[A-List] US imperialism: re-make, re-model

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Old alliances, new risks
By Jim Lobe
Asia Times, February 12 2003

WASHINGTON - With the Bush administration in a seemingly headlong rush to
war, the current international crisis over Iraq's disarmament appears to be
threatening the global system of alliances Washington built in the
post-World War II era.

The latest example is the growing transatlantic divide between the United
States on the one hand and France, Germany and Belgium - the very core of
Western Europe - on the other.

And already administration hawks are arguing that the French-Belgian veto of
Turkey's request for NATO arms to defend against itself against a possible
Iraqi attack has put the Atlantic alliance's very survival into question.
"If this is what the US gets from NATO, maybe it's time America considered
leaving this Cold War institution and reforming an alliance of nations that
understand the new threats to world order," said an editorial in the Wall
Street Journal, reiterating Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld's reaction to the
veto as "truly shameful".

But the strains brought on by the Bush administration's increasingly
irrepressible eagerness to invade Iraq are also raising serious questions
about other historical alliances around the world. This weekend, for
example, it was reported that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and his closest
advisers have decided to prepare to disengage militarily from the United
States as part of a series of measures to shore up the ruling family's
political support in the kingdom.

First rumored but strongly denied in late 2001, Abdullah's plans are to be
implemented after the current crisis in Iraq is resolved one way or another,
according to the reports, which cited Saudi sources as saying that a US
withdrawal from the kingdom would give its rulers more room to implement
reforms without appearing to be doing so at Washington's behest.

And in yet another unexpected development more related to the current crisis
in North Korea than Iraq, Rumsfeld has reportedly informed South Korea that
it is prepared to gradually withdraw the 37,000 US troops who are based
there, first to the southern part of the country from current positions
close to the demilitarized zone where they are intended to act as a
"tripwire" in the event of a North Korean invasion, and then off the
peninsula altogether.

While the administration indicated the offer derives from the perception
that South Koreans are increasingly angry with Washington for failing to
promote detente with the North and, in the words of one official, "we don't
go where we're not wanted", others noted the move was designed to "raise the
stakes" for incoming President Roh Moo-hyun, whose softer line toward
Pyongyang has irritated some in the administration.

"It's a no-lose proposition," noted one conservative congressional staffer.
"If we get our troops out of range of the North's guns, our freedom of
action for acting against the North is greater. And if Roh gets worried
about being left to the tender mercies of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il,
that gives us more influence."

The latest flurry of diplomatic moves and counter-moves by Washington and
its long-time allies is prompting growing concern here about the current
crisis' long-term strategic consequences, especially for the NATO alliance
and the United Nations Security Council, where Washington is expected to
seek a second resolution authorizing or at least condoning a US-led invasion
of Iraq after the next report by lead inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed
ElBaradei on Friday.

Russian leaders, who met with French President Jacques Chirac on Monday,
appear to be rallying behind a Franco-German proposal to double or triple
the number of UN inspectors in Iraq and to possibly constitute a
1,000-member UN peacekeeping force to back them up on the ground. China,
which like Russia and France has a veto on the Security Council, is also
expected to back the proposal if it is put forward Friday after the
inspectors' report.

In television talk-show appearances Sunday, top US officials, including
Secretary of State Colin Powell, dismissed the initiative as "useless" and
suggested that the Security Council should be ready to authorize force
unless Iraq suddenly has a change of heart and volunteers information to the
inspectors that Washington believes it so far has withheld.

Powell's remarks, as well as Rumsfeld's sharp comments last weekend when he
complained bitterly about the French-Belgian veto and the refusal of his
German counterpart to share details of the Franco-German proposal - which
was disclosed by Der Spiegel magazine - to beef up the inspection teams,
appeared to confirm the notion that relations between the West Europeans and
Washington had reached their lowest point in a very long time.

That they were already headed in that direction was clear even before the
Munich conference last weekend. Rumsfeld's observations about Germany and
France being the "old Europe", clearly irritated the continent's two most
important powers.

"The road to Iraqi disarmament has produced the gravest crisis in the
Atlantic alliance since its creation five decades ago," wrote former
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post on Monday.

"I think what's going on in NATO is a reflection of the deeper rift that is
taking place between mainstream Europe and the US," said Charles Kupchan of
the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Bush administration believes that it
can simply ram its designs on Iraq down the throats of its smaller European
allies, and it's finding out that that's simply not the case."

The administration appears to believe that "as long as we assert our primacy
without hesitation, others will eventually get in line, but they're finding
out that if they in fact do so, others will lock arms to resist a wayward
America," added Kupchan, whose recent book, The End of the American Era,
predicted a split between the United States and Europe.

"What I am amazed about is the speed with which these events are taking
place," he said, adding that "the Bush administration has put history into
fast forward".

The deeper forces that have come to the surface in the current crisis,
according to Kupchan, include Europe's success and growing self-confidence,
Washington's shifting strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the
Gulf and East Asia, "and a unilateralist bent in the United States that is
alienating Europe and most other countries in the world".