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
[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
.JPG)
