24 - 30 January 2002
Issue No.570
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 24 - 30 January 2002 Issue No.570 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Who is to blame?
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the former US president's appraisal of the post-11 September world
Before his visit to Egypt and the Middle East last week, former US President Bill Clinton delivered a lecture in California (published as an article), where he spoke of the need to give the 21st century a "soul." He said the crucial issue facing the new century is ensuring that the interdependence which is fast becoming one of its most salient traits brings good, not evil, to humanity. Clinton proceeds from the assumption that interdependence among the various component elements of humanity is today the most important attribute of international relations. It seems to me that his assumption contradicts the assertion that terrorism, i.e. resorting to violence to settle disputes, is the most marked trait of the times.
Calling terrorism the "dark side" of globalisation, Clinton said that our view of what the future holds in store changed radically with the events of 11 September, which forced us to rethink the strategic imperatives of global security. Does this imply that terrorism, which is incompatible with interdependence and which has occupied centre stage since 11 September, is only an accidental phenomenon, or was the pre-11 September understanding of the world so defective that it ignored constituent elements of the picture that caught everybody by surprise and, indeed, changed the course of history?
Clinton enumerated a number of characteristics, both positive and negative, which marked the pre-11 September world. On the positive side, he cites developments in the global economy which have alleviated poverty worldwide to an extent never witnessed before; formidable progress in technology, particularly in information technology, which has boosted productivity and, consequently, growth; the revolution in science, particularly in biology, with the deciphering of the human genome, a discovery no less important than those of Newton and Einstein; accomplishments in the field of health, which promise to extend life expectancy to 90, and in the field of micro- and nano- technology which, by enabling scientists to diagnose tumours when they are no more than a few cells, greatly enhance the struggle against cancer.
At the same time, he admitted that the world was facing huge problems in many areas. The ecological system that has sustained life on earth for millions of years is under threat. The oceans on which we depend for most of our oxygen are in a perilous situation, scarcity of potable water is reaching critical thresholds and, if global warming continues at its present rate, whole islands will disappear within the next half century, causing massive migrations and hence much turbulence and violence.
As to the global economy, it has created more problems than it has solved, with half the people on Earth living on less than $2 a day and a billion people on less than $1, one sixth of humanity going to bed hungry and fully one quarter of the world's population with no access to clean drinking water. The figures are expected to become even more horrifying when the world's population increases by 50 per cent in the next half century, especially that most of the increase will be among the poorer countries.
In the field of health, contagious diseases have increased enormously despite the gigantic efforts to overcome them. AIDS has already claimed 22 million victims, with another 36 million HIV-positive. Two- thirds of its victims are from sub-Saharan Africa. The greate st reported increase in AIDS cases is in the former Soviet Union, which represents a threat to the whole of Europe, and in the Caribbean, which represents a threat to the entire Western hemisphere. The third most dangerously ravaged area is India, while China has recently admitted that the number of AIDS cases is increasing at twice the rate it formerly believed.
If no cure is discovered, this modern scourge is expected to kill another 10 million people within the next five years. Nor is it the only health threat we are facing: one person out of four dies every year from contagious diseases, especially gastrointestinal diseases that affect children who have only polluted water to drink. Not since the bubonic plague decimated the population of Europe in the 14th century has humanity faced such a threat from disease.
According to Clinton, the stage which began with the events of 11 September will not be overcome as long as the poor nations allow themselves to be led by people who, like Osama Bin Laden, find their redemption in the destruction of the advanced world. Nor will it be overcome if the advanced world is led by short-sighted egotists who delude themselves into thinking that they can continue indefinitely to claim for themselves what they deny to others. Both sides will have to change.
But the important question here is which of the two groups of nations should be required to change first. Is it easier for the rich nations to give up their egotism, which stands as the main impediment in the way of change, or for the poor nations to give up their hatred of the rich and powerful, which breeds people like Bin Laden? The hatred the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington harboured for the developed world proved stronger than their instinct for self-preservation, and there is no guarantee that if this hatred is allowed to feed on real or imagined grievances we cannot exclude suicide attacks of a similar or even greater magnitude in future. This extremely dangerous development in world affairs symbolises the very opposite of interdependence.
In confronting terrorism, attention is now concentrated on repressive measures aimed at capturing terrorists and exterminating them. But what is required is not only to eliminate terrorists as individuals, but also to eradicate terrorism as a social phenomenon. This will remain an unattainable objective as long as the reasons that drive people to commit terrorist acts are not removed. In other words, the elimination of terrorism is organically linked to reforming the world system that generates it. Thus coercion alone is not enough; whatever the sacrifices required, constructive measures in rebuilding world order are also necessary.
Moreover, the war on terror has involved violations of democratic principles and human rights, most recently in the case of the inhumane treatment to which the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were subjected. It is a typical case of victims adopting the tactics of their victimisers. Terrorism is by nature a secretive activity which hatches its conspiracies in the dark. Secret terrorist acts lead to secret counter-terrorist acts. How can democracy thrive in such an environment?
The positive accomplishments enumerated by Clinton when talking of the pre-11 September world did not succeed in bridging the gap between rich and poor, the haves and have-nots, but contributed rather to the opposite. The crises in the economy, the environment and health, particularly the AIDS epidemic, furthermore, have impacted more strongly on the poor than on the rich. How can both be regarded as equally responsible for restoring to the world its soul, how can rich and poor, privileged and marginalised, be expected to assume an equal share of the burden to promote international security by easing the world's disparities in wealth, technology and health care?
Clinton believes "we cannot have a system of global markets without a global economic policy, a global policy for health, for education, for the environment, for security." But globalisation does not satisfy the requirements of the different sectors of the world community evenly; otherwise, why not call for the total removal of borders and barriers between states, and their renunciation of their sovereign prerogatives? Whatever the attraction of open-door policies, nobody would take them that far.
Clinton was the president of the most powerful state on earth. For interdependence not to be devoted to strengthening the strong further at the expense of the weak, for globalisation not to be biased in favour of the strong of this world, each step taken to dismantle terrorist networks must be met by concrete measures aimed at reducing the pressures that drive the dispossessed towards terrorism. This is the only way to restore to the new century its soul.
In his lecture, delivered at the University of Judaism, Clinton stressed the need to improve the lot of the weak to overcome the deadlock: "If you really want the world you want for your kids, the United States has to be involved in a world where we share the benefits and reduce the burdens." Apparently his views do not extend to the Palestinian-Israeli deadlock. The former president placed the blame for the failure of Camp David entirely on Arafat's shoulders. According to Clinton, Israel had accepted his plan for a solution of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict at Camp David, while the PLO rejected it. In this logic, if the situation has critically deteriorated since, the Palestinian leader is to blame.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page