In November 1991, US Secretary of State James Baker, explaining the American position in the Persian Gulf crisis, said famously: "The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf, and we cannot permit a dictator such as this to sit astride that economic lifeline. And to bring it down to the level of the average American citizen, let me say that means jobs." Baker later admitted that his phraseology was not as felicitous as it might have been (later suggesting he should have said "economic prosperity"), but he always believed his central point was correct.
Indeed it was. It is still a point worth remembering, as world markets react to the collapse of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and the sabotage bombing of the USS Cole. Oil prices spiked to 10-year highs, and Wall Street had a "gray Thursday," as the Dow Jones and NASDAQ averages fell precipitously. Later, both averages substantially recovered, and oil prices eased slightly, so the economic crisis atmosphere did not worsen appreciably. Diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions in Gaza and the West Bank continued, including the "summit" in Sharm el-Sheikh, although very little in concrete terms emerged from it.
Although violence in the occupied territories has recently dominated the media coverage, the gravest development was actually the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Whoever was ultimately responsible for instigating the attack (and that may well be different from whomever actually carried it out), no one can mistake that the real target was the US itself. The Cole was in transit to the Persian Gulf to take up its station in the continuing American efforts to enforce the weakening UN economic sanctions against Iraq. The attack seems analogous to the suicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, designed to intimidate the US into scaling back its presence or entirely disengaging from the region.
In the American presidential campaign, higher energy prices have already figured prominently, even before the recent surge in oil, and the Arab-Israeli conflict has always stirred political passions. The sickly euro has been further weakened by the fear of rising, dollar-denominated oil prices, and their potential adverse effects on an already-stalling European economy.
Moreover, many have worried for some time that Washington's nemesis, Saddam Hussein, was planning an "October surprise" during the closing weeks of the US campaign, intended in some way to disrupt or affect the elections. Reasoning that President Bill Clinton would be distracted or constrained, Saddam could believe that the US was especially vulnerable. Of course, whether or not the attack on the Cole was ordered by Iraq is presently unknown, but it would be entirely consistent with Iraq's two central foreign-policy objectives: breaking out of the remaining economic sanctions, and burying once and for all the efforts to keep Iraq from regaining weapons of mass destruction.
During the 1990 to 1991 Persian Gulf crisis, Saddam tried in countless ways to undermine the international coalition arrayed against him, and particularly to peel off the Arab allies standing with the US-led coalition in defense of Kuwait. There were repeated efforts to stir "the Arab street" to violence against the West and its regional allies, and especially to use the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dispute to inflame that street against Israel's Western friends. Iraq and its surrogates continually tried to energize the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli practices in the occupied territories, and especially in Jerusalem, and thus distract the Council from its focus on evicting Iraq from Kuwait. World oil prices remained high and uncertain until Desert Storm succeeded.
Although Iraq failed in its efforts 10 years ago, the past several weeks of violence in Gaza and the West Bank have now provided Saddam Hussein with the context that he then sought so vigorously. He may not wish to give Clinton the excuse for a direct and punishing military response against Iraq, and thus proceeding by stealth and terrorism may, at this point, be his preferred strategy.
Although only a few days remain until the Nov. 7 election, there is still time for the Iraqis to cause politico-military mischief, with all of its attendant economic consequences. Needless to say, the countless anti-Western terrorist groups scattered throughout the Middle East will also be trying to take advantage of the chaos which threatens the region, thus providing further camouflage for what the Iraqis are actually up to.
No analysts are truly confident in predicting the November electoral implications for the current crisis. Some believe that it will help Vice President Al Gore because he is seen as a more experienced hand in foreign affairs, and because of the traditional American reaction of rallying around the administration in times of international crisis.
Others see the advantage going to Governor George W. Bush, since the crisis underscores the continuing threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the lack of success of Clinton-Gore Middle East policies. Still others see the headline-dominating crisis simply distracting from the presidential race, especially for critical undecided voters who have not formed opinions, much less strong attachments, to either Gore or Bush.
Whatever any of the Middle East actors may be planning, no definitive progress in the region is realistically possible until after the next American president is sworn in on Jan. 20. Despite Clinton's seemingly unending quest for "legacy" achievements, the other parties increasingly understand that his lame-duck status precludes him from playing a central role. One can only hope that Clinton also comes to this realization, and that his frenetic diplomatic activities do not actually exacerbate the situation, risking further economic disruption to the world economy.
John R. Bolton is the senior vice pesident of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. During the Bush administration, he served as the assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry