Mobuto Sese Seko has been, ever since the start of his political career and up until his removal from power, a British agent. He started his political career in the wake of the Congo's independence on 30th June 1960, as defence minister in Patrice Lumumba's coalition government. Lumumba for his part was an American agent, and it was down to his efforts and the efforts of his movement "The National Congolese Movement" that the Congo managed to gain independence from Belgium. However, his movement failed to gain an absolute majority in the elections and he was forced to form a coalition government. Less than three months into independence, Mobuto conspired with the republic's president Joseph Kasavubu and Britain's infamous agent, Katanga's Prime Minister Moise Kapenda Tshombe, against Lumumba. Mobuto staged a military coup, arrested Lumumba and handed him to Tshombe, who killed him in January 1961 and threw his body in the jungle. France's relationship with Mobuto was merely cultural, because the Congo is a francophone country. France has virtually no investments in the Congo and trade between the two countries is limited. America's relationship with Mobuto remained hostile since he ousted her agent Lumumba. America was biding her time in order to either oust him or to flare up a fresh rebellion against him. Lumumba's comrades assumed during the first six years after independence a host of rebellions or attempts at rebellion. However, Mobuto managed to crush all these attempts and the rebels disbanded and dispersed in the jungle. Mobuto continued to resist the American influence, not only in the Congo, but also in the neighbouring countries. He sided with the apartheid regime of South Africa alongside Unita, the British organisation, against the pro American regime in Angola. He also backed the rebels against Yoweri Museveni in Uganda. When the Tutsi rebels, backed by America, seized power in Rwanda in 1994, Mobuto sided with the Hutus. He set about training and arming the Hutus living in the Congo and inciting them to attack Rwanda. Last autumn, the governor of the Kivo province of the Congo ordered the deportation of more than 300 to 400 thousand Tutsi from the Congo, despite the fact that they had settled in East Zaire in the 18th century. This action sparked the rebellion which in the space of seven months, brought Kabila to power and deposed Mobuto. So who is Laurent Kabila? And what are the circumstances surrounding his rise to power? Laurent Kabila is not a Tutsi, he is from the Katanga province which was a Belgian colony. He studied philosophy in France and returned to the Congo just before independence, i.e. when the revolution for independence was at its highest. On his return, Kabila joined an organisation in Katanga known as "The North Katanga Council". This organisation was known to be supportive of Lumumba; however it was not part of his organisation which was known as the "National Congolese Movement". When Lumumba was assassinated in January 1961, Kabila started to build bridges with Britain's agent, the separatist Moise Kapenda Tshombe, who at the time declared the secession of Katanga. In 1963, Lumumba's two comrades, Pierre Molili and Antoine Gizenga resumed the revolution. They established the National Assembly for the Liberation of Congo, so Kabila returned and pledged his support for them. At the beginning of 1964, Kabila and his friend Jastum Somalio, declared a revolution in south Congo, known as the Simba revolution (i.e. the lion). The activity of this revolution was separate or parallel to the activity of the National Assembly. In 1969 the celebrated revolutionary Che Guevara came from Cuba in order to make the Congo a springboard of a revolution to engulf the whole of Africa. He visited the camps of the Simba fighters, and he was impressed by Kabila's statement that the main enemy was the American imperialism. However, after a series of meetings between him and Kabila and his party, Che Guevara realised that these people were not fit for armed struggle, for Kabila never established a real revolution, nor did he establish the possibility of launching real revolutions. In his memoirs, Guevara mentioned that no one ever saw Kabila in the battlefield and that he used to spend his time womanising and drinking, and not leading a revolutionary war. He described Kabila's men as being nothing but parasites who had no idea whatsoever about firearms, and that most of them carried rare diseases. Guevara realised that his stay was not welcomed by Kabila, to the point where Kabila used to hate Guevara's visits to the battlefront. Guevara left the Congo for good in November 1965, i.e. six months later due to his frustration. In November 1967, Kabila established with his friend Homalio the Revolutionary party in the Katanga province, after they had visited China seeking assistance. This party undertook a token resistance merely to please China, who demanded some action in return for the money she was paying. The people of Katanga have no good word to say about this party, because it sided with Moise Tshombe against his rival, the popular leader Jason Sandoi. Since 1967, Kabila disappeared from the Congo to wander around the European capitals, especially Paris, where he had built a villa during the years of the revolution, while the followers of Lumumba were fighting. From this review of Kabila's life history, we find that he managed to register his name in the revolutionaries list and to wear their uniform, but he did not perform any of the real revolutionary work against Mobuto, to the point where he was trying to prevent Che Guevara from fighting, and when things became serious, he used to side with Tshombe. In order to justify his lagging behind when it came to fighting, he was quoted as saying that the educated person who gambles with his life and dies in the battlefields is either insane or a dreaming romantic; hence, the mission of the educated person is to persuade others to die for the sake of his dreams. He was known to be busy making money, stealing and smuggling, and setting up companies to finance his pleasures and desires. Therefore, if this were his revolutionary life when the Congo was riding the revolutionary wave, his conduct in the present revolution which deposed Mobuto is contrary to that. He started this revolution as an eloquent speaker and showed some brilliant organisational skills. This contrast confirms the fact that in the sixties, Kabila was not serious about his revolutionary work against Mobuto and that he was hired by the British to plot against Lumumbists. If that is the case of Kabila, how did he manage to ride the current revolution to seize power in the Congo, though America was behind it? By reviewing the events of the current revolution, we find that it started last October when the Tutsi who had emigrated to East Congo 200 years ago initiated a rebellion in defence of their rights of settlement. Rwanda saw in this rebellion a golden opportunity to get rid of the Hutu crisis, thus she started supplying the rebels with weapons and personnel and inciting them to attack the Hutu camps in the Congo in order to force them deep into the jungle and away from the Rwandan border, so that they no longer posed a threat to her. Suddenly Kabila appeared on the scene to lead the rebellion and turn it into a revolution. What helped Kabila to ride the revolution was the participation of the rally between the People's Revolutionary Party and the Tutsi in this revolution, because Kabila was the founder of this party back in 1967, and the Tutsis in the east and the south of the Congo were allies of Kabila in the sixties. Kabila started his journey as a spokesman for the alliance, then later as its president. Although the revolution started to spread to the east and the south of the Congo, Mobuto remained in France and his government failed to undertake any effective measures to curb it or to work towards removing its causes, by giving the Tutsis their rights. It became clear that Mobuto's illness was serious and that he was on the brink of death. Supplies started to flow towards the rebels from America and her agents, the Congo's neighbouring countries, Rwanda, Angola, and Uganda. They did so in spite of Mobuto and in revenge for his hostile stands towards them. What also motivated these countries was the loyalty of some leaders of the revolution to America, such as Kisasi Negandu who belonged to Lumumba's tribe. Andre Kisasi defied Kabila's leaders, so his fate was liquidation and he was killed in strange circumstances. America is also hoping that the Rwandan Tutsi leaders will be able to buy the loyalty of the Congolese Tutsi America and South Africa competed with each other to intervene and settle the crisis. Hence, America sent her U.N. envoy Bill Richardson, while Nelson Mandela and his deputy Tabombili, started a series of shuttle diplomacy. Before the fall of Kinshasa, Mandela succeeded in bringing together Mobuto and Kabila aboard a warship in South Africa, and agreement was reached stipulating that Mandela would draft a ten point agreement to be signed at a second meeting. The agreement stipulated that once Mobuto relinquishes power, he would remain in the Congo, and that he would enjoy all the mandates of a former president, with all the perks and privileges and the due respect. Mandela drafted the agreement and waited with Mobuto at the agreed time but Kabila refused to attend. Nevertheless, Mandela succeeded in facilitating the entry of the rebels to the capital without any bloodshed in the wake of Mobuto's departure. By scrutinising the events and the circumstances surrounding the revolution, one realises that Mobuto acted as if the revolution did not concern him. He did not negotiate with the rebels, nor did he fight them properly. One also realises that the revolution started as a rebellion and developed into a revolution to liberate East Congo, then into a revolution to rid the Congo of Mobuto's regime. This development of events coincided with the confirmation that Mobuto's illness was critical and that his chances of recovery were very slim. This raised the issue of his succession. The rule of Mobuto was autocratic and dictatorial. He did not allow the rise of any politicians or leader in the Congo; hence, the sudden departure of Mobuto was set to generate a political vacuum that no other person from his staff could have filled especially as the Congo was plunged into ethnic and tribal strife. The only prominent politician is Etienne Tshisekedi, who is an American agent, he is a shrewd politician and one of Lumumba's followers since the sixties. However, Kabila never contemplated handing him the reins of power in the Congo though America was seeking this. Although Kabila gave the impression that he was pro-American, he in fact was since the start of his revolutionary career a British agent. The French cooperation minister denied the statement that France has lost and that America had won, and that Mobuto was a French agent while Kabila was an American agent.
Reliable French media sources commented that France does not have the influence that people had imagined over Mobuto, for the Congo is no more than a francophone country, and that America does not have the influence that people had imagined over Kabila. In its issue dated 12th May 1997, the U.S. magazine Newsweek wrote: "Kabila will not be the permanent successor to Mobuto, for after one year of interim rule, elections will take place to select the new Congolese leader, then Kabila will yield the reins of power to assume most probably the defence portfolio, while the former Congolese Prime Minister, Etienne Tshisekedi, the most popular political figure in the Congo, will become the leader of the Congo. Newsweek described him as the U.S?s favourite choice. As for America, no sooner had the rebels entered the capital of Kinshasa, than she started pressing them to allow the opposition to share power and appoint Tshisekedi as Prime Minister and hold democratic elections. The U.S. State Department's spokesman, Nicholas Burns, was quoted as saying that the U.S. ambassador to Kinshasa, Daniel Simpson, has started extensive talks with Kabila's chief advisors Diofrasia Bovira and Paul Kayungo, urging them to pave the way and establish contact with Tshisekedi. President Clinton for his part issue a sort of warning to Kabila when he said: "The position of the United States is clear. We are seeking a transitional rule which will lead to a real democracy in Zaire." As for the Secretary of State, Madelaine Albright, used a press conference to expose the new regime by stating after she expressed the U.S. desire to see Kabila's government include personalities from outside his own alliance, thus she confirmed that Washington was very concerned about the situation in the democratic republic of the Congo. She added that the new regime that succeeded the Mobuto regime should undertake the necessary steps towards holding democratic elections and encouraging reconciliation in the country. She also highlighted the serious breaches which Kabila's men were accused of committing. A U.S. official described the relationship between America and Kabila by saying: " We have stated that if he wanted our support, he should take our concern into consideration?but it seems like he wants to act like the great man and he is eventually going to do what he wishes." Despite all the comments of the U.S. administration, Kabila refused to even meet with Tshisekedi and he rushed into forming a presidential government akin to the American system, i.e. without a Prime Minister, thus snubbing Tshisekedi. Kabila stressed that he would not be holding any elections before two years. His government answered the criticism directed at it for discarding Tshisekedi and not holding early elections by stating that it reserved the right to determine the future, because they won the war. The secretary of the alliance, Diograsiasi Bovira, who became the minister of planning, explained that the political culturing and the power of the peasant take priority over the elections. In the face of this snub and total disregard, Tshisekedi instructed his supporters to hold demonstrations as a show of force and to pressurise the new regime; the regime used force to disperse them and prevent them from demonstrating.
29th Muharram 1418 hijri - 5th June 1997
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
The Return of the Axes to the Region
When the Zionist movement laid down its preconceptions and its plans to establish an entity for the Jews in Palestine, those preconceptions and plans included the conditions for a peaceful existence which guarantees a lasting existence and survival in the region and when the project of the Israeli state was raised, her character, type of existence and relationships in the region were pondered over at an international level. America has taken it upon herself to maintain the security of that state and secure her survival; and when America established her influence in the region, she decided to curtail Israel so that she could not share that influence with her. Hence, the curtailment of Israel and the maintaining of her security became one of America’s vital interests in the region. So, she set about supplying her with the most sophisticated weapons and arms of mass destruction. The Israeli state has planned for her survival through relying on her own military, economic and political resources, as by being superior in these domains, she would generate for herself the favourable circumstances for her survival.
As for Britain, she deemed that Israel should be her active partner in the region, and one of the prerequisites of this role was for Israel to integrate in the region so as not to appear as an alien body. Hence, Britain decided to establish an umbrella for Israel that would enable her to play her role naturally in the region as a state like any other within the region. The umbrella that Britain opted for was to establish in Palestine a joint democratic and secular state, akin to Lebanon, then this state would join the Arab League once it has entered into a confederation with Jordan; thus becoming part of the region. Once the tendency started to shift locally, regionally and internationally towards the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state in Palestine, Britain placed the idea of a democratic state on the shelf and modified the format of the umbrella; she started thinking of Israel becoming a state within a wider community, encompassing the states of the Middle East i.e. a Middle Eastern community. This Middle Eastern community would achieve two objective:
1 - Marketing Israel in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
2 - Make the relationships between the states of the region built on a regional basis, hence, influence would belong to the strongest state.
The call for a Middle Eastern community came out in the open when the peace agreements between Israel on the one hand and the Palestinians and Jordanians on the other hand in the years 1993 and 1994. Shimon Perez appointed himself as the propagator and the marketer of this idea when he started calling for a new Middle East. Perez expressed the true nature of he had been harbouring in his mind in terms of objectives when he declared in a swaggering and defiant manner during the Casablanca economic summit in 1994: "The Arabs have tried the leadership of Egypt for four decades, and it brought them nothing but destruction and calamities; it is high time they tried the leadership of Israel." The politicians and the media in Egypt and Syria reacted fiercely against the call for a Middle Eastern community, and so did Ismat Abdul-Majid , the Secretary General of the Arab League, for they viewed this call as being destructive to the Arab League and its role, as well as the role of the influential Arab states within the League. Amidst these speculative and media preludes, the military and economic agreements between Turkey and Israel came into being. The two countries stunned the other states of the region by announcing in February 1996 the signing of a military agreement. Though the two states had said that the agreement would lead to the opening of the airspace of each country for the other country’s aviation for training and manoeuvring purposes, and that it would also lead to the exchange of military information and the modernisation of the Turkish fighter planes, they however kept the details of the agreement secret. Then the two states moved a step further towards a strategic agreement by declaring in May that they had just signed a naval agreement leading to the performing of joint manoeuvres. These agreements caused a convulsion in Egypt, Syria and Iran. These states viewed these agreements as an alliance or as a prelude to an alliance that could threaten their security and give the two countries the upper hand and the leading role in the region.
After a series of media skirmishes, president Hosni Mubarak visited Turkey in June 1996 to explore the truth of the matter; president Dimiril did his best to reassure Mubarak that the bilateral cooperation did not constitute an axis and that it was not targeted at any third party. However, he did not disclose to him the nature of these agreements.
Since the turn of the year, the pattern of the meetings and the exchange of visits between Turkish and Israeli officials quickened and the announcements which shed light on the substance and the importance of these agreements increased. Last February, the Turkish Chief of Staff visited Israel and at the beginning of April, David Levy, the Israeli foreign minister, visited Ankara. Then at the end of April, the Turkish defence minister visited Israel. He said to the Israeli radio: " Turkey shall not retract from her military agreement with Israel, which would allow the Israeli fighter planes to fly over Turkey for aerial training purposes." He added: "The Israeli training sorties over the Turkish airspace will continue." In a press conference held just before his talks with his Israeli counterpart, the Turkish minister stressed that the cooperation between Turkey and Israel was "not targeted at any other party." He also said: "Turkey attach a great importance to her cooperation with Israel, and I believe that this cooperation between us will contribute to the stability in the region and will further the peace process."
As for Mordachai, the Israeli defence minister, he pledge Israel’s commitment to help Turkey in her fight against terrorism. In his welcoming speech of the Turkish minister, he said that his country "will do her utmost to consolidate the security and the economic ties with Turkey." He added: "Both our countries are free, democratic and they champion peace. Cooperation between us is necessary to achieve stability in the Middle East." Mordachai added: "We think that the military cooperation between Israel and Turkey could act as a deterrent against any attack that countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria could contemplate launching against Israel." He also added: "It is imperative for the two democratic countries, Israel and Turkey, to combine their efforts for the sake of stability within the two countries." Netanyahu confirmed what the two officials had declared when he announced that "the cooperation between Israel and Turkey should be strengthened in order to face the terrorists threat and secure the stability of the whole region." On his return from Israel, the Turkish defence minister expressed the following day his country’s concern towards Syria and Iran’s endeavours to modernise their chemical warfare and ballistic missiles capabilities. He said in an explicit threatening manner: "Such countries’ acquisition of arms of mass destruction raises the concern of not just our countries, i.e. Turkey and Israel, but also that of Nato." The Turkish press quoted him as saying: "Syria is acting as the headquarters of the terrorism targeting both Turkey and Israel, and Iran is accessory to this terrorism." On 5th May, the deputy Chief of Staff, General Shafiq Bir, described as the strong man of the military institution, visited Israel at the head of a delegation that included 26 officers and civil servants. He reiterated during his visit what the Turkish defence minister had said; i.e. that the purpose of his country’s cooperation with Israel was to put an end to the terrorism perpetrated by the Islamists in Lebanon and the separatists in Turkey. He added: "It is every country’s duty to cooperate against terrorism." He also said: "I have reviewed a host of proposals pertaining the modernising of fighter planes and the joint production of field tanks." The two sides reiterated in their statements expressions such as "achieving security and stability in the region.", "prevent terrorism", "prevent Syria from launching a strike against Israel" and "fighting terrorism."
As for the inducement of the peace process, this meant applying pressure on Syria, once she has been surrounded, in order to make her soften her stance and push her towards making a host of concessions to Israel. All of this indicates that the two countries are heading towards establishing a joint military axis, that is if they had not already reached this. It is worth mentioning some of the regional and international reactions: Egypt, Syria and Iran condemned the Israeli-Turkish axis. Amr Moussa, the Egyptian foreign minister, said: "the Israeli-Turkish axis serves the interests of one party at the expense of another, and any action of this type will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response."
As for Jordan, she holds a different stance, for King Hussein visited Ankara in May 1996, accompanied by his Chief of Staff. He said on his return: "The Jordanian-Turkish ties are stronger than the axes and the alliances. The ties between Jordan and Turkey are firmly established and Inshallah they will be strengthened in all aspects and domains." On 21st November 1996, the Turkish defence minister declared in a press conference that: "Jordan and Turkey would soon be signing an agreement of defence." He also outlined that negotiations pertaining such agreements were at present being conducted, and that once these are concluded, a cooperation bringing benefits to both sides will be established." Few days later, the semi-official Jordanian newspaper "Al-Rai" confirmed the news. This means that Jordan is on its way to joining the axis; however, it would be difficult for Jordan to join the axis under such circumstances, as long as the peace process is facing a stumbling block.
As for America, she denied having any involvement in the Israeli-Turkish agreements. On 7th May 1997, the U.S. defence ministry spokesman denied the involvement of American officers in the strategic talks taking place between Israel and Turkey. He said: "These talks are not trilateral and the U.S. has no connection with them." He then added: "Some middle ranking officers are now in Israel taking part in the talks with Israel and Turkey pertaining future manoeuvres, but this has no connection whatsoever with the strategic talks between the Turks and the Israelis." The Turkish deputy Chief of Staff denied for his part during his visit to Israel the participation of U.S. officials in the talks." The U.S.-Turkish relations are going to be strained for several reasons, namely because of America’s refusal to hand over to Turkey weapons which she had earlier purchased for America; these include three frigates, purchased to strengthen the Turkish fleet in the Aegean Sea, and three Super Cobra helicopters, which Turkey plans to use against the Turkish Kurd rebels. The Turkish defence minister has asked Israel to mediate on Turkey’s behalf for the U.S. to release the arms purchases. America’s position towards the bilateral talks is fitting with her stance towards Israel, which deems her curtailment and isolation from the region.
Britain did not voice her opinion directly, but the British Foreign Secretary revealed Britain’s policy and designs on 4th November 1996, when he called, during his tour of the region, for the establishment of a Middle Eastern Cooperation Community, akin to the European Security and Cooperation Organisation. He explained that he had sought the opinion of the countries in the region and he found that the majority of the countries welcomed such an idea. Amr Moussa dismissed the idea instantly, before he even looked at the official wording of the statement. Ismat Abdul-Majid for his part, summoned the British ambassador to Cairo and expressed his surprise at such a proposal. He added: "We cannot imagine a regional cooperation in the Middle East while Israel continues to occupy Arab lands and while Iran continues to occupy in the Gulf islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates. If Rifkind mentioned that the call for a Middle Eastern community has expanded beyond the region itself, it would be because he undoubtedly realised that the diverse loyalties in the region prevent the establishment of this community and that all it could yield would be the establishment of axes, and this is what is effectively taking place. The Egyptian foreign minister, Amr Moussa, said for his part that the Israeli-Turkish axis will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response, and the foundation of a corresponding axis already exists in the shape of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia; however, since this axis would not able to face up to the Israeli-Turkish axis, it is necessary to invite another country to join it, and Iran is the prime candidate. This is so because the Israeli-Turkish axis threatens Iran directly; also, because Syria, the main injured party of the Israeli-Turkish axis, enjoys a warm relation with Iran, and she started to use this friendship to break the ice between Iran and Egypt.
As a result of the Syrian mediation, Ali Akbar Valiyati, the Iranian foreign minister, visited Egypt under the pretext of handing to president Mubarak an invitation to attend the Islamic Summit to be held next December. The Egyptian president met him for two hours, during which they discussed the various bilateral and regional issues. Valiyati and Moussa outlined in their press conference that "the resumption of diplomatic ties between the two countries was not improbable." Valiyati said during the press conference: "When the contacts between the two countries increase, it will become easy to generate the favourable atmosphere for the resumption of the diplomatic relations." This is also what Amr Moussa hinted at by saying: "It is imperative to have a shared willingness to resume the ties, and any steps undertaken towards this initiative will be undertaken at the moment determined by both of us." The issues which had led to the freezing of the relations between the two countries are not critical, for Iran does not genuinely oppose the peace process; her opposition is merely an outbidding of stances, and the present strain in the relations between Egypt and Israel could be used by Iran as a pretext to vindicate her rapprochement with Egypt, and the display of a willingness to undertake a joint action to save Al-Quds could serve as an even stronger vindication. Valiyati was quoted as saying in the press conference: "The Islamic countries should work towards solving this issue." He also explained that the Egyptian and Iranian viewpoints are identical."
As for the terrorism which Egypt claims that Iran is sponsoring against Egypt, Iran in fact does not work against Egypt, nor does she work towards exporting the Iranian revolution to Egypt; the rulers of Egypt are aware of the Iranian position and nevertheless the Egyptian rulers will be content with a declaration from the Iranian officials stating that Iran does not work against Egypt, or that they will not do so.
The struggle over the roles in the Gulf constitutes the fundamental difference between the two countries. Since Egypt has always been acting as the mother state, or the big brother of the Arab countries, she therefore finds herself face to face with Iran who seeks to spread her hegemony over the Gulf region. This is why Egypt has strived and is still striving to activate the Damascus Declaration. However, the conflict of interests between the two countries in the Gulf region should not hinder the restoration of ties between them and the coordination in other matters. Amr Moussa outlined in the press conference that the Gulf states should not be angered in case the relations between Egypt and Iran are resumed because "all the Gulf states have diplomatic ties with Iran." Amr Moussa has used the press conference to send a message to Turkey and Israel by saying: "The manoeuvres which are about to take place between Turkey raises concerns. He outlined that : "If this happened, there would be a reaction and we shall look into the matter; also, there will be a consultation about the causes and the intentions of such action." If Amr Moussa’s statement that every action would be met with a corresponding reaction equal in power does not foretell Egypt’s present moves, it then foretells her future moves towards establishing a parallel axis, equal to the Israeli/Turkish axis by including Iran in the Egyptian/Syrian/Saudi axis.
17th Muharram 1418 / 24th May 1997
As for Britain, she deemed that Israel should be her active partner in the region, and one of the prerequisites of this role was for Israel to integrate in the region so as not to appear as an alien body. Hence, Britain decided to establish an umbrella for Israel that would enable her to play her role naturally in the region as a state like any other within the region. The umbrella that Britain opted for was to establish in Palestine a joint democratic and secular state, akin to Lebanon, then this state would join the Arab League once it has entered into a confederation with Jordan; thus becoming part of the region. Once the tendency started to shift locally, regionally and internationally towards the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state in Palestine, Britain placed the idea of a democratic state on the shelf and modified the format of the umbrella; she started thinking of Israel becoming a state within a wider community, encompassing the states of the Middle East i.e. a Middle Eastern community. This Middle Eastern community would achieve two objective:
1 - Marketing Israel in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
2 - Make the relationships between the states of the region built on a regional basis, hence, influence would belong to the strongest state.
The call for a Middle Eastern community came out in the open when the peace agreements between Israel on the one hand and the Palestinians and Jordanians on the other hand in the years 1993 and 1994. Shimon Perez appointed himself as the propagator and the marketer of this idea when he started calling for a new Middle East. Perez expressed the true nature of he had been harbouring in his mind in terms of objectives when he declared in a swaggering and defiant manner during the Casablanca economic summit in 1994: "The Arabs have tried the leadership of Egypt for four decades, and it brought them nothing but destruction and calamities; it is high time they tried the leadership of Israel." The politicians and the media in Egypt and Syria reacted fiercely against the call for a Middle Eastern community, and so did Ismat Abdul-Majid , the Secretary General of the Arab League, for they viewed this call as being destructive to the Arab League and its role, as well as the role of the influential Arab states within the League. Amidst these speculative and media preludes, the military and economic agreements between Turkey and Israel came into being. The two countries stunned the other states of the region by announcing in February 1996 the signing of a military agreement. Though the two states had said that the agreement would lead to the opening of the airspace of each country for the other country’s aviation for training and manoeuvring purposes, and that it would also lead to the exchange of military information and the modernisation of the Turkish fighter planes, they however kept the details of the agreement secret. Then the two states moved a step further towards a strategic agreement by declaring in May that they had just signed a naval agreement leading to the performing of joint manoeuvres. These agreements caused a convulsion in Egypt, Syria and Iran. These states viewed these agreements as an alliance or as a prelude to an alliance that could threaten their security and give the two countries the upper hand and the leading role in the region.
After a series of media skirmishes, president Hosni Mubarak visited Turkey in June 1996 to explore the truth of the matter; president Dimiril did his best to reassure Mubarak that the bilateral cooperation did not constitute an axis and that it was not targeted at any third party. However, he did not disclose to him the nature of these agreements.
Since the turn of the year, the pattern of the meetings and the exchange of visits between Turkish and Israeli officials quickened and the announcements which shed light on the substance and the importance of these agreements increased. Last February, the Turkish Chief of Staff visited Israel and at the beginning of April, David Levy, the Israeli foreign minister, visited Ankara. Then at the end of April, the Turkish defence minister visited Israel. He said to the Israeli radio: " Turkey shall not retract from her military agreement with Israel, which would allow the Israeli fighter planes to fly over Turkey for aerial training purposes." He added: "The Israeli training sorties over the Turkish airspace will continue." In a press conference held just before his talks with his Israeli counterpart, the Turkish minister stressed that the cooperation between Turkey and Israel was "not targeted at any other party." He also said: "Turkey attach a great importance to her cooperation with Israel, and I believe that this cooperation between us will contribute to the stability in the region and will further the peace process."
As for Mordachai, the Israeli defence minister, he pledge Israel’s commitment to help Turkey in her fight against terrorism. In his welcoming speech of the Turkish minister, he said that his country "will do her utmost to consolidate the security and the economic ties with Turkey." He added: "Both our countries are free, democratic and they champion peace. Cooperation between us is necessary to achieve stability in the Middle East." Mordachai added: "We think that the military cooperation between Israel and Turkey could act as a deterrent against any attack that countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria could contemplate launching against Israel." He also added: "It is imperative for the two democratic countries, Israel and Turkey, to combine their efforts for the sake of stability within the two countries." Netanyahu confirmed what the two officials had declared when he announced that "the cooperation between Israel and Turkey should be strengthened in order to face the terrorists threat and secure the stability of the whole region." On his return from Israel, the Turkish defence minister expressed the following day his country’s concern towards Syria and Iran’s endeavours to modernise their chemical warfare and ballistic missiles capabilities. He said in an explicit threatening manner: "Such countries’ acquisition of arms of mass destruction raises the concern of not just our countries, i.e. Turkey and Israel, but also that of Nato." The Turkish press quoted him as saying: "Syria is acting as the headquarters of the terrorism targeting both Turkey and Israel, and Iran is accessory to this terrorism." On 5th May, the deputy Chief of Staff, General Shafiq Bir, described as the strong man of the military institution, visited Israel at the head of a delegation that included 26 officers and civil servants. He reiterated during his visit what the Turkish defence minister had said; i.e. that the purpose of his country’s cooperation with Israel was to put an end to the terrorism perpetrated by the Islamists in Lebanon and the separatists in Turkey. He added: "It is every country’s duty to cooperate against terrorism." He also said: "I have reviewed a host of proposals pertaining the modernising of fighter planes and the joint production of field tanks." The two sides reiterated in their statements expressions such as "achieving security and stability in the region.", "prevent terrorism", "prevent Syria from launching a strike against Israel" and "fighting terrorism."
As for the inducement of the peace process, this meant applying pressure on Syria, once she has been surrounded, in order to make her soften her stance and push her towards making a host of concessions to Israel. All of this indicates that the two countries are heading towards establishing a joint military axis, that is if they had not already reached this. It is worth mentioning some of the regional and international reactions: Egypt, Syria and Iran condemned the Israeli-Turkish axis. Amr Moussa, the Egyptian foreign minister, said: "the Israeli-Turkish axis serves the interests of one party at the expense of another, and any action of this type will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response."
As for Jordan, she holds a different stance, for King Hussein visited Ankara in May 1996, accompanied by his Chief of Staff. He said on his return: "The Jordanian-Turkish ties are stronger than the axes and the alliances. The ties between Jordan and Turkey are firmly established and Inshallah they will be strengthened in all aspects and domains." On 21st November 1996, the Turkish defence minister declared in a press conference that: "Jordan and Turkey would soon be signing an agreement of defence." He also outlined that negotiations pertaining such agreements were at present being conducted, and that once these are concluded, a cooperation bringing benefits to both sides will be established." Few days later, the semi-official Jordanian newspaper "Al-Rai" confirmed the news. This means that Jordan is on its way to joining the axis; however, it would be difficult for Jordan to join the axis under such circumstances, as long as the peace process is facing a stumbling block.
As for America, she denied having any involvement in the Israeli-Turkish agreements. On 7th May 1997, the U.S. defence ministry spokesman denied the involvement of American officers in the strategic talks taking place between Israel and Turkey. He said: "These talks are not trilateral and the U.S. has no connection with them." He then added: "Some middle ranking officers are now in Israel taking part in the talks with Israel and Turkey pertaining future manoeuvres, but this has no connection whatsoever with the strategic talks between the Turks and the Israelis." The Turkish deputy Chief of Staff denied for his part during his visit to Israel the participation of U.S. officials in the talks." The U.S.-Turkish relations are going to be strained for several reasons, namely because of America’s refusal to hand over to Turkey weapons which she had earlier purchased for America; these include three frigates, purchased to strengthen the Turkish fleet in the Aegean Sea, and three Super Cobra helicopters, which Turkey plans to use against the Turkish Kurd rebels. The Turkish defence minister has asked Israel to mediate on Turkey’s behalf for the U.S. to release the arms purchases. America’s position towards the bilateral talks is fitting with her stance towards Israel, which deems her curtailment and isolation from the region.
Britain did not voice her opinion directly, but the British Foreign Secretary revealed Britain’s policy and designs on 4th November 1996, when he called, during his tour of the region, for the establishment of a Middle Eastern Cooperation Community, akin to the European Security and Cooperation Organisation. He explained that he had sought the opinion of the countries in the region and he found that the majority of the countries welcomed such an idea. Amr Moussa dismissed the idea instantly, before he even looked at the official wording of the statement. Ismat Abdul-Majid for his part, summoned the British ambassador to Cairo and expressed his surprise at such a proposal. He added: "We cannot imagine a regional cooperation in the Middle East while Israel continues to occupy Arab lands and while Iran continues to occupy in the Gulf islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates. If Rifkind mentioned that the call for a Middle Eastern community has expanded beyond the region itself, it would be because he undoubtedly realised that the diverse loyalties in the region prevent the establishment of this community and that all it could yield would be the establishment of axes, and this is what is effectively taking place. The Egyptian foreign minister, Amr Moussa, said for his part that the Israeli-Turkish axis will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response, and the foundation of a corresponding axis already exists in the shape of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia; however, since this axis would not able to face up to the Israeli-Turkish axis, it is necessary to invite another country to join it, and Iran is the prime candidate. This is so because the Israeli-Turkish axis threatens Iran directly; also, because Syria, the main injured party of the Israeli-Turkish axis, enjoys a warm relation with Iran, and she started to use this friendship to break the ice between Iran and Egypt.
As a result of the Syrian mediation, Ali Akbar Valiyati, the Iranian foreign minister, visited Egypt under the pretext of handing to president Mubarak an invitation to attend the Islamic Summit to be held next December. The Egyptian president met him for two hours, during which they discussed the various bilateral and regional issues. Valiyati and Moussa outlined in their press conference that "the resumption of diplomatic ties between the two countries was not improbable." Valiyati said during the press conference: "When the contacts between the two countries increase, it will become easy to generate the favourable atmosphere for the resumption of the diplomatic relations." This is also what Amr Moussa hinted at by saying: "It is imperative to have a shared willingness to resume the ties, and any steps undertaken towards this initiative will be undertaken at the moment determined by both of us." The issues which had led to the freezing of the relations between the two countries are not critical, for Iran does not genuinely oppose the peace process; her opposition is merely an outbidding of stances, and the present strain in the relations between Egypt and Israel could be used by Iran as a pretext to vindicate her rapprochement with Egypt, and the display of a willingness to undertake a joint action to save Al-Quds could serve as an even stronger vindication. Valiyati was quoted as saying in the press conference: "The Islamic countries should work towards solving this issue." He also explained that the Egyptian and Iranian viewpoints are identical."
As for the terrorism which Egypt claims that Iran is sponsoring against Egypt, Iran in fact does not work against Egypt, nor does she work towards exporting the Iranian revolution to Egypt; the rulers of Egypt are aware of the Iranian position and nevertheless the Egyptian rulers will be content with a declaration from the Iranian officials stating that Iran does not work against Egypt, or that they will not do so.
The struggle over the roles in the Gulf constitutes the fundamental difference between the two countries. Since Egypt has always been acting as the mother state, or the big brother of the Arab countries, she therefore finds herself face to face with Iran who seeks to spread her hegemony over the Gulf region. This is why Egypt has strived and is still striving to activate the Damascus Declaration. However, the conflict of interests between the two countries in the Gulf region should not hinder the restoration of ties between them and the coordination in other matters. Amr Moussa outlined in the press conference that the Gulf states should not be angered in case the relations between Egypt and Iran are resumed because "all the Gulf states have diplomatic ties with Iran." Amr Moussa has used the press conference to send a message to Turkey and Israel by saying: "The manoeuvres which are about to take place between Turkey raises concerns. He outlined that : "If this happened, there would be a reaction and we shall look into the matter; also, there will be a consultation about the causes and the intentions of such action." If Amr Moussa’s statement that every action would be met with a corresponding reaction equal in power does not foretell Egypt’s present moves, it then foretells her future moves towards establishing a parallel axis, equal to the Israeli/Turkish axis by including Iran in the Egyptian/Syrian/Saudi axis.
17th Muharram 1418 / 24th May 1997
NATO
Preamble
The international situation fluctuates on the basis of changes in the situation of nations from positions of strength to positions of weakness, or positions of weakness to positions of strength, or changes in their international relationships with one another. The Islamic State is an ideological state whose prime role is to convey the da’wa to the world. As a consequence of this objective, she would be required to develop an international standing and an ability to influence the international situation. The politician, whether in the Islamic state or a party which seeks the return of such a state, works with the intention of taking care of the affairs of the world. The knowledge of the political idea upon which nations base their policies and the political method which is followed to implement them is a basic necessity for understanding the international situation. The diligent observation of the political plans and means would be a postulate for the one who seeks to understand the international situation, and inshallah influence the international situation in the future.
The Islamic State is a state that seeks influence on world politics, and this would be achieved by threatening the interests of the leading nation, changing the international political climate to a favourable one, attracting nations to its side and undermining the relationships between the leading nation, and the other major powers who vie with it for global supremacy. It would therefore be incumbent upon us to comprehend the political actions which occur throughout the world, in order to evaluate their potential future implications for the Islamic state, from the angle of the protection and propagation of the Islamic ideology.
The future role of NATO in Europe is an area of discussion that has unveiled a potential conflict between the United States and the European countries as well as accentuating internal European rivalries. The identification of such potential conflict and rivalry would be the basis for future exploitation at the hands of the Islamic Khilafah, by weakening the link between the United States and Europe and hence threatening the interests of the leading nation.
Since the second world war the United States has been the leading nation in the world, since joining the allied alliance with Britain, France and Russia to defeat the German nation. Britain, who had been in the past the leading nation, left the war in a state of exhaustion and powerlessness, while the United States emerged as the leading nation, and the international situation became dependent upon it. In the atmosphere of triumph, the United States decided to strip all other nations of any influence they held in the international political arena. She worked towards acquiring influence in the European countries, which all but destroyed each other in the two world wars. America pursued the major powers such as Britain and France in order to liquidate their influence in the world, and created a public opinion against colonialism achieved by physical occupation of land. This further weakened the position of Britain and France, and allowed the United States to explore alternative means of colonialism. It was Eisenhower who said “To meet the challenge of our time, destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free world’s leadership. So it is proper that we assure our friends once again that, in the discharge of this responsibility, we Americans know and we observe the difference between world leadership and imperialism”.
At the wake of the Second World War, Europe was poor and under threat from the eastern communist bloc, under the leadership of Russia, which presented a formidable ideological and military challenge. Faced with such a stark reality the Europeans threw themselves at the beck and call of the United States, hoping that she could rescue her from the turbulent times she was experiencing. The United States was prompt to proffer assistance on the basis of the Marshall plan, which was detailed by George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State, in a speech on June 5, 1947. American economic aid, arms, and experts were injected into Europe, and the United States entered as a major partner in the European economic programmes and companies. The tangible result of the Marshall Plan was the linking of the European economies with that of the United States, and the increased influence enjoyed by the United States in the Western Hemisphere. The American plan was illustrated by the comments of Clayton, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who said “Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets-big markets-in which to buy and sell”.
Background
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed at Washington on 4 April 1949, and can be considered to be a logical evolution of the American-European relationship. It was signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It may be falsely held by some that the formation of NATO was in fact as a result of an all-encompassing global vision by the Europeans, and the British in particular, in order to share power in a “global commonwealth” as America’s partner. Such a view would be a fallacy of the greatest kind since America was and is the leading nation and undertakes actions based upon a pure colonialist policy that views the whole world as a big farm which belongs to them, and views the great powers as undeserving of the influence that they enjoy. She therefore does not undertake pious or charitable acts, but rather works to cement her influence and interests in all spheres.
NATO is essentially a collective security organisation that guarantees that an attack on one party to the agreement will be considered to be an attack on all other parties, and hence warrant collective concerted action. It can be considered to have been erected as a counter force against the eastern bloc, in order to protect Europe from the clutches of communism, and therefore secure the interests of capitalists in the area, and in particular the interests of the Americans. America views Europe as a potential area of conflict, since it has been the site of two world wars and the ignition point of a Cold War, and therefore the role of NATO for her was geared towards ensuring European security and United States interests in Europe.
From its induction NATO served primarily United States interests by preventing communist expansion by the Warsaw Pact countries, improving the American market share and influence in the European economy, and ensuring that no single nation or nations emerge to rival American influence in the region. In particular the United States was able to use NATO to control the influence of Germany in Europe and upon the international situation by developing her economy on an economic basis rather than a military basis. The tangible results of the American plan on Germany can still be seen 50 years later as it still struggles to emerge as an independent country from the shadows of American foreign policy. The fact that NATO was more than just a combined military effort against the Soviet Union is exemplified by its continued existence after the Kruschev-Kennedy meeting of 1961 in which both the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to define respective spheres of influence, and by its continued existence after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and the demise of communism.
Early in this decade the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the communist ideology was seen. Since the abandonment of the communist ideology by the Eastern bloc, the ideology of capitalism prevails as the sole hegemon over the world. No nation exists that carries an ideology other than capitalism and consequently capitalism controls the international situation, and America, as the leader of the capitalist nations and the leading state, declared the birth of a “New World Order”. The Western Hemisphere which is host to the leading state America and the other major powers such as Britain, Germany and France is plagued by internal rivalries and divisions. Since these nations adopt the ideology of capitalism they vie with one another for power and influence in the international arena and the resulting division and enmity is visible to the assiduous observer.
The main issues
It was the European Christian States that initially formulated the international society and the concept of international law in order to stand against the Ottoman State. The two world wars this century were instigated to resist Germany and redress the changes in the balance of power that were occurring. The issue of Europe has therefore been crucial for the existence of the major powers and in determining the balance of power within the world and it is for this reason that it preoccupies the minds of analysts, politicians, economists and the military alike. The issue of Europe and therefore of NATO must therefore be considered in detail in order to comprehend the international situation and aspire towards changing it. In particular it would be necessary to understand the view of the leading nation, and the other powerful countries in the world, towards NATO and the relationships they share with one another.
The United States
The United States is the leading state in the world and has succeeded in making the capitalist ideology the foundation of international relationships and traditions. She now perseveres to make capitalism the chosen ideology for all nations and peoples of the globe. The United States views the issue of Europe as one of the top issues in politics, and therefore undertakes much effort in order to secure her interests in this area. The United States via the Marshall Plan and NATO was able to control the European countries so that no single power became supreme over the continent and also in order to prevent the eruption of internal problems which could escalate and threaten America’s position as the leading nation. It was also able to secure its economic interests in the major Western markets, while ensuring that European industry developed on an incorrect basis under the shackles of American capital and companies.
It has been no accident that the United States has spent considerable energy to ensure that a transition to a post-communism world would preserve NATO. Since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact certain voices, particularly from Europe, have been heard which question whether or not NATO has now outlived its usefulness. Since the United States’s interests lie in controlling Europe by controlling NATO, they have had to provide reasons for keeping the treaty alive. The former American Secretary of State Warren Christopher highlighted the American position on NATO when he said that “the NATO alliance will remain the anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic secuirty. That is why we must keep it strong, vital, and relevant. For the United States and its allies, NATO has always been far more than a transitory response to a temporary threat. It has been a guarantor of European democracy and a force for European stability. That is why its mission endures even though the Cold War has receded into the past”.
The United States seeks to gain certain benefits from maintaining, supporting and expanding the North Atlantic Treaty. These can be considered to be the following;
Firstly, NATO allows the presence of the American military within Europe, and ties the European economies to American capital, thus preventing the emergence of a nation which may threaten her position as the leading state. Also, NATO expansion creates a financial burden upon NATO, and in particular on the Western European countries, and hence strengthens the hand of America relative to Europe.
Secondly, by expanding into the eastern bloc NATO will protect European and American interests in the area by preventing the re-emergence of a Russian threat under a nationalist guise.
Thirdly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO will act as the “Marshall Plan for the 21st century” by creating an improved environment for trade, investment and economic growth in Europe. The European markets are undoubtedly the most important in the world and by controlling them by injecting American capital, the United States wishes to cement her position as the leading nation.
Fourthly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO prevents and impedes the establishment of independent European security and political structures such as the European Union. It also enlarges the influence of NATO upon the international situation, and could pave the way for the replacement of the United Nations by NATO, hence restricting the power of countries such as China on the United Nations.
President Clinton said that “NATO can do for Europe’s East what it did for Europe’s West: prevent a return to local rivalries, strengthen democracy against future threats and create the conditions for prosperity to flourish.”
The Americans are therefore committed to the expansion of NATO into the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. The declarations made at the Madrid Summit held on the 8th of July 1997 laid the basis for the beginning of accession talks between NATO, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. The American position on NATO expansion was aired by Christopher who said in early 1995 that “expanding the alliance will promote our interests by reducing the chance of conflict in Europe’s eastern half-where two world wars and the Cold War began. It will help to ensure that no part of Europe will revert to a zone of great power competition or a sphere of influence”.
If the United States is to succeed with its plans for NATO and Europe then she must create an environment where the necessity for the presence of NATO is felt by all her allies. In order to achieve this atmosphere the United States must produce an environment in which the nations of Europe harbour certain fears and anxieties, so that these become the focus of their thoughts. The threats that the United States will produce may be real or perceived, but their effect is similar, in that they concentrate the minds of nations upon threats to their own security and the acquisition of solutions to these problems, which on the whole are illusions or exaggerations by the Americans. The fears and anxieties of the European countries will then be allayed by the successful resolution of conflicts by NATO. The continual creation of an atmosphere of fear and anxiety is desirable for the Americans since it produces a consensus upon the usefulness of NATO, and hence is the arbiter for American influence in the region. The remedial measures undertaken by NATO will then serve to create in these nations a conviction in the ability of NATO to quell internal rivalries and problems within Europe.
The speech of Willy Claes, the former secretary-general of NATO, in Germany in 1995 is an example of the creation of a perceived threat to Europe in order to illustrate the necessity for the continuance of NATO. The statement that Islamic fundamentalists are the only threat to the West after the demise of communism is an inconceivable exaggeration, since the threat to the West would only come from an Islamic State, which is an ideological state and not at the hands of Muslim militia and guerrillas waging civil war in Algeria. The United States also contrived the creation of a perceived threat from the former Eastern bloc in the form of the Balkans crisis, which is by no means over. The Economist reported on 20 April 1985 that “trouble in the Balkans has a habit of causing trouble elsewhere” and indeed this is an idea that the Americans seek to implant in Europe. The potential for further conflicts in the Balkans, whether these erupt naturally or are created by the Americans, is large and represents a major problem to Western Europe who have already taken the toll of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the United States uses the threat of Russian resurgence and the Southern flank of NATO, in order to subjugate the European powers to the United States.
Russia
After the destruction of the Soviet Union its peoples have abandoned the communist ideology and although Russia still possesses a large military machine, it no longer presents an ideological threat to capitalism. Indeed its peoples, and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, have adopted capitalism as a way of life.
Russia, in view of its large military machine, is still a potential military threat to Europe, although this alone would not be sufficient for it to influence the international situation. The fear of the Americans and her NATO partners is that if Russia was to see a resurgence of Russian nationalism such military power would have the potential to undermine the “New World Order”. The United States uses the potential power of Russia to instil fear in the other European states while granting certain concessions to the Russians in order to weaken the hand of the Russian nationalist movements.
Russia, as a political power, is a weak nation that has little ability to influence the international situation. Her leaders work for Russian interests and pursue different means to achieve these. The weakness of the Russians can be comprehended from their inability to defeat the Chechen people, even though the United States assisted them in this venture by providing economic assistance to a poorly resourced army. The United States continues to portray Russia as a major power on the world arena, by convening conferences with her, manufacturing alliances with her military, and considering her political actions carefully. By undertaking these actions the United States creates a powerful image for the Russian state which produces fear in the former Western bloc, as well as appeasing those nationalists within Russia.
Her leaders are not the slaves of the Americans since they persevere for Russian interests. Since Russia views the expansion of NATO into the former Eastern bloc as a threat to her integrity, it was necessary for the United States to accommodate certain Russian demands. Yeltsin was rewarded for his agreement to the entry of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO with a position in the “G8 Alliance”. However, Yeltsin showed his political astuteness by flying to Ukraine and signing a long term military and naval accord, which suggests his unwillingness to depend upon NATO and the Americans entirely.
The future of Russia in Europe and NATO is dependent upon her development as a democratic state. If she were to continue as a democratic state out of the clutches of the nationalists then she would continue to dwindle. However if the nationalists were to take control of Russia then this could lead to the threatening of NATO, and by extension, American interests within the area.
The European Powers
Britain, France and Germany are the three main powers that have influence in Europe and have in the past competed with each other for supremacy.
The elucidation of the respective positions of the European countries with regard to the issue of the North Atlantic Treaty and its expansion is by no means simple, with many factors to be considered. Having dominated the international situation for so long, the European powers nearly destroyed each other during this century’s two world wars. Subsequent to this the United States emerged as the leading state in the world, challenged by the Soviet Union. Since the Second World War, European nations were compelled to put aside old rivalries and to forge a new unity in order to exert some influence on the international situation. Historically, Europe is a collection of warring tribes and nations, with a whole host of differing national interests. The European countries therefore incline towards the formation of alliances in order to exert influence on the world arena.
The struggle to maintain European security has been adopted by the main European nations and can be seen as a “war of institutions”. NATO, the Western European Union and the Franco-German Eurocorps are the main three security structures, and are used as tools in the hands of their proponents, so as to seek and maintain their interests in the region.
Germany
Germany is a capitalist state, and its people are characterised by militaristic and expansionist tendencies. Since the Second World War she has revived her industry on an economic basis, and has become an economic success of the twentieth century. Her economy is tightly controlled by the Americans due to the abundance of American capital and companies within Germany. For her to be able to influence the international situation in the manner she did prior to the Second World War it would be necessary for her to distance herself from the American companies and their capital, and to develop herself on a political rather than an economic basis.
On two occasions this century the major powers of the world gathered to limit German strength and resist her efforts for expansion. Its perceived responsibility for igniting two world wars, and the Jewish Holocaust, has concentrated German minds upon the idea of pleasing all parties in the domain of foreign policy. It is for this reason that a dichotomy of thought can be seen between the approach of Germany towards the issue of NATO expansion and the approach of Germany towards the issue of WEU expansion, favoured by the French. Germany has moved to voice support for the eastward expansion of NATO, as well as a larger role for the EU in a military sense. However she now seems to have inclined towards the American position of NATO expansion and this is allied to the continuing presence of large amounts of American capital within the German economy, and the American promise of a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Volker Ruhe, the German defence minister, laid out German policy towards NATO in a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Spring 1993, when he urged that the first East-Central European countries should become full NATO members by the new millennium. The main interest that Germany may be seeking from such an expansion is to address the security challenges that lie to the east, since many Germans perceive themselves as living on the edge of a volcano waiting to erupt.
The idea of looking to the perceptions of other nations regarding one’s own nation is a dangerous one in international politics if it is the basis of the political thoughts rather than the subject of the thoughts. If Germany is to become a leading state in the world then it would be necessary for her to stop straddling the fence of foreign policy since this jeopardises her interests. The results of such policies are unpredictable and dangerous for the very existence of a nation.
France
The French are the standard-bearers of freedom, equality and justice and feel superior to the other nations of Europe, on account of this fact. They resent the influence of foreign powers over the continent of Europe and the French state. The French pride, which is common amongst her people, has been damaged by her fall from the international situation, and by the development of American control over Europe and Africa. She seeks to diminish the influence of America within the region, and therefore works to counter the policies that the Americans employ to achieve domination. In addition to this she works tirelessly to re-assert her own supremacy over Europe and hence once again influence the international situation. In the face of American domination over the world, and an internal power struggle within Europe, France has become a weak nation that exerts little control over her former colonies. Indeed, in attempts to salvage her own pride, she promotes the French language and culture amongst her former colonies.
France does not favour a continued European role for NATO or NATO expansion into the eastern bloc, as it sees these as a threat to its interests. She therefore favours a strong European security organisation such as the Western European Union, under which Britain despatched troops for the second Gulf War, in order to diminish American control in the area, secure the Mediterrenean area to her own liking and limit the influence of Germany. France has been absent from the integrated command structure of NATO since 1966, and under the presidency of Chirac shows signs of wishing to re-enter with a greater role, especially concerning the sixth fleet of NATO and the southern flank. The United States strengthened the role of Germany in Europe as that of France weakened, and France exploited this to use Germany as an arbitrator between often-differing American and French positions. In the early 1990s the French and the Germans collaborated on the formation of a Franco-German Eurocorps, and Alain Juppe, the former French prime minister, called for a “European army numbering 350,000, independent of United States control and answering to the European Union”. Such moves obviously caused discontent amongst the Americans who feared that the development of the European Union as a military organisation would undermine their plans for a Europe under NATO.
The relationship between France and Germany seems to have soured in recent times as illustrated by the comments of Prime Minister Jospin subsequent to the G7 Denver Summit where he accused Germany of being a party to the establishment of American hegemony over Europe. The likely reason for such a slump in Franco-German relationships is the frustration felt by France towards Germany’s position vis-a-vis NATO expansion and the role of the Franco-German EuroCorps.
The southern flank of NATO remains the main focus of French policy towards NATO, since she regards the Mediterranean and North African region as presenting the greatest threat to French national security in the form of “Islamic radicalism”. Military and political crises in Algeria, Turkey and the Balkans have ensured that the French continue to view developments in the southern flank with pessimism. France therefore targets control of NATO’s southern flank, however this seems unlikely when one considers the strength of the United States within the North Atlantic Treaty. If she is unable to gain control of the southern flank, she may consider the addition of Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco to the European Union.
Britain
The seeking of interests and the striking of alliances forms a major part of British foreign policy, and this has particularly been the case since her fall from the position of the leading state to the position she occupies today. In particular the role of Britain within NATO has been tantamount to providing her with a means of maintaining global and regional influence inspite of diminished resources.
The basis upon which the British view the various European security alliances is their wish to retain sovereignty over foreign policy, and hence their influence on the international situation. As a consequence of this, Britain is unwilling to surrender her sovereignty to the European Union by entering into an integrated European political and military alliance. Conversely, Britain’s role within NATO does not limit her sovereignty within the domain of foreign policy, so she is not opposed in principle to the continued presence of NATO within Europe, however she works to curtail the influence of other major powers within the region.
Britain has expressed a desire to expand NATO as mentioned by Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary, in a speech in Brussels in January 1995 when he said “There is of course a momentum at work now. We have launched an examination in NATO to determine how the alliance will enlarge. We must ensure that the alliance controls its future direction rather than merely responding to pressure from outside. But that does not mean that we should be reserved about the principle of enlargement, which I believe unreservedly would be beneficial to us”.
It seems as if Britain may be forced to pragmatically accept the principle of NATO enlargement in order to prevent the ceding of influence in East-Central Europe to Germany, who may be inclined to fill the Eastern “strategic vacuum” in the absence of NATO enlargement.
Conclusion
Almost 50 years after the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, the nature, role and relevance of the alliance are still issues of vital global importance. Today’s leading nation, the United States, is seeking to spread her wings over the four corners of the globe so that she can seek and maintain her interests globally. The issues that surround NATO illustrate the rivalry that exists amongst the capitalist states as a result of the capitalist political method of colonialism.
As the world approaches a new millennium, America stands almost unchallenged at the pinnacle of global leadership. The leading state of tomorrow is the Islamic Khilafah State, which is an ideological state, whose primary aim is to convey the da’wa to the world. It is incumbent upon those who shoulder the responsibilities of this noblest of tasks, to acquaint themselves with the international situation and events so that they can perceive the vision which they have for this glorious Ummah. The subject of NATO is one that has profound implications for an Islamic State established in the Islamic lands. The politician would be the one who considers the conflict between French and American policy, and whether the hurt pride of the French at the hands of the Americans is less or more important to them than their hate for Islam. He would also be the one who considers the proximity in the relationship between America and Germany, and whether this would be a matter of greater importance to the German nation compared with their recent history of ‘tolerance’.
The conflict between the United States and certain European powers is by no means over. Indeed the leadership in both Britain and France is in the hands of individuals who have already shown their readiness to disagree with American policies and be recognised on the world arena as international statesmen. With the imminent return of the ruling with what Allah revealed, the nature of this conflict and others will be considered in detail by the policy makers and strategists of this Ummah, in order to once again lead humanity with the haq.
27/7/1997
The international situation fluctuates on the basis of changes in the situation of nations from positions of strength to positions of weakness, or positions of weakness to positions of strength, or changes in their international relationships with one another. The Islamic State is an ideological state whose prime role is to convey the da’wa to the world. As a consequence of this objective, she would be required to develop an international standing and an ability to influence the international situation. The politician, whether in the Islamic state or a party which seeks the return of such a state, works with the intention of taking care of the affairs of the world. The knowledge of the political idea upon which nations base their policies and the political method which is followed to implement them is a basic necessity for understanding the international situation. The diligent observation of the political plans and means would be a postulate for the one who seeks to understand the international situation, and inshallah influence the international situation in the future.
The Islamic State is a state that seeks influence on world politics, and this would be achieved by threatening the interests of the leading nation, changing the international political climate to a favourable one, attracting nations to its side and undermining the relationships between the leading nation, and the other major powers who vie with it for global supremacy. It would therefore be incumbent upon us to comprehend the political actions which occur throughout the world, in order to evaluate their potential future implications for the Islamic state, from the angle of the protection and propagation of the Islamic ideology.
The future role of NATO in Europe is an area of discussion that has unveiled a potential conflict between the United States and the European countries as well as accentuating internal European rivalries. The identification of such potential conflict and rivalry would be the basis for future exploitation at the hands of the Islamic Khilafah, by weakening the link between the United States and Europe and hence threatening the interests of the leading nation.
Since the second world war the United States has been the leading nation in the world, since joining the allied alliance with Britain, France and Russia to defeat the German nation. Britain, who had been in the past the leading nation, left the war in a state of exhaustion and powerlessness, while the United States emerged as the leading nation, and the international situation became dependent upon it. In the atmosphere of triumph, the United States decided to strip all other nations of any influence they held in the international political arena. She worked towards acquiring influence in the European countries, which all but destroyed each other in the two world wars. America pursued the major powers such as Britain and France in order to liquidate their influence in the world, and created a public opinion against colonialism achieved by physical occupation of land. This further weakened the position of Britain and France, and allowed the United States to explore alternative means of colonialism. It was Eisenhower who said “To meet the challenge of our time, destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free world’s leadership. So it is proper that we assure our friends once again that, in the discharge of this responsibility, we Americans know and we observe the difference between world leadership and imperialism”.
At the wake of the Second World War, Europe was poor and under threat from the eastern communist bloc, under the leadership of Russia, which presented a formidable ideological and military challenge. Faced with such a stark reality the Europeans threw themselves at the beck and call of the United States, hoping that she could rescue her from the turbulent times she was experiencing. The United States was prompt to proffer assistance on the basis of the Marshall plan, which was detailed by George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State, in a speech on June 5, 1947. American economic aid, arms, and experts were injected into Europe, and the United States entered as a major partner in the European economic programmes and companies. The tangible result of the Marshall Plan was the linking of the European economies with that of the United States, and the increased influence enjoyed by the United States in the Western Hemisphere. The American plan was illustrated by the comments of Clayton, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, who said “Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets-big markets-in which to buy and sell”.
Background
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed at Washington on 4 April 1949, and can be considered to be a logical evolution of the American-European relationship. It was signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It may be falsely held by some that the formation of NATO was in fact as a result of an all-encompassing global vision by the Europeans, and the British in particular, in order to share power in a “global commonwealth” as America’s partner. Such a view would be a fallacy of the greatest kind since America was and is the leading nation and undertakes actions based upon a pure colonialist policy that views the whole world as a big farm which belongs to them, and views the great powers as undeserving of the influence that they enjoy. She therefore does not undertake pious or charitable acts, but rather works to cement her influence and interests in all spheres.
NATO is essentially a collective security organisation that guarantees that an attack on one party to the agreement will be considered to be an attack on all other parties, and hence warrant collective concerted action. It can be considered to have been erected as a counter force against the eastern bloc, in order to protect Europe from the clutches of communism, and therefore secure the interests of capitalists in the area, and in particular the interests of the Americans. America views Europe as a potential area of conflict, since it has been the site of two world wars and the ignition point of a Cold War, and therefore the role of NATO for her was geared towards ensuring European security and United States interests in Europe.
From its induction NATO served primarily United States interests by preventing communist expansion by the Warsaw Pact countries, improving the American market share and influence in the European economy, and ensuring that no single nation or nations emerge to rival American influence in the region. In particular the United States was able to use NATO to control the influence of Germany in Europe and upon the international situation by developing her economy on an economic basis rather than a military basis. The tangible results of the American plan on Germany can still be seen 50 years later as it still struggles to emerge as an independent country from the shadows of American foreign policy. The fact that NATO was more than just a combined military effort against the Soviet Union is exemplified by its continued existence after the Kruschev-Kennedy meeting of 1961 in which both the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to define respective spheres of influence, and by its continued existence after the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact and the demise of communism.
Early in this decade the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the communist ideology was seen. Since the abandonment of the communist ideology by the Eastern bloc, the ideology of capitalism prevails as the sole hegemon over the world. No nation exists that carries an ideology other than capitalism and consequently capitalism controls the international situation, and America, as the leader of the capitalist nations and the leading state, declared the birth of a “New World Order”. The Western Hemisphere which is host to the leading state America and the other major powers such as Britain, Germany and France is plagued by internal rivalries and divisions. Since these nations adopt the ideology of capitalism they vie with one another for power and influence in the international arena and the resulting division and enmity is visible to the assiduous observer.
The main issues
It was the European Christian States that initially formulated the international society and the concept of international law in order to stand against the Ottoman State. The two world wars this century were instigated to resist Germany and redress the changes in the balance of power that were occurring. The issue of Europe has therefore been crucial for the existence of the major powers and in determining the balance of power within the world and it is for this reason that it preoccupies the minds of analysts, politicians, economists and the military alike. The issue of Europe and therefore of NATO must therefore be considered in detail in order to comprehend the international situation and aspire towards changing it. In particular it would be necessary to understand the view of the leading nation, and the other powerful countries in the world, towards NATO and the relationships they share with one another.
The United States
The United States is the leading state in the world and has succeeded in making the capitalist ideology the foundation of international relationships and traditions. She now perseveres to make capitalism the chosen ideology for all nations and peoples of the globe. The United States views the issue of Europe as one of the top issues in politics, and therefore undertakes much effort in order to secure her interests in this area. The United States via the Marshall Plan and NATO was able to control the European countries so that no single power became supreme over the continent and also in order to prevent the eruption of internal problems which could escalate and threaten America’s position as the leading nation. It was also able to secure its economic interests in the major Western markets, while ensuring that European industry developed on an incorrect basis under the shackles of American capital and companies.
It has been no accident that the United States has spent considerable energy to ensure that a transition to a post-communism world would preserve NATO. Since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact certain voices, particularly from Europe, have been heard which question whether or not NATO has now outlived its usefulness. Since the United States’s interests lie in controlling Europe by controlling NATO, they have had to provide reasons for keeping the treaty alive. The former American Secretary of State Warren Christopher highlighted the American position on NATO when he said that “the NATO alliance will remain the anchor of American engagement in Europe and the linchpin of transatlantic secuirty. That is why we must keep it strong, vital, and relevant. For the United States and its allies, NATO has always been far more than a transitory response to a temporary threat. It has been a guarantor of European democracy and a force for European stability. That is why its mission endures even though the Cold War has receded into the past”.
The United States seeks to gain certain benefits from maintaining, supporting and expanding the North Atlantic Treaty. These can be considered to be the following;
Firstly, NATO allows the presence of the American military within Europe, and ties the European economies to American capital, thus preventing the emergence of a nation which may threaten her position as the leading state. Also, NATO expansion creates a financial burden upon NATO, and in particular on the Western European countries, and hence strengthens the hand of America relative to Europe.
Secondly, by expanding into the eastern bloc NATO will protect European and American interests in the area by preventing the re-emergence of a Russian threat under a nationalist guise.
Thirdly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO will act as the “Marshall Plan for the 21st century” by creating an improved environment for trade, investment and economic growth in Europe. The European markets are undoubtedly the most important in the world and by controlling them by injecting American capital, the United States wishes to cement her position as the leading nation.
Fourthly, the maintenance and expansion of NATO prevents and impedes the establishment of independent European security and political structures such as the European Union. It also enlarges the influence of NATO upon the international situation, and could pave the way for the replacement of the United Nations by NATO, hence restricting the power of countries such as China on the United Nations.
President Clinton said that “NATO can do for Europe’s East what it did for Europe’s West: prevent a return to local rivalries, strengthen democracy against future threats and create the conditions for prosperity to flourish.”
The Americans are therefore committed to the expansion of NATO into the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. The declarations made at the Madrid Summit held on the 8th of July 1997 laid the basis for the beginning of accession talks between NATO, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. The American position on NATO expansion was aired by Christopher who said in early 1995 that “expanding the alliance will promote our interests by reducing the chance of conflict in Europe’s eastern half-where two world wars and the Cold War began. It will help to ensure that no part of Europe will revert to a zone of great power competition or a sphere of influence”.
If the United States is to succeed with its plans for NATO and Europe then she must create an environment where the necessity for the presence of NATO is felt by all her allies. In order to achieve this atmosphere the United States must produce an environment in which the nations of Europe harbour certain fears and anxieties, so that these become the focus of their thoughts. The threats that the United States will produce may be real or perceived, but their effect is similar, in that they concentrate the minds of nations upon threats to their own security and the acquisition of solutions to these problems, which on the whole are illusions or exaggerations by the Americans. The fears and anxieties of the European countries will then be allayed by the successful resolution of conflicts by NATO. The continual creation of an atmosphere of fear and anxiety is desirable for the Americans since it produces a consensus upon the usefulness of NATO, and hence is the arbiter for American influence in the region. The remedial measures undertaken by NATO will then serve to create in these nations a conviction in the ability of NATO to quell internal rivalries and problems within Europe.
The speech of Willy Claes, the former secretary-general of NATO, in Germany in 1995 is an example of the creation of a perceived threat to Europe in order to illustrate the necessity for the continuance of NATO. The statement that Islamic fundamentalists are the only threat to the West after the demise of communism is an inconceivable exaggeration, since the threat to the West would only come from an Islamic State, which is an ideological state and not at the hands of Muslim militia and guerrillas waging civil war in Algeria. The United States also contrived the creation of a perceived threat from the former Eastern bloc in the form of the Balkans crisis, which is by no means over. The Economist reported on 20 April 1985 that “trouble in the Balkans has a habit of causing trouble elsewhere” and indeed this is an idea that the Americans seek to implant in Europe. The potential for further conflicts in the Balkans, whether these erupt naturally or are created by the Americans, is large and represents a major problem to Western Europe who have already taken the toll of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the United States uses the threat of Russian resurgence and the Southern flank of NATO, in order to subjugate the European powers to the United States.
Russia
After the destruction of the Soviet Union its peoples have abandoned the communist ideology and although Russia still possesses a large military machine, it no longer presents an ideological threat to capitalism. Indeed its peoples, and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, have adopted capitalism as a way of life.
Russia, in view of its large military machine, is still a potential military threat to Europe, although this alone would not be sufficient for it to influence the international situation. The fear of the Americans and her NATO partners is that if Russia was to see a resurgence of Russian nationalism such military power would have the potential to undermine the “New World Order”. The United States uses the potential power of Russia to instil fear in the other European states while granting certain concessions to the Russians in order to weaken the hand of the Russian nationalist movements.
Russia, as a political power, is a weak nation that has little ability to influence the international situation. Her leaders work for Russian interests and pursue different means to achieve these. The weakness of the Russians can be comprehended from their inability to defeat the Chechen people, even though the United States assisted them in this venture by providing economic assistance to a poorly resourced army. The United States continues to portray Russia as a major power on the world arena, by convening conferences with her, manufacturing alliances with her military, and considering her political actions carefully. By undertaking these actions the United States creates a powerful image for the Russian state which produces fear in the former Western bloc, as well as appeasing those nationalists within Russia.
Her leaders are not the slaves of the Americans since they persevere for Russian interests. Since Russia views the expansion of NATO into the former Eastern bloc as a threat to her integrity, it was necessary for the United States to accommodate certain Russian demands. Yeltsin was rewarded for his agreement to the entry of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO with a position in the “G8 Alliance”. However, Yeltsin showed his political astuteness by flying to Ukraine and signing a long term military and naval accord, which suggests his unwillingness to depend upon NATO and the Americans entirely.
The future of Russia in Europe and NATO is dependent upon her development as a democratic state. If she were to continue as a democratic state out of the clutches of the nationalists then she would continue to dwindle. However if the nationalists were to take control of Russia then this could lead to the threatening of NATO, and by extension, American interests within the area.
The European Powers
Britain, France and Germany are the three main powers that have influence in Europe and have in the past competed with each other for supremacy.
The elucidation of the respective positions of the European countries with regard to the issue of the North Atlantic Treaty and its expansion is by no means simple, with many factors to be considered. Having dominated the international situation for so long, the European powers nearly destroyed each other during this century’s two world wars. Subsequent to this the United States emerged as the leading state in the world, challenged by the Soviet Union. Since the Second World War, European nations were compelled to put aside old rivalries and to forge a new unity in order to exert some influence on the international situation. Historically, Europe is a collection of warring tribes and nations, with a whole host of differing national interests. The European countries therefore incline towards the formation of alliances in order to exert influence on the world arena.
The struggle to maintain European security has been adopted by the main European nations and can be seen as a “war of institutions”. NATO, the Western European Union and the Franco-German Eurocorps are the main three security structures, and are used as tools in the hands of their proponents, so as to seek and maintain their interests in the region.
Germany
Germany is a capitalist state, and its people are characterised by militaristic and expansionist tendencies. Since the Second World War she has revived her industry on an economic basis, and has become an economic success of the twentieth century. Her economy is tightly controlled by the Americans due to the abundance of American capital and companies within Germany. For her to be able to influence the international situation in the manner she did prior to the Second World War it would be necessary for her to distance herself from the American companies and their capital, and to develop herself on a political rather than an economic basis.
On two occasions this century the major powers of the world gathered to limit German strength and resist her efforts for expansion. Its perceived responsibility for igniting two world wars, and the Jewish Holocaust, has concentrated German minds upon the idea of pleasing all parties in the domain of foreign policy. It is for this reason that a dichotomy of thought can be seen between the approach of Germany towards the issue of NATO expansion and the approach of Germany towards the issue of WEU expansion, favoured by the French. Germany has moved to voice support for the eastward expansion of NATO, as well as a larger role for the EU in a military sense. However she now seems to have inclined towards the American position of NATO expansion and this is allied to the continuing presence of large amounts of American capital within the German economy, and the American promise of a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Volker Ruhe, the German defence minister, laid out German policy towards NATO in a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Spring 1993, when he urged that the first East-Central European countries should become full NATO members by the new millennium. The main interest that Germany may be seeking from such an expansion is to address the security challenges that lie to the east, since many Germans perceive themselves as living on the edge of a volcano waiting to erupt.
The idea of looking to the perceptions of other nations regarding one’s own nation is a dangerous one in international politics if it is the basis of the political thoughts rather than the subject of the thoughts. If Germany is to become a leading state in the world then it would be necessary for her to stop straddling the fence of foreign policy since this jeopardises her interests. The results of such policies are unpredictable and dangerous for the very existence of a nation.
France
The French are the standard-bearers of freedom, equality and justice and feel superior to the other nations of Europe, on account of this fact. They resent the influence of foreign powers over the continent of Europe and the French state. The French pride, which is common amongst her people, has been damaged by her fall from the international situation, and by the development of American control over Europe and Africa. She seeks to diminish the influence of America within the region, and therefore works to counter the policies that the Americans employ to achieve domination. In addition to this she works tirelessly to re-assert her own supremacy over Europe and hence once again influence the international situation. In the face of American domination over the world, and an internal power struggle within Europe, France has become a weak nation that exerts little control over her former colonies. Indeed, in attempts to salvage her own pride, she promotes the French language and culture amongst her former colonies.
France does not favour a continued European role for NATO or NATO expansion into the eastern bloc, as it sees these as a threat to its interests. She therefore favours a strong European security organisation such as the Western European Union, under which Britain despatched troops for the second Gulf War, in order to diminish American control in the area, secure the Mediterrenean area to her own liking and limit the influence of Germany. France has been absent from the integrated command structure of NATO since 1966, and under the presidency of Chirac shows signs of wishing to re-enter with a greater role, especially concerning the sixth fleet of NATO and the southern flank. The United States strengthened the role of Germany in Europe as that of France weakened, and France exploited this to use Germany as an arbitrator between often-differing American and French positions. In the early 1990s the French and the Germans collaborated on the formation of a Franco-German Eurocorps, and Alain Juppe, the former French prime minister, called for a “European army numbering 350,000, independent of United States control and answering to the European Union”. Such moves obviously caused discontent amongst the Americans who feared that the development of the European Union as a military organisation would undermine their plans for a Europe under NATO.
The relationship between France and Germany seems to have soured in recent times as illustrated by the comments of Prime Minister Jospin subsequent to the G7 Denver Summit where he accused Germany of being a party to the establishment of American hegemony over Europe. The likely reason for such a slump in Franco-German relationships is the frustration felt by France towards Germany’s position vis-a-vis NATO expansion and the role of the Franco-German EuroCorps.
The southern flank of NATO remains the main focus of French policy towards NATO, since she regards the Mediterranean and North African region as presenting the greatest threat to French national security in the form of “Islamic radicalism”. Military and political crises in Algeria, Turkey and the Balkans have ensured that the French continue to view developments in the southern flank with pessimism. France therefore targets control of NATO’s southern flank, however this seems unlikely when one considers the strength of the United States within the North Atlantic Treaty. If she is unable to gain control of the southern flank, she may consider the addition of Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco to the European Union.
Britain
The seeking of interests and the striking of alliances forms a major part of British foreign policy, and this has particularly been the case since her fall from the position of the leading state to the position she occupies today. In particular the role of Britain within NATO has been tantamount to providing her with a means of maintaining global and regional influence inspite of diminished resources.
The basis upon which the British view the various European security alliances is their wish to retain sovereignty over foreign policy, and hence their influence on the international situation. As a consequence of this, Britain is unwilling to surrender her sovereignty to the European Union by entering into an integrated European political and military alliance. Conversely, Britain’s role within NATO does not limit her sovereignty within the domain of foreign policy, so she is not opposed in principle to the continued presence of NATO within Europe, however she works to curtail the influence of other major powers within the region.
Britain has expressed a desire to expand NATO as mentioned by Malcolm Rifkind, former Defence Secretary, in a speech in Brussels in January 1995 when he said “There is of course a momentum at work now. We have launched an examination in NATO to determine how the alliance will enlarge. We must ensure that the alliance controls its future direction rather than merely responding to pressure from outside. But that does not mean that we should be reserved about the principle of enlargement, which I believe unreservedly would be beneficial to us”.
It seems as if Britain may be forced to pragmatically accept the principle of NATO enlargement in order to prevent the ceding of influence in East-Central Europe to Germany, who may be inclined to fill the Eastern “strategic vacuum” in the absence of NATO enlargement.
Conclusion
Almost 50 years after the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, the nature, role and relevance of the alliance are still issues of vital global importance. Today’s leading nation, the United States, is seeking to spread her wings over the four corners of the globe so that she can seek and maintain her interests globally. The issues that surround NATO illustrate the rivalry that exists amongst the capitalist states as a result of the capitalist political method of colonialism.
As the world approaches a new millennium, America stands almost unchallenged at the pinnacle of global leadership. The leading state of tomorrow is the Islamic Khilafah State, which is an ideological state, whose primary aim is to convey the da’wa to the world. It is incumbent upon those who shoulder the responsibilities of this noblest of tasks, to acquaint themselves with the international situation and events so that they can perceive the vision which they have for this glorious Ummah. The subject of NATO is one that has profound implications for an Islamic State established in the Islamic lands. The politician would be the one who considers the conflict between French and American policy, and whether the hurt pride of the French at the hands of the Americans is less or more important to them than their hate for Islam. He would also be the one who considers the proximity in the relationship between America and Germany, and whether this would be a matter of greater importance to the German nation compared with their recent history of ‘tolerance’.
The conflict between the United States and certain European powers is by no means over. Indeed the leadership in both Britain and France is in the hands of individuals who have already shown their readiness to disagree with American policies and be recognised on the world arena as international statesmen. With the imminent return of the ruling with what Allah revealed, the nature of this conflict and others will be considered in detail by the policy makers and strategists of this Ummah, in order to once again lead humanity with the haq.
27/7/1997
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Analysis: Big winner from EU expansion: Washington
The European Union's coming enlargement to 25 members, including many former Soviet bloc countries now entering NATO, seems sure to increase the United States' overall influence in Europe and within the EU — while putting aside for the time being the idea of an emergent Germany leading the continent from Berlin. The entry of these essentially pro-American countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU, according to a German official, also signifies the end of any attempts within the EU to define itself and its evolving foreign and security policy as aligned against the United States. "You can no longer muster a majority for that," said Karsten Voight, the German Foreign Ministry's coordinator for German-American relations. These orientations, previously a subject of wary articulation in public, are now being openly acknowledged by EU policymakers as they prepare for a summit meeting in Copenhagen on Thursday and Friday that will open the community further eastward and address Turkey's possible membership. For policymakers in several European countries, the new members-to-be from the old Soviet world, after a decade's transition from subjugation, remain existentially concerned with maintaining their national independence and identity. This means that the new EU members continue to see the United States, rather than any European neighbor or the EU itself, as the principal guarantor of their young democracies, and the essential political reference point in creating a future that is secure and prosperous. As far as the controversial candidacy of Turkey goes, the United States, at virtually no cost and at high profit in its relations with Ankara, has been the single, unequivocal backer of its entry into the EU for decades. Until recently, much of Europe appeared to be satisfied with making long-term assurances to Turkey on eventual membership that some EU leaders clearly hoped they would never have to fulfill. With Turkey's future in the EU still vague, the increase in American influence in the EU is channeled through the former Soviet satellites. "What they want to join is the euro-Atlantic community," said Denis MacShane, Britain's minister for Europe, using a phrase heard with frequency these days that reflects the newcomers' mindset blending the EU and NATO increasingly together. "They want the Atlantic to be the same width as the Oder or Dneipr rivers." Although the United States through James Baker 3d, when he was secretary of state, specifically talked as the Berlin Wall came down of forging a more "organic" relationship with the EU — perhaps with less conviction than opportunism — it has obviously no interest now in speaking officially about a development that is to its advantage, but enormously sensitive in relation to European self-esteem. President Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland caught that note recently in insisting, "To say that we're a Trojan horse of the United States" in the EU "is unjust." But he also asserted that "there would be no Europe without American democracy," and that the EU's stringent conditions for entry meant risking "what there is left of enthusiasm" for joining the organization. German leaders were reported struck by the bluntly pro-American tone of a recent initiative of the so-called Vilnius Group, 10 former Soviet bloc countries, presenting themselves as part of a potential coalition committed with the United States to the disarming of Iraq. A declaration by the group, virtually all EU candidates, coinciding with the NATO summit meeting in Prague in November, showed them to be ahead in terms of support for the Americans than many of the EU's senior member states. In describing their ultimate goals in being participants in both the EU and NATO, the countries spoke of their commitment to peace and stability throughout the "euro-Atlantic community." All the same, America's increased insertion in the process of European unification is not what history might have expected. In the early 1990s, following Germany's reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union, it was widely assumed that Germany would be the dominant beneficiary of Europe's opening to the East. Besides the economic advantages of Berlin's proximity, it was often thought that Germany would provide political leadership for the countries of the old Soviet orbit and in the process emerge as the essential political force, East and West, in all of Europe. As discussions about shifts in Europe's political center of gravity to Berlin became commonplace, countries like France or the Netherlands guardedly expressed concern about German predominance in a reorganized and revitalized Europe. But reality worked in other ways. In Germany, the last decade has been one of economic stagnation, with a vast drain of resources going toward absorbing the debris of East German Communist rule. In the process, the old West German type of high-cost, low-risk capitalism virtually disappeared as a model for development. While the German economy has remained predominant in commerce with Eastern Europe, its power diminished overall in European and international terms. At the same time, neither Germany's political reach nor Germany's comfort in acting as an initiator or defender of democracy palpably increased. In the end, Germany was seen less as a prime mover in opening up NATO membership to the former satellite states, than as a hard, largely self-interested bargainer laying down tough economic and social conditions for the individual applicants' entry into the EU. In the process, what 10 years ago was once the notion of Eastern Europe (or Turkey) lining up in grateful allegiance behind Germany on a unified Continent, disintegrated. Voigt, the Social Democrat who serves as the German Foreign Ministry's coordinator for American relations, put the situation this way: "The Germans are needed, but they have to think more generally. There is a problem, and it involves the view of a Germany acting provincially." More important, with the addition of the former Soviet bloc countries to the EU, Voigt said: "Any concept attempting to define the EU as an organization that is basically against the United States is no longer able to muster a majority. That temptation is finished. As an enlarged Europe comes into being and defines itself, that view of (an antagonistic) Europe, or that American analysis of what the EU means, is overtaken." This interpretation or perception appears to have reached some of France's most sophisticated European planners, a number of whom have been the most prone to regard an expanded EU as creating a global force to counter-balance for the United States. Jacques Delors, the former president of the European Commission, now talks, for example, of a Europe whose ambition is to be "influential." This contrasts with the French notion of "Europe puissance" — or roughly, Europe as a competitor for world political power — that has had extensive appeal in Paris. But interpretations of the significance of the growth of American influence through the enlargement processes, and at a time the EU is trying a more unified foreign policy and security approach, is not characterized only as one of advantage to the United States. Poland, for example, has been describing itself as a bridge to understanding between the United States and Europe. Friedbert Pflueger, the foreign policy spokesman of the Christian Democrat grouping in the German Bundestag, said flatly that the "influence of the United States will be fostered by the Central and East European countries which look more to the U.S. than to Europe." But he analyzed the circumstances as essentially positive ones, especially in a situation where opinion polls and politicians in Europe, as well as the substantially higher economic growth rates projected for the United States than for the EU in 2003, have recently emphasized their conflicts and differences. "This double enlargement by Central and East European countries," Pflueger said, "is a great chance. The idea that these new countries could serve as a bridge has real importance to both sides of the Atlantic, which are growing apart."
Source
Source
U.S.: Rumsfeld's 'Old' And 'New' Europe Touches On Uneasy Divide
By Mark Baker
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touched a nerve in Europe this week, dividing the continent into what he called "old Europe" and "new Europe." Reaction from France and Germany -- which Rumsfeld put squarely in the "old" category -- was swift and harsh. But the U.S. official's underlying point cannot be denied. On Iraq, divisions in Europe appear to run deep, with the main fault line falling between NATO's "older" European members and its new ones.
Prague, 24 January 2003 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week put his finger on an uncomfortable division in Europe with his comment that the continent could be broken into "old" and "new" categories -- at least with respect to its thinking on Iraq.
Rumsfeld, responding to a reporter's question on 22 January about "European" opposition to the use of force in Iraq, said the reporter meant France and Germany, which were part of "old" Europe. He contrasted them with the vitality of the "new" Europe -- made up in large part of NATO's new, formerly communist, inductees.
"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's 'old Europe.' If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the East. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently -- what is it, 26, something like that? [But] you're right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem."
Rumsfeld continued, "You look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany [regarding Iraq], they're with the United States."
The reaction from Germany and France -- who oppose what they see as an overly hasty call to arms by the United States -- was swift and harsh. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer implied that Rumsfeld's comments were irrational.
"Mr. Rumsfeld has described the Europeans as 'old.' Indeed, they are -- as far as the creation of a state or culture is concerned, [they are] older than the United States. I don't want to comment any further. But one should deal with each other rationally and with common sense."
A French government spokesman, Jean-Francois Cope, noted pointedly that being old also meant being wise. He said: "An 'old' continent -- a continent somewhat ancient in its historical, cultural, political, economic traditions -- can sometimes be infused with a certain wisdom, and wisdom can sometimes make for good advice."
But the underlying point of Rumsfeld's comment -- however blunt -- cannot be denied. Certainly, at least in their public comments, NATO's "new" European members are more supportive of the U.S. position on Iraq than its "older" ones.
One example is Hungary, which -- along with Poland and the Czech Republic -- joined NATO in 1999. The Hungarian Foreign Ministry this week said Hungary would prefer to have the backing of the UN Security Council for any military action in Iraq, but -- like the U.S. -- it would be willing to support war without an additional council resolution. Foreign Ministry spokesman Tomas Toth tells RFE/RL, "Number one, what we want is a peaceful solution. Number two, if a military solution is needed then [this should be pursued] with a Security Council mandate, and if all this is not possible, then, a military solution without the Security Council mandate is [still better than to wait] and see what Saddam Hussein is going to do with his weapons [of mass destruction]."
Poland and the Czech Republic in recent days have also indicated at least some support for the U.S. position. Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz on 21 January said his country would back U.S. action in Iraq "without the agreement of the United Nations." The Czech Republic has stationed a chemical- and biological-warfare unit in Kuwait, although it says it will not deploy the unit in Iraq without a second UN resolution.
None of the seven formerly communist countries invited last year to join the alliance has come out against the U.S. position, and one of the seven -- Lithuania -- confirmed this week it will offer some limited assistance to the U.S. if necessary.
This contrasts sharply with some of NATO's older European members. Germany, from the start, has opposed the use of force in Iraq, and France hinted at the Security Council that it could use its veto to block a second resolution mandating an armed attack. This week, France and Germany, along with fellow "old" NATO members Belgium and Luxembourg, voted to block a U.S. request for limited military assistance.
The "old" and "new" distinction has its limits. The United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain, all older NATO members, have said they back the U.S. position.
It's not clear how far Rumsfeld's comments represent official U.S. thinking on Europe, although they clearly echo remarks by President George W. Bush at last year's NATO summit in Prague and immediately afterward. It was in Prague that the military alliance agreed to invite the seven new members: Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Romania.
Speaking in Vilnius the day after the summit, Bush praised the Lithuanians -- and, by extension, all of the citizens of NATO's former communist states -- by saying that life under a dictatorship had made them more appreciative of human freedom.
"You have known cruel oppression, and you withstood it. You were held captive by an empire and you outlived it. And because you have paid its cost, you know the value of human freedom."
It's also not clear yet how far NATO's new members can go toward pleasing the U.S. without jeopardizing their -- arguably greater -- interests in joining the European Union, where France and Germany hold most of the cards and where being part of the "old" Europe is vastly preferable to being part of the "new."
Anthony Galabov, from the Institute for Sociology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, touched on this concern in comments to RFE/RL's Bulgarian Service.
"On one hand, Bulgaria explicitly has to continue to support the necessity of united action sanctioned by the UN against Iraq. At the same time, Bulgaria should demonstrate firmly that it is a part of that Europe called the 'old' one. Anything else would put in doubt whether Bulgaria can sustain its efforts at European integration."
Five of NATO's seven new members are hoping to join the EU in 2004. Bulgaria and Romania hope to get in by 2007.
(RFE/RL's Eugen Tomiuc, Diana Ivanova, and Tanya Kancheva contributed to this report.)
The Role of International Development in a Changing World:
Speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations (Washington DC) by Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development
12 July 2007
Welcome
Thank you Gene for those kind words. It’s an honour to be here at the Council on Foreign Relations, an institution that has done so much to provoke debate and promote understanding of foreign policy for more than 70 years.
And it’s a particular pleasure to be introduced by Gene. We first met when he was Chair of President Clinton’s National Economic Council. More recently I’ve come to admire his tireless advocacy for the cause of education through his Chairmanship of the US Education for All Campaign. And if that wasn’t enough I should also confess a deep admiration – and not a little envy – of Gene’s work as contributing writer to the West Wing. There is seemingly no end to this man’s talent!
It is also good to be here in the United States, a country I know well and greatly admire, having lived, studied and worked at the University of Pennsylvania and here in Washington in 1988 and 1989.
That summer I spent working here on the Hill was an extraordinary time, coming as it did between the seismic events of Tiananmen Square and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It was then that Francis Fukuyama first made his claim in the pages of Foreign Affairs that we were witnessing the end of history. And it is the character of that post cold war world he described and the consequences for my Department’s core mission – the eradication of poverty – to which I direct my remarks today.
That year – 1989 – saw the ushering in of what Tom Friedman has called the ‘flat world’ – in which the division and stasis that had characterised the previous 40 years gave way to the interconnectedness and fluidity we see today. This new “world without walls” is indeed in many ways very different to the world that preceded it.
Framework
And so today I want to begin my remarks by posing four questions, the answers to which are, I believe, essential to the mission of tackling global poverty.
Firstly, what does the world look like at the beginning of the 21st century?
Secondly, how we achieve change in this world?
Thirdly, and more specifically, what must be the role of international development in that process of change?
And finally, how do we work together to secure that change?
A complex world
So, first, what does the world look like at the start of the 21st century? If you took your world view purely from reading newspaper headlines, you would find two dominating narratives seeking to make sense of today’s world. First, terrorism and security, and second: climate change.
And of course, these are significant forces in our changing world. The global reach of terrorism at the start of the 21st century is unprecedented. Disparate groups, claiming to be part of a common struggle, united in a willingness to maim and murder, have surfaced in countries as diverse far apart as Afghanistan, Kenya and the United Kingdom.
The threat is real. Tomorrow I will fly back home through Glasgow Airport, the scene of the most recent incident in the UK. Unsurprisingly, our papers in Britain the weekend before last were filled with headlines about the latest attacks.
Yet by last weekend our papers were covering a different story – the simultaneous Live Earth concerts taking place in London and across the world organised to warn of the risks of climate change.
That coming together of people across continents reflects not only growing concerns but also a growing scientific consensus that climate change needs to be addressed.
From the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the National Academies of Science the weight of scientific evidence accumulates almost by the month.
And if the causes are becoming increasingly clear, so too are the consequences.
So, yes, climate change and terrorism are powerful forces. But the scale of the attention they receive in the media can obscure other powerful forces which are shaping our world and which receive far less comment. Let’s take just two examples: migration and population growth.
When I met UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon yesterday, he characterised our time as the ‘age of mobility’. Every year, more than 190 million people leave their shores in search of opportunity and a better life. That’s more than the population of Brazil. Indeed, if all of the migrants from just one year founded a new country, it would be the fifth largest in the world.
Not least as an elected politician, I recognise there is a tendency to see this mobility as simply a threat. But the changing patterns of travel and work are having a profound effect socially and economically on the world’s poor. The remittances sent home by migrants last year alone were triple that of global aid flows. Indeed in some countries up to a third of families now rely on remittances to keep them out of poverty.
And this migration trend is set to accelerate, as the world becomes more populous.
Between now and 2050, nine countries alone will account for nearly half of the world’s population growth. Only one – the US – is in the developed world. So, put simply, the greatest population growth will occur in the countries least able to support it: economically, they are the poorest; politically, they are among the most unstable; environmentally, they are among the most marginal.
And this population growth increasingly means urbanisation. This year, for the first time in human history, half the world’s population lives in cities. Indeed in Africa and Asia, the number of people living in cities grows, on average, by 1 million each week.
Progress on the MDGs
So it is against such a rapidly changing backdrop that last week, the UN published a report showing progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. And halfway to the 2015 deadline, there has been some clear progress.
Since 1990, the percentage of the world’s population living in extreme poverty – the equivalent of a dollar a day – has fallen from 30% to 20%.
Thanks to the work of Gene and education campaigners around the world, nearly 90% of children are now enrolled in primary school.
More people now have access to treatment for HIV/AIDS: a thirteen-fold increase in sub–Saharan Africa alone in the past three years.
This progress is to be praised. But it is only part of the story. Only one of the eight world regions featured in the UN’s report is on track to achieve all of the MDGs.
The decline in global poverty is mostly due to rapid economic growth in Asia. Africa is still most off-track. And although the UN found that the number of desperately poor people living in sub-Saharan Africa has ‘levelled off’, there are still 315 million people on the continent living on less than a dollar a day.
Hunger still strikes the continent – 30% of children under five are underweight – a figure hardly changed since 1990.
And despite huge progress in education, today there are still 77 million girls and boys around the world who will never get the chance to go to school.
As a father of two young children just starting out in education, these facts strike a particular chord.
And as father who is incredibly proud of his three year old daughter I am particularly conscious that the face of poverty in developing countries is overwhelmingly female. A disproportionate number of women live in poverty and progress on reducing maternal mortality, for example, is actually being reversed in some areas of Africa.
The economic, social and political position of women in many countries is actively preventing us from reducing child and maternal mortality, and stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Empowering women must be a priority for us all. Access to better – and safer – sexual and reproductive health resources are essential.
So as the latest UN Report makes clear, the development challenge facing us is daunting. Meeting the Millennium Development Goals will take a massive effort from developed and developing countries.
As developed countries we must live up to the promises we made as donor countries at the EU, G8 and at the UN.
But notwithstanding the real importance of such external factors – whether economic, political or environmental - the future of the poorest people in the world will depend critically on what happens within their own countries. It is the actions of their political leaders, institutions and citizens that are of central importance.
The potential of globalisation, directed well, to lower barriers and extend opportunity is real. But these potential opportunities matter little today to the citizens of Zimbabwe, who continue to be subjected to a brutal and failing regime. Today in Zimbabwe, a single banana costs fifteen times more than a four bedroom house did seven years ago.
So, of course, to progress, countries must develop comprehensive plans to build infrastructure, and improve access to basic services like education, healthcare and water and sanitation. But good governance matters and is, and will remain, fundamental to success.
Put simply, for all the discussions of globalisation, the actions of states continue to matter.
But equally they must face up to the new imperatives. In the 20th century a country’s might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st, strength should be measured by what we can build together.
Our response – an alliance of opportunity
And given the interconnected nature of the challenges we face, I would argue that we have to simultaneously be fighting to end poverty, to secure trade justice, and to tackle conflict and climate change as well as working to defeat terrorism and ensure the preservation of our security.
Indeed I want to suggest to you today that it is no longer enough to make the familiar case for development, reflecting the “virtuous circle” between economic growth and social justice; a familiar dialogue between the politicians and the development community.
This relationship got us the historic aid commitments we have now, and a consensus within the development community on some of the key actions we need to take.
But I want to suggest today that in order to build on the progress we have achieved to date and to tackle global poverty anew, we must now advance the case for change by better articulating the commonly held values around which we must rally the whole international community to our cause.
We must form new alliances, based on these common values; ones not just to protect us from the world but ones which reach out to the world. A new alliance of opportunity.
And politics as well as policy will be the key to making progress.
We need to demonstrate by our word and our actions that we are: internationalist not isolationist; multilateralist not unilateralist; active not passive; and driven by core values consistently applied, not special interests.
Isolationism simply does not work in an interdependent world. There is no security or prosperity at home unless we deal with the global challenges of security, globalization, climate change, disease and poverty. We must recognise these challenges and champion an internationalist approach – seeking shared solutions to the problems we face.
Multilateralist, not unilateralist, means a rules-based international system. Just as we need the rule of law at home to have civilization so we need rules abroad to ensure global civilization.
We know self-interest and mutual interest are inextricably linked. National interests can be best advanced and protected through collective action. There are few global challenges that do not require the active engagement of the US. We need a global community able to act together through modern effective institutions, including a reformed UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO and EU.
And we need to act – rather than be passive. We must reiterate our responsibility to act to address the big challenges of our time – poverty, human rights abuse, climate change and genocide.
It can be right, when certain conditions are met, to intervene in the affairs of countries to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, humanitarian suffering or threats to democracy. We believe that our collective responsibility to protect individuals transcends the right of nations to absolute sovereignty.
And, finally, we must be driven by core values, not special interests. Our place in the world depends on us making choices based on values – values like opportunity, responsibility, justice.
It’s these values that inform our enduring commitment to human rights, democracy and good governance. It is these values that call us to ensure that power, wealth and opportunity are distributed more equitably.
And it is these values that remind us that we have a responsibility to act as global stewards of the environment for the sake of future generations. Social justice is an inter-generational as well as an international issue.
Winning support for this approach is not easy. We must all work to make them the accepted norm. This means persuading political leaders, indeed community leaders, faith leaders and civic leaders to actively support these principles – whether they are in Europe or the US, China, India or South Africa.
The role of an alliance of opportunity in development
For I believe reaching out and articulating not only our values, but also our vision for the future, holds the key to securing progress not simply on health and education – which will of course remain a strong focus – but on some of the most immediate challenges we face in seeking to reduce poverty:
Let me take each in turn.
- Increasing growth;
- Dealing with climate change;
- Tackling conflict; and
- Creating an effective international system.
Growth & Trade
Firstly, increasing growth.
Just as employment is the surest path out of personal poverty, so economic growth is the surest path out of poverty for nations and regions. East Asia lifted 500 million people out of poverty since the 80s while its income doubled and trade trebled. But simultaneously in Sub-Saharan Africa poverty increased as the region saw its share of world trade shrink to just 0.5%.
Trade is crucial to growth and improving the income of the poor. Indeed no country has reduced poverty in the last 30 years without also increasing trade.
That is why Gordon Brown as Prime Minister has asked me to chair the Cabinet Committee on trade policy and work to align our policies on aid, debt reduction and trade policy. For he understands that there are two goals that must be pursued simultaneously: a more level global playing field and the capacity to trade.
Delivering the promise of the Doha round remains our priority. The difficulties are real but so too are the potential gains. And while the international rules are vital, so too is national capacity
If today you look at a map of Africa, you will see that the roads and rail connect resource-rich areas to the coast, rather than joining up the most populous areas, a product of the continent’s colonial history. So it is no surprise that the cost of moving a container between Accra and Lagos is three times the cost of moving it to Europe, and that transport costs in Africa are twice that of Asia.
And developing countries can and must also improve their readiness for business by tackling unnecessary bureaucracy. It takes 153 days to start a business in Maputo, but three days in Toronto. What message does that send to investors in Mozambique?
Climate Change
But even if we get such improvements at country level and an international trade deal that benefits developing countries, the economic growth and poverty reduction that it brings could be taken away by the consequences of climate change.
Climate change is the greatest long term threat we face. And as Nick Stern’s seminal report on the economics of climate change makes clear, the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of taking appropriate and timely action.
Globally, we must move towards a post-Kyoto framework based on the understanding in the UN’s climate change convention – that we share common, but differentiated responsibilities. Fundamentally we require a global cap, with a target for reducing emissions. In order to be meaningful that will have to be translated into national targets as well. The rich world needs to be at the forefront with other major emitters then playing their part.
Again, as Stern argues, within a global framework carbon trading has a fundamental role to play as a cost effective mechanism to deliver emissions reductions. It also serves to create a carbon market. Today’s carbon market is worth some $9 billion, but could grow to between $50-100 billion. Used appropriately this can deliver investment in low carbon economic growth.
Alongside this, the whole international development system, in particular the international financial institutions, need to ratchet up support for developing countries wanting to pursue a low carbon path to economic development. Gordon Brown announced in March that Britain would create a new £800 million Environment Transformation Fund.
I today discussed with Bob Zoellick, the new President of the World Bank, how we can take this work forward, not least because the cruel irony of climate change is that the countries least responsible for it will be worst affected. Greater variations of rainfall, combined with rising sea levels, will lead to more extreme weather, particularly in parts of Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
The UK is helping to carry out research into climate change adaptation in Africa. We’re also providing practical help to people who are already affected by it. DFID is spending £50 million help 32,000 families who live on the shifting sands of the Char lands in Bangladesh. We are helping them raise their homes above flood level, helping them to stay safe and build for the future.
Conflict and fragile states
But if climate change has the potential to sweep away development gains made in poor countries, that destructive power is matched by the effects of conflict.
Today the UK stands together with the US in confronting international terrorism and confronting violent insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But right around the globe, conflict and security challenges threaten development. By 2010, half of the world’s poorest people will be in countries at risk of, or recovering from conflict. Civil war costs on average $54 billion to a country’s economy and means an average 20 years in lost development.
International development therefore has a role in reducing violent conflict, firstly by investing more to prevent it. Research shows that $2 spent on conflict prevention means saving on average, $8 that the international community will have to spend later on dealing with a conflict.
We must also make our response to armed conflict more effective, and provide more practical and political support to peace processes – as we have done in Burundi and the in DRC, where we and others, including the UN through MONUC, supported extraordinary elections that have led, so far, to a peaceful outcome and the best chance the DRC has had for two generations to build something better.
Right now the international community faces a test of its willingness to resolve conflict and protect the lives of millions. The UN has described the situation in Darfur as the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world . Over 2 million people are displaced. As many as 4 million – two-thirds of the population – are dependent on international aid for food and basic needs.
We – the United Nations and the international community – have to act. If the concept of our Responsibility to Protect is to mean anything, it must mean something in Darfur.
Building an effective international system
Yet international action on the kind of challenges I have described requires effective international institutions.
The international system we have today was created largely to operate in the world as it was in the second half of the 20th century, not the first half of the 21st. So in the face of new challenges we must renew our international institutions.
The UN’s legitimacy as a global actor is unparalleled. But over time, fragmentation, duplication and excessive competition for resources within the UN have reduced the impact of its development work. That is why the report of the UN High Level Panel on System Wide Coherence is so important – and why we are so keen to see its recommendations implemented.
To take one example, the UN has 23 agencies working on water and has had to create a whole new body – UN Water – just to coordinate them. Everyone is partly responsible, so no one is fully responsible. There should be a unified UN presence in countries, based around a single programme, with one leader, one office and one budget.
The World Bank plays a vital role in providing development assistance to poor countries and in gathering knowledge about development. Its relationship with developing countries should be one of partnership not patronage.
That will require more dialogue in country and devolved decision making, and better representation for developing countries on the Bank’s board. The Bank also needs to ensure its analysis and advice is fully informed by the emerging thinking on climate change.
Conclusion
For more than 50 years institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and indeed the United Nations have reflected the determination of a previous generation of visionary statesmen to secure the peace and build anew out the ruins of war.
As I have sought to suggest in my remarks this afternoon, these early years of this young century present new challenges to a new generation. So I end where I began – by recognising the urgency of addressing the needs of the world’s poor. Given the inter-related challenges we face, it is not only morally right but a political imperative.
For we can’t say our generation doesn’t have the financial resources to eradicate global poverty.
We can’t say our generation doesn’t have the technological capability and scientific know-how to end needless suffering.
And we can’t say our generation does not have reason to do it.
It is up to us. It is our shared responsibility. It is our shared opportunity. And, working together, I believe it can be our shared achievement.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)