| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| What history will say about who won and lost |
| 2003-03-27 |
| Opinion piece from the Times (UK) by Anatole Kaletsky Long but insightful When Tony Blair flew to America yesterday to meet President Bush and Kofi Annan, he clearly felt that history was looking over his shoulder. It may seem extravagant to compare this weekâs meetings in Camp David and New York with Bretton Woods, Potsdam or Yalta. But to judge by the Prime Ministerâs extraordinary lucidity and frankness at his press conference on Tuesday, he understands as well as did Churchill that the world will never be the same again after the Iraq war. Mr Blair said in another of his moments of supreme eloquence, shortly after September 11, that the kaleidoscope of history had been shaken and nobody could say where the pieces would fall. Today, the state of the world seems even more chaotic than 18 months ago. Yet amid the confusion, new shapes and outlines are starting to form. While nobody can predict exactly how events will unfold in Iraq in the coming days, weeks or even months, some long-term consequences of this conflict are almost as clear as the military outcome. Just as it is predetermined that the US will win, at least in a military sense, and Saddam Hussein will be overthrown, it is now inevitable that many global relationships will change dramatically in the years ahead. Some changes are obvious enough. It is clear, for example, that Americaâs relations with France and Germany will never be the same. As Mr Blair stated grimly on Tuesday: âThere is at the end of this going to be a reckoning about relations between America and Europe.â It was equally clear from Mr Blairâs comments that Britainâs relations with Europe will permanently change. When a tireless Euro-booster such as Mr Blair uses the emotional word âreckoningâ about relations with Europe, it is likely that he has arrived at a personal moment of truth. This becomes undeniable when he looks directly at the camera and portentously adds, not once but twice, that what he is about to say is âprobably undiplomatic, but I will say it nonethelessâ. Mr Blairâs frustration was understandable enough. He feels, with a great deal of justice, that his efforts to reconcile American and global interests were sabotaged by France. He very nearly managed to integrate US military power into the UN system, thereby strengthening and legitimising both. One could readily imagine the depth of his resentment towards the French and German âpartnersâ who sabotaged this potentially historic task. And to what purpose, since the collapse of UN diplomacy only accelerated the war which the French and Germans supposedly wanted to stop? But rather than endlessly raking over the blunders and misunderstandings which brought international relations to this sorry pass, it may now be more interesting to try to imagine some of the consequences of the new global alignments. Which countries and institutions, for example, might be long-term winners or losers? Some of the losers are easy enough to identify. Nato and the UN have both been permanently weakened. While the UN will doubtless continue to operate as a humanitarian organisation and a global debating society, Nato will probably cease to exist in its present form. Since Natoâs original purpose â to protect Western Europe from communism â has been fulfilled, it is hard to see any benefit for America or Britain in continuing a military alliance with France, Germany and Belgium. The countries which will most obviously lose out are Germany, which will suffer from the withdrawal of US troops, and of course France. France will find its crucial aerospace, defence and electronics industries consigned to permanent technological obsolescence since they will be frozen out of joint ventures and partnerships in which the Pentagon plays any role. Belgium will suffer from the closure or relocation of Natoâs Brussels HQ. But what will be much more damaging for this âold Europeâ axis than such visible signs of US distrust will be the broader economic and social effects of the transatlantic cleavage. The gulf between the continental and Anglo-Saxon economic models will probably widen. This may prove reassuring to Europeâs ageing voters, whose prime concerns today are stability and secure retirement, rather than creating opportunities for the next generation. But flows of capital and trade across the Atlantic will diminish, as American companies and investors focus increasingly on Asia, rather than Europe. European investors, meanwhile, will be more anxious than ever to get their capital out of Europe as the economic opportunities evaporate. Beyond Old Europe, some other clear losers are easy enough to discern. Russia and Turkey have both played strong hands extremely badly. And while Turkey may well be âforgivenâ because its co-operation is essential for stability in the Middle East, Russia is likely to suffer significantly, though not as disastrously as France and Germany, from ending up on the wrong side. Not only will Russia lose a substantial part of its financial stake in Iraq. More importantly, it has damaged its hopes of rapid integration into the world economy by establishing normal trade relations with the US and gaining early membership of the World Trade Organisation. The cold warriors in Russiaâs foreign ministry may be congratulating themselves about undermining Nato by tempting France and Germany into a new triple alliance, but this strategy will backfire in the long run, as America tightens its military links with Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, all countries inherently hostile to Russia. Even worse, the shift of American allegiances from Western Europe to the Middle East and Asia could revive the ultimate Russian nightmare â a further strengthening of the US-Chinese relationship, already the worldâs most important economic partnership. Another big and unexpected loser may be Israel â at least the militantly expansionist Israel defined by Ariel Sharon. Once the war is over, the priority for the Bush Administration will be to try to stabilise the Middle East. Since further serious trouble in Iraq after the war is won would destroy Mr Bushâs chances of re-election in November 2004, this priority will override all others, including the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bushâs neo-conservative supporters. As a result, the Sharon Government could suddenly find itself friendless in Washington if it continues to obstruct progress towards peace. The outcome could be an unexpected flexibility in Israeli attitudes to Palestinian statehood, a collapse of the Sharon Government, or an implosion of the Israeli economy as the US withdraws its support. Whichever of these happened, it would be a supremely ironic case of the law of unintended consequences. For the most fervent supporters of Mr Sharonâs hardline Middle East policy in Washington were also the most vociferous advocates of war. Turning from losers to winners, there seems to be only one country that will undeniably gain from the confusing events of the past few months. That is Iraq. Even if this war proves far bloodier than the 1991 campaign (which is, as yet, by no means certain) the vast majority of Iraqis will soon find themselves incomparably freer and better off than at any time in the past 50 years. Once Saddam is overthrown, the Bush Administration will spare no effort to make its liberation of Iraq âworkâ and, judging by the experience of other Middle Eastern countries, the combination of unlimited sums of money with a strong security presence is likely to succeed in stabilising Iraq, at least for a few years. The only other obvious winners from the Iraq crisis are less inspiring. They are the governments of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states. After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies. Finally, what about the main protagonists in this drama, America and Britain? Will they end up as winners or losers? I have left this question until last because it is impossible to answer. Neither Britain nor America will gain anything from the weakening of Europe, the straining of relations with Russia or the huge expenditures that will now be needed to reconstruct Iraq. But if the Middle East could be stabilised and Iraq did turn into a beacon of democracy for Muslims, the whole world would obviously gain. |
| Posted by:kgb |
| #8 "the broader economic and social effects of the transatlantic cleavage." Yep. NATO and the UN are going tits-up. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-27 14:36:48 |
| #7 There are several severe flaws in this piece other than those mentioned above. First, consider the source. Russia has been playing both sides against the middle here, and will be more than "modestly" punished. Russia is going to find a HUGE hole in its rear. As for "NATO", I think the next time you see this alliance meet, it will be in Prague, with a lot of new members, and some old members excluded. We may even rename it. Other bigtime losers will be Syria and Saudi Arabia, and because of that, the so-called "Palestinians". All three will have their activities in support of "jihad" severely curtailed, and find themselves under increasing scrutiny by Coalition military and economic interests. One big winner that hasn't been mentioned at all is Jordan. Not only will we continue to support the nation, we will encourage much of the rest of the Arab states move toward establishing similar relationships with Israel and the rest of the world. No country has benefitted more from peace with Israel than Jordan. Nor has any country been a better friend of the United States. We will reward our friends. I'm sure an oil pipeline to Jordan will be a major agenda item for the newly-formed Iraqi government. The BIG loser will be the United Nations, which will cease to be of any importance in world affairs. I doubt it will recover. France will definitely take a hit, as will Germany. Turkey was mugged, and can be forgiven - later. The rest of the Middle East will find a mixed bag. The United States and Great Britain will be BIG winners, even HUGE winners. Expect Blair to be Prime Minister for years to come. The Democratic Party in the United States is in total disaray, and is so busy shooting itself in the foot it may never recover. The "anti-war" movement will also suffer a huge defeat, and many of its members will find the future very unpleasant for themselves. This definitely is a defining moment in world history. Too bad so many people don't realize it, and wilfully throw themselves on the losing side. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-03-27 13:46:32 |
| #6 "After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies." Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan. |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 2003-03-27 13:40:08 |
| #5 I agree with Becky. The Israel portion of the piece is deeply flawed. "Militantly expansionist"? Other than some truly minor growth in existing settlements, what expansion? It's just a label that gets thrown at Sharon but is devoid of any basis in current reality. "Continues to obstruct progres towards peace"? If I hear this phrase again my brain will explode. What progress? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? The 20,000 Hizbollah in South Lebanon pointing rockets at Israeli farms? The suicide bombers? The Paleo rallies for Saddam?Any "progress" towards a state of decreased violence (certainly not "peace") has been the result of agressive Israeli counter-terror operations in the territories. In fact, American so-called even-handed reactions to Paleo suicide attacks came to an abrupt halt when Bush finally realized that a group of people that continuously sends bomb-belted jihadis into pizza parlors is not really interested in co-existing with its neighbors. "Once the war is over, the priority for the Bush Administration will be to try to stabilise the Middle East" To put it briefly, it seems pretty clear by now that Middle East stability - i.e. the status quo - has been deemed an untenable state of affairs that will perpetually give rise to groups like al-Qaida, and will therefore continue to threaten our physical security as well as jeapardize the world's oil supply. Conclusion - time to re-order things, get rid of the oppressive regimes that inevitably cause Islamo-fundos to sprout, otherwise no amount of homeland security will prevent another 9/11. Don't think so? Bashar al-Asad sure does (just announced he thinks he's next). Of course, we will attempt to control type and manner of change in Syria, Iran, Saudi. But the prediction that Israel will come out a loser is based on presumptions that are flatly wrong. It's interesting how an analyst can see some of the writing on the wall but totally miss the rest. |
| Posted by: Brutus 2003-03-27 13:27:15 |
| #4 Israel is the bad guy because it defends itself. The boom belt people get a pass. The article falls apart. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-27 13:04:14 |
| #3 I was agreeing with this article, but then this: re: stabili[zation] the Middle East .."this priority will override all others, including the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bushâs neo-conservative supporters." hmmm....maybe I'm reading this wrong...but not only does this seem to be an invalid assumption re: neocons, but it also reeks of vile anti-Semitism. Such an ugly outburst causes me to question the entire piece. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-27 12:52:22 |
| #2 The analysis seems pretty spot-on except for the canard that the Sharon gov't "continues to obstruct progress towards peace." Outside of national suicide, the Israelies have made every sacrifice in their effort to bring about peace. The "Palestinians" themselves are the sole obstruction thwarting progress towards peace. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-03-27 12:47:40 |
| #1 "After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies." Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan. |
| Posted by: Flaming Sword 3/27/2003 1:40:08 PM |