The start of each new year is always an excuse for
predicting the way things might turn out. In many
cultures the figure 13 is associated with misfortune.
However, 2013 is not necessarily doomed to confirm
that prejudice.
Since a journalist is not a fortune-teller, and
certainly not an historian either, he should steer
away from both predictions and narratives of the past.
My purpose in this column, therefore, is not to
predict the future through any imagined crystal ball.
Nevertheless, looking at what is actually happening
here and now it may be possible to discover certain
trends that might help shape the new year's events.
The first trend worth noting is the gradual breakdown
in world order. Though incomplete, that order had
taken shape in the wake of the Cold War with a series
of regional balances of power, often implicitly
guaranteed by the weight of the American "superpower".
We could see the system working in Latin America,
parts of Africa, the Middle East, the Gulf region and
the Pacific.
With the US embarking on a strategic retreat under
President Barack Obama that system is likely to come
under growing pressure, in some cases even breaking
down. Obama regards American leadership as a form of
arrogance to which he is opposed. His policy of
"leading from behind" is the first step towards
"leaving by the back door." Over the next four years,
dramatic cuts in the US defense budget could make it
hard for any future president to project power
effectively.
The American retreat is likely to create vacuums that
opportunistic powers will try to fill. In Latin
America, three emerging power blocs are setting to
compete over influence in the region. The moderate
left bloc, led by Brazil, is opting for a cautious
distancing of the sub-continent from the giant in the
north. A more radical left bloc, led by Venezuela and
backed by Russia and Iran, is seeking an effective
exclusion of the United States. As Hugo Chavez has
said had the US not been located in the American
continent it would not have had any place in the new
version of the Organisation of American States. A
third bloc, including Mexico and Colombia, is still
banking on a future return of the US as a major player
on the international scene.
In the Middle East, most players are already writing
the US out. Israel is pushing ahead with its
settlement programme in the West Bank, disregarding
Washington's advice not to do so.
The Palestinian Authority has already ignored American
injunctions and secured observer-state status in the
United Nations. Hamas is putting final touches to its
silent coup against Fatah, with the clear aim of
propelling Khalid Mishal into the chair occupied by
Mahmoud Abbas.
The two-state idea, launched by President George W
Bush in 2003, may witness its burial under Obama in
2013.
Having noted Washington's confusion during the Arab
Spring, the countries concerned are shaping their
different trajectories with little regard for American
views. Nowhere is the American confusion more
dramatically manifested as in Syria. Over six months
ago, President Obama made a solemn call for toppling
Bashar al-Assad. He is still trying to figure out what
he might do about that.
In the Gulf region, Obama is preparing the ground for
surrendering to the mullahs of Tehran. Ironically,
this could come at a time that the Khomeinist regime,
at its most vulnerable phase, desperately needs a
foreign policy success to save itself. A deal between
Obama and the mullahs would show that a US unwilling
to defend its own interest could not be expected to
risk defending the interests of erstwhile allies. The
Gulf countries would have to re-think defense
doctrines that, since the 1940s, have been based on
the assumption of American support. A Khomeinist
regime armed with nuclear weapons could trigger an
atomic arms race in the region.
The vacuum being created by Obama is also felt in the
Far East where China and Japan are beating the drums
of war. Under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan might
well launch a major military build-up that could
include a constitutional amendment to allow the
development of nuclear weapons as well. Abe could use
such a build up to kick-start an economic upturn,
ending more than two decades of flat-lining in Japan.
China for its part is speeding up the building of a
blue-water navy to bully neighbours such as Vietnam,
the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan with which it is in
irredentist dispute over resource-rich islands and
atolls.
Meanwhile, Russia is busy exploiting the Obama retreat
to project power in Central Asia, the Caucasus and
Eastern Europe while consolidating its alliance with
the mullahs in Tehran.
For its part, Iran will speed up its attempts to
control the political agenda in Iraq while trying to
prevent the fall of the al-Assad regime in Syria and
the destruction of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In Afghanistan, Iran is allying itself with Russia,
India, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to oppose Pakistan's
plans to bring the Taliban back as a major player in
Kabul.
American absence will also be felt in Europe where,
threatened by economic meltdown, the European Union is
incapable of halting the recessionary trend of the
global economy.
In Africa, large chunks of the Sahel appear to be
heading for a Somalia-like status while war is brewing
among countries surrounding the Great Lakes. Only lack
of resources ensures the African continent against the
possibility of major wars in 2013.
An American global retreat is not necessarily good
news for those interested in international peace and
stability.
A couple of weeks ago, a German friend, with a long
history of European-style anti-Americanism, something
very fashionable in leftist circles throughout the
Cold War, had this to say: Having shouted "Yankee! Go
Home" all my life, now I feel I have to shout: "
Yankee! Come Back!"
Well, he may have a point.
Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and
educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was Executive
Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79).
In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday
Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of the
Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI).
Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the
International Herald Tribune. He has written for the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the New York
Times, the London Times, the French magazine Politique
Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between
1989 and 2005, he was editorial writer for the German
daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11 books, some of
which have been translated into 20 languages. He has
been a columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987.
Taheri's latest book "The Persian Night" is published
by Encounter Books in London and New York.From Consul To Terrorist: The Only Faction Active oOn The Scene Because Everybody Else Has Left The Arena :: EsinIslam The Muslim World Portal For Islamic News And Opinions
From Consul To Terrorist: The Only Faction Active oOn The Scene Because Everybody Else Has Left The Arena
14 January 2013
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
As soon as I heard the name Iyad Ag Ghaly in relation
to the events in Mali I began to wonder if this could
be the same man from the same country? Could it really
be him? Iyad Ag Ghaly heads up the military operations
of armed terrorist groups in northern Mali; whilst
there was a man with the same name who served as
Mali's consul in Jeddah. I called some friends and
confirmed that Iyad Ag Ghaly is indeed the same man
that I met at Jeddah's Hilton hotel less than three
years ago.
We are facing a truly strange world where those who
are legitimate today could be fugitives tomorrow.
At the time, I knew-from those who had dealt with
Ghaly as a Tuareg tribal chief and diplomatic
consul-that he was the best source to find
intermediaries to negotiate the release of hostages
taken in the Azawad region. Now, he is said to be
commander of the Ansar Dine movement fighting the
Malian army, as well as international French and
African forces.
When I read a profile about him in yesterday's Asharq
al-Awsat newspaper, I was even more confused, for this
stated that he was close to Libyan dictator Muammar
Qadhafi who reportedly sent him to fight in Lebanon.
Yet, Ghaly only recently displayed extremist
tendencies.
This kind of confusion and uncertainty has become
quite common as shown by the emergence of extremists
like Tarek al-Zomor and Mohamed al-Zawahiri on Egypt's
political scene. So how did a man like Iyad Ag Ghaly
turn from being a moderate Sunni Muslim to an
extremist armed fighter? Is it rational to suppose
that a man in his fifties, like Ghaly, should suddenly
become radicalized? This is truly hard to believe. I
sense that this may be some kind of political maneuver
where politicians have pretended to adopt extremist
ideologies in order to recruit impulsive youths. These
politicians provide these youth with funding under the
pretext of ?religious duty?, convincing them to
sacrifice their lives for a false cause in return for
a place in heaven! Since there is a general
international lack of will to fight anywhere in the
world, the French-alongside a few African states-will
fight this war on their own before realizing that
desert wars never end and withdraw. What makes matters
more complicated is that conflicts that involve
religious slogans and tribal powers can last for
decades without any side being defeated.
Our problem with those who are keen on fighting these
extremists, like the French today and the Americans
yesterday in Afghanistan and perhaps tomorrow in
Syria, is their inability to understand the
fundamental nature of the problem. These extremist
groups represent the smallest part of the equation;
rather the greatest and most important challenge is to
confront extremist ideologies. Had the West, as well
as the Arab countries involved and other relevant
parties invested their money and effort in fighting
extremist ideologies, this crisis might have come to
an end. Instead they spent billions of dollars on tens
of thousands of soldiers, advanced weaponry, and
combat drones managing to eliminate a number of Al
Qaeda's leaders; however Al Qaeda's ideology remains
the same and in fact continues to spread like a
disease. Most people find it easier to jump to easy
conclusions by laying the blame on one group or
another like Sunnis, Shi'ites, clerics, or even
religion as a whole; however all these groups were
present prior to this and were never a source of
trouble.
We are living in a different world in which political
powers are establishing and nourishing extremist
ideologies and generations. These politicians have the
project, the expertise, and the will to propagate such
extremist ideology and they are practically immune to
punishment because the wrong parties are always held
accountable. Who could have imagined that Mali would
become an international battlefield after Afghanistan?
The West is repeating the same mistake in Syria by
allowing it to fall prey to extremists who are
emotionally manipulate the general public under the
pretext that they are their only source of salvation
from the tyranny of the Assad regime. In reality, they
are the only faction active on the scene because
everybody else has left the arena.
Al
Rashed is the general manager of Al -Arabiya
television. He is also the former editor-in-chief of
Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly
magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in
the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is
a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He
has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs.
He is currently based in Dubai.
Add Comments