Old and new alliances (Part 1)
published: Sunday | August 10, 2003

Lloyd Goodleigh, Contributor

"WAR AND Nations wear many faces", argues United States newsman, Eric Sevareid. His observation seems to best demonstrate the historical problems of the Middle East.

By now, most of the world's citizens have formulated their opinions with regard to the latest Iraq/US-British conflict. I am compelled, however, to revisit this issue, as I am hoping to provide a different vantage point from which the reader can view these developments.

"We have chased a dictator into exile and installed a constitutional sovereign, pledged to a whole catalogue of long-delayed seriously-minded reforms and reparations." Sounds familiar?

A KEY SOURCE OF OIL

The year was 1941 and the speaker was England's Winston Churchill. He was speaking after Britain and Russia had invaded Iran "to safeguard a key source of oil". Ironically, he was doing it in partnership with Joseph Stalin, a dictator, who, in the view of one source, "was one of the great mass murderers of all times, as much as Ivan the Terrible and nearly as much as Adolph Hitler."

That 1941 British/Russian co-operation would evaporate, but over time, the Britain/US Alliance which preceded it, would go from strength to strength, its latest deployment being Iraq. As we proceed we will find Churchill's fingerprints all over Middle Eastern problems and on the British/American Alliance.

The Iraq/American/British conflict was primarily about Access to the key source of oil "at conservative prices." I am aware that some commentators seek to make the distinction between Access and Veto Power. The distinction escapes me.

Access ­ Veto, whichever you choose, most of the world, accepts that oil is at the heart of U.S. policy. Granted that in the United States, the population and both houses of Congress seem to have accepted the Bush Administration's other explanations of "dictator and weapons of mass destruction." The enigma, however, in most people's minds ­ is Tony Blair. The question that is often posed ­ How had a savvy British Prime Minister seemingly been led by the Bush Administration into a war, when he did not have the support of the British people, had to rely on the Opposition Conservative Party for Parliamentary support and lacked the support of his European colleagues. Why was he so adamant? Was he employing "radical centreism" or given the historical alliance of Cousins, did he as a British Prime Minister have a real choice?

The two wars represent the American/British Alliance standing traditional sentry duty over the world's major oil supply in the Middle East. The latest war also presented the opportunity for the Alliance to seek to shuffle the deck on a range of issues that have plagued the region, since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, at the end of World War I. Issues of the reignition of Arab nationalism ­ Palestine ­ Israel ­ Radical Islam.

It is crucial that we understand the depth and breadth of the US/British Alliance, because in my view, there are Empire-builders on both sides of the Atlantic who are seeking to ensure that the Alliance is the major player militarily, economically and culturally in this century, much like the manner in which the Alliance dominated the last century.

This unwritten Alliance has existed for nearly 100 years. It is an Alliance based on kinship, a shared language and heritage ­ common commerce and imperial ambitions. It has served as a vehicle for the Transference of World Hegemony from a defunct British Empire to Pax Americana over several decades. Some of it by design, some by default and some by competition.

FULL CIRCLE

The transfer, is ironically, because Britain's first Imperial conquest (outside of Ireland) was on the North American continent. Newfoundland was discovered by John Cabot in 1497. Things have gone full circle.

The Alliance or what the Conservative Party of Britain calls 'special relationship' is formidable and confident. It represents the combining of US/British money ­ technology and manpower with British experience in Empire ­ building. In case you have not noticed, the Empire-builders on both sides of the Atlantic are ebullient. After all in their view, in the last century, they have achieved some historic victories: