bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
=== News Update ===
In her interview with The Washington Post last week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was upbeat about democratic transformation in the Middle East. She had no qualms about regime change and harangued those ready to accommodate the status quo for the sake of stability. When told that the region is so volatile that, should democracy fail, it may slip into chaos or be taken over by Islamist groups, Condi flashed her trademark smile and explained the chaos initially produced by democratisation is "creative chaos" that would make things better in the end.
This is not the first time US academics and policy makers come up with fancy terms. Coining political terms is becoming an art form in America, a matter of extraordinary expertise. Terms do not spring to life spontaneously. They are honed with precision, spun with care, delivered with a dose of subterfuge. Instability, ambiguity and chaos are things commonly thought of as negative, but when instability becomes "controlled", ambiguity "constructive", and chaos "creative", they become suddenly more palatable. Spinning is a craft, and when the spin doctors are good, listeners won't even notice their input.
The term "constructive ambiguity" was coined in the late-1990s in reference to the ambiguity surrounding the ill-fated Oslo Accords. Those who coined that term wanted to give the impression that ambiguity in the wording of the accords was intentional, that it ironed out the glitches, and that we are heading closer to a fair and lasting settlement. In truth, the term was intended to delude. Any fair-minded observer of the Arab-Israeli conflict knew that any ambiguity would be exploited by the stronger party, the party that controls the status quo, which is what happened in the end.
The intentional deception implied in the term "creative chaos" is just as insidious. The Americans simply want to camouflage their true intentions. Rice wanted certain people in the region to know first, that the US is serious about democratisation and would do everything possible to bring it about, second, that it finds the current situation untenable and will not be dissuaded by warnings of chaos, and third, that everyone inside and outside the region should toe its line.
The second phase of the neo-con global strategy has just begun. The first phase brought down the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Baath regime in Iraq as part of the "war on terror". The second phase aims to bring down the regimes of Syria and Iran, disarm and dismantle the resistance in both Lebanon and Palestine, and introduce lasting political reform across the Arab world, particularly in key countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The first phase involved an ample use of military power and ended in physical occupation of the target countries. The second phase will favour non-military means, without entirely excluding the military option. For example, aerial strikes may be used against specific targets. But the occupation of land is unlikely now that the Americans have experienced enough trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To explain what the Americans are up to, let us make a distinction between direct and indirect theatres of operation. Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are all part of the direct theatre of operation -- Iran and Syria being the hardest targets. The US is obviously using the nuclear dossier to pressure Iran and the Lebanese issue to twist Syria's arm. The indirect theatre of operation is much larger. It covers the entire region, the greater Middle East, where the US is likely to intervene at every single opportunity to promote its own interests.
There may not be a timeframe or a rigid set of priorities in the US plan. The Americans are keeping their options open and standing ready to intervene in one or more fronts as opportunity presents. They sprang into action after Arafat's death, providing just enough peace rhetoric to stabilise the Palestinian front. After Al-Hariri's assassination, feuds suddenly surfaced in Lebanon, with Syria being the target, the ground already paved through Security Council Resolution 1559.
The Americans are stirring things up and using the mix to their advantage. Sometimes they wait for the right opportunity, as was the case when Emile Lahoud's term was renewed. Sometimes they make things happen. For example, the US is said to be planning a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter has just revealed (Al-Jazeera, 30 March 2005) that the US Department of Defense is on standby for a possible strike in June. The date has been carefully selected. According to Israeli intelligence, June would be the point of no return in the Iranian nuclear programme, a date after which no one would be able to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb. The Americans and Israelis are determined to stop Iran from pressing on with its nuclear programme. They want Iran to stop all uranium enrichment activities, a demand to which Tehran is unlikely to agree.
Interestingly, the proposed strike against Iran is timed to happen one month after the Lebanon parliamentary elections, scheduled for May. This may seem a coincidence, but think again. Having pushed the Syrians out of Lebanon, the US and France are likely to back the opposition in Lebanon's next elections in the hope that it will win with enough of a majority to form a government and proceed to disarm Hizbullah, or at least restrain it in the event Iran is attacked. The US is willing to create a crisis and let it fester while it pursues its twin objective: first, bringing down the Iranian and Syrian regimes, and second, disarming the resistance in both Lebanon and Palestine.
If the above turns out to be true, it would provide further evidence that the US agenda is identical with the Israeli agenda. During the first phase of the global strategy of the war on terror, Israel persuaded the US administration that the enemy who attacked it on 9/11 was the same enemy that has been attacking Israel for years. Israel may yet again persuade the US that the Islamic revolution in Iran is the origin of all ills in the region; that Tehran has spread hatred, venom and intolerance, and that the overthrow of the Iranian regime would pave the way to peace, stability and democracy region- wide. Israel prodded the US to invade Iraq, and may prod it yet again into a military showdown with Iran.
Had democracy and human rights been relevant to US policy, the rights of four million Palestinian refugees living abroad and four million others living at home would have been taken into consideration. But all patriotic people in this region know that democracy is of service to the US only inasmuch as it weakens the region and divides it into mini- states, ultimately for Israel's benefit. The region is not drawing towards the spring of democracy, as some argue. More likely, it is slipping into an American inferno.
* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
� Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights
reserved
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/737/op2.htm
===Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/737/op2.htm
-muslim voice-
___________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All views expressed herein belong to the individuals concerned and do not in any way reflect the official views of Hidayahnet unless sanctioned or approved otherwise.
If your mailbox clogged with mails from Hidayahnet, you may wish to get a daily digest of emails by logging-on to http://www.yahoogroups.com to change your mail delivery settings or email the moderators at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the title "change to daily digest".
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hidayahnet/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 07/04/2005
