The Arab System and American Gullibility
Salameh Nematt Al-Hayat 2004/12/23
If it is yet undiscovered by Washington, it is bound to be revealed sooner or later: In Iraq, America is not only fighting insurgents remaining from the ousted Baathist regime and some "lunatic" volunteers who supported it, but is also fighting a regional system, which survived passing decades resisting change regardless of its source, goals, and tools. Maybe the relative regional "stability" that the region has come to witness in the past few decades, a stability that is closer to that of graveyards, may be seen as an indicator of the success of the regional Arab system's ability to maintain it in the face of the winds of regional and international change. It is not a secret that the liberation of Kuwait, after the invasion, is an action in the same direction; the change, which Saddam's regime worked for, for its own purposes of course, was thwarted by Americans who wanted to regain the regional system that existed before August 2, 1990.
While the Gulf War of 1991 was aimed at safeguarding the regional system, based on its suitability to American interests, the Gulf War of 2003 came, after the September 11 attacks, to compel new calculations. The attacks convinced, influential powers in America that the cost of the artificial stability in the Middle East exceeds the cost of destabilization and reorganization; and henceforth, the decision to remove Saddam was made, and with it the launch of an initiative of American-European partnership for democratic transformation in the region. Surely, there are very few doubts about the strategic goals behind the war in Iraq and the regional project that accompanied it. American interests have been, and will always be, the only standard for American foreign policy, away from any alleged ethical standards. For that reason, and regardless of the official declarations, emanating from countries of the region with regards to cooperation for the stability and the reconstruction of Iraq, the governments of the region, which comprise a regional system that America is seeking to replace, are not stupid enough to help the latter oust them. It is known that democratic transformation in the region is just another meek name for a regime change that takes place without the resort to war. Maybe the "Perestroika"-Gorbachev experience has taught the region's regimes lessons in the danger of political openness and its repercussions with regards to ruling totalitarian regimes.
In other words, America is still directly and indirectly fighting a regional system that is controlled by powers whose interest is at odds with change, despite the need of at least a few to pretend otherwise in order to avoid confrontation.
Facing the challenges set forth by the White House, the countries of the region are racing to pretend, at least verbally, that they are cooperating in connection with the Iraqi file, and the democracy file, without conducting one real step in that direction. The Iraqi issue is faced with the excuse that the Iraqi government lacks legitimacy, as if those governments, expressing reservation, are more democratic or legitimate than Allawi's government. Over the last four decades, does anyone remember any Arab government that has objected to the Syrian presence in Lebanon, which was blessed by the League of Arab States in 1976?
As for the file of reform and democracy, it is being faced with meaningless cosmetic procedures or by hurrying into warmer relations with Israel. As for Washington, it seems like it has swallowed the bait with regards to the two files, and seems convinced about having someone who is cooperating with it in the region.
|
