The present crisis over Iraq's seizure of Kuwait is both a world problem and a Middle Eastern issue. For well over 50 years, the world enjoyed a precarious near-stability in the shadow of U.S.-Soviet rivalry. Adventure-seeking rulers were frequently clients of one of the two super-powers and had to be concerned about the reaction of the other.
Now this restraint has greatly diminished, and Saddam Hussein's caper has caused the first post-Cold War conflict. As the world is becoming ever more fractured by the appearance of new nations and the revival of ethnic, religious, tribal, and other animosities, this episode may have considerable influence on the new international order and future conflicts.
This event constitutes such an obvious threat to American, European, Soviet, and Japanese interests, as well as those of other Arab countries, that a large alliance has formed quickly. We may not always be so fortunate. Had Saddam Hussein gotten away with his invasion and annexation of Kuwait, he would have acquired an overpowering influence on Saudi Arabia and all other Arab Gulf states. It is immaterial whether he actually wanted to invade Saudi Arabia or not; that kingdom would have been coerced and its ruling family eventually replaced by Hussein's henchmen. Allowing the Iraqi dictator to acquire a stranglehold on the major sources of the world's oil supply was impermissible to the United States and its allies.
Simply evacuating Kuwait would not be enough if Saddam Hussein were to remain in power, able to wait until America and its allies might be distracted. There is no doubt that his perceived victory, if Iraq were permitted to keep even part of its spoils, would greatly encourage other radical and Islamic fundamentalist forces, even though Hussein's regime is neither Islamic nor fundamentalist, but secular, and his deputy president and foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, is a Christian.
For the time being, our alliance is basically united, but we should not hide the fact that each of its members has its own interests and plays its own game. For the United States, the strategic importance of the Gulf and its stability are of uppermost importance. As both the leader of the alliance and as a superpower, perhaps the only real superpower left, the United States had to take the initiative or others would not have followed.
Furthermore, these events have shown once again that in a crunch like the one in the Gulf, only military power, not economic power, can lead. Both Japan and Germany have played modest roles; the latter has a huge burden in the absorption of impoverished East Germany. Hence, if the people of the United States want to lead and are proud of being leaders, they and their Congress have to accept that such a role requires a real commitment, not only money but sometimes in blood. This will not please everybody, but it is the inexorable lesson of history.
The Soviet role
The USSR is in a different position. Having so long tried to be a leader, especially in the Middle East, by supporting the most radical states and groups, the Soviets have come to recognize that they have lost. Thus, the collapse of their economy and near-disintegration of their central governmental machinery have taught the Soviets that they can only retain their
...
Read Full Article
|
