The Empire Trapped: The US’s Unpromising Role in the New Middle East
by Ramzy Baroud
Editors
representing many Asian newspapers stood in a perfect line. They were nervous
and giddy at the prospect of meeting Li Changchun, China’s powerful member of
the Communist Party’s Politburo Standing Committee. Personally, the Great Hall
of the People and the fortitude of Chinese society mesmerized me. Despite its
challenges and repeated accusations of corruption and power struggles, China
appeared composed while an unwavering forward movement was propelling it. As
for the country’s foreign policy, it is governed by a cautious slowly churning
agenda, which is unambiguously clear in its long-term objectives.
On that day, nearly
two years ago, we knew that Li was awaiting our arrival, for a solitary old
jacket, which bore his name with a sticker fastened on the hanger, hung in a
closet in the hallway leading to the room where the meeting took place. Li
Changchun spoke frustratingly slow as if he were a Hollywood stereotype of a
Chinese emperor. Self-assertive and unperturbed by our presence and the many
probing questions, Li’s perception of history was much more far-reaching than
one expected from the chief of propaganda. Li clearly saw his country’s foreign
policy in light of US global military adventures, geopolitical advances and
setbacks. No other country seemed to matter. It was a competition and China was
determined to win.
A few months later,
upheaval struck the Middle East. Its manifestations – revolutions, civil wars,
regional mayhem and conflicts of all sorts – reverberated beyond the Middle
East. Shrinking and rising empires alike took notice. Fault lines were quickly
determined and exploited and players changed positions or jockeyed for advanced
ones, as a new Great Game in the resource and strategic rich region was about
to begin. The so-called ‘Arab Spring’ was rapidly becoming a game-changer in a
region that seemed resistant to transformations of any kind. China was wary of
its existing investment in the region. So they moved with predictable caution:
Wobbled at times, as in Libya, appearing firmer in Syria, and almost entirely
aloof in Bahrain.
For China however,
the space for future political movement is boundless. Unlike the United States,
a ‘new’ or stagnant Middle East will not change the fact that China is barely
associated with an atrocious history of military onslaughts or economic
exploitation, with which western powers are undeniably associated. The speed of
the political transition underway in the Middle East may require Li Changchun
to speak a bit faster, a tad louder and with greater clarity, but it will
hardly demand a complete shift in China’s policies. It is the interests and
rank of the US, as the dominant foreign power in the region, that will
consequently suffer irreparable damage.
When discussed
through the prism of sheer political analysis, history can be narrow, selective
and problematically short. But based on a methodical historical investigation,
reality is much less confusing, and the future is far less unpredictable. The
seemingly unbridled conflict in the Middle East is no exception.
In his review of
Fredrik Logevall’s recently published book: “Embers of War: The Fall of an
Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam,” Gordon Goldstein wrote, “Over the
centuries, strategic overextension by great powers acting on the periphery of
their national interests has hobbled ancient empires and modern states”
(Washington Post, September 28). Goldstein was referring to US conduct in
Southeast Asia, where the US adopted as its own, the disastrous legacy of
French colonialism in Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). Both powers were
squarely and humiliatingly defeated.
Empires don’t
crumble overnight, however. A fall of an empire can be as agonizingly long as
its rise. Signs of that collapse are oftentimes subtle and might not be
followed by a big boom of any sort, but can be unambiguous and definite.
Since the Second
World War, US foreign policy has been largely predicated on military
adventures, by severely punishing enemies and controlling ‘friends’. Diplomacy
was often the icing on the cake of war, wars that seemed to follow similar
patterns such as targeting powerless, economically browbeaten and isolated
countries. It was a successful brand while it lasted. It allowed the generals
to speak of the invincibility of their military might, the politicians to boast
of their global responsibilities and the media to tirelessly promote American
values. Few seemed to care much for the millions of innocent people who bore
the brunt of that supposed quest for democratization of the Third World.
Few US foreign
policy disasters can be compared to that of the Middle East. Similar to its
Southeast Asia inheritance from the French, the US ‘inherited’ the Middle East
from fading British and French empires. Unlike European imperial powers, US
early contacts with the region were marred with violence, whether through its
support of local dictatorships, financing and arming Israel at the expense of
Palestinians and other Arab nations, or finally by getting involved – some say,
entangled – in lethal wars.
The problem of
‘great’ empires is that their ability to maneuver is oftentimes restricted by
their sheer size and the habitual nature of their conduct. They can only move
forward and when that is no longer possible, they must retreat, ushering in
their demise. US foreign policy is almost stuck when it is required to be most
agile. While the Middle East is finally breaking away from a once impenetrable
cocoon, and China – and Russia, among others – is attempting to negotiate a new
political stance, the US is frozen. It took part in the bombing of Libya
because it knows of no other alternative to achieving quick goals without
summoning violence. In Syria, it refuses to be a positive conduit for a
peaceful transition because it is paralyzed by its military failure in Iraq and
fearful over the fate of Israel, should Syria lose its political centrality.
Even if the US opts
to stave off a catastrophic decline in the region, it is shackled by the
invasive tentacles of Israel, the pro-Israel lobby and their massive and
permeating network, which crosses over competing media, political parties and
ideological agendas. The US is now destined to live by the rules – and redlines
– determined by Israel, whose national interests are barely concerned with the
rise or demise of America. Israel only wants to ensure its supremacy in the ‘new’
Middle East. With the rise of post-revolutionary Egypt, Israel’s challenges are
growing. It fears that a nuclear Iran would deprive it from its only unique
edge - its nuclear technology and massive nuclear arsenal. If Iran obtains
nuclear technology, Israel might have to negotiate in good faith as an equal
partner to its neighbors, a circumstance that Israel abhors. Between the
Israeli hammer and the anvil of the imminent decline of all empires, the US,
which has held the Middle East hostage to its foreign policy for nearly six
decades, is now hostage to the limitations of that very foreign policy. The
irony is an escapable.
Listening to the
monotonous voice of Li Changchun, it was clear that China was in no great
hurry. Nor are the other powers now eyeing with great anticipation, the endgame
of the Middle East upheaval.
Listening to US
President Barack Obama’s lecture to the UN’s General Assembly on September 25,
as he spoke of democracy, values and the predictable and self-negating
language, it seems that there is no intention in changing course or maneuvering
or retreating or simply going away altogether. The empire is entangled in its
own self-defeating legacy. This is to the satisfaction of its many contenders,
China notwithstanding.
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an
internationally syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto
Press, London.)
