American Policies in the Middle East - Essay Example

Are american policies in the Middle East likely to succeed? In the twenty-first century, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been controversial for two important reasons: Israel and Iraq. Although the issue of US-Iranian relations has been in the news since the days of the late Shah Reza Pahlavi, the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003 continues to breed animosities among Persians and Arabs across the Middle East. US foreign policy in the Middle East remains an important point of contention for the countries of the region as it seeks to democratize Iraq and promote democracy throughout the region. The following will discuss Middle Eastern perceptions of American foreign policy and ask the question, are US policies toward the Middle East likely to succeed? Democracy has been at the forefront of stated American ambitions in the region and the decision by the United States to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003 was perhaps the most controversial event in recent Middle Eastern history. Seen by many as an attempt by the United States to exert its global hegemony and dispose of a dictator not for the benefit of the Iraqi people, nor due to the supposed cache of weapons of mass destruction, but to obtain access to the vast oil resources of Iraq, this invasion is arguably the most controversial aspect of American foreign policy within the past quarter century. The US invasion of Iraq was controversial for a variety of reasons, the not least of which was the fact that the invasion did not first receive United Nations Security Council approval: an important condition in international relations which effectively legitimizes decisive political action. Opinion polls, conducted in the Middle East prior to the invasion by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and global pollster Ipsos Reed, effectively demonstrated how different Arab (and Iranian) perceptions of the War were in comparison to those of Americans (who were divided, albeit less opposed, to the invasion). We now turn to an analysis of unilateralism in the 21t century, the driving force of American foreign policy in the Middle East since the attacks of September 11, 2001 (Reynolds 2008). Unilateralism as a Foreign Policy Objective According to Drake University Professor of Politics and International Relations, David Skidmore, American unilateralism developed into an explicit and implicit policy of the present Bush Administration since the aftermath of September 11th 2001. Although the United States, historically committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world’s ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s United Nations), was thought of as the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (Skidmore 2005). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. Espousing a neoconservative worldview in the early years of the Bush Administration, the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Without a need for negotiation, consensus building or collective bargaining, the proponents of a unilateral agenda argue that fewer constraints exist for the United States in the exercise of foreign policy when it does not have to act in concert with partners. Unilateral military action was thought justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism - the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 without UN Security Council approval. In addition to this most obvious case scholars have traced a unilateral streak in American foreign policy since the early days of the Bush Administration when the United States butted heads with its traditional European allies on the issue of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and the decision to ignore the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Now that we have established that unilateralism as a central policy objective of the United States for almost a decade, let us explore this controversial policy shift with an eye to the invasion of Iraq and American unilateralism in practice (Skidmore, 2005). Theoretical Analysis In order to establish key terms and address the importance of terminology in our analysis of US foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq, the following section will ground this essay with a strong theoretical basis. Essential terms to the study of human rights and foreign policy will be explored, related to current events and further analyzed as they pertain to the elaboration of US foreign policy. What is foreign policy? A country’s foreign policy can be described as a set of goals and strategies which determine how a government relates to others in the international system. Foreign policy thus shapes international behavior by one state vis-à-vis others. It is thus government’s policy as it relates to matters beyond its own borders (Weldes, 1999). How do we define the term military intervention? Military intervention refers to the active interference of one country in the affairs of another and frequently involves the abrogation of state sovereignty. It is a rare case when a state requests the military forces of another to come in and quell a rebellion or establish order. Military intervention has been an option for US policy makers since Independence and many types of this form of intervention are at the disposal of the United States government. Unilateral intervention is intervention by one party against another or a league of others but importantly implies that there is only party intervening militarily. Thus, Israeli military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip are unilateral military interventions by the state of Israel against the quasi or proto state encompassing the Palestinian Territories. It is important to keep in mind that the definition we supplied for unilateral intervention is the traditional definition and definitions do evolve. Today in fact, military intervention is often described as unilateral if it does not first receive United Nations (UN) approval, thus making internationalizing the intervention and making it multilateral. An excellent example of this new conception of “unilateral” intervention is the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which occurred without UN approval but was undertaken by a coalition force led by the Americans and which included the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Denmark, amongst others. Democracy in Iraq? The decision of the United States to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003 to establish democracy was an important watershed moment in world history. Although dreams of peace and prosperity ushered in the end of the Cold War; a new world order with the United firmly entrenched as the dominant country in international affairs, the unilateral decision by the United States to invade this Middle Eastern country has been controversial since day one. What has been the effect of the US-led invasion of Iraq on relations between the Middle Eastern countries of the world and United States? Before beginning to answer this question however, we will explore key terms for this analysis such as “foreign policy” and “military intervention” in order to gain a better grasp of the Iraq war and the resulting affects on the relations of the countries of the Middle East and the United States. The Iraqi experiment remains an important litmus test for American desires to democratize the region. If the US situation in Iraq is precarious and fails so likely will the United States’ other regional goals (extending democracy, quelling terrorism, containing Iran, etc). This essay now turns to starts an exploration of the present situation in Iraq, six years after the violent overthrow of the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein. We then look at the relationship of the United States following the invasion with the friendly dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. How does US support for dictatorships in the Middle East undermine their democratization process? (Boettcher 2004; Zubaida 2002). Iraq After the Invasion Iraq today is an incredibly unstable country, beset by extreme violence and sectarian strife Is Iraq a violent place? Yes, in fact Iraq is arguably one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, by February 2008 a total of 85,263 non-military personnel (civilians and Iraqi policemen) have been killed since the invasion of 2003 (2008). Suicide attacks are commonplace and violent acts occur on a daily basis. Both political reconciliation and the smooth functioning of the economy are inhibited by an extremely precarious security situation. How durable is the Iraqi government? Not very durable as Iraq’s present government is a loose-coalition of political parties, each representing different ethnic communities. Kurds in the north want independence, Sunnis feel marginalized under the new regime and the majority Shi’a population is seeking redress for past grievances. Iraq today is on the verge of internal combustion and the government is being propped up by a foreign – and always unpopular – American-led coalition force. Far from durable, and intrinsically tied to the security situation, the Iraq government is precarious at best (Zizek 42-49; S. Simon 68). Iraq today is in shambles and is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Although not solely attributable to British colonialism in the country, the political, economic and social situation in Iraq is terrible at best. While the US-led invasion of 2003 helps explain much of the present strife in Iraq today, the colonial administration joined three sects (Shi’a, Sunnis and Kurds) together into one country and this accounts for many of the current unity problems the country faces today. The enduring colonial legacy in Iraq was thus the artificial creation of the state from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, the forced inclusion of three diverse groups together within one country (the Shi’a, Sunnis and Kurds) and the establishment of feudal Kingdom upon “independence” which served to safeguard British interests in the region, particularly as they related to the extraction of oil. Thus, the conflict in Iraq today is tied to both the US-led invasion and British legacy of colonialism in this country. Promoting Democracy in Persia? The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Middle Eastern country of more than 70 million people and of important geostrategic significance due to its central Eurasian location. Bordering Turkey and Iraq to the west, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east and Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to the north, Iran, formerly known as Persia until 1935, has been a theocratic Islamic republic since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution in 1979. Despite animosity between Iran and Iraq – these two countries fought a disastrous 8 year war in the 1980s - Iran was adamantly opposed to the invasion of a Middle Eastern country by the “Great Satan”, i.e. the United States, and US-Iranian relations have suffered significantly since the invasion. The UK military hostage situation, Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s violent ranting against the West, nuclear threats and the recent US support for protesters in the wake of the recent Iranian Presidential election victory make Iran-Western relations scary and threatening to boil over. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 have severely damaged relations between these two countries. The belief that the United States as well as other foreign powers meddled in the recent election in Iran this past summer adds fuel to the fire and complicates American attempts at promoting democracy in the region. We now look at the relationship between the US//UK and the friendly dictatorships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia following the invasion of Iraq (Black 2005; Forsythe 2008; Iran 2009). Egypt and Saudi Arabia: Friendly Dictatorships Support for dictatorships in the Middle East emphatically demonstrates that cold, hard geopolitical factors influence American state behavior and supersede any concern the United States may have for the promotion of human rights. Human rights abuses are routinely ignored in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak has resisted calls for democratic reform and remains President of the Egyptian Republic since the assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat in 1981. Saudi Arabia is a notorious oppressor of human rights and commits rights violations against women and religious and sexual minorities on a near daily basis. Since Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest producers of crude oil, the United States has turned a blind eye to human rights violations and has helped propped up the theocratic Saudi monarchy since the days of Ibn Saud. Both countries, either overtly or tacitly, supported the US invasion of Iraq (Morag 2006). The US invasion of Iraq of 2003, codenamed “Operation Iraqi Freedom” curiously was not undertaken following Saddam Hussein’s genocide of the Kurdish minority in Halabja in 1988, nor after the violent suppression of a Shi’a insurgency following the First Gulf War. Instead US interests lie in securing the availability and continued flow of oil from one of the world’s most important producers of this important natural resource. Although cloaked in rhetoric concerning the freedom of the Iraqi people, the invasion in fact has led to untold death on both sides, military occupation and a violent 5 year old insurgency. Accordingly, relations of the US with both Egypt and Saudi Arabia remain positive six years later (Bloom, 2005). Concluding Remarks Unilateral action on the political front has been a foreign policy objective of the United States under the stewardship of George W. Bush. Unilateralism explains the American decision to abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence shield, the decision to ignore the Kyoto Accord and finally, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. A hegemon is described as a superpower and has a preponderance of power in the military, economic and sometimes social spheres. According to neorealists, a hegemonic power shapes the international system in its interests and maintains the system through coercion. Coercion today, shaped by United States unilateralism and unilateral military action remains a feature of the international system. While pretending to promote democracy and the rule of law throughout the strategically significant and oil rich region of the Middle East, the United States is actually most interested in exploiting the resources of the region and maintaining close ties with friendly dictatorships and tyrannical regimes. More than a half century ago Iraq was pieced together from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and involved a political arrangement in which three distinct Ottoman provinces were joined together in union. This bred antagonism more than fifty years ago and continues to bread conflict and violence with modern Iraq on the verge of state collapse. This was the result of British interference in the region and Iraq may very well implode one day with an independent Shi’a, Sunni and Kurdish state on the horizon. Western relations between the friendly dictatorships in the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia – have improved after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Human rights abuses are routinely ignored in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the relations with the West are dependent on oil and are mutually beneficial. The removal of Saddam Hussein from the Middle Eastern equation has largely improved relations between these states and the United States of America. Iran is another matter entirely and the relationship is strained at best, particularly after US attempts to promote democracy flared up this summer. Foreign – re: Western – troops on the border with Iran are very threatening for the theocratic republic of Iran and the invasion in 2003 has exacerbated already tense relations between Iran and the United States. Will US plans for democratization in the region succeed? Probably not, due to the multitude of factors discussed above in this analysis of American foreign policy in the Middle East. REFERENCES Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Black, I. (2005). Great Satan warned of a burning hell .The Guardian, February 16, 2005. Boettcher III, W.A. (2004). Military Intervention Decisions regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior. The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 48:3, 331-355. Carleton, D., Stohl, M. (1985). Foreign Policy of Human Rights: Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. Human Rights Quarterly, 7,205-229. Forsythe, D.P (2008). Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy. New York: United Nations University Press. Iran. (2009). Retrieved August 31 2009, from https://www.odci.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html Morag, Nadav. (2006). The Economic and Social Effects of Intensive Terrorism: Israel 2000-2004. The Middle East Review of International Affairs 10:3, 33-42. Reynolds, P. (2008). Toxic world fallout from Iraq invasion. BBC News. Retrieved August 31 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7293689.stm Simon, S. (2008). The Price of the Surge. Foreign Affairs, 87:3, 57-76. Weldes, J. (1991). Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Zubaida, S. (2002). Trajectories of Political Islam: Egypt, Iran and Turkey. Political Quarterly, 71(1): 60-78. Read More