 |
F/A-18 “Hornet” deployed in the Persian Gulf (US Navy photo)
|
One would think that the Arabs, mindful of the last 100 years of history, would be a bit wary of Western intentions, as they become drawn into the “war on terrorism.” In what appears to be an eerie reincarnation of the old British Empire, the US is establishing a military presence in many foreign lands that heretofore had none. In Arab countries, since 1990, military bases have been established in Djibouti, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A remarkable feat when one considers the rampant anti-Americanism that is supposed to be present in the Arab world.
Undoubtedly, promises have been made, for in today’s geopolitical world, no one gives anything for free, certainly not bases for military action. The Arabs should be mindful that many of the white man’s treaties and promises were not honored for Middle Easterners just as they weren’t honored for Native Americans. Also, keeping its word has not been one of Washington’s strong suits, (nor that of its ally, Great Britain), and no lengthy recitation is needed here to demonstrate that point.
Back in 1916, the British, using the promise of independence for the tribes of Arabia, persuaded the Arabs to revolt against the Ottoman Turks. But, even before the fighting had begun, the English and French were meeting to carve up the area as spoils of war. After assisting the Great Powers in driving out and defeating the Ottomans, the Arabs received as their reward 30 years of colonial domination by France and England. The colonial master’s vested interest determined borders and, more than hegemony, the imposed suzerainty, allowing them to install and remove puppet rulers on the basis of their unfaltering subservience or lack thereof, especially in the Gulf States. Arab nationalism would have to wait, as the democracy embraced and heralded by the conquerors was found not to be appropriate for their wartime allies.
In the period between the war to end all wars and its successor, WWII, the British Empire began to decay. This was largely due to the simmering nationalist aspirations in the mandated countries, economic disparities and racial discrimination employed by the occupiers and the carpetbaggers who followed them. Ironically, Iraq was the first of the Middle Eastern nations under British mandate to gain independence, in 1932. I say “ironically” because, in the current scheme of things, it may also be the first to lose whatever sovereignty it gained back then.
In the period following Iraqi independence, concessions were made in other countries culminating in the relinquishing of Palestine in 1948, which rang down the curtain on the final act of the long-running play, Rule Britannia.
One of the interesting parallels between then and now is the current solicitation of the Arabs for assistance in a war that has Western interests at its heart. One must therefore wonder just what it is that America promised the Arabs this time around. Since neither party is talking, we have to take educated guesses as to just what those pledges might be. Looking at what it is that each of these countries might want, we can arrive at a fair presumption of objectives.
In the case of Djibouti and Yemen, it’s easy to speculate that economic aid would be an easy sell to those poor countries. Standing in line at the trough to lap up US foreign aid has always been irresistible for impoverished countries. America can get impecunious nations to do pretty much whatever they want for a few greenbacks.
|
|
|
Nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, currently deployed in the Persian Gulf (US Navy photo)
|
For the others, namely the relatively prosperous Gulf States, there is only one abiding concern -- survival of the ruling class. Since 9-11, many Middle-Eastern regimes have been targeted for criticism in the American press, standing accused of sponsoring or “breeding” terrorists. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Iraq have been in the crosshairs of the Israeli lobby with numerous negative articles in the media lamenting, among other things, the autocratic nature of their regimes, regimes that mainly owe their creation and survival to Western Powers.
Although many pundits would like to see these repressive governments toppled, wiser heads worry about what may follow. So, as a matter of current expediency, it is almost certain that the US has guaranteed support in thwarting any internal revolution in these countries, at least until near term objectives have been accomplished. They no doubt have told them that having our troops in their countries would help cement that guarantee.
But will it? Saudi Arabia has stated that no matter how badly the Israelis treat the Palestinians, they will not issue a repeat of the 1973 oil boycott. I believe they have been told that such an action would have dire consequences. Could the right wing clamor for taking over the Saudi oil fields, bandied about in Washington for some time, be the straw that has broken the camel’s back?
Thus, the Arab countries have been totally neutralized and have capitulated to the West. The mighty Oz has spoken but what will happen when Iraq goes by the wayside sometime in March? It is clear that the war on terrorism must be sustained by keeping the drumbeat at wartime pitch. After Afghanistan comes Iraq. After Iraq, who’s next? OPEC must be broken and once the Iraqi oil fields are in hand, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the last of the majors in the way.
One can only imagine the clandestine meetings taking place between our Israeli-leaning government and their friends in Israel. Just like the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement that betrayed the Arabs in 1916, will there be a Bush-Sharon agreement that will betray them in 2003? I wouldn’t bet against it.
So, Arabs beware! Once the near term goal is accomplished of solidifying Israel’s supremacy by toppling Iraq, the Trojan Horse will open its belly and disgorge an onslaught to overthrow the rest of its enemies. What good will any of these promises be then?
Rule Americana here we come!
|
