Old ambitions
By
Salama A Salama
US Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Syria and Lebanon heralded the second phase of the US plan which began with the invasion of Iraq. And it is becoming ever more clear that Washington intends to force changes on the region, using whatever means it deems necessary.
So is the situation similar to that which prevailed following the earlier Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait? That gave rise to what was termed at the time the New World Order and led directly to the Madrid conference, convened to outline what Bush senior believed would be the basis for the establishment of peace in the Middle East.
Whatever similarities exist between then and now are limited to the formation of a US-led military coalition, totally reliant on the overwhelming military strength of the US. The expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, though, was supported by the vast majority of Arab states and was achieved beneath the umbrella of Security Council resolutions and international legitimacy.
This time round the situation could not be more different. The invasion flew in the face of international legitimacy. The latest war against Iraq was not a result of Baghdad's aggression against its neighbours but a reaction to domestic conditions in the US. The attacks of 9/11 profoundly shook the US and provided the opportunity for neo- conservative groups to push forward deeply-rooted American notions of empire.
Washington's sole excuse for the invasion of Iraq was to eliminate the still elusive weapons of mass destruction and strike a blow at forces opposed to American hegemony. A military resolution to the Iraqi crisis was opposed by the vast majority of states, and by a majority in the Security Council.
Despite such overwhelming opposition the US achieved exactly what it set out to do. The Iraqi regime has been eliminated, and though the weapons of mass destruction that were the supposed reason for the invasion are nowhere to be found Washington has placed its heavy boots on Iraqi territories and its heavier hand on Iraqi oil. Syria and Iran have both felt the heat of Washington's rhetoric, while Europe, Russia and China have been taught a practical lesson in the exercise of brute force.
The US military has been able to test a new generation of devastating weapons in front of the world, and the message to any state that might seek to oppose Washington's wishes is unequivocal. The US demands the world's allegiance and subservience. Resist at your peril.
The list of demands Powell presented to Syria fits neatly into this pattern, especially given that the natural beneficiary of the coalition which the US leads is Israel. As the US lays the foundation of empire Israel must be put at ease. Washington moved in this direction by announcing the roadmap and it does not want Syria to spoil its plans by demanding a resolution to the issues of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and Shebaa farms.
Washington is currently seeking to neutralise Syrian resistance to Israeli expansion. It wants to marginalise Hizbullah and engineer the expulsion of Palestinian resistance groups from Lebanon.
Nor is Damascus counting on a united Arab position in its support. But while Syria may make a few non-vital compromises it is unlikely to succumb to all the demands made by the US. For while it is undoubtedly true that strategic balances have changed, it was never true, as many imagined, that the US holds all the cards. It is just that we willingly gave up whatever cards we possessed.
