31 March 2005

China and the US; Weiqi and Chess; Strategic Thinking vs. Tactical Thinking

In 1972, in Beijing, Henry Kissinger asked Chou En-lai, the then Chinese foreign minister if he thought the French Revolution of 1789 had benefited humanity. “We Chinese feel it is too soon to tell,” Chou answered. As James Pinkerton wrote,
“sitting atop 5000 years of Chinese history, Chou had a point: it can’t hurt to let events unfold before rushing to judgment. The Chinese, after all, invented the game of weiqi -- known in the West by its Japanese name, go -- which requires the utmost in patience and a sense of long-term positioning. And that outlook spills over into geopolitics; the Chinese worked on their Great Wall, on and off, from the 7th century BC to the 17th century AD.”

Before proceeding with my thesis, a bit of background on Weiqi: The game known in English as go, Igo in Japanese, Weiqi in Chinese, Baduk in Korean — is not just more difficult and subtle than chess. It may also be the world's oldest surviving game of pure mental skill.

As for the origin of the game of Weiqi, it is known to have been developed in China, but the dates are open to much speculation. One story has it that it was invented by the Emperor Yao (ruled 2357-2256 B.C.) as an amusement for his idiot son . A second claims the Emperor Shun (ruled 2255-05) B.C created the game in hopes of improving his weak-minded son's mental prowess . Finally , a third theory suggests that Weiqi was developed by court astrologers during the Chou Dynasty(1045-255 B.C.). In any event , it is generally agreed that Weiqi/GO is at least 3000 to 4000 years old which makes it the world's oldest strategic board game. The origin of Chess being circa 600 AD, considerably later than Weiqi/GO.

Although I am a “newbie” to the game of Weiqi, the differences between Chess and Weiqi quickly became clear to me. At the same time, those dissimilarities seemed to reflect as well the differing approaches to foreign policy and diplomacy of China and the United States.

Whereas Chess is, as one Grandmaster put it, “99% tactical”, Weiqi/GO is a game of strategy. Militarily, Chess is a single battle; Weiqi is a multi-front war. The former is conducted on an 8x8 board; the latter on one of 19x19 squares or 361 interstices. Chess is a game that relies entirely on the left hemisphere of our brain, the analytical function; Weiqi requires the employment of both left and right brain hemispheres – analytical and perception of spatial patterns respectively. Chess is designed for short term engagement and Weiqi for the long term.

Before proceeding to my main thesis and the role the games play in today’s geopolitical joust I submit below a table outlining some of the more salient features of the two games. These features and how they relate to geopolitical theory will be readily apparent.

Object Of The Game
Chess: Checkmate Opposing King = Total Victory
Weiqi: Obtain Larger Territory = Greater "market share"

Brain Functions Used In Playing
Chess: Almost Entirely Analytical (left brain).
Weiqi: Fully utilizes/integrates analytic (left brain) and artistic/pattern recognition (right brain) functions. Intuitive analysis. One requiring multi-tasking.

Number of possible First Moves.
Chess: 20 White x 20 Black = 400.
Weiqi: 361 Black x 360 White = 129960, although symmetry reduces this number to an effective 32,490.

Estimated Number of Possible Board Configurations
Chess: 10 to the 120th power
Weiqi: OMNI Magazine in June, 1991 proposed 10 to the 761th, but most believe that the correct figure is really on the order of 10 to the 174th.

Military Analogy
Chess: A single battle.
Weiqi: An entire multi-front war.

The Nature of Play
Chess: Primarily tactical, with only a modest strategic component.
Weiqi: Profoundly strategic, but with incisive, complex, integral tactics.

Countries Using This Kind Of Thinking In Their Political Decision Making.
Chess: US, Western Democracies, Russia, and Eastern European Nations.
Weiqi: China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore.

(For more detailed information about the differences between Weiqi and Chess I refer the reader to the following online references:
http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/goandpsych.pdf
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~athe0007/CognitiveBrainResearchChess.pdf

So, what does all this have to do with China and the US and their respective approaches to geopolitics?

A recent Pentagon report describes Beijing's "string of pearls" strategy as one that aims to project Chinese power overseas and protect China's energy security at home. In fact, that “string of pearls” is closely linked to the technique of the game of Weiqi.

Amongst the Western nations there is a certain impatience in problem solving, but it is the United States in particular that is easily frustrated by protracted disputes and wars. They want a quick resolution and when it is not forthcoming, they abandon their objectives or change them. They want quick solutions – the “Desert Storm” war in Iraq, Grenada, Panama – in and out with a minimum of fuss. They do not like Vietnams or Koreas that drag on, or Somalias that get messy. Now as “Enduring Freedom” drags on into the third year with no end in sight, the American public is becoming restive and unhappy once again. Eventually, this discontent will percolate upward into the government.

While the United States, a Chess player, is tightly focused on the Iraqi/Middle East conflict, which it considers to be the key to world peace and a springboard for global American hegemony, the Chinese are playing Weiqi on the global game board; with long term goals and multi-front objectives. (See comparative chart above.)

While other global interests and alliances burn, America fiddles in the Middle East.

China, on the other hand, is moving quietly and effectively to forge commercial alliances that bring substantial and long term political influence and benefits. Let us have a look at China’s diplomatic efforts over the last two years

1. China has, for all purposes, finessed the United States in South East Asia by creating its own ad hoc version of ASEAN with bilateral agreements.

2. To secure and broaden its energy sources it has invested in port facilities in Pakistan- I quote from the Asia Times: ” When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Pakistan this month to inaugurate the Gwadar deepsea port, China will take a giant leap forward in gaining a strategic foothold in the Persian Gulf region. It will advance what a recent Pentagon report describes as Beijing's "string of pearls" strategy that aims to project Chinese power overseas and protect China's energy security at home.”

3. In Africa China recently visited Angola with a view to contracting for petroleum supplies from that country

4. China held joint naval maneuvers with India and France and is moving forcefully to create ever stronger commercial ties with the EU. The prospect of penetrating the enormous Chinese market almost certainly will prompt the EU to lift the arms embargo on China and closer political ties will follow. China, in the not too distant future, could supplant the US as the EU’s major tradiing and political partner.

5. Even more intriguing, with greater consequences for the US, are China’s deft moves into Latin America. A few months ago China embarked on a whirlwind tour of Mexico, Argentina, Brasil and Venezuela. China committed to investing $20 billion in Argentina over the next ten years and $7 billion in Brasil immediately to improve Brasil's roads, railways and ports. In total China plans to shell out $50 billion over ten years in Latin America. In that regard please read the following New York Times article of 2 March 2005

“Latin America is becoming a rich destination for China in its global quest for energy, with the Chinese quickly signing accords with Venezuela, investing in largely untapped markets like Peru and exploring possibilities in Bolivia and Colombia.

China’s sights are focused mostly on Venezuela, which ships more than 60 per cent of its crude oil to the United States. With the largest oil reserves outside West Asia, and a president who says his country needs to diversify its energy business beyond the United States, Venezuela has emerged as an obvious contender for Beijing’s attention.

The Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, accompanied by a delegation of 125 officials and businessmen, and Vice President Zeng Qinghong of China signed 19 cooperation agreements in Caracas late in January. They included long-range plans for Chinese stakes in oil and gas fields, most of them now considered marginal but which could become valuable with big investments.

Chavez has been engaged in a war of words with the Bush administration since the White House gave tacit support to a 2002 coup that briefly ousted him.

Still, Venezuela is a major source for American oil companies, one of four main providers of imported crude oil to the United States, inexorably linking the two countries’ interests.

‘‘The United States should not be concerned,’’ Rafael Ramírez, Venezuela’s energy minister, said in an interview, ‘‘because this expansion in no way means that we will be withdrawing from the North American market for political reasons.’’ In recent months, though, China’s voracious economy has brought it to Venezuela, and much of South America, in search of fuel.

‘‘The Chinese are entering without political expectations or demands,’’ said Roger Tissot, an analyst who evaluates political and economic risks in leading oil-producing countries for the PFC Energy Group in Washington.

China’s entry is worrisome to some American energy officials, especially because the US is becoming more dependent on foreign oil at a time when foreign reserves remain tight.

Chinese interest in Venezuela, a senior committee aide said, underlines Washington’s lack of attention toward Latin America. ‘‘For years and years, the hemisphere has been a low priority for the US, and the Chinese are taking advantage of it,’’ the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘‘They’re taking advantage of the fact that we don’t care as much as we should about Latin America.’’ (my bold print)


To be sure, China, the world’s second-largest consumer of oil, has emerged as a leading competitor to the US in its search for oil, gas and minerals throughout the world — notably Central Asia, West Asia and Africa. —NYT”

6. Beyond the events outlined above, one should pay special attention to Latin America and its inexorable move, or rather return, to the Left, a development that can only benefit China. There are now four significant Latin American governments which have leftist credentials: Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela and the freshly minted, newly elected government in Uruguay. The latter, Uruguay, just reopened the Cuba embassy in Montevideo. Cuba, which had been written off after its “sugar daddy”, the USSR collapsed and withdrew its financial largesse to Cuba, is now experiencing a political renaissance. All those socialist left leaning countries can be counted on as strong allies for China; all of them have a history of barely repressed anti-Americanism. They will welcome a counterweight to what they perceive as the domineering and powerful neighbour to the North.

Two points in the NYT article above stand out: 1) the Chinese soft approach – they are entering without expectations – no strings, no small print; they are accumulating a reserve of credits in good will and 2) the Chinese are taking advantage of US neglect of the Latin American regions. The Chinese are looking to the future for its return, to the long term, not to short term gains.

The Chinese are waging a multi front, non-military war while the US is obsessed with extending its domain by threat, and military coercion; seemingly incapable of the multi tasking necessary to look after its global interests. The US is investing several hundred billion dollars in a war, which in the end will bring not benefit to the United States, only grief and increasing, unsustainable debt. In the meanwhile, the Chinese are accumulating trade surpluses, over $200 billion in credit from the United States in the form of Treasury Notes and political and trade alliances.

China is following the basic principles and concepts of Weiqi; the US are looking to those of Chess.

· Acquiring territory by isolating its opponent’s pieces, by finessing them. not using force and the assumption that removing the “King” or the opponents “pieces” will secure victory

· Engaging in a multi front effort: not narrowly concentrating and counting on a single objective to achieve its ends

Finally, a quote: “Dr. Hans Berliner, a leading Chessmaster, former World Correspondence Chess Champion, Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, and one of those whose work on chess led to the development of IBM's Deep Blue and its descendants said: "You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. Chess is winding down.....What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity". And he concluded: "Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go..."

The people doing war games in Washington should take note; they might want to reconsider their tactical and narrow approach in favour of a more strategic one, one that employs the whole brain, not half of it.
Finis
baoluo

27 March 2005

US looses sheen; Europe scores

US is no longer the ultimate destination for Indian students as other nations are also wooing them.


22 March 2005

The EU, Emasculated Union

Alas, once again the EU is displaying its lack of resolve and inability to cut the umbilical cord with the United States.

The US appoints Bolton as Ambassador to the UN, a slap in the face to both the UN and the Europeans opposed to America's foreign policy. Then, as if that was not enough, Bush designates Wolfowitz, Chief Ideologue of the Neo Cons to head up the World Bank.

Reaction by Europe - Europe expresses "disappointment", Europe is "doubtful", Europe is "hostile"....but not expected to oppose Wolfowitz's appointment"

Now, quailing in fear of Rice's displeasure, the EU is beginning to back off from its intent to lift the arms embargo on China using the puerile excuse of China's anti-secession law. How pathetic! One can only hope that France, playing its traditional role of spoiler, and in self interest, will stand up to the US on this issue. Russia most certainly is under no such constraints and the upcoming military exercises of Russia and China are signals of increasing cooperation between the two. It is ironic that those two countries once driven apart by ideological differences in 1960, are now once again finding a common cause and being brought together to counter American efforts to spread its own ideology and to support Japan as a regional counterweight to China. America’s declarations, expounding the superiority of its political system and threatening its allies and Satrapies should they deviate from the party line, ring eerily of the USSR communist cold war rhetoric. The question now is when and how can the EU be liberated from the stifling grip of the present US regime.

19 March 2005

United States Foreign Policy Blunders Update 2 - confrontation vs. accomnodation

In an article from the Asia Times, Mr. Chalmers supports (at great length) essentially what I wrote in my post “Help Wanted – a Political Oculist” regarding the misguided policy of both the Japanese and Americans vis-a-vis China.

He posits:

"It is popular nowadays to refer to the US as the "lone superpower". This is a myth: there is now a new superpower, China - a fact that Washington and Tokyo ignore at their peril. The current US policy of encouraging and even accelerating Japanese rearmament, and both allies' self-delusion over Taiwan, are huge and very dangerous foreign policy errors."- Chalmers Johnson, President of Japan Policy Institute.
For the complete article see the link below
The real 'China threat'

In this post, I should like to return to that same subject and amplify on it.

The United States has a seeming genius for setting priorities that work against its national interests; supporting the wrong causes, ones that invariably come back to haunt the US. Israel is the first and most obvious of those errors, but a half a world away from Israel another and equally disastrous policy is taking shape.

Condolezza Rice, a.k.a. Dominatrix, has been busy pursuing the neo-con agenda of confrontation with China by enlisting the aid of one of the most reviled countries in Asia, Japan.

Having worked hard to achieve a breakthrough in relations with China in 1971, the US is now intent on provoking and alienating the Middle Kingdom. Why? Surely, it would be in America’s interest to work with China not against it. Perhaps, the US is labouring under the mistaken notion that China is another USSR, a cultural hodge podge held together only by dint of force and fear; or perhaps the US thinks its recipe for success in destroying the old USSR can be applied to China

The US should have another look at China and recognize that it is the largest ethnically homogenous country on the planet, not a Soviet Union made up of fractious culturally incompatible republics. It is a country which is experiencing increasing pride in “Chineseness”; looking to its return to once great glory as a major Civilisation after allowing itself to be exploited by America and the European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Yesterday Rice was preaching the same tired gospel of Democracy to China hoping to achieve the same result as in the USSR. The old USSR, economically depleted within, and unable to maintain the pace of the arms race without, collapsed. Then, before it was ready to walk, it attempted to run by buying into the false promises and benefits of overnight instant democracy promoted by the US. The drunken buffoon Yeltsin was made to order for the designs of the US and with the help of America he finished off the state and put it on the path leading to its present sorry state. One has to grant credit to the United States in this regard. It succeeded far beyond its hopes in eliminating in a matter of only a few years its only competitor to global supremacy.

However, China is not about to be led down the same garden path, being even less inclined to do so after seeing what happened to Russia and its grand experiment with democracy. China is not a country living on the brink of financial collapse as was Russia; it has the fastest growing most vibrant economy in the world. Unlike the USSR and the United States it is not on a mission to impose its ideology on other countries so it is not wasting its intellectual and financial resources on such a hopeless objective. In its own sweet time China will evolve politically, but on its terms and in concert with its priorities of the economy, education and health. Militarily too, China is not the shoddy Soviet scarecrow that the US overestimated for several decades. It has the world’s largest standing army; it has a nuclear missile delivery capability and is in the process of building blue water navy. Notwithstanding the arms embargo foisted upon it by the US, China’s military will continue to grow, so any thought of dealing with China by force would be a mistake of gigantic proportion. General MacArthur once cautioned against mounting a land war any place in Asia, the consequences of which he suffered in Korea. Nevertheless, the United States repeated the mistake two decades later in Vietnam with even worse results. The mind boggles to think of an undertaking of that sort in China.

The US must realize that with its neo-con policies in tatters and its military already stretched beyond capacity in Iraq that it cannot afford another major conflict. So what to do in Asia? Neo-con answer - develop Japan as a counterweight; encourage the nationalistic Japanese samurai regime of Koizumi to rearm and support the US’s myopic policy with regard to Taiwan. This, of course, plays nicely into the hands of the pro-military, Japanese right wing throwbacks, the descendants of the ones who brought us Pearl Harbour and the Pacific War; the ones who invaded China in 1931 and massacred 400,000 Chinese in 1937 in Nanjing; the ones who refuse to acknowledge the war crimes committed in China, not to mention the crimes in Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and other countries under their boots in WWII.

Considering that history, China and other countries in the region can surely be forgiven if they take umbrage with the US machinations and attempts to revive Japanese militarism.

As I wrote above, as bad as it is, US foreign policy is nothing if not consistent. Its inability to recognize the cultural and historical factors have also led it to ignore the fact that the entire Asian region would prefer to ally itself with an economic powerhouse such as China rather than with a country with Japan’s history. Unlike Japan, even at the peak of its strength, China has not aspired to conquer the countries of Southeast Asia, nor does it wish to do so now.

The US appears to be hell bent on antagonizing China rather than seeking an entente whereby China and the US can be friendly competitors. America’s single minded obsession with democracy and its determination to impose it upon China and other countries can only lead to heightened tensions; China, mistrustful and fearful of Japanese military renaissance, might well believe it better to mount an attack on Taiwan now and before Japan does rearm. The threat of an armed and dangerous Japan can only spur China to accelerate its military build up, not slow it as the US would like. As usual, US foreign policy results in making matters worse, not better, for both America and the world.

In this regard, I should like to insert yet another quote from Mr. Chalmers which harks back to my previous post on America’s indebtedness and the precarious position it is in with its creditors. (see my post “America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy” 18 February)

My admonition in that post was: “Above all, the US should cease talk of a shifting balance of power in the Taiwan Straits. The presumption that there could be a "balance" between China and the island of Taiwan exemplifies the unrealistic and myopic US policy toward China. To do so is not solely a question of mollifying a potetnial threat, it is also for the purpose of assuring a malleable and friendly creditor - better a banker your friend than one who wants to foreclose on your farm.”

Mr Chalmers advanced a similar warning in his article : “Japan still possesses the world's largest foreign-exchange reserves, which at the end of January stood at around $841 billion. But China sits on a $609.9 billion pile of dollars (as of the end of 2004), earned from its trade surpluses with the US. Meanwhile, the US government and Japanese followers of George W Bush insult China in every way they can, particularly over the status of China's breakaway province, the island of Taiwan. The distinguished economic analyst William Greider recently noted, "Any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly ... American leadership has ... become increasingly delusional - I mean that literally - and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it." The Bush administration is unwisely threatening China by urging Japan to rearm and by promising Taiwan that, should China use force to prevent a Taiwanese declaration of independence, the US will go to war on its behalf. It is hard to imagine more short-sighted, irresponsible policies, but in light of the Bush administration's Alice in Wonderland war in Iraq, the acute anti-Americanism it has generated globally, and the politicization of America's intelligence services, it seems possible that the US and Japan might actually precipitate a war with China over Taiwan.”

America has become the Dr, Frankenstein of International Affairs. In attempting to create new, or transform existing, political entities into its own image, in the end the US succeeds only in giving birth to malformed and dangerous national states. By trying to thwart the inevitable development of China with rearmament of Japan, the US risks drawing the region and the world into an unimaginable conflagration. The present US foreign policy has become arguably the greatest threat to global security, a negative, reckless and dark force.

baoluo

12 March 2005

China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound

China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound

Dollar jitters continue, with none other than Alan Greenspan now warning that the party may be over for the greenback as foreign investors tire of paying for the US's uncontrollable fiscal deficit and consider shifting to other currencies. Reports reveal that China has been doing that for quite some time now, reducing its dollar holdings from 82% in 2003 to 76% in 2004.


11 March 2005

The Geopolitics of Energy, Food and China

The link below should be read by all, and in particular by the eco spoofers, the ones who accuse those concerned with ecology as being nothing more than Chicken Littles crying “the sky is falling!”.. In this interesting, albeit somewhat speculative article the author deals with just one aspect of global economic growth, namely the impact of New China’s entry onto the world economic stage. The title is "LEARNING FROM CHINA. Why the Western Economic Model Will not Work for the World"

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update46.htm

Although we all recognise the need for alternative sources of energy, and there is much talk about it, there is little in the way of action. There seems no urgency, and a naive belief that somehow the problem will solve itself – perhaps by a miraculous scientific breakthrough; perhaps by divine intervention.

The article quoted above brings into sharp and frightening relief the consequences of just one scenario, that of China’s growth. When one adds India’s forecast to the equation and those projections to the numbers, one can only see immigration to another planetary system as an alternative to living on Earth.

In order not to steal the thunder of this very worthwhile article I will close this post and encourage all of you to read and reflect on the possible future repercussions of the underlying energy structure of our economy.

baoluo

10 March 2005

America's Deficits, Debts and Diplomacy Part 2

I refer the readers to my post of 18 February in which I wrote of the risk of America financing its debt by selling T-Notes to foreign governments and financial institutions. Last week South Korean announced it could well diversify its currency holdings away from the US Dollar by buying Australian and Canadian dollars. South Korea is the fourth largest creditor in terms of T-Notes. Result - the dollar dropped.

Now comes the news that Japan might well diversify its holdings. Japan is the number one holder of US T-Notes at $741 billion. Result - the dollar dropped again.

These events underscore the underlying weakness in the US economy and currency due to its enormous indebtedness in the form of T-Notes held abroad. And we are only talking about "diversifying" holdings. What would happen if any of the major holders of T-Notes decided to cash them in? That would do more than cause a drop in the dollar - it would have a seismic impact on the US and global economies.

The countries in question know this, thus they are quietly diversifying to other currencies in order to lessen the blow. Then, they can slowly move their and other economies to safer ground.

For an interesting insight to these scenarios I refer the reader to the following link

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GC11Dk01.html


baoluo

8 March 2005

Lebanon: be careful what you wish for...Part 3

In the ongoing series of “be careful what you wish for, you may get it!” I would like to raise the current topic of Lebanon for consideration.

In the past several days here has been much talk from the American State Department and missionaries for the Bush gospel, about the knock on effect of the “liberation” of Iraq and the subsequent elections in that country.

The ever optimistic, seldom realistic US foreign policy establishment points to a truce in the Palestine, to a decision by Mubarak to allow an opposition candidate, and now to the anti-Syrian demonstrators as proof that Democracy is taking root in the Middle East.

In the latter case the Americans regard these anti-Syria demonstrations as the first step toward free elections and removal of a pro-Syrian, Iranian supported regime. At the same time, the US is completely ignoring the fact that the Shiite population in Lebanon accounts for over 40% of the total, while the Maronite Christians, now only 18%. The Shia also just happen to be the bedrock support of the Hizbollah, a ranking member on America’s list of terrorist organizations and sworn enemy of both the US and Israel.

Now, after those first days when it appeared the anti-Syrian contingent would sweep the boards and replace the pro.Syrian government, what did we get but the Prime Minister who had resigned under pressure. Thousands of pro-Syrian, Shiite, Hizbollah demonstrators poured into the streets of Beirut and suddenly talk by Rice turned unhappy, with declarations that Syria was behind the latter demonstrations.

Well they may have been, and it may also have been that the US was behind the initial anti-Syrian demonstrations. That is the nature of politics.

However, let us for the sake of argument follow the American thesis and hoped for result. We would, as US State proposes, have free elections in Iraq. Before we do that it might be well to examine the ethnic cum religious make up of Lebanon and have a quick look at the events which have led to the present sorry state of affairs.

Muslim 59.7% (Shia, Sunni, Druze, Isma'ilite, Alawite or Nusayri), Christian 39% (Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Roman Catholic, Protestant), other 1.3%

Of the some 60 percent Muslims, the vast majority, about 1.2 million, are Shia Muslims, you know, the ones who represent 60% of Iraq’s population and all of Iran’s. In the case of Lebanon, the Shiites now account for 40% of the population. The Maronite Christians are the second largest group at somewhere between 20-25%. With this mix of not very compatible interests, it is easy to see that there could be and has been considerable conflict in this country. It is also fairly obvious which element would dominate in free elections – the US’s least favourite political flavour, the Shia, who in turn are either active members or supporters of Hezbollah and supported by the US’s other nemesis, Shia Iran.

Now for a brief visit to Lebanon’s convoluted history


In 1861, the Maronite Christian with the help of France secured a foothold in Mount Lebanon with special administrative privileges. Now fast forward to 1920. Following the final break up of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were busy carving up and redrawing the map in the Middle East to suit their respective geopolitical interests. Out of the resulting jig-saw puzzle were born….yes, that is right, Iraq, and along with it Syria and Lebanon. None of these national entities existed prior to 1920. Virtually no thought was given to ethnic divisions – Sunni, Shiite, Maronite. It was all about which territories offered what Britain and France wanted in the way of resources geographical positioning. Iraq was created with a jumble of Shiite, Sunni and Kurds; Lebanon with Shiite, Maronites, Sunni and at that time a mere statelet of Syria. Thus, it is not entirely without some basis that Syria considers Lebanon its rightful territory.

Initially the Maronites in the core area of Mont Lebanon were the dominate force, but as their appetite for territory increased, Lebanon became Greater Lebanon and encompassed what it is today. The Maronites, a distinct minority, lorded it over the Muslims, and in 1943 created a National Pact which accommodated the Sunni majority (not Shiite at that time) and set up a 6 to 5 distribution of ministerial posts in favour of the Christians. This, as someone wrote merely papered over the fault lines.

The next major event took place in 1975, the beginning of a Civil War that was to last until 1992. In that interim warring period both Israel and the United States both got their hands dirty. The US backed Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 1976 with the support of Israel hoping that the Syrians could put an end to the chaos. The Israelis invaded south Lebanon and bombarded Beirut in 1982 to put a stop to incursions into Israel by PLO forces based in South Lebanon.

Internecine war continued until 1992 and new elections, which all had hoped would end the bloodshed. Again, however, the election of a new government only served temporarily to solve underlying geopolitical weaknesses as recent events have shown. The lack of geopolitical sense in 1920 has come back to haunt all concerned just as they have in Iraq.

Now, the United States is calling for free elections, but what if those elections reflect, as they probably will, the strength of the Shia and their fanatical Hezbollah brothers? Is this better than having a Syrian presence in the country, a force to hold the fractious country together? I can hardly think Israel would look benignly upon on a government intertwined with the Hezbollah. What then - a full scale invasion of Lebanon by Israel? What would it bring about other than more Arab resentment? Could it bring into play Lebanon’s chief supporters, the Iranians and a wider an even more dangerous conflict?

The supported Syria in 1976, but times have changed, now that Assad senior has departed and now that Syria has been a less than enthusiastic ally in the Iraqi conflict, Syria is on the The List. Syria is not only identified by the US as a funder of and haven for terrorists, it is now a prime candidate for regime change. The US wants desperately to put pressure on Syria wherever, whenever, however and Lebanon is an opportunity to do just that. Alas, as usual, the US has not thought through the implications of this policy and could well find that it has an even more unpleasant lot in Lebanon than the Syrians.

Be careful what you wish for…..

Should you wish to read more on the subject of Lebanon’s history I commend you to the following pages:

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/900/902/Kamal-Salibi/
and
www.ghazi.de/civwar.html

1 March 2005

Saudi Arabia: be careful what you wish for Part 2

This is the second of a series of "be careful what you wish for" posts, the first dealt with Iraq.

This one has to do with Saudi Arabia and its role in the messianic Bush/Rice rush to transform the Middle East into a redoubt of Democracy.

Just as the recent exercise in democracy and elections has done more to reveal the geopolitical fault lines in fictitious Iraq, so have the recent elections in Saudi Arabia cast a focus on the underlying dangers of the Saudi political picture.

The fanfare which greeted the Saudi elections in February has suddenly, but not surprisingly, quieted. The elections were hailed by the UK’s Daily Telegraph and various American media with joy and exclamations such as “Welcome to today's free elections in Saudi Arabia, the first since the country's creation and an extraordinary display of democracy after 70 years of absolute monarchy”. The joy was somewhat dampened by a following paragraph in the Telegraph stating that “The wave of enthusiasm that swept the country when the election was announced last year rapidly dissipated when it emerged that women would not be taking part and that real power would remain with unelected council members”, but the US State Department with its usually head-in-the sand (no pun intended) view, was quoted in a news report: “A US state department spokesman said the polls were ‘a sign that Saudi Arabia is not immune to the reforms sweeping the region’".

Reforms? Really? In what direction will the reforms take Saudi Arabia?

The Riyadh results have already given the pollyannas in the US Department of State, not only pause for thought, but probably considerable concern. “Islamist-backed candidates have taken a commanding lead in Saudi Arabia's first municipal election, in Riyadh, according to preliminary results”, announced BBC News following the Riyadh poll on 11 February.

The elections will be phased and take place over three months, already completed Phase 1 - 10 Feb (Riyadh region); then come Phase 2 - 3 Mar; (5 regions) Phase 3 - 21 Apr (7 regions).

The electoral results in the outlying and remaining 12 regions could bring even greater disquiet, being farther from the more westernised Riyadh region. If the clerics can prevail in Riyadh, what can we expect in the other 12 regions where they hold greater sway?

For anyone even vaguely familiar with Saudi history it will come as no surprise to know that the extremist Wahhabi religious movement has held the Saudi royal family’s feet to the fire for almost two centuries. It was and remains the price the Saud family paid and is paying to remain in power. While presenting a modernised, urbane face to the West, the Saud have virtually conceded control over social and religious matters in the peninsula to the Wahhabi clerics. There are few if any Islamic groups more fanatical, more anti-Semitic and anti-West than the Wahhabi.

Recently, and just a disturbing as the election results, comes the news that an ultra-conservative religious leader, Abdullah bin Saleh al-Obaid, was apponted as the new education minister for Saudi Arabia. This announcement was made only one day before the elections and buried by the Western press in favour of trumpeting the “free and democratic” elections in Saudi Arabia.

John Bradley, Asia Times, wrote, “Al-Obaid's appointment was, one would wager, among the most significant political developments inside Saudi Arabia since the September 11 attacks. It showed, first of all, that the local elections, rather than being proof of the spread of democracy in the wake of the war on Iraq, had merely provided a cover for the al-Saud to pacify the Wahhabis by appointing one of their own as the head of what it considers the most important ministry. But it also put the final nail in the coffin of a now truly dead and buried domestic reform agenda.

Unlike the town councillors, the education minister wields a great deal of influence, not least over the minds of the next generation of Saudis already steeped in a school curriculum that oozes anti-Semitism and the celebration of jihad.”

Whether the unelected councillors or the council wields significant power or, if the clerics do prevail in the forthcoming regional votes, it must bode poorly for future of reform in Saudi Arabia.

Well now, is this where America’s vaunted Democracy on the March is leading us? We have an Iraq, or fragments thereof, in the hands of Islamic clerics manipulating events behind the scenes; a regional government council in Saudi Arabia, half of whom could be allied with the dreaded Wahhabi?

Democracy could indeed turn out to be a vehicle for change in the Middle East, but Democracy does not necessarily produce a more democratic, freer or pro-American government.

Be careful what you wish for….