Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a slightly different approach and talk about some of our new best friends.
Any army that is going to war likes to know who its friends are and who are its enemies. Our new best friends, our allies, now support the so-called war against terrorism launched by the U.S. and Great Britain in Afghanistan.
Our allies in this cause seem to be something of a motley crew, a collection of former enemies, possibly future enemies, criminal organizations and sponsors of terrorist activities. This motley crew of allies is so diverse as to leave one wondering why they appear on our side at all. Indeed, why would one want them on one's side?
Among our new best friends is Syria. Before September 11 Syria was a sponsor of terrorism. It has housed and supported the Hamas and the PLO. It is a sworn enemy of Israel and by extension the U.S. and by extension the west. It does not believe in Israel's right to exist. For years it has been a leader in state sponsored terrorism. After September 11 Syria is now an ally. Before September 11 the U.S. actively campaigned against Syria having a seat. Now Syria will be at the table of the security council much to Israel's chagrin.
One diplomat said that Syria now represents the Arab world and, in a certain respect, the Islamic world in the security council. “It has thus become the interlocutor of the major powers” a western diplomat said.
Given that the council likes to make decisions unanimously, the powers will have to listen to Syria's point of view on the difference between terrorism and resistance. The diplomat also said that Syria would serve as an obstacle to any attempt at security council resolution to target radical anti-Israeli groups as part of the fight against terrorism.
Our other new best friend is Russia. It is widely acknowledged that Russia has many problems. One of those problems is in Chechnya. Will the U.S., Great Britain or indeed Canada speak forcefully about terrorism by or against the Chechnyans? My guess is that we will be mute and that is the deal. We will also be mute about the issues of concern to anyone with even a passing understanding of the area. For instance, did Russia acquire a veto on the Baltic admission to NATO? Before September 11, we were on the record of wanting a clear and transparent process and that Russian concerns should be minimal or irrelevant. Maybe the deal will be that Russia becomes part of NATO and the Baltic countries get forgotten.
I suppose, as Henry Kissinger would say, this is réal politique. China supports the war against terrorism but what is its price? Do we think that American and western criticism of China's treatment of minorities will be intensified or diminished after September 11? If people were members of the Falun Gong, of the Christian minority or citizens in Tibet or Taiwan would they feel more or less comfort after China became part of the coalition to fight against terrorism? My guess is that after September 11 China will feel that it has a much freer hand to deal with these issues because it knows that the U.S. will be preoccupied and the west has made a deal to mute its criticism.
What about the northern alliance? It appears that our new best friends will be expected to do the heavy lifting when the real fighting begins. I profess no expertise on matters pertaining to Afghan politics but I do recollect that the west, the U.S., sponsored the Taliban against the Russians in order to limit the Russian sphere of influence. At that time the northern alliance so-called sort of accepted the Russians in order to halt the spread of U.S. imperialism.
Ten years ago, Taliban members were the good guys, the Northern Alliance members were the bad guys and the Russians were the really bad guys. Now the Russians are the good guys, the Northern Alliance are the good guys and the Taliban are the bad guys. It is probably a good idea to clutch one's enemy close to one's breast and keep one's friends at arm's length.
A Russian captain who was involved in the war in Afghanistan said that everyone contemplating this should recall the words of Alexander the Great, who said:
You cannot conquer Persia, you can only pass through it.
The Russian captain also said:
The problem was never knowing who you were dealing with--who is on your side, who is a stranger.
If these are now our new best friends, what will it be like a year or five years from now? Bin Laden has chosen well.
Next door we have Pakistan. Prior to September 11, General Musharraf was a military dictator, having overthrown an elected government. Prior to September 11, Pakistan had a large international debt. After September 11, General Musharraf let allies land in his air space and had his debt reduced by something in the order of half a billion dollars U.S., while the irregularities of his coming to power were overlooked.
What cannot be overlooked is that bin Laden has a huge base of support in Pakistan. While not yet blessed with the joys of Taliban Islamism, a substantial percentage of the population is so virulently anti-American and anti-western that it actually supports and aids the Taliban. To really do a job on bin Laden's network, one should invade Pakistan. If Afghanistan is the last place to be militarily, according to our Russian former captain and now member of the Russian Duma, surely Pakistan is the last, last place one would want to be militarily. However, it is reasonable to suggest that if the action against the Taliban is successful the likely place of refuge for the Taliban will be Pakistan and therefore terrorism will continue, only from another location.
Another new best friend, actually an older friend, is Saudi Arabia, which has always in some respects been an ally of the United States. However, it has its own set of dynamics. Because bin Laden is a Saudi, although stripped of his citizenship, because all his financial wealth comes from Saudi Arabia, which is estimated to be somewhere between $25 million all the way up to $600 million, and frankly, who really knows, because Saudi Arabia is home to two of Islam's most holy sites and because bin Laden has had a great deal of success casting this as a war against the infidels, the House of Saud is in a very tricky position.
The House of Saud is an American invention. The deal is that we get secure oil supply and the House of Saud gets to run Saudi Arabia pretty much as it pleases, which may or may not include large amounts of graft and corruption, oppression of citizens and residents alike and massive amounts of wealth concentrated in a very few hands. It is not clear whether Saudi Arabia is directly or indirectly a bin Laden sponsor. What is clear is that his family made its money under the protection of the monarchy, that Saudi Arabia kicked him out and that he fled to the Sudan and then Afghanistan.
Refusal to allow the infidels to use Saudi soil for their war against terrorism is a tribute to bin Laden's success in casting the war as a religious one in which no government could allow the infidels so close to those holy sites. When the gulf war was on, Saudi Arabia's direct interests were affected and their embrace of the infidels was much warmer at that time.
What are we to conclude from our new best friends? Syria, our new friend, is a state sponsor of terrorism both before and after September 11. Russia is not an enemy, but there is a deal, similarly with China, probably a Faustian bargain.
The Northern Alliance was last year's enemy, it is this year's friend, and next year, who knows? Pakistan is extremely complex. Saudi Arabia is a neutral friend and not overly enthusiastic. My mother used to say that we are known by the company we keep. If that is so, this is quite a motley crew of our new best friends.