Homeland security begins abroad
ND Batra, The Statesman, Asia News Network, Calcutta
When a bomb explodes in Jakarta, Americans feel threatened and rightly so, which means Indonesia needs more help and greater U.S. presence. Homeland security, not neo-imperialism, is driving the U.S. diplomacy and is pushing Americans into everyone's face.
Knowing the truth about the nature and quality of pre-Iraq war intelligence has become less important than pacifying Iraq and controlling other international trouble spots. Even the mounting deficit budget does not bother much when it comes to spending on domestic security. The U.S. did not wink a bit in paying US$30 million to the Iraqi informer who squealed about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussain's sons Uday and Qusay.
First, protect homeland security: That's the cold calculus of U.S. diplomacy today.
Instead of shrinking in mortal fear into its proverbial fortress after Sept. 11 and leaving the world alone, as al-Qaeda leadership might have fondly (mis) calculated, the U.S. has expanded its frontiers to cover the whole world. When India said no to sending troops to Iraq, the Bush Administration thought it was the beginning of further negotiations. The louder the no, the greater the possibility of it turning into yes, well, that is the first lesson of international diplomacy; or salesmanship.
That brings us to the Saudi connection with the Sept. 11 horrific attacks, about which the recently released Congress report indicates that Saudi official money channeled through Islamic charities might have helped finance al-Qaeda's decentralized terrorist network in the U.S.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal came to the U.S. to express his outrage over the presumed complicity of his kingdom and urged President George Bush to declassify 28-page chapter of the 900-page Congressional report about Sept. 11 attacks and the U.S. intelligence failures. Bush declined to oblige the Saudi prince because declassification "would reveal sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror.
It would help the enemy if they knew our sources and methods." True, hidden allegations are much harder to refute. The Saudi government should cooperate with the U.S. wherever the truth leads. That would re-establish the U.S. faith in the Saudi Kingdom. Genuine transformation is needed in the Saudi Kingdom. Public relations petro-dollars won't help change the public opinion in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Senator Bob Graham, member of the Congressional committee that investigated Sept. 11 intelligence failures and a contender for the Democratic ticket for the 2004 presidential race, says that a "foreign government provided direct support through officials and agents of the government to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers." If the Saudi officials were involved, then it amounts to state supported terrorism against the U.S.
If the Saudis could do this to the U.S., their friend and ally, imagine what they could and might be doing to other countries such as India or Indonesia, where there is a large Muslim population and domestic security is lax. Recently The Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Saudi Arabian money is sabotaging Indonesia's future stability and prosperity, and unless the Wahabis are stopped the war on terror in Southeast Asia will be hard to win."
Where does the power and influence of the Saudis come from? Saudi Arabia holds 25 percent of the world oil reserves on which the U.S. and the industrialized world depends, and that seems to be the apparent reason for the U.S. treating the Saudis with kid gloves. But even if alternative sources of oil, Russia and Iraq, for example, were available, would the U.S. invade Saudi Arabia if it were to continue to be a terrorists' nest?
This is the most unlikely scenario because oil is not the only concern. Saudi Arabia controls Islam's two most holy sites, Mecca and Medina, and the Muslim world would be outraged if their sanctity were compromised. Saudi Arabia has to be treated differently from Saddam Hussain's Iraq or Kim Jong-iI's North Korea, even if it were in the same league, as most Americans believe.
Again North Korea has to be treated differently from Pakistan, which in terms of nuclear threat is far more dangerous than Kim Jong-iI's nuclear rattling. But for the time being Pakistan has been brought under control through economic incentives, debt relief, loans and grants, and the diplomatic support given to Gen. Musharraf's semi-authoritarian rule.
In the ultimate analysis, U.S. domestic security concerns, not trade, economic colonization or world domination, are driving its international diplomacy. But eventually world domination through surrogates, proxies and UN fig leaves might become an indirect consequence of the U.S. obsession with its homeland security and how ironic! One might say, thanks to al-Qaeda.
The writer is professor of communications, Norwich University, Vermont.