Friends? Interests? Betrayal? American Foreign Policy.....Dulles to Clinton.

      There is a new approach, at least in the past few months, in American Foreign Policy. There is no Cold War or the "threat" of Communism. Gone are the days of propping up military dictatorships from Africa to Latin America to South- East Asia. No more "regime change" as in Iran in 1953, Guiatemala in 1954, South Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, The Congo etc. The Cold War policy of "containment" is replaced with a new "raproachment". John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State(1953-1959), who presided over and defined American foreign policy that led to the strengtening of NATO and the creation of ANZUS and SEATO, based this policy on the principle that " United States of America does not have friends; it has interests". He was fanatically anti-communist and from Ethiopia to Iran to Vietnam to Guatemala to Hungary, he made decisions based on this, whether it was staging a coup d'etat or arming fascists regimes or funding wars. Friends were used and discarded and new enemies were created as a result.....the long and brutal civil wars in Vietnam, Guatamala, Colombia, the "dirty wars" in Latin America and South-East Asia, the ongoing slaughter in Congo and other parts of Africa, all owe their origins on this policy, which was continued for the next forty years by the Cold Warriors who grew up in the fifties and were influenced by his ideas.

      It was Lord Palmerston who first stated that "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they have permanent interests". British foreign policy was to be based on this and America and others followed it also.

      Let us look at some examples and how they played out for America and its "friends of convenience". During the Vietnam war, the Hmong and the Montagnards were recruited by the Americans. They fought valiantly and when the war ended in 19 75, they were abondoned and left to face the wrath of the Vietnamese and The Laotians, who persecuted, tortured and killed many of them. It was not until in the late eighties that some of them were allowed to relocate in the United States. The Montagnards were recruited by the CIA from the 60"s. They lived in the strategically important highlands. They were made up of many tribes...the Jarai, the Koho, the Rhade etc. with overlapping customs and language patterns. They were dark-skinned and suffered discriminations from the lighter-skinned Vietnamese, who referred to them as "mo"(savages).Until 1975, when the Americans gave up and hurriedly left, they were a loyal and resourceful ally. They paid the price for their friendship with the Americans. The Hmong of the mountains of Laos suffered a much harsher fate, forced to flee to Thailand and then forced back into Laos, they endured years of retributions, until some were relocated to the United States in the  1990s.

      In Iraq, the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a (marsh Arabs) in the south, both paid a heavy price for supporting the Americans in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had been driven out of Kuwait, with heavy losses ( Sddam himself was used by the Americans,,,arming and supplying him with useful intelligence, when he waged war against Iran and then luring him into invading Kuwait, so he can be taught a bloody and humiliating lesson) and the Kurds and the southern Shi'a, were encouraged by the Americans to declare their independence from Iraq and take control of the rich oilfields. They were promised protection and help by the Americans, and they staged their uprisings. They were abondoned by the Americans and left to fend for themselves. They were slaughtered by Saddam's army. All weapons, including chemical and biological were used and thousands were killed. The carnage only subsisted when a "no- fly zone" was created in the north and the south, and an embargo was placed on Iraq. The hatred this created was and is palpable.

      More recently, two years ago, the Americans, after failing to stop the killings of its troops by insurgents in Iraq, changed strategy. They decided on a "surge" of additional troops, together with trying to get the Sunnis to leave the insurgency. They paid huge sums of money to Sunni tribal leaders. They in turn, formed the Sunni Awakening Council, and fought with the Americans. It was highly successful. The Americans recently decided to stop paying them directly and arranged for them to be paid by Iraqi security forces. This did not happen and these Sunnis have now become targets of attacks by the security forces that are mainly Shi'a. It no longer suited America's interests and so another abondonment of a "friend" who had served his purpose. There is also the case of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, who were armed and paid by the Americans to fight the Soviet Union. Many of them felt used and abondoned by the Americans, when the Soviets left in defeat, and now they have turned those arms against the Americans.

      What is the Obama adiministration and Sect. of State Clinto's policy? Is there a Clinton doctrine? Will it be more of the same? First indications are that there will be a change. More respect, more co-operation, more consultations and more loyalty and trust. The test will come when things do not go as planned or expected, and this can happen anytime.....where? Pakistan/Afghanistan or any place where "new" friends are needed. Will they be abondoned, once the purpose is served. History has a way of repeating itself.