Translate

17 Haziran 2014 Salı

Democracy, Oil and Israel: Holy Trinity of US Policy in Middle East

Gürkan  BİÇEN



When Christopher Colombus (1450 – 1506) reached to a land which was unknown by the people of Europe, he did not know that he was starting to change human civilization’s path. If we reconsider the history that has been created in our modern ages, we can see that, this moment was a breaking point in human history.[1] After this discovery, the Europeans began to occupy the “New World”. Even though the American President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) said that God gave this land to some people who were peaceful and respected the human rights, and He kept this land unoccupied so that the Europeans could have come to bring civilization, we know that the reality was quite different.[2] Before the coming of the Europe, America was inhabited by its local Indian populations who were to be oppressed by the white colonists. However, the new settlers who exterminated the local populations did not perceive themselves as criminals but as people who were there to civilize the continent.[3]
Four centuries after Colombus, America became the most prominent country of the world. As some intellectuals claim, the laws of the nature require for a country to be prominent, to have many intellectual and moral values, tenacity and force so that it can shape the world. The USA was such a country during the XXth century.[4] Until the XIXth century, the foreign policy of the USA was simple; they kept out of overseas problems. The American Foreign Minister Quincy Adams, even proclaimed that America defended all the independent movements of the world, but it didn’t mean that America had to take actions overseas. America wishes the best for everyone who fights for freedoms and independence but America can defend only its own rights.[5] Adams was in fact repeating the opinions of Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) who was the 3rd president of USA. Jefferson had drawn a goal for US diplomacy; to use advantages of power, but to never become a victim by using force.[6] Jefferson thought that if the Americans could create a strong democracy in America, it was going to set an example for all the nations of the world so that they could follow.[7]
Even though the US foreign policy’s main rule was stay out of overseas problems, America tried to change this policy by some liberal constructions. In this context, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) sent a message to the Congress and said that international politics and economic relations became more complex and therefore all civil and powerful organized nations should be a kind of world police.[8] After Roosevelt, Wilson explained this policy shift in the following words: We are friends with all the nations of the world; we don’t threaten anyone, we don’t want to grab any good and we don’t want to topple anyone.[9]
In 1915, Wilson branded the term “irrelevant”. According to him, for America nothing was irrelevant if it was related to humanity.[10] Thus he showed a new mission for America. Its mission was to defend humanity against threats wherever they occur on the world.[11]  Even though Wilson offered some moral justification for its foreign policy, Henry Kissinger considered Wilson’s words as a deceit. According to Kissinger, the Americans do not like to show their own selfishness when they get involved in international disputes, but prefer to claim that they fight for principles.[12]  This policy continues even in their Middle Eastern involvement.
According to classical anthropology, we can draw the following lines for the Middle East, based on the famous historian Marshall Hodgson’s characterization. As a definition, the Middle East stretches in the west, from Morocco throughout North Africa. To the east it extends from Iran to the Arabian Peninsula and finally ends up in South Afghanistan.  This region is the cradle of civilizations because the first lettered civilization was established here.[13] On the other hand, the region is important also for our age. It has huge reserves of oil and gas and it seats on sea routes for international trade.
Before World War I, the United Kingdom was the most powerful country on the earth and it was the first state which understood the importance of oil for the modern age. The two wars (World War I and World War II) have testified that oil is a good which has very high economic value in peace period and very important military material in war period.[14] In fact, the production of one barrel of oil cost between 0,5 and 2 dollars in Saudi Arabia, while in the US it costs 10 dollars, while its sale price is around 100 dollars at the moment.[15] This huge profit has directed the UK to control most of the lands which had oil reservoirs. The UK found oil in Iran and then in Iraq at the time when it belonged to the Ottoman State. During World War I, the UK had promised the Arab tribes to create for them an independent and united Arab Kingdom apart from the Ottoman State. The goal of the British was not become champions of freedom for the Arabs but to control their oil fields.[16] A report from the Maritime Affairs, dating in 1922, the British considered the lands of the Middle East as the main strategic point for the oil reserves of the planet.[17]
However, when WWI began Britain did not support the Arabs as it had promised, but Zionism.[18] The founders of the Zionist movement were not religious men. Moses Hess (1812-1875), a German Jewish communist, had desired to establish some Jewish colonies in Palestine for the Jews.  After Hess, in 1897, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) who was an Austrian Jew, reconsidered the dream of Hess.[19]  During the WWI, Britain’s Foreign Minister, Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930) announced that Her Majesty’s government supported the idea for the creation of a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine. The British made this decision based in their traditional colonialist reasoning: They wanted to protect the Chanel of Suez.[20] In this way the Zionist plan became an international issue. However, 40 years later, Britain could not hold to Suez and the Zionist state of Israel did not help the British to defend it. At the end of World War II, Britain and France ended up losing most of their control over the Middle East that they ruled from 1918 to 1956.[21]
Apart from Wilson’s moral principles, after the WWI, the states of found other justifications in their takeover of foreign countries. One justification was the invention of the Mandate Regime. Britain and France divided the lands of the Arabs through this justification and the words of Wilson were used just as a moral justification to cover their vandalism.[22]
Between WWI and WWII the United States of America in general stayed out of European conflicts and defended only their own interests. However the American oil companies had found untouched oil-reservoirs in Saudi Arabia and American companies had established an oil cartel there called the Red Line Agreement of 1928.[23]  In a short span of time, the interests of these oil companies’ started to shift the priorities of the US foreign policy.[24]  Since the control of oil resource is key to economical and political success, the politics of the oil became the main scope of the US foreign policy.[25] For this reason, we can realize that at present time US and at WWI United Kingdom share parallel concerns over oil sources’ control and flow.[26] 
After WWII, UK has lost its power but achieved to maintain its influence over US by some private relations. By common language, culture and intellectual influence, UK opinions were admitted seem like their own ideas in Washington.[27] Hereby, US has been a successor of UK in Middle East, including relation Zionist entity in Palestine. In 1947, advisor of Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), President of Soviet Union, Andrei  Zdanov was recognizing Middle East as a region which under hegemony of UK and US.[28] UK hegemony’s bases were Iran and Egypt while US was controlling Arab Peninsula.
Before UK left Palestine, 29 November 1947, UN divided Palestine two parts; Jewish and Arabs. Arabs did not recognize this resolution and when David Ben Gurion (1886-1973) proclaimed “Jewish State” in Palestine on 14 May 1948, Arab – Zionist Israel war began. It was a dilemma to recognize “Jewish State” for US. According to Richard Holbrooke, whereas George Marshall and foreign policy diplomats were opposite to recognize “Jewish State”, President Harry Truman (1884-1972) had recognized that in 11 minutes after that proclaiming but with a small difference; Truman recognized it as “Israel State” not as “Jewish State”.[29] It was a milestone that has determined US foreign policy for half century as “holy trinity”: Israel, oil and anti-communism.[30]
 After proclaiming Israel state, Zionists dismissed around 940 thousands Arabs from Jewish part to West Bank.  Those people have gathered at UNHCR camps.[31]  On the other hand, from 1948 to 1996, around 2,5 million Jewish have settled in occupied Palestine.[32]
As we mentioned above, the United States replaced Britain in the Middle East after WWII, and one important reason was Suez Canal Crisis of 1957. After this crisis, Britain and France had to abandon the region and in this the United States established a solitary hegemony in the region.[33] Egypt, at that time, was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein (1918-1970), who considered the establishment of Israel as the final culmination of imperialism.[34] Nasser allied to Soviet Union and made an agreement with Nikita Kruschov (1894-1971) for Soviet weapons.[35] The goal of the Soviet Union was not to control the Middle East, because of it had enough oil for itself. The Soviets wanted to stop the US and reduce its influence in the region.[36] In those times the Zionist Israeli regime turned away from Soviet Union and came closer to the United States because the Soviet Union supported Egypt. In same time, the Zionists tried to get weapons from France.[37] All these important developments created many reactions among American policy-makers. David Eisenhower (1890-1969), the 34th President of the US, announced three bases for the US foreign policy in the Middle East, known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. They were: Economic assistance, military assistance and protecting the Middle East from a communist takeover. Eisenhower furthered his doctrine by claiming that the United States were obliged to protect the entire free world against aggressors.[38]
The US tried to convince Egypt to make a peace agreement with Israel. For this reason, the US followed two policies. The first one was to push for peace and the second was to promise to help Egypt for building the Aswan Barrage. Egypt on its part brought two other conditions; Israel should retreat from Negev Desert and allow all the Palestinian refugees who had abandoned their lands in 1948, to return to their homeland.[39]
But as we mentioned above, US policy-makers preferred the Zionist Israeli regime over its Arab allied in the Middle East. According to Noreng, the Zionist Israeli regime with the help of the United States became a military base and got great military superiority over the Arabs.[40] After the Six Days War in 1967, the US and the Zionist Israeli regime’s relations reached to a point of no return. This war was the basis of many strategic positions that we see today in the Middle East.[41] After this war the relations of the US and Israel have developed into such strategic areas, so that the US knows that if one day it will be forced to abandon its military bases in the Persian Gulf, particularly in Saudi Arabia, it will still be able to use Israel as its military base.[42]
From 1970 to today, the oil income has transformed the societies of the Middle East a lot. However, the political setup of the Arab monarchies remains the same. During the past 40 years the US has supported anti democratic governments across the Middle East, particularly the monarchs of Arabian Peninsula. The people of the Middle East have seen that the Zionist Israeli regime and the Arab monarchies can survive only by the US support. In this way the US has became the ultimate defender of oppressive regimes and has stopped moderate political movements from gaining ground in the Middle East, even though the US proclaims itself as champion of democracy since 100 years.[43] So, how can we explain these contradictions between American claims and its actions? Why the US policy makers proclaim the US as an apostle of freedom, democracy and human rights while its army occupies the Middle East? Is the Middle Easter oil indispensable for American society’s daily life?
Such as thing maybe was true in the 1970s[44]. However such a thing is no longer true today. Nowadays America is not dependent on the oil imports from the Middle East. America imports oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico and as is known to all, the US is an oil producing country. It has thousands of oil-wells on its own land. American companies sell/ export the Middle Eastern oil to Europe with high profits.[45] The US provides security for Middle Eastern monarchies against their internal and foreign enemies, and in this way they allow the US to sell their oil and keep the Zionist Israeli regime far from them. To achieve this, the US makes a number of political manoeuvres, like for e.g. it pressures Palestinians and Zionists to make peace. One such example was the Oslo Accord (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements). According to this agreement, the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA) accepted the of the Zionist Israeli regime to exist and in return, the Zionist Israeli regime pledges support towards the establishment of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA).[46]
In follow up with this agreement, the US made sure to defend the right of Israel to exist and protect its cheap flow of oil from the Middle East for its companies. To achieve these goals, the US carried out some diplomatic actions. If we count them after WWII, we can see some of them as follows:
            Economic Survey Mission of 1949, Rhodes Armistice Talks in 1949 (backed by US), Tripartite Declaration of 1950, Jordan Valley Development Plan of 1953-1955, secret shuttle negotiations between Egypt's President Nasir and Israel's Premier David Ben Gurion, United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), the United Nations Relief and Works Administration for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), Gunnar Jarring mission to implement the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, Soviet-American talks (1969), the Rogers Plan (1969), the Interim Settlement effort (1971), Kissinger's step-by-step diplomacy after the 1973 war, and President Jimmy Carter's maiden Middle East initiative-the failed Geneva conference approach of early 1977. Only at Camp David (1978), Madrid/Oslo 'peace process.'[47]
            Although US portrays itself as defender of peace and human rights, it has supported monarchs and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. The US has supported many governments which came to power through coup d’état and in fake elections. But after the end of the Cold War the US has gone in a crusading campaign through which it wants to democratize the Middle East. The Clinton administrator believed that there was a historical chance to promote democracy in the Middle East.[48] According to Clinton, the US should design e new Middle East. In this new Middle East, Israel stands at its centre. He considered that if the US want to succeed in its policies in the Middle East, the Middle East had to be democratized. Clinton offered a soft way to promote democracy.[49] Thus he used organizations like the USAID foundation to achieve these goals. The USAID supported many national civil society organizations in the Middle East.[50] Clinton and his successors share common viewpoints about the democratization of the Middle East, which according to them will result in the promotion of American values, security for Israel, acceptance of the US patronage over the region.[51]
However, after the 9/11 attacks in the US, the government of George W. Bush changed its approach towards the democratization of the Middle East. According to Bush, the US had to reinforce its military presence in the Middle East and push the Arabs to accept America’s democratic values. If necessary, the US should wage even wars against undemocratic and weak states in order to bring democratic structures to the region. This was the major point through which the Bush administration legitimized their invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.[52]  If there was no possibility to invade a country which was undemocratic and weak, the US proclaimed them as “axis of evil.” This is what they did with Iran and Syria and put them under sanctions, which many of them are illegal under international laws.[53] Despite the American discourse, the Middle Eastern people know that their aggressions aren’t for democracy. The US have tried to protect Israel and its oil reserves. Their war was also a war against Islam.[54] People of the Middle East think that if the US was sincere on its discourse it would not support monarchs, whereas Muslim intellectuals want democracy and freedom. Even after the 9/11 attacks, the US never pressured the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to democratize itself.[55]  There is no chance for democracy without creating powerful institutions; values cannot be persistently implemented as policy.[56] Events which have occurred in the Middle East, demonstrate to us that the military aggression destroyed whole states, such as Iraq and turned them into centres of terrorism. In the absence of democratic structures, Iraq was dragged into a chaos. 
            People need peace, justice, security and welfare. If a superpower/ dominant power proclaims that it is a champion of humanity, first of all it must demonstrate its righteous face to nations.  It must know that people do not believe her, if it supports the sources of their problems. In the Middle East, the main problem comes from the American companies which want cheap oil. As explained above, their interests have been combined with American governments’ foreign policy. The desire for maximum profits and the unjust treatment of the people of the Middle East have created endless problems in this part of the world. What should the US do with its Middle Eastern policy? According to us, the US governments have to:
-          Consider that the people of the Middle East people, are like other human beings, and like the Americans,
-          They have to pay them for their oil and not just steal it as they do,
-          They must force the Zionist Israeli regime to accept Palestinians’ right to return,
-          Accept free elections for Jews and Arabs in Palestine and accept the return of the Palestinians to their homeland,
-          Withdraw their military presence from the Middle East,
-          Support economic, cultural and civil society activities on the entire region and promote public health structures.
-          Distance itself from Evangelist preachers who consider the Zionist Israeli regime as a regime which will bring the Armageddon on earth
As a final word, we must mention a Spanish saying which states; “Oh, pilgrim! Paths cannot be built. Paths can be established by walk.”[57]



SOURCES
ATTALI Jaques, 1492, ss:11-13, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1999
DALACOURA, Catherine, US Democracy Promotions in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001, (International Affairs, 81, 5, 2005, pp:963-979)
DREZNER, Daniel W., Values, Interests, and American Grand Strategy, (Diplomatic History, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 2005), pp:429-432
FERGUSON Nial, İmparatorluk, p:298, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013
GARAUDY Roger, İlahi Mesajlar Toprağı Filistin, p:260, Türk Edebiyatı Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011
HOLBROOKE Richard, Washington’s Battle  Over Israel’s Birth, The Washington Post, 7 May 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East, (Middle East Journal, Vol. 50, Summer, 1996), pp:329-343
KHAN, Muqtedar, Prospects for Muslim Democracy: The Role of the US Policy, (Middle East Policy, Fall 2003, Volume X, Number 3)
KISSENGER Henry, Diplomasi, s:39, İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007
LİNDHOM Charles, İslam Toplumlarında Gelenek ve Değişim, p:26, Elips Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004
NORENG Qyestein, Ham Güç –Petrol Politikaları ve Pazarı-, p:65, Elips Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004
SHLAIM Avi, The Middle East: The Origin of Arab-Israeli Wars, (Oxford: Oxford Universty Press, 1996),pp:219-240
Yves LACOSTE, Büyük Oyunu Anlamak, p:322, NTV Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007









[1] ATTALI Jaques, 1492, ss:11-13, İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul, 1999
[2] KISSENGER Henry, Diplomasi, s:39, İş Bankası Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007
[3] ibid, p:28
[4] ibid, p:9
[5] ibid, pp:26-27
[6] ibid, p:26
[7] ibid, p:25
[8] ibid, p:31
[9] ibid, p:31
[10] ibid, p:40
[11] ibid, p:39
[12] ibid, p:787
[13] LİNDHOM Charles, İslam Toplumlarında Gelenek ve Değişim, p:26, Elips Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004
[14] NORENG Qyestein, Ham Güç –Petrol Politikaları ve Pazarı-, p:65, Elips Yayınları, İstanbul, 2004
[15] Yves LACOSTE, Büyük Oyunu Anlamak, p:322, NTV Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007
[16] NORENG Qyestein, p:84
[17] FERGUSON Nial, İmparatorluk, p:298, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2013
[18]  LACOSTE Yves, p:288
[19] İbid, p:289
[20] GARAUDY Roger, İlahi Mesajlar Toprağı Filistin, p:260, Türk Edebiyatı Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011
[21] SHLAIM Avi, The Middle East: The Origin of Arab-Israeli Wars, (Oxford: Oxford Universty Press, 1996),pp:219-240
[22] FERGUSON Nial, p:296
[23] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East, (Middle East Journal, Vol. 50, Summer, 1996), pp:329-343
[24] NORENG Qyestein, p:60
[25] İbid, p:66
[26] İbid, p:67
[27] KISSENGER Henry, p:217
[28] İbid, p:503
[29] HOLBROOKE Richard, Washington’s Battle  Over Israel’s Birth, The Washington Post, 7 May 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Erişim tarihi: 10.06.2014
[30] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East
[31] LACOSTE Yves, p:295
[32] İbid, p:295
[33] KISSENGER Henry, p:528
[34] İbid, p:504
[35] İbid, p:502
[36] NORENG Qyestein, p:91
[37] LACOSTE Yves, p:291
[38] KISSENGER Henry, p:529
[39] İbid, p:507
[40] NORENG Qyestein, p:14
[41] LACOSTE Yves, p:292
[42] NORENG Qyestein, p:17
[43] NORENG Qyestein, p:12
[44] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East
[45] LACOSTE Yves, p:317
[46] İbid, pp:295-298
[47] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East
[48] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East
[49] HUDSON, Michael C., To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy toward the Middle East
[50] DALACOURA, Catherine, US Democracy Promotions in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001, (International Affairs, 81, 5, 2005, pp:963-979)
[51] DALACOURA, Catherine, US Democracy Promotions in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001
[52] DALACOURA, Catherine, US Democracy Promotions in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001
[53] DALACOURA, Catherine, US Democracy Promotions in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001
[54] KHAN, Muqtedar, Prospects for Muslim Democracy: The Role of the US Policy, (Middle East Policy, Fall 2003, Volume X, Number 3)
[55] KHAN, Muqtedar, Prospects for Muslim Democracy: The Role of the US Policy
[56] DREZNER, Daniel W., Values, Interests, and American Grand Strategy, (Diplomatic History, Volume 29, Issue 3, June 2005), pp:429-432
[57] KISSENGER Henry, p:529

Hiç yorum yok: