Today’s Zaman
Stability in the Middle East: American hypocrisy, Turkish patience
by CHRISTOPHER VASILLOPULOS, PH.D.*
Displaying a breathtaking combination of arrogance and ignorance, the
US has warned Turkey not to take unilateral action against Kurdish
terrorists in northern Iraq.
The US claims to be concerned that Turkish military incursions would
destabilize the region. I grant that the Bush administration has
turned destabilization into an art form and that it has destabilized
the lives of millions of people in the Middle East. The policies of
the US have resulted in the division and subdivision of one state
after another in the region. This has reached the logical conclusion
of retribalizing sections of Iraq in an effort to defeat al-Qaeda in
Iraq.
Let us define our terms. For American policy makers, regional
stability means that all Middle Eastern states must support US
policies, especially its alliance with Israel. Stability means that
Middle Eastern states must follow the US when it ignores two of the
most destabilizing factors in the region: Israel’s oppression of
Palestine and Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons. Instability has
many meanings in the vocabulary of US foreign policy: any act which
either the US or Israel disapproves of; any effort of the Arab world
to unify in the pursuit of long-term regional economic, social and
political development; any act which links Palestine to the broader
problems of the region; any effort by Iran to influence its neighbors,
including the healing of its wounds with Iraq; any effort by Turkey to
have good relations with its neighbors, especially its former Ottoman
peoples; any action which does not subordinate Turkish interests and
sensibilities to American objectives in the region; the Turkish
rejection of the label of "genocide," notwithstanding Turkish
admissions of needless deaths of Armenians perpetrated by the Ottoman
Empire during World War I; any Turkish military action which secures
its borders and protects its people against the predations of Kurdish
terrorists supported by the de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
As the world’s only superpower, the US apparently believes it can
define terms, like stability and instability, as it pleases. In the
process the US is demonstrating that the abuse of language and the
abuse of power are blood brothers — or, as in George Orwell’s
classic, "1984," big brothers. And it is necessary, after all, to love
big brother.
Let us consider what stability in the Middle East really means, what
the region requires if it is to have the opportunity to deal with its
many problems. First of all, let me mention a factor which virtually
all Western commentators ignore or misperceive: Stability means
encouraging and reinforcing the tradition of Islamic liberalism. Islam
>From its beginnings has been an anti-tribal and progressive force. As
the region’s leading secular, democratic Muslim state and as the
non-Arab nation with the deepest experience in the Arab world, Turkey
must play a positive and independent role in the region. This cannot
be done if Turkey is seen as a subordinate of the US.
Stability in the region will require several developments. First of
all, it will necessitate an end to the Israeli oppression of Palestine
as well as an end to Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons in the
region, either by unilateral disarmament or by nuclear guarantees to
other powers. The US issued such guarantees in Europe and in Asia, to
protect Germany and Japan. Does anyone believe that the US would
threaten to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack? Next,
stability will require the use of oil revenue to repair and unify Iraq
and to develop the region. It will also call for the generous use of
American aid — far less than the 12 billion a month now expended on
combat — to secure the compliance of those factions essential to the
reunification of Iraq. Stability means the respect of all Middle
Eastern electorates, not only those who meet the approval of the US.
Finally, stability entails a respect for the high civilizations and
vibrant contemporary cultures which have found their home in the
Middle East. Even if one excludes the Greeks, whose Middle Eastern
connections were profound, what other region can boast of Persia,
Egypt, Mesopotamia or Assyria?
In the current climate this list may seem daunting, unrealistic or
utopian. Given the damage which has been done and which is continuing,
perhaps it is. It should be remembered, however, that before World War
II, the US generally supported the policies for stability outlined
here. What is more, the region concurred with the efforts of the US.
Of course, the US did not have pure motives. Nevertheless, it believed
a stable and modernizing Middle East was in line with US interests. I
am not urging purity of motive, only the end of hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, while there seems to be no end to American hypocrisy,
the end of Turkish patience may be at hand.
*Christopher Vasillopulos is a professor of International Relations at
Eastern Connecticut State University.
23.10.2007
Op-Ed
Source: =detay&link=125237
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
