The Ramifications of the U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia & the Middle East

Mr. Faridi: Short-term and long-term are relative terms. People have been calling US foreign policy short-term visions for the last 50-60 years and yet US power (political, miltary and economic) on the world stage kept imporiving in front of our eyes. The collapse of US has been constantly projected by anti-US policy thinkers and stupids.

Long-term is really a useless term except for those eying on the rewards after very, very, very long time - once the universe is collapsed or our sun has run out of energy. Most of the decisions in life are short terms because life is short. So is the dominant position on the owrld stage.

All the costs of WTC related and Iraq war you mentioned are paid to American companies. Guess where the money ends up? Almost all of it is back in the USA. Not only this but the trade surpluses and forex reserves of most country end up in US treasury bills. It is almighty dollar that performs most of the miracles and with Iraqi oil under US control, all oil transactions around the world would remain in dollars.

Instead of making the case for US war on Iraq based on control of oil, support for Israel, foothold in the Persian gulf etc, a case for dollar is much more rationally understandable. According to this theory, Saddam was pushing for accepting only euros for their oil. He was also interested in keeping all forex in euros instead of dollars. Now go back to the drawing board and calculate ramifications of such a move. Iraq was in fact pioneering a (legal) potential threat to US economy. This is why, France and Germany opposed the war so strongly.

sac

Thanks, but I am very skeptical about the voracity of this article. Until about 3 months ago, the whole safron squad couldn`t find any such thing - yaar com`n not even the link freaks like sadna and arjun_m. And until then this was one of the oft repeated allegation by the American anti-war left. I am not sure that al-qaeda really exists.

faridi

instead of insulting the visitors to your thread, you should try to answer their querris. What you couldn`t do in the article can be done in the interacts.

#20 bbabu

The writer does not know what he is talking about. How can any country agree to allow its major source of energy thru an openly hostile country like Pakistan. Musharrafs assurances for the safety of the pipeline is a classic case of fox guarding the chicken. He is the master mind behind the Kargil fiasco. He is the one allowing the jihadi accross the LOC inspite of condsiderable pressure from the US. How can he turn around and say the the safety of the pipe line is guaranteed. What happens when another war breaks up for any reason. Would he still allow the gas to flow?

For the sake of argument let us say he is sincere. What about the Mullahs ruling the frontier states. Who is going to guarantee that they will not use the pipeline as a weapon.

I really don`t understand how the Pakistanis expected any other response from India than the one they got.

There are only two ways the pipline could become a reality. Ist the cost of the pipe line is borne by Pakistan, for which they get interest, but if for any reason the gas flow is disrupted, they loose not only the royalties but also the money they have invested. This is a no no from the start, because Pakistani does not have that kind of money.

The second possibility has some chance of succuess. That is that Pakistan and India have a peace pact and integration of economies to some extent. After some time when both countries have vested interest in the smooth flow of goods thru each other, a pipe line deal can be negotiated.

Interesting article ............

Afghanistan`s newest victimization
By Stephen Blank

Everyone who writes about Afghanistan or who makes policy regarding it agrees that everything must be done to prevent that country from failing and again becoming a haven for terrorism. In addition, many of these pundits and politicians rhetorically invoke the need to rebuild Afghanistan`s economy, trade with neighbors and the outside world, and infrastructural links connecting it with foreign countries.

Yet in fact Afghanistan has once again become the victim and object of bigger and stronger states` machinations. In pursuing their own self-interest, conceived of in states` traditional short-term way of acting, these governments, in this case specifically India and Russia, have again injured Kabul`s economic prospects and made it the object of great power games.

One of the more promising projects for the recovery of Afghanistan`s economy and for regional cooperation was the long-standing idea of the so-called TAP pipeline. This gas pipeline would bring Turkmenistan`s gas through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the latter`s Indian Ocean port at Gwadar. From Gwadar, this gas would then go onto the world markets, although the expected main buyer would have been India, whose demand for natural gas is expected to grow sharply in the next few years. This planned pipeline was the subject of preliminary discussions even under the Taliban, and since the liberation of Afghanistan it has been pushed by the Asian Development Bank, which has financed a feasibility study. Turkmenistan`s government even appealed to the United Nations, hoping to enlist its development program`s support and thus investment.

Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India would all have benefited greatly. The former would have obtained genuine and unhampered access for its natural gas, its main export, at real market prices. This would give it considerable ability to resist Russian pressure to subordinate its gas exports and thus overall economy to Russian pressure. Pakistan and Afghanistan would have obtained major transit fees and both countries` infrastructure and potential for future foreign trade deals would have benefited commensurately.

Meanwhile, India would have obtained its natural gas as Pakistan`s President General Pervez Musharraf personally guaranteed that this pipeline would not become a casualty of Indo-Pakistani tensions and that the supply of gas would therefore be constant. Certainly, if the most recent Indo-Pakistani negotiations bear fruit this project could eventually serve as a vehicle for enhanced cooperation between Delhi and Islamabad.

However, in the meantime, both Indian and Russian policies destroyed any possibility of this pipeline`s appearance in the foreseeable future. India, not surprisingly, refused even to think about having its gas supply depend on Pakistan`s infrastructure. Instead it negotiated a comprehensive alliance with Iran encompassing both military and economic clauses. The latter clauses provided for gas pipelines to bypass Pakistan and go through Iran which would then build a pipeline under the Indian ocean outside of Pakistan`s 12 mile limit. This aspect of Indo-Irani trade is probably connected as well to the Russian-conceived idea of a north-south trade corridor bringing together Russia, Central Asia, Iran and India and which is one of the showpiece projects of Russia`s international economic policy.

Another critical policy goal for Moscow is its unremitting efforts to set up a Eurasian gas cartel under its leadership. For this to happen it is essential that Turkmenistan`s gas be firmly under Russian control. Therefore, it is not surprising that Russia did everything it could to frustrate the TAP line. In late 2002 its special services, which have very close connections with state energy outfit Gazprom, are said to have helped to facilitate an abortive coup against President Sapirmurad Niyazov of Turkmenistan, a ruler whose dictatorship approaches the apogee of Stalinism or of what Max Weber called Sultanism.

Although the coup failed it is obvious that Moscow`s efforts to pressure Turkmenistan registered and did not stop after this coup failed. Undoubtedly Niyazov got the message that Moscow could and would try to unseat him if he resisted it further. Moreover, India`s refusal to consider the pipeline and its deal with Iran reduced the economic viability of the project to zero. Bereft of potential buyers and under pressure, Niyazov again caved in to Moscow and sold his gas at concessionary terms.

By doing so, he once again showed that his concern for staying in power and for obtaining short-term rents outweighed other considerations. But India and Russia`s policies manifested the same trend as well. This is because these policies struck a severe blow at attempts to provide for Afghanistan`s economic revival. Although there is no doubt that this deal greatly benefited Gazprom and Russian economic interests in suppressing Central Asia`s economic independence and in creating a gas cartel, it comes at the risk of regenerating the conditions within Afghanistan that gave rise to a security threat with which neither Russia nor Central Asia could contend.

The same may be said for India. Even though its efforts to wage economic warfare against Pakistan and to carry it into Central Asia, which Pakistan had previously viewed as its strategic hinterland, make sense in the context of ongoing enmity with Islamabad, the threat of terrorism originating in a failed Afghan state is a very serious one for India`s rulers. Nevertheless they took the risk.

There is no doubt that every commentator who has observed the surrounding area has tied stability in Afghanistan to stability in Central and South Asia. Yet that consideration did not deter either Moscow or New Delhi. Indeed, it is quite possible, given their excellent bilateral relations, that they collaborated on this course of action to serve their individual and converging interests in stopping the TAP line.

Perhaps neither the Russian or Indian governments considered the possibly unintended consequences of their actions on behalf of their immediate national interests. Certainly the supposedly rational pursuit of self-interest considered here could bring about a much grater systemic and collective irrationality by delaying the restoration of Afghan security and thus placing all the surrounding areas at risk.

If that does indeed happen, then few of the current schemes for major oil or gas pipelines in the vicinity of Central Asia will materialize because of the greatly enhanced risk to their security that will be presented by the relapse of Afghanistan into violence. This episode shows the deeply rooted need for a genuine multilateralism with regard to the immense challenges confronting Central and South Asia. But it also shows that despite whatever we may say about that need, few, if any regimes, are interested in moving from rhetoric to reality.

Stephen Blank is an analyst of international security affairs residing in Harrisburg, PA.

ahmadzai #2

I see your point on wanting a stable Afghanistan to pump oil out of Central Asian Republics. Why choose the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist ideology ?? I do not see any US interest in fundamentalist Islamic regimes. It looks like Pakistanis are pushers of this stupid Taliban ideology.

How can get Taliban get out of control if their military advisors, weapons, funds and fuel come from Pakistani masters ?

aquaris # 4

Keep in mind the best and brightest in America go into Wall Street, corporate world, medicine and legal profession. Very few enter state department, CIA and military. As one of my Caucasian friends puts it `` it is the political science reject`` that lands in the CIA. It is impossible to predict the future. No one could have predicted the impact of internet, microprocessor revolution, immigration etc.


faridi # 5

Odds are Zia`s assassination is an inside job. Pakistani government never released the findings. One of my Pakistani friends told me that one Pakistani general refused to go in the C-130 and took a car ride instead.
It is not hard to assassinate Gen Zia or any head of state. But the C-130 took out 20 of Zia`s top cronies with him. If it was sabotage it was well planned.


pmishra # 6

I have been reading the chowk on and off for the past 2 years. Or may be even longer. I should confess that I never understood anti-Americanism of Pakistanis especially given the history of falling at Uncle Sam`s feet.

For all the Pakistanis, check out this site (Indians are welcome too)

http://www.arpatech.com/

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re urstruly #11 the reigning dunce on Chowk:

`` I would challenge author or anyone reading these lines to produce one single link (out of about 7 bollion total on the internet) that leads to an article written prior to 9/11/01 and mentions the word Al-Qaida. Any book, any paper or any verifiable account ......anything?``

It doesn`t get any better than this.......

http://newsite.janes.com/press/pc010813_1.shtml

I think August comes before September and Jane`s is as reputable a publication as any........

later
-sac

P.S:Never mind. Jane`s is a zionist controlled publication and the date at the top right hand corner was changed after the fact by the CIA......

#11 by Urstruly on May 12, 2003 1:09pm PT

Al-Qaeda has evolutionized as an organization. Don`t take thing literally in haste. This article finds its target audience in the people with Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) rather than Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS). Hence I skipped to explain the elements that were the basic building blocks, and causes for the formation, of Al-Qaeda.


In addition ..........
#9 by arjun_m on May 12, 2003 1:09pm PT

Consider Kazahakstan included in those Central Asian states. You are certainly right. I must acknowledge your insightful analysis.

Please bear in mind, this work is few months old. Had I known what I know today, I would have loved to ammend certain things. Plus, there was a `float time` between submission and publication!

Happy reading and keep the critique coming. Thank you.

#12 by sameerJB on May 12, 2003 1:09pm PT

Your analysis is certainly right but only good in short-term. USA is certainly not required to play a maternal role. At the same time, it should not be a `disciplining dad` or the world`s policeman.

Long-term foresight of visionaries separate them from leaders. And that is what makes them statesmen. If I remember correctly, President Wilson once emphasised in one of his speeches (regarding the US foreign policy) to not meddle in other nations` affairs.

Who considers American foreign policy as successful. If it was so successful then the Feds would not be cutting the interest rates and unemployment would not be so high in the US. And US citizens would not be afraid of traveling and identifying them as Americans rather than Canadians. Most importantly, US administration would not be asking for $40 billion (quasi WTC relief efforts) and then $74 billion (Iraq campaign) from the congress to protect the US interests both home and abroad.

Furthermore, as if that wasn`t enough, they have been facing international alienation and diplomatic defeats. The current administration is making a fool of itself. And if you are still not convinved that US foreign policy is a failure then perhaps you should rephrase the saying that it is the Israeli Foreign policy and the Israeli administration that comes out as the shining Victor from the crisis.

For, doesn`t Washington (DC) promptly echoes what Mr. Sharon and his Knesset has just finished saying!! I am sorry to say this, but GW can not operate without a teleprompter. Now the question is, who is controlling that teleprompter?

I know Jean Chretein isn`t! And Sahaf does not know how to use one :-)

This thesis is factually incorrect on several accounts - one account being that the Al_qaida was formed in zia era. I would challenge author or anyone reading these lines to produce one single link (out of about 7 bollion total on the internet) that leads to an article written prior to 9/11/01 and mentions the word Al-Qaida. Any book, any paper or any verifiable account ......anything?

I think we should stop taking this bulshit as it is shoved down our throats 24/7 by western propaganda machinery.

United States is a nation, not United Nation; United States is a superwower, not mother of the world. One should not expect US to behave like a mother. The US foreign policy is very successful for Americans and Americans` interests; failure according to Taliban, islamists and fundamentalists do not count for Americans. American democracy is a popularity contest at home and not in international arena.

It is not the failure of US foreign policy, if more than a million Afghans died to expel Russians or Iran-Iraq war buthchered another million or more. They were the failures of Afghans, Iranians and Iraqis or Muslims. Not many Poles, Germans, Bulgarians, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, died for the similar outcome of expeling Russians. In former Yugoslavia, Bosnian Muslims paid the highest price in blood, Protestant Slovenians least and Catholic Croats in the middle. This is directly proportional to backwardness and infatuation with backwardness.

The purpose of US foreign policy as extension of domestic policy is to keep US on the top and they have been pretty successful in it for the last 50+ years. The largest US corporations - GE, GM, Microsoft, Wal-Mart to name few - employing millions of Americans have been helped by US foreign policy.

What failure? Yes, it is a failure according to failed, failing and falling on their own. Of course, Osama, Mullah Omar, Saddam, Mufit Shamzai and Mufti Saeed of this world would call it failed to keep their supporters happy, satisfied and energized.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts