End of an era

The shock waves from 9/11, writes Abdel-Moneim Said, seem finally to have played themselves out

---

In late January 2002 I attended the World Economic -- otherwise known as the Davos -- Forum in New York. It was the first and, most probably, the last time it will convene outside Switzerland. The venue was transferred in a show of solidarity with the victims of the 9/11 attacks which had taken place a few months earlier.

The forum convened against the backdrop of a world that had changed beyond recognition. The US had invaded Afghanistan. Guantanamo was hitting the headlines, as well as a spate of terrorist operations around the globe. US President George Bush announced to friends and foes alike that those who "are not with us are against us", promising an open-ended war against terrorists wherever they were. Few doubted that another US war overseas was on the cards, quite possibly against Iraq.

During the conference I met Ibrahim Al-Mehanna, the Saudi scholar whom I had first encountered at the Brookings Institute in Washington in 1987. At the forum we were having a hard time as Arabs, going against the tide and trying to clear the name of both Islam and our countries in the aftermath of 9/11.

Al-Mehanna wanted to see Ground Zero and asked me to accompany him, which I did. We went to the site and stood in a long line. Around us was a mix of tourists, the curious, and people who had travelled a long way in order to pay their last respects. When our turn finally came the officer in charge told us that we should have bought tickets first, at a totally different location. This meant leaving the line and then returning to queue for a couple more hours, time that we could not afford.

Al-Mehanna told the officer that he was Saudi and I was Egyptian, we were here to pray for the souls of the victims and had no idea tickets were needed. He was offering a gesture of reconciliation from the citizens of the two countries that supplied the mastermind, Mohamed Atta, and perpetrators of the attacks. The officer allowed us in, to the place where the Twin Towers once stood. By the side of the debris we recited al-fatiha, the first sura of the Quran, for the souls of the victims.

Even before the 9/11 attacks things were already changing around the world. The Cold War had ended, and with it the Soviet Union. Globalisation loomed, offering the promise of peace, technological progress, and economic development.

Although some cringed at the prospect of a world dominated by the US, others did not flinch. Washington, after all, had been a dominating force well before the Cold War was officially over.

Optimism was in the air as a spate of UN-organised conferences was held at which scholars and statesmen discussed the problems of the planet and its inhabitants. The world seemed interested in debating every aspect of contemporary existence, from issues concerning the environment and population to women and human rights.

Then came 9/11. It sent NATO roaring all the way to Central Asia while Washington, foaming at the mouth, threatened to change regimes across the world. For eight years, we had no respite as globalisation donned a security mantle and a silent blockade, perhaps even an implicit quarantine, was slammed on Arab and Islamic countries. Globalisation was caught between an innate desire to unite humanity and the admission that the conflict of identities, cultures, and ideas made unity unattainable.

Now history has moved full circle, and at an unexpectedly rapid pace. The world had a multi-polar system that lasted for a century and a half, more or less, up until World War II. Then we had half a century of a bi-polar, US-Soviet world, followed by two decades of US preeminence.

A convincing argument can be made that the era of US-domination ended with the mid-term Congressional elections in America. It came to close not only because the neo-cons began losing ground in Congress: that, rather, was a result of the growing public perception that Bush's way of running the world was wrong. Historians will perhaps date the beginning of the new era a little later, coinciding with Obama's election. Whatever point you choose, the important thing is that a new era has begun.

Its characteristics include the policy of openness being pursued by the Obama administration with regard to friends and foes. The "you're either with us or against us" stand of the Bush administration has been consigned to history's dustbin in favour of alternative means of confronting terror and drying up its sources.

Pre-emptive wars are no longer acceptable. The mainstay of US foreign policy and national security in the post-9/11 era has thus been dismantled. The US waged two pre-emptive wars under Bush, against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Guantanamo detention camp is also soon to be a thing of the past. President Obama has denounced torture unequivocally, and will stick to his decision to close down Guantanamo despite criticism from the former US vice-president, Dick Cheney, who claimed that closing Guantanamo would make Americans less safe.

Unilateralism is no longer Washington's preferred way of conducting international business. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has promised to engage other countries in addressing international problems, using what is often termed "smart power". A new recognition of the need for compromise and bargaining is clearly evident in the new administration's foreign policy, most notably in the dispatch of presidential envoys to flashpoints around the globe.

Once again there is an understanding that US security is irrevocably linked to global security. Obama acknowledges that a great many international issues are intertwined and force alone cannot make America safe. The new administration believes in promoting stability around the world, and especially the Middle East. Resolving regional disputes and addressing poverty, unemployment and extremism are at last being viewed as central to US national security.

Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim fanaticism is being discouraged and the notion of a clash of civilisations, which became popular after 9/11, is losing ground.

Major international groups, such as the G20, are emerging as active players on the international scene. As the US opts for cooperation with other major powers in confronting the economic crisis, many now believe that the G20 is becoming more prominent than the more elitist G8.

The state's role in the domestic scene is also undergoing a revival, not least because the world financial crisis, having cast doubt on the future of capitalism, has acted to reinforce the role of the state in regulating market forces.