Mushahid Hussain: U.S. regime change policy is 50 years old
| | 20-08-2003
While thewheel of history turns full circle, the issues for America's Middle East policy remain relatively unchanged even after 50 years. It was on August 19, 1953, that America first went in for "regime change" as state policy, using the CIA to overthrow the elected, civilian government of Iran under Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq.
Fifty years later, Washington is still toying with the idea of regime change in Iran, and the issues that confronted the United States then remain relevant today, while it is unable to grapple with the consequences of the regime change it forced on neighbouring Iraq through military force. And the 1953 regime change in Iran ultimately led to the cataclysmic anti-American upheaval of 1979.
The 1953 CIA coup was an easy one, and according to its mastermind, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, they didn't even have to spend the entire $1 million budgeted for that regime change.
In his book, Countercoup, he narrates how easily it all went, with the army, the clergy and bazaar bought off to destabilise Mossadeq, a nationalist whose "sin" was to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company so that oil profits would benefit Iran, not just the West.
The Shah of Iran got cold feet, and he had to be convinced that the then mighty western establishment – London and Washington – were blessing the regime change. So it was arranged for a code-word message to be broadcast over the BBC Farsi service, and only then was the Shah convinced that the coup could be carried out successfully.
The New York Times journalist, Stephen Kinzer, in his recent book, All the Shah's Men has President Dwight Eisenhower, who authorised the coup, asking his people during a March 1953 meeting of the National Security Council at the White House: "Why can't we get some of the people in these downtrodden countries to like us instead of hating us?"
Today, that question remains unanswered as American policymakers again try regime change to politically reshape the Middle Eastern map with issues such as oil, geopolitics, Islam, and anti-Americanism casting a shadow over a United States that is apparently still in quest of a viable policy towards the Muslim world.
Real differences
However, there are real differences in the situation. Islam is no longer perceived as the natural ally of the United States as was the case in Iran 1953 or Afghanistan's jihad against the Soviet "Evil Empire". If anything, Al Qaida or "radical Islam" is the "enemy", the new Communist-like bogey of the 21st century.
And regarding Middle East geopolitics, American foreign policy is now driven more by Israel, whose neo-conservative zealots have forged a coalition with Christian fundamentalism dominating the ideological worldview and vision of the Bush administration.
The most significant difference in the regime change in Iran 1953 as opposed to the regime change in Iraq 2003 lies in two key areas: the goals of American foreign policy and the manner in which the U.S. and the Muslim World are changing.
In the 1950s, there was still an idealism in American foreign policy. The U.S. saw itself as the self-proclaimed leader of the Free World, and regime change, however misplaced, was meant to make the world safe from the captivity of Communism. So the Americans could talk of a moral high ground while countering Communism in strategic parts of the Third World.
Regime change in Iraq 2003 has a different purpose. As American journalist Jay Bookman aptly summed it up: "The war [in Iraq] is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global dominance, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were."
The other difference is how the U.S. and Muslim world are responding to the altered scenario after 9/11. The Muslim world has realised that their days of dependence on the U.S. are over, and if, instead of being part of the problem, they are to be part of the solution, they have to change, a process on which most are apparently already embarked. Flexibility and U-turns are therefore in order, especially if they are able to reverse wrongs.
Unsustainable policy
Pakistan reversed an unsustainable Afghan policy, Turkey has reversed its wrong Kurdish policy making itself a more democratic and attractive candidate for EU membership, Saudi Arabia has opened up by establishing a National Centre for Intellectual Dialogue allowing for debate and difference of opinion to be aired more freely, Libya has finally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie crime, even dishing out $ 2.7 billion in compensation to the victims of terrorism and in Iran, even Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, Hussein, has called forgreater political freedom.
These are very positive signs indicating a Muslim world willing to come to terms with a changed international environment, with an awareness of its citizens rights and their urge for freedom.
Conversely, as a consequence of the war on terror and the aftermath of 9/11, if the Muslim world shows signs of changing for the better, the U.S. is changing for the worse. Curbing liberties and fundamental rights of illegally detained Muslim Americans, choking off free media access and censoring news, institutionalising falsehood to promote political and military goals, vilifying Muslims and Islam, bypassing the UN and reverting to the "might is right" maxim are disturbing signs that would put the United States increasingly on a collision course with the world of Islam.
The result is that the United States is left with either flunkies or foes in the Muslim World, but hardly any friends. The American establishment needs to ponder: can they seriously think of sustaining an "Empire" in such a sea of hostility? They should learn their history lessons, not just from Iran 1953 but also Iraq 2003, before thinking of embarking on other Quixotic adventures in the Muslim world.
The writer is a former Minister of Information and is currently a member of Pakistan's Upper House, the Senate. He can be contacted at mhussain@gulfnews.com
gulf-news.com |
