The regular annual G-8 summit took place on the famous Omaha beach in Normandy which saw fierce fighting in June 1944 between the American amphibious troops and the Wehrmacht divisions. That the timing of the summit, held on June 6, was politically motivated was only too obvious. The very composition of the participants made one think of some secret signals being sent under the pretext of marking the anniversary of the opening of the Second Front. Chancellor Gherhard Schroeder was among the representatives of the 14 countries who had taken part in the landing operation, and German soldiers marched by at a brisk pace on the sandy beach of Normandy along with the allied troops of the anti-Hitler coalition. This, probably was meant to demonstrate European reconciliation.
Schroeder and Putin were invited because the agenda of the G-8 meeting included important geopolitical issues, such as the American idea of setting up a “Greater Middle East” and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Americans are in a quandary: they don’t know how to get out of Iraq without losing face. And so they reckon that they should share the responsibility for the catastrophic developments in Iraq with others – with Europe, Russia, the UN, and the Arab League.
The anti-American revolts in Fallujah and in the Shiite zone have resulted in a political, not military, victory of the insurgents. Americans have vacated the bastion of the Sunni extremists, and they have also failed in their attempts to defeat the Mahdi army in Kerbelah and Najaf, and to catch Muktadah Sadr. So what stabilization, what democratic Iraq are they talking about?
The idea of a “Greater Middle East” envisages massive economic and military aid to the region’s democracies, and their unification into a regional organization bearing responsibility for ensuring peace and fighting against the terrorists. Such an organization should also support those states that strive to become democratic. The idea presupposes that Europe, together with the US, should be the main investors, a kind of logistical base of a pro-Western Middle Eastern bloc.
Washington is prepared to make concessions in order to overcome differences with the G-8 countries. The fact that the US has agreed to the changes in the UN resolution on Iraq, which gives the country full sovereignty and the right to request the withdrawal of the coalition forces from the country, is proof that the Americans are prepared to leave it. But they have failed to get support for their idea of a “Greater Middle East”. The countries of the Middle East and Northern Africa do not need missionaries of democracy, said Jacques Chirac summing up the views of his European colleagues. This means that the G-8 members have failed to reach agreement on the main issue.
The grandiose programme for democratization of the Middle Eastern region has shrunk to a mere declaration of the need for a peaceful settlement of the conflicts there and stating that the Iraqi people themselves should decide the fate of their country. The US colleagues in the G-8 know perfectly well that the idea of a Greater Middle East could be as hard to implement as the plan of turning Iraq into a secular democracy is.
Washington is reluctant to accept that Islamic democracies could create more problems for the West than dictatorships. Iran has an opposition and holds regular elections. Morocco, too, is a secular pro-Western democracy and the economic situation there is not bad. But the Islamist threat is on the rise there -- the Moroccan fundamentalists are the ones who staged the acts of terror on the trains in Madrid. And if free elections were held in Pakistan, then Bin Laden would most probably be president. And it’s hard to imagine what would happen if free elections were held in countries like Libya and Somalia.
The US and some European politicians have long viewed Egypt as a model for the Middle East. It is a formally secular state with a growing market economy and a multi-party political system. But the mood of the Egyptians manifested itself vividly on September 11, 2001 when they celebrated “America’s defeat” in the streets of their cities. Egypt is a typically military-bureaucratic dictatorship like that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Free elections in “the most democratic country” in the Arab world would result in the victory of the Islamic extremists.
Washington knows perfectly well that the “Greater Middle East” project would take a very long time to implement. While in the meantime terror is spreading in Saudi Arabia. The oil output there could fall sharply at any moment, because, should there be another two or three serious acts of sabotage, thousands of men working in the kingdom’s oil industry would start leaving the country. And who could replace Saudi Arabia as the main supplier of oil? Iraq? But there is chaos there. Indonesia with its instability and a fall in oil production? Nigeria, where there is a war between Christians and Muslims? Or Venezuela which is led by a left radical, Ugo Chavez? Russia is the only country that could replace the monarchic regimes of the Persian Gulf on the oil market. Islamic extremists pose no threat to Russian oil pipes and ports, and the political situation in the country is stable. Our economy has been growing, if only slowly, for six years now. As to democracy, Russia is far ahead of any Islamic country. But what if Moscow, having taken offence, should refuse to increase its oil exports? Then oil and gas prices would skyrocket and the developed countries would find themselves on the brink of a deep crisis. And the second issue on the agenda of the summit, the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is also impossible to resolve without Russia’s participation. That is why Russia has remained within the “eight”, and the American congressmen’s demand that Russia be expelled had been ignored.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/