Old America struggles with new war

11 Sep, 2002 09:56 PM6 mins to read

By ROBERT G. PATMAN*

After the horrific attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, President George W. Bush has faced the United States' most daunting challenge since the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940s.

In the space of one deadly day, the US experienced what might be called a bonfire of certainties. The most militarily capable nation in the world was powerless to prevent attacks on its soil against the very symbols of American power and prestige.

While the loss of 3000 innocent lives in the World Trade Centre and elsewhere was not huge by the brutal standards of the "new wars" of the post-Cold War era, it was a devastating shock for most Americans.

An image of being exceptional, that the US was founded upon values that were different from the rest of the world, gave American foreign policy a sense of destiny, moral mission and almost invulnerability.

The Bush Administration responded to September 11 by declaring an all-out war on what it called "global terrorism". However, this struggle, according to President Bush, was "a new war, a war that will require a new way of thinking".

Yet, despite the rhetoric, there is little evidence of new thinking by the Bush Administration on international security during the past year. Apart from a brief flirtation with multilateralism during the early successes against the Taleban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Bush team seems to have reverted to the unilateralism of the months before the terrorist attacks.

Its insistence on a distinctly American internationalism in the war on terror has eroded the moral authority bestowed by September 11 and has increasingly weakened support round the world.

In particular, four aspects of Mr Bush's leadership have caused disquiet. First, the Bush Administration declared war on terrorism without clearly defining the enemy. The war-cry that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" has enabled states with disaffected population groups - including India, Israel, China and Russia - to justify the use of harsh measures against such groups.

Thus, in a near replay of the Cold War, the US is downgrading human rights and aligning itself with dubious regimes that claim to support American security goals.

Secondly, by declaring war, Mr Bush has fuelled an expectation and demand in the US for spectacular military action against its enemies. To be sure, the American-led campaign in Afghanistan has destroyed that country as a major base for the al Qaeda terrorist organisation.

But neither Osama bin Laden nor almost any other senior al Qaeda leader has been caught. And given the elusive and durable nature of this international network of terror, the Americans, in an attempt to quell domestic fears of more terrorist attacks in the future, has found it politically expedient to focus on an old enemy, the odious regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

However, most American allies believe that Iraq poses no realistic threat to the US and a unilateral attack on it would only inflame the Middle East and undermine the global fight against terrorism.

Thirdly, Mr Bush's anti-terrorist campaign has been damaged by his Administration's steadfast opposition to the newly established International Criminal Court. Hailed as one of the greatest advances in human rights in a century, the ICC is designed to hold individuals, rather than states, accountable for international crimes such as September 11.

The idea is to close the loophole whereby terrorists and war criminals can evade justice by hiding behind the sovereign protection of sympathetic governments. But the Bush Administration fears that that the ICC could seriously limit American military and political options in pursuing its national interest. Among other things, Washington fears that the ICC would effectively impede the use of pre-emptive force against terrorist targets.

So the Bush team finds itself in the curious position of trying to drum up international support for the war against terrorism while actively opposing the strengthening of international law enforcement to make it easier to bring terrorists and war criminals to justice.

Fourthly, and most troubling of all, there is little sign that the Bush Administration is seriously addressing the root causes of terrorism. Over the past year, the CIA and other agencies of Government charged with fighting terror have been handed a difficult task. They are apparently not encouraged to do what any successful crime-fighting organisation does to ensure success - to search for a motive for the crime.

In the "new war" against terrorism, Mr Bush's America seems obsessed with what happened on September 11 and how it happened. Yet there is little inclination to ask why the US was the object of the hatred that prompted those terrible events.

If Mr Bush did ask this question, he could open up politically sensitive matters such as American policy towards Palestine and Israel and global poverty.

Instead, the war on terror has given Mr Bush further reasons for falling back on old policies. The Palestinians remain without a free country to call their own while Mr Bush conspicuously refused to attend the recent Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, a forum that sought to close the gap between the world's haves and have-nots.

The big challenge for the US is that it is unlikely to prevail in the "new war" against terrorism unless it changes the way it interacts with the rest of the world.

Historically, Americans have found it difficult to step outside of themselves when judging others, and with the end of the Cold War this character trait has deepened. Some Bush officials are today openly dismissive of the views of American allies.

Nevertheless, the real lesson of the terrorist attacks a year ago is that even the world's only superpower is vulnerable. If the US wants to live in a more secure world, it will have to accept, sooner or later, that international problems such as terrorism require multilateral solutions.

* Associate Professor Robert G. Patman is in the department of political studies at the University of Otago.

Story archives: