 |
| Volume XIV, Spring 2007, Number 1 |
| |
| Editor's Note |
| |
What can a nation reasonably expect from an ally? Take, for instance, the relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Not long ago, in September 2005, the Bush administration was worried/panicked about the spiking price of oil, caused in part by the sabotaged supply from our own war-torn Iraq. It asked Saudi Arabia to help by pumping more crude. The Saudis obliged, as usual, though they were already stretched almost to their technological limit. Now, barely half a year later, President Bush in his State of the Union speech has implied that the Saudis are no better than a narcotics dealer taking advantage of an addict. He was speaking to his “base” (al-qaeda in Arabic), it was explained the next day by an administration spokesman who refused to be quoted by name. They would know all the connotations of “Middle Eastern oil.” Somehow the other pushers — Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria — are not to blame for our degradation, despite the fact that we get more product from each of them than from Saudi Arabia. Bush was playing the fear card. It is one of the few winners in his hand, a reminder that we are engaged in a “long war” on terror and that he is the war president. No doubt King Abdullah and his ambassador in Washington Prince Turki took the slur in stride, being men of the world, after all, and accustomed to body blows from the U.S. government and press.
Saudi Arabia is more than a filling station for the industrialized world. In an effort to modernize its economy, it has just taken an important step toward creating a rules-based system that will change some of the traditional ways of doing business in the kingdom: It has acceded to the World Trade Organization. This is the culmination of ten years of negotiations. As Chas. Freeman pointed out in a recent symposium on the subject convened by the Middle East Policy Council (see page 1) the kingdom is following the pattern of other members of the organization as they developed their economies. Published along with the edited proceedings of the panel discussion is a summary explanation of the terms of the WTO that the Saudis have agreed to meet. Since the subject is perhaps new to our readers (although we explored it once before, in 2000) we are providing this primer. The video of the lively discussion can also be viewed on our web site, www.mepc.org. Readers addicted to political analysis will gain much insight from Anthony Cordesman’s evaluation of Saudi Arabia’s actions in the “war on terror” (page 26). His recommendations of mutual understanding and fair dealing are supported by the conclusions of Michael Kraig in his comprehensive analysis of what ails the Gulf region and how to treat it (page 84). A hint: raw power and confrontation are not indicated.
Recent events in the Greater Middle East reveal again that the Bush administration’s crystal ball is clouded by ideology. Apparently blinded by their own preconceptions, Team Bush did not foresee the decisive Hamas win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Though the victory had multiple causes, it points up the failure of the Israeli government to deal fairly with the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas. He could claim nothing from Ariel Sharon that he could take to the electoral bank, and his party predictably came up empty. The unilateral exit from Gaza was not negotiated with Abbas; in fact, Hamas actually claimed they drove the occupiers out by force. Of course, a trend was obvious: major wins by religious parties have taken place over the past few months in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt. Free elections in Jordan and Syria would likely yield similar results. The United States and Israel, like the British before them, have abetted the religious parties to counter “Arab nationalism” for decades (see review of Robert Dreyfuss’ Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, page 140).
The rush to the polling booth and the Bush insistence on the wonders of voting are perhaps of a piece with Karl Rove’s influence in the Republican Party. The man knows how to win elections. Making policy and governing — the activities that come after the candidates take office — are of little interest to him, apparently. Although U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the vast majority of official America and Israel were shocked, the religious movement has been gaining ground for a generation, looked upon with dismissive contempt by modern secularists. Mahmoud Abbas himself, seeing the Hamas rout coming, had asked Rice to delay the vote, in vain. No sooner had the administration expressed its joy and amazement that election day in Palestine had been violence-free, however, than it began badmouthing the results. Now the administration, egged on by the likes of columnist Charles Krauthammer, has threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinians in order to starve the malefactors who followed our advice. This invites U.S. marginalization, leaving the field to others with real money and a willingness to spend it to help the Palestinians. We could not look more foolish or petty — sanctifying the one-person, one-vote process and then moralistically condemning the voters’ will.
The Palestinians know how to suffer and can do more of it without collapsing, probably. Some of their votes were cast in protest of corruption and failure. Americans, however, do not get the bigger picture. Perhaps Thomas Frank’s next book should be “What’s the Matter with Palestine?” in which we are asked to regard with amazement another demonstration of the power of cultural values. But, it’s the occupation, stupid, and the PA had not won any points in that game. The moral issues involved in military occupation are seldom discussed in the mainstream American media. Our own occupation — the one in Iraq — is criticized because it is not “working.” Justice is rarely mentioned, except occasionally by the Pope. Essentialism prevails. By definition, the United States and Israel are in the right, no matter the objective facts, and their opponents are wrong, if not evil. Looking for “reasons” to favor Israel, its U.S. partisans have habitually called it the only democracy in the Middle East, therefore good. Now Palestinian voters have scored, and we are moving the goalposts.
Time for some fresh thinking. Is the two-state “solution” history? What is left? A secular state in all of Palestine — the dream Yasser Arafat had to formally renounce to get Israel to talk to him? That would mean a reevaluation of Zionism (see review of Jewish Voice for Peace, Reframing Anti-Semitism, page 156). It seems Israel is more comfortable negotiating with the United States than with a legitimate Palestinian partner. This was the history of its relationship with the PLO. Perhaps the U.S. military establishment also does not find the ascendancy of religious extremists in the Middle East inconvenient. Current plans spelled out in the Quadrennial Defense Review apparently envision being able to put out brush fires and put down insurgencies at will, never mind the counterindications of Iraq (see Mattair on strategies for leaving, page 69). Whether Ehud Olmert or Bibi Netanyahu wins the Israeli election, he need not fear any U.S. pressure to negotiate over the land. If every religious group in the region could be linked to the war on terror, no compromises would be needed. Hamas, unlike other terrorists who have made good at the polls, is apparently doomed to eternal darkness. The unilateralism of the Israeli government is largely to blame for the electoral result in Palestine, and more of the same seems to be the only antidote on offer.
Meanwhile, Americans, non-Israeli Jews and others who live outside Israel’s Wall remain vulnerable to the anger and hatred of aggrieved Arabs and Muslims and their sympathizers all over the globe. The recent street violence sparked by the publication of cartoon images of the Prophet Muhammad is an indicator of widespread incendiary rage and the danger of throwing gasoline on it. The temperature is rising, but those who have the power to lower it are stubbornly refusing to do so or even to admit that it should perhaps be done — while there is still time.
Anne Joyce
February 9, 2006
|
| |
|
