CULPRIT SOUGHT IN THE USA

Following mass demonstrations in the USA which demanded the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the authoritative New York Times newspaper published a report listing the mistakes of the Washington administration: 

the refusal to negotiate with "the evil" parties, the aggressive readiness to resort to military force to resolve issues, its contempt for its allies, the violation of moral and legal principles by indefinite detention in jail and even use of torture, especially against people with dark skin and Muslim names.

It is interesting that the newspaper tries to find a scapegoat for the situation. It has come to the point where the newspaper accuses Dick Cheney of spying for Iran. The report is headlined "What if Dick Cheney is Iranian spy?"

Aggressive does not mean effective 

Following the events of 11 September 2001, the USA, having repeatedly toughened its policy, launched an all-out foreign political offensive over almost the whole world. Whereas earlier, Washing-ton's actions were mostly guided by political methods of pressure with relatively rare use of force, in the present stage any US activity has a clearly aggressive nature.

After September 11 to power laid the stage for a new upsurge of American-Muslim, American-Russian and American-European political rivalry, which occasionally turned into an almost overt stand-off. Aggressiveness in the actions of the US administration led to the appearance of a large number of negative trends affecting the interests of most countries of the world. The US actions in Iraq, the policy with regard to FSU republics and pressure on the countries representing the so-called "axis of evil" (namely Iran) drawn up by George Bush have exposed new perilous tendencies in modern politics, the practical ideology of which now often reveals contempt for the sovereignty of other countries, disregard for international law, widespread application of double standards and "the privilege of strength".

US policy is mainly aimed at achieving complete political and economic dominance in the world arena. In principle, this direction was openly declared in the new US strategy "in the area of national security" released by the White House. It lists all the main challenges which, according to the White House, the USA is and will be facing in the near future - from terrorism to the so-called "irregular wars", from the situation in Iraq to the growing influence of new countries such as China. The new "strategy" confirms George Bush's doctrine of preventive war against terror and hostile states possessing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. "If need be, and proceeding from the trusted principles of self-defence, we do not rule out the possibility of using force before an attack on the USA, even if the time and place of attack are not known. The US policy aims to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, while the end goal is to put an end to tyranny in the world," the document says. The list of countries with "despotic systems" the USA intends to fight includes Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Burma and Zimbabwe. 

An indicative assessment of the US standing in the world has been made by Richard Hermitage. According to him, "today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the USA holds a unique position". "This country possesses incomparable diplomatic, economic, military and cultural power. Our people have more opportunities and means to defend and promote their interests in the world than at any other time in our history. As a nation, we are more responsible for leadership than ever before… Although the USA will always retain the right to act independently in its own interests, our national security strengthens when other countries play a constructive and active role by helping the USA to defend itself," Hermitage said.

However, the methods of reaching these objectives have produced rather unequivocal results, often negative and at times contradicting their very objectives. For example, "the fight against dictatorship in Iraq" has led to the appearance of a new hotbed and zone of instability on the one hand, and on the other has had a negative impact on the region as a whole and led to far-reaching negative economic implications (see in more detail below) for the entire world economy. The huge pressure on Iraq has also intensified negative political and economic trends. Besides, the recent tacit, if not overt support, for Israel's actions in Lebanon has turned the already unstable Middle East region into a beehive. As a matter of fact, analysis shows that under some circumstances this war, which has not yet reached huge proportions, could develop into a large-scale confrontation with the Arab world in particular and the Muslim world as a whole. The ramifications of this are difficult to foretell. They can only be modelled in different planes: but this is a different subject, which we will not delve into now. 

"The orange attack" in FSU republics has further exacerbated the divide within the CIS, strengthened Russia in its realization of the need to counter the West as a whole and the USA in particular, and brought about a new tendency to revitalize the Union institutions. In fact, the interest in greater political integration with Russia originates not just from Moscow, but also from the capitals of FSU republics, where certain totalitarian leaders have realized the danger which emanates from "overseas". As an example, we can recall last year's developments in Uzbekistan, when an attempt to destabilize the situation was crushed. After that, President Islam Karimov made an open suggestion to Vladimir Putin to strengthen the CIS, build new supra-national institutions capable of facilitating integration between the post-Soviet republics and "to jointly counter external threats". Russia managed to channel the "orange movement" in Kyrgyzstan in the right direction as well. Therefore, the forceful change of power there was marked by the ascent to power of clearly pro-Russian forces. 

Touching upon the situation in Afghanistan and Iran prior to the American military campaign, it is worth indicating that although the domestic system of public and political relations in these countries was far from being democratic, an institutional system of management was quite evident. After conducting military operations in these countries, the USA actually failed to create a manageable system there and effectively plunged them into turmoil. This too may have bitter ramifications which are already manifesting themselves. 

Therefore, it would be safe to say that as a result of military action the USA has ended up with an even greater zone of instability (from the Pacific coast to the Magrib) than "portrayed" by the incumbent American president. The deadlocked negotiations on its nuclear programme with the recalcitrant North Korea, which has become even more non-compliant following nuclear tests, are posing a threat to many countries of the Pacific, including Japan… The Afghan crisis, the situation in Iran, the Iraqi turmoil, strengthened Islamist clout in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli imbalance, capable of affecting Syria and Egypt and which has yet to get rid of its tendency towards revenge, are all possible threats for the near future.

War dogs …

If we sum up the existing situation, we can outline several key consequences of current US policy. First, drug production and trafficking from Afghanistan has increased many times because more than half of its territory is under the control of drug-barons. Second, as a result of confrontation in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, the arms trade has also surged significantly. In fact, the situation is becoming impossible to monitor, let alone control. And if we take into consideration the fact that the Russian mafia is closely engaged in this illegal business, the situation becomes even more lamentable. Third, despite certain blows to terrorist groups and US aggressive action against Muslim countries, the influence, authority and popularity ratings of anti-American terrorist organizations have gone off the register. Judging by the latest trends, they are now gathering forces for a further counter-offensive. In principle, this is what Bin Laden was trying to achieve by provoking the USA to a large-scale war against terrorists in Muslim countries. Fourth, such countries as Iran and North Korea, which cannot be controlled by the international community, have speeded up their nuclear development. This is confirmed by events unfolding in these countries of late. Fifth, prices of oil and other forms of energy have shot up. This may eventually lead to major and already discernible global economic crises, which may deal a blow to the socially vulnerable populations of the world. Sixth, the policy of double standards has led to a significant loss of confidence in democratic values in many post-Soviet republics, which in turn has brought about a profound crisis in the camps of the democratic opposition in these countries, a strengthening of totalitarian regimes (quite often backed by the US administration) and an overall deterioration in human rights and corruption. And seventh, which is most important, the US stand-off with its adversaries is reaching a point of no-return, beyond which it will be impossible to restore the status quo. Further aggravation of the situation may lead to enormous changes in world politics, including the possibility of a complete change of the centres of power and domination.

Victims of Washington 

The analysis of unfolding developments shows that centrifugal processes have commenced in the world. These processes have been accelerated by US policy and ensuing attempts to counter it. But we know from history that attempts to redraw the political map and spheres of influence have always entailed painful and negative consequences. Let us carefully review some of the negative trends which have emerged in the wake of Washington's actions.

1. Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan poses a threat to the security of not only the region, but of the whole world. Namely, due to lack of proper control, this territory has experienced an upsurge in drug production. Drug trafficking is now swamping very many countries. The flow of drugs from Afghanistan alone now exceeds the export of drugs from the notorious "golden triangle". As a result, major funds accumulate in the hands of destructive forces. This money is used by terrorist organizations on the one hand and, on the other, is channelled into other sectors, such as the arms trade. In addition, the abundance of illegal money always creates a need to legalize and launder it in other countries. This translates into the investment of illegal money in countries with under-developed state systems. At the end of the day, this turns into a force capable of influencing the policy of these countries. Besides, the situation in Afghanistan has a strong impact on Pakistan and India, two nuclear powers which have territorial claims on each other. In essence, the aim of the military operation in Afghanistan has brought about results which may create a situation much worse than before the campaign.

2. Iraq

The destruction of Iraq's state structure has led to the appearance of a large area of conflict. This military campaign has had many negative political and socioeconomic implications. First, the Americans have openly defied international public opinion, without even bothering to secure UN approval. This undermined confidence in the fairness of the US policy, demonstrated the debility of the UN which was considered to be the "leading international institution", deepened the stand-off with Russia and Europe which are not interested in conspicuous US domination, and showed complete disregard for their opinion. Second, this led to inter-confessional and ethnic conflicts which will be hard to control, let alone resolve. Third, yet another centre of terrorism, capable of "exporting" it to other parts of the world has emerged. Fourth, destabilization in Iraq poses a direct threat to adjacent countries. The consequences are already being felt in Turkey, where armed Kurdish groups have stepped up their activity in border territories. Fifth, even though the USA has established control over Iraq's oil production, the war still simmering in the country, as well as wider instability in a region which supplies more than half of the world's oil, led to a sudden surge in oil prices.

3. World economy 

At this point in time, this plays to some extent into the hands of the oil exporting countries (and, contrary to Washington's wishes, strengthens the financial and political standing of Russia). In the future, however, the high price of oil may prove detrimental not only to the economies of importers, but also to the countries exporting raw materials. The point is that a sharp surge in the oil price has led to a sharp surge in the value of everything in the world. The economies of many industrialized nations are already bulging at the seams. Last year experts were expressing alarm at the impending economic recession in China, which is among the top three consumers of oil and oil products. The crisis, as we all witnessed in March, has started. Shortly afterwards, it encompassed American, European and even Russian stock markets. The danger was quickly eliminated, but if a sudden slump in stock markets hadn't been prevented, it could have led to a major decline in international commodity and stock exchanges on all continents and sparked off a global economic collapse. Such a crisis would inevitably cause the price of oil to fall, which would affect the countries earning immense oil revenues. It is hard to imagine the proportions of the social crisis if such pessimistic forecasts do come true (mass bankruptcy and closure of enterprises all over the world, unemployment, etc.) The danger is still there.

Therefore, if the USA does deal a blow to Iran, another major exporter of oil and oil products, the repercussions may be deplorable, not to mention the fact that an anti-Iranian campaign would be even more difficult and bloody. Of course, it is also possible that the USA may strike only nuclear stations and laboratories without engaging in an all-out military campaign. But the Americans are unlikely to confine themselves to that. This happened in Iraq where the institute of state power was much weaker than in Iran. It is difficult to imagine how the Americans can succeed in overthrowing the mullocratic regime (which is Washington's main objective) by limited strikes, especially since the crisis in the Gulf, capable of breaking up the world economy, will require more resolute action.  

No reason for optimism 

Forecasts are not known for paying off. Also, when making forecasts, it is always necessary to rely on a certain model of development. And in order not to look like a peasant who crosses himself in wonder at the sound of thunder, let us try to look at a not very optimistic scenario. 

The developments in Iraq, as well as the mounting political confrontation with Iran, have created revulsion for anything connected with American and Western policy in the Muslim world. The recent conflict between US-backed Israel and Lebanon only added fuel to the fire and is now capable of stirring up the hornets' nest. The results of this confrontation - the Arabs think they have got the upper hand in the brief stand-off -only strengthen them in their conviction. Iran has been partly dragged into this stand-off as well, as it supplies rockets and weaponry to representatives of Hezbollah, including via the territory of Iraq. Besides, Tehran almost openly supports resistance forces in Iraq. 

A lot has been said and written about the catastrophic fallout from a military campaign against Iran. The conflict with the Persian state will, directly or indirectly, affect not only these two countries but also neighbouring states, as a minimum. It is quite possible that for America this may turn into a second Vietnam (with much more serious consequences). The existing Iranian regime, already strong enough, is likely to receive assistance from Russia and, perhaps, China, whose economic and political interests are also closely connected with developments preconditioned by US action. It is therefore possible to say that Washington has reached a point of no-return, the Rubicon, beyond which there will be no going back. For Washington this may become the "last fight" for influence because too much will be at stake.

If the USA does establish control over Iran, the Americans will effectively control more than half of the world's total oil and gas reserves, obtain direct access to Central Asian countries, encircle Russia with a tight, pro-Western ring and almost completely cut off its "political tentacle". Besides, thanks to US control over regional energy resources, the economy of China (America's second rival) will be placed under even greater US influence, because Washington will have established itself as the only political pole with almost unlimited opportunities to be the "world gendarme". 

However, there is a risk that a possible American failure may transform into a global military conflict which will engulf many countries beyond the region. It is obvious that the USA, having said "a", will have to say "b", even though they are now trying to convince everyone of the contrary. In other words, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the USA to confine itself to precision-guided rocket strikes in an effort to change Iran's political regime without establishing complete military control over the country. On the other hand, it is already clear that the deployment of troops in Iran is a most unfavourable scenario for the USA. There will not be a blitzkrieg. The plan to "blow up the country" from within by playing the "ethnic card" also seems unrealistic. Also, back at home the USA may face the well-known "Vietnam syndrome", which may cause major changes in Washington's policy for many years to come. 

Therefore, in the event of failure, the Americans will be thrown back several years and this will automatically make room in the political firmament for such countries as Russia and China, as well as the European Union. The activity of the UN will also undergo revision; accents will be altered in the Middle East, which, most likely, will be in even greater chaos. In the absence of US dictatorship, many regions of the world will encounter local conflicts in the wake of territorial claims. The statehood of Israel may be endangered as well. Processes may be launched capable of leading to the disintegration of the European and Asian continents, which will be necessitated by the former distancing itself from the processes ongoing in the latter. It is possible that Europe will try to create its own structure, similar to the UN, but more effective and not susceptible to the influence of one or two countries. The fact that certain Asian countries possess nuclear weapons and disagree with each other on a number of issues, as well as the lack of external control, could lead to global catastrophes. Thus it is possible to foresee a new division of the spheres of influence, at least for the next 10 years, until the Americans make another attempt to regain their lost positions and resurrect their shelved and dust-covered foreign policy doctrine. However, with the experience of the past still fresh, it will be a lot more difficult for Washington to do that. 

The situation is complicated even more because the "nuclear clock" wound by Tehran's mullocratic regime is counting down on the Americans and Europeans. While Europe is expressing concern over this, there is nothing it can or will do about that. All it can do is support certain political sanctions against Iran which rule out military intervention. In other words, if there is a "thunder", it will be the American military that will do the "dirty work". And in the event of defeat, they, together with the Washington administration, will be the ones Europe will blame.

As a matter of fact, the failure of the military operation may lead to a complete revision of NATO policy, including in our South Caucasus region, with whatever negative consequences this may entail for Azerbaijan and Georgia with their pro-Western foreign political courses. It is quite clear what a return to Russian dominance may lead to. One thing is clear: the Russian administration is likely to reconsider its pessimistic views on what is now a semi-defunct CIS. But the meaning of this abbreviation, as well as the notion of "Moscow", will now have many connotations FSU republics have been carefully trying to avoid for 16 years since the break-up of the USSR…