Can a Democrat change US Middle East policy?
Noam Chomsky

RECENTLY, when Vice-President Cheney was asked by ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz about polls showing that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose the war in Iraq, he replied, “So?” “So — you don’t care what the American people think?” Raddatz asked. “No,” Cheney replied, and explained, “I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in public opinion polls.” Later, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, explaining Cheney’s comments, was asked whether the public should have “input.”
Her reply: “You had your input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.” That’s correct. Every four years the American people can choose between candidates whose views they reject, and then they should shut up. Evidently failing to understand democratic theory, the public strongly disagrees. “Eighty-one per cent say when making ‘an important decision’ government leaders ‘should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public’s views,”’ reports the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in Washington.
And when asked “whether they think that ‘elections are the only time when the views of the people should have influence, or that also between elections leaders should consider the views of the people as they make decisions,’ an extraordinary 94 per cent say that government leaders should pay attention to the views of the public between elections.” The same polls reveal that the public has few illusions about how their wishes are heeded: 80 per cent “say that this country is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” not “for the benefit of all the people.” With its unbounded disregard for public opinion, the Bush administration has been far to the radical nationalist and adventurist extreme of the policy spectrum, and was subjected to unprecedented mainstream criticism for that reason. A Democratic candidate is likely to shift more towards the centrist norm. However, the spectrum is narrow. Looking at the records and statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is hard to see much reason to expect significant changes in policy in the Middle East.
IRAQ
IT IS Important to bear in mind that neither Democratic candidate has expressed a principled objection to the invasion of Iraq. By that I mean the kind of objection that was universally expressed when the Russians invaded Afghanistan or when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait: condemnation on the grounds that aggression is a crime — in fact the “supreme international crime,” as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined. No one criticised those invasions merely as a “strategic blunder” or as involvement in “another country’s civil war, a war (they) can’t win” (Obama, Clinton, respectively, on the Iraq invasion). The criticism of the Iraq war is on grounds of cost and failure; what are called “pragmatic reasons,” a stance that is considered hardheaded, serious, moderate — in the case of Western crimes.
The intentions of the Bush administration, and presumably McCain, were outlined in a Declaration of Principles released by the White House in November 2007, an agreement between Bush and the U.S.-backed Nuri al-Maliki government of Iraq. The Declaration allows U.S. forces to remain indefinitely to “deter foreign aggression” (though the only threat of aggression in the region is posed by the United States and Israel, presumably not the intention) and for internal security, though not, of course, internal security for a government that would reject US. domination. The Declaration also commits Iraq to facilitate and encourage “the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments” — an unusually brazen expression of imperial will.
In brief, Iraq is to remain a client state, agreeing to allow permanent US military installations (called “enduring” in the preferred Orwellism) and ensuring US investors priority in accessing its huge oil resources — a reasonably clear statement of goals of the invasion that were evident to anyone not blinded by official doctrine. What are the alternatives of the Democrats? They were clarified in March 2007, when the House and Senate approved Democratic proposals setting deadlines for withdrawal. Gen. Kevin Ryan (retired), senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center of International Affairs, analysed the proposals for The Boston Globe.
The proposals permit the president to waive their restrictions in the interests of “national security,” which leaves the door wide open, Ryan writes. They permit troops to remain in Iraq “as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting U.S. facilities, citizens or forces; combating Al Qaeda or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces.” The facilities include the huge U.S. military bases being built around the country and the U.S. Embassy — actually a self-contained city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. None of these major construction projects are under way with the expectation that they will be abandoned. The other conditions are also open-ended. “The proposals are more correctly understood as a re-missioning of our troops,” Ryan sums up: “Perhaps a good strategy — but not a withdrawal.” It is difficult to see much difference between the March 7 Democratic proposals and those of Obama and Clinton.
IRAN
WITH regard to Iran, Obama is considered more moderate than Clinton, and his leading slogan is “change.” So let us keep to him. Obama calls for more willingness to negotiate with Iran, but within the standard constraints. His reported position is that he “would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek ‘regime change’ if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues,” and stopped “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shia militant groups in Iraq. Some obvious questions come to mind. For example, how would we react Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he would offer a possible promise not to seek “regime change” in Israel if it stopped its illegal activities in the occupied territories and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues?
Obama’s moderate approach is well to the militant side of public opinion — a fact that passes unnoticed, as is often the case. Like all other viable candidates, Obama has insisted throughout the electoral campaign that the United States must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is: “keep all options open”), a violation of the U.N. Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of Americans have disagreed: 75 per cent favour building better relations with Iran, as compared with 22 per cent who favour “implied threats,” according to PIPA. All the surviving candidates, then, are opposed by three-fourths of the public on this issue. American and Iranian opinion on the core issue of nuclear policy has been carefully studied. In both countries, a large majority holds that Iran should have the rights of any signer of the Nonproliferation Treaty: to develop nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
The same large majorities favour establishing a “nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel.” More than 80 per cent of Americans favour eliminating nuclear weapons altogether — a legal obligation of the states with nuclear weapons, officially rejected by the Bush administration. And surely Iranians agree with Americans that Washington should end its military threats and turn towards normal relations. At a forum in Washington when the PIPA polls were released in January 2007, Joseph Cirincione, senior vice-president for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (and Obama adviser), said the polls showed “the common sense of both the American people and the Iranian people, (who) seem to be able to rise above the rhetoric of their own leaders to find common sense solutions to some of the most crucial questions” facing the two nations, favouring pragmatic diplomatic solutions to their differences.
Though we do not have internal records, there is good reason to believe that the Pentagon is opposed to an attack on Iran. The March 11 resignation of Admiral William Fallon as head of the Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, was widely interpreted to trace to his opposition to an attack, probably shared with the military command generally. The December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had not pursued a nuclear weapons program since 2003, when it sought and failed to reach a comprehensive settlement with the United States, perhaps reflects opposition of the intelligence community to military action. There are many uncertainties. But it is hard to see concrete signs that a Democratic presidency would improve the situation very much, let alone bring policy into line with American or world opinion.
ISRAEL-PALESTINE
ON ISRAEL-Palestine too, the candidates have provided no reason to expect any constructive change. On his web site, Obama, the candidate of “change” and “hope,” states that he “strongly supports the US-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.” Transparently, it is the Palestinians who face by far the most severe security problem, in fact a problem of survival. But Palestinians are not a “strong ally.” At most, they might be a very weak one. Hence their plight merits little concern, in accord with the operative principle that human rights are largely determined by contributions to power, profit and ideological needs. Obama’s web site presents him as a superhawk on Israel. “He believes that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged.” He is not on record as demanding that the right of countries to exist as Muslim (Christian, White) states “should never be challenged.”
Obama calls for increasing foreign aid “to ensure that (the) funding priorities (for military and economic assistance to Israel) are met.” He also insists forcefully that the United States must not “recognise Hamas unless it renounced its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel.” No state can recognise Hamas, a political party, so what he must be referring to is the government formed by Hamas after a free election that came out “the wrong way” and is therefore illegitimate, in accord with prevailing elite concepts of “democracy.” And it is considered irrelevant that Hamas has repeatedly called for a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus, which the United States and Israel reject.
Obama does not ignore Palestinians: “Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is good for both Israelis and Palestinians.” He also adds a reference to two states living side by side that is vague enough to be unproblematic to U.S. and Israeli hawks. For Palestinians, there are now two options. One is that the United States and Israel will abandon their unilateral rejectionism of the past 30 years and accept the international consensus on a two-state settlement, in accord with international law and, incidentally, in accord with the wishes of a large majority of Americans. That is not impossible, though the two rejectionist states are working hard to render it so. A second possibility is the one that the US-Israel are actually implementing. Palestinians will be consigned to their Gaza prison and to West Bank cantons, virtually separated from one another by Israeli settlements and huge infrastructure projects, the whole imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan Valley.
Nevertheless, circumstances may change, and perhaps the candidates along with them, to the benefit of the United States and the region. Public opinion may not remain marginalised and easily ignored. The concentrations of domestic economic power that largely shape policy may come to recognise that their interests are better served by joining the general public, and the rest of the world, than by accepting Washington’s hard line.

—Khaleej Times

Staying the course
Kong Hanbing

AS A direct result of its fast development over the past decades, China is becoming a focus of worldwide media attention. However, this should not be deemed unfavorable. If China can remain sober-minded enough to analyze and judge its current world status, its role in international affairs would be expanded. Whether others feel annoyed or assured by China’s overall modernization drive is their own choice. However, what China can do is to study the reasons behind the divided reactions. Why are some so anxious that they are keen to spread rumors of “China threat” to impede its development? At the same time, the country must look squarely at its own problems, which may be seen by others as the major cause of uneasiness.
China’s development is characterized by imbalance, between different regions, urban and rural areas, both politically and economically. Chinese writer and critic, Lu Xun (1881-1936), known as one of the greatest figures of 20th century Chinese literature, once noted this imbalance, saying that the development of Chinese society was a combination of several centuries, and that comment is still pertinent nowadays. This is because the imbalance is still obvious between a massive gross domestic product (GDP) volume and comparatively low GDP per capita, between the luxury of metropolis life and desperate poverty in remote countryside, and between leaders of integrity and corruption. From building a harmonious society at home to advocating the establishment of a harmonious world, the Chinese people are more integrated with the rest of the world through their philosophy of tradition against the backdrop of globalization. Yet despite this increasing openness, a fraction of people have ignored something very vital, that is business honesty and credibility. Some profit-oriented enterprises sell fabricated or substandard products. Chinese society also is long plagued by bureaucracy. Without a sense of social responsibility and corporate accountability from the rich, development for public welfare lags behind.
Compared with China’s macro economy that has maintained a health momentum for consecutive years, these issues are perhaps subordinate and of less import. It is noticeable that, side effects of minor negatives could cause a chain reaction, and thus evolve into dominant obstacles for future development. China’s emergence as a world power is of wide concern to the international community, while other countries are not due to their limited global influence. And the uneasiness felt is largely bred from various problems that emerged from Chinese society in the process of this rapid progress. But for China, the concerns coming from without may be a reminder to face and rectify the problems coming from within.
The Chinese people are working on how to essentially relieve or eliminate the uneasiness felt internationally more effectively, because they know that mounting outside worries is not beneficial to both sides. The focus now will be on developing the national economy and self-introspection China is a big nation with growing influence, but it is still vulnerable due to the imbalanced development in many fields. Therefore, it will be dedicated to persistent opening up and reform that has proved historically to have been the right thing to do, through which suspicions in the community can eventually be eased and worries resolved. Over the past 30 years, China has spent unremitting efforts to reduce suspicions from outside its shores. Occasionally there have been negative events in China that have caused great concern in the international community, however, the Chinese people have continued to reassure the world of its peaceful intentions through stable governance.
As we know, the puzzle of an unevenly developed domestic economy cannot be eliminated over a short period of time. However, China is handling key problems that may worsen the current situation, such as the crackdown on corruption and closing the wealth gap. To make changes on how foreign viewers see China, what matters is how China deals with the emerging social problems by making the right decisions, and how effectively these decisions can be implemented. Today’s China witnesses smaller differences from developed countries in terms of total GDP volume, and the level of urbanization and modernization. But as far as specific matters are concerned, including the enforcement of traffic rules and preservation of tradition and social stability, which are closely tied to the entire image of a nation, China has a long way to go. It seems that China still has to take on quite a number of challenges, not only economically and politically, but also culturally.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)






Afghan war: The longest in US history
Richard Holbrooke

THIS former Taleban stronghold, where Osama Bin Laden spent time planning the Sept. 11 attacks, has become an American success story. The Taleban is being pushed out, and a government presence is extending into previously hostile territory. Khost shows that, with the right combination of resources and leadership, it can be done. But Khost also underscores a larger, troubling truth: The conflict in Afghanistan will be far more costly and much, much longer than Americans realize. This war, already in its seventh year, will eventually become the longest in American history, surpassing even Vietnam.
Success in Khost required some of America’s best troops. Today elements of the legendary 101st Airborne Division — the Screaming Eagles of the Battle of the Bulge — are replacing troops from another storied unit, the 82nd Airborne, who, over 15 tough months, took Khost back. That success resulted from tactics developed locally by a stellar team: A courageous and honest provincial governor, Arsala Jamal, who has survived four assassination attempts; a creative American troop commander, Lt. Col. Scott Custer (yes, he is a direct descendant), who devised a more aggressive system of joint patrols with local Afghan Army units; and a remarkable young Foreign Service officer, Kael Weston, who has established a direct dialogue with tribal leaders, university students, mullahs, madrasa students and even Taleban defectors.
As I saw in hours of meetings with these groups, Weston’s intense hands-on process identifies problems and misunderstandings that might otherwise spiral out of control. One of these — serious enough to attract international media coverage and public expressions of concern from Afghan President Hamid Karzai — was the death of several women and children in two recent nighttime US Special Forces actions. The tribal elders were blunt in our meeting; a white-bearded chief said, “Not even my brother can enter my house at night, but you Americans did not even knock.” Gov. Jamal, his own closeness to the Americans making him even more vulnerable, was distraught. “This undermines everything we are trying to do here,” he said.
Jamal and the elders understood that locally based American troops were not involved in the operations and that the targets were supposed to be an important Taleban cadre. Despite the furor, they stressed that they want the Americans to stay as long as necessary, knowing that will be a very long time; without NATO’s continued presence, their government would fail. They have little confidence in the Afghan Army, even though it seems to be improving, because there is as yet no indication that it can function in difficult conditions without active NATO support. Moreover, the elders, like everyone else, despise the national police — Afghanistan’s most corrupt institution. The massive, officially sanctioned corruption and the drug trade are the most serious problems the country faces, and they offer the Taleban its only exploitable opportunity to gain support. One case came up repeatedly, that of the notorious warlord Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum. After he attacked, brutalized (allegedly with a beer bottle) and almost killed a rival warlord recently, Dostum was not arrested, despite pleas from Afghanistan’s chief law enforcement officials. Kabul was aflame with theories regarding Karzai’s decision not to move against Dostum; even the university students and the tribal elders in Khost raised it with me. The effect on Karzai’s standing and reputation has been enormous. Excuses were made, but none justified his open disregard for justice.

—Arab News