INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Best of Buddies



Abdhul Rahkman – www.riunit.com

Whilst the recently concluded US elections were a positive sign from the point of view of global peace, realistically, little change is expected for a number reasons. Foremost, Washington has continued to be snowed-under by the special interest lobbies that exert significant influence on its policies. Consequently, prevailing US foreign policy is not serving the interests of its own citizens and their security but that of foreigners.

Lyrical exchange

During the course of this week, Ehud Olmert was on a visit to the US, meeting with the US Secretary of State and the President as well as appearing in the media. Amongst the issues discussed were Iran’s nuclear program, the Iraq war and the Palestinian issues. No doubt, future US foreign policy would have also figured prominently in the closed-door discussions as it has traditionally been subservient to the needs of its Middle East ally, even at the expense of US’s own national interest. Doubtlessly, a pat on the back may have also been in order as thanks for this weeks US veto of a UN resolution condemning the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

According to NASDSQ sources, Olmert was playing down questions of a military strike against Iran during his flight across the Atlantic. One of his Defense deputies had earlier stated that he was preparing for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The comments had spurred a war of words with Iran’s foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr. Hosseini, saying that Tehran ‘would not hesitate to retaliate with a crushing blow if its nuclear facilities were attacked’, adding that ‘it would not take a second’.

Iranians also announced that it was planning to step-up on its peaceful nuclear program with the enrichment of some 3000 centrifuge machines that were expected to be operational by March 2007. The BBC reported that a more conciliatory note was struck with respect to direct talks with the US on wider regional issues, saying that any official written request would be considered by Tehran.

Entwined interests

Some commentators noted that whilst it maybe in the interests of the US to engage in dialog with Iran and Syria, particularly on the issue of cooperation on a return to some form of stability in Iraq, it is likely to be blocked by influential forces working in Washington.

Scott Ritter notes that the US press is very defensive on Israel and any criticism of the State. Moreover, the convergence of US and Israeli interest has been noted as one of the outstanding success of the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. He shows how many of the pro-Israeli lobby groups do not even have to register as foreign organizations in the US, indicating the depth of penetration on the part of interest groups into the US political system.

He notes that attempting to influence US foreign policy is nothing new and that the UK, France and Saudi Arabia as well as many others pro-actively seek to influence Washington decision makers. However, the difference is that these agents and their funds are required to register as foreigners and the US know ‘where they are coming from’. By contract, there is a great deal of confusion with regards to the position taken by those representing the interest of Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. Under the current situation, it is difficult to decipher and disentangle the difference between US interests and policy and that of its close Middle East ally.

Ritter sites a strong example with reference to the Hezbollah group in Lebanon that recently repulsed a partial invasion from across its southern border. Claiming that the Hezbollah group does represent a legitimate threat to the security of the Zionist state over its northern border, he stressed that there is absolutely no such threat to US national security from Hezbollah. In this connection, he accuses elements of the US media such and the New York Times and the Washington Post of confusing the issue, making Americans feel that they are being threatened by such groups when in fact the perceived threat is unfounded.

Veto power

The phenomenon is further evidenced with reference to the exercise of veto power by the US on behalf of its ally at the UN and other international forums. Taking the UN, well over 40 occasions can be noted where the US vetoed critical Resolutions condemning excessive use of force, violence against Palestinian civilians and border violations since 1972. Since 1983 there have been 27 such vetos. (See Table).

Already, Olmerts’s recent comments praising the war in Iraq where hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousand of US soldiers have already perished have drawn fire from the some Democrats. The remarks were condemned as an unacceptable attempt to influence the US debate on their overbearing foreign policy issue.

During his visit, Olmert also added that his country and others in the region should be thankful to the US and Bush. In his view, the Iraq war has had a dramatic, positive effect on security and stability in the region. He also expressed satisfaction with the White House position on Iran.

The Hareetz reports Olmert as claiming that Tehran's goal is to "ultimately wipe Israel off the map," on NBC television's "Today" show. "The whole world has to join forces in order to stop it. This is a problem of every country. I know that President Bush is fully aware of that." On the Palestinian issue, Bush and Olmert reiterated their previously stated positions.

Bush also called on the world to unite against Iran and expressed pride at the US veto of UN Resolution condemning the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza.

Un-virtuous circle

This week also witnessed a special task force of the Council on Foreign Relations confirming that US government failures to curb US oil consumption and rising market prices is undercutting US foreign policy and national security. Times staff writer, Kim Murphy, claims that the treasuries of the US government’s main advisories are swollen due to the spike in oil prices, also a direct consequence of US foreign policy and military action in the Middle East.

Whilst petroleum is currently trading at $58.45 (Bloomberg), down significantly from the dizzy $78 per barrel in July, they are still twice as high as the levels of five years ago. With rising demand in the US, China and India, the expectation is of continued high prices.

According to some estimates, Tehran’s oil revenue is expected to top $55 billion this year, bringing OPEC’s second largest producer’s total export revenues to some $300 billion over the past eight years. These funds, it is claimed, enable the regime to pursue its own objectives that may be conflicting with US interests. Similarly, Venezuela is expected to collect about $37 billion this year in oil earnings and has used the money to expand the international influence of Chavez, including an unsuccessful effort to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Russia, also perceived as a trouble maker in Washington is expected to rake in some $110 billion from petroleum exports in addition to huge revenues from supplying some quarter of Europe’s natural gas. Moscow has used that money to pay off $22 billion in foreign debt early and buy back much of its oil industry, thereby encouraging foreign investors to quit the country. Oil revenues have also served to rebuild Russia military muscle.

Another impact of the oil revenue phenomenon has been the hike in business for the US weapons industry. With the sales of US military weapons to foreign governments doubling during the past year to $21 billion ( September 2005 – 2006), perhaps the un-virtuous circle is complete.






Copyrights Reserved (RIU 2006).