China-India Relations Hit a Bump

By S.P. SETH

Even as China is flexing its muscles with its neighbors in Asia-Pacific, it is also testing India’s resolve. This was recently demonstrated when Beijing cancelled an official-level meeting in New Delhi on their seemingly intractable border dispute.

China wanted India to cancel a religious gathering in New Delhi to be addressed by the Dalai Lama. When India declined, Beijing decided to cancel the official-level meeting.

China distrusts India’s hosting of the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile (no longer led by the Dalai Lama), ever since he as was granted refuge in India after he and his entourage fled Tibet in 1959.

Since then, along with the unresolved border dispute between the two countries, the Dalai Lama has become the symbol of a continuing under-current of their prickly relationship.

When both the countries agreed in late-eighties to develop their relations, while simultaneously seeking a resolution of the border dispute through periodic talks, they hoped to overcome these differences through the gathering momentum of their relations in other areas.

It is true that they have made good progress in developing trade relationship but the border dispute and the shadow of the Dalai Lama has always been a limiting factor.

China is also not happy that India might have ambitions of becoming a competing Asian power, as well as becoming part of a containment ring around China as the United States’ strategic partner.

China’s India image is quite contradictory. At one level it has a low opinion of India as a nation. The People’s Daily noted, in a recent commentary, that, “India is expanding its military strength but it is still uncertain whether India will realize its dream of being a leading power, because India’s weak economy is severely unmatched with the image of a leading power.”

This is equally true of China, though its economy is much bigger than that of India. China’s economy has all sorts of distortions and imbalances. And its political system of one party rule is fanning social unrest.

China’s arrogance is a serious problem in its relations not only with India but also with its Asia-Pacific neighbors, as we have seen lately.

Expanding on its estimation of India, the People’s Daily added, “In addition, international communities and India’s surrounding countries are all suspecting and even being on guard against this kind of unbalanced development mode”--- whatever that means.

China apparently is alluding to India’s difficult relations with some of its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. And Beijing has been encouraging and aiding Pakistan to become a counter-point to India regionally.

But there are problems here. First, Pakistan is in all sorts of troubles internally and externally. Therefore, it is not a viable counter-point to India. Its deteriorating relations with the United States do give China space to make greater inroads into the country. However, its fractured society and polity makes any coherent policy approach difficult.

Besides, Pakistan’s Islamist character is at odds with China’s ongoing repression of Xinjiang’s Muslim population. It is important to remember that some of Xinjiang’s militants were trained in camps operating in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

As for India’s other neighbors, their relations with India might be prickly at times giving China some scope for creating trouble, but their relationship with India is quite normal, if not friendly.

In other words, China’s policy to hem in India regionally in its backyard is not succeeding, allowing it to develop relations with countries in South East Asia and East Asia.

India’s growing ties with Vietnam, including an accord for exploration of oil in Vietnam’s Spratly islands (also claimed by China), has raised Beijing’s ire. An Indian naval vessel was recently warned for entering South China Sea, though the warning was ignored.

India joined a number of regional countries raising the issue of China’s interference with passage of ships through South China Sea at the recent East Asia Summit.

China has serious problems with most of its neighbors in Asia-Pacific because of its maritime disputes, laying claim to South China Sea waters and islands, and with Japan in East China Sea.

Closer to India, China seems to have suffered a serious setback in its relations with Burma as its regime seeks to open up the country both internally and externally. The recent highly publicized visit of the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is a pointer to this.

Earlier, the Burmese government went ahead with cancelling a multi-billion dollars Chinese-financed dam to supply electricity to vast areas of China across the border.

India is likely to be a beneficiary as Burma seeks to balance its relations to reduce its economic and political dependence on China.

What is worrying China, among other things, is that India is seeking to develop its relations with Asia-Pacific countries. Whenever New Delhi seeks to tread on, what China regards as, its patch, Beijing turns up the heat on the border by reigniting its dormant border claims to more territory on the Indian side of the border.

For instance, Beijing is now laying claim to Arunchal Pradesh calling it “south Tibet.”

They have never forgotten India for letting in the Dalai Lama and his entourage when they were escaping to seek refuge in 1959 from Chinese occupation of Tibet.

Even though India acknowledges China’s sovereignty over Tibet, it is not good enough for Beijing because the Dalai Lama continues to function in his spiritual role as the head of the Tibetan Buddhism. Beijing regarded the recent religious gathering in New Delhi a provocation, making it the occasion to cancel the official-level border talks, thus raising the temperature between the two countries.

Despite this, both China and India are unlikely to let their tense relations get out of control. Despite China’s distrust of India’s strategic relationship with the United States, it is not keen to push New Delhi into any formal military alliance between the two countries.

India is unlikely to forgo its strategic independence through any kind of a military pact. And Beijing is not keen to push it into such a situation.

Therefore, India-China relations, for the foreseeable future, will continue to remain in a state of controlled management, with both sides remaining distrustful of each other.

North Korea: The Death of a Dictator

By S P SETH

The television images of mass grief in North Korea over the death of its dictator, Kim Jong-il, says a lot about the country. While a fair bit of it is a command performance required by the regime, it is not difficult to imagine that many North Koreans might be genuinely sad over the passing of their Great Leader, as he was called. While North Korea is a basket case economically, with many of its people dying of starvation, its population has only known Kim dynasty as the country’s rulers ever since the Peninsula was divided in the aftermath of the WW11. The death of Kim Jong-il, who succeeded his father Kim Il-sung in 1994, does create a vacuum of sorts in a country so structured around the personality cult of its leader. Kim Jong-il’s anointed heir, Kim Jong-un, his third son, is an unknown quantity, having been groomed by his ailing father for only a little over a year before he died. He is very young at about 28 years of age and with little political experience, Kim Jong-un era might be a little rocky, though his lineage is an advantage for him in a country where virtually all authority has percolated down from the ruling Kim dynasty from the beginning.

For a small country with a population of about 24 million, Kim Jong-il’s death has created a lot of flutter in the major capitals of the world. Indeed, both the US and China are equally worried about the political transition in Pyongyang, and their foreign ministers have been in touch to ensure that the political transition there happens peacefully to ensure regional stability. While the US and China might agree broadly about this, they remain distrustful of how a crisis in North Korea might pan out. For China the Korean peninsula is its strategic space, and it regards the United States as an outside power. On the other hand, for the United States, South Korea is its military and strategic ally. Indeed, the two halves of Korea are technically still at war with each other-- the war having ended in an armistice without a peace treaty.

A bit of history to the Korean problem might be in order here. When North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950, the peninsula was not only plunged into a brutal war but also became a theatre of Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Additionally, there was a new China under the leadership of the Communist Party. It felt threatened when the US forces in South Korea started pushing closer toward its border with North Korea. This brought China into the war on behalf of its North Korean neighbor and ally. China’s forces finally pushed the US troops back and the war ended in 1953 with a truce along the 38^th parallel dividing North and South Korea. The two countries are now separated by a demilitarized zone, more or less eyeballing each other with the not infrequent fear of a military confrontation. Indeed, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship last year, believed to be by a North Korean torpedo, and the shelling of one of its islands, created the fear of a military flare up. The Korean peninsula remains a flash point with the likelihood of the US and China drawn into it by virtue of their alliance relationship--- China with North Korea, and the United States with South Korea.

Things might get even more than usually dangerous in the new situation created by the death of its dictator, Kim Jong-il, and the succession of his inexperienced son, Kim Jong-un. With North Korea’s economy in dire straits, and its political transition worrisome, there are fears that the country might collapse from within. If this were to happen, it would pose serious challenges for regional stability. For instance, China might be faced with the prospect of a large influx of refugees from across a crumbling North Korea. The same will be true of South Korea. For South Korea, the bigger challenge/danger will be to prepare for a possible unification of the Korean peninsula in the event of a North Korean collapse.

Even with South Korea’s relatively strong economy, the economic cost of integrating North Korea will be prohibitive. Germany’s example is instructive, but the West German economy was much larger and it wasn’t facing a precarious strategic situation: not knowing how China will react to such sweeping developments on the Korean Peninsula. With South Korea allied to the US, any unification process under South Korean terms and patronage will make the unified country a military ally of the United States. The prospect of having US troops on its border is unlikely to be acceptable to China. China, therefore, will seek to perpetuate the new political order in Pyongyang under the nominal or effective leadership of the younger Kim. The problem, though, is that even China doesn’t really know the internal workings of the hermit kingdom, as North Korea is called. Therefore, there are more questions thrown up by Kim Jong-il’s death than there are plausible answers.

What is known, though, is that North Korea is an economic basket case, hugely dependent on aid and trade with China. Despite this, Beijing’s political leverage over North Korea seems rather limited. Short of ditching its ally, thus giving the United States a foothold on its border, Beijing cannot afford to wash its hands off the hermit kingdom. This is why it is seeking to enlist the US cooperation in bringing about a peaceful political transition in North Korea to perpetuate the Kim dynasty.

The US interest in North Korea is centered on ridding it of its nuclear capability. China doesn’t favor a nuclear North Korea, but it is against joining the US and its allies for sanctioning North Korea, and worse. It doesn’t want to be a party to upsetting the status quo on the Korean peninsula lest it works against its strategic interest, as earlier discussed. If the political transition in North Korea goes peacefully avoiding an internal collapse, it is likely that the suspended talks for North Korea’s denuclearization might be revived, with Beijing as its venue.

China has played the host in these on-off talks in the last few years, but without much success. This is so because Pyongyang wants to use its nuclear leverage to get the maximum mileage from these talks through a phased process of linking abandonment of its nuclear program with concrete diplomatic, aid and trade concessions from its negotiating partners. On the other hand, the US and its allies would require North Korea to abandon its nuclear program first under a rigorous process of international verification. Only after that Pyongyang will become entitled to diplomatic recognition as well as trade and aid provision. This remains the sticking point, with seemingly no way out.

In any case, the immediate concern for the region and its principal stakeholders, like the US, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea, is the unpredictable nature of how the political transition in North Korea might pan out. Because: any internal implosion has the potential of plunging the region into a turbulent crisis that might involve the US and China on opposing sides. Hopefully, it will not come to that as the world can hardly afford another area of instability and confrontation.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times under a different title

US’s Iranian Obsession

By S.P.SETH

The storming of the British embassy in Iran, and the retaliatory measures by Britain and other Western countries to curtail diplomatic ties with that country, has escalated their cold war (so far) to a dangerous level. At its root is the perceived Iranian ambition to acquire nuclear weapons.

Why are the US and its allies so obsessed with Iran? Surely, even if it were to become a nuclear power (which is not the case, as things stand), it cannot become such a horrible threat to the world. The superior nuclear arsenal of the United States, Israel and others will annihilate Iran if it were to use its (presently non-existent) nuclear weapons against any other country. This is not to suggest that Iran should become a nuclear power. Indeed, for a credible nuclear free world, all existing nuclear countries should shed their nuclear weapons. Until then, they have no moral authority to enforce their will on others. Because as long as nuclear status is a power symbol as well as the weapon of last resort, it will continue to tempt nations able to go that way.

To understand Iran’s pariah status, one has to go back to its Islamic revolution in 1979. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, a loyal US ally, was a terrible blow to the United States for reasons of geopolitics, strategy, and the control of oil supplies from the Middle East, of which Iran was a major producer. Iran was the first chink in the US’ strategy of controlling the Middle East, and could set a precedent for other countries in the region. On top of it, the new Islamic Iran was not only contemptuous of US power; it even had the temerity to humiliate the United States by holding hostage its embassy staff. Since then, on both sides, there is a continuing war of nerves.

In 1980, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, with US encouragement and support, to assert Iraq’s sovereignty over the vital Shatt-al-Arab waterway. The resultant war between the two countries lasted eight years, with an estimated million dead and wounded--- perhaps even more. Iran suffered the most in human lives lost, with the war ending in a stalemate and a UN ceasefire. But it wobbled the Iranian regime and set back its political agenda of promoting the Islamic revolution through its example. And that was not an inconsiderable gain for the United States and its Middle Eastern allies comprising the region’s dictators and kings. These countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others, were feeling uncomfortable and insecure from Iran’s Islamic revolution.

The irony of it is that Saddam Hussein’s Iran adventure set the stage for his destruction at the hands of his benefactors, the United States and its allies. An important reason for Saddam’s invasion and occupation of Iraq (illegal as it was) was his country’s large financial debts incurred through borrowings from neighbors like Kuwait. At the time they were only happy to lend all that Saddam wanted because he was fighting for all of them against the dreaded new Islamic regime of Iran. And when he was virtually defeated (because Iran was ready to fight on), Kuwait asked for its money back, which Saddam had no way of paying. In that desperate situation, he decided to annex Kuwait and solve all his financial problems and more by taking over the country’s oil wealth. He had reportedly mentioned his plans of annexing Kuwait to the US ambassador in his country who, the story goes, didn’t raise any objection. Which Saddam took as clearance from the United States, with their close relationship forged during the Iran-Iraq war.

As we know, Saddam’s Kuwait invasion led to the first Gulf war in which the United States defeated Iraqi forces and Kuwait was restored to its ruling dynasty with Iraq required to pay reparations. It was also subjected to a harsh regime of UN sanctions, impacting its population, especially women and children. The United States just stopped short of overthrowing the Saddam regime, which task was subsequently completed by President George Bush senior’s son after he became President in 2001. The second Gulf war was unleashed on Iraq because of Saddam regime’s alleged links with the terrorists as well as its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And that was a lie. But he had to go any way, as he had outlived his usefulness against Iran and was too difficult--- among other things. However, initially, the speed with which the US forces advanced made Iraq’s neighbors, like Iran and Syria, nervous lest it might be their turn next. They became keen to cooperate with the US to hunt down terrorists in their own backyards and to generally improve relations with the United States. But, at the time, the US was in a celebratory mode, with President Bush declaring the “mission accomplished” on the decks of a US warship.

The US was on a mission to bring about democracy and freedom in the region under its control and supervision and to have uninterrupted access to oil supplies. At the same time, the demonstrative effect of strong and successful US action was supposed to have salutary effect on groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinians in occupied territories. In other words, it will not only reassert firmly the US control and dominance but also solve Israel’s security situation in a volatile region. This was the time when there was so much talk of reintroducing benign imperialism and to make the United States’ dominant role in the world clear cut both in words and deeds. The point of recalling all this is to note that Iran’s clerical regime is still around, though it has multiple problems and challenges at home, as we shall analyze later.

An important, if not determining factor, in the US obsession with Iran is the role Israel and the powerful Jewish lobby plays in the formulation of its foreign and strategic policies in the region, with Iran perceived as a serious threat. Iran has been dismissive of Israel and a strong proponent of the Palestinian cause. President Ahmadinejad has made provocative statements denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Similarly, he doesn’t accept the legitimacy of the Israeli state, promising to eliminate it. Against this backdrop, Israel sees an existential threat from Iran’s nuclear program. And wants to bomb its nuclear plants to preempt it. Obviously, it would prefer the US to do it, as Iran is seen as a global threat. If not, it would like to have comprehensive US backing.

Lately, the United States and its allies have ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, following an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report pointing to “credible” evidence suggesting Iran is working towards developing nuclear weapons. But there is nothing really new in this because Iran has been accused of doing this for a number of years now, even though the US intelligence suggested it otherwise not so long ago. Indeed, there is no hard evidence that Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But the IAEA report is convenient to launch another concerted campaign and to impose another layer of sanctions on Iran.

The upshot of the new sanctions is to put a total economic embargo on Iran by the US and its allies. At the same time, Iran is being told that the US is keeping all its options open to force it to forgo its nuclear program. Which obviously means that the US is not ruling out military means including, presumably, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. At the same time, Israel is letting it be known that it is studying plans to bomb Iranian nuclear plants. To emphasize the urgency of the situation, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has reportedly said that his country has less than a year to act.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s credibility recently took a serious hit when a conversation between President Sarkozy of France and President Obama was picked up while talking about Netanyahu at the G-20 summit. During their tête-à-tête, when a mike was still on, Sarkozy said: “I cannot stand him. He’s is a liar.” To which Obama replied, “You are fed up with him? I have to deal with him everyday.” Now Israeli publicists are trying to make out an argument that Netanyahu’s image should not distract from the view that he is the authentic voice of his country on the question of Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and the need for a preemptive strike.

In a recent newspaper article David Landau, a former editor-in-chief of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, wrote: “Israel was created from the ashes of Auschwitz. Its primary mission is ‘never again.’” He added, “The world needs to recognize that Netanyahu authentically articulates that perspective and that reality.” But if Israel were to unilaterally bomb Iranian nuclear plants, it would not only face a massive Iranian counter-attack but is also likely to create a major crisis in the Middle East with Israel at the receiving end of it which might, for once, transcend the Shia-Sunni divide to face a common Israeli threat to the region.

Landau doesn’t under-rate the dangers of bombing Iran on its own. He reflects the calculation of many in Israel, including its government, when he writes: “Against all that [the dangers and consequences for Israel] is the calculation, carefully unspoken but present nevertheless, that a unilateral Israeli strike would trigger massive American intervention against Iran’s nuclear program…because Washington would have an overwhelming interest in ‘finishing the job’ that Israel began.” Is Landau the medium to openly convey the message of his government? It certainly seems like when he finishes his article with a warning of sorts: “The bluffer [Netanyahu] isn’t bluffing. Let’s hope Obama, Sarkozy and the rest are hearing him loud and clear.”

Even as this kind of drum beating is going on, Iran’s detractors hope that, “The regime in Tehran is deeply unpopular and may yet implode.” That may be so but there is no better way to rally Iranians around the regime when the country is in grave danger of facing a foreign attack.

It is true that the clerical regime in Iran is beset with serious internal problems. The presidential elections in 2009, and the brutal crackdown on the opposition, dented the regime’s legitimacy. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s return to presidency was very controversial, with some regarding it as a cruel farce. Having made it to the presidency second time with the support of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ahmadinejad is not comfortable with the over-riding political authority of his mentor. He seems keen to set up his own power base to challenge Khamenei. In this connection, an interesting article published in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, written by an “anonymous” Iran expert, is quite significant. It says the rupture between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad was provoked by “Esfandiyar Rahim Mashaei, President Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff and close advisor [two of them are also related, with Mashaei’s daughter married to the President’s son]…” Mashaei is “reputed to be in contact with the Twelfth Imam--- a messianic figure…” believed to be in hiding since the tenth century.”

Ahmadinejad has resisted attempts by the Supreme leader to have Mashaei removed, but his efforts to have him groomed as his successor (when he leaves the presidency) seems doomed. Seeking to set up a higher political and religious authority than Khameini in the person of Mashaei, as a medium with the Twelfth Imam, is like making the Supreme leader irrelevant. It doesn’t look like this will work because, for one, Mashaei, with some of President’s other cronies, is involved in an embezzlement/banking scandal. And, second, Ahmadinejad’s regime has been quite incompetent in managing the country’s economy. The unemployment is high, inflation is raging and Iran’s middles class is unhappy with the country’s state of affairs. And with a tighter Western regime of sanctions, things are going to get worse for the mass of people. However, any foreign attack on Iranian nuclear installations, and the consequent series of events, will become the glue that holds the country together under the existing regime.

Note: this article was first published in the Daily Times

US-China in Asia-Pacific

By S P SETH

The US President Barack Obama’s just concluded Asia-Pacific trip is a strong signal that the United States will re-energize its engagement with the region. It is important to remember that the US has been the dominant economic and military presence in the region since after WW11. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US sway was even more complete. China had started as an emerging economy in the eighties under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership after the disasters of the Cultural Revolution. And it depended on the US and its Western allies for entry into their markets and into global trade forums like the World Trade Organization.

However, early in the present century, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as part of its global war on terror, where it is still stuck, especially in Afghanistan. With the US distracted and increasingly mired in these two wars, China was able to raise its regional profile backed by impressive economic growth, and a steady rise of its military power. There was a growing feeling in the Asia-Pacific region that the United States might not stick around for long, with China eventually replacing it as the dominant power. The global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, which the United States and Europe are still struggling with, tended to further increase this pessimism about the United States.

It is against this backdrop of China’s rise, and its impact on the region, that President Obama forcefully declared during a daylong visit to Australia that the US is an Asia-Pacific power and it is here to stay. As the US unwinds its military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is shifting its focus to Asia-Pacific where the history will be made in this century. Obama said, “The United States has been, and always will be a Pacific nation.” Therefore: “Let there be no doubt. In the Asia-Pacific in the 21^st century, the United States of America is all in.”

The choice of Australia to make this declaration is important as both the US and Australia are further expanding their military and strategic alliance against the backdrop of a perceived threat from a rising China. The US-Australia military alliance under the ANZUS treaty is being beefed up with the stationing of US marines in the country’s north, and with the use of naval and air facilities in the country’s west. Both the US and Australia deny that their expanded military relationship is directed against China, but there is very little doubt that China is seen as a likely threat.

President Obama said in Canberra that, “The United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future, by upholding core principles [of human rights] and in close partnership with allies and friends. “ In other words, China is forewarned that the US will not quietly fade away, and that it will not have an easy time with its neighbors unhappy with maritime disputes with China. These smaller countries are being assured that they can bank on the United States to stand their ground. At the same time, the United States will not let up China on violation of human rights and the promotion of democracy.

The assertion of China’s sovereignty over South China Sea is likely to become a regional flashpoint at some point. China’s smaller neighbors, like the Philippines and Vietnam, have competing claims to the Spratly group of islands in South China Sea, that have caused some naval incidents blamed on China. The US and the Philippines are taking steps to boost their defense relationship. The US and Vietnam are also forging closer political and military ties, and there has even been talk of a former US military base (of the Vietnam war time) being revived. The US and Japan are already close military allies, with their alliance further beefed up in the last few years. China and Japan too have competing maritime claims in East China Sea, leading to naval skirmishes not long ago. At the same time, the Korean peninsula remains a live wire with North Korea unwilling to give up its nuclear capability. Though China is opposed to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, it is not inclined to team up with the US and Japan, among others, to turn on Pyongyang.

And Taiwan, of course, remains a live issue, with China claiming it as its own territory with the right to take military action if it were to declare independence. The US acknowledges China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, but is against the use of force by China to achieve it. At the same time, China’s sovereignty claim over South China Sea is creating nervousness that it might interfere with open sea-lanes. All in all; Asia-Pacific is potentially a time bomb with all these claims and counter-claims.

The South China Sea featured in the just-concluded East Asia Summit in Bali against China’s wishes, and is likely to become part of its agenda in subsequent summits. Beijing would prefer its discussion at a bilateral level between the concerned countries with competing claims. It regards the US as an external force that shouldn’t have anything to do with regional disputes. The US, of course, is determined to raise its Pacific profile as the one that is and has always been a Pacific power. In other words, the US decision to make its Asia-Pacific policy a priority is likely to further complicate US-China relations.

And Australia is right in the middle of it, being a willing, if not enthusiastic, partner of the US’ policy to contain China, if necessary. China’s People’s Daily warned Australia that it cannot play both sides of the coin hoping to maximize its economic gains from a booming trade relationship with China while siding with the United States strategically. It said, “Australia surely cannot play China for a fool. It is impossible for China to remain detached, no matter what Australia does to undermine its security.”

More importantly, though, Barack Obama’s revitalized Asia policy goes beyond Australia. In a way, it tells Beijing that gloves are off and the United States will make a determined stand in the Asia-Pacific region to stave off China’s push into the region and to push out the United States. And for this, the US will foster new and reinforce old military and strategic ties with regional countries with maritime disputes with China or otherwise keen for a countervailing force to China’s rise. How will this US-China competition for power will unfold is anybody’s guess? One thing is for certain. Which is that the Pacific Ocean is unlikely to live its pacific name with the new unfolding power game.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Will China Lend Europe a Helping Hand?

By S.P.SETH

While Europe is undergoing economic self-flagellation, China appears to be sitting pretty with its foreign currency reserves of over $3 trillion. Despite approaches from European leaders for China’s help, Beijing is acting rather coyly. Apparently, the Chinese would like Europe to approach them formally and, in the process, make China the crucial player in the European salvage operations.

Besides Europe, even the US is not too great a shape economically. In other words, the entire global financial architecture needs overhauling. And China has deep pockets in terms of its foreign exchange reserves to be able to play a leading role. And in the process demand a determining role in the global financial institutions, like IMF.

It would also like the Western countries to lay off China in terms of its currency valuation, market status of its economy, building up protectionist barriers against Chinese exports and so on. To give one example: Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly said in September that, “We have on many occasions expressed our readiness to extend a helping hand, and our readiness to increase our investment in Europe.”

He added that it would be good “if they should recognize China’s full market-economy status” before the 2016 deadline set by the World Trade Organization. This is the way, he maintained: “To show one’s sincerity on this issue a few years ahead of that time the way a friend treats another friend.”

In other words, China will exact a price ranging from re-arranging the global financial architecture to political and strategic concessions as things evolve.

The point, though, is it is in China’s economic interest to help Europe because, first, it is China’s major export market and, second, it has a big chunk of its foreign exchange reserves in euro. And if Europe slows down or falls into recession (as might happen with the US too), its repercussions on China’s employment situation will only add to social instability.

For instance, when global financial crisis hit in 2008 and 2009, China experienced a major slump in its export industry with millions of workers laid off. And there were fears that the returning rural migrants could create an explosive economic and social situation back in the countryside.

China’s massive stimulation package saved the situation in the short term, but resultant inflationary pressures, over-investment, developing asset bubbles, sectoral imbalances, new unaffordable apartment buildings with no occupants, increased internal debt--- all these anomalies have still to work their way out.

China is in the advantageous position of having large foreign currency reserves. But it also has a large internal debt estimated anywhere between 100 and 200 per cent, when one includes the borrowings of local, regional and other government instrumentalities. And it is creating serious distortions in the country’s economy.

To take one example: The interest on saving deposits in China is around 2 percent while inflation is around 6 per cent, which is eroding people’s savings. This, in turn, has created a black market in lending with usurious interest rates.

In other words, there is something about China’s economy that just doesn’t add up. As Larry Elliott writes in the Guardian: “Historically, an uncontrollable rise in credit has been the best indicator of a financial crisis, as the West knows from recent experience.” And he posits the question: “Can China buck this trend?”

He believes: “There is exaggerated confidence in the ability of the People’s Bank of China to finesse a soft landing, just as there was in the ability of the ‘maestro’ Alan Greenspan to prevent the American bubble popping a decade ago.” It looks like the Chinese situation has the “booming echoes of the [US] subprime crisis.”

The question arises: how healthy is China’s economy? The bullish view is that China’s economic growth (even if at a slightly lower rate than the usual of around 10 per cent) has a long way to go driven by the country’s urbanization and industrialization. Therefore, any slowdown will be short term.

The problem with this view is that it doesn’t take into account social and political factors that are complicating China’s picture. At some point, there is a need to interlink the country’s economic growth with social and economic equity and political reform.

China is said to be about 50 percent urbanized and in the next decade or two there is talk of taking it close 100 per cent. One shudders to think of a billion people living in a dog-eat-dog culture of greed, not to talk of the resultant pressure on social and related infrastructure.

We are talking here of a society with a long historical and cultural tradition of close family and clan traditions that have provided succor through times good and bad. And their displacement from such a close and known environment to an urban setting, putting them in the midst of an unfamiliar and, sometimes, hostile surroundings, is likely to create severe pressures and social breakdowns.

And even its rosy economic picture appears dubious at times. WikiLeaks reportedly revealed a conversation in 2007 between the then US ambassador to China and Li Keqiang (likely to be China’s next Premier), then governor of China’s Liaoning province, in which Li told the US ambassador that China’s gross domestic product number was “man-made” and “therefore unreliable.”

In other words, China’s economic statistics might be dodgy. If that is true, it changes the entire picture requiring a re-evaluation of what is and what is not true about China’s economy.

But that doesn’t detract from China’s capacity, based on its foreign reserves, to lend Europe a helping hand at its time of crisis. Apart from its own economic advantage of maintaining an important export market and the value of its euro holdings, it is an important opening for China to create a new strategic space in a fast changing Europe.

US-Pakistan ties in a knot

By S P SETH

Many people in Pakistan hate the Western coverage of their country as a litany of disasters from terrorism to becoming a nuclear threat for the rest of the world. Here is one such description from a senior Australian journalist who recently visited Pakistan for an investigative report. Paul McGeough’s report in the Sydney Morning Herald headlined, “A monster roaming the world”, began: “Search for a firm footing in Pakistan and there is none—all is quicksand… strategically, politically morally.” The rest of the article is an elaboration of what is wrong with Pakistan.

A recent report in the Economist magazine concludes that Pakistan is a country with “venal civilian leaders; army men hankering for the next coup and having pesky journalists killed off; Islamists who shoot opponents for being liberal.” And it says, “With a friend like Pakistan, who needs enemies?”

A recent BBC documentary has further amplified this image, quoting Taliban sources confirming the US allegations that Pakistan’s ISI is actively involved in helping Taliban. Mullah Azizullah, a Taliban official, reportedly said that the trainers at the Taliban training camps “are all the ISI men.”

Understandably, such negative imaging of Pakistan creates annoyance and resentment in the country. Of course, within Pakistan, some of its finest journalists are even harder on their country’s political and military establishment for their acts of omission and commission, though they don’t much like outsiders telling them what they already know. One notices, though, that the criticism within Pakistani media is now more circumspect, which might have something to do with the country’s worsening relationship with the United States and the need to stand together fearing some sort of US military against Pakistan. The US accuses Pakistan of being in cahoots with the Taliban in its recent attacks in Kabul.

The situation seems to have eased a bit following Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit. She, however, kept up the pressure on Pakistan to do more against the Taliban sheltering in its territory as well as against the Haqqani network, believed to be an extension of the ISI. As a result, the Haqqanis might have temporarily moved across into Afghan side of the border. The Pakistani army seems to have stepped up operations against Taliban elements in tribal areas of Waziristan. How long this temporary truce will last is anybody’s guess, because the relationship is based on distrust. But as long as both sides find the other useful, they will try to make it work, though the pressures lately are too sustained and likely to cause more ruptures and political confrontation.

As is, by now, well-known that a sharp slide in Pak-US relations started with the US military operation in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden, without the knowledge of the Pakistani authorities. Since then it has been one thing after the other, with stepped up Taliban attacks on the US and NATO troops in Kabul, US accusation of ISI’ involvement with the Taliban, and Pakistan’s fear of US military attacks into its tribal areas on top of the current drone operations. This has seriously worked up all sections of the Pakistani people, where support for the United States was already in short supply.

The problem for the United States is that a progressive radicalization of Pakistani people in anti-US terms is making its task of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan increasingly difficult. As Noam Chomsky, a well-known US academic who is known to hold views different from his governments, (quoting Anatol Lieven, a British specialist) said here in his Sydney Peace Prize lecture: “…destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States—and the world---which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan…” is not a wise move.

In Pakistan, the problem, though, is (and has been) that the country’s establishment, dominated by the military, thinks mostly in terms of beefing up their military power to prepare against a foreign attack, most of the time from India. This has skewed Pakistan’s priorities since the fifties, leading it into unwholesome alliances with the US and its Western allies, hoping to have an edge against India that hasn’t worked.

In the eighties, Pakistan got involved into the Afghan imbroglio, first against the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, and more recently (since after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) with the US to fight Taliban in Afghanistan, which is not going too well. Indeed, instead of creating a solid alliance with a common purpose, it has plunged their relationship into, probably, their worst crisis. With the US committed to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014, Pakistan apparently is keen to position itself for a determining role in that country.

Which has led both the US and Pakistan to fast track their respective political agendas in Afghanistan. It would appear that Pakistan has lately bolstered up its linkages with the Taliban to establish a privileged position in the post-2014 period, hoping that the Taliban will eventually come on top in any struggle for political power. On the other hand, the US is even more desperate to require Pakistan’s help to deal forcefully with the Taliban. This is part of the US strategy to bring the Taliban into Afghanistan’s political process from a position of strength. At the same time, it requires Pakistan to be a conduit and guarantor of such a peace deal. Which, in effect, means that the Taliban will agree to operate under the present Afghan constitution with Hamid Karzai as the country’s president until the next round of elections. It seems like a forlorn exercise, principally because the Taliban don’t see themselves as a vanquished political and military force.

Whatever the future political and power contours of Afghanistan, the lesson for Pakistan is that the country’s political and military establishments urgently require a reorientation of priorities to provide its much suffering people economic and physical security that has eluded them so long. Because: without internal cohesion and strength, no amount of military power and strategic shuffling will keep Pakistani state afloat for long. Paul McGeough quotes Arif from Human Rights Commission of Pakistan to say: “The government does not have the capacity to tackle any of the issues [confronting the country]. Things will just keep getting bad… and I don’t discount the fact that we can fall into chaos.” It is, therefore, high time for a total national re-think of the country’s future.

Iran: US’s Perpetual Bad Boy

By S P SETH

As if the world were not in enough trouble already, another crisis is brewing with considerable destructive potential. This relates to the US allegation of Iran’s involvement in a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in the United States. This was allegedly hatched with two Iranian front men, one of them a US citizen, who hired a Mexican drug mafia to do the killing in a restaurant frequented by the Saudi ambassador for a fee of $1.5 million. The plot was discovered and foiled in an FBI sting operation.

The US aired these allegations at a high level, with the country’s attorney general and FBI chief, fronting the press. More importantly still, President Obama also raised the issue at a press conference. The seriousness of the charge against Iran is apparent with Obama demanding answers, emphasizing that all options were now open, including possibly military measures. In the meantime, the US will work to further tighten international sanctions against Iran on top of a layer of them already in place.

Not surprisingly, Iran has denied the charge calling it a political fabrication.. Its supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, defiantly warned that Iran would deliver an “unforgettable response” to any “improper actions” from the United States over the alleged assassination plot.

This is a serious charge. But even in the US, there is skepticism about Iran’s alleged involvement. Mansour Arbabsiar, a used car salesman who is charged with the plot, is not the kind of guy with the skills and organizational ability to be involved in such a complex and dangerous task. According to a former business partner, “He was pretty disorganized, always losing things like keys, titles, probably a thousand cell phones…” In other words, he was kind of scatterbrain. At the same time, he “never spoke ill of the United States”, liked his whisky and wasn’t religious at all.

“He couldn’t even pray, doesn’t know how to fast. He used to drink, smoke pot, go with prostitutes.” These are some of the descriptions about Arbabsiar from friends and business associates who have known him for decades. On this portrayal, he is hardly the person who will have the passion and conviction of a religious fanatic or arch nationalist.

If Arbabsiar is the fall guy in an international power game, so much the worst for him. The question then is: what is this game? As far as one can see, it has different facets. At this time the politics of the coming US presidential election is an important factor. President Obama doesn’t want to end up as a one-term President. He is rating poorly in almost all opinion polls. Therefore, there is great need for one or more issues to distract the people’s attention from the country’s economy that is weighing him down. In the absence of any overriding domestic issue(s) to trump economy, an external mischief/danger from a known enemy, like Iran, might work. Whether or not it will is another matter. Iran is already a nuclear villain, perceived as posing a threat to the United States and its allies, most notably Israel.

Israel has been pressing the United States for some time now (starting with the Bush administration) to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities or else let it do the job with its support and help. Indeed, the then vice-president Dick Cheney was understanding and supportive of Israel undertaking this task in the interest of its security. But with the United States already bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush had stopped listening to Cheney.

There is no suggestion here that the US might let loose Israel on Iran, but this talk of keeping all options open is suspiciously reminiscent of the Bush-Cheney era. Any military action against Iran will have dangerous and unpredictable consequences for regional and global politics. With or without any military action against Iran, Obama’s tough talk against Teheran will go well with the Jewish lobby in the United States and garner electoral support for Obama in his race for re-election. Even though the Jewish population of the US is small, they are politically very powerful, being the United States’ richest and most successful minority. They are also part of a close political alliance with the country’s Christian right and support for them cuts across political divide between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Another explanation is the Saudi factor. Ever since the Arab Spring blossomed, the relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have been strained, particularly, because after sitting on the fence, the US abandoned its old and reliable ally, Hosni Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak’s overthrow, with the US apparently doing very little to save him, even from subsequent public humiliation of a caged trial, hasn’t gone well with the Saudi royal family. It is not a good look for the Saudi royals.

Through its moral support for the Arab Spring (though belated), the US has lost important regional allies in Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, without any concrete gains—apart from Libya where Gaddafi has been eliminated. In this situation of diminished strategic assets, the US is keen to maintain and nurture its strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. Which not only is its major oil supplier but also the dominant voice in the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is, therefore, keen to mollify the bruised Saudi kingdom.

For Saudi Arabia, there are two major concerns. First, of course, is the Arab Spring, being a threat to the kingdom’s stability and even its monarchy. For the present, though, it seems to have bought off most of its citizens with a bit more share in the country’s oil wealth. Second: Riyadh is terribly worried about Iran’s regional designs. The Saudis believe that Iran is creating trouble in Bahrain, Yemen, where there is a Shiite separatist movement, and in Saudi Arabia’s oil rich eastern province with its Shiite majority.

Riyadh has canvassed the United States to further toughen its policy against Iran. As WikiLeaks revealed, the Saudis, like Israelis (but for their different strategic reasons), pressured the US to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. Since the nuclear issue hasn’t so far galvanized the world into anti-Iranian frenzy, and Iran is managing to live with multiple sanctions, a new issue has emerged by way of the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in the United States. Washington is demanding answers from Iran, is further tightening already tight sanctions and has put all options on the table to deal with Iran.

This should mollify Saudi Arabia, and might even, at some point, divert the focus from popular revolts in Arab countries with Iran emerging as a regional and global threat with its nuclear ambitions. Whether or not it works is another question, but it should satisfy Riyadh that the US, at the very least, is responding to Saudi concerns.

Similarly, Israel is keen to shift the focus from the Arab Spring and the Palestinian issue to the much more pressing issue, for them, of the Iranian threat. Rekindling the Iranian issue in a Saudi context tends to give it an Arab texture to revive the emotively charged issue of Sunni-Shia divide with Iran perceived as seeking to dominate the Arab world.

As things stand, it doesn’t look like that an Iranian threat will overshadow the popular movements in the Middle East. But to the extent that Iran has become a fresh issue in US politics allegedly plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador, this might encourage Israel to create further diversion by bombing Iranian nuclear installations with US understanding, the way Dick Cheney saw it in terms of Israeli security. If so, it might open a dangerous new front in an already charged region.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

US Decline: Is it for Real?

By S.P.SETH

When historian Paul Kennedy wrote his book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers… “, in the eighties his main argument was that the fall of great powers in the past could be attributed to a mismatch between their ambitions and resources. And when ambitions overtake resources causing military and economic overstretch, the decline and fall of empires is the logical result. It is an impeccable argument and is proven by the examples of old empires. And the United States is not immune to this, and is likely to succumb to it. He argued that that the United States has the typical problems of a great power of balancing guns and butter and investments for economic growth. As military overstretch overtakes economic growth, it eventually “leads to the downward spiral for slower growth, heavier taxes [on rich proposed by President Obama], deepening domestic splits over spending priorities, and weakening capacity to bear the burdens of defense.”

Though Kennedy was right in predicting these long-term trends about the United States, his timing was wrong. Just around this time the Soviet Union was crumbling and finally collapsed in 1991. And the United States claimed credit for it, having won the Cold War. The United States emerged as the world’s only superpower. And Francis Fukuyama, an American author, declared the victory of the liberal capitalist model with the US as its nerve centre. It was the “end of history”, he declared. Because: the capitalist liberal democracies are the only and last model for human society.

While the US was in a mode of self-congratulation, Paul Kennedy was correctly identifying the trends of an already overstretched United States. The US is in all sorts of difficulties--economically, politically and militarily. Economically, it is deep in debt—nearing 100 per cent of its GDP. It runs an annual trade deficit of $500 billion. Countries like China, Japan and others, are financing its profligacy by buying its bonds and treasury notes. Its Federal Reserve is doing its bit by printing more money and keeping interest rates at near zero level to stimulate the economy.

But nothing seems to be working. As a result, unemployment is static at about 9 per cent, which is 14 million without work. And if one takes into account those who are underemployed or have stopped looking for work, the total number might be edging toward 20 million. That is a lot of adults (and their families) becoming economic and social misfits in the world’s richest country. Imagine the potential for social strife and unrest if the economy doesn’t pick up. Some idea of this can be gleaned from swelling protests against Wall Street and other conglomerates in different parts of the country.

The main problem is that the United States is looking for solutions within the old and familiar system of unlimited economic growth based on limitless consumption. This pattern had indeed become outdated some time ago when a parallel economy of financial instruments, not backed by real money and goods, started trading to create an illusion of ever-growing economy. But, as the 2008 economic crisis originating in the United States, has shown that the old economic pattern of limitless consumption and phony financial instruments has run its course. First: because people have started to save (if they can) for a rainy day bitten by the continuous stream of bad economic news. Second: with high unemployment there is not much to spend except on necessities. Third: since the banks and other credit institutions are themselves in trouble with their debt problems; they have tightened their credit lines. Lastly: the systemic failure has created a crisis of confidence all around.

The global economic system, with the United States as its nerve center, has become too big and unmanageable. One sees this at the increasing number of international economic gatherings (EU and IMF meetings to discuss debt management, G-20 gatherings and so on) unable to find effective solutions to the world’s endemic problems. The system simply is not working. But the governments are still looking for solutions within the old system, as if with some tinkering here and there it will start working again and everything will be back to normal. Well, it won’t.

Politically, the recent gridlock between the competing political forces over the question of raising the country’s debt ceiling is symptomatic of the malaise afflicting the United States. President Obama’s election was a breath of fresh air as he promised to change things radically to lift the country’s sagging fortunes. He wanted to create a national consensus on important issues facing the country. But his political opponents weren’t keen on becoming part of his bandwagon lest he becomes politically entrenched and thwart their political ambitions. The result is a deeply divided and fractious political elite gnawing at each other. And with presidential elections looming ahead, Obama has lost his shine and looks like any other politician fighting the same old battles.

Militarily, the US is a diminished force bogged down in a ten-year old war in Afghanistan with no satisfactory conclusion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that despite its massive military power, the US is not invincible even against ill equipped and rag-tag terrorist groups. Now, with economic difficulties overwhelming the country, there is need for pruning the military machine. Over the next ten years, the cuts of anywhere between $500 billion to $1 trillion will need to be made in the United States’ defense budget which now stands at $720 billion, up from $432 billion in 2001 (the year of the war in Afghanistan), an increase of 67 per cent. These cuts in defense budget will obviously be reflected in cost cutting in all branches of its armed forces, and the defense establishment is crying wolf that it will adversely affect the country’s global position. According to Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (just retired), “Our global commitments have not shrunk. If anything, they continue to grow, and the world is a lot less predictable now than we could have ever imagined… Cuts can reasonably only go so far without hollowing the force. ”

All in all, the US is not the superpower it was a decade or more ago. But it is still the most powerful country and will remain so for quite some period. Despite its myriad economic problems, the world still has faith in its destiny. Otherwise, China, Japan and many other countries wouldn’t be lending it money at one of the lowest interest rates of 2 to 3 per cent on its bonds. Similarly, the US dollar, as international reserve currency, still remains the safest bet (apart from gold, perhaps) in these volatile times. Indeed, whenever the world markets go through one of their steep falls (which is now frequent), the global investors rush to buy US dollars as safe haven. Whether or not the US economic fundamentals are sound or not, the world seems prepared to bet on the United States.

Militarily, the US is still the most powerful country in the world. Its defense spending is largest of any country in the world, and will remain so many years to come even after the cuts in its defense budget over next ten years. These cuts are expected to trim some fat from its otherwise bloated military establishment, which might not be a bad thing for the United States and even the world. It might put some restraint on its tendency to fish in troubled waters everywhere.

There is no denying the fact like all past imperial powers, with overstretched commitments; the US is also on a downward trajectory. But it is important to remember that like all fading empires the United States will be playing an important global role for quite a few decades.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times.

9/11 and After

By S.P.SETH

There has been much soul-searching in the US and elsewhere over the 10^th anniversary of the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, costing 3000 lives. The loss of lives was a great tragedy, but its overall impact on the United States and the rest of the world went beyond that. And it is continuing. For the United States, it is a defining moment in that country’s collective psyche--- a dividing line between before and after 9/11. And why so? First: because the United States had never been hit in its heartland before that. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought the US formally into WW11, was traumatic; but being attacked in New York and in Washington is altogether different. And that too by a bunch of terrorists taking on the super power of the day by attacking its economic and political/military nerve centers. The sheer brazenness of it sent shock waves through the political and economic establishments of the country.

Second: as a result, the US response by way of invading Afghanistan wasn’t clearly thought through. If it were, Afghanistan’s history would have suggested caution. The US probably thought that its overwhelming military power would obliterate the Taliban government, enabling Washington to install their own substitute and get rid of both the Taliban and the al Qaeda. Pakistan was co-opted in this process both by aid and coercion’, though it was always hedging its bets. The results for Pakistan have been disastrous, the most telling being the rise of the Pakistani version of the Taliban that is de-stabilizing the country. And in Afghanistan, things have simply got from bad to worse. In other words, the US response by way of invading Afghanistan was grossly disproportionate; particularly by hanging on too long to re-invent Afghanistan as a Western democracy.

This is not to suggest that the terrorist attack by the Taliban’s al-Qaeda guests was not serious. But there is need to put things in some perspective. For instance, to characterize it all as “war on terror” gave the al-Qaeda, a small militant outfit operating from the wilderness of Afghanistan, a recognition and dimension beyond what it deserved by making it a kind of global power center pitted against the world’s most powerful nation. At the same time, President Bush’s clarion call to the world declaring that any country that was not with the United States in this holy war of sorts was against it, was ridiculous and greatly dangerous..

The al Qaeda became even more of a global phenomenon after the US attacked Afghanistan where it is mired to this day. And when this was followed up with the invasion of Iraq, alleging that the Sadaa Hussein regime had links with the terrorists and was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—neither of which was true; it increasingly looked like that the US was determined to alter the political and strategic situation in the Middle East to its own and Israel’s advantage. Indeed, several theories started to circulate that the World Trade Centre bombing was an inside US and/or Israeli job blamed on the Islamic terrorists to provide US an excuse to attack Iraq and to put the Middle East under its formal tutelage as well secure Israel’s regional primacy. Obviously, the conspiracy theory, still believed by many people in the Islamic world, is simply that.

That the World Trade Centre terrorist attack provided the Bush administration a handy excuse to attack Iraq is quite valid. The then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s immediate response to the attack on Trade Centre reportedly was that, “You know, we’ve got to do Iraq.” When questioned why, Rumsfeld reportedly said, “There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks.” Well, Rumsfeld is now history but the al Qaeda and the Taliban are still going strong.

It is difficult to imagine the scale of US’s strategic blunder in elevating the elusive al Qaeda into a global phenomenon, and being bled into seemingly endless warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq; not to speak of chasing other militant outfits elsewhere in the world drawing their inspiration from al Qaeda. There is no denying that the al Qaeda and its ideological kins of different descriptions are a dangerous lot. What is questioned is if it was necessary to treat them as if they were a global power of sorts demanding the kind of attention and resources the US is expending on them. For instance, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US cost the terrorists only a few thousand dollars. The US invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the related (and accumulated) costs are said to be veering toward $5 trillion mark. And this doesn’t take into account the loss of lives of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even for a super power, with its debt approaching 100 per cent of its GDP, this is not sustainable, and will only further weaken the United States.

And in all this, the terrorists appear to have made the most gains in terms of spreading their message and ideology. That an elusive al Qaeda has managed to engage the United States in two unwinnable wars has made them heroes among many Muslims. True, the Arab Spring has sidelined the al Qaeda message, having achieved the toppling of some nasty tyrants through popular protests. But even the most secular and moderate Muslims are not happy with the US’ perceived anti-Muslim policies. The most recent proof is the Israeli political collision with both Turkey and Egypt, two of its closest former friends. In both cases Israel has refused to apologize for the death of their citizens by Israeli security, first when it raided the peace flotilla headed toward Gaza and killed 9 Turkish peace activists and, second, with the death of 5 Egyptian police men while chasing Palestinians across the Egyptian border.

It is true that most Muslims do not support terrorism. But what rankles and enrages many is the US’ foreign policy perceived hostile to the Muslim countries. Such resentment and anger, among other things, derives from the Palestinian issue in which Israel remains the US’ prime concern and ally. The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq compounded that deep sense of pervasive frustration and anger.

Susan Sontag, a perceptive American writer, expressed it cogently in an essay she wrote after the 9/11 attacks. She said: “The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by [American] public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public.” And she added, “Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a ‘cowardly attack’ on ‘civilization’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘humanity’ or ‘the free world’ but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?” Unsurprisingly, she was pilloried for expressing her views.

Sadly, the US still continues to mouth the same platitudes even after ten years of fighting two wars where it finds itself bogged down. The hopes raised after Barack Obama’s election as President have been dashed. His administration is basically following the same foreign policy agenda as his predecessor, former President George Bush. On the Palestine issue, for instance, the US has undertaken to veto a Palestinian initiative to seek statehood through the UN Security Council. The argument is that the statehood can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Authority, though the US knows quite well that this has not worked in the past. And this is because; assured of US support all through, Israel has never felt the necessity to negotiate seriously. The anticipated US veto in the UN Security Council will further erode its position in the new Middle East, more sensitive to the people’s support for the Palestinian cause.

There has been a lot of self-congratulation in the United States over the Arab Spring that has eschewed Islamic militancy and has sworn by democracy and freedom. It is true that the people’s upsurge among Arab countries has been spontaneous without religious overtones. Which, however, doesn’t mean that people are not swayed when they see US foreign policy favoring Israel against the Palestinians, as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regarding the first, the recent attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo, with people enraged over the death of Egyptian security personnel in the Israeli chase of Palestinians on the Egyptian border, is an example. At another level, Turkey has expelled the Israeli ambassador and suspended military ties with Israel for failing to apologize for the killings of nine of its people on the last year’s peace flotilla heading toward Gaza carrying aid for the besieged city.

Israel used the 9/11 tragedy to give its war on the Palestinian people a moral and global dimension by characterizing many of them as terrorists. Which meant that Israel was actually doing the world a service by doing its share of fighting against terrorism. The coziness between the US and Israel reached a new high under President Bush who pronounced that Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory were a new reality, thus conferring legitimacy of sorts on Israeli occupation. The Obama administration hasn’t succeeding in undoing any of the previous policies, and this will become a point of greater friction between the United States and the region if Washington exercises its veto in the UN Security Council. It might not be able to easily manipulate the new Arab regimes increasingly sensitive to public opinion.

A former Saudi ambassador in the US, Turki al-Faisal, has written in the New York Times that a US veto on Palestinian membership of the United Nations would end the “special relationship” between the two countries, and make the US “toxic” in the Arab world. In the circumstances, says Al-Faisal, “…Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy.” It is a pity because the US really has an opportunity to start afresh in the Middle East.

There have been claims that the US played a positive role in the Arab Spring by supporting its people. Which doesn’t stand to scrutiny, though. Let us give the people of the region credit for their own revolution. The US waited till the tide had turned against the deposed rulers in Tunisia and Egypt. There are two things going in US favor. First, the Arab Spring is largely secular and it is not pushing any Islamic agenda. Two: even the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Tunisian version) were taken by surprise when the people were able to overthrow long-entrenched dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. Despite past US support for the deposed Tunisian and Egyptian dictators, there is no evident hostility against the US in these countries or elsewhere in the Middle East. And if the United States plays its cards right, starting with the Palestinian membership of the United Nations, it might find itself in a politically privileged position in the region.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks started a chain reaction that is still playing itself out with inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has undermined the US’ global primacy. Indeed, the US is increasingly seen as a declining power. The al Qaeda and other Islamic militant outfits certainly feel heartened by what they see as their success in inflicting considerable damage on the US position in the world. Certainly, the Bush era celebratory oration of “mission accomplished” in Iraq is dead and buried. There was a sense in the early period of Afghan and Iraq wars that the US sorely needed to re-arrange the politico-strategic map of the Middle East because it was its destiny to do so. In any case, what was good for the United States was good for the world. The Bush administration wanted to write its own history with its own facts. And even though 9/11 was a great tragedy, it was felt that it might as well be used to establish US supremacy in words and deeds. How much difference 10 years has made!

While it is right to grieve for 3000 civilians so cruelly killed on that horrible day of 11 September, 2001, with the world sharing the US grief on its 10^th anniversary; let us not forget the deaths of hundreds and thousands (no one has been keeping an exact tally) of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who became the collateral damage of these insane wars.

Note: This article was first published in 2-parts in Daily Times.