|
The
“Greater Middle East ”
Imperial
Illusions of Change
The
Arabs are in fact a people, not a collection of random countries
passively available for outside intervention and rule.1
– Edward Said
The
Bush administration can try to present this US plans for transfer
of power and elections in
Iraq to the American public as the first course in a full meal of
modern democracy. But the Iraqis, who’ve never developed a taste
for junk food, aren’t likely to see it that way.2
– Christopher Dickey, Newsweek
|
|
US policy in Iraq might lead to a civil war
|
As
the world continued to focus on the daily events in
Palestine
and
Iraq, the Bush administration launched a wide-ranging initiative,
allegedly aimed at promoting democracy in the “greater” Middle East. Senior White House and State Department officials have begun talks
with key European allies about “a master plan” to endorse major
political, economic and social reforms in Arab and South Asian
countries. The “Greater Middle East Initiative” is scheduled to
be announced at the G-8 summit, which will be hosted by President
Bush at Sea Island,
Georgia, in June 2004.3The
US
will also bring up the initiative in EU and NATO summits.
The
new initiative is modeled on the 1975
Helsinki
accords, which were intended to settle post-World War II border
disputes and were signed by 35 nations, including the
United States, the Soviet Union
and almost all European countries. The
Helsinki
accords, which also involved human rights issues, were eventually
used by the West to promote and protect dissident groups in the
Soviet bloc. Some experts consider the
Helsinki
accords to be a key factor in the demise of communism in the Eastern
Bloc.4
United States
’ Vice President Dick Cheney first hinted at the “Greater Middle
East Initiative” during the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland. Although Cheney is one of the key architects of the
US
doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, he declared, “Our forward
strategy for freedom commits us to support those who work and
sacrifice for reform across the greater Middle East. We call upon our democratic friends and allies everywhere, and in Europe
in particular, to join us in this effort.” 5
More
recently, during the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan to Washington in January, the
US
administration gave Erdogan the green light to promote the
initiative in the Middle East.6
Despite the fact that the exact details of the ambitious initiative
are still being crafted, some sources point out that the US wishes
to export Turkey’s secular model to the entire Middle East, and to
establish a system of absolute separation of religion and state in
the region.
Turkey
will be sending Muslim scholars to the rest of the Islamic world
with the avowed aim of limiting Islamic teachings to prayer and
fasting.7
Moreover, those “scholars” will encourage civil marriages
involving members of different religions, and will work to belittle
Islamic principles that contradict the Western liberal model –
issues such as jihad, polygamy, and hijab will all be shunned.
To
avoid legal problems, the US transferred “terror”
suspects to allied governments in the Muslim World. |
|
|
The
new initiative is the latest in a series of “pro-democracy”
declarations by high-ranking officials in the
US
administration. Last November, President Bush stated his adoption of
what he called a “forward strategy of freedom in the Middle
East,” explaining that “sixty years of Western nations excusing
and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing
to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be
purchased at the expense of liberty.” Then, on December 12, 2003,
US
Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about the “US-Middle East
Partnership Initiative,” according to which the
US
would work to promote regional economic growth, female emancipation,
and greater participation of citizens in government.
Visionary
talk of a “greater Middle East
” for a few months during an election year might carry the hope of
convincing the
US
electorate that the Bush administration’s efforts are genuine.
However, in light of the mounting problems that the
US
is facing in the region, the new “Greater Middle East
Initiative” is most likely to fail. The reasons for this expected
failure have much to do not only with the conflicting and
irreconcilable objectives that US foreign policy has pursued since
September 11, but also with perceptions of the US in the Middle
East, perceptions created by America’s long history of supporting
“friendly tyrants” in the region.
The
US’ failure to find an acceptable solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict, its continuing support for Israel’s expansionist
policies and the absence of a consistent vision for Iraqi
independence or state-building leave the US with little or no
credibility as a sincere proponent for change in a region long
troubled by dictatorship and militarism.
US
Foreign Policy in the Middle East
: The Manufacture of Insecurity
Since
September 11, the
US
government has insisted that its “war on terror” will inevitably
make the world a safer place, and that the Middle East
will be witnessing, for the first time in its turbulent history, the
benefits of freedom and democracy.
More
than two years later, however, Muslims find themselves under siege
either through direct occupation by US and Israeli forces or through
the draconian measures imposed on citizens by US-allied governments
in the name of “fighting terrorism.”
The
reason for this state of affairs is that the Bush administration is
facing two conflicting imperatives. The first is the need to fight
Islamic fundamentalism worldwide, which has entailed that the
US
set aside its democratic rhetoric and seek closer cooperation with
authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East
and Asia. The second is the realization on the part of many
US
decision-makers that it is precisely the lack of democracy in Muslim
countries and the
US
’ alliances with oppressive autocracies that fuel the cause of the
Islamists.8
Since
September 11, it has became clear that notions such as human rights,
democracy, peace, freedom, accountability and economic opportunities
were used to pursue strategic interests and serve the purpose of
imposing Western hegemony. Regimes in the Middle East
capitalized on the moment and used the convenient excuse of
“fighting terrorism” to tighten their grip on power; they
continued to arrest, detain and torture thousands of members of
opposition groups in their own countries. Many of those regimes were
emboldened by the US’ abridging of its own domestic civil
liberties after September 11 through the
large-scale detention of immigrants, closed deportation hearings,
and the declaration of even some US citizens as “enemy
combatants” with no right to counsel or to contest the designation.9
In
addition, the
US
’ arbitrary imprisonment, torture and extrajudicial killing of
captives within the cages of Guantanamo Bay
and Bagram Airbase in
Afghanistan
sent a message to pro-US regimes that such practices are indeed
acceptable.10
To
relieve itself from possible legal problems or public protests, the
US transferred “terror” suspects to allied governments in the
Muslim World (the same countries criticized in the US State
Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices)
with torture and forced confessions being commonplace.11
Many “terror” suspects are even held at overseas CIA
interrogation centers which are completely off-limits to reporters,
lawyers and outside agencies, and are routinely beaten, tortured and
deprived of sleep by US Army Special Forces and local security
officials before interrogation.12
US
security interests supersede its calls for democracy. |
|
|
While
the
US
preached democracy and freedom, it not only advocated an aggressive
doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, but also worked to cultivate closer
ties with tyrants in the Middle East
and Central Asia. The most glaring case of US security interests superseding its
calls for democracy lies in
Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf seized power in a 1999 military
coup, tightened his authoritarian grip on power, and instituted a
series of antidemocratic constitutional amendments. In recognition
of the Pakistani leader’s critical supporting role in the “war
on terrorism,” the Bush administration showered Musharraf with
praise and attention, waived various economic sanctions that had
been imposed on
Pakistan, assembled a handsome aid package that exceeded $600 million in
2002, and restarted US-Pakistani military cooperation.13
Given
Gaddafi’s recent decision to terminate his country’s WMD program
and open his country up to Western interests, praise was heaped on
the Libyan leader; all calls for reform within
Libya
seemed to have faded as US security interests were fully met.
In
Central Asia, the
US
’ need for military bases and other forms of security arrangements
led the
US
to forge closer relations with the despotic leaders of
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan
and
Kyrgyzstan.14
Even Saparmurat Niyazov, the totalitarian megalomaniac running
Turkmenistan, received a friendly visit from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
in April 2002. In view of
Kazakhstan
’s significant oil and gas reserves, and President Nursultan
Nazarbayev’s close cooperation with the
US
on security and economic matters, there was no
US
pressure of any sort on
Kazakhstan
’s president to launch democratic reforms.
The
Quagmire of Palestine
and
Iraq
: The
US
Fails Its First Test
A
closer look at the strategic underpinnings behind the “Greater
Middle East Initiative” suggests that the Bush administration and
its neoconservative masterminds are eager to go back to Cold War
politics. In essence, they seem to regard the Middle East
as the legitimate heir to the former Soviet Union
– a new “pole” threatening the
United States. In turn, political Islam has become, in their worldview, the 21st
century’s communism, even if certain interpretations of political
Islam resonate closely with the aspirations of a significant segment
of Muslim public opinion. The result has been an increase in
militancy and extremism in Muslim civil
society and a blatant rejection of any message emanating from the
neo-conservative, pro-Zionist administration currently holding the
reigns of power in Washington.
One
has to remember that in a bid to gain support for the
Iraq
war, US officials claimed that the end of Saddam’s regime and the
implementation of the Israeli-Palestinian “roadmap” would
transform the Middle East
and encourage the development of pro-Western democracies. Instead,
the “roadmap” has gone nowhere and the Arab-Israeli conflict has
once again been conveniently neglected by the
US
administration.
Israel
continues its atrocities in the West Bank
and
Gaza
while Palestinian lands are still being grabbed by
Israel
’s “apartheid wall.” As the 2004 elections loom, the Bush
administration continues to adopt
Israel
’s insistence that there can be no movement in negotiations until
the Palestinian Authority dismantles militant groups. This has
provided Ariel Sharon with the opportunity to expand settlements and
confiscate more Palestinian land without fear of reprimand from the
US
administration.15
In
Iraq, Bush had promised a transfer of power to Iraqis by June 30. Only a
few weeks ago Washington ’s spokespersons suggested that the June handover would most
likely be postponed until January 2005, when “genuine” elections
can be held. Other sources suggest that some in the
US
administration are in favor of handing over sovereignty to an
expanded Iraqi governing council dominated by the same faces
currently in charge.16
Analysts
warn that such a policy might lead to civil war, since many other
Iraqis see the Iraqi Governing Council as an instrument of
US
policy and resent its domination by returned exiles, such as
Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi.17
In
fact, UN envoy to Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi warned of the imminent danger
of civil war in
Iraq
if demands for elections and transfer of power are not met.18
Indeed, the country is being torn apart between Kurdish demands for
independence in the north and the nationalist tendencies of Iraqi
Arabs. Moreover, Sunnis will most likely resist any Shi’ite
control of political power.
Even
if circumstances miraculously changed and
Iraq
developed into a fully-functional independent and democratic state,
this would probably result in more pressing demands for an early
withdrawal of all
US
forces from the country – clearly an unacceptable demand to Washington, given
Iraq
’s geo-strategic importance.19
One has only to note how American military officials were quick to
point out that approximately 100,000
US
troops would be needed in
Iraq
long after a sovereign government is restored.20
Conclusions
With
every major change in the strategic landscape of the region, Arabs
and Muslims are usually faced with a new “initiative,”
“plan” or “project” – each promising freedom, prosperity
and regional advancement. The “Greater Middle East Initiative”
is nothing but the latest in a series of US and Israeli initiatives
aimed at maintaining their hegemony and dominance.
One
should note Shimon Perez’ “New Middle East Initiative,” which
was presented after the Arab system was devastated in the aftermath
of the 1991 Gulf War. Perez promised the Arabs prosperity if they
chose to fully normalize relations with
Israel
and include his country in all regional arrangements. Back then, an
international coalition had been forged to force Saddam to leave
Kuwait, while
Israel
refused to withdraw from occupied territories in
Lebanon
and
Syria. Eventually,
Israel
only agreed to engage the Palestinians in fitful long-term
negotiations, which gradually became known as the
Oslo
process. The result was catastrophic:
Israel
gave the Palestinian Authority all the symbols of sovereignty, but
maintained actual political, economic and military control over the
Palestinians during the ill-fated “decade of negotiations” in
the 1990s.
Once
again, as the Arabs are defeated and demoralized, a new
“initiative” is being crafted by outside powers with an agenda
for change that is completely different from that of mainstream Arab
civil society. After the Tenet Plan, the Mitchell Report, the
“roadmap,” and Bush’s recent “forward strategy for
freedom,” a new place in the dustbin of history is reserved for
the Greater Middle East Initiative.
Kareem
M. Kamel
is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo,
Egypt. He has an MA in
International Relations and is specialized in security studies,
decision- making, nuclear politics, Middle East
politics and the politics
of Islam. He is currently assistant to the Political Science
Department at the American University
in Cairo.
1
Edward Said,
“Unprecedented
Crisis: The Arab Condition,”
Al-Ahram Weekly
2
Christopher Dickey, “Garbage
In, Garbage Out,” Newsweek February 20th, 2004
3
Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler, “Bush Aims for ‘Greater Mideast
’ Plan,” Washington Post February 9th,
2004
4
Ibid.
5
“Cheney Asks EU to Join Reform
Drive,” IslamOnline.net
January 25th,
2004
6
Sa’ad Abdul Majid, “ Turkey Enthusiastic
about US ‘Greater Middle East ,” IslamOnline.net February 17th,
2004
7
Abdel Haleem Ghazali, “ Egypt and Turkey : The Key to a
Counter Middle East
Initiative,” Al-Ahram Al-Arabi
(Arabic) February 21st,
2004
8
Thomas Carothers, “Promoting
Democracy and Fighting Terror,” Foreign Affairs
January/February
2003
9
Ibid.
10
Yamin Zakaria, “The
Axis of Hypocrisy,” Jihad Unspun
November 8th,
2003
11
Slavoj Zizek, “ Iraq ’s False
Promises,” Foreign Policy
January/February 2004
12
Eyal Press, “In Torture We Trust?”
Nation March 31st,
2003
13
Thomas Carothers, “Promoting
Democracy and Fighting Terror,” Foreign Affairs January/February
2003
14
Ibid.
15
Catherine Cook, “White
House Now Ignoring Palestine,” MERIP January
2004
16
Michael Hirsh, “Pencil
It In,” Newsweek February 14th,
2004
17
Ibid.
18
Tony Karon, “Iraq:
Anybody Got a Plan?” Time.com February 18th,
2004
19
Paul Rogers, “The
‘Greater Middle East Initiative’: Vision or Mirage?”
Open Democracy February 12th,
2004
20
Robert Burns, “US Expects Troops In Iraq for Years,”
Associated Press February 20th,
2004.
|
