[Nasional-e] From U.S. hegemony to makings of an empire

[Holy Uncle]

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20030214.E02&irec=1

>From U.S. hegemony to makings of an empire
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Journalist, Jakarta

Many Americans question it, most of their traditional allies don't support 
it, and practically the whole world is against it. So why is the United 
States, supported by a few of its lackey allies -- namely Britain and 
Australia -- so dead set on attacking Iraq?

Despite Washington's claims that it is motivated by a desire to put a check 
on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, fight terrorism and 
manifest democracy, the bottom line is oil.

Oil, literally, fuels industry. And industry in this modern age stimulates 
growth which in turn yields influence, technology which culminates in global 
dominance. The significance of oil, and in this case Middle Eastern oil, 
cannot be understated enough. Since World War II, the strategic significance 
of the Middle East's oil has been a consistent and fundamentally important 
strategy for any aspiring global power, whether it be Britain, Nazi Germany 
or the United States.

Presently, over 40 percent of the United States' energy requirements are 
dependent on oil. Despite being one of the world's biggest oil producers, 
such is the domestic demand that the United States imports more than half of 
its oil needs. The main source of oil for the U.S. is the Persian Gulf, 
where two-thirds of the world's oil reserves are located.

The concern for the preservation of oil security has been a consistent theme 
in U.S. post-World War II policy. But it came into permanence following the 
Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s and became even more pronounced 
following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In the 
aftermath of the invasion, U.S. president Jimmy Carter in January 1980 
warned that any "attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian 
Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the 
United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means 
necessary, including military force".

Two months after the announcement of the "Carter Doctrine", the U.S. 
established a combat rapid deployment joint task force focused exclusively 
for deployment to the Middle Eastern area.

Consequently for the past two decades the U.S. has consistently projected 
its "influence" in the region, culminating in the Gulf War of 1990. Whether 
through force, diplomatic coaxing or the lure of material wants, most of the 
major oil producing countries have connubially allied themselves with 
Washington. That is all except two: Iraq and Iran.

Previously the U.S. objective in the Middle East was to counterweight Soviet 
presence and ensure continued oil supply. But since the demise of the Soviet 
Union, the preoccupation of the U.S. has been the preservation of its global 
dominance, as expressed in Bush administration's National Security Strategy 
issued last year.

The strategy, precipitated by the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, calls for a 
strategy that would dissuade the growth of potential superpowers to rival 
the U.S.

In a word, perpetuation of a unipolar world with the United States as the 
sole superpower.

Since any major superpower would be as heavily dependent on its industry as 
much as its military, what better way to suppress budding powers, namely 
China, than to monopolize oil reserves. This policy would keep nascent 
superpowers to prostrate within regional confines, and quench the U.S.'s own 
growing thirst for oil.

It is under this context that a regime change in Baghdad becomes imperative. 
Saddam Hussein has become the most significant irritant to U.S. control of 
the Gulf region and remains a direct threat to both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, 
which combined have over 25 percent of world oil reserves. Furthermore, Iraq 
probably is the second largest source of oil after Saudi Arabia, with over 
110 billion barrels in proven reserves (Saudi Arabia has an estimated 250 
billion barrels of reserves).

Militarily, the occupation of Iraq would also confine the other 
"recalcitrant" Gulf state: Iran. Already, U.S. military strategists are 
predicting that after Hussein is replaced, a major U.S. military base can be 
set up close to the Iranian border somewhere in the Basra oil fields in 
southeast of Iraq.

One can only imagine the potentially destabilizing impact to Tehran of 
having one of its fiercest, oldest rivals camped at its doorstep.

Moving away from the Gulf region, it would not be hard to list other states 
that could potentially challenge Washington's dominance. The most obvious is 
China. As long as the U.S. maintains its monopoly over Gulf oil resources 
and Beijing remains welcome to the entry of U.S. corporations to the 
mainland, a delicate balance is preserved.

But within three decades, China's thirst for new energy resources will 
become as insatiable as the United States. And with a rapidly modernizing 
military, it is not unreasonable to consider that Beijing too will be able 
to match Washington's projection capability.

Another key consideration is the success of exploration in the South China 
Sea. Should economically extractable reserves be found on the seabed, then 
China will have freed itself from future dependence on U.S. controlled Gulf 
oil sources.

North Korea could also become Washington's next target. While it does not 
have the same potential challenge to U.S. supremacy as China, North Korea 
persists in being the U.S.'s most immediate military threat.

While an invasion scenario like Iraq is out of the question, given its 
proximity to China, the challenge would be to at least bring Pyongyang under 
Washington's sphere of influence.

Pressure, on what Washington describes as a "rogue state", can be applied 
through the same pretext as Iraq: preventing the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction.

This is where the irony is striking. Militarily, Pyongyang is truly more of 
a threat to the U.S. than Iraq. But it is Iraq, due to the political 
considerations explained above that have been tagged as the immediate 
"danger".

An assessment of intelligence reports over the past 10 years clearly shows 
that Iraq has no nuclear weapons, with no ability to produce any. The most 
imminent threat is its limited chemical weapons. But even UNMOVIC chief Hans 
Blix has said that his inspection team has found no evidence of mobile 
biological weapons labs. Iraq's projection capability is also limited, with 
barely a dozen leftover SCUD missiles from the 1991 Gulf War.

North Korea, on the other hand, has an advanced range of ballistic missiles 
and an even larger stockpile of chemical weapons. It has also indicated 
intent to develop nuclear weapons capabilities and believed to already own 
adequate amounts of plutonium.

Every century gives birth to a new hegemony. Some say that with the 
diffusion of McDonald's and Hollywood pop culture, we are already living in 
an American empire. Only time will tell the bearing of this one. For unlike 
any other century, political empires of this day face a challenge tougher 
than any bullet or sword -- the egalitarian sway of its people's voting 
opinion. And so the powers that be may not always be there tomorrow.

Encouraging though the antiwar protest may be, the ominous words of Joseph 
Chamberlain nearly a century ago still linger in the background: "The day of 
small nations has long passed away. The day of Empires has come".





_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail