Setting the global strategic agenda

Asia Times ^ | Ehsan Ahrari

[Enemy Of The State]

Setting the global strategic agenda
By Ehsan Ahrari

Well into third year of his tenure, George W Bush has decidedly finished the internship phase of his presidency in the realm of foreign affairs. With a military victory in Iraq under his belt, he has started the process of setting the global agenda - which, inter alia, includes legitimizing his country's continued, and seemingly long-term, occupation of Iraq - among European and Arab countries. At least superficially, that is a near impossible mission; however, he is going after accomplishing it with a steely resolve. He seems to have made a good start during his whirlwind trip to Europe and the Middle East.

In Russia, he appears to have convinced President Vladimir Putin that differences regarding the America invasion of Iraq will not keep their two countries from cooperating on other heady issues. Of course, Bush was thinking about the nuclear issue regarding Iran and North Korea. Russia has no problem in agreeing with the US regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons. It was regarding Iran that a constant dissension still prevailed. But there emerged at least agreement in principle on that issue. Putin stated that Iran should comply in full with its obligations under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. But he also added a caveat, "We are against using the pretext of nuclear weapons program [in Iran] as an instrument of unfair competition against us." The American president was mindful of Russia's significance in the overall great power relations, especially regarding future nuclear arms reduction negotiations.

Bush's brief stay at the G8 summit was quite interesting. French President Jacques Chirac had also invited a number of heads of states from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The pursuit of a multipolar global system - an important issue for Chirac - was visibly progressing during this summit. China, India, and Brazil were there - three important rising powers of Asia and Latin America. Also present were Egypt and Saudi Arabia - two important Arab and Muslim states - giving credence to the necessity of having a high level dialogue between the West and the world of Islam. The French president was definitely earning brownie points among Muslim countries.

Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also had in mind the relevance of their countries in the context of the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), especially in relation to America's emerging grand strategy, which was all about constructing a Pax Americana that cuts across a number of regions of the globe. The operative slogan underlying the sprouting American imperium is the coalition of the willing, which is merely a euphemism for coalition of the subservient nations or even the coalition of the appeasers.

France and Germany are important regional powers who are too significant to toe the American line in the coming years. This is an important issue because the Bush administration may still seek regime change in Iran. All signs are pointing that Iran is not out of the woods yet, especially in terms of its continued pursuit of a nuclear program, and because of its support of the Hezbollah of Lebanon and other violent groups of the occupied territories. Paris and Berlin may once again become two important sources of dissension within the NATO and the EU if the Bush administration decides to confront Iran militarily.

Bush held a bilateral meeting with China's new President, Hu Jintao. It was an occasion when presidents from the two powers once again belonged to the same generation. The octogenarian leadership of China is succumbing to the cruel demands of father time. Both presidents might have been thinking about the significance of the absence of the generational divide that has persisted between the Chinese and American leadership since 1972, the momentous year of America's rapprochement with China that was carried out by then president Richard Nixon.

The question now is whether Bush and Hu can pursue agendas that reflect the changing strategic realities of the 21st century affecting their respective countries. One chief problem from China's vantage point is that America is decidedly seeking an enhanced presence and prestige in East Asia, China's major region of influence. The presence of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was also an uneasy reminder to the People's Republic of the fledgling strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi. According to a recently leaked report, one important purpose of this partnership is to contain China. To add further complications for Hu, former president Jiang Zemin still heads the all-important Central Military Commission in China, and thus exercises a substantial amount of power over the larger strategic agenda of that country. Cumulatively, these realities seem to favor the overall primacy of the US in East Asia.

From Evian, France, at the G8 meeting, Bush moved on to pursue his resolve to tackle the Palestine Liberation Organization-Israeli conflict. This development speaks volumes about how long an inexperienced American president takes to recognize the necessity of getting personally involved in the Middle East conflict. George Bush - who never wanted to make the mistake of former president Bill Clinton by getting personally involved in negotiations - has stated that he will attempt to resolve that issue, no matter how long it takes. That is, indeed, a major source of assurance.

Now Israel has to experience the awesome burden of America's resolve, as did Saddam Hussein. But it is far from certain that anything remotely resembling the similar stringent standards compliance forced on Iraq will be applied to Israel. Bush is a born-again Christian. As such, he holds Israel in special regard. The Arab heads of state know all about Bush's double standards. That is one reason why there is no palpable enthusiasm in the capitals of Arab states about America's new interest in resolving the PLO-Israeli conflict.

Still, the eyes of the international community are fixed on Bush and his commitment to resolving an issue that has long been considered a core Islamic issue. The US seems to have realized this only after becoming an occupying power of a major Arab and Muslim country.

Bush is definitely presiding over America's moments of glory. How else can one explain the fact that he bypassed the United Nations and invaded one of its sovereign members under the pretext of saving the world from a brutal dictator's weapons of mass destruction? Even though no such weapons have been found yet, his erstwhile critics of Europe and Russia are eagerly posturing for him to forgive them for not supporting an invasion whose legality may be most charitably described as highly questionable. Yet that fact seems to have only enhanced Bush's capability to set the global agenda. Superpowerdom has a unique logic of its own not only in terms of defining what is legal but also what is moral at a given time.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Interesting piece!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)