By M. Shahid Alam

IN the early 1990s, the fall of the Soviets produced a surge of triumphalism in the US. After defeating the fascist challenge in the 1940s, liberal capitalism had trumped over its last adversary, global communism. This triumphalist mood was caught pithily in Francis Fukuyama’s claim that mankind — of course led by the West — had reached ‘the end of history.’

This quickly produced a global regime change. Within a few years, the capitalist centres stripped most countries in the periphery of the autonomy they had gained in stages, starting in the 1930s. In this latest wave of integration, the periphery would not be ‘colonised,’ but Washington would define their economic rules. Most countries in the periphery would now be forced to open their doors to foreign capital, privatise their economies, scrap their plans and dismantle their welfare systems. In all but name, they began to look like the Open Door economies of the nineteenth century.

US economic dominance, however, was not enough for two segments of the American neoconservative movement, consisting of ultra-nationalists (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bolton) and the Ziocons (Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle), a term coined by James Petras. They wanted the US to take advantage of the unipolar moment – opened up by the demise of Soviet Union – to make its political dominance irreversible.

There were two components to the neocon plan. First, they began to work on plans to extend US military superiority to a point where no potential rival would dare to challenge its hegemony in any region of the world. In violation of international laws, the US would enforce its total hegemony by waging preventive wars against any country that acted contrary to its economic or political interests.

This military plan would first be tested in the Middle East. This is what brought the ultra-nationalists and the Ziocons together. The first wanted to take complete control of the world’s oil spigot in order to destroy the Opec and hold Europe, Japan and China at ransom. The Ziocons wanted to destroy the few remaining centres of resistance to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East – Iraq, Iran and Syria.

But these plans had to be put on hold. President Bill Clinton was not ready to fully embrace their plans, even though his war and sanctions against Iraq prepared the base on which the neocons would build later on. The neocons were back in the saddle with the election of George W. Bush in 2000. They waited for the right time to unleash their wars in the Middle East. The events of 9/11 arrived as their Pearl Harbour. The Americans could now be bamboozled to support their dreams of creating a global and everlasting American Empire.

For the Periphery, the world looked quite bleak in the 1990s. Having lost the leverage of Soviet Union, most regions of the periphery capitulated to the blackmail of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Those who resisted — or refused to make ‘peace’ with Israel — were blacklisted as rogue states. The communist economies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suffered meltdown; their living standards and life expectancy plummeted. The development regimes in the Third World were dismantled, exposing them to the ravages of global financial manipulation. In 1997, even the ‘miracle economies’ of Southeast Asia were laid low by the Wall Street and the IMF.

In the aftermath of 9/11, matters appeared to get worse in the periphery. Under the pretence of waging ‘war against global terrorism,’ the neocons launched their plan for establishing global dominance. Overnight, following the lead established by Israel, the US defined all resistance to American hegemony as terrorism. It was now licensed to carry its preventive wars to all corners of the globe. It also licensed regional powers and local despots to expand their violation of human rights under the cover of the ‘war against global terrorism.’

In the weeks after April 9, 2003, when US troops captured Baghdad, it appeared that the United States was on a roll. Iran, Syria, North Korea could count the days to their own quick demise. Israel was getting ready to complete its ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians. Pakistan would be asked to liquidate its nuclear arsenal or prepare to be bombed back to the Stone Age. In time, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be dismembered into smaller client states. At some point in this sequence, the oil resources of the region would be privatised, sold for a song to US oil corporations. Finally, with a firm American grip on the Middle Eastern oil spigot, Europe, Japan and China would take their humble stations under the shadow of American hegemony.

In the weeks after launching their war against Iraq, the neocons began to imagine that the world was theirs for the taking; the new American century had begun. Yet how their plans have gone awry. All because a few thousand damned Iraqis decided to rob the Americans of the richly-deserved fruits of their victory.

A sea change has been unfolding since April 2003, though it is not going in the directions projected by the neocons. More than three years after the invasion of Iraq, the Americans are deeply troubled by the war they are losing in Iraq. While the 9/11 attacks failed to energise the Arab street, the Americans who entered Iraq were immobilised in the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Ramadi, Basra and Kut. This is an earth-shaking event, all of whose consequences have yet to unfold.

Instead of falling victims to US-sponsored regime change, the Iranians are now stronger than they have ever been in their recent history. For the first time in centuries, their influence extends deep into Iraq and Afghanistan, where they now possess the ability to ramp up the costs of the US occupation. In addition, Iran has positioned a battery of missiles that can close down shipping in the Gulf, threaten oil installations in the Sheikhdoms, and strike inside Israel. Due in part to its own hubris, the US has dramatically reduced its options in the Middle East.

In July 2006, Israel made a bid to weaken Iran and Syria by destroying Hezbollah and starting a civil war in Lebanon. The gambit failed on both counts. Hezbollah was hardly scratched. Unlike three Arab armies in June 1967, Hezbollah responded by disrupting life in northern Israel, destroyed more than 40 Israeli tanks, and poking holes in Israeli intelligence gathering. Most importantly, by choosing to fight, the few thousand Hezbollah fighters destroyed Israel’s myth of invincibility.

Together, these developments have seriously exposed the vulnerability of America’s Arab client states. Scared of the consequences of US defeat and the imminent withdrawal from Iraq, they have been forced to ally themselves more closely and openly with Israel’s ambitions in the region. These client states do not now possess even a patina of legitimacy. In desperation, Saudi Arabia is pinning its hopes on using its oil wealth to incite an Islamic civil war.

With American forces caught in the Iraqi quagmire, Latin America is breaking free from US hegemony. Governments ‘unfriendly’ to the US have now been established in Peru, Bolivia and Nicaragua, in addition to the growing strength of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. A leftist victory was missed by a narrow margin in Mexico — or more likely, stolen. Cuba is demonstrating that it can survive without Castro.

Admittedly, these changes in the political map of Latin America consummate trends that began with the onslaught of neoliberal policies in the 1980s. Moreover, this time the Latin American resistance is being led or fuelled by a resurgent native population eager to overthrow the colonial-settler elites imposed on them since the seventeenth century. Yet, it is doubtful if the United States would have allowed these changes to occur — or to stand — if it were not bogged down in Iraq.

Unexpectedly, even Pakistan’s servile ruling class is stealthily taking advantage of US troubles. More likely, Islamist elements within the army are ramping up their support for the Taliban resurgence. Once again, the Pashtuns, who had led the jihad against the Soviet occupation, are gearing up for a big fight against the US-led occupation of their country. As Afghanistan slips out of control, Americans will find it harder to sustain their challenge to Russian and Chinese ambitions in Central Asia.

The American loss of prestige in Iraq is taking its toll in Africa too. African rulers are feeling freer to enter into wide-range economic relations with China. Rapidly, China is increasing its ownership of a whole range of resources in the African continent, mostly at the cost of positions the US and Europe had built up over centuries. The Chinese have the advantage — at least now — of offering economic investments without any political strings. With the attention of the US establishment riveted on Iraq, Africa is slowly slipping out of America’s grasp and moving into the Chinese sphere of influence.

It is doubtful if the US would have rushed into its risky military adventure in the Middle East without the support of Ziocons. Empires in decline are tempted to shore up their standing with military adventurism. With their superb salesmanship, the Ziocons sold the Iraq war to the US administration and the American public as a cake walk, a historic tipping point, and America’s calling in the Middle East. At least for now, Israel is happy to see Iraq disintegrate into chaos, a goal that it has long cherished for the entire Middle East. However, as US losses accumulate this could easily backfire.

Even if the war’s human toll does not force an early withdrawal of American troops, it is unlikely that the Iraqi war can be sustained for long. The rising economic costs of the war — together with ascendancy of the Asian agents, escalating oil price, rising trade deficits, and sliding dollar — will force the US to reconsider its posture in the Middle East. Whenever the US reaches this point, Israel is likely to face its neighbours without the American shield. Worse, a growing number of Americans will begin to see the Israeli fingerprint over their Iraqi defeat.

Taking advantage of the tragedy of 9/11, the neocons instantly activated their plans to re-colonise the Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The US and Israel were hoping to improve upon the success achieved by the British and Zionists during World War I. At this stage, it appears unlikely that these hopes will be realised. For sure, the neocons quickly effected regime change in Iraq, but soon after, the resistance of a few thousand Iraqi insurgents also set in motion forces that are threatening to change the global regime.

A sober reckoning of all the costs of the Iraq war — and these costs are still unfolding — suggests that the US bid for regime change in the Middle East has boomeranged. Instead, the war has been forcing a regime change on the protagonist.


Refrence: http://www.dawn.com/weekly/encounter/encounter1.htm

US President George W Bush has urged America to give his new Iraq strategy "a chance to work", in his sixth annual State of the Union address.

Failure in Iraq would have "grievous" consequences, Mr Bush told Congress.

His speech also focused on domestic issues, and he called on political opponents to join him in tackling the US's most profound problems.

Energy policy was near the top of the agenda. Mr Bush called for a 20% cut in petrol consumption by 2017.

But the BBC's James Westhead, in Washington, says that the speech overall offered little new to the president's supporters and even less to his opponents.

This is perhaps a sign of diminishing expectations of the remaining two years of this presidency, our correspondent adds.

'Generational struggle'

"Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work," the president told a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and Senate.

He described the war on terror as a "generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others".

Mr Bush added: "On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory."

It was his first State of the Union speech since the Democrats took control of Congress.

Recent opinion polls suggest only one-in-three voters approve of the job the president is doing - making him more unpopular than any other president in the last 50 years, except Richard Nixon just before he resigned.

In a tough Democratic response to the address, Senator Jim Webb said the US needed a "new direction" in Iraq.

"The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military," he said.

Green initiatives

Mr Bush said he would ask Congress for $1.6bn over the decade to fund research into alternative energy and $2bn in loans for cellulosic ethanol plants.

But there are no indications that he will impose specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

This will dismay not just Democrats, but some Republican-supporting industrialists who want Mr Bush to adopt a comprehensive strategy for tackling climate change, the BBC's Iain Watson in Washington says.

Mr Bush also called for a strengthening of America's energy security - he wants to double the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027.

The SPR is an emergency petroleum store with the current capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels of crude oil.

"For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil," the president said.

"And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists - who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments ... raise the price of oil ... and do great harm to our economy."

Immigration reform

Mr Bush also addressed the difficulties an estimated 47 million Americans face in obtaining health care, proposing a tax break for the least well-off to make health insurance more affordable.

"We must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors," Mr Bush said.

But, according to our correspondent, the money is likely to come from taxing those with generous corporate health care schemes, which could risk alienating Republican support.

The president also urged Congress to pass an comprehensive immigration reform bill.

"We cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border - and that requires a temporary worker program," he said.

And the president said he would submit plans to eliminate the federal budget deficit within five years.

"What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington DC," he said.

'Economic imbalance'

But it is on Iraq that members of Mr Bush's Republican party are most sceptical, our correspondent says.

And the Democrats are keen to exploit those divisions.

In the Democrat's response, Sen Webb called for "a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq".

Domestically, the senator said America was "drifting apart along class lines" amid an "economic imbalance" in the country.

If the president took the" right kind of action", Sen Webb said Democrats would join him.

"If he does not, we will be showing him the way," he added.


Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6291229.stm

__________________
The world is my oyster!