February 4, 2008

Sougil Alizadeh, University of Reading, UK ( PhD student in Politics and International Relations), Bronze Contributor (19)

There is no doubt that the European countries need to take the required measures to protect their lands from any probable threat, however, it seems that European “skepticism” or some countries’ reservations about the US missile defense initiative have some justifiable explanations. Although I totally agree with the author’s opinion about having no difference between Republican and Democratic parties’ approach to this project, in my opinion, Europeans need to take a more cautious stand to this issue.
Regardless of American justification of the initiative as a plan to protect the Western world against possible strategic WMD attacks from the rouge states, which I do not intend to underestimate it, one should also consider the initial purpose of this project as American long-term strategy to take and maintain the control of energy resources in the Caspian region and subsequently the Middle East. Considering the negative implications of this project in the region in terms of its impacts on US-Russia relations and unavoidably on European-Russian relations, the Shanghai agreement countries, the increase in military build up in the region, the formation of a new balance of power and its undesirable effects on the security of energy, it is of high importance for the European countries to consider this project in a more comprehensive perspective. No need to mention that the above mentioned problems will influence Europe more than the United States due to the geographical proximity of the region to Europe and the European countries unquestionable need in a stable region for its security of energy supply. As a consequence, Europe requires to be aware of the fact that ,under some circumstances, the difference of interests with its American partner seems to be unavoidable and they have to adopt the policies that serve the best for their long term interests.

February 6, 2008

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Editor

I totally fail to understand how a system that tries to defend Europe and, ultimately, the U.S. from possible future blackmail threats through single WMD attacks can have the purpose to "maintain the control of energy resources in the Caspian region" and the Middle East. How should that work in practice?
Moreover, as of today I have not seen the U.S. or Europeans "controlling" any energy resource outside their respective territories. So far it rather seemed to me that these resources are controlled by the countries owning them, and that Americans and Europeans are paying dear Dollars for every single barrel of raw oil and every single cubic metre of natural gas. The prices, I believe, are determined by the rules of supply and demand on the world market, with the supply side forming a cartel to control (high) prices and production. So who controls whom, and how?
The long (and short) term interests of both Europe and the U.S. seem identical as far as energy supplies are concerned: They want to still be able to buy these vital commodities in the future. Again I fail to see how that relates to a strategic system designed against isolated WMD attacks, or rather the political threat of such attacks.

February 8, 2008

Sougil Alizadeh, University of Reading, UK ( PhD student in Politics and International Relations), Bronze Contributor (19)

Dear Mr. Beckmann,

Which group do you agree with? The group that believes the main reason behind the Iraq war was to take democracy to that country, or the group that believes it was a war for oil. If you are from the first group there is no wonder that you have failed to get my point. So let me make it clearer.

I think the fundamental issue is that whether we should accept what politicians declare as the main cause of a policy or whether we’d better not to believe in everything and question about some behind the scenes realities. As this behind the scene reality can be the Iranian regime’s secret nuclear plans, it can also be the United States’ intentions to get the control of energy resources in the Caspian region and the Middle East. Both should be questioned with no difference and prejudice.

America’s long-lasting plan to establish a hegemony over the energy resources in the above-mentioned areas is unquestionable. The reality is that the modern way of establishing hegemony is more different than you might think. You say “I have not seen the U.S. or Europeans “controlling” any energy resource outside their respective territories. So far it rather seemed to me that these resources are controlled by the countries owning them”. I exclude Europe because, fortunately, today’s Europe is far from its past imperialist nature and my main point is America but where does the importance of Saudi Arabia for the US come from if the US does not control any energy resource outside of its territory? What about other oil-rich pro-American Middle Eastern countries? Did America really attack Iraq because it was really caring about the Iraqi people who were suffering from a dictator and was lacking democracy or it attacked Iraq because now it has got the upper hand in getting oil contracts in that country something that it was deprived of due to the hostility between the countries? Let’s just get real. Today, America does not have direct control of the energy resources but thanks to the Middle Eastern pro-American puppet regimes, it gets what it wants to get.

Now when it comes to the Caspian region, What do you think the aim of different sorts of revolutions backed by the West, mainly America, that happened in the ex-soviet republics was? What is the main source of rivalry in the region between America and Russia plus China? Why has this missile program caused Russia’ outrage? What is the main reason behind NATO’s eastward expansion? and etc.

The thing is that nowadays the security of oil supply has turned into the most vital issue for countries specially for America which sees this issue as a matter of preserving its global leadership position. Today what America is doing is to penetrate more and more in the sphere of influence of Russia in the Caspian region and keep it in control not let him getting dominance over the energy resources of the area.

Here you say “The long (and short) term interests of both Europe and the U.S. seem identical as far as energy supplies are concerned”. Well, I’d like to say to some degree yes but not fully. I think when it comes to economic interests US and Europe’s interests do not necessarily always overlap. Of course Europe has more common interests with America than with Russia for example but for America Europe is a strong rival from the perspective of economic interests that should be taken under control too. For instance, Did America consider European countries’ economic interests(mainly oil contracts) in Iraq before attacking to that country?





.

February 8, 2008

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Editor

Dear Ms. Alizadeh,

you raise a lot of different points, some of them on a level of principle, and you make a lot of statements. I am happy and thankful for that, as it stimulates discussion and helps to clarify our thinking and position. Let me try to address some of your points by simply stating how I see the situation:

1. I very clearly belong to none of the two groups-of-thinking that you identify in the beginnng, because I do not believe in such simplistic thinking about the complex and variegated motives and objectives that flow into foreign policy decision-making in open societies and democratic political systems (even in dictatorships there are different groups with different motives, even if they naturally do not vary that much, and eventually a singe authority decides).

2. In my opinion, notions of "imperialism" are totally inappropriate to explain developments in the modern world. That is a theoretical concept developed my marxists and neo-marxists for political reasons, i. e. to denounce the liberal democracies of the West. Today it is also used happily by regimes in unfree countries, as a scapegoat myth to justify the malperformance of undemocratic governance and unfree economies before their own dissatisfied populations. The concept draws on the ages of historical imperialism, when indeed European countries invaded foreign territories to take out their ressources by force. AFAIK, the U.S. never did that, and Europeans have not done that for quite some time.

3. So the motive "let's go to Iraq (or elsewhere) to invade and take their oil by force" is simply not existent, it's an absurd myth that does not get more real by constant repetition in political (and, unfortunately, scientific) discourse. It is particularly absurd for the U.S., who - unlike Europeans - never engaged in imperialism but, to the contrary, were born out of a revolution of people who wanted to be free themselves from British imperialism some 230 years ago. That elementary quest for freedom, and the wish to help others enjoy that freedom, too, always was, and still is, one of the core constituents of U.S. political thinking.

4. Of course the U.S. and all other industrial nations, including the newly industrializing countries, have a *vital* interest in oil resources anywhere in the world. Oil is the very lifeblood of our economies, it is vital for us in a literal sense. This vital interest expresses itself not in "imperialism" a la "let's go and take it!", but generally in two ways. The first is the interest to be able to *buy* this vital commodity in a free market where prices are determined by supply and demand, and not in a market shaped by economic blackmail from regimes who use the deprivation of a vital resource as a political weapon. This first interest is 100% common among Europeans, the U.S. and all other OECD and threshold nations. I think it is neither appropriate nor factually correct to denounce the pursuit of that legitimate interest with terms like "control", "hegemony", "domination" etc. - The second interest is on the level of individual companies who earn money by helping to find and extract the resource, and by refining and selling it, i. e. the big oil companies. On this level, U.S. and European companies are sometimes rivals (even if they, at the same time, operate on, and are owned by shareholders from, both sides of the Atlantic). And sometimes governments tend to support such 'national champions', which then can lift corporate rivalry to a political level.

5. This second aspect was among the motives for the dispute among several European countries, and the U.S. before the 3rd Gulf war in 2003. Saddam had promised French, Russian, and Chinese oil companies exploration rights for the time after the UN sanctions against Iraq. In turn, these countries' governments worked for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, despite Saddam's notorious defiance of UN demands. So the political struggle about Iraqi oil was initiated and lead not by the U.S., but by their rivals, also in Europe. Here the "European countries' economic interests" (as you call them) were much more cynical and self-serving than those in America. However, the idea that a new Iraqi regime more friendly to U.S. interests would help U.S. oil companies regain ground in a liberated Iraq was most probably one of the motives that lead to the decision to go to war in 2003. It was a very subordinate motive, however.

6. Two other motives were much more important: The first was the conviction that a notoriously terrible regime was again working actively on WMD (as it had been proven in 1991). This conviction was so strong that, in lack of real evidence, evidence was constructed or misinterpreted, in order to make the point. BTW, this conviction was shared also by European and other intelligence communities and governments. The impatient thought "We know he has it, we just need to prove it, and the best way to prove it (and to simultaneously take away these weapons) is to remove the Saddam regime by force" was, IMHO, the major motive to attack Iraq. The Bush administration truly believed they were right on that point.

7. The second strongest motive was indeed to liberate Iraq and to establish the first democracy in the Arab world. Like that, one wanted to reduce the pressure on the Middle East's only democracy, Israel, and also to put democratization pressure on all other regimes in the region. I do not think that this world view, as truly believed be the so-called "neoconservatives", was very smart or realistic. But it was a major conviction.

8. Americans (as well as Europeans) do help countries on the path to democracy. They support movements for democracy. That we did also in Serbia, in Georgia, and the Ukraine. We do so because we want people to be as free as we are, and because free people develop better, do better trade with us, and to not threaten us or our friends & partners. In other cases, however, the U.S. (and Europeans alike) do not support democratization against undemocratic regimes. One terrible example is Saudi Arabia. But we fail to help democracy there because, from an overall strategic perspective, this would be too risky: The removal of the Saudi regime would not lead to democracy, but most likely to another militant islamist regime in a sensitive region. It would further destabilize the region, create another major enemy instead of an unliked friend, and would still worsen, and not impove, the overall situation of ordinary people in the country concerned.

None of these things are secret, and none are contrary to what leaders in the U.S. and Europe say. There is no deception, there is no intention to steal anything, or to dominate anybody (unless you see the *defensive* objective to preserve stability, and the wish to see other peoples as free as we are, as striving for domination).
In sum, even though the U.S. decision to remove Saddam by force and to invade Iraq, was a *major* strategic blunder (indeed born out of the naive idea that after liberation, democracy and stability would reign), I can see no ill-meaning or illegitimate motives.

But first and foremost, I still can see no linkage between these isues and the plan to establish a defensive military system in central Europe, which aims at defending U.S. and European self-determination against ambitions of regimes that not only suppress their own populations in a terrible manner, but who also aggressivle try to change the status quo of the free world by force, be it by sponsoring terrorism abroad, be it by illegally acquiring offensive weapons in order to extort their further advancement, or to secure their regime.
As far as all these issues are concerned, I do not see any conflicts of interest between Europe and the U.S. I can see, however, how some regimes would profit by trying to divide Europeans and Americans in order to promote their own aggressive agenda more unimpeded.
Unfortunately, all attempts at simplistic finger-pointing at the U.S. serve exactly that purpose, willingly or not. America is by and large a very benign, not a malevolent force. As long as it still was a hegemon, it was the most benign one ever. Let's try to not blur that picture to the benefit only of the real threats to everything we believe in.

February 8, 2008

Sougil Alizadeh, University of Reading, UK ( PhD student in Politics and International Relations), Bronze Contributor (19)

Dear Mr. Beckmann,

I do not agree with 90 percent of your answer. Obviously we belong to different worlds on the above-mentioned issues.
Thanks for putting time on answering me though.
Good luck

February 15, 2008

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Editor

Dear Ms. Alizadeh,

I am saddened to read you disagree with almost all of the points I made.
Sometimes people come from "different worlds", but eventually we all live in just one world. It is my conviction that the 21st century could see conflicts still worse than those of the 20th, and if it becomes impossible for "different worlds" to openly exchange information, and discuss opinions, then all of us will need the "good luck" you wish me.

This idea of an open, high-quality exchange is the core of the Atlantic Community, and that is why I support it with my engagement.

So I cordially invite you to provide assessments and facts from "your world" on specific points you disagree with.
For example, I am very curious to learn about your concept of "imperialism", and to read the facts that make you diagnose U.S. imperialism according to that concept.
Or: what information in a rare inside report such as Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" is, in your opinion, wrong or missing so that you seem to come to a very different assessment on the Bush administraion's motives to remove the Saddam regime by force?
Or: Do you indeed know cases in which Americans invaded a country and took that country's natural resources away?

I acknowledge I made a lot of different points on Feb. 8. However, they all tried to address points you had raised in your last contribution (and did not even address half of the points you had raised then). Maybe it is easier to concentrate on the discussion of selected questions instead of trying to provide many of them at once. You are invited to propose the single issue you find most important and challenge my point on it.