ABOUT
INTERACTIVE MAP:
Global
hotspots
RELATED READING:
“The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order” by Samuel P. Huntington. Simon and Schuster. A frightening
analysis that says ideology-based relationships between countries are
being replaced by a clash of civilizations based more on ethnicity and
religion.
“Globalization and Its Discontents”
by Joseph E. Stiglitz. W.W. Norton.
“Why We Fight” by William J. Bennett.
Doubleday.
"Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a
Pagan Ethos," by Robert D. Kaplan. Published by Random House. Completed
just a month before Sept. 11. Kaplan discusses how the United States should
cope with threats in frontier-like countries that could pose a threat
to the developed world.
Tell us if you found this report
useful
New threats
test U.S. and its leaders
WASHINGTON — The Cold War defined how countries
dealt with one another for 50 years, and while the nuclear stakes in the
standoff between Washington and Moscow were frightening, the threat was
plain and the lines clear.
Now there is no front line, no rival superpower. The United States is
dealing instead with the elusive menace of terrorism, the risks from rogue
states, the threat of biological and chemical weaponry, and the reality
of Sept. 11, when box cutters helped deliver a deadlier blow to the United
States than enemy nuclear missiles ever did.
In a more complex world, the challenges to America have fragmented and
multiplied.
“Now it has become much more complicated with many, many players,”
said Hans-Dieter Lucas, the press attache for the German Embassy in Washington.
"You have states; you have terrorists not linked to nation-states.
For that reason, we need a multitude of instruments to cope with these
new problems."
The threats are multiple: Pockets of extremist-inspired terror throughout
much of the Muslim world have shown global reach. Terrorists or unstable
states might obtain weapons of mass destruction. Long-brewing conflicts
in places such as the Middle East and Kashmir could engulf entire regions
and conceivably erupt into nuclear war.
President Bush maintains that Sept. 11 spelled out those threats clearly
and helped dictate the course the world must take and the role the United
States must assume as the sole superpower.
Bush speaks with passion of a cooperative world order that would quell
deadly threats, use common values to bridge gaps between huge powers with
rival goals and give the poorest countries the tools they need to work
their way to prosperity and individual freedom.
What does the world want from the United States? To live up to and deliver
on those ideals.
In many parts of the world, Bush's words aren't taken at face value but
are believed to mask the true motive of greater U.S. military, political
and economic dominance.
Bush’s decisions in coming months on a broad range of foreign policy
issues could have much to do with whether the world continues to hold
such suspicions or begins to see America as it wishes to be seen, as a
benevolent superpower rather than an imperial one.
Return to top of page |
Return to contents
Bush's plan
Bush’s policy has three pillars:
— Making America and the world safe. "That
means leading the great coalition in the war on terrorism and making the
case that we cannot wait while dangers gather with weapons of mass destruction,"
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told Gannett News Service,
adding that the president said "we are not going to wait to be hit."
With that policy, pre-emptive action replaces the Cold War strategy of
isolating threats and keeping them in check through deterrence.
— Improving global ties. The United States was
the sole superpower at the end of the 20th century, but other large and
powerful states were pursuing their own interests. Bush sees a historic
opportunity to extend stability and peace by enhancing ties with giants
such as China, Russia and India. Bush and Russian leader Vladimir Putin
have forged a close relationship that has led to an agreement to reduce
the size of each nation’s nuclear arsenal and to cooperate in a
number of other areas, including protection of nuclear materials, the
war on terrorism and the easing of tensions in the Middle East.
— Easing global poverty. The Bush administration
initially showed little interest in foreign aid or other efforts to shore
up underdeveloped countries. But with the war on terrorism, he has made
U.S. compassion and efforts to spread prosperity, human rights and democracy
a crucial part of his strategy. “A lot of times people talk about
the tough talk. But you've got to understand we also have got a soft heart
when it comes to the human condition. Each individual matters to me,”
Bush said in Moscow in May. Bush sees an important link between poverty
and unstable states where terrorism or other threats can take root.
Return to top of page |
Return to contents
Credibility gap
Many abroad and some in the United States see a gap between Bush's visions
of hope, freedom and prosperity and the actual conduct of policy.
Bush speaks of trade as a catalyst for economic growth, but he has embraced
protectionist measures such as restrictions on steel and textile imports
and subsidies for agricultural products. Those measures threaten a trade
war with strong allies like Europe and Japan and hurt Third World countries
that are struggling to develop markets.
Bush’s promise to rebuild Afghanistan is seen as a prime example.
Bush recently called for a Marshall Plan there to rival the effort to
rebuild Europe after World War II, but he has been accused of not providing
enough help to rebuild the country. He has resisted the idea of a long-term
U.S. peacekeeping force, but U.S. troops likely will remain there at least
a year to root out al-Qaida and Taliban remnants and to secure parts of
the country.
Ivo Daalder, once a member of President Clinton's national security team,
said Bush’s words "were exactly right" but the promised
cash and other support were so small that the words "have no resonance
in any of the policies we are pursuing."
The president's commitment to expanding democracy and human rights also
is being questioned.
Amnesty International issued a report saying many countries were using
anti-terrorism fervor to crack down on dissent and domestic problems,
often with financial help from the United States.
“America should do more to promote the values that make America
good: democracy, human rights, rights of women, press freedoms,”
said Najam Sethi, co-founder of two leading newspapers in Lahore, Pakistan.
Sethi said he fears the administration will not push Pervez Musharraf,
who took control of Pakistan through a coup, toward reforms out of fear
of destabilizing a key ally in the war on terrorism. “That’s
very shortsighted,” he said.
Nowhere in the world, however, has U.S. policy alienated or angered others
more than in the Middle East.
Arab supporters of the Palestinians accuse the United States of one-sided
support for Israel. The criticism exists even though Bush has embraced
the idea of an independent Palestinian state, albeit along with the demand
that Palestinians oust Yasser Arafat as their leader because of his presumed
links to terrorism.
Mustafa Mahmoud, founder of a mosque in Cairo, said that while Bush is
offering words, "what we are seeing are terror and aggression and
killing” by Israel.
Ahmed Adel Nor El-Din, an aide to Mahmoud, echoed a common sentiment in
the Arab world: “What makes people very angry with America is the
events of September 11 were very sad. The first reaction was horror …
but then it became abused” as Israelis took control of Palestinian
territory.
Cowboy policy?
Close allies, especially those in the European Union, became wary after
Bush backed out of accords on global warming, anti-missile systems and
an international war crimes court.
But Bush managed to ease many of those concerns with his May swing through
Europe, where many had expected jawboning about the need to go after Saddam
Hussein despite European and Arab reluctance to wage war on Iraq.
“There was some apprehension before the Bush trip,” German
diplomat Lucas said. “His speech in Berlin was taken very positively
by the public and Parliament. He set the right tone, said the right things:
Europe is a not a rival but a partner and that the Americans would consult
the Europeans at every stage.”
But some of that progress was eroded in June and July when Bush headed
off on his own on two sensitive areas: his call for new Palestinian leadership
and his threat to pull U.S. troops out of the U.N. peacekeeping mission
in Bosnia unless they are exempted from the jurisdiction of the new international
court.
Efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East and to resolve the court dispute
are now stalled.
“It’s simply hard,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del. “Even if the president did every single
thing right, because the rest of the world is trying to figure out who
they are and what their place is, we are going to get a lot of heat.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a leading Republican voice on the committee,
sees the need for “a wider lens” in foreign policy —
a more global and forward-looking approach instead of the crisis reaction.
“Our interests are wider and deeper than they ever have been and,
therefore, it is more difficult to cogently define foreign policy, where
in the past we could maybe isolate it to a couple of fronts. Does anybody
doubt how important Latin America is? Southeast Asia? Africa?” Hagel
asked in pointing to the multiple concerns facing the United States.
Hagel is especially concerned that Bush may be angering much of the Islamic
world with needlessly tough rhetoric, but Bush and the administration
are not apologetic.
Rice said Bush “is a plain-speaking, clear-speaking president.”
“We don’t call people evil because we have policy disagreements
with them,” she said. “When we see it, you have to call it
what it is.”
Contributing: Greg Barrett of GNS reported
from Cairo.
INTERACTIVE MAP:
World hotspots
Return to top of page | Return
to contents
©2002, Gannett News Service
President Bush has outlined
a three-pillared plan to
promote the United States
as a benevolent superpower rather than an imperial one.
(Ricky Flores, The
Westchester, N.Y.
Journal News photo)
“What we are seeing are terror and aggression
and
killing” by Israel.”
Mustafa Mahmoud,
founder of popular
Cairo mosque
“Even if the president did every single thing
right, because the
rest of the world is trying to figure out
who they are and
what their place is,
we are going to get
a lot of heat.”
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman
Joe Biden, D-Del.
“Our interests are
wider and deeper
than they ever have been and, therefore,
it is more difficult to cogently define
foreign policy...”
Sen. Chuck Hagel
R- Neb.
