The Challenge:

The high toll of civilian casualties and relentless destruction of civil infrastructure caused by the invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Iraq is undermining regional peace and creating new destabilizing alliances worldwide. International solidarity against extremism led by the US following the World Trade Center destruction and the callousness of al Qaeda are now being replaced by carnage in Lebanon. The high number of civilian casualties is a product of over-reliance on military force. The histories, cultures and extent of daily suffering imposed on innocent men, women and children has cost the “alliance of democracies” its moral high ground. The creation of a more comprehensive strategy for sustainable peace can no longer be delayed.

The intent of this report is not to engage in domestic American politics or to express unfair prejudice toward any ethnic group or nation. Narrow competing national interests will always be a significant factor in international relations. The presence of evil in human affairs makes the need for national and international security essential. However, due to the interdependence of today’s world, international cooperation is needed to halt the growing cycles of violence and to address the grievances that create them. It is time for those in leadership positions to go beyond narrow self interests.

The most critical step is to first admit that tragic mistakes and glaring miscalculations have been made in the “war on terrorism.” Growing distrust of American policy objectives and passion for revenge are empowering radical non-state movements across the Near- and Far East. At the same time, new anti-Western international governmental alliances, led by Russia and China, are forming what could lead to international conflict on a global scale.  Growing Big Power competition for natural resources, unstable international economy and the combustible dynamics of numerous “proxy wars” intensify the potential for events to spin out of control. The suffering created by an international conflict, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction, could lead to the collapse of the world’s economic, trade and social structures. Few, if any countries and peoples, would be left unscathed or spared the devastating consequences.

Relations with Islamic Nations:

The July 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Palestine and the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians has intensified the growing instability. These events have added to negative factors in Iraq and Afghanistan and have further strained Western relations with moderate Islamic nations. “The biggest danger is the alienation of the United States and in Europe and around the world,” said former Bush Administration State Department Policy Director Richard Haas, in the July 31, 2006 Washington Post. “People get a daily drumbeat of the suffering of Lebanon and this will drive anti-Americanism to new heights.” In the United Arab Emirates, US-educated political scientist Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, told the Associated Press on July 29, “People hold the United States morally and politically responsible. They see the destruction of Iraq and Palestine on a daily basis and now they see the destruction of Lebanon. The blame leads from Tel Aviv straight to Washington.”

The refusal of the US to support an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon is compounded by Arab media emphasis that Israel’s bombing of Lebanon is being carried out with US-made jet fighters. The impact throughout the Islamic world is felt across East Asia, where the Muslim population is larger than in the Middle East. In Indonesia – with the world’s largest Muslim population and geographic location on the key waterways that connect the Persian Gulf to the Pacific – young men are volunteering to fight in an international religious war.

The fates of moderate societies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey are essential to peace and development in key areas of the Middle East and Asia. However, Iraqi political leaders are increasingly criticizing the suffering of the civilian population of Lebanon, and creating alienation with American political leaders. In Afghanistan, moderate President Hamid Kharzai, whose government faces increasing challenges from resurgent Taliban forces, is supporting the effort to revive the feared religious police under the Department of Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice. Reuters reports on July 31, a number of elected Afghan officials fear the revival of this extremist force would be a major setback for the creation of civil society institutions.

In Turkey, escalating violence is reported between Iraq-based Kurdish militant separatists and the Turkish military. The US is largely blamed by Turkish leaders as showing double standards – sympathetic to Kurdish separatists while supporting Israel’s violent suppression of Palestinians. On July 29, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told international reporters, “The way the US looks at terror in Israel and Turkey is not the same. They show tolerance to Country A and a different approach to country B [Turkey]. This is unacceptable.” The growing rift between the US and Turkey makes the military alliance of Iran, Russia and China a greater destabilizing threat.

China, Russia, Iran Alliance:

A “Multi-Polar” alliance was established between Russia, China and Iran to counter the role of the United States as the world’s only Superpower. The relationship is not only based on economic, political and energy solidarity, but also to serve as a military alliance. The April 18, 2006 Asia Times, reports this relationship was expanded in Spring 2006, when Russia and China invited Iran to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which attempts to unite most of Eurasia in political and economic solidarity. The SCO is also a security pact, intended to counter “terrorism, religious extremism and separatism.” In non-democratic governments these terms have numerous definitions used as rationale for repression of their domestic opponents.

On April 13, 2006, the official China People’s Daily stated: The US global strategy and its Iran policy emanate out of its decision to use various means, including military means to change the Iran regime. This is at the root of then Iran nuclear issue.”  Gennady Yefstafiyev, a former general in Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service who was quoted in the April 18 Asia Times, stated that the US intention toward Iran is intended, “to establish control over Iran’s oil and gas, and to establish the shortest route for transportation of hydrocarbons under US control from the regions of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea by surpassing Russia and China.” In support of Iran’s defense against potential US incursion, China has made a substantial long term lease of a potentially lucrative Iranian energy field along the Iraq border. On July 31, 2006 the London Times reported that [in addition to China’s unprecedented buildup of inter-continental and submarine launched nuclear weapons] a new underground radiation-proof bunker that can hold 200,000 people was completed in Shanghai.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez “Bolivarian Revolution”:

Since coming to power in 1999, Venezuela’s radical and oil-rich president Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper who received political training in Cuba, has expressed open contempt for the United States and has proclaimed himself as a new “Bolivarian” revolutionary leader. China, Russia and Iran have all signed bilateral political, economic and military relations pacts with Venezuela under the Chavez presidency in order to shift potential conflict directly into the Americas during periods of international crisis.

On April 15, 2001 the Venezuelan media reported that the Chavez government signed a military cooperation pact with Beijing. This was followed by a May 29, 2001 press release by China’s Foreign Ministry announcing a “Strategic Partnership” agreement between the two countries. In 2002, Chinese army Special Forces advisors and air force technicians arrived in Caracas to train Venezuelan soldiers and pilots on recently purchased Chinese aircraft.

On July 27, 2006 Reuters reported that during a state visit by Chavez to Moscow, Russia stepped up arms sales to Venezuela with twenty-four Su-30 fighter aircraft and fifty-three helicopters as part of a $3 billion arms sale. Chavez told reporters the purchase was part of his plan to prepare his armed forces to “repel US aggression.” The Russian media also reported Chavez could be interested in purchasing surface-to-air-missiles and possibly a submarine. The maritime dimension becomes a larger factor, as the July, 2006 Washington Times revealed that Chavez’s principal ally, Cuba, is reported to be drilling for oil within 60 miles off the coast of Florida with the support of China.

On July 27, at Moscow Library unveiling of a statue of Simon Bolivar, Chavez stated, “The biggest threat which exists in the world is the empire of the United States. It is a senseless blind giant which doesn’t understand the world, doesn’t understand human rights, doesn’t understand anything about humanity, culture and consciousness.” From Moscow, Chavez flew to Iran on the July 30 weekend, while coincidentally the heart-breaking Israeli bombing of the refugee building in Qana, Lebanon, killed more than 60 women and children.  The Associated Press reported that Chavez publicly pledged to his Iranian counterpart President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Venezuela would “stand by Iran at any time and under any condition.” And at Tehran University, Chavez told a crowd, “We should save humanity and end the American empire.”

Recommendations:

1. An amended strategic policy for building and sustaining international peace must take into account the histories, cultures and political dynamics of each region.

2. The economic and social conditions as well as historic grievances that form the root of many of today’s regional conflicts must be taken seriously as the basis for negotiations.

3. Military and police suppression can be a legitimate response to wanton acts of political and other organized acts of violence. However, when militarily responding to terrorist attacks, all efforts must be made to respect the safety and human rights of civilian populations in the line of fire.

4. In order to truly defend the principles of democracy, military campaigns in areas of territorial dispute such as in Palestine and Lebanon should not be referred to as "defense of democracy." Extremist movements are empowered when democratically elected governments and millions of people who voted in open elections are brought to their knees by violent power politics by the West and their regional allies.

5. The potential danger of local conflicts and Big Power rivalries spinning out of control cannot be underestimated. Arms sales and distribution of dual-use technologies, especially involving nuclear power should be carefully restricted.