The doctrine of total compliance

tente carried out by Dr. Kissinger under the leadership of President Nixon is lauded for its constructive engagement. It contributed considerably in easing global tension and setting in motion a process for the peaceful resolution of the conflicts of the world. Under the Nixon doctrine America did not bulldoze her way through her enemies and among her friends. In achieving her goal America was genuinely sincere in enlisting the support of her allies.

The world after 9/11is witnessing a different America, unrelenting in hunting down her perceived enemies, scornful of dissenting allies and asking for unquestioning support for the course she has charted. Condoleezza Rice's predecessor Colin Powel was not an ideologue and as a career soldier pursued honourable exchange. His role was often eclipsed by the brusque bravado of the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Dr. Rice would not however suffer such constraints since the President zealously embraces and pursues the conceptual scenario she ardently advocates. The world is going to see much vigorous actions and bellicose pronouncements from her and from her boss during President G.W. Bush's last term. She has her conceptual plan of the kind of world she would like to see for America, and serving America faithfully.

Since she is an ideologue there is much passion and fury in her beliefs and the vision she is working on. Her conceptual plan is impervious to any flexibility and accommodation on the ground of implacable nature of its ideological content. She would brainstorm, cajole, befuddle and browbeat her allies in to her line of thinking. As for those who are regarded by America as evil or in other words a threat to her security, an affront to her leadership, or those who connive with, harbour or breed her enemies would be overpowered by hard eyeballing, by relentless form of constriction or by military might as the last recourse. In simplest terms it is you are either with us as faithful allies or against to be shunned or to be hunted down.

America's foreign policy under Condoleezza Rice would pursue a goal of worldwide alliance bound by the doctrine of total compliance. America would be stern about the effectiveness and solidity of the alliance to show any patience for squabbling, sermonising or dissenting partners. The major feature of the alliance would be faithful and obliging partners. It is likely that in his last term President G.W. Bush would be unbound in going after what he believes in because he would not have to seek a re-election. But how would he fare in forging an alliance of obliging nations bound by the doctrine of total fealty?

The focus would be on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and on building common concern and stand against recalcitrant and pariah states acquiring nuclear weapons. In order to bolster it further, pressure would mount on the oil rich monarchies and autocratic states of Middle East to democratise their societies. This would make them more genuinely enterprising in severing links with suspect Islamic organisations and to cooperate faithfully in exterminating terrorist apparatus in the region.

It is clear that the first two names on the hit list are Iran and Syria. Poorly for Syria she no longer has a Goliath in the former Soviet Russia as her guarantor. Furthermore to make matters worse Syria also does not have good terms with her Middle Eastern brothers. Her15,000 odd presence in Lebanon as a peacekeeper has placed her neighbours and Israel to take a critical stand against Syria. In the wilderness she could not but form an alliance with Iran. For that matter even Iran is not without her own domestic problem. It is altogether not impossible that few embers are simmering in the culturally vibrant Iranian society about further relaxation of clerical diktats. One can easily understand the security concern of Iran in building nuclear capability, being faced with an inveterate foe in the unchallenged leader of the world. The invasion of Iraq has brought the threat at its doorstep.

One must however say that Iranian leadership although clerical in nature is not lacking in enlightenment and discretion unlike her Middle Eastern neighbours. They would put up an impassive but dour stand in beating down the threats and in staying away from Saddamesque brinkmanship. Iran is unlikely to offer any rope to leash them in. Besides they have a redeeming prospect of Sistani Shias coming to power in Iraq. That would be enough to keep America busy. It is certain that the Shiites in Iraq will take every opportunity that America offers in setting up an elected government in Iraq in order to prepare the ground for the latter's honourable exit from the beleaguered country, keeping their clout intact. Above all it is equally certain that the Shiites would use the opportunities to their advantage and to America's woe.

Unlike Colin Powel, the tactical considerations of military support on the ground would not make Condoleezza Rice pliant in her dealings with Pakistan. Now that Hamid Karzai has earned a bit of legitimacy by democratic election and polls have been held peacefully in Iraq she would have little reservations in coming down hard on Gen. Musharraf on flushing out Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their band of faithful from the rugged terrains of north and south western tribal areas. The American administration has a lingering belief that a part of Pakistan Army and particularly their Inter Services Intelligence ISI have knowledge of the hideout of the high profile fugitives. Besides the usefulness of Pakistan has declined to some extent for America with the air bases in Afghanistan firmly secured and the alliance of anti-Taliban ethnic tribes lending useful assistance. Only intelligence information on Al Qaida fugitives and their activities is needed from Pakistan and Dr. Rice would be stern about full compliance from the ally tainted by unbridled activities of Muslim hardline clerics and by reports of passive connivance of a section of Pakistan Armed Forces with the Talibans.

President Bush in deference of his father's close association with Pakistan and of the consistent Republican tilt towards the country may advocate persuasion. But there is no doubt that under Condoleeza Rice the heat would be on Pakistan and it can be quite a test. American media has already predicted Pakistan a failed state by 2015 A.D. Baluchistan is a potential trouble spot with tribal discontent simmering. The world would wait to see how Pakistan walks the tight rope. America would not relent short of total compliance from Pakistan.

Saudi ruling family has already faced the opening salvo from President Bush when he made the critical observation on the need of democratisation of Saudi Arabia and Egypt in his state of union speech. The strike has been at the very foundation of Saudi monarchy. Western democracy based on the rule of the plurality is not the constitutional panacea for all societies. It must have a compatible social set up as an essential condition for it to work as a sustainable system of governance. Democracy as we know is essentially a political system of western society necessitated by the need to make absolutist monarchy deferential of people's wishes. It developed over the centuries as a working arrangement among the three important sections of the society, monarchy, feudal-agrarian society and the clerical section or the warlords in some parts of the world. There are other variations as well. The British legacy is generally much successful in this regard. In other parts, particularly in the Latin America, former communist countries and the former republics of USSR, the process is often disrupted by long periods of autocracy, regimented democracy and by ethnic squabbling.

Peninsular Arabia has a demographic mix of its own dominated by tribal loyalties and pride. It constitutes the heritage of Arabia and it functions on consensus, not on plurality. Saudi government may buckle in a bit by some degree of relaxation of Islamic laws without rendering it vulnerable to be overwhelmed by western pestilence. One cannot sensibly expect the law of plurality in Saudi Arabia without plunging the country into an unending bloodletting of tribal conflicts and feuds. The Saudi society is not compatible with it. Obviously the Saudis would stonewall and Dr. Rice would be committing the outrage of creating a broader conflict and a third of the humanity would be drawn into it. Dr. Rice should do well to stay clear of such unnecessary brinkmanship.

Yes, America can lean hard on Egypt for democratisation. Indeed Egypt has the social framework for a democratic setup. It has seen too long a period of authoritarian rule. Hosni Mobarak intends to carry on dynastic authoritarian rule, grooming his son as a possible successor. However democratic elections may not turn up the way America wants with secular parties ruling Egypt. There are good chances that like Algeria, Islamic parties would come to power. In Middle East, America has a handful of hot potatoes. Dr. Rice can get away with talking tough but should tread softly. Conceptual solutions look attractive and smart on board, but practical application needs common sense and streetwise formulators. Besides it would be grave to take Israel as a partner allowing her to operate on her behalf.

There is no doubt about the importance and the clout of Israel in the resolution of Palestinian problem. But to use Israel as the surrogate power in striking at Iran and Syria would be disastrous, particularly in the case of Iran. It compromises America in countering Iran's nuclear capability, on two grounds, firstly because of the reckless nature of Israel as a surrogate power and secondly one may read it as an admission that Israel already has nuclear weapons. American President's pronouncement on possible role of Israel in striking down Iran is fraught with dangerous consequences.

America's foreign policy stance is continually shifting, in the beginning it started as a campaign to defeat terrorism, later during the Iraq War it shifted to WMD and now it is democratisation of Middle Eastern countries and even of Russia. This speaks of the lack of ethical steadfastness, which can be a great blow to the credibility of a country leading a unipolar world. One may ask did America speak for democracy, when the generals deprived Islamic Salvation Front that swept the Algerian election from forming government, and the election result was nullified?

There is nothing wrong for the leader of the world to have her own vision of the world and for her to shape it accordingly so long it unites the world in peace and prosperity. Indeed knowledge can be a valuable implementing tool in fulfilling this vision. But it would be a completely different proposition if the leader wants to establish it with might. Unfortunately that is an autocratic conduct at the highest level, which does no justice to America, a country that can pride her for many lofty and noble examples of healing the wounds of the world and of coming to the aid of mankind. The world looks forward to President G.W. Bush's second term that as the successor of a glorious legacy his administration would be sincere and enterprising in upholding and furthering the ideals that unite and build the world in just peace and shared prosperity.

Syed Maqsud Jamil is General Manager of Summit Group.