Greater Middle East initiative?

The fact that no Arab government has been consulted is certainly significant. Obviously its purpose and recommended steps are not expected to be to the liking of the Arab governments or the Arab League. The Arab kings and dictators are naturally concerned. They see it is all about their future that is to be discussed by major powers and they are wholly unaware of the proposals. They would certainly like to know what does the new Initiative aim at and what would be the denouement. Since these queries are being made by the ME potentates, they obviously want to find out about their own future precisely. That is their main worry.

But many others too would want to know what the American motives are and whether they are right and justifiable. At this stage, people can learn about the American intentions from two sources: the daily flood of stories emanating from American diplomacy and experts: mainly statements by high officials. Or one may take the indirect route of trying to analyse the American conduct in the light of various hypotheses. The latter is based on major documents that are authentic. One favours the later course as the safer route.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Also not to be forgotten are the immediate preoccupations of the US. These have their own needs and have to be kept in view. The Americans say they are engaged in a major war on terror. This has led to the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq so far. A lot of consequential action has to follow. Another element to be remembered is that although there is no reliable definition of terror, to the American mind possible proliferation of nuclear weapons to the states and sub-national groups that are anti-American constitutes the promotion of terror. It has emerged as a major concern in the war against terror. So far not enough attention has been paid to this aspect, certainly in this country.

Americans had let it be known earlier that they are after a big objective in the ME. It was generally understood to be redrawing of Middle East's map. The question arises: what is the need for redrawing the ME map? No clear answer was available, except that the present configuration of states is unsatisfactory from the US viewpoint. But the American interests can be pieced together: The region is unstable: it is ruled by autocratic rulers; their subjects are restive; many of these countries are resource-rich; and most of them are at odds with Israel. It is admitted that the major factor creating instability in the region is the historical Arab-Israeli dispute over Palestine.

For the Arabs, the Israeli actions are adding insult to an old festering wound by refusing to end their occupation of the Palestine areas they have occupied through military aggression and where their soldiers are so trigger happy as to cause a daily toll of Palestinian deaths. American governments have admitted this by working for a settlement of Palestinian-Israeli dispute -- the proposed settlements were such that Arabs have found them to be based on Israeli desires of retaining as much Palestine land as possible.

The Israeli behaviour shows arrogance and their troops' murderous brutality is making the entire Arab people everywhere angry and unhappy. Israelis have created political conditions in which the actual terrorist groups inexorably emerge and, sure enough, they are active from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. Indeed the process extends into Muslim countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines. Israeli occupation has lasted 37 years and shows no sign of ending. The Israelis, not being satisfied with occupying a lot more land in two wars of 1948 and 1967 than was sanctioned by the UN Resolution of 1948, have continued to nibble away at the lands agreed to in the Oslo agreement for the Palestinians by setting up Jewish settlements at widely separated places and then connecting them up with a network of roads which are supposed to remain under Israeli military control for ever. From the Arab point of view this is non-stop daylight murder and robbery by Israel.

Israelis are supposed to be more modern and democratic. Yet, they react to even peaceful protests by an enslaved people with exceptionally brutal violence. Palestinians have understandably taken to violence lately out of impotent rage. The Israeli Army shoots indiscriminately and selectively murders people: men, women and children. It probably thinks it is inflicting shock and awe. Palestinians go mad with anger and take revenge as best as they can. That is how suicide bombers have emerged. Aren't there any sober people in Israel who can see the dangerous futility of the tit-for-tat, rather juvenile, cycle of violence?

American diplomacy, of course, claims to aim at stability in the region and promotion of friendly feeling between the Arabs and the Israelis. From the Arab viewpoint, the American conduct so far has been altogether too pro-Israel. Indeed the Americans have adopted the Israeli viewpoint, more or less, as their own. They appear to see through the Israeli eyes. For anyone with a modicum of intelligence, the simple statement of American objectives is too self-righteous and obtuse withal. The pain in the Arab hearts is not appreciated nor is the Israeli behaviour adjudged in accordance with human and democratic values. Therefore it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the American stated aims should be ignored; what behind the stability they seek is the longer-term objective of making Israel supreme, as a viceroy of America to control the entire region.

Going by the documents such as the Project Twentyfirst Century and the annual paper on the strategy of national security, the American objectives do not remain in doubt. The US wants to remain Number One in political, military and economic power, able to project its power on every spot on the globe. It reserves the right to unilateral action wherever and whenever it pleases. Only recently has the US President Bush said that America will never take permission from the UN to wage a war. Insofar as waging wars is concerned, it also specifically reserves the right to make preemptive strikes. Its current War on Terror was started by itself after 9/11 with no reference to the UN.

It is now revamping the Middle East map by itself, consulting only trusted friends. European Union, generally speaking, does feel left out. Other major powers look askance at the American behaviour and do not trust the American intentions. Both friends and foes have in fact concluded that what motivates America is the desire to control the production, transportation and marketing of strategic raw material like oil and a few other resources virtually everywhere; currently the focus is on Central Asia and Northeast Asia in addition to ME. Indeed ME is desired to serve, in this prognostication, as a secure rear base of American military and political power. Moreover it hopes to somehow contain China while its intentions vis-à-vis Russia remain ambiguous.

Keen American observers have found their country's policies to be about creating a new universal Empire. In the view of what are called Neo-Conservatives it would also be almost holy like the Roman once was. America also claims to stand for freedom and other values. It will be a new kind of imperialism that would be distinct from old colonialisms; it will not occupy any territory or expect any liability or responsibility while achieving its own political and economic aims.

It is therefore necessary to keep these factors in view when examining the Greater Middle East Initiative. If, as is said, it is an extension of the already known American desire for greater democracy in various Arab countries, well, then it should be shown clearly as to what kind of democracy it is going to be. Democrats everywhere would want to know whether the actual autocratic decision-making by the unrepresentative dictators or potentates would survive in the light of the actual empowerment of the masses.

If it is going to be a partial democracy run by American nominees like those in Iraq or Karzai in Afghanistan, we should know. That will be no democracy. Democracy is a known category. And the people everywhere must be made supreme, whether they are pro-American or anti-American. Is the US ready for it? All democrats throughout the world would support the US in its project for introducing democracy, provided no caveats are made through which the US can make political and economic or strategic gains while the local people do not benefit at all.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.