Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Has the Bush administration declared war on Islam?
Patrick Seale
Gulf News, 28-11-2003
On more than one occasion since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush has denied his "war on terror" is aimed at Islam. He has visited mosques, invited Muslim leaders to the White House and praised Islam as a religion of peace. But few Muslims are convinced of his sincerity or goodwill.
This is because many contrary indications suggest that Bush, and more particularly the neo-conservatives now setting the pace in Washington, conceive of their struggle as a global conflict between the forces of "democracy" and the "enemies of freedom", between "civilisation" and "barbarism", between the West and Islam.
The question must be posed: Are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the world-wide terrorist manhunts, no more than the early skirmishes of a prolonged war between the world's only superpower and the world's fastest-growing religion? Bush has hinted the war could last a generation, like the religious wars of past centuries and that victory might take "one day, one month, one year, or one decade." Echoing his messianic rhetoric, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair has vowed to "finish the job", however long it takes. Between the two of them, we seem to be promised war without end.
No one doubts the United States is the most powerful country in history. Bush has signed the 2004 military budget of over $400 billion, greater than the combined military budgets of all other major powers. The $87 billion recently approved for US military operations and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq is an additional item! America's "global military footprint" dwarfs that of every earlier empire, including the British Empire at its peak. Thousands of US troops, supported by formidable air forces and navies, armed with strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and the latest conventional weapons, are stationed at major bases in 35 foreign countries.
Unequalled military power
Living in the shadow of this colossus, it is only fair to ask how the US intends to use its unequalled military power. For people worried about the spreading violence and disorder in the world, it is today's most important question. The short answer is that the US intends to impose its will by force, by coercion, rather than by persuasion or mutual accommodation.
Over recent years, a few things have become clear about American objectives which can be summarised by saying that in the ongoing Washington power struggle, the Pentagon has triumphed over both the State Department and the Treasury. America's militaristic and unilateralist foreign policy has been set by Pentagon hawks, aided by their friends in the Vice-President's office and in the National Security Council, and cheered on by Washington's myriad right-wing, pro-Israeli think-tanks. Moderate voices have been silenced, swept aside or been forced to toe the line.
What then are the main aims of Bush's foreign and security policy? It is evident the US wants to use its power to achieve global dominance, and to retain it for the future. It has declared it intends to prevent the emergence of any rival. It wants a "unipolar" world order dominated by itself, rather than the "multipolar" world countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China prefer, where compromise and accommodation is necessary.
From this perspective, America's "war on terror" seems little more than a cover for its avowed intention of global dominance. It is a conclusion drawn from the fact that countries targeted for American hostility are chosen not because they sponsor terror but because they refuse to acquiesce.
The members of Bush's "axis of evil" – Iraq, Iran and North Korea – have no connection with the September 11 attacks or Al Qaida.
The message from Washington, therefore, is that states that fail to acknowledge American hegemony risk pressure, destruction or "regime change". Their equality with other states, their sovereignty, are no longer recognised.
Another pillar of Bush's security doctrine is the unilateral use of force for its benefit. The US has gone beyond that by claiming the right to launch pre-emptive wars against potential threats, illustrated by its war against Iraq. The policies of deterrence and containment are dismissed as inadequate and outdated.
A number of disturbing conclusions spring from this posture. It marks the end of "balance of power" politics which kept the peace and held aggressive states in check. The US feels free to act as it pleases. International order is thus characterised by a profound disequilibrium. Moreover, as the US dispenses with consent from the international community, international law is repudiated.
It is a law of history, however, that any attempt by a state to impose its hegemony inevitably breeds resistance, whether from other states, from non-state actors or private citizens. Resistance to America's global dominance has emerged and takes different forms. There is, for example, the grassroots worldwide anti-war movement which, during Bush's visit to London, brought thousands of people onto the streets. There is diplomatic resistance from countries like France, Germany and Russia, usually manifested in international fora like the UN Security Council. But perhaps the most striking resistance of all lies in the widespread anger at American policies in the Arab and Muslim world, of which the terrorism of Al Qaida and other Islamic groups is the most violent expression. The battle against these militants is now engaged and is becoming increasingly bloody, plunging countries into cycles of violence.
Stabilise the situation
The paradox is that instead of using military force and coercion against Muslim states and Islamic militants, the US might be better advised to mobilise them to stabilise the situation. Iran and Syria have a role to play in resolving the crisis in Iraq, but there is no sign the US is ready to seek their aid rather than threaten them.
In Lebanon, Hizballah is an essential and permanent actor on the political scene, a fact that will not be altered by designating it a terrorist organisation (because of its success in containing Israel).
If Washington hopes to stabilise the situation in Iraq before the presidential election, it must seek the active co-operation of the Shia clerics of Najaf, and give them a greater role. In the Palestinian territories, it is pointless and counter-productive to demonise and destroy movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
On the contrary, they will need to be brought into a unified and more legitimate Palestinian leadership before any durable deal with Israel can be contemplated. In all these theatres of conflict, US policy is extraordinarily perverse, confirming most Muslims belief that Bush is waging war against Islam. America should be warned: it is not a conflict it can hope to win.
Patrick Seale is an eminent commentator and the author of several books on Middle East affairs. He can be contacted at: pseale@gulfnews.com
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03). |
 |