IT WAS barely a year ago when the Bush administration trumpeted its "triumphs" in the Middle East as elections sprung up in scattered capitals. Where are those voices now?
Bush's once termed "triumph" is now a policy of utter failure. Invading regimes unfavorable to United States' interests, such as Iraq, has proved catastrophic as has been highlighted by recent events. Furthermore, punishing model nations such as the United Arab Emirates by killing off trade agreements is nonsensical, and preaching regional non-proliferation while accepting India (a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) as a nuclear power could well create a nuclear Middle East. Far from realizing their dreams of Middle East reform, the Bush administration is treading the path toward "Middle East deform" which will eventually destroy the region.
The destruction of the Shia mosque in Iraq by Iranian proxies last month epitomizes the dim prospects of replicating U.S. military intervention in other unfavorable regimes as a method of reform. U.S. intervention in Iran, heavily considered by experts and policymakers of late, is now considered suicide.
The Iranians have been emboldened by this and wreaked havoc in Iraq. Iran's strong hand in Iraq, powered by its support for militias such as the Mehdi army, establishment of expansive propaganda networks and creation of social welfare programs in rural areas has made more headway in terms of reform in the last three months than the Bush administration's 'reform by regime change' plan has in three years. Bush's policy of regime change has clearly brought more deform than reform to Iraq and has emboldened Iran to the point that it has more control in Iraq than does the United States.
The Bush administration is even less effective in rewarding its allies in the Middle East. The rejection of the Dubai ports deal was a prolonged result of its over-exaggerated hype on "security" as a propaganda tool in the war on terror. This strategy has filled the nation with senseless fear, convincing its citizenry that two of the 9/11 hijackers carrying UAE passports trumps the UAE's importance as the largest servicer of U.S. naval vessels and strategic importance alongside the important oil pathway -- the Straits of Hormutz. All this because the UAE will be managing the port, since security will still be run by Americans.
How is the U.S., champion of democracy, to explain to nations such as the UAE that free trade is hindered by discrimination on the basis of unfounded security claims? More so, if the UAE, which is a loyal U.S. ally in the region, is facing this discrimination, why should other Arab nations even bother supporting U.S. reform? What kind of democracy are Americans exporting when they can't even handle their domestic democratic values?
The India nuclear deal is the biggest setback for nonproliferation efforts in modern history and increases the likelihood of a nuclear Middle East. For years, Arab nations have tolerated a nuclear Israel and abided by the NPT, the incentive beingcivilian nuclear assistance. Why even bother now when India, a non-signatory, can get these same privileges with "selective" nuclear inspections?
That's a much better deal. Contrary to popular belief, India's nonproliferation record is also about as bad as Pakistan's -- the only difference is that while Pakistan led the A.Q. Khan illicit nuclear network, India received parts of its program from it. The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a private group in Washington, reported this week that India's gas centrifuge program was procured through the A.Q. Khan network. Why are we supporting a non-signatory of the NPT with such a poor nonproliferation record? The India deal has heightened Arab resentment toward U.S. double standards on nonproliferation and might stoke efforts to obtain nuclear weapons by illicit means, such as the A.Q. Khan network. If Congress has any political sense, it will not approve the deal with its lack of control on procurement and export practices.
When one speaks of reform in the Middle East, some are quick to contend: What is the alternative to promoting democracy as the Bush administration has? The answer is simple -- democracy is needed as part of a reform package for the Middle East, but it should come along with addressing security issues important to the Arab world, such as the Palestinian conflict. While spreading democracy, it would also help if the U.S. abstained from discriminatory acts of its own like the Dubai ports deal or double standard policies as with the India nuclear deal. But isn't promoting our national interests more important than adhering to global standards, realists decry. Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?
We can further our partnership with India in other areas while preserving international law on non-proliferation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's "for us or against us" policy has prevented this joint effort from occurring.
Prashanth Parameswaran is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
