14 - 20 February 2002
Issue No.573
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 14 - 20 February 2002 Issue No.573 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
A spin on the evil axis
Ahmed Abdel-Halim* examines the regional forecast, and finds ample cause for pessimism
When General Eisenhower, commander of the allied forces in World War II, became US president and commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, he appealed for a "new vision." Contrary to predictions that he would ask Congress to increase the size and armaments of the US army, he called for a reduction in military allocations, so as to channel the money saved into improving the quality of life of the American people. In the course of his campaign, he launched an all-out attack on what he termed the military-industrial complex, which was driven by an implacable thirst to build new weapons systems. Eisenhower succeeded in promoting his vision, ushering in a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. At the same time, he was virtually immune to criticism, because it was he who led the Allies to victory.
When George W Bush, who represents the very interests of Big Business Eisenhower attacked, came to power, he set into motion a military operation against the destitute Afghan people that cost the US treasury billions. When that war came to its anticipated conclusion, the president -- a civilian who never served in the army -- asked Congress to approve a military allocation of $380 billion. No US president had asked for such an unimaginable sum since Ronald Reagan (also a Republican), whose appeal for a military budget hike came in the context of the arms race against the former Soviet Union. While Reagan's motives may have had some justification in light of the eventual collapse of the Soviet bloc, it is difficult to perceive any logic behind the Bush administration's request for a rise in arms spending, apart from the megalomania that now has Washington fighting windmills. Washington's windmills, today, consist of the countries that make up what Bush referred to in his State of the Union address as the "axis of evil": Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Opinions were divided as to whether this rhetoric implies military engagement against these countries. Moderates suggest that it should be read as no more than a dramatically worded caution. The pragmatic school argues that the allusion to an "axis of evil" is intended to galvanise Congress into approving the enormous defence budget he is asking for. Those closer to the pulse of the current administration believe that Bush means what he says. Meanwhile, Bush administration hard-liners, such as Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, were euphoric; threats and bullying are the language they speak best. As for moderates in the administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, their dismay could not have been greater. Indeed, as appeals to sanity were lost in the clamour for war, rumours began to circulate that Powell intended to resign.
Each of the countries Bush cited as part of the "axis of evil" was singled out for reasons that go well beyond the objectives Bush declared in his State of the Union address. After all, the cardinal rule in analysing Washington's policy decisions towards a particular region is to look first at how these decisions advance US national interests.
Washington's official reasons for targeting Iraq are the regime's refusal to comply with Security Council resolutions pertaining to international weapons inspection teams and its possession and continued development of the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Washington knows as well as everyone else that Iraq no longer has a nuclear armaments programme and that its own condition for allowing UN inspectors in is the delineation of a specific time frame for their operations, upon the successful conclusion of which the sanctions will be lifted. Even so, Washington's justifications for its hostility to Iraq would still be reasonable, if they were sincere and grounded in fact. However, the true reasons are two-fold, and the first pertains to oil.
Geological studies conducted in the US have confirmed that Iraq is sitting on a vast sea of petroleum, sufficient to furnish the world's strategic reserves of oil for an extended period after the depletion of oil reserves in the Gulf. For this reason, the US, contrary to what is commonly believed, is extremely keen on preserving the territorial unity of Iraq. What it wants is to eliminate the current regime and bring in another Karzai to oversee the transition to an American-style form of government that will guarantee the safe exploitation, when it becomes necessary, of the world's number one strategic resource.
The second reason pertains to Israel. Keeping Iraq weak helps ensure that the strategic balance of power in this region remains skewed in favour of Israel and that Washington's coddled ally in the Middle East will continue to serve its interests.
Against this background, Washington's claim that it will be continuing the fight against terrorism by striking Iraq holds little water. Not that this will make the slightest difference, since the Pentagon has already taken the decision and set an approximate date for the offensive to begin: some time in the last week of April or the first two weeks of May. This will give the US time to mount the strategic regrouping of US forces in the region, especially its aircraft carriers, and to muster the political support internationally and regionally that it needs for the operation.
The US, along with Israel, claims that Iran, too, is seeking to develop a nuclear arms capacity. Oddly -- and this, too, should be no secret to the Bush administration -- the Iranian nuclear programme was designed for peaceful purposes and began, at the initiative and with the support of the US, at the time of the Shah. The first nuclear cooperation agreement between Washington and Tehran was signed in 1957. This led to the construction of the Tehran nuclear reactor, which began operations at five megawatts in 1967. In 1974, the Shah established the Iranian Nuclear Energy Organisation and initiated the most ambitious nuclear programme in the Middle East (apart from that of Israel). The programme was to furnish Iran, with US cooperation, with 23 functioning nuclear power stations by the mid-1990s. Germany, in 1976, pledged to build one of these stations. With the fall of the Shah in 1979, the US withdrew its support for the programme. However, the infrastructure was in place, and all the new Islamic government in Tehran had to do was complete the work that remained to put the reactors into operation. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has visited Iran on several occasions in order to inspect its nuclear facilities. At no time did it find evidence that the nuclear facilities were being used for anything but peaceful purposes. In addition, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970, and continues to abide by the provisions of this treaty until the present.
So why is the US threatening Iran? Again, the reasons are intimately associated with Israel and the regional balance of powers. Were Iran to produce nuclear weapons -- it has the technology, even it if has yet to take the decision to do so -- Israel would no longer have the monopoly on this weaponry in this region and the Iranian deterrent would neutralise Israel's ability to use the nuclear threat to advance its regional policy. The US is not about to let this happen to what is, in effect its only strategic ally in the region, whatever it might pretend to the contrary. But the US is also charging that Iran is arming certain organisations in the Middle East. Specifically, the US is referring to Hizbullah and other organisations that have sought recourse to arms in order to liberate Arab territory from Israeli occupation. Naturally, since the US supports Israel unreservedly on every issue, it refuses to acknowledge that these organisations are pursuing the internationally sanctioned right to resist occupation and has taken the Israeli line that they are terrorist organisations.
The US has included North Korea in the "axis of evil" because it allegedly threatens South Korea, which performs in that region the same strategic role Israel plays in the Middle East. Simultaneously, North Korea stands charged with supplying arms or arms components to countries in the Middle East and other regions where the US has a stake in maintaining the status quo in the strategic balances.
There is another factor in accordance with which Iran and Iraq, in spite of their long mutual animosity, have been lumped together in the "axis of evil." In 1993, shortly after coming to power, Clinton announced a new policy towards the Middle East. An important component of this policy was what Clinton termed dual containment, which was summarised as follows: instead of pursuing the old policy towards Iraq and Iran, which was based on strengthening one of the two parties with respect to the other, the US's new policy aimed to put both countries in a single basket and weaken them together. Of course, no one was deluded as to what the purpose of this policy really was: safeguarding Israel's strategic superiority over the entire Middle East. In this respect, at least, Bush's inclusion of Iran and Iraq in his "axis of evil" follows established American tradition.
To drive home the danger that looms over the Arab world at present, it is useful here to refer to significant defence and security agreements between the US and Israel, which both epitomise and are used to justify Washington's unmitigated support for Israel, the bastion of US interests in the Middle East.
One agreement, signed in 1998, pertains to the conditions under which the US will intervene militarily on behalf of Israel. According to its terms, the US has pledged that should Israel become engaged in military operations in the region, the US will intervene directly to prevent the other parties from achieving a military victory and will deliver an effective strike, using non-traditional weapons if necessary, against any country that attacks Israel. The treaty also stipulates that the US will supply Israel with military assistance in the event that Israel launches a military offensive against another country in the region, on the condition that this operation has Washington's approval in advance. In addition, Washington pledges to supply Israel with the latest military technology, including advanced warning radar systems, especially those designed to detect ballistic missiles, and to intensify intelligence exchange between the two countries.
Another agreement has yet to be signed, but some of its provisions are already in effect. It presents the US and Israel as bound so closely that an attack on one will constitute an attack on the other. Specifically, the proposed treaty provides that in the event of any military or terrorist operations that threaten the structure of the state in Israel, the US will intervene with full force on behalf of Israel. Under the agreement, the US and Israel will coordinate more closely than ever on shared strategic concerns, whether these pertain to security and military developments in the Middle East or to any direct threat aimed at either country. Not only is this the first time that Israel has proposed the notion of a "contractual alliance" with Washington, but the document also makes it clear that Israel is seeking US approval for using nuclear weapons in the event of protracted military hostilities.
In addition to the substance of these agreements, a number of recent developments combine to form a still gloomier forecast for the region. Among these are the US Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld's request to reduce the number of US forces participating in the Multinational Observer Forces in the Sinai, the UN's request to Lebanon to reduce the international emergency forces stationed along the border with Israel, the Pentagon's decision to strike Iraq and the sharpening of the rhetoric against Iran. Capping this off was Sharon's recent visit to Washington. When one recalls the US pledge to supply Israel with adequate military assistance in the event that Israel launches a military offensive against another country in the region, on the condition that this operation has Washington's approval in advance, combined with the reductions in international monitoring forces in Sinai and Lebanon, and the effects that forthcoming strikes against Iraq, and possibly Iran, will have on the strategic balance in the region, the significance of Sharon's visit to Washington becomes clear.
Sharon wants a green light to undertake some action against a party in the region. In the past, the responses of US administrations to such requests have swung between outright rejection, as was the case when Eisenhower put a stop to the Tripartite Aggression of 1956, and outright approval, as was the case when President Johnson gave his blessing to the Israeli aggression of 1967. Bush is different from his predecessors in this respect. His response will probably be more equivocal. But what is alarming is that Sharon will interpret this response as the go-ahead he is looking for. Should not this, alone, be cause for the US president to reconsider the true fulcrum of his "axis of evil"?
* The writer is member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
© 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