September 11th as a response to the USA external policy

· Chapter 2 : ALONE OR NOT ?

A) The people's reaction

Against war : September 11^th , showed that the U.S.A are hated by many people around the World. When we look at the World now, it seems that there is only America on one side and the anti-Americans on the other. Anti-Americanism is the view that the USA are basically a global bad guy, an imperial bullying nation only interested in making money at any price. Some Europeans' response to September 11^th is conditioned to overriding anxiety that the USA will use international terrorism as a standing excuse to intervene in the affairs of other nations. At first glance, it seems that Europe's « hate affair » with America is alive and well. They above all hate Bush's leitmotiv : « with us or against us ». Despite the displays of unity, a wave of anti-Americanism is sweeping Europe and the World, and the focus is on G.W.Bush. Activists have quickly mobilized behind several causes : antiwar against the already afflicted people of Afghanistan, and protecting US Arabs and Muslims against hate crimes. The objective of the antiwar movement has to be justice and not vengeful retaliation

In Berlin, 17.000 protesters gathered on Karl Marx boulevard. They shared a visceral aversion to George Bush, whose visit to Germany they were protesting. «Bush we don't want your war ! ». Some called him « war monger ». Some placards accused him of slaughtering the innocents of Afghanistan. Moreover, according to them the U.S.A respect neither treaties nor traditions. They don't care about their Allies unless they need some special forces for Tora Bora. 69% of the population were against sending German troops to Afghanistan. In Britain, America's closest ally, the poll found that 48% percent of people have a negative attitude toward the U.S.A President. In France the President's approval raiting was about 57%. While the Greeks allow U.S fighter jets to use their airspace as part of antiwar campaign, more than 86% oppose the bombing. According to them the U.S.A deserved the September attacks because of Washington's « unjust » handling of the World affairs, 57% of the person surveyed confess « having negative feelings about the U.S.A ». Part of the animosity is historical. The strike against Afghanistan have filled the anti-American contingent with fresh ardour. According to them, this war is not about freedom versus terrorism, it is imperialism versus the people. The Greek share this point of view shouting «American assassins ». After the attack of the WTC, Saddam Hussein, America's public enemy number one, as we could expect did not condemn the attacks and the death of thousands of people. On the contrary he publicly applauded the attacks. He declared : « America is tasting what it forced others to taste^42(*) ». He also said that « America arrogance had been humiliated ». For Hussein, the attack was a divine answer to USA's External Policy : « when God strikes, no one can stand in the way of his power^43(*) ».

B) The Allies

q B.1) Division between the European countries

Bush asked every nation to join the U.S.A . He received potential coalition partners. Some 100 countries had pledged some kind of military, financial, political, or intelligent support to the U.S.A for a campaign against Bin Laden, his Al-Qaeda network, and the countries that shelter or support terrorist cells. Among Bush's supporters are, Chirac and Blair, Germany's minister Joshka Fisher and Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov... All of them pledge their support in the battle against terrorism. But none have been more determined than Blair in making sure that Britain as well as the continent will stand « shoulder to shoulder » with the Americans.

Washington is assembling a global alliance for a possible attack. Can it hold together ?

At any rate, Afghanistan remains a good war for Tony Blair. Beyond war, he sees an opportunity for Europe to tackle poverty, global warning, inter-faith understanding, peace between Israelis and Palestinians and many other ambitious reforms. It is also a chance to shine on the World stage and remind voters at Home who have been questioning about his decisiveness and capacity to lead.

America has another European friend : Russia.

Before September 11^th , Russia and the U.S.A seemed on a coalition course. Now, the two nations share a common priority : the war on terrorism. They are now focussing on shared interests. As Putin said : « the Cold War is over, the World is at a new stage of development. ». Putin demonstrates a clear willingness to chart a new course on Foreign and domestic Policy. Beyond opening up Russian airspace to America forces, Putin lobbied the former Soviet Republics of central Asia to cooperate fully with war effort in Afghanistan, including allowing the use of military bases. Putin's motives for casting his lot with America are economic, and geopolitic. The cooperation with the Western Alliance brings acceptance in other international groups. With time Russia might become a full N.A.T.O member. Moreover to develop Russia's economy, Putin believes he must integrate the Western World. He wants to do business, not to take handabouts. Now that Putin has put himself at center stage with Bush and other Western leaders, he is again giving Russians the responsibility and sense of national importance that they crave for. For Russia, the door to Europe lies through Washington.

But there are also benefits for the U.S.A's rapprochement with Russia :

Russia produces 10% of the World's oil and its reserves could help reduce U.S.A dependance on the Middle East, moreover, Bush wants Putin's blessing on his efforts to topple Saddam Hussein.

However a growing sense of uneasiness threatens to divide Washington and its European Allies. The international alliance against terrorism is entering a new dangerous phase, opening hidden cracks in a slow-moving glacier. A sense of creeping reservation is in the air. Europeans fear that the U.S.A may be losing sight of the fact that the military campaigns is only part of the war on terror. Above all there is a deep worry about the course the war could take. Few dispute the basic aim : to hunt down Al-Qaeda and eliminate its Taliban ally. But many fear the means the U.S.A have chosen will not achieve the desired end risking social, political and cultural havoc. The point is that, since the end of the Cold War, every serious division between Europe and the U.S.A have been over military action. Europe simply does not believe in war anymore, largely because of its own experience. After an incredibly bloody past, Europe has moved beyond war. Even now, Europeans remain reluctant to believe that military power can be useful in solving problems. Even though many of them believe that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous aggressor, their solution is « anything but war».

Much of the difference in attitude is at root a difference in capacities. Europe spends only $140 billion on defense, compared with America's $347 billion.

However European governments remain America's strongest allies. Blair plays the role of a bridge builder between America and Europe and aims to turn the skeptics in Europe and the Middle East too, from focusing on the defeat of Al-Qaeda to an entirely different threat not directly linked to September 11^th :

Saddam's programs to build chemical, biological and especialy nuclear weapons. Bagdad is already in violation of the last 23 U.N Security Council resolutions.

But the toxic atmosphere of anti-Americanism prevailing in Europe might destroy the Atlantic Alliance. In mid January 2003, Bush had hardly an ally in sight as he moved toward war against Iraq. Even his staunchest comrade in arms, Tony Blair, looked wobbly to some. Antiwar Germany and deeply skeptical France, capturing a spreading popular unease, cast longer and longer shadows accross Europe. Bush looked lonely. The first casualty of war was the very idea of Europe.

A few weeks ago, war in Iraq looks imminent. Today, the mood has oddly shifted, as though key players were having second thought. Nowhere has this been more noticed than in the alliance between Britain and the U.S.A. Bush has been a bit disappointed to notice that Britain's Prime Minister has not quite kept pace. Tony Blair is under increasing pressure in Britain where antiwar sentiment is on the rise. He spoke out for giving the U.N weapons inspectors more time in Iraq. Bush thinks another U.N resolution is not necessary. Blair wants U.N's approval before going to war in Iraq.

The second casualty of war is France, and Germany.

In Berlin, while celebrating the 40^th anniversary of their friendship treaty, they ceremoniously pronounced that they would work together to save the World from war. It was quite a good idea. People will have the choice to solve the conflict either with dialogue or war. But neither France nor Germany thought their alliance would have single them out from the rest of the coalition. They were no longer in demand to support USA. While the members of the coalition were invited to sign the letter in support of Washington, France and Germany were not guessed. According to the French President, the British plotted to usurp their leadership.

The SUN , the British popular newspaper, favorable to a military action against Iraq wrote on the front page « Chirac is a worm», « the shame of Europe » « a hypocrite », « the mackerel of Paris » (in the front page Chirac's head appeared at the end of a long earthworm from the center of cracked France). The newspaper blamed the French President for « threatening constantly to resort to his right of veto to prevent any military action intended to make apply the will of theUnited nation in Iraq ». This was a setback to the idea of Europe speaking with a single voice. As D.Rumsfeld, U.S.A Defense Secretary said : « it is a new Europe, away from Berlin and Paris toward the newly enlarged and younger Europe, where the voices of Central Europe and the Baltics will encreasingly join those of Spain, Italy and Britain to create a new balance of power ».

How do France and Germany want to position themselves in a world dominated by the U.S.A, as competitors or partners ?

Since the end of the Cold War, many European leaders have long aspired to end American dominance and constructing a Europe that is counterbalance to the U.S.A, not just economically but geopolitically. The single market and the Euro are widely seen as essential steps in this direction. In fact, the Euro worth will probably continue to encrease against the Dollar. Moreover, despite a recovery, the U.S.A are hardly the model of economic health they used to be.

The U.S.A's retreat from its leading role presents another opportunity for the European Union. Whatever sort of power it chooses to be, it is likely to be something faintly different from the U.S.A. It ought to be less predatory, more concerned with social cohesion and the safety of society. But the question becomes :

- « Is Europe ready to lead ? »

The answer, is obviously : « no ».

The first reason is that too many European countries have not yet grasped the basic secret of leadership. The second reason, is linked to the division among the European countries about war in Iraq.That dream of leadership now looks to be deferred, if not dead.

q B.2) The case for peace.

More threats, more military force, none of this can stop people willing to hurt the U.S.A.

The U.S.A are a society that daily teaches Americans to look out for number one and to see others primarily as instruments to help them achieve their goals and satisfactions. And that insensitivity is institutionalized in the global system whose symbolic headquaters have been the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It never occurs to the U.S that when they manage and shape global trade policies they increase the disparity between the rich and the poor countries.

If the world wants to be effective in a long term struggle against terror, we need a strategy to marginalize the terrorists by making it harder for them to appeal to legitimate anger to the U.S.A. In fact, if the U.S.A want a world of peace and justice, they need to be more just, for instance, in redistributing the wealth of the Planet so that everyone has enough, and on using its economic resources to end world hunger.

For those who fear a conflict, Blair is the only global leader judged to have the trust and standing with President Bush to slow or even redirect Washington's march toward war. But will he ?

* ⁴² Al-Iraq

* ⁴³ Iraq television, September 12^th 2001