Email-Us

    Although all the signs are that America will invade Iraq, I have a feeling that it may not happen.   I think America’s aim is to use the threat of war to force regime change and protect its strategic interests around the world, particularly in regions like ours where it seeks to achieve a firmer hold on scarce natural resources, namely oil and gas, on which its entire economy depends.  Although if it is determined to invade Iraq, that too will in the short term serve its purpose.

    But demonstrating its ability to project irresistible military power to enforce its will anywhere on the planet, America ensures that when it speaks all will listen.  It can force states and governments to sign treaties and pacts allowing America access to a region’s economic resources or to ensure that it is able to station its military forces in countries where it feel that its interests are threatened.  For to resist, may give American the excuse to take what it only requested.

    The reality of the New World order is that there is no country strong enough to resist if America insists – not even China or the European Union. None can afford not to listen or lightly brush aside American demands, particularly after 9/11 - it seems we are entering a new era of imperialism.

   America’s new more open and active engagement in world politics is an acknowledgement of itself as the world’s most powerful nation. While this has been true ever since the end of the Second World War, it was not until the Suez crisis of 1956 when  Britain and France, who until then were considered the two most powerful nations in the world,   were forced by President Eisenhower to withdraw from Egypt after  attempting to seize the canal and overthrow President  Gamel Nasser.  By this demonstration of the economic and military power, the United States took over the mantle of the British who had until then been the world’s most influential nation, able to impose its will anywhere around the world through its navy and economic power.  America’s intervention in the Suez crisis along with its cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union soon saw it become embroiled in the conflicts and politics of the Arab world.

    America interests in the region are not altruistic. If the main national resource of our region were dates it would not have attracted the attention of American policy makers. America has been interested in the Middle East ever since the 1920’s when Standard Oil and Texaco were granted concessions to drill for oil in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. During the Second World War and after it our region has became the primary focus of American foreign policy as U.S. policymakers realised what an enormous source of strategic power it is. And one of the riches prizes in world history.

    Nearly everything the United States has done and does in the Near East can be understood as contributing to the protection of its long-term access to the region’s vast energy reserves and through them America’s claim to world leadership. America always supports or gives aid to any regime in the region, no matter how cruel or despotic their leadership, in order to make them hostages to its favour. Thus ensuring that none will be able to loosen America’s hold on the regions resources.

    In my view, the attack on America in 2001 has allowed the Bush Administration to push through a new, more aggressive, foreign policy. This is spelt out in the White House’s National Security Strategy document.  This states that the United States must maintain global military dominance and the right of preemptive military attack against any country it regards as a current or even potential threat. Under this new radical foreign policy doctrine, American international interest and national security require that U.S. armed forces be deployed at bases around the world.

    This development in American foreign policy is very worrying for all the nations of the world, especially to those in our region. For any state or government, who America deemed a ‘threat’ to its hold on the world’s natural and economic resources, would be, under this doctrine, be able to be attacked, its government deposed, and be able to be occupied by American military forces.

    It is even more alarming because this new first strike doctrine ignores international law, dismisses the idea of collective security established by the UN charter as it establishes America as an international vigilante – acting as policeman, judge and executioner.

    This leaves all our governments with a very difficult dilemma. If they disagree too stridently with America what will be the consequences?  How will they stand up to a nation that spends over 400 billion dollars on its military annually?  They cannot. Therefore, if America demands bases or concessions of our governments, they would have to comply, for not to do so could leave their countries open to consequences too frightening to contemplate.

   This is why I feel America does not have to invade Iraq to achieve its objectives of controlling globally scarce economic resources and maintaining its status as the world’s preeminent nation. Its military and economic power ensures that it will be able to station its armed forces wherever it likes by twisting the arms of nations states to build bases in their countries, thus further threatening their sovereignty and destabilising their governments.

    America is turning its back on the international community that has over the past several decades made such progress in reaching effective agreements in the vitally important areas of human rights, environmental protection, arms control and collective security. We all thought that this framework of inclusive international cooperation would help address the threats of terrorism, global political instability, arms proliferation, and deepening global poverty. Yes every nation has a foreign policy to ensure its needs are represented in the global community, but not at the expense of world peace and stability.

    Lets us hope that sometime soon that the Americans realise that by spurning multilateralism they are perpetuating the problems they want to solve. Resentment against American hegemony will lead to more terrorism, not less. Ordinary Americans will be under increasing danger. Eventually, as more and more nations reject its policies and form alliances against it, its economic power will diminish. This, I believe, will be the outcome of this new American doctrine and history will record this new American imperialism as a failure of leadership. It is a government’s duty to protect and provide security for all its citizens and provide for their economic welfare.  Not waste their lives and jeopardise their economic future but grand military adventures.