politics that suggests the making of the New World Order. This paper provides evidence for this statement between the lines. In addition, the paper discusses the foreign policies of United States towards Israel and Iraq within the historical and the current context.
Any country's foreign policy towards other states is symbolic of common goals of the two. Moreover, any foreign policy is shaped by a country's interests in that particular region which can range from economic to political. In addition to the above, a foreign policy towards a country is also influenced by the fear of some threat from the same. As a result of which, the policy can take any antagonistic form- legitimate or otherwise but largely negative that aims to dominate rather than collaborate. One example of the first kind of policy mentioned above is that of United States towards Israel. An example of the second kind is again the foreign policy of United States but towards Iraq. With only nominal similarities, the foreign policies of United States towards Israel and towards Iraq are a world apart.
COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN THE U.S. POLICY TOWARDS IRAQ AND THE U.S. POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL
The idea of a strategic relationship between the United States and Israel emerged after the Suez crisis, when the Eisenhower administration realized that both countries had an interest in containing Nasser's influence. The Eisenhower administration feared that the Soviets were gaining clout in some Arab countries, such a relationship was seen as useful in containing the Soviet Union as well" (Podhoretz, 1998). Therefore the U.S. foreign policy towards Israel is not only friendly but also aims to aid Israel's national and international goals. Whereas that towards Iraq is largely hostile; trying mainly to curb Iraq's efforts to achieve any of its political goals. This is evident in the huge amount of military aid that the U.S. provides Israel in order to fund its military efforts; on the other hand, Iraq suffers economic sanctions imposed by United States. Therefore, there are sharp differences between the two policies and only nominal similarities. These similarities can be viewed in the form of getting the United Nations to pass resolutions on both the countries regarding their respective illegitimate military aggressions. Where Iraq is required under UN resolutions to contain its military adventurism in the Middle East, Israel, similarly is required under UN Security Council resolutions 446 and 465 to withdraw from all of its illegal occupation of Arab lands (Zunes, 2002). In addition to the above, through early 50s to mid-60s, the United States was rather non-supportive of Israel objectives and goals; as a result of which, it had seized to supply arms to Israel and instead began supplying them to the Arab world (Podhoretz, 1998). This is another similarity since Iraq is now experiencing the same treatment.
However the similarities are far outweighed by the sharp differences in the two policies. To begin with, United States is always trying to check Iraq's military advancement and political and economic strength through various means. These means range from waging war on Iraq during its invasion of Kuwait or the Operation Desert Storm in 1991, by implementing strict multilateral ban on Iraqi oil sales and majority of imports and exports and conducting air strikes on Iraqi targets to supervising the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by participating in an international weapons inspections regime under the umbrella of United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). The Gulf War resulted in Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. The economic sanctions have resulted in economic decline in various forms. The embargo has led to malnourishment and disease on a nationwide scale. This is due to the restrictions on the imports of chemicals and spare parts which previously aided in maintaining the sanitation and sewage systems. Moreover since clean water is scarce, there has been a widespread increase in water-borne diseases. Therefore the sanctions have crippled various institutional systems in Iraq bringing net economic problems. Supplementing the embargoes with air strikes, the U.S. has tried to pressurize the Iraqi government into submitting to their ideals. In May 1999, Allied forces bombed Iraqi targets on a total of 61 out of 155 days. Moreover they flew more than 1,100 sorties over Iraq the December 1998 bombing. In 2001, the U.S. government conducted air strikes against Iraqi radar installations and communications sites. The air strikes, combined with embargo have resulted damage to civilian lives and infrastructure. It is especially interesting to note here that while Iraq is punished severely for showing any indication of going in defiance of UN resolutions, United States itself has acted in violation of the same. For instance the U.S.-British bombing raids were conducted without seeking prior permission from the UN Security Council.
These air strikes have resulted in direct destruction of various Iraqi military constructions, thereby allowing the U.S. To achieve the objectives of its foreign policy towards Iraq.
US RESPONSE TO IRAQ'S INVASION OF KUWAIT - THE GULF WAR
However the most evident example of U.S. policy towards Iraq came in the form of Gulf War in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and occupied it in defiance of 10 UN resolutions. The U.S. response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was grounded in many reasons. These ranged from diplomatic and economic to military interests of the United States in the region surrounded by Iraq's neighbors and elsewhere. U.S. perceived its interests in the Persian Gulf as fundamental to the national security. These interests consisted of access to oil (which helped U.S. maintain national security) and the military security and political stability of friendly states in that region. In order to defend what U.S. viewed as a threat to its interests and also support the self-defense process of those friendly states so that they were able to protect their interests, United States opted to actively participate against the Kuwait invasion. As a result, U.S. allowed the following principles to guide its policy towards Iraq at the time. The United States decided to continue its support for the UNSC resolution 660 and 662 by openly condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and demanded immediate, complete, and unconditional pull out of Iraq from Kuwait. Furthermore the U.S. aimed to restore Kuwaiti government by overthrowing the regime installed by Iraq. Finally the U.S. government wanted to protect American citizens abroad. In light of these goals, the U.S. designed multi-dimensional strategy that catered to the energy, military and economic aspects. Economically, the U.S. took the following immediate steps. Authorized under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, the United Nations Participation Act, and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, the Executive Orders signed on August 2 and August 9, 1990, the U.S. government froze Kuwaiti and Iraqi assets in the U.S. And also prohibited any trade with the two countries while at war. Moreover the government also leaned on UNSC Resolution 661 and imposed economic sanctions against Iraq and Kuwait under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
Since the United States imported approximately half of the total consumption of oil in the country, it feared that Iraqi invasion would result in energy related problems. Since any energy related problems could cripple any economy in the world, the U.S. government had another reason to take action against Iraq. Not only was America dependent on oil reserves of the Middle East but also other countries. This meant that there would be an international impact of Iraqi invasion on every economy. In order to prevent or minimize any impact on the world economies of the consequent oil flow reductions from Iraq and Kuwait, the U.S. government also decided to persuade the remaining oil-producing states to concentrate on increasing production. For these purposes the Secretaries of State and Energy were mobilized to take the required measures.
As the United States viewed the invasion of Kuwait as an aggression on its interests in the Gulf, it had all the reasons to take action. Moreover Saudi Arabia and Kuwait requested military help from the U.S. And since these were states friendly to U.S. interests, it saw no reason in declining. Therefore U.S. interfered to deter Iraq from further aggression and defend Saudi Arabia and other friendly states in the Gulf region. For the two-pronged purpose of defending the neighboring Saudi Arabia and enforcing the UN sanctions, two separate multinational forces were created. These two groups were called the Multinational Force for Saudi Arabia (MNFSA) and the Multinational Group to enforce sanctions (MNFES) against Iraq and Kuwait. The MNFSA had three objectives; to deter Iraq from further aggression, be it against Saudi Arabia or any other U.S. friendly Arab in the Gulf; to defend and maintain the territorial integrity and political independence of Saudi Arabia and the remaining Gulf region; and to provide military training to Saudi forces for the purpose of the Kingdom's defense. The MNFES, on the other hand was created to enforce UN supported economic sanctions against Iraq and Kuwait in order…