Mohd Amir Anwar
Halford Mackinder would have never imagined his ‘Heartland Theory’ would be so important even after decades of neglect. Mackinder was right: ‘”Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world.” Much of Eastern Europe was under the control of the Soviet Union during 1930-1980. The Soviet Union was the only front-runner against the US’s aspirations to become the world superpower. Once the Soviet Union was disintegrated, the US emerged as the sole hegemon in the Heartland. Much of the Eastern Europe is now NATO members. In almost every country of the Middle East, there is an American military base. No wonder America controls much of the ‘Oil’. However there are clear signs of America’s decreasing influence on the world economy; it cannot support it by printing dollars like before. At the same time it is increasingly aware and fearful of growing Chinese geopolitical presence and also Russian revival to some extent. Neither the West (I am speaking of U.S and U.K, along with France) could have imagined way back in early 1920 when they redrew the map of the Middle East according to their whims, that they have to do it again and this time rather more thoughtfully and carefully. No wonder that are still interested yet so far to interfere directly.
For eighty years the West’s rhetorical cries of freedom to the Arabs from the autocratic rulers of the Middle East. Be it in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, and Algeria… (Where should I stop?) And now when the people of these countries want to remove their dictators, the West calls for ‘orderly transition’ reluctantly though. However Saddam was thrown out of power by US because it wanted ‘OIL’ and to prepare another front for Iran (currently perceived as biggest threat to Western freedom and democracy). Don’t forget that it was US that once supported Saddam during his war with Iran. It was US backed Osama Bin Laden who, along with his men, fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Americans provided training to these men. And suddenly these men have become America’s enemy number one. Imagine Mubarak making the same mistake that Saddam made which could hurt the economic aspirations of the West. More specifically of the US who shells out US $ 1.2 billion as aid much of which goes to military. Mubarak would have been bombed in his palace and might have been hanged after being found in a bunker hole somewhere in Sinai Peninsula. One can then understand the emotions of the Egyptian people holding the portraits of ‘Nasser’ in Tahrir Square. They were demanding their ‘freedom’ not only from Mubarak alone but also from the presence of West in the Middle East.
West has long given hopes and aspiration to Arabs of ‘Freedom’. ‘Freedom’ is the most abusive word ever in the discourse of the foreign relations of the West especially with the Middle East. What is exactly freedom? It is now quite clear that neither U.S nor its closest partner UK ever wanted peace, prosperity and freedom in Middle East. Any transition of power in the hands of Arabs is going to undermine the position of U.S. in the Middle East especially towards its continuous support for Israel and largely its control on the most important resource of the world ‘Oil’.
Those who call Mubarak of Egypt a dictator think again he was a puppet in the hands of US, so does some other dictators throughout Arab world, be it the Sauds of Saudi Arabia or the Hammads of Bahrain. But Saddam of Iraq was, in himself, a force to be reckoned with, and so is Ahmedinejad of Iran and so is Gaddafi of Libya. Their own set of political and economic ideals clashes with US and EU. As such, their tyranny is unaccepted in the West. Yet both US and EU continue to support the tyrant in other parts of the Middle East. US had a long history of supporting such dictators which can actually safeguard their geopolitical and economic interests. However this is not always true when one looks across the Middle East and their rulers, it becomes apparent that the only countries that are most volatile and prone to a very cliché subject ‘human rights violation’ they are those which are not run through the support of the West and hence not compatible with the ideals of advanced capitalist western countries. Iraq and Iran at the forefront despite the fact that they gathered support from US at some point of time in history and yet both were pitted against each other in a deadly Gulf War over a period of eight years in 1980s. So is the case with Libya and Afghanistan. I would explain the situation of these two countries in my next article.
Those who still think the Arab revolution is simply about getting rid of dictators and enjoying freedom, democracy, equality and liberty think again. It has one more character into it and that is freedom from the Western influence which has not only corrupted their leaders but also their society. If then, Simon Jenkins of Guardian calls ‘West’ as ‘Hypocrites’, he is right to a certain extent.
