|
Hi Khaldoun,
Great argument. My only suggestion would be
to get rid of the intentionality part (i.e. it's a conspiracy by the U.S gov,
the CIA and the State dept.). What's the point? Regardless of the
main actor's intentions, the effects are there for all to see. That's what
important. Besides, talking about intentions in this context doesn't get
at the root causes of the problem -- i.e. the structural logic of U.S
interventionism. Why does the U.S. need to maintain its hegemony?
What is threatening that hegemony at this particular historical moment?
What can be done to destabilize that hegemony along with its structural symptoms
(Zionism and Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east, racism and anti-leftism
at home)? You can't really get at these sorts of questions if you get
caught up in the conspiracy theory shtick. Going that route means getting
stuck in less than interesting questions about goings on in D.C., details in the
lives of individual politicians and state bureaucrats, etc.... Who
cares?
In connection with your overall argument, there is
a really good book you might want to look at. It's Negri and Hardt's
Empire (Harvard Univ. Press, 2000). They argue that the
postmodernization of production and the re-articulation of the international
state system after decolonization and the movements of the 60s have led to new
forms of domination and the restructuration of relations between states and
corporations. I think you would find some grist for your mill in their
analysis of the role that the U.S. plays in this context. Check it
out.
Nic
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:59
PM
Subject: US Hegemony & Islam
Islamic Terror is Good
for US Hegemony
My argument, to put it crudely, is simple: US Middle
East Policy
is based on escalating the Arab-Israeli conflict and creating
a climate
of hate and violence. With the decline of US hegemony in
the past
couple of decades, the US has resorted to creating a religious
social movement (Islam) to pose as a threat to "world stability."
Yes, a conspiracy theory is what I'm proposing. The Islamic hype
has become a resource for the US to create and produce instability
in
the Middle East for the purpose of selling itself not only to the Arab
regimes, but to Japan and Europe (Unlike the US, these countries
receive most of their energy sources from Islamic states).
It is
the classic case of "protection rent." The only difference here
is
that the protector renting his service is also, ironically, producing
the
source of instability that calls forth the demand in the first place.
The US is projecting itself as THE only power capable of protecting
the international community from such a terror. When it comes to
the Middle East, it continuously demands unilateral diplomacy in the
most obsessive manner, insuring that no other powers enter into
the
region. Such scenarios are permitted only under the umbrella
of a US
led mission. This goes not only for UN investigation of
Israeli
human rights violation, but for all and every case imagined.
Think
also about the following:
1) Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban:
Many of the key players
of the organizations that the US has defined
as "terrorist," and who
are now operating in the Middle East, originally
received support
(militarily and economically) directly from the CIA.
Indeed, when
the United States bombed Afghanistan in 1998, the
military base
that was destroyed by the missiles was originally built by
the
United States.
2) Israeli-Palestinian conflict: I
recently attended an exceptional talk
by Stephen Zune who made the
argument that on many occasions
the US took a more reactionary line
towards the Palestinians and
Lebanese than even right wing Zionist figures
like Netanyahu. In
one instance, Netanyahu was attempting to
convince the US that
Israel should pull out of southern Lebanon, only to
be urged by
the US to maintain their military presence there. Zune's
also
argued that in one instance Netanyahu wanted to negotiate with
the Palestinian Authority the issue of Jerusalem, only to be again
urged not to do so by the US.
3) Iraq and sanctions:
The US, as most of you know by now, is having
some difficulty
maintaining the sanctions over Iraq. Indeed, even the
biggest Arab
puppet states of the US are looking for ways to pull out.
There have been
cases, for example, that both the Saudis and the
Kuwaitis have asked the
US to ease up on the issue, only again
to get the cold shoulder from the
US.
These kinds of examples, I believe, point to the fact that it may
be a US policy to maintain a level of conflict between Israel and
the
Arabs and Palestinians in order to retain its coercive hold
over the
region and important sectors of the international
community.
What do you think? The argument needs some work and more
research, but I think it raises points worth thinking about seriously.
Does anyone know of any sources on the theme of how chaos
and decline
in world hegemony leads to the types of scenarios
I am talking about?
Khaldoun Samman
|