KavkazCenter - American Mistakes and Russian and Chinese Gains

American Mistakes and Russian and Chinese Gains

The American administration made a grave error when it thought that Iraq was the weakest link in the chain of what George W. Bush calls the 'axis of evil', which includes Iran, Iraq and North Korea. And the US is aggravating the danger by denying its faults. This 'axis' was invented by one of Bush's speechwriters, and the term was welcomed by the US President, who likes to consider himself divinely ordained to battle the powers of evil. This is the axis which is sapping America's grandeur, placing the US in the backseat of developments instead of the driver's seat.

Today Russia and China seem more solid than the US when it comes to the nuclear portfolio of Iran and North Korea. Both benefit from America's entanglement in a war of attrition in Iraq. Moreover, it is not just American mistakes in Iraq that have tied Washington's hands. US policy toward Israeli also shackles Bush's visions and dreams. What is even more curious is the element of détente that exists in Iranian-Israeli relations and its effects on US policy toward several portfolios in the Middle East, including Iraq, which is apparently the easiest member to bag but, in reality, the hardest to keep hold of in this novelty item, the 'axis of evil'.

The missile test crisis was renewed last week and will exacerbate if North Korea keeps its pledge to try out long range missiles soon, in defiance of the US. America has increasingly come to be seen as weak by most States, thanks to its entanglement in Iraq. This crisis can be resolved if China takes the decision to send a clear and decisive message to North Korea that it will not protect it if it continues with these tests. Also called for is a South Korean decision to the effect that the crisis deserves to be taken more seriously; it must be confronted with diplomatic and economic measures, and the US should abandon its belligerent position over negotiating face-to-face with North Korea. This, in turn, would have to follow a strategic reappraisal of US policies and the prerequisites of America's global stature.

Testing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads has given rise to fears because it upsets the balance of security in northeast Asia. Negotiations on nuclear armaments were at first collective, not bilateral, with Washington and Pyongyang in face-to-face talks. The negotiations stopped because of a separate banking crisis.

Some see that North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong-il, has practiced deception, blackmail and trickery, and that he must stop being 'rewarded', financially and diplomatically, for his violations of his obligations. Others think that what Kim Jong-il wants is direct, face-to-face negotiations with the American administration to reach security guarantees and a full normalization of economic and diplomatic relations. And these others see that a whole package of incentives should be offered to North Korea, accompanied by hints of punishment, just as with the case of the Iran file, where incentives are coupled with implied penalties.

The files of both countries, North Korea and Iran, will be high on the agenda of the industrialized, democratic rich nations that will hold the Friday's G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. It will be hosted for the first time by Vladimir Putin. The Russian president wants an end to the criticism directed at him for trampling on Russia's new democracy, under the mantle of security and fighting corruption. What is required of the remaining seven members states is that Putin be reminded that membership of the G-8 presupposes two central conditions - wealth and democracy.

However, Putin's government passed laws which it is using to constrain the opposition and drive fear into its hearts, with the excuse of fighting extremism. These laws are similar to the new 'sister' laws passed by the US administration under the banner of combating terrorism. These US laws also curtail democracy and civil liberties. The Patriot Act actually transgresses these rights and violates the US constitution, dwarfing the significance of a balanced exercise of democracy.

The G-8 summit will not linger too long on these transgressions. More likely, it will avoid talking about them altogether, to focus on terrorism and the feasibility of confronting this danger security-wise by all available means. Putin believes in this approach and rejects out of hand a political solution for the Chechen problem. Bush also believes in this, and insists on fighting his war against terror on a purely military basis, without assessing the positions involved in his policy. Such is the case with his stance over the Palestinian Cause: he is not looking for a just solution that would mobilize Arab and Islamic public opinion on his side in the war on terror.

Associating Muslims and Arabs with terrorism is not a Western, Jewish or Hindu invention but, sadly, it is the result of the actions of the Muslims and Arabs. Of course, this does not justify racism, defamation and provocation on the model of collective punishment and injustice. But the necessary demand that obscene campaigns and filthy acts against Arabs and Muslims, individually and collectively, be stopped also demands in turn that Arab and Muslim public opinion make a clear stand against terrorism. It also demands that the Arabs fight terrorism in all sincerity, without dredging up explanations and excuses whenever and wherever an act of terror occurs, whether in New York or Mumbai.

Terrorism is hoisted upon the Arabs, specifically, and almost spontaneously. For instance, there is a scene in a movie where a Muslim family in California is targeted for racism and a hate-crime occurs against them when their shop is wrecked. Following this is a scene where the mother cries and expresses her woes because the attackers thought mistakenly that they were Arabs! It turns out the family is Iranian and the important point here is that those immediately and automatically associated with terrorism are the Arabs, never non-Arabs, no matter how many times Washington declares that Tehran condones, finances and embraces terrorism inside and outside Iran.

Any Arab presence at the G-8 summit will most likely be associated with the idea of terrorism, and the oil issue, considering that Vladimir Putin wants the summit to focus on energy. The Arab absence from the summit is, as usual, the result of strategic positions and sidestepping Arab participation in key global decisions that concern the region.

Iran, for its part, wants to prevent the nuclear file from being looked into in its absence. It has made this clear through its Foreign Minister, Manuchehr Motaki, who warned the G-8 leaders against taking decisions without 'consulting' Iran first. Tehran plays the diplomatic and political game exceedingly well and holds many substantial cards, and quite a few illusory ones too, and intends to use them to the full extent for its benefit.

The world is waiting for Iran's response to the incentive package designed to encourage it to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the Iranian regime is in no hurry and will not permit others to rush it. Therefore, the efforts and pressure exerted to extract an Iranian reply before the G-8 summit have flatly failed. Iran replied that the package of incentives is ambiguous and demands that these complexities be ironed out. France has said that issuing warnings and ultimatums may be counterproductive.

The giant absentee from the summit in its own right, China, is a crucial player in the Iranian nuclear file. It is an influential member of the P5 plus 1 group - Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council - that handed the package to Iran to begin with. The absence of China from the G-8 summit will, likewise, preclude any decisive decisions concerning Iran. It is also improbable that a final deadline will be decided for an Iranian reply.

Tehran is betting on all these matters with its well-known adroitness. It is betting on the Europeans who want to please Iran and not provoke it. The Iranians are happy to be involved in a give-and-take dialogue because this means it is buying time, and because Europe, America and Iran equally want this dialogue.

It counts on Russia and China, which are the core of Iran's self-confidence, and allow it to behave in a way that gives the impression it believes it is above carrying out its obligations and that it cannot be held accountable. From Tehran's point of view, the issue is not a diplomatic game at the UN, although it succeeded in taking the file out of the hands of the Security Council. It was a diplomatic success brought about mainly by Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and approved by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It was a slap on the face of US Ambassador John Bolton, who wanted the Iranian file to remain an issue for the Security Council. He had hoped that this would be the cornerstone of US strategic policy. The issue in its profound aspect rests on the oil policy of the major powers, drawn up for coming decades, not only for the present.

But Tehran bets on today's calculations when it pores over the US situation in Iraq, North Korea's challenge and the early signs of failure in Afghanistan where the indications are that Taliban may reappear on the political stage. The US administration thought it had quashed Taliban in its war of reprisal against al-Qaeda, and rushed into its adventure in Iraq.

Iran, which, under neo-conservative pressure(including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney), the Bush administration hastened to describe as a member of the 'axis of evil', has struck a humiliating blow to the superiority of the US. Iran makes optimum use of available opportunities and is a good gambler, no matter how remote success might seem.

One thing Tehran bets on is the traditional Iranian-Israeli detente. In spite of the verbal escalation of the situation between Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a study of the region's events does not suggest an imminent confrontation between Iran and Israel.

Olmert is adept at taking revenge on Palestinian civilians, and at destroying bridges and infrastructure, like the electric power station in the Gaza Strip. He acts in a dangerously adolescent manner to prove that he is a perfect player at the game. He targets the weakest link - the Palestinian civilians - because he is actually a weak leader. Olmert, from Israel, calls for the release of the Israeli soldier. Responding to Olmert from Syria and speaking on behalf of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal calls for the release of Palestinian captives in return for the Israeli soldier.

It is a noteworthy fact that this response was allowed to come from Damascus. It suggests the same self-confidence that the Iranians possess. Both are confident that Israel will not take risks in a game against Syria or Iran, at least not at this point. Tehran and Damascus bet on détente and the time-honored relations between them, before and after the Khomeini Revolution. Also taken into account is the fact that Israel is relieved by the situation in Syria and Lebanon, notwithstanding the presence of Hezbollah.

Iran may win or lose this bet. Ehud Olmert is a new comer to politics. He may spring surprises, especially within the Syrian-Israeli context, although some people believe that Israel needs Iran and Syria to rein in Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

Iran is still cautious in its relations with Israel, since it realizes the importance of the Israeli link in US-Iran relations. Tehran exploits with caution and calculation the Palestinian Cause and the Palestinian and Lebanese militias to suit its national interests. The suffering of innocent Palestinians is marginal in the calculations of its strategic interests. These are the rules of the game, and they are accepted by those who play it, Arabs and non-Arabs alike.

Combinations of States are not new to the political game. Some combinations are obvious and some are ambiguous. But the most famous axis is the 'axis of evil'. It is a description invented by Bush's speechwriter. The neo-conservatives and Israel found in this description the way to control the American President, who believes that he has a mission. He believed in this mission until he destroyed the elements of America's exclusive global supremacy. The US President will go down in history as the man who hoisted Russia and China to supremacy.

Raghida Dergham

Source: Al-Hayat