11 September 2001 – One Year On

11 September 2001 – One Year On

I was in Washington on 11 September 2001 and wrote some personal thoughts four days later. Experience in the United States during those few days helps one to gain an understanding of much that lies behind current American attitudes. The US underwent a cathartic experience regarded by many as more serious than Pearl Harbour because this was an attack on the mainland of a country more powerful militarily than history has seen. Until 11 September, Americans felt totally secure living on their own continent; in contrast to Europeans who have never enjoyed the luxury of such security. American pride has been deeply hurt. Americans still find it difficult to understand why so much of the world’s population actively dislikes them. Revenge is a dangerous, although understandable, motive.

I hesitated before publishing this paper but have concluded that it is time that friends of the United States speak out. Today is a day when we Europeans stand united with the American people over the tragedy which occurred exactly one year ago. I recognize the debt we Europeans owe to our American friends. The United States made an extraordinary contribution to converting the turbulent and warring world of the thirties into the relatively peaceful world of the nineties, including the spread of democracy and human rights. Without constant US support and encouragement, the European Union could well have been stillborn. The pacification and reintegration of Japan into the civilized world is an equally significant achievement.

It is because we owe so much to the United States that we are obliged to speak out if we deeply believe that some current US policies are misguided. We Europeans also have a duty towards Israel as our policies during the 1920s and 1930s helped create the present Palestine tragedy. I write therefore in sorrow and not in anger; as someone who is both pro-American and supports Israel’s right to live in peace and security. This paper does not address the rights and wrongs of US policies and attitudes but whether they are in the long-term interests of the US and indeed Israel in particular, and the West in general. My reluctant conclusion is that they are not.

End of an era

The post-WWII era suddenly ended on 11 September 2001. While no one previously imagined that a terrorist group could pull off such a dramatic, audacious and well-organised coup, we were aware of the dangers of rogue states or groups using nuclear weapons (hence the planned National Missile Defence) and low-tech chemical and biological warfare (as used in the Japanese metro attack). 11 September did not fundamentally change the world but it did change US attitudes towards the world.

The very meaning of “power”, in geopolitical terms, has fundamentally altered. No longer is waging war the monopoly of states. The attack on Afghanistan may have been necessary, and might even be regarded as comparatively moderate, but has so far only led to a short-term solution. It remains to be seen whether there is any long-term reduction in terrorist capability and whether Afghanistan can defy its history and stabilise.

Iraq

Iraq is now the centre of our attention. The Bush Administration appears determined to remove Saddam Hussein from power, to thwart Iraq from obtaining a nuclear war capability and to reduce terrorism. It considers that a preemptive strike is less risky than his eventual use of nuclear weapons. A majority of Americans appears supportive, at least if the U.S. does not have to act alone, but this support could well erode, particularly in the light of the concern expressed by former Republican and Democrat leaders and the developing debate in Congress. Islamic countries are solidly hostile to the US policy as is most of the rest of the world. Only the UK – or rather Tony Blair – stands unequivocally b ehind George W Bush. The reactions of other European countries range from outright opposition (such as Germany) to, at best, equivocal support.

A careful risk analysis must be carried out. There is a risk that Iraq will acquire a nuclear capability and also, but not necessarily immediately, a relatively long-range delivery capability. However, the risk of nuclear force being used must also be assessed. Saddam knows that a nuclear strike by him will almost certainly provoke an Israeli and/or American response, which would devastate Iraq and its people. Saddam is a criminal but there is no evidence that he is a fool or deranged: why then should he invite his own and his country’s annihilation? An attack on Iraq increases the likelihood of Saddam using chemical and biological warfare against US troops and we cannot be certain that he does not yet have any nuclear capacity. A desperate man, facing inevitable military defeat, is likely to use every last weapon.

Eventual US military success is assured provided that sufficient manpower is committed and maintained, despite the return of body bags. However, it is impossible to anticipate the long-term effects of such success. Even if Saddam is replaced by a moderate and stable government (Washington’s vision of creating a “democratic, stable and prosperous” Iraq suggests a lack of understanding of the region), the effects of relations between Islam and the West are potentially catastrophic. The US may be right in believing that many governments would like to see Saddam overthrown and that no-one will do anything to hinder the US, but any unilateral action is likely to be condemned by the United Nations (which has not hitherto worried Washington) and to severely strain the NATO alliance (which may also not worry Washington).

While UN condemnation and NATO strains may not worry Washington too much, the possibility that the US would have to devote years and billions of dollars to reconstructing Iraq while tying down substantial military forces, all quite possibly without the generous financial and related assistance from Europe and elsewhere to which it has been accustomed in Bosnia and Afghanistan, does (or should) worry it greatly.

The world awaits President Bush’s speech to the United Nations tomorrow. It is to be hoped that he will genuinely seek a consensus within the UN and not merely use that body as a fig leaf to cover what will essentially be a unilateral decision.

After Saddam

An American victory in Iraq could precipitate the overthrow of relatively stable governments in Pakistan (with its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other Islamic countries, and their replacement by fundamentalist regimes. The US-Saudi relationship is already a victim of the new political reality. A Rand analyst as a “corrupt and tyrannical regime” has now denounced its hitherto second staunchest Middle East ally. Anti-Western feeling is likely to fuel the terrorist movements whose access to weapons of mass destruction will increase, with or without Iraq’s help. Western hypocrisy and double standards do not help. We show concern about human rights but no longer comment on the hundreds of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We advocate democracy but not if Islamic fundamentalists are elected (eg Algeria). And above all, we often tend to characterise Islam as fundamentalist and to classify fundamentalists as terrorists. Both Christian and Jewish fundamentalism comfortably predate Islamic fundamentalism.

If peace cannot be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians in the current Middle East environment, it is even less likely that it will be possible in the drastically changed environment which is likely to follow an invasion of Iraq. This, combined with the demographic trend, will put into doubt Israel’s very existence as a democratic state in 25 years time.

Hegemony

The formation of the European Union after World War II ended two centuries of balance of power struggles between its leading nations to ensure that no-one of them achieved hegemony. For four subsequent decades, the US – leading the West – and the Soviet Union fought each other for global influence. The United States helped bring communism to its knees and a bi-polar security system was replaced by a single super-power. To Americans, their hegemony is being used to police the world benevolently. To those who do not feel that they benefit from this favour, American hegemony is seen as an oppressive force. Europeans have learned the value of pooling sovereignty and seeking compromise; the US jealously safeguards its sovereignty and prefers to rely on military might.

There is also a difference in attitude towards the rule of law and international institutions. We all agree with the importance of applying the rule of law within our own society but the US appears to feel that the urgency to create a peaceful, stable and democratic world sometimes overrides the need to apply the rule of law externally: the benevolent end, in other words, justifies the means. This, coupled with the refusal to compromise sovereignty, explains the American approach to Islamic prisoners, the International Criminal Court…

In any case, history does not support the concept of a long-term benevolent hegemony and the very power of hegemony of course corrupts. China and Russia will be deeply concerned about a world unilaterally and indeed aggressively – even if benevolently – dominated by the US. This could lead to a new arms race and a return to balance of power politics.

EU policy

Its relationship with the US was critically important to Europe until the nineties because the US ensured peace in Europe and a huge market for its exports. On both sides of the Atlantic we continued to emphasise our common values and play down our differences. But the global contact of the relationship has drastically changed; the half century of the Marshall Plan, European reconstruction, mutual defence against communism…is over. Kennedy’s vision of partnership and interdependence has faded. Friendly transatlantic relations remain but are weakening through political, social and demographic erosion.

And yet, there is as much reason as ever to pursue the concept of partnership – not least in America’s own interest. Europe needs to be more assertive in showing the US what it will lose by abandoning the Kennedy vision, and what influence it can bring to bear if forced by Washington’s disinterest to act on its own.

Although the schism between the two continents has emerged in clear relief under George W Bush, the trend has been there for some time. Texan bluntness has replaced a more conciliatory approach to diplomacy which has brought these changes into the open. And the Bush policies which contribute most to the divide have strong and wide public support.

A united European policy towards the US, Iraq, Israel/Palestine and Iran, and the fight against terrorism, does not exist but is desperately needed. A fundamental rethink of Member State policies is urgent. The danger is that, for various short-term and domestic political reasons, this will not happen, in which case there will be no chance of the US government listening to its European allies. The Member States are even divided on their policy towards the implementation of the International Criminal Court Treaty and the US demand for bilateral exemptions.

US policy will probably continue to provoke a division of opinion between Member States, underlying why the US can ignore the Union in this policy area. But perhaps it is not too late. There are a growing number of American critical voices, including highly respected Republicans and Democrats, warning against US unilateral action in Iraq.

The first step towards the implementati on of such a solution must be resolving the Israel-Palestine dispute. While this is not the cause of current terrorism, there is no doubt that without a settlement, it will be impossible to begin an overall Western-Islamic reconciliation process. As the parties themselves are moving daily further away from peace, Europe must – together with the US – be much more active and assertive in laying out what a fair and just settlement should be. Europe should also conduct a diplomacy campaign, appealing beyond the Sharons and Arafats directly to the publics, so as to change the political dynamics.

Clash of civilizations

The Western and Islamic civilisations are indeed in conflict with each other. A deep anti-western feeling pervades the Islamic world. Muslims on the whole oppose the westernisation of their society, culture and beliefs. Fundamentalism is normally driven by the young and educated classes.

That region still remembers the 1990-91 Gulf War (with hate, resentment and fear). It is now a possibility that Samuel Huntington’s first “clash of civilizations” could occur. And will an arms race between China and the US then lead to the second clash of civilizations, this time between the West and Confucian society and values?

Conclusion

• US unilaterism is not good for its own long-term interests, nor those of Israel and the West
• The EU must get its act together
• Both the USA and the EU must redouble their efforts to help resolve the Israel – Palestine dispute.

For more analyses see The European Policy Centre’s

website.