Defeat in the moment of victory

Striking a belligerent note, Russian Prime Minister Putin told the media recently after talks with German and French leaders: ‘‘Eighty per cent of governments fall short of western democratic standards. Do we then go to war with all of them?’’

Indeed, 2003 is not 1991 when the Iraqi invasion of a fellow-Muslim country Kuwait had given Arab governments a pretext to play the American tune while salivating over the potential economic benefits that could accrue from allying with the US-UK combine. It is common knowledge that the US made a hefty profit out of the 1991 Gulf war. Of the US$40 billion, the US spent a quarter of it and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait picked up the rest.

Where did they find this money? The secret lies in the fact that oil prices were hiked from the pre-war US$15 a barrel to a whopping $42 at their peak. Since the extraction and trading of oil was largely in the hands of American companies, the US made a killing on this account because the profits from the enhanced price were shared with the oil companies.

Besides, much of the spending for the war went to the war industry which was and is almost exclusively American. Today, the Gulf countries, barring Kuwait, are seething with anger at American double standards in dealing with Israel and Iraq. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s comment that the US invasion of Iraq would fuel terrorism must be seen in that light.

Much of the Gulf media is reflecting the true public sentiment in those countries by projecting Iraq as the wronged one. American attacks on the Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV offices in Baghdad which led to the death of their key correspondents may hardly be acts of innocence and inadvertent targeting that they are made out to be. While the Russia-Germany-France defiance threatens to weaken US hegemony over the world at large, to America’s satisfaction, China—which was once feared by the US which saw it as an emerging super power—has mellowed down considerably with an increasing convergence of economic interests. Chinese protestations are no longer the blood-curdling variety that they used to be.

Indeed, the Chinese are quietly lobbying with the US for a sizeable role in reconstruction and infrastructure in Iraq. With 60 per cent of their petroleum imports coming from the Middle East they are treading warily. But American failure to appease them could easily drive them into the other camp at some point in the future. The Japanese, on the other hand, behave like babes in the woods, unsure of themselves and unwilling to recognise their awesome might. Their manifest servility to the US seems to defy logic.

If India today is not in the league of influential nations, it is as much due to its lack of economic muscle as to its blundering diplomacy. In fact, the Indian political class made a mockery of its foreign policy by the manner in which it quibbled over whether it should ‘condemn’ or ‘deplore’ US-UK action in Iraq and how it should support the Saddam Hussein regime through a parliamentary resolution, when all the world knew that the regime was hours away from total collapse. While the Chinese were busy lobbying for contracts, the Indian government was indulging in needless semantics. So much for our economic pragmatism!

All said and done, however, the Americans have reason to feel concerned over the increasing challenge—open and muted—to their abrasive and bossy style. Today, it is the Russian-German-French troika that is sticking its neck out. Tomorrow, it could be China and the Arab world. The day after, it may well be Japan and India. Now at its absolute pinnacle, US power may well wane in coming years as the Americans are forced to come to terms with a multi-polar world.