 |
|
| Kathmandu, Wednesday September 10, 2003 Bhadra 24, 2060. |
|
September 11: Two years later
M R JOSSE
Tomorrow will mark the second anniversary of
9/11 – code for the most lethal terrorist attack that the world has ever known.
That occurred on September 11, 2001. First, two
hijacked airliners were crashed by Al Qaeda terrorists into the World Trade Center in New
York City. A third airliner was rammed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.
A fourth, possibly bound for another high
profile target in the American capital, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania,
apparently after passengers attempted to overpower the hijackers.
That’s the bare-bones chronology. But, what
has happened since then? The short answer is plenty, as this column will attempt to
demonstrate.
First, as Professor Robert J Lieber makes out,
"September 11 marked the start of a new era in American strategic thinking." In
his view, it had an impact comparable to the Pearl Harbour attack on December 7, 1941 that
propelled the United States into World War II.
It resulted, among other things, in the
enunciation of the "Bush Doctrine" focussing on the global threat to America
from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Another well-known by-product is the United
States’ adoption of the doctrine of "pre-emptive" or even
"preventive" war and the related concepts of "regime change" and
nation or state building, the visible manifestations of which are now on public display
both in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
At another level, as Lieber rightly argued last
year, "the post-Cold War era, which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union
almost 12 years ago, ended abruptly on the sunny, clear morning of September 11,
2001."
Even more significantly, "in an instant,
coordinated terrorist attacks transformed the international security environment and
dictated a new ‘grand strategy’ for the United States."
Public attention to the new era in US strategic
thinking naturally came in tandem with a new, urgent focus on the economic cost of
terrorism.
Yet, Brian S Wesbury, a prominent economist of a
Chicago-based investment firm, stated in an article on the first anniversary of 9/11, the
Al Qaeda assault on the institutions of capitalist democracy has failed. In his opinion,
US institutions and its economy have largely recovered from the attacks.
(To that, of course, must now be computed the
yet-to-be-determined but spiraling cost of the US-led war in Iraq that is far from over,
despite it officially being considered as concluded.)
Wesbury maintains that while the US economy was
scraped and bruised on that terrible day, even a year later the US economy had proven to
be highly resilient, despite an estimated "$ 120 billion of damage and a great deal
of anxiety."
On another but related level, 9/11 has led to
the US re-energising itself to reducing poverty and deprivation in the rest of the world.
That is premised on the belief that poverty provides a breeding ground for disease and
deprivation, and potentially for crime, corruption, and terrorism.
(At this juncture, it may be noted that in
Nepal, too, we have seen two very visible manifestations of 9/11’s impact. One is the
readiness of the United States to provide security assistance in combating the Maoist
insurgency. The other is reflected in increased US economic assistance to the government
in tackling that insurgency’s socio-economic roots.)
CRITICAL BALANCE
Yet another important area of public policy
where 9/11 has had a huge effect is in maintaining what Professor Mark Blitz termed as
"the critical balance" between "individual rights and national security in
uncertain times".
As Blitz has reminded us, "among the many
effects of the terrorist attacks" of 9/11 has been a vigorous debate about certain
civil liberties.
Not unnaturally, the US government’s
efforts to prevent another round of terrorist attacks in the American homeland have raised
"a welter of complex constitutional issues that are being decided by US courts and
debated by legal scholars."
Two years down the road, those issues are still
being debated and discussed in America. In the meantime, a great deal of high decibel
criticism has been heard from Muslims and Arabs, in particular, about how they are being
unfairly discriminated against in/by what is supposed to be the world’s greatest
democracy.
(Incidentally, one might now mull over the fact
that we in Nepal, too, are in the process of determining our own "critical
balance" between the need to provide public security for all without overturning
basic democratic rights of peaceful dissent and protest.)
AN AMERICAN IMPERIUM?
Mention has already been made of Afghanistan and
Iraq as by-products of 9/11. However, some see in them evidence of a new American
imperium. That, as the Economist has cogently argued in a recent issue on "America
and empire", is not however borne out by facts on the ground.
Admitting that America is now going through an
imperial phase, the British magazine argues that this one has more in common with its
earlier imperial phases, all of which were transient, than with "the imperial eras of
Britain, Byzantium or Rome."
Admitting that America has changed since
September 11, the Economist says that although the new mood allows for "more
assertiveness, less patience with allies, a greater readiness to go it alone", it
stoutly maintains "there is no appetite to spend a lifetime in a sweaty country in
the service of a noble cause."
It continues: "The memories of Vietnam,
where every effort to withdraw or hand over to the locals seemed to lead to further
entanglement, have not departed."
Yes, stung by events of September 11, America is
"no longer shy of spilling blood, even its own." Yet, it is unlikely to continue
its occupation for long in Iraq because "imperialism and democracy are at odds with
each other."
Indeed, the pain of an open-ended occupation of
Iraq "will not only be just a matter of budget deficits and body bags; it will also
be a blow to the very heart of what makes them American – their constitutional belief
in freedom.
"Freedom is in their blood; it is integral
to their sense of themselves. It binds them together as nothing else does, neither
ethnicity, nor religion, nor language. And it is rooted in hostility to imperialism –
the imperial rule of George III. Americans know that empires lack democratic
legitimacy."
Another perceptive insight into the impact of
9/11 two years after the event has been provided by columnist Swaminathan S Anklesaria
Aiyer of the Times of India.
He argues that Indians have simply not
understood the implications of 9/11 on America, "despite constant repetition that
9/11 has changed America so radically that all the old yardsticks no longer apply."
He then implores: "Forget the retreat from
Somalia or Lebanon, when the US public did not think, even remotely, that they were at
war. Even during Vietnam, the US mainland was never attacked. But the Americans regard
9/11 in the same light as Pearl Harbour: they truly believe that they have been forced
into war.
"It is a new kind of war where Americans
are not sure who or where exactly the enemy is, but they are determined to do all it takes
to destroy the shadowy foe."
Now ponder over such thoughts on the second
anniversary of 9/11!
Other Stories
|
