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.