|
Week 29 - July 22nd - 2002 |
| David
Seaton's Energy Links® Commentary
They asked an old Moroccan lady living in a nearby coastal village who
Perejil Island belonged to. "It belongs to my goats!" was her reply. It
is a great pity that she doesn't hold a responsible position in the Moroccan
ministry of foreign affairs. Spain's choice of military action in expelling
the six Moroccan soldiers from the little island was probably the best
one taken from a menu of not very appetizing alternatives. It was done
quickly and without warning - the best way to succeed. Achieving tactical
surprise in such circumstances - the whole world watching - is no mean
feat. This bizarre little incident has many curious reverberations. Such
a confident and competent exercise in force projection in the strategically
unique and historically vital Straits of Gibraltar subtly modifies the
power relationships of the Western Mediterranean. Certainly neither Britain
or the United States can be overjoyed at this modification. Rabat probably
counted on both the US and the UK - not to mention France - to stay Spain's
hand. It was wise then to be swift and devious. Why should Morocco have
run the risk of such humiliation? What if Spain merely suspended the ferry
service between Algeciras and Tangier because of the crisis and left all
the vacationing Moroccans to find alternative transport to return to their
jobs in Europe? The money from those jobs supports Mohammed VI's precarious
economy. That's how weak the Moroccan position is. What was going on in
their heads? My guess is that they thought the USA would back them up.
Because of the war on terrorism? Perhaps, but the referendum in the Western
Sahara is in part being held up by Spain's supporting the Polisario Front's
objections to Rabat packing the voter registration. So what? Former US
Secretary of State James Baker engineered the referendum and as we saw
during the eternal recounting of the last US presidential election, James
Baker is the Bush family's "Mr. Fixit". When we speak of the Bush family
we speak of the voracious Carlyle Corporation and when we speak of the
former Spanish Sahara we are speaking about the world's largest deposits
of phosphates. As the Bush family is known to confuse the public and the
private spheres.... Maybe that is why Morocco thought it could give their
King a nice little wedding present cheaply. Spain's quick reaction spoiled
the game. Oh well, back to the drawing board! David
Seaton
David Seaton's Energy Links®
|
| U.S.
said planning new Mideast strategy (Ha'aretz)
The American administration is working on a new Middle East strategy, due to its recognition of the importance of U.S. interests in the region, (Israeli) government sources in Jerusalem said(...)The new strategy will have four components: regime changes in Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian Authority; an active war against terror, including sending advisers to states such as Yemen; working to block the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and, over the long term, working to change the face of societies in the region through democratization - a process that will begin in Iraq and the PA. "The administration believes processes of social change will help its war on terror in the medium and long term," explained one of the sources. "[The emerging strategy] is not due to a sense of mission or a desire to spread democracy, but primarily to the fear that the closed societies of the Arab world create terror." The source compared President George Bush's speech of June 24, which called for regime change in the PA, to the start of the Cold War, when the U.S. first defined its goal as blocking the spread of communism. Today's "Bush Doctrine," he said, is similar to the Truman Doctrine of 1947. (...) Click here to read more Contents |
| Who
Wants This War? (Washington Post)
It was amazing to read the Pentagon's detailed plans for an invasion of Iraq in the New York Times last week. The general reaction of Americans to this news was even more amazing: Basically, there was no reaction. We seem to be distant observers of our own nation's preparation for war, watching with horror or approval or indifference a process we have nothing to do with and cannot affect. Which is just about the case. Who really wants this war? Polls show that a modest and shrinking majority of Americans will choose military action to remove Saddam Hussein when someone holding a clipboard confronts them with a list of options. But does anything like a majority of the citizenry hold this view with the informed intensity that a decision for war deserves? I doubt it. And how many of that pro-"military action" majority imagine that it will be nearly blood-free on our side, based on the experience of the Gulf War, which turned out that way precisely because President Bush's father decided not to try to topple Hussein? Abroad, nearly all of America's major allies are against it. The Arab states surely dream about being rid of Saddam Hussein. But they won't give public support or permission to use their land and airspace, which is not too much to ask if we're going to save them from a threat as great as Hussein is said to be. Even the Kurdish opposition within Iraq apparently thinks that being liberated by Superpower America, while nice, would be more trouble than it's worth. That's trouble to them, not to us! Ask around at work, or among your family: Is anyone truly gung-ho? It seems as if true enthusiasm for all-out war against Iraq is limited to the Bush administration and a subset of the Washington policy establishment. Click here to read more Contents |
| Take
a better route to regime change (International Herald Tribune)
(...)Washington's military optimists argue that the next war against Iraq will be easier than the last. The U.S. military is much stronger than it was prior to the Gulf War, and Saddam's forces are far weaker. Critics point out that the war the Pentagon is planning has no support in Europe except from Britain, and potential Arab support has been undermined by Washington's backing for Israel. Nor is there any equivalent of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance to lend legitimacy and military support to a U.S. attack on Iraq. Taking Baghdad would require street fighting as well as precision air and artillery strikes. This risks far higher American casualties than in Desert Storm. U.S. intelligence has reported that Saddam is hiding critical military facilities and weapons plants in heavily populated civilian areas, even under hospitals. Striking such targets could cause huge civilian casualties even with precision weapons. Finally, say the critics, a war with Iraq would further inflame and destabilize the region, while fueling the very terrorist rage it seeks to repress. Click here to read more Contents |
| The
Wilsonian veneer of US foreign policy (Financial Times)
(...)Since George W. Bush's speech last month calling for, among other things, the democratic reform of the Palestinian Authority and the democratisation of Iraq, some of these same commentators have lined up to praise his new "Wilsonianism". They have tried to elevate his remarks into a "Bush Doctrine" and to use the language of liberal international idealism in the service of their various goals. As an intellectual, political and propaganda manoeuvre, this tactic is something of a tour de force. After all, it is hard to argue against democracy as a good in itself. The new approach wrong-foots liberal opponents of the administration's policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, and provides cover to Tony Blair and any other western leaders who could be persuaded to support a war against Iraq. The approach also reflects some truths about conditions in both the Palestinian territories and Iraq. Many Palestinians have long been unhappy wi th the corruption and lack of democracy in the Palestinian Authority, while the horrors of Saddam Hussein's tyranny are notorious. But there are many reasons to be wary. For one thing, the credibility of Mr Bush's "Wilsonianism" is undermined by the hostility of many in the administration to nation-building. This hostility has been reflected in relative political, military and financial indifference to Afghanistan now the Taliban and al-Qaeda's forces in the country have been defeated. The suspicion is that, once the Bush administration has used the pretext of creating democracy to smash a regime it dislikes, it will be uninterested in the future of that democracy. Click here to read more Contents |
| Tunnel
vision (Moran - NBC)
(...) Is al-Qaida the Anarchist movement of the early 21st century, destined to burn furiously before collapsing in on itself, discredited, defeated and far less clever than anyone gave them credit for? I believe that is the reality - and reality, not panic, is the rock upon which foreign policy should be based.(...) it should be clear how the victory over al-Qaida in Afghanistan could backfire. The Bush administration, from its snubbing of NATO and India to its mishandling of Iran and the Middle East conflict, has given the rest of the planet the impression that no other nation, friend or foe, has an opinion worth even considering when it comes to America’s pursuit of al-Qaida. In doing that, the administration has squandered the sympathy of the world for the Sept. 11 attacks. Worse still, it threatens to abolish the precedent set since the Berlin Wall fell for precisely the kind of bold action that is needed to prevent states from becoming Fanatistans. The distrust sown by this administration risks turning back the clock to a time when "moral" or "humanitarian" interventions were viewed so subjectively that they simply were not possible. Click here to read more Contents |
| An
Icelandic Battle of Wildlife Versus Voltage (New York Times)
This is Europe's second-largest wilderness, a high plateau of lakes and virgin rivers, jagged canyons and snowy former volcanoes linked by swards of treeless tundra inhabited by thousands of reindeer and geese. It is also the alpine spillway for billions of gallons of glacial melt that Iceland's national power company plans to use in the $3 billion Karahnjukar Hydropower Project, an undertaking so big it equals nearly a third of the country's gross domestic product. The wildlife-versus-voltage battle has been fought on the banks of many of the world's rivers. But it is being played out here on epic scale across an extraordinary landscape. The power plant to be built will have one customer: an aluminum smelter owned by Alcoa, the world's largest aluminum company, which is considering investing $1 billion. Alcoa entered the picture only in April, and is hoping to conclude price negotiations with Iceland's government and national power company this week so that work can begin next month, during the short summer. But schemes to dam the area for hydropower have been in the works for decades and have been fought in a see-saw battle for just as long. Asked why Alcoa would want to enter such a fight, Jake Siewert, an Alcoa spokesman, noted that the company had found "a broad coalition" welcoming it to Iceland. It had considered other locations, including India, Brazil and Vietnam, he said, adding that it would meet opposition anywhere. Click here to read more Contents |
|
Remember that links from newspapers and magazines online are "here today and gone tomorrow": our advice is to download them into a folder on your desktop immediately or better yet print them out for reading when you have time. Don't leave them till you get around to them... They may have changed by then! |