Issue No. 603
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
12 - 18 September 2002 Issue No. 603 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
One year on
A year after 11 September: How much has the world changed, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
On this, the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the time has come to ask where we are today from the dramatic events of 11 September. How, from a historical perspective, are these events now perceived? Are they seen as a transient development or as representing a basic turning point in the course of history?
What happened on that apocalyptic day placed terrorism in an entirely new light, promoting it from its previous status as a marginal phenomenon to one that could -- and did -- challenge the very foundations of world order. On 11 September terrorism emerged as a counterpart to that order, a force to be reckoned with in the global balance of power. By targeting the World Trade Centre, a symbol of America's economic might, and the Pentagon, a symbol of its military might, it sought to challenge the pillars on which America's supremacy rests. And, if the fourth plane hijacked that day had succeeded in attaining its target, believed to be the White House, the symbol of America's supreme political authority would also have come under challenge.
In the design and execution of its battle plans on that fateful day, international terrorism displayed imagination, daring and proficiency. Its use of commercial airlines as missiles to bring down seemingly impregnable skyscrapers was a shocking innovation, as was its ability to recruit so many who were willing to die in the process. More important than what was actually achieved that day is the fact that we are likely to see similarly imaginative scenarios, as unpredictable as the one which unfolded on 11 September, now that one such scenario has succeeded so devastatingly. Prior to that date, terrorist attacks followed specific, predictable patterns. Last year was the first time an ambitious plan involving four separate operations combined into one was put into motion. Terrorism has proved able to exploit every loophole in the world system to implement its objectives more efficiently.
With America firmly established as the sole remaining superpower in what has apparently become a unipolar world order, some might question the assertion that terrorism is stepping in to fill the void left by the demise of the Soviet Union as a counterpole in what is in reality a bipolar world order. After all, America is a powerful nation, indeed, the most powerful nation in the world, while terrorism is a mode of conflict conducted outside international legality and ethics. How can they be placed on an equal footing when they have nothing in common?
Actually, what they do have in common is power, America in the conventional sense of the word, terrorism in the sense that it is untrammelled by any constraints of legitimacy or accountability. In the past, the two poles of the previous world system displayed a certain symmetry: both were blocs of states, the Eastern bloc versus the Western bloc; each had an ideology opposed to that of the other: communism versus capitalism. Now terrorism does not constitute a bloc of states. True, Bush has spoken about an axis of evil which would include states accused of either supporting or sheltering terrorist networks, but Bin Laden's Al-Qa'eda network, for instance, is not rooted in any given nation, nor subordinate to any given state. It is subject to no specific legal setup and has proved adept at sidelining the law.
We tend to consider the demise of the Soviet Union as the end of the bipolar world order, not merely as the end of one specific version of that order. We also tend to reduce the world to what occurs within the context of the legitimacy of the system, ignoring what can happen outside that legitimacy, which includes the "terrorist pole" -- a pole which, in the final analysis, is evidence that the world is still bipolar, but in a form very different from the bipolarity that prevailed when the Soviet Union still existed.
However, the various forms of bipolarity still have features in common, notably, that one of their two poles is that of world capitalism. But because this latter pole is unable to respond to the aspirations of all classes in society, a counter-pole has emerged which assumes a variety of forms of rebellion against the world capitalist pole. Terrorism is what that counter-pole becomes when rebellion turns violent and challenges international legality.
Opposition to capitalism first assumed the form of theories which attributed themselves to communism, to a variety of schools of socialist thought and to anti-colonial movements of national liberation. But these theories, which at first assumed the form of an optimistic outlook to world development, came up against tremendous difficulties when faced with the problems of implementation, all the more so because one main characteristic of socialism in the 20th century was that it first came to power in underdeveloped countries and, as such, was not equipped to catch up with the developed capitalist societies. As a consequence, the socialist camp collapsed, the Soviet Union disappeared, and despair replaced hope. Terrorism replaced the optimistic theories whose declared objectives were national and social emancipation. It now seems that Carlos and Abu Nidal have been more authentic representatives of that period than Guevara, Castro, Mandela or Arafat. No wonder that Osama Bin Laden acquired the prominence he now enjoys.
In such a context, the events of 11 September were no accident. They were certainly a surprise, but they were more a revelation of reality as it had become rather than the expression of a new, fundamentally different, reality. This raises the important question of whether we are in a transitional phase on the way to a new and fundamentally different stage of historical development, one which is neither bipolar nor unipolar but with features revealing some new form of rationale, or whether we have already reached that stage.
In other words, is there a future for unbridled neo- liberal capitalism? Can it avoid the breakdowns recently witnessed by multinational corporations? Can neo-liberal capitalism be saved by the introduction of corrective measures of a social nature that would alleviate the hardships suffered by the have-nots? After the Earth summit held a week ago in Johannesburg, can the social and economic dimensions alone -- without the ecological -- help solve the planet's problems?
The summit has made it clear that the crisis which threatens humankind is not limited to the phenomenon of terrorism, however critical it can be in poisoning inter-human relations, but extends to humanity's problematic relationship with the environment. President Bush, who heads the most powerful state on earth, sees terrorism as a threat eclipsing all others, a form of gangrene so pernicious that it justifies disregarding basic issues of an ecological nature which threaten the very survival of life on our planet. Problems are thus compounded. Bush who, in his anti-terrorist drive, has no scruples concerning intervention in the internal affairs of states, chose not to attend the Earth summit, thus making it impossible to tackle certain problems that cannot find a solution without the active participation of the most powerful state on earth.
The Middle East is in the eye of the building storm, a concentrated expression of what is happening in the world at large. With the Palestinian problem at an all-time low, the Iraqi problem quickly moving centre stage as Bush gets ready to launch a military strike against Saddam and with environmental problems becoming more acute, especially water shortages, the Middle East has become a microcosm of world disorders in all their variety.
Up until now the Palestinian problem has remained stalled, but there also remained the hope that, ultimately, it will be solved. True, the negotiations that former president Clinton sponsored at Camp David failed, but hope still remained that even if an overall settlement was lacking much headway had been made in most of the conflict's key aspects. Now, for the first time perhaps, there is wide apprehension that the Palestinian problem might not be solved at all. Certainly, if things remain as they are, that is the most likely outcome. Only a couple of decades ago nobody believed the Soviet Union would eventually disappear. The Palestinian problem might disappear just as well. That is what Sharon is after; indeed, he makes no secret of his ambitions in this regard. It is a scenario that Bush, who already does not consider Arafat a valid partner in the negotiation process, does not reject.
But the most critical test of all is the problem of Iraq. Will it be addressed peacefully or militarily? Bush insists on a military "solution' while this is adamantly opposed by most of America's top strategists and political thinkers: Kissinger, Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, James Baker (the first President Bush's secretary of state) to mention only a few. It is also opposed by America's NATO allies and by all the Arab states. Bush is supported only by a group of far right Republicans and by Israel's far right Sharon. Will wisdom prevail or is the Middle East doomed to suffer from still greater upheavals?
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
