[A-List] Iran, Russia, China

["bon moun" <sherrynstan@xxxxxxx>]

[It is becoming very apparent that two nations are about to move to the
center of the world stage; China and Iran.  Bushfeld declarations of
'evil' that listed Iran and DPRK (erroneously referred to as North Korea
to put its sovereignty in question) have alerted the developing
anti-American bloc - far from being consolidated, but in its nascent
form including China, the EU, Russia, and a regional awakening of class
rage in Latin America.  The Neocons intend to consolidate their grip
over the world's energy supplies by military force as the basis for
restructuring global capitalism to rescue US capital from a crisis it
has been exporting to other nations since the late 60s.  Europe and the
US will tangle in Africa too, where both energy and strategic minerals
are at stake, but for now, there is Russia blocing with China, and
Russia blocing with the EU, and all of them establishing 'trade
relations' with Iran.  Even Tony Blair, who is now politically terminal,
won't be there to help fit the fig leaf for an attack on Iran.  And
Korea, where the US is staging a redeployment to pull US troops out of
range of DPRK's big guns and leaving Seoul's millions more naked than
ever, will position China to be the most influential and prestigious
actor in the Asia-Pacific Rim, an actor with whom the US will have
little choice but to deal.  There is a race on now, and it is a very
dangerous race... one where the US has to move forward or lose the
terrible gamble they have taken with Iraq, which is tied to them now not
as a great resource, but like a big firecracker on the tail of a cat.
They wanted war.  They'll get it yet.  -SG]

http://www.atimes.com     
 

Middle East 

COMMENTARY
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. 

(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@xxxxxxxxxx for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)