| |
COMMENTARY
Setting the global
strategic agenda
By Ehsan Ahrari
Well into third year of his tenure, George W
Bush has decidedly finished the internship phase of his
presidency in the realm of foreign affairs. With a
military victory in Iraq under his belt, he has started
the process of setting the global agenda - which, inter
alia, includes legitimizing his country's continued, and
seemingly long-term, occupation of Iraq - among European
and Arab countries. At least superficially, that is a
near impossible mission; however, he is going after
accomplishing it with a steely resolve. He seems to have
made a good start during his whirlwind trip to Europe
and the Middle East.
In Russia, he appears to
have convinced President Vladimir Putin that differences
regarding the America invasion of Iraq will not keep
their two countries from cooperating on other heady
issues. Of course, Bush was thinking about the nuclear
issue regarding Iran and North Korea. Russia has no
problem in agreeing with the US regarding North Korea's
nuclear weapons. It was regarding Iran that a constant
dissension still prevailed. But there emerged at least
agreement in principle on that issue. Putin stated that
Iran should comply in full with its obligations under
the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. But he also added a
caveat, "We are against using the pretext of nuclear
weapons program [in Iran] as an instrument of unfair
competition against us." The American president was
mindful of Russia's significance in the overall great
power relations, especially regarding future nuclear
arms reduction negotiations.
Bush's brief stay
at the G8 summit was quite interesting. French President
Jacques Chirac had also invited a number of heads of
states from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The pursuit
of a multipolar global system - an important issue for
Chirac - was visibly progressing during this summit.
China, India, and Brazil were there - three important
rising powers of Asia and Latin America. Also present
were Egypt and Saudi Arabia - two important Arab and
Muslim states - giving credence to the necessity of
having a high level dialogue between the West and the
world of Islam. The French president was definitely
earning brownie points among Muslim countries.
Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
also had in mind the relevance of their countries in the
context of the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU),
especially in relation to America's emerging grand
strategy, which was all about constructing a Pax
Americana that cuts across a number of regions of the
globe. The operative slogan underlying the sprouting
American imperium is the coalition of the willing, which
is merely a euphemism for coalition of the subservient
nations or even the coalition of the appeasers.
France and Germany are important regional powers
who are too significant to toe the American line in the
coming years. This is an important issue because the
Bush administration may still seek regime change in
Iran. All signs are pointing that Iran is not out of the
woods yet, especially in terms of its continued pursuit
of a nuclear program, and because of its support of the
Hezbollah of Lebanon and other violent groups of the
occupied territories. Paris and Berlin may once again
become two important sources of dissension within the
NATO and the EU if the Bush administration decides to
confront Iran militarily.
Bush held a bilateral
meeting with China's new President, Hu Jintao. It was an
occasion when presidents from the two powers once again
belonged to the same generation. The octogenarian
leadership of China is succumbing to the cruel demands
of father time. Both presidents might have been thinking
about the significance of the absence of the
generational divide that has persisted between the
Chinese and American leadership since 1972, the
momentous year of America's rapprochement with China
that was carried out by then president Richard Nixon.
The question now is whether Bush and Hu can
pursue agendas that reflect the changing strategic
realities of the 21st century affecting their respective
countries. One chief problem from China's vantage point
is that America is decidedly seeking an enhanced
presence and prestige in East Asia, China's major region
of influence. The presence of Indian Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee was also an uneasy reminder to the
People's Republic of the fledgling strategic partnership
between Washington and New Delhi. According to a
recently leaked report, one important purpose of this
partnership is to contain China. To add further
complications for Hu, former president Jiang Zemin still
heads the all-important Central Military Commission in
China, and thus exercises a substantial amount of power
over the larger strategic agenda of that country.
Cumulatively, these realities seem to favor the overall
primacy of the US in East Asia.
From Evian,
France, at the G8 meeting, Bush moved on to pursue his
resolve to tackle the Palestine Liberation
Organization-Israeli conflict. This development speaks
volumes about how long an inexperienced American
president takes to recognize the necessity of getting
personally involved in the Middle East conflict. George
Bush - who never wanted to make the mistake of former
president Bill Clinton by getting personally involved in
negotiations - has stated that he will attempt to
resolve that issue, no matter how long it takes. That
is, indeed, a major source of assurance.
Now
Israel has to experience the awesome burden of America's
resolve, as did Saddam Hussein. But it is far from
certain that anything remotely resembling the similar
stringent standards compliance forced on Iraq will be
applied to Israel. Bush is a born-again Christian. As
such, he holds Israel in special regard. The Arab heads
of state know all about Bush's double standards. That is
one reason why there is no palpable enthusiasm in the
capitals of Arab states about America's new interest in
resolving the PLO-Israeli conflict.
Still, the
eyes of the international community are fixed on Bush
and his commitment to resolving an issue that has long
been considered a core Islamic issue. The US seems to
have realized this only after becoming an occupying
power of a major Arab and Muslim country.
Bush
is definitely presiding over America's moments of glory.
How else can one explain the fact that he bypassed the
United Nations and invaded one of its sovereign members
under the pretext of saving the world from a brutal
dictator's weapons of mass destruction? Even though no
such weapons have been found yet, his erstwhile critics
of Europe and Russia are eagerly posturing for him to
forgive them for not supporting an invasion whose
legality may be most charitably described as highly
questionable. Yet that fact seems to have only enhanced
Bush's capability to set the global agenda.
Superpowerdom has a unique logic of its own not only in
terms of defining what is legal but also what is moral
at a given time.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is
an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online
Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
