7 - 13 March 2002
Issue No.576
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 7 - 13 March 2002 Issue No.576 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The allies and the axis
Only Israel stood firmly behind the US on the controversial question of the "axis of evil," its other allies begged to differ, writes Mohamad Hakki from Washington
Following on the heels of the 11 September attack on the US, the Afghan war won the backing of nearly the entire world -- not only America's European allies, but also Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union and most Arab countries.
But then came the State of the Union address in which US President George W Bush used the menacing phrase "axis of evil" to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Domestically, it was probably his finest hour with the country united solidly behind him. For the American public, the need to avenge their country's honour has never been greater, with only the attack on the American fleet in Pearl Harbor Hawaii in December 1941 coming close.
Bush's speech also set off alarm bells in virtually every foreign ministry in the world. The president's address appeared to signal that he has endorsed the plans of the "war party," who have been calling relentlessly for a war against Iraq and Iran, while demanding that the US attack other Muslim and Arab countries. Regardless of whether it is proved that Iraq was involved in the 11 September attack against the World Trade Center or the anthrax incidents, the war party has been calling for a military campaign against the Gulf country. The foreign editor of the magazine Chronicles summed it up this way, "The inclusion of Iran in the 'axis' is unexpected and represents a major and extremely dangerous victory for the neo-conservative cabal that thinks if Osama Bin Laden did not exist he should be invented. Dangerous because a simultaneous campaign against Iraq and Iran can be desired only by those who want to turn America's current 'passionate attachment' in the Middle East into a permanent and irrevocable alliance that must not be subjected to critical scrutiny. They want America to initiate an all-out war with all the enemies of its 'only reliable ally' in the region, whether they are real, potential, or imagined, and regardless of whether this is in the interest of the United States to do so."
Based on his records of the meetings that took place in the aftermath of 11 September, prominent journalist Bob Woodward said, "The Bush administration had been seeking to undermine Saddam Hussein from the start, with Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, pushing efforts to aid opposition groups and calling for military action for months." Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld had helped raise the issue of Iraq in previous meetings, but without taking as strong a stance as his deputy. He argued that an attack on Iraq would require a build-up of forces. Secretary of State Colin Powell also objected to a military campaign against the Gulf country. He told the president, "You're going to hear from your coalition partners. They are all with you, everyone, but they will go away if you hit Iraq." Wolfowitz had persisted in making his argument about Iraq and other issues, and had annoyed some of his colleagues by showing up at meetings that were called for principals only -- not for deputies. He even elicited the criticism of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card who told him, "The president will expect one person to speak for the department of defence."
Powell was absolutely right. Bush's lumping together Iraq, Iran, and North Korea was counter-productive. "The 'axis' term may play well inside the US," said Anthony Cordesman for the Centre for Strategic Studies, "but it will play very badly, indeed, outside it. Bush has little support among US allies for taking military action against Iraq and absolutely no allies for dealing with Iran," Cordesman added.
On the other hand, Bush's remark was music to Israel's ears, as senior Likud member Moshe Arens described the "axis of evil" doctrine. Whether it was by influence or confluence, as The Economist put it, Sharon was celebrating a moment of pure harmony in Israel's relationship with Washington.
On the other hand, Bush's remark angered almost all of America's allies. Paris, Berlin, Moscow and Brussels are unhappy with the US. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine has called Bush's "axis of evil" remark "simplistic." German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the US was treating Europeans as though they were satellite states. The European Union Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten described Bush's approach as "absolutist" and as an instance of "unilateralist overdrive." European leaders had already been angered by Israel's damaging of European-funded aid projects in the Palestinian territories. They had tried strenuously to stem the escalation of violence, especially during the last month, while America played the spectator role, distancing itself from the crisis. They differed openly with America over what appeared to have been Israel's intention to get rid of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. Most projects financed by the European Union (EU), like the Gaza airport and the Intercontinental Hotel in Bethlehem have been damaged repeatedly by the Israeli army during the last two months. Those attacks, by rockets, tank fire and explosives have resulted in over $17 million-worth of damage. The Europeans are now willing to part with America, not only on Palestine, but on Iraq, Iran and very possibly North Korea, too. On the Palestinian question, they are willing to go to the Security Council along with Arab countries even though they know that they will definitely elicit a US veto.
Michael Naumann, former German minister of culture, said it best: "America's European allies would deplore a repetition of the Persian Gulf War." Their doubts are born from an ingrained sense of realpolitik. Europe learned a lesson in World War I: slipping into a conflict with no clear moral sense of one's mission or of the likely military outcome, became basic fear. The Europeans' great source of anxiety was the prospect of being caught in an uncontrollable military escalation. Wars can be just, certainly those fought in self-defence; but they can be bloody useless, too.
Naumann went on to say, "The existence of a new threat of global terrorism is undisputed. But Washington's unilateralism, from here, looks like simply a form of America's long-standing isolationism, which is to say that the distance is created by America, not by Europe. The US might benefit from recalling the late Senator William Fulbright's warning against "the arrogance of power" -- Europe's liberal and conservative pundits already are.
Russia, too, is putting up a stop sign in front of America's accelerating war on terrorism: Iraq, said Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, is "completely different from Afghanistan and must not become a target for unilateral US military action.
But all of this is not the real problem. The problem is that the war party is creating a dangerous climate in which talking about war becomes only too easy and natural. Vice-President Dick Cheney is saying that there are 60 countries which have terrorist cells, and that the US is going to "take them one by one." Richard Pearl, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, says, "We've been attacked, directly on our own territory, and thousands of our citizens have been killed. I don't think we need anybody's approval to defend ourselves." Pearl openly attacked the US State Department for being "schooled in the propagation of contradictions." He directly attacked Secretary Powell for, in his words, committing a dreadful mistake by pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to accept a meeting with Yasser Arafat. Pearl said that Powell's move would be seen in the Arab world as a validation of the attacks on the US.
Another pro-Israel figure, James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, attacks the Europeans, saying they have chosen to lead the "good life" -- to maintain generous social services, take long vacations -- but let the US bear the principal burden of preserving world peace. For Woolsey, President Bush is Gary Cooper, the US marshal in the Hollywood movie High Noon who fought "the bad guys," while the townspeople -- Europe -- cowered in fright.
With most right-wing commentators and columnists criticising what they call "the masterly inactivity" in the Middle East, and Christian- Zionist leaders like Pat Robertson directly and vehemently attacking Islam and the Prophet Mohamed, it was easy for the president to say in his State of the Union Speech: "Our enemies are sending their children on suicide missions." He may have been carried away, or it may have been a slip of the tongue, because it was not in the text of the speech and was not reported the next day in the press. A former US ambassador to a major Arab country said to me: "I kept hoping that the lectern would break. It happened before, you know. While I was watching it [the speech], I said 'Our enemies Mr President?'"
© 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