SPEAKING FREELY
'Regime change' backfires on US
By W Joseph Stroupe

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

In a much overconfident bid to reorder, in its own preferred image, the entire Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and even the world at large by a plan to initiate a domino effect among regimes within the "axis of evil", the United States very boldly invaded Iraq to push over the first domino, the regime of Saddam Hussein. From that start, the obvious plan was to make other undesirable dominos fall in rapid succession, whether by military invasion or by other means, to effect the desired "regime changes", and thus to reorder the world at large after the desired pattern.

As a result of the US-prompted "regime change" in Iraq (and the US policies and philosophies leading up to and justifying it), many "regimes" in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe, Russia, Central Asia and other states and regions are indeed being reordered as to their geopolitical alignment, undergoing a "regime change", but not in the way the global hegemon had hoped. In a powerful and unrelenting domino effect, the process of "regime change" around the globe is deepening, widening and accelerating as more and more "regimes" see fit to "change" their stance and alignment from pro-US to one of significant independence from, and even opposition to, the United States. In some cases the noted "regime change" has come about by actual changes of leadership, as occurred recently in Spain. In many other cases, the existing leadership re-evaluates the value and benefits of close alignment with the US and progressively charts a course of independence, or even opposition on important issues, such as the war on terrorism. The undesirable (from the US point of view) global domino effect of "regime change" identified here is deeply significant in what it portends for the future, wholly unprecedented and enormously important. How so?

In the current global atmosphere, it is much easier to count the very small number of "regimes" that are still firmly aligned with the United States than it is to count the multitude of those which have become either directly opposed to, or at least have taken a course of decided independence from, the US. And for the most part those "regimes" that still profess strong support for Washington are generally ones with smaller than average power and influence in the economic, geopolitical and military spheres. The United Kingdom and Japan are notable exceptions to this rule, and probably the only exceptions. However, among many of those "regimes" that still profess support for the US, cracks in the relationship are beginning to appear. This is true of Australia, Poland, Italy, South Korea and even Japan. On the other hand, those "regimes" that are taking a course of significant independence from the US tend to be ones that, as a group, possess considerable economic, geopolitical and military power. Among them are France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Spain, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others. It must be emphasized that the global trend of "regime change" noted here (the turning aside from a close alignment with the US) is not confined to the so-called "coalition of the willing", not confined to the Iraq issue. While it is certainly true that the Iraq issue has brought to a head the array of forces moving states toward a stance of independence from the US, and has given great impetus to those forces, the fact is that the global trend of "regime change" is permeating the fabric of the international system, far beyond the Iraq issue.

Central Asian states, such as oil-rich Uzbekistan, for example, where the United States has established a military base since after September 11, 2001, and which have until now been very eager to cozy up to the US, are beginning the process of rethinking their course of firm alignment with the US. In the aftermath of the recent militant attacks in Tashkent and Bukhara, Uzbek President Islam Karimov has signaled his intent to take "radical and decisive steps" to diversify his security options, intending to make a significant opening to Russia in the military, security, diplomatic and economic spheres. While there is no immediate indication that he will take Uzbekistan in a new course of complete independence from, or even opposition to, the United States, still, his opening to Moscow for security and economic cooperation is a significant blow to the US in Central Asia, and portends more trouble for the US down the road. Karimov has been paying what he evidently considers to be an exorbitant price for his close cooperation with the US, and has received insufficient rewards to justify it.

The US has been putting significant pressure on Karimov, and upon his fellow Central Asian leaders as well, to respect freedom of religion and speech and human rights. Those leaders, who rule by decree over a diverse collection of troubled and volatile ethnic groups, see such US influence as a danger to their own regimes. The recent attacks in Uzbekistan illustrate just how dangerous such US "encouragement" of militant groups can be. Hence a review of the real benefits of such a close alignment with the US is under way in the region. Russia is being increasingly looked to as a much more practical and desirable strategic partner in all spheres. It does not insist, as the US does, on respect for human rights and thereby offering encouragement to radical splittist groups.

The potential implications and repercussions for the US of such "regime change" in Central Asia is enormous. The strategic location of these states and their enormous reserves of oil and gas make them of tremendous strategic value to the US. Karimov's statements and actions will only serve to make it easier for his Central Asian peers to follow suit, re-evaluating their own close alignment with the US. And we simply cannot ignore the distinct possibility that new terrorist attacks in other states in the region will accelerate the process of "regime change". Consequently, as those "regimes" progressively undergo a "change" of attitude and alignment, the US will see its own influence in the entire region curtailed. The loss of a number of US bases in the region is not out of the question. But even barring that, the freedom of movement of the US military within the Central Asian states is very likely to be severely restricted.

In the Middle East, in Europe, and in Asia proper the US is finding that "regimes" are "changing", realizing they do have choices other than close alignment with the last superpower. Saudi Arabia, for example, has in only about one year's time insisted on the removal of US forces from its territory, aligned closely with Russia in the economic (oil) and diplomatic spheres, signed strategic agreements with both Russia and China for exploitation of oil and gas, and made openings to both North Korea and Pakistan for missile and nuclear technology. While Saudi oil still courses through US economic "veins", the United States has indeed already lost Saudi Arabia to "regime change". This is a very costly loss indeed. The US has also lost once-strategic partner Turkey to "regime change". This is another very costly loss, and a blow to US power and influence in the region. Egypt's attitude toward the US has hardened significantly, signaling another strategic loss in the making. Jordan, once firmly in the US camp, is wavering too.

The "little" regimes of Eastern Europe still profess support for the US, but the real depth and value of that support is questionable. The bigger and more influential European powers, have, over the past year or so, clearly demonstrated they have also been "lost" to the US. Poland is wavering, reconsidering the real, practical value of its pro-US stance. The trans-Atlantic alliance is progressively dying. What a tremendous strategic loss to the US that amounts to. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is going its own way, just as the European Union is doing. US influence over the direction of such important alliances has been seriously damaged, sharply curtailed.

Australia is also at risk for significant "regime change", in the aftermath of the Iraq war and occupation. Prime Minister John Howard's chances for re-election are not at all assured, as growing numbers of people in his country sour on close alliance with the US. Australia is looking increasingly at its Asian neighbors, deepening economic and other ties with them, and discounting the value of close alignment with the US.

In South Korea, President Roh Moo-hyun favors a course of significant independence from the United States, and reunification with North Korea on terms the US opposes. Hence "regime change" is already happening in South Korea.

The US has mostly squandered the chance for a true strategic partnership with India, which also is experiencing a hardening in its attitude toward the US. India is making strategic moves in cooperation with Russia and others rather than holding back in the pursuit of its national interests. It has decided that following in the shadow of the US is not truly in its interests.

In Japan, nationalism, self-reliance and self-assertion are growing rapidly. While Japan is still seemingly a close ally of the United States, the country has signed significant energy cooperation agreements with Iran over the vehement objections of the US. And Japan is opening important initiatives with Russia regarding energy. Japan shows every sign of undergoing "regime change" too. This is also the case with Indonesia, once a close ally of the US.

The global trend of "regime change" is unmistakable. It cannot be ignored or discounted. It is widening in scope and accelerating. The overly muscular, militarized foreign policy of the US is backfiring on the last superpower. So is its unilateralist approach to international relations, and its extreme stinginess in rewarding those who align with it. Without its very close strategic allies around the world to facilitate the carrying out of its will, the US is much like a big giant who abused and misused his own subordinates, and who are finding they do have minds of their own and are progressively refusing to carry out the orders coming from the giant. Formerly, his subordinates were very fearful of refusing to obey him. But now, they are finding that he can be ignored on a number of issues, or even opposed, with significant benefits. And the spirit of independence from him is spreading very fast. We are seeing just how dependent upon those subordinates the US "giant" really is, and how he brought wholly on himself the present situation in which he now finds himself. Notably, his ill-conceived policy of "regime change" is coming back to haunt him massively.

W Joseph Stroupe is editor-in-chief of GeoStrategyMap.com, an online geopolitical magazine specializing in strategic analysis and forecasting. He may be reached by e-mail at editor_in_chief@geostrategymap.com.

(Copyright 2004 GeoStrategyMap.com and W Joseph Stroupe. All rights reserved.) Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.