|
 The
attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in
Washington is the most important and critical global events since
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war.
While the latter had resulted in international transformations,
the so-called “War against the United States” must influence
the state of the whole world. This war does not only shoot at the
core of every item embodied by the United States in the world
order after the cold war, it also tests the essential
interactions, values and rules of this system. For these reasons
and the possible structural and systemic consequences, some points
should be highlighted through an observation of the first three
days after the attacks.
After
the cold war, many assumptions were suggested concerning the
structure of the world order, its pattern of interactions, nature
of rules and governing values. The most important of these
assumptions are: first, the United States is the sole great power;
second, the clash of civilizations between the Western
civilization and the other civilizations (thus the South becomes a
prime source of threat to the international stability and Western
value system); third, how to establish a new world order adopting
the values of democracy, freedom and human rights.
America
Reaps Harvest of Her Deeds
Throughout
the nineties these assumptions were tested several times to the
extent that questions were raised concerning the reality of the
era we live in. The following are the most crucial outcomes of
this decade:
First:
The great American power perceives its interests and security in
an isolated sense from the security and stability of the rest of
the world. As a consequence it does not lead the world but it
drives it with an individual will.
Second:
The dimension of the cultural civilization has manifestly taken
its part – beside the political and economic dimensions – in
the North/South gap. The recent Durban conference for combating
racial discrimination was the last testing station that elucidated
the depth of such gap.
Third:
The values of democracy, freedom, and human rights are referred to
and applied in only to the interests and issues of the North, as
if they are the Western value system that cannot be implemented in
any other place, in spite of claiming that they are universal and
should be imposed with all means, flexible or inflexible.
International
Evidence
The
events of the September 11 came to shake the world, neither for
its new style nor for the triggered flagrant number of casualties
and material losses, for many parts of the globe have suffered
much more losses and causalities. Yet this is the first time after
more than half a century that the United States is exposed to such
damage. If the events were depicted as “An American national
catastrophe,” “America under attack,” “War acts against
America,” or “Terrorist acts against America,” all carry
evidences and implications underlying the state of international
relations.
I
note down my own remarks of these evidences on four levels: the
U.S. status in the world order and the sources menacing her
security, the U.S. relations with her Western allies including
Israel, U.S. /South relations, and the American domestic state and
its impact on American foreign policy and its world interactions.
The
First Level: The U.S.
Status in the World Order
American
security is not isolated from world security, as the sources of
threat are not only external. Since the end of the cold war, the
“international” U.S. strategy puts “International
Terrorism” on the list of what is perceived as a threat to world
stability and security. Likewise, the U.S. administration set
fighting terrorism as one of its crucial strategic objectives, as
well as one of the important issues of the American foreign
policy.
While
American targets abroad were exposed in the last two decades to
the so-called successive terrorist hits (Beirut, Lockerbie, Saudi
Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Port of Aden), U.S. territory witnessed
two other operations: one in the World Trade Center (1993), and
the other in Oklahoma (1995). All strikes, except for Oklahoma,
were linked to Middle Eastern elements. It has been settled in the
American conscience that the South in general and the Middle East
in particular, especially Arabs and Muslims, are the source for
such terrorist menace that is pertinent to Islamic fundamentalism
and the escalation of the consequences of the unresolved
Arab-Israeli conflict.
In
other words, the U.S. from within is not immune to terrorist
threats and operations. The U.S. policies therefore focused on the
foreign terrorist resistance, steering clear of the American oasis
of safety. With the same token of protecting and secluding “the
American island” from the calamities and threats that affect the
rest of the world, establishing the U.S. missile armor for
American military security and protection from external military
threats crystallized the logic of defense.
The
attacks on New York and Washington came with several different
evidences. The assaults were accurate and innovative, launched
directly from within the U.S. and through hijacked US civilian
planes. The attacks were not only targeting U.S. territory and
people, but also hitting two very important symbols of U.S.
international strength: monetary and military might. They are also
the symbols of the material values of welfare and security in
Western civilization. These attacks were portrayed as
unprecedented and unexpected.
New
meanings underlined the nature of the war that is likely to hit a
great power possessing the most enormous military arsenal in the
world, of which countries and groups have previously experienced
in war. It became apparent, after these attacks, that the
credibility of the absolute security and excellence of a country
as such can be shaken. U.S. security went through a test
administered not by an external threat from another corresponding
global power. Individuals belonging to groups of other creeds who
managed to pose such strikes conducted it, and U.S. observers and
politicians depicted it as a declaration of war against the U.S.
It
is thus a birth of a new kind of war witnessed in American
territory, a war from and toward the interior (whatever is said on
its external extensions). There have been escalations in the
Western analysts and observers’ have made many accusations
including Middle Eastern elements topped by Osama bin Laden. The
one held responsible for such attacks is not yet defined.
The
U.S. official address did not accuse a definite party, although
some scattered voices pointed to those such as right-wing American
extremists or Western international terrorist groups fostering
ideological stances against Western capitalism and democracy.
The
questions are: Do the US officials and Western media undermine the
responsibility of an American internal force having goals
pertinent to society and the U.S. domestic and foreign policy? Why
is there an insistence on the external sources? Is the American
domestic status fine? Can’t the weakness come from within?
Isn’t it what history says on the downfall of the great empires?
On
the contrary, the threats declared and embodied by such attacks
show, if undertaken by external elements, that U.S. security is
vulnerable and inseparable from world security and stability, and
from a just and truly democratic way of solving its problems. The
comprehensive U.S. national security is not realized merely by
military procedures and world power balances, but rather it is
achieved by other measures springing out of the nature of American
policies toward world issues.
Such
policies evoke estimations on being the reason for the outbreak of
hostility towards U.S. Many analysts rely on such hostility in
interpreting the attacks events. In the light of what has been
mentioned concerning the US status in the world order, its
international position and extent of her credibility, the
following question is raised: What will the U.S. reaction be?
The
Second Level: The Nature Of
The Reaction:
It
is obvious that the manner of reaction was related to the official
U.S. adjustment of the nature, aims and consequences of such
attacks to the American security and the U.S. role in world
leadership. Based on the speeches delivered by Bush, Blair, and
NATO allies since the attacks, it is noticed that the attacks were
adjusted to be as follows:
They
are attacks against democracy and freedom, not only in the United
States but also against the free and modern world. It is a war
between good and evil, attacks by a new enemy against all, a
declaration of the 21st century fight, i.e. a fight
between the Western value system and enemies of the Western
civilization. The world should be unified and allied to eradicate
such enemy.
It
should be noted that Israel entered such adjustment as a part of
the Western civilization and free world, which confronts the
terrorist enemies. For instance, Ehud Barak talked twice within
five hours after the attacks on BBC TV asserting that their
civilized modern world was in danger and needed their alliance and
solidarity to stand against terrorism, which is an enemy that
threats the entire free world.
A
strong form of vigilant Western solidarity with the United States
was shown by the NATO decision taken by unanimous votes on the
second day after the attacks. For the first time in history,
Article (5) concerning collective defense was enforced. NATO
countries thus declared that the assault against the United States
was an assault against them, which requires collective military
defense, a matter confirmed NATO’s willingness to support a U.S.
military choice against whoever was held responsible for the
attacks.
Noticeably,
Bush’s speeches, especially the one delivered in the White House
the second day after the attacks, contained an indication for
alliance with friendly powers to confront the new enemy, a matter
interpreted as a U.S. desire to share the political and material
burdens of this new world battle, since the United States is no
more able to lead the world alone.
Yet,
U.S. reaction toward the challenge imposed by the attacks on the
US world image is still debatable without a final answer. Two
trends are taking place in the US and Western circles
concerning what the United States should do:
The
first trend suggests
punishing the attackers after accurately knowing them. The United
States should investigate the reasons for hostility escalated
against it, which makes it vulnerable to similar attacks, and so
that it can control the future by handling the causes and evading
the repetition of such antagonistic events.
The
second trend calls for war,
away from trials and legal and political procedures, i.e. to
exploit with military force vigorously and promptly against
elements known for their support of terrorism; these are
definitely those countries and groups on the international
terrorism list made by the U.S. administration.
While
the Bush’s statements mentioned the necessity of patience and
serenity in identifying the attackers and their supports so as to
be punished, the voice of the second trend was raised in the U.S.,
Western and Israeli circles giving no space for the first trend to
express itself. On the third day after the attack, 13 September,
the talk began on the soon U.S. military strike against
Afghanistan, if it did not hand over Osama bin Laden - the first
suspect in the US and Western eyes.
Two
features characterized the Arab and Islamic official reaction: A
strong condemnation of the attacks expressing their cooperation
with the American people and government to confront this
catastrophe, and condemning any terrorist act against civilians.
At the same time they avoided blaming U.S. policies as catalysts
to such hostility and ignored the exposition to the nature of the
potential U.S. reaction.
That
was the case with the exception of Iraq, stating that the United
States had experienced what it previously made the world
experience. Castro was the first of the South leaders to remind
the United States of the necessity to revise its world policies,
which generate enmity.
In
other words, whereas the North or the West were preparing to stand
beside the United States to enter the allegedly war of
civilizations declared against the Western civilization, those
belonging to the other civilizations particularly the Islamic
(Arab or non-Arab) had no choice but to condemn, apologize, defend
and declare solidarity. Being seemingly in a state of accusation,
they were victims of unjust U.S. policies, in more than one form
and on more than one level.
The
manufactured portrayal exhibited a discrete dichotomy that exists
in the world, the North and South, but in a new attire and more
dangerous than during and after the cold war. The dichotomy is
entering a new stage, a stage in the aftermath of the attacks on
New York and Washington, but some evidences of its birth have been
unveiled by the Durban conference. The attacks were the impetus
for its birth. Therefore we must ask, “What are the consequences
on the relation with the South?
The
Third Level: The Level Of
Relations With The South:
The
Western and American address, as shown in the media, carried an
offensive attitude, though some were indeterminate about sources
of attacks, while others explicitly accused Osama bin Laden,
emphasizing that Western civilization is in danger, since the
United States is in a state of war. But the question is still
unanswered: With whom? Does the entire South fall
under pits of terrorism?
The
Arab media is overwhelmed with commentaries and analyses on the
responsibility of U.S. international policies and the danger of
the Israeli gains then attained through the smoke escalating from
New York and Washington. While these commentaries and analyses
lack rationality and reason, it can’t be denied that the natural
emotions felt by the Arabs was comfort and happiness toward the
U.S. events due to the affliction suffered as a result of the
unjust and undemocratic policies in the Islamic region.
Many
questions are raised: How can the attitude of the great Western
powers be changed - while preparing for a comprehensive war
against international terrorism to eradicate it - toward the
political, economic and military issues of the South? Will the
South be further marginalized as it has been since the end of the
cold war? Will the gap in attitudes between the North and South
deepen? Will the South governments and policies be exposed to more
pressures as a punishment of their belonging to another
civilization, which has supposedly threatened Western
civilization?
It
is crucial here to illustrate that the ongoing scenario does
indicate a clash of civilizations based merely on them being
different. It reflects a conflict caused by an abuse of a disorder
in the world balance of powers for the interest of a certain
civilization to sway the other civilizations, irrespective of the
actuality of values and principles of a civilization, which it
claims are universal and suitable for everyone.
The
Fourth Level: America From
Within
The
coverage of the attacks focused on an essential aspect of the
reaction of the American public near the site of the attacks. The
following are the characteristics of their reaction: the Americans
witnessed a battle that they never expected. They could not
imagine that the capital of money and politics in the strongest
state in the world exposed to such an attack. They could not
believe that it happened. They did not know why and how it
happened. At the beginning they were not aware of its severity.
It
was natural that shock, bewilderment, and wonder are followed by
rage. How does one express rage? How will it be developed? How
will it influence the tendencies of U.S. policy?
Western
media pointed the finger at Arabs and Muslims. In turn, the Arabs
and Muslims of America were the first targets of that anger.
Likewise
leaders of the American Arab and Islamic organizations were keen
to concentrate on two things: give warnings and instructions on
how to face violent acts and discrimination, as well as how to
assert their integration with American society.
Such
an atmosphere surrounding Muslims and Arabs in the United States
questions the reality of cultural plurality hoisted by the U.S.
and Western governments. There is the reality of mergence of such
groups in their new communities and their relative weight to
influence public opinion and U.S. policy toward new tendencies
that are more supportive of the issues of the Muslim homelands,
Arab, and non-Arab.
On
the contrary, the home situation in the U.S. after the attacks
affects U.S. policy. It is taken for granted in U.S. foreign
policy that the American public does not bother about the issues
of foreign policy nor pressures it unless it directly influences
its interests. Typical of this was the Vietnam War and the oil
boycott. So will the experience of the attacks on New York and
Washington have its evidence to, and if so, to what direction?
Will it be more isolated from the world’s problems?
This
is impossible in this stage of globalization. Will the influence
be more toward “interventionism” for more punishment and
retaliation of the South? Will it be a call for a revision of U.S.
world policies, especially toward the Islamic region, in order to
treat the causes of rising hostility against the United States - a
hostility not instigated by a clash of civilizations and hatred of
the Western civilization, but due to the unjust and undemocratic
policies of the United States which claims its leadership of the
free world of human democracy?
From
the regions of the Arab Israeli conflict to the core of the
Palestinian Intifada that confront the flagrant Zionist
aggression, there have been severe impacts by the U.S. events.
Before the eyes of the world, and as feared by the Palestinians,
Israel reoccupied Janine and Jericho in the West Bank.
With
the international status quo and in the short or long run
repercussions of the attacks, the Arab governments should take
clear actions considering that Israel is grabbing the opportunity
to continue Sharon’s plan, which began September 28, 2000.
*
Dr. Nadia Mahmoud Mostafa is
Professor of International Relations, Cairo University and
head of the Center for Civilizations and Political Studies, Cairo.
|
