occupy Afghanistan. For 10 years, from 1979 to '89, it succeeded, until US-backed armed groups kicked it out of the country -- some of which groups, incidentally, the US is now fighting. After the defeat of the Soviet Union, those same groups became embroiled in civil strife, which lasted from 1992 until the Taliban took power in 1996. The same political forces in play at the time are likely to affect the outcome of the current US campaign in Afghanistan.
With the accession of the Taliban to power, rival opposition factions coalesced to some extent. Now that the Taliban have been ousted, the old rivalries are resurfacing. The future government's ability to keep the country together is in question. This dilemma, which the US administration is trying hard to sweep under the carpet, is likely to persist. Tribal rivalries, compounded by the lack of infrastructure linking Kabul with the rest of the country, are hardly good omens for the new government. The gigantic task of reconstruction and development in the war-ravaged country is likely to last long enough for new political and economic realities to emerge, and these may not be to the US's liking.
What the Bonn conference has achieved is at best a temporary solution. As to the country's future, no one, not even the US, can envision it. The building of the nation-state has always been one of Afghanistan's stumbling blocks. Rampant tribalism, complicated by foreign intervention, has hindered national consensus around a viable political system. Over the past quarter century, the lethal combination of tribal rivalry and foreign meddling has reduced Afghanistan to rubble.
Now, who would care to answer that vexed question: what next? Perhaps the US...
* The writer is an expert in military strategy and deputy director of the Centre for Middle East Studies.
© 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