Sunday, July 07, 2002

Axis of evil ruse

by pv vivekanand
By declaring Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil," US President George W Bush appears to have taken in more that Washington could chew by espousing unilateralism that has alienated his European allies.
Since his state of the union address on Jan.29, Bush has faced a barrage of criticism from Europeans, many of whom outrightly rejected his clear pointer that the next targets in the US-led war against terrorism were Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang. They have warned that Washington should not expect them to remain partners in the coalition that backed the US campaign in Afghanistan.
It was indeed clear for some time now that Bush would be targeting Iraq and others in the US-led drive against terrorism, particularly after he clarified that he defined all countries which develop weapons of mass destruction as supporters of terrorism. And his Jan. 29 speech has come to be known was the Bush doctrine, which is now challenged by his European allies. And they have good reasons too.
In the case of Iraq, US intelligence agencies tried hard but in vain to establish a link between Baghdad and the Sept. 11 terror attacks in New York and Washington. Reports that the man said to have been the leader of the attacks had met with an Iraqi diplomat in Eastern Europe in early 2001 have come to naught in helping Washington establish a case against Baghdad.
That the US was paving the way for expanding the war against terrorism was made clear in October when Washington formally notified the United Nations that it might target other countries in the war against terrorism and senior Bush administration officials mentioned Iraq as a potential target.
Since then, Arab leaders and the Arab League itself have issued repeated warnings to the US against launching military operations against Iraq or any other Arab country in the name of the war against terrorism.
Joining them were European leaders who had then used diplomatic language to dissuade Washington from pursuing a military assault against Iraq.
But last week, they were unambiguous, saying they want nothing to do with such a course of action.
European Commission pokesman Gunnar Weigand said the European Union leaders "do not agree with that kind of policy."
While the EU shared American concerns over global issues such as human rights, terrorism and proliferation of weapons, the bloc does not "share is the policy desired to achieve these objectives. We believe that engagement and rapprochement...should be used to achieve these aims."
Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, called on Washington to act multilaterally and not as a "global unilateralist."
Surprisingly Germany had been in the forefront of opposing military action against Iraq, and it left nothing unsaid.
"We Europeans warn against it," said German Deputy Foreign Minister Ludger Vollmer. "There is no indication, no proof that Iraq is involved in the terrorism we have been talking about for the last few months... this terror argument cannot be used to legitimise old enmities."
Vollmer could not have been more clear in referring to the growing belief that the "axis of evil" charge is the forerunner of a US drive to settle political scores by destablising Iraq and indirectly topple the regime of Saddam Hussein — an objective the US failed to achieve in the 1991 Gulf war.
There is also a strong vein of thought in Europe, and indeed in the Arab World, that the US focus on Iran as a potential target in the war against terrorism has more to do with Israeli interests than US policy and the campagin against terror.
There is little doubt that Bush would find it difficult to enlist European partners in military action against Iraq or Iran.
Most EU member countries agree that the best approach to solving the problem, if any at all, is through dialogue in line with the European bloc's policy of engaging with countries rather than seeking to isolate them.
Even in Britain, the staunchest US ally in Europe, the "axis of evil" comment has drawn dismay. Home Secretary Jack Straw said the Bush assertion was aimed at the American elecotrate ahead of the forthcoming congressional elections and could not be part of a military strategy.
Washington's frustration over the British stand was spelt out by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. "This is not about American politics, and I assume that when the British government speaks about foreign policy, it's not about British politics," she retorted to Straw.
But it should be dawning on Washington that it would not be an easy go to secure international endorsement of military action against Iraq or Iran.
Many countries, mindful of the oil reserves and trade potential of the two countries, have set up strong relations with them; in Iraq's case, business worth tens of billions is waiting for an end to the 11-year-old UN sanctions against Baghdad. The sanctions are already fraying, and it is only a matter of time before few governments would think twice about doing business with Iraq even if in violation of the sanctions.
Indeed, there is strong European suspicion that it is not simply "old enmities" at play in the US strategy towards Iraq.
The Europeans are aware that Washington is unhappy that they have made inroads and set up ground to do post-sanctions trade with Iraq while American businesses were restrained by the law of their country from pursuing the same goal.
"By launching military action against Iraq, the US would precipitate a major crisis that would upset the European apple cart and bring new rules into play for doing business with Iraq," commented an Asian diplomat. "That would be the end of years of European efforts to gain a firm foothold in that country."
If any consolation, there is consensus across the Atlantic: Military action against Iraq would not be limited to a few missile strikes or bombings against strategic installations in that country –– it would aim at replacing the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad, and this would not be an easy task at all without European support.
The European case against the US targeting Iran is even stronger.
Europe has been closely observing the political tug-of-war between the (relatively) moderate regime of President Mohmmed Khatami and the conservative theocratic establishment in Iran since 1997. They have seen a slow shift to moderation in Tehran under Khatami's leadership, and they would like to encourage it.
Europeans are indeed aware of the clout that the Iranian religious establishment wields, and they have recognised that they should not expect miracles from Khatami.
Many European diplomats believe that even if the Israeli charge was true that Iran was behind a recently intercepted arms shipment in the Red Sea, the real "culprit" was not the Khatami government but hardline elements in the clerical establishment in Tehran.
In any event, the Europeans remain convinced that the key to dealing with Iran is encouragement for the "moderate" camp in Tehran rather than confrontation over the US charge that Iran had links with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group.
Europe recognises that Al Qaeda fighters fleeing US forces in the Afghan war could have sneaked across the border to Iran, but they believe Tehran should not be seen as an Al Qaeda supporter.
They see the Iranian refusal to co-operate with the US in countering Al Qaeda as stemming from Tehran's conviction that such moves would allow Washignton to exploit the situation and make intelligence inroads in Iran.
"Tehran prefers to deal with the Al Qaeda problem, if there is one, on its own," said a European diplomat. "It wants no US role in the affair and is determined to keep the US out. Sharing intelligence information with the US is the last thing it wants to do."
Some speculate that the US frustration over its failure to mend fences with Iran despite repeated overtures to Tehran is also behind the hostility.
Washington has also charged that Iran was "meddling" in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, an allegation that both Tehran and Kabul have denied.
There is a strong Israeli angle to the US-Iran equation, and Bush's "tough" posture might also have to do with his desire to do away with a constant source of "concern" for the US protege in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon underlined it when he said last week that "Iran calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and elimination of the Jewish people. That's why it was so important for President Bush to name them as sponsors of terror."
It is no secret that Israel has seen in Iran a potential threat in the event of a regional conflagration. Israel has for long watched with apprehension Iran aquiring and developing long-range missiles and Tehran's nuclear programme.
Suggestions have remained alive for several years that Israel might even launch "pre-emptive" strikes against Iran's nuclear installations, which Tehran says are intended for peaceful purposes, and other military facilities.
Iran is a staunch supporter of the Lebanese resistance movement Hizbollah, which managed to force Israel to withdraw from parts of Lebanese territory in mid-2000 after many years of fighting the Israeli army and its proxy forces in southern Lebanon.
Sharon has already picked up the fight against Iraq and Iran. One of the items on the agenda for talks between Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Washington on Thursday was expected to be Israel's "fears" of the "threats" posed by Iraq and Iran to the Jewish state.
Aides have said that Sharon would be lobbying Bush for unspecified American action against Iran and iraq.
Russia has come out fighting from Iran's corner against the US charge against Tehran.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Sunday that there was no evidence that Iran had connections with terrorist organisations. He accused the US of following double standards.
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine warned that the interests of the rest of the world were under threat from a "simplistic" US foreign policy that emerged after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Today we are threatened by a simplism that reduces all the problems of the world to the struggle against terrorism, and is not properly thought through," said Vedrine.
Vedrine expressed criticism of the Bush doctrine, a decision by Washington to subordinate all foreign policy decisions to the needs of the "war against terrorism," and of unilateralism in general.
He accused the US of acting "unilaterally, without consulting others, taking decisions based on its own view of the world and its own interests ... refusing any multilateral negotiation that could limit their decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."
According to Vedrine, said Europe also had a duty to stand up to the US "hyper-power" over the globalisation of the free market
French Defence Minister Alain Richard said France would not follow Bush's example in vastly increasing defence spending to cope with the new threats of the post-Sept. 11 world.
"We do not share the analysis expressed by President Bush on the threats to international peace and security," he told the French parliament.
Against such opposition from the powerful European bloc, will Bush go it alone?
There are some who suggest he might.
The technology that the US used in the Afghan war established that the sole superpower
doesn't need its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) partners "to fight a distant war, as it demonstrated in Afghanistan, where it basically won alone, except for small but important contributions from Britain, Canada and Australia," Thomas Friedman wrote in the Guardian.
Friedman hammered home an emerging scenario where the US might simply decide its interests were good enough to launch military action wherever it found fit to do so so -- with or without is Nato partners.
"We are increasingly heading for a military apartheid within Nato: America will be the chef who decides the menu and cooks all the great meals, and the Nato allies will be the bus boys who stay around and clean up the mess and keep the peace - indefinitely," according to Fried