Homeland security begins abroad

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.