#9
Yezhenedelny Zhurnal
No. 35
September 2002
GORDY'S PEACE
Unquestionable American hegemony is the main result of the counter- terrorism operation
Author: Alexander Golts
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

IT DOES NOT EVEN OCCUR TO BUSH NOW TO ANNOUNCE THAT "HE WHO IS NOT WITH US IS ESSENTIALLY AGAINST US." ON THE CONTRARY, OFFICIAL WASHINGTON REPEATS OVER AND OVER THAT EVEN THE ABSENCE OF INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT WILL NOT STOP A STRIKE AT IRAQ. THIS IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

Analysis of the changes September 11 brought about

In the first weeks after the terrorist attacks, when America was still stunned, President George W. Bush viewed establishing an international counter-terrorism coalition as the top priority. "The president gradually came to realize the fact that the world was consolidating," a senior official of the US Administration said. "The question that immediately arose was why we were rallying everyone. It is beneath America's dignity to rally everyone for its own defense. People should be consolidated in order to defend freedom."

Statements of all world leaders at the time indicated that the tragedy had united the whole "civilized world" and made it forget mutual suspicions.

There were expectations that there would be more to the war on terrorism than simple hostilities. There were expectations that the new world order would destroy what was making terrorism possible in the first place. "We should abandon our arrogance with regard to the rest of the world and become aware of our new international status. Days of trouble-free luxury are over," wrote Washington Post observer Robert Kaizer. What this meant was that the advanced countries, primarily the United States, would do something about the situation in which entire peoples and nations were left out of global progress.

Now, only a year after all these tragic events, it appears that the world is no longer eager to pool its efforts in a war on a common enemy. The United States is prepared to declare war on Iraq almost entirely on its own. Forces of the international coalition are still stationed in Afghanistan, but Washington's partners and allies do not intend to participate in another Persian Gulf war. Neither has Washington been going out of its way to form a new international coalition. The US president will merely address the UN to remind the international community how often Iraq has deceived the world. It does not even occur to Bush now to announce that "he who is not with us is essentially against us." On the contrary, official Washington repeats over and over that even the absence of international support will not stop a strike at Iraq. This is what the brave new world is, not consolidation of the international community.

The tragedy of September 11 was used by the United States to lay claim to global leadership. The key role in all this was played by the brilliantly executed operation in Afghanistan. The latest military technology enabled the Americans to suppress the Taliban's resistance in a matter of months. The presence of American soldiers on the battlefield has been and remains minimal. The Northern Alliance and its detachments were used to take control of the territory. As a result, universal support for the United States in the wake of September 11 promptly transformed itself into enforced recognition of American hegemony.

The fact that armies of America's NATO allies were substantially weaker than the US Army became clear during the Yugoslavian operation. Aware of that, American generals did not find it necessary to rely on NATO structures in the new operation. The war in Afghanistan deprived advocates of these alliances of their last strong argument. Due to its location, America has always been late with deployment of troops in conflict areas. Afghanistan convinced the Americans that by using satellites, aircraft-carriers, and long-range aviation they could "project military might" to any region of the world, even relying on provisional bases only.

"America will never be the same," Margaret Thatcher wrote in February. "It has proved to itself and to others - in deed, not only in word - that it is the only global superpower. A power so greatly superior to existing and potential rivals that will never be touched by any other country in the foreseeable future." Thatcher appears to be correct in her estimate. A single look at the latest directives drafted by the Pentagon (the concept of reforming the US Army included) shows that America relies primarily on its absolute military superiority. A month before the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy, Henry Kissenger publicly defended Washington's exclusive right to deliver preventive strikes at potential aggressors. The New York Times considers that the acceptability of preventive strikes will become a key element of Bush's military doctrine. The Iron Lady is also fascinated by "the prerogative of the strong".

Unlike Thatcher, incumbent European politicians are forced to take public opinion into consideration. They do not share her enthusiasm. Christopher Patten, Chairman of the EU International Affairs Commission, is worried that the success of the operation in Afghanistan "has sharpened certain dangerous instincts" including the belief that "America has only itself to rely on" and that its allies do not really count. Ex-SACEUR Wesley Clark, the man who commanded the Yugoslavian operation, even thought it prudent to come to the Europeans' defense and urged official Washington to elevate its allies to its own level instead of neglecting them.

The United States is not in the mood to listen to objections or advice even from its closest allies, not to mention the rest of the world.

The chain of events sparked by September 11 resulted in the utter disappearance of the old world order based on the rivalry of military alliances. This is probably the first time in the history of civilization that a democracy has enjoyed complete and absolute supremacy. As a result, Washington's foreign policy is totally dependant on its domestic policy. Only this assumption can explain Washington's unshakeable determination to settle the score with malicious Saddam.

In trying to show that Iraq should become the next target of the counter-terrorism operation, the US Administration uses arguments that do not hold water. Hussein is a dictator and oppressor of his people (no one will argue that) but there are at least two dozens such rulers in the world. Iraq may possess mass destruction weapons, but Musharraf in Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons too. There is the not very valid accusation to the effect that Iraq supported Al Qaeda terrorists. It may have supported them indeed, but the accusation would have been much more effective had Saudi Arabia been the target. After all, the majority of the suicide hijackers on American planes on September 11 were Saudis.

It seems that Iraq is chosen as the target not because it poses a true threat to the world but because Saddam's regime survived the first President Bush a decade ago; and because Clinton was too soft on Iraq, from the point of view of current US Administration. Punishing Iraq in full view of the world became essential when the military phase of the operation in Afghanistan ended this winter. Washington was left with a problem of how and in what form it should continue the counter-terrorism operation; or, in other words, how to demonstrate its might and determination. The United States could choose to forget about military operations and concentrate on intelligence, in order to uncover the financial sources of extremism. Or it could tackle the political, social, and economic problems of the Islamic world, the problems that give rise to terrorism when left unsolved.

All this is not very rewarding from the point of view of domestic policy. The expenses are comparable with what a military operation would require, but the effect is less apparent. A guided missile is costly, but destruction of the target is almost guaranteed. Penetrating a terrorist organization or building schools somewhere in Sudan may fail to yield any results at all. In any case, such moves are unlikely to add anything to Bush's popularity. Moreover, this form of combating terrorism requires closer relations with foreign countries and that is something the current US Administration prefers to do without.

That is why Iraq is so useful. Addressing the Congress on January 30, Bush spoke of an "axis of evil", which he said included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The Bush Administration sees the major threat posed by precisely these countries.

Needless to say, those who doubt that this solution is either expedient or advisable can be found in the US Administration and elsewhere in the political establishment. Unlike the civilians heading the Pentagon, the top brass have not been enthusiastic about the impending operation against Saddam, recognizing it as a risky venture. Not a single country in the region has offered its territory for troop deployment yet, not even America's closest allies Turkey and Bahrain. Seeing that the operation is mounted to topple his regime, the Iraqi dictator may well resort to chemical or biological weapons. Last but not least, a war on Iraq, even victorious, would destabilize the entire region.

In any case, declaring war on Iraq will require Washington to consolidate the American elite, even more than it requires a consensus with other leading nations. Bush has just promised to discuss US policy on Iraq with world leaders, but everyone understands that he will merely inform America's foreign partners of US intentions, at best. Even if they disagree with Washington on the issue of Iraq, these countries will remain America's allies. We can't very well expect them to make an alliance with Saddam Hussein, can we? It isn't hard see that the United States will retain its status as the world's only superpower for as long as its economic capacities permit.

September 11 gave the US president an opportunity to lay claim to global leadership. Putin, in his turn, used the situation to integrate Russia into the Western community. The president of Russia was the first leader to support the American counter-terrorism operation, and Russia therefore became one of the countries to be rewarded for its cooperation. Unlike Pakistan, Moscow did not have its foreign debts written off. American troops do not protect Russia from Islamic militants, the way they protect Uzbekistan. On the other hand, the Kremlin did its best to persuade the international community that in Chechnya it had been fighting the same enemy. Western criticism of the Russian counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya died down for almost a year. The list of gains also includes the 20 Committee (Russia plus 19 NATO countries), a mechanism through which Moscow participates in political decision-making. (On the other hand, this is not much of an achievement, since the role of NATO has been diminishing.) Finally, Russia was promised the huge sum of $20 billion for dismantling its old nuclear submarines and destroying chemical weapons. There is only one catch here: Moscow will get this money only when its contacts with countries of the "axis of evil" are curtailed.

At the same time, Putin apparently received less in return than he expected, and clearly not enough to satisfy all lobby groups. That is why Russian foreign policy is so erratic. Despite Russia's clear desire to develop relations with the United States, every now and then Russia seems to taunt Washington by making contact with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. It is hard to say what all this means: whether Russia expects economic dividends (the size and probability inevitably exaggerated by advocates of an anti-American drift in Russian foreign policy) or desires to become a mediator between these countries and the civilized world. Washington, intent on cutting through any knots it encounters, does not appear to expect anything positive from Russia's efforts.

All the same, it seems that Moscow has finally said farewell to Yevgeny Primakov's illusions of a broad anti-American coalition. The Kremlin understands that no matter how much American hegemony may irritate Moscow, it is a global problem rather than a problem for Russia alone.

BACK TO THE TOP    #222 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE