Moves and counter-moves

OBSERVERS of the international scene must be astonished at the rapidity with which moves are being made by various regional groups to form defence alliances. Eurasian states especially seem to be waking up to the rude shock of the events leading to the American attack on Iraq. Earlier this week, the leaders of Russia and five former Soviet republics decided to form a joint military command to oversee “a rapid reaction force.” Then on Tuesday, the leaders of four “anti-war” European states announced their intention to lay down a new framework for defence. Meeting in Brussels, the heads of government of Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg pledged to establish a multinational security force for joint operations by 2004. In a joint statement they said it was necessary to give a “new impetus” to European security and defence. Even though both President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made it plain that the proposed European defence force would not be a rival to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, there are clear indications of the way things are moving as a reaction to American unilateralism.

First, the four states have called upon other members of the European Union to help create a “nucleus” of military planning and operational ability without recourse to Nato. This was necessary, the joint statement said, to give clout to a common European foreign policy. Two, the French president made the real reasons behind this move clear when he said the US would have to learn to live in a “multipolar” world. Not only that, he said Washington must work with “a strong Europe.” Obviously, American arrogance was in the mind of the French president when he stressed that the trans-Atlantic relationship was based on a “partnership of the equals.” This was clearly an expression of French disapproval of the American attitude toward Europe, especially Washington’s treatment of its European allies as insignificant entities. More insulting has been the American attitude toward France in the wake of its military victory in Iraq. Irked by France’s strong anti-war stance, Washington has been threatening to make Paris pay for its defiance of the US. This must have deeply hurt French pride, for this means that the neocons and unilateralists who run America’s foreign policy today are inclined to treat France as a delinquent state.

The truth is that America’s foreign policy under the Bush administration has alienated the world as never before. A wave of anger has swept the world because of the way America treated the world community on Iraq, showing utter contempt for the United Nations, alienating the Arab-Islamic world, and annoying Russia and China, besides its traditional allies in Europe. The trend towards forming new defence groupings clearly shows a growing apprehension about the imperious tendencies lately characterizing America’s attitude and policies towards the rest of the world. Neither friends nor allies now trust America, for they are not sure how the US will behave in a given crisis and how it may ditch the interests of its friends and allies in pursuit of its unilateralist ambitions for world domination. The formation of regional defence groupings are thus a clear warning to America about the way the world at large thinks about it, and how the unilateralist exercise of its economic and military power could in the long run prove counterproductive.

Massacre at Fallujah

THE growing anti-American sentiment in Iraq can only be exacerbated by the killing of 13 Iraqi demonstrators on Tuesday. The violence took place in the town of Fallujah near Baghdad when US troops opened fire on a procession celebrating Saddam Hussein’s birthday. The firing began when the demonstrators, carrying portraits of the deposed leader, demanded that US troops occupying a local school vacate the premises. According to local doctors, apart from those killed, at least 45 people were injured in the firing. The US authorities have refused to accept the casualty figures and claim that the troops only fired at the crowd in self-defence. However, independent observers insist that the protestors were unarmed. Following this shocking incident, angry crowds took to the streets to bury the dead and to protest against the unprovoked massacre. Once again, panicky US troops fired at the crowd, causing two more deaths. This was not the first example of such trigger-happy behaviour on the part of US soldiers. A couple of weeks ago, they had opened fire on anti-US demonstrators in Mosul. There was also the instance of firing on a hotel in Baghdad where a large number of journalists covering the war were staying.

The Americans were clearly not prepared to deal with the volatile situation that has followed the fall of the Saddam regime and have generally reacted in a heavy-handed manner. What has taken the Americans by surprise is the angry reaction of the Iraqi population to the presence of alien troops on their soil. Expecting to be hailed as liberators for ousting Saddam Hussein, the Americans now find themselves reviled as unwanted occupiers. The US military must conduct an impartial inquiry into the Fallujah incident and take firm action against soldiers responsible for the killings. The last thing the Americans need in this sensitive phase of its occupation is a popular uprising against their presence on Iraqi soil.

Tel Aviv violence

TUESDAY night’s suicide attack on a Tel Aviv cafe, in which four people were killed and 50 injured, came only hours after Mr Mahmoud Abbas’s new Palestinian cabinet took oath of office. Earlier, addressing his new cabinet colleagues as the first Palestinian prime minister, Mr Abbas had called for a halt to attacks against Israeli civilians. The call was instantly rejected by Hamas, which vowed to carry on its activities until a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Mr Abbas condemned the latest attack in unequivocal terms and pledged to do all he can to rein in the militants.

The Israeli reaction to the suicide attack was characteristically perverse. Tel Aviv termed the attack a failure of Mr Abbas’s administration — which had been sworn in just hours before. The Israeli reaction seems deliberately aimed at scuttling any attempts to restart peace negotiations, the latest plan for which was presented by the Americans only yesterday. While Washington was quick to condemn the attack, it rightly pointed out that the only way to peace lay in following the just unveiled ‘roadmap’ leading to peace in the Middle East, which calls for restarting the peace process. It remains to be seen how the Palestinians and the Israelis formally respond to the latest plan and its various components. The logical first step to bringing sanity back to the Middle East would be to restart peace negotiations without losing any more time. That is the only way to tell the extremist elements on both sides that the world is no more willing to let either violence or state terrorism stand in the way of peace.