DOCSLIB.ORG

America Versus the Middle East the Middle East and New US Military Policies Bahig Nassar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
America Versus the Middle East the Middle East and New US Military Policies Bahig Nassar Appointment in Cordoba 17 America versus the Middle East The Middle East and New US Military Policies Bahig Nassar Bahig Nassar works at the Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organisations in Cairo, and also with the Afro-Asian People’s Solidarity Organisation. He prepared this keynote paper for the Cordoba Dialogue. This article examines the relationship between the Middle East and the new military policies of the United States from the point of view of the peace movements. It is based on the concept that, at present, the United States relies mainly on its military power to impose its conditions on the process of globalisation. This serves its interests globally and regionally. If its allies refuse to follow suit, the United States will act unilaterally. Big powers can compete globally with the United States in the economic field, and within the framework of the international division of labour. But they cannot compete militarily, as the United States alone can act globally, while all others act regionally Introduction The security environment, worldwide and in all regions, changed totally with the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Soviet Union. A gradual transformation of this environment had been under way since 1990, and led to the adoption of new military policies by George W. Bush’s administration. They are incorporated in two main documents: the ‘Nuclear Posture Review’ and the ‘National Security Strategy of the United States’. Nuclear confrontations in the North between the United States and Russia (the former Soviet Union) have receded. They are now emerging in regions in the South and East, mainly in the Middle East, South Asia and North East Asia. In addition, the United States has adopted a very aggressive policy. It levels threats to launch pre-emptive wars and possibly to use low-yield nuclear weapons in military operations, on its own decision, and with utter disregard for international law, the United Nations Charter and its institutions, and multilateral agreements. But these new policies on the part of the United States did not emerge in a vacuum. Several military infrastructures, which are among the basic elements of their foundation, had been built up during the previous Clinton administrations. These are being rearranged and integrated, at present, to suit the implementation of these new policies. Astonishingly, these infrastructures were the result of lessons drawn from military operations undertaken in the Middle East (South West Asia). Principal among them are the following: United States clandestine military operations using US arms and special units in support of the Islamic Mujahideen against the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan; in 1991, the Gulf war against Iraq, led by United States; and the Israeli military operations against the Palestinian people and Arab countries. ➤ Maimonides Maimonides 18 Appointment in Cordoba Lessons drawn from Middle East wars First, the Middle East region assumes a special character. Only one country in the region has acquired nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence is unilateral and not mutual, a matter which has led to far-reaching consequences. Egypt and several Arab countries refused to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, concluded in Paris in January 1989, due to Israel’s refusal to accede to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. As a result of Israel’s insistence on retaining its nuclear capabilities, other states in the region seek every opportunity to acquire weapons of mass destruction to counter Israel’s deadly nuclear threats. A new development has emerged. The elimination of nuclear weapons in the Middle East must be expanded to cover all weapons of mass destruction. In response to this development, Israel has decided to use force against any country of the region which may try to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Sixteen Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. Richard Cheney gave thanks for the bold dramatic action that had been taken by Israel to destroy the Iraqi reactor.1 If Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons had succeeded, nuclear threats could had been levelled at each other by the parties involved in the Gulf War. This horrible situation might, in fact, have led to the prevention of the war, and other means could had been sought to solve the problem. To prevent such an eventuality, the United States initiated its Counter Proliferation policy. This openly advocates the use of force combined with nuclear deterrence against any country hostile to US policies which may try to acquire weapons of mass destruction that could be used to deprive the United States and its transnational corporations of their interests. In 1996, the then Secretary of Defence in the Clinton administration, William Perry, highlighted the importance of Counter Proliferation when he said, ‘In deterring this (weapons of mass destruction) threat, we depend both on a strong conventional military force and smaller, but still powerful, nuclear force. In our Nuclear Posture Review, we reaffirmed the importance of maintaining nuclear weapons as a deterrent. But I would like to point out that both our conventional and nuclear force, as deterrents, not only must be strong, but it must be perceived that the US has the will power to use that strength’.2 The deadly threats levelled by Israeli nuclear weapons had induced several countries in the region to seek every possibility to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, the United States may use force combined with nuclear deterrence against them to prevent nuclear proliferation, while, as usual, it will leave Israeli weapons intact. This double standard policy is one of the main pillars of new US military strategy adopted by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Second, during the 1991 Gulf War, the United States used the Patriot missile system to neutralise Scud missiles launched by Iraq. Actually, both systems failed to function successfully due to their technological defects. But the lesson Appointment in Cordoba 19 was drawn. After the war, the United States started to produce and deploy more advanced Theatre Missile Defence systems in the Middle East in co-operation with Israel in order to kill the missiles of their adversaries. Consequently, the skies over the Middle East will be opened to US and Israeli missiles to hit any target in any country in the region. Israel acquired the advanced US Patriot 3 systems, and together with the United States jointly produced the Arrow system which can defend the entire Israeli territories.3 In 1994, the Clinton administration also decided to conduct joint tests with Israel to develop laser technology and to produce a laser system4 which can kill very short range missiles launched by the Hezb Allah organisation from Lebanon across the Israeli border. The United States also concluded an agreement with Russia on ‘Theatre Missile Defence’. This covers limited areas in various regions and deals with ‘killing’ medium and short range missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction which might be launched by other states hostile to US interests. The agreement was concluded at a meeting between Clinton and Yeltsin in Helsinki on March 22, 1997.5 Under the Clinton administration, the United States also started to develop a National Missile Defense system to defend the entire US territories and to deploy weapons in space. This step has led to the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty by the Bush administration. Putting weapons in space is the final step in the National Missile Defence and Theatre Missile Defence deployments. Space is to be added as the fourth dimension after land, sea and air for weapon deployments. It will allow the United States to project power over our entire planet. The US military’s Long Range Plan, which documents the construction of ballistic missile defence systems, stresses that globalisation of the world economy will continue, with a widening gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. It declares that ‘our nation’s increasing dependence upon space capabilities, both militarily and economically, produces a related vulnerability that will not go unnoticed by adversaries. US interests and investments in space must by fully protected to ensure our nation’s freedom of action in space’.6 Thus, the second pillar of the Bush administration’s new military policies is already available. Third, a nuclear capable Rapid Deployment Force was established in the 1980s, comprising more than 300,000 US soldiers on sea, land and in the air. A United States Central Command was established to take charge of all operations undertaken by this force in the vast areas from Pakistan in the East to North Africa in the West, and from the Horn of Africa in the South up to Central Asia.7 Military facilities for the Rapid Deployment Force were provided by Morocco, Liberia, Egypt, Kenya and Oman, in addition to bases in Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, with Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as its central base.8 These are the areas where almost all military operations currently undertaken by the Bush administration are taking place. In the 1980s, special units assigned to the United States Central Command undertook secret operations in Lebanon. But the main operations undertaken by 20 Appointment in Cordoba them were in Afghanistan in order to counter the Soviet invasion. Usually their operations are conducted secretly, in connection with low-intensity conflicts. Now, they are among the main components of the United States military build- up to attack the so-called rogue states and terrorist groups. Paradoxically, the same Mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, formerly identified by the United States as ‘freedom fighters’ and clandestinely trained by its special units, now form the main bulk of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. All these military structures are now part and parcel of the new military policies of the United States.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Independent Personal1ty of the Palestinians*
    THE INDEPENDENT PERSONAL1TY OF THE PALESTINIANS* Türkkaya ATAÖV The exodus and the dispersal of the Palestinian people af- ter the occupation of their land by the racist Zionist entity could not hinder the tradition of national expression. This expression, linked to the national question, was even developed as a reaction to foreign invasion. No doubt, the Palestinian armed struggle, follovving the Israeli attack in 1967, has caused an explosion of a potential energy not only in terms of military force, but in the realm of culture and arts. Palestinian culture, in the form of poetry, folk tales, popular singing, dancing, national costumes, embroidery, ceramics, carving, glass and metal work or various other forms of expression, is the vivid proof of the existence of a homeland and a people's yearning for it. The Palestinian masses, under occupation or in exile, are gathering, safeguarding and developing their ovvn culture, knowing ful 1 well that the preservation of culture is an effective vvay of resistance to attempts undermining national consciousness. The Zionist entity has not only looted the land of the Palestini- ans, but is also suppressing their culture and what is more,trying to usurpe it from them. But the Palestinians are engaged in a struggle to obtain recognition of their independent personality and existence. In spite of Zionist aggression, the ı oots of a peop- le, deep in the Palestinian soil, cannot be erased. * The Palestinians were avvare of the dangers posed by Zio- nist immigration, much earlier than generally accepted. Throug- hout many centuries, the Holy Land prospered under the tolerant rule of Arab and Ottoman Turkish sovereigns, who safeguarded * This paper was prepared for an international conference in Baghdad (Iraq) in 1979.
    [Show full text]
  • P.L.O. Lnlonaatlon Bulletin CONTENTS to OUR READERS
    P.L.O. lnlonaatlon bulletin CONTENTS TO OUR READERS Solidarity is an important weJpon for helping the peoples of the world overcome: oppres­ sion and injustice. The support <~nd solidJrity which the Palesti­ nian people receive helps us to continue our just struggle for our just cause. We <~re grateful for the_ solidJrity Jnd support we get, ' but although we hJve many friend~ around the world, our enemies Me still strong Jnd fmmiddble. They arc better Jrmed, better equipped, and much wealthier thJn we. Nevertheless, though we may Editorial ....................................3 possess limited nJeJns, our dcter­ Palestine Notes .............................. .4 min<ltion Jnd willingness to PLO Communique On Arab Summit ...............7 sacrifice is unlimited. The world forces of liberation, of which we Israeli Terror Cannot Break Our People's Resistance ... 9 are proud to be a part, are the Occupation Diary ............................ 1 2 emerging forces, and it is to us Israeli Government Re-expels Oawasmeh And Milhem 14 that the future belongs. The Israeli Military Occupation In Galilee ............. 16 forces of oppression have had Z ionism In Practice ...........................22 their dJy, Jnd shall be consigned to the dusthin of history . Document: "There Is No Palestinian People" By Meir Kahane ...........................25 We thank all of our friends Establishing The Zionist Stranglehold throughout the world for the By Faris Glubb ............................28 letters of support and encoura­ gement you have sent to us. World Events ................................31 Surely, we and other liberation 29th November: movements will continue on the International Palestine Solidarity Day .......... 33 road to victory. Solidarity ..................................35 Letters to "Palestine" .........................35 PRICE ... ............ .. .......... L.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Camp David's Shadow
    Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Seth Anziska All rights reserved ABSTRACT Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska This dissertation examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider Middle East. Utilizing archival sources and oral history interviews from across Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Camp David’s Shadow recasts the early history of the peace process. It explains how a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict with provisions for a resolution of the Palestinian question gave way to the facilitation of bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel. As recently declassified sources reveal, the completion of the Camp David Accords—via intensive American efforts— actually enabled Israeli expansion across the Green Line, undermining the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty in the occupied territories. By examining how both the concept and diplomatic practice of autonomy were utilized to address the Palestinian question, and the implications of the subsequent Israeli and U.S. military intervention in Lebanon, the dissertation explains how and why the Camp David process and its aftermath adversely shaped the prospects of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. In linking the developments of the late 1970s and 1980s with the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords in the decade that followed, the dissertation charts the role played by American, Middle Eastern, international, and domestic actors in curtailing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Visitors to College
    E X E T E R C O L L E G E Register 2011 Contents Editorial 4 From the Rector 4 From the President of the MCR 7 From the President of the JCR 9 Elizabeth Helen Gili (1913–2011) 11 Leslie Philip Le Quesne CBE (1919–2011) 12 Sidney Martin Starkie (1922–2010) 13 Robert Henry Robinson (1927–2011) 15 William Aaron DeJanes (1978–2011) 18 Armin Kroesbacher (1990–2011) 19 Sandra Fredman, FBA, by Jonathan Herring 20 The Chapel, by Helen Orchard and Lister Tonge 21 The College Staff, by William Jensen 24 Ruskin College and Exeter, by Tony Moreton 26 B.W. Henderson, by Keith Bradley 28 William Lockhart, by Nicholas Schofield 31 A Spitfire Pilot Celebrates his Failures, by Richard Gilman 33 Uncovering the Secrets of the Old Masters, by Rachel Billinge 36 What Now for Higher Education?, by Reeta Chakrabarti 38 The Patient Doctor, by B.L.D. Phillips 40 Pre-prandial, by John Symons 42 Poems of Oxford, by Virginie Basset 44 Population Ageing in Vietnam, by Matthew Tye 45 Failed States and Extralegal Groups, by Christine Cheng 47 Solving Climate Change with Wind and Solar Power, by Matthias Fripp 49 College Notes and Queries 51 The Governing Body 56 Honours and Appointments 58 Publications Reported 59 Class Lists in Honour Schools and Honour Moderations 2011 61 Distinctions in Moderations and Prelims 2011 63 Graduate Degrees 2010–11 63 Major Scholarships, Studentships, Bursaries 2011–12 66 College Prizes 2010–11 68 University Prizes 2010–11 68 Graduate Freshers 2011 69 Undergraduate Freshers 2011 71 Visiting Students 2011–12 73 Deaths 74 Marriages 76 Births 77 Notices 79 1 Editor Christopher Kirwan was Official Fellow and Lecturer in Philosophy from 1960 to 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Silent Revolution: Education and Instability in the Gulf Monarchies
    THE SILENT REVOLUTION: EDUCATION AND INSTABILITY IN THE GULF MONARCHIES GAWDAT BAHGAT Since the end of World War II, the global economy has grown dependent on oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Given the immense reserves in the region, this dependence is likely to increase. The Gulf War of 1991 showed the un- compromising world determination to guarantee the safety of oil fields and shipments. A heavy Western, particularly American, military presence in the region since the Gulf War, has served as a deterrent against any threat to the security of the six Gulf monarchies: Bahrain; Kuwait; Oman; Qatar; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This alliance, formal and infor- mal, between the Gulf regimes and the Western powers has reduced tremen- dously the likelihood of another full-scale war similar to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This relative security from an outside enemy does not, however, elim- inate other sources of threat to regional off supplies. For the last several years, there have been signs of growing internal insta- bility in a number of the Gulf monarchies. The domestic environment reflects a fundamental structural imbalance between economic growth on the one hand and social and political developments on the other hand. The former has sur- passed the latter. Due to the huge oil revenues, Gulf citizens have enjoyed a substantial improvement in their standard of living. Meanwhile, social atti- tudes and political structures have changed at a much slower pace. This im- balance in the speed of change challenges the stability of the region. Increasingly, the six Gulf regimes have been unable to peacefully assimilate the growing number of emerging social forces, particularly educated youths, into existing economic and political structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Kabul Times Digitized Newspaper Archives
    University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Kabul Times Digitized Newspaper Archives 9-24-1964 Kabul Times (September 24, 1964, vol. 3, no. 169) Bakhtar News Agency Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/kabultimes Part of the International and Area Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bakhtar News Agency, "Kabul Times (September 24, 1964, vol. 3, no. 169)" (1964). Kabul Times. 703. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/kabultimes/703 This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the Digitized Newspaper Archives at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kabul Times by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. '- I. ~. , , " ':..- ". , , " ' ". : -' ~ I, " - - . '. -" J. , . " . -. -.. '. , " .' . : - ~ ...-" ~. .. .. [ -- - '. , .... - . 1 , . " , '. - . I , " KABUL TIMES SEPTEMBER 23; 1964 " .... .-~ ".-- - - . PAGE 4 > • THE WEATHER •. '- former Ka~miri, SfWlents Leave For Beirut To Further Their Studies Yesterday's Temperatures .' - '. -' ,Max, + 24"(;. Minimum, +9°C. ' Premi~r Sun sets today at 6.5 p.m. Arreste4 Sun rises tomorrow at 5.5 a.m. , , ,C "St23 "E\\" DELHI, ,ll1dla, e~: . ,' Tomorrow's Outlook: Cloudy ., G Prime MinISter -Forecast by Air Authority APJ- nutan a' . " , , '- '-, JIB h dur Shastri Tuesday 15', - " 5" -.~ ..... a a.-a ponsJbllity for the aI'­ PARK CLVEMA: ' dalmea re.s I' Mohammad . IGhu am, . At :;:'30 ~ and 10 p.m. Russian VOL III. NO 169 'KABUL: THURSDA.' Y, i ' SEPI'El'4~,ER 24, !964~ MI~, ~.1·343! S~~ ~', ',':: ,,C- ~', I cst ,ot . r' Pnme Mims' Bakh;;hl. a; orm:r ,. 'film; BICYCLISTS With transla­ Kasr~I~:ere tIOn 10 Persian. ~U:::'.S=.~S:':"'.a':'::y~s~1 -R-e-ce-i-'Y-'e;,--'-,~~H;;-;R~'H:~ince.
    [Show full text]
  • [ 1965 ] Part 1 Sec 1 Chapter 14 Questions Relating to the Middle East
    QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE MIDDLE EAST 215 S/6285, S/6287. Letters of 12 and 19 April 1965 S/6728. Letter of 29 September 1965 from Turkey. from Turkey. S/6732, S/6734. Letters of 1 October 1965 from S/6288. Letter of 7 April 1965 from Greece. Greece. S/6289, S/6351. Letters of 20 April and 12 May S/6758. Letter of 7 October 1965 from Turkey. 1965 from Turkey. S/6783, S/6787. Letters of 13 and 12 October 1965 S/6362, S/6385, S/6403, S/6405, S/6410, S/6425, from Greece. S/6441, S/6470, S/6506. Letters of 15 and 27 S/6809. Letter of 18 October 1965 from Turkey. May, 1, 2, 8, 12 and 21 June, and 6 July 1965 from S/6820, S/6830. Letters of 18 and 25 October 1965 Greece. from Greece. S/6526, S/6527 and Corr.1. Letters of 14 July 1965 S/6831, S/6837. Letters of 25 and 27 October 1965 from Turkey. from Turkey. S/6538. Letter of 15 July 1965 from Greece. S/6853, S/6872. Letters of 30 October and 4 No- S/6550, S/6551. Letters of 22 July 1965 from vember 1965 from Greece. Turkey. S/6914, S/7065. Letters of 11 November 1965 and S/6618, S/6619, S/6623, S/6679, S/6684, S/6718, 3 January 1966 from Turkey. S/6721, S/6723, S/6729. Letters of 16 and 19 A/6002. Report of Security Council to General As- August, 11, 14, 24, 25, 27 and 29 September 1965 sembly, Chapter 4 C.
    [Show full text]
  • BRITAIN and 'THE OMAN WAR': an Arabian Entanglement J
    BRITAIN AND 'THE OMAN WAR': An Arabian Entanglement J. E. PETERSON Mr. Peterson is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. and is in the process of completing a dissertation on the political development of Oman in the twentieth century, in which connexion he spent four months in Oman during the winter of 1974-75. He is co-author of An Historical- Cultural Dictionary of the Sultanate of Oman and the Amirates of Eastern Arabia (in print). IN MAY 1954, the Imam of interior Oman, Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al- Khalill, died. His death was followed by a series of essentially minor skirmishes; yet this activity signalled the end to over three decades of peaceful slumber in that isolated and hitherto forgotten corner of Arabia. The conflict between the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and several rebellious tribes of the interior arose in an atmosphere of incipient Arab nationalism, amidst Saudi Arabian claims to al-Burayml oasis, and was compounded by the British-French-Israeli invasion of Suez in 1956. Thus, it is not surprising that the local nature of the events was distorted into a wider question of Arab-British relations in the Middle East. In Oman, the end result was the total unification of a country which had been marked since the early twentieth century by the existence of a semi-autonomous, tribally organized territory in the interior, nominally obeisant to an Imam of the Ibadi sect of Islam.1 Jurisdiction by the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman over this interior region had been limited by the weakness of the Sultans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - creating a situation which had been formalized by an agreement between Sultan Downloaded By: [Peterson, J.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly - Twentieth Session - Fourth Committee
    United Nations FOURTH COMMITTEE, 1573rd GENERAL MEETING ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 1 Decem1Jer 1965, at 10.55 a.m. TJrEI\'TIETII SE8810lV Official Records NEW YORK CONTENTS some officers had gone so far as to resign their Page commissions. Agenda item 73: 4. Mr. StL\l\IMOt:T (Yemen). referring to reports Question of Oman: report of the Ad Hoc Com­ that the Cnited Kingdom authorities were planning mittee on Oman (continued) to equip the military bases in the area with nuclear HParing of petitioners (continued) • 351 weapons, asked the petitioners whether they were General debate (continued). 354 aware of a so-called secret agreement concerning the l\Iasirah base between 1\Ir. Selwyn Lloyd, the Organization of work . 355 former Secretary of State for Foreign A.ffairs, and the Sultan. Chairman: Mr. MaJid RAHNEMA (Iran). 5. Mr. GLl'BB (Committee for the Rights of Oman) said that he was unable to reply to that question since In the absence of the Chairman, Mr. Bruce (Togo), it involved a complex and delicate matter and he Vice-Chairman, took the Chair. might unwittingly divulge information which came within the scope of the Official Secrets Act, causing AGENDA ITEM 73 difficulties for himself and the other llnited Kingdom citizens on the Committee he represented. Question of Oman: report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Oman (continued) (A/5846) 6. Sheikh TALIB BIN ALI AL-HANI satd that the question was a complex one and that he would need HEARING OF PETITIONERS (continued) time to study it. He would he glad to give a reply at At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Muslim Brotherhood Cult That Runs the New Arab World, Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 6, Number 18, May 8, 1979 ( COUNTE.,NTE"'GENCE Muslim B rotherhood: London's insane cultist followers of Reverend Jim Jones's People's Temple, the mindless "Islamic revolutionaries" I. Introduction of Iran have lost their human souls. Led by confused and fanatical mullahs, of whom Khomeini is only the best known, the masses of Iran's revolt have been The period from the fall of the Shah of Iran' to plunged into the abyss of sheer insanity. Without Ayatollah Khomeini marked a turning point in the immediate assistance from outside Iran, the population history of the Middle East and of the Islamic World. of that unfortunate nation will shortly become an The establishment of the Ayatollah's Islamic Republic unsalvageable mob: of Iran inaugurated the implementation of the Anglo­ In this report, we will demonstrate that the upsurge American financial interests and .British Intelligence's of Islamic orthodoxy-whether of the Iran variety, or strategy to impose a "New Dark Age" across the that of the more commonly known Muslim Brother­ region. hood, or the Jamaati Islam of Pakistan, or even the To appreciate the enormity of the implications of mystical Sufi brotherhoods of Asia-is a project of the the Khomeini revolution in Iran, it is necessary to look City of London. beyond the geopolitical struggle along Zbigniew Two interrelated consequences-and policy goals­ Brzezinski's "arc of crisis," and beyond the strategic can be identified with regard to the New Dark Ages debates about the viability of an Islamic movement to strategy of the London Islamic mafia.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalaseembly Distr
    UNITED NATIONS GeneralAseembly Distr. GENERAI A/ 43 / 694 24 Octobor 1988 EtrGtISE OAIGINAL: ENGLISE/FRENCE Forty-third sessLon Ageada iten 77 REPORT OP lSE SPECIAL COIO'TITTEE TO INIIESIIGATE ISRAE 'I PRACIICES AFTECTING IBE ET'UATT AIGETS OP TIIB POPI'LATIOtr OF THE OCq'PIED TERBIIORIES Note bv the Sscretary-Ganeral The secretary-e€ueral bas the bonour to transnit to th€ tnenbers of the Goneral Assembty the attacbett rePort, wbich Yas submitteal to hirn, in acc-rdance with p"t"g".!u 17 of Assenbly resolutloa 42/J,60 D of I December 198?, by the speclal Co,*ittee to Iuvestigato Israeli Practic.s Affectiug the Eurnan Rights of the Population of the OccuPi€d Torf,itories. 88-26346 0508-109 (E) Digitized by Dag Hammarskjöld Library Al43r694 EtrEltBb Prge 2 coxrExTs paragrrphs pao€ LE:nlEB Or IBAIISMIIIAL 4 I. INARODUCTTOtr l_s 7 II. oacNrlzArlof, oF l|onx 6 _ 19 7 rrr. MANDATE zo _ 24 10 IV. IXFORII^TION Af,D EVIDENCB BECEIVED BY lEE SPBCIIL COIOII''EE 25 - 606 L2 A. G6!€ral sltuatlo! 3l _ zSZ 13 1. Ihe uprislng- of the palestlaia'D Populatloa agalltt th6 occupatto! ..... .....:.:. 31 _ 247 13 (a) General d€v.lopnelts adt pollcy stltelletrt! .... 33 _ ?g 14 (b) Wave of dlsturbalcea ..... 7g _ 247 23 2. Other goloral pollcy itevelotrnrett! .... 24g _ z5Z 5l B. Aalniaistration Jultica, iDctuaH.lg tho trial . ,of rlgbt to fllr 253 _ 332 53 l. palestinian populatlo! A56 _ 318 54 (a) Coasequences of tlr€ uprislng A56 _ 316 54 (b) Otber devoloprneats 317 _ 3rE 65 2.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
    MASTER'S THESIS M-1108 ALEM, Fehmi THE QUESTION OF OMAN IN THE UNITED NATIONS. The American University, M Jl., 1967 P olitical Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Copyright hy FEHMI ALEM 1968 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE QUESTION OF OMAN IN THE UNITED NATIONS by Fehmi Alem Submitted to the Faculty of the School of International Service of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Signatures of Committee: Chairman : Date: Dean of the School Date: AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY July, 1966 The American University M A R 1 7 196? Washington, D. C. 5 yc,Q Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT THE QUESTION OF OMAN IN THE UNITED NATIONS "b y Fehmi Alem Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT The question of Omein was first introduced to the United Nations Security Council in 1957. In the past five years, it has been included in the Agenda of the General Assembly for discussion during its annual regular sessions. It is now considered a question related to colonialism eind, therefore, was placed before the committee concerned with the liquida­ tion of colonialism and trust territories. The issue centers around the claim by the Imam of Oman of the independence of Central Oman, and the counter­ claim by the Sultan of Muscat and Oman that the territory in question forms an integral part of his Sultanate® Both sides support their respective claims with historical, legal, and political arguments; hence, the conflict has arisen as regards the interpretation of historical and legal data.
    [Show full text]