Bad News for Bush
For the lonely man counting his days in the White House, the fortnight after 9/11 was not a happy one. As if the latest Laden tape was not enough, arch-rival Putin detonated the “dad of all bombs” and arrogant Iran launched a new breed of deadly aircrafts while loyal aide Abe bade adieu following failure of to serve his American patron well enough.
Prime Minister Abe’s year in power was marked by ministerial scandals and an obsession with playing second fiddle to the US even at the cost of alienating the Asian neighbours. Not unexpectedly, his Liberal Democratic Party was crushed in a parliamentary election last July. But the immediate provocation for resignation was a conflict with the opposition Democratic Party of Japan , which was resisting his attempt to renew what he called an antiterrorism law. Under that law, Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Forces were permitted to refuel US warships in the Indian Ocean free of cost, ostensibly to assist in the American-led campaign in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban. For the past six years, such refuelling has been the country’s principal contribution to the war in Afghanistan. “I believe that my resignation will let Japan continue to fight against terrorism under a new prime minister,” he said. But his hopes are likely to be belied. T he Democratic Party has enough votes in the upper house to stop parliament from renewing the pro-US legislation before it expires on the first of November.
Abe’s departure is definitely an ill omen for other Bush-loyalists such as the Indian Prime Minister. But the way the latter is moving ahead with the nuclear deal, it is clear he is not going to mend his way before it is too late.
Almost simultaneously with Abe’s resignation came the news of the Russian explosion. “Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon,” though it is environmentally friendly, General Alexander Rushkin said. “All that is alive merely evaporates”, he added. Thanks to nanotechnology, it is smaller but four times more powerful than the American “mother of all bombs” (technically called Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb or MOAB). The new bomb is further proof that Russia’s military has regained its technological edge. New ground and sea launched nuclear missiles have also been developed. Moreover, booming oil and gas prices have allowed Putin to quadruple annual defence spending and order his long-range nuclear bombers to mount patrols in international airspace for the first time after 1991. Last July, Major-General Alexander Vladimirov told the Russian newspaper Komsolskya Pravda that war with the United States was a “possibility” in the next 10-15 years.
The important thing to note about the Iranian fighters is that they are indigenously researched and developed. The Saegheh, which means thunder or lightning, has stealth capabilities, as well as the manoeuvrability of F-18 fighter jets. After the successful test flights, Iran plans to manufacture more such planes in the near future.
Not that these events are very important by themselves; it is the associated long-term trends that make them so. For example, emboldened by soaring foreign-exchange reserves, new ballistic missiles, and closer links with a prospering China, Russia has been taking highly conspicuous, if not aggressive, multipronged initiatives in recent years to expand its economic, diplomatic and military clout -- often with countries hostile to the US. Thus Venezuela, the second-largest buyer of Russian weaponry, has recently finalised a $1 billion deal to purchase five diesel submarines to defend her oil-rich undersea shelf and acquired the distinction of being the first country to receive a license from Russia to manufacture the famed AK-47 assault rifle. Just a couple of months ago Russia caused much consternation by a symbolic placement of the Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. All these gestures are seen as Russian responses to the US-sponsored strategic encirclement: NATO is still hell-bent on growing larger even after two rounds of eastward expansion. Also notable in this connection is the growing assertion of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), extending from the economic and diplomatic to the military arena. It may be recalled that neither Russia nor China had opposed the US aggression on Afghanistan because both were eager to get rid of Taliban. But as US moves in Central Asia became increasingly ambitious, the Eurasian giants came together more closely than ever. The recent joint militarily exercise of SCO in Central Asia -- a most vital area in geo-strategic terms also eyed by the NATO -- is a case in point.
The most crucial strategic development in recent years is the emerging “energy war”, to use a term that has gained currency in American, Russian and Chinese diplomatic circles. In this war Washington finds itself in an in an increasingly disadvantaged position, even as opponents are riding high and closing ranks.
Both Russia and China are building new oil and gas pipelines, much to the chagrin of the Bush Administration. On September 4, Putin visited Athens and signed a joint declaration on energy cooperation with Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis and Bulgarian President Georgy Parvanov. The proposed 280-kilometer pipeline will allow Russia to export oil through the Black Sea, bypassing the Bosporus strait in Turkey. And this in spite of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly warning Turkey and Greece in April this year against any collaboration with Russia that would facilitate Russia’s tight grip on European energy supply.
During a visit last August to Beijing, his fourth in seven years, Chavez announced that Venezuela would triple its oil exports to China to 500,000 barrels per day in three years, a jump that suited both sides. Chavez wants to diversify Venezuela’s buyer base to reduce its dependence on exports to the US, and China’s leaders are keen to diversify their hydrocarbon imports away from the troublesome Middle East. Along with a joint refinery project, China agreed to build 13 oil-drilling platforms, supply 18 oil tankers, and co-operate in exploring a new oilfield in Venezuela.
While the energy war hots up, many other comparable developments are to be seen across the world today, and there is a common bottom line. The desperate American attempts at unipolar domination -- the expansion of the original NATO and the proposed Asian ‘NATO’, for example -- are increasingly being challenged not only by anti-imperialist mass resistances like in Iraq, but also by Third World countries and emerging powers. The quest for a multipolar world is growing stronger. The president who wished to be the monarch of all he surveys is definitely losing his grip.
— Arindam Sen