Whereto from Istanbul?

Bush's Whitehall Palace speech was multi-dimensional: partly agreeing with Charles Krauthammer's 'new unilateralism' school of thought i.e. due to unequalled preeminence the US does not have to be constrained by others; and partly subscribing to Joseph Nye's American Paradox i.e. despite unequalled and unchallengeable American superiority global problems like terrorism, environmental degradation and proliferation of WMD cannot be resolved without the cooperation of other nations. Despite persistent rumours that hawks around President Bush (e.g. Condoleezza Rice) are loosing ground to doves (e.g. Colin Powell), rumours strengthened by a leaked classified report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which blamed hurried and inadequate planning for the Iraq crisis with too great focus on invasion and not enough on organising peace, Bush did not appear to have moved away at all from his widely controversial Doctrine of Preemption. He told his Whitehall Palace audience that global peace and security was inextricably linked with the willingness of free nations to use force to meet 'aggression and evil' and 'that duty sometimes requires violent restraint of violent men' (and) measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force'.

But US response in both Afghanistan and Iraq was disproportionately harsh considering (a) a quarter million people were killed in the first Gulf War (according to Vietnam veterans against war); (b) Iraq war not only violated UN Charter but also provisions of international law which as ratified treaties are part of 'the Supreme Law of the Land' according to article VI of the US Constitution; (c) even before US bombing began in October 2001 Iraq was already 'a country reduced to pre-industrial age for a considerable period of time' (according to UN Special Rapporteur and former Finnish President Maarti Ahtaasari); and, (d) Iraq was already the home of the world's most traumatised children below twelve years of age since Operation Desert Storm. Perhaps the most comforting part of the speech was his commitment to the global expansion of democracy which by implication was reiteration of Clintonian premise of 'democratic peace' (democracies do not go to war with other 'freedom deficit' in different parts of the world to serve short term political and strategic interests; forsake 'decades of failed policies in the Middle East'; and, 'no longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient' and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever found'. He called upon the West to change their thinking that 'Islam is somewhat inconsistent with democratic culture'.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

President Bush's reference to the use of force as a last resort reminds one of the last of the six commandments of the Weinberger's Doctrine expounded by the then Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger in November 1984. It is not to say that Bush National Security Strategy has been amended by inclusion of clauses contained in the Weinberger Doctrine. Bush NSS has ignored one of the principal clauses which warn that US troops should not be committed to battle without a 'reasonable assurance of support of US public opinion and Congress'. Former Secretary of State George Schultz once said 'A great power must bear responsibility for its inactions as well as the consequences of its actions'. In an article in Foreign Policy (Sept/Oct 2003) Madeline Albright has dispelled the notion that the US has relied solely 'on a reactive posture' in the past. She added that in the name of self-defence, US administrations of both parties initiated actions that had violated sovereignty of other nations. According to her, Bush administration's preemption doctrine will prove a departure from past practices only if it is implemented in a manner that is aggressive, indifferent to precedents, and careless of information used to justify military actions. Uncalibrated actions, she fears, will raise troubling questions about whether the US is placing itself above the law or tacitly acknowledges the right of every nation to act militarily against threats that are merely potential or suspected.

That most of the world still remains skeptical of Bush-Blair pursuit of war on terrorism through Iraq invasion is to state the obvious. Indeed British Labour MP Tam Dalyell (The Sunday Herald Scotland16.11.02) expressed his opinion that neo-conservative think-tank Project for New American Century(PNAC) peopled by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc had articulated their plans to attack Iraq to achieve 'regime change' long before nine-eleven and that he (Tam Dalyell) was 'appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should get into bed with a crew which has this (Vietnam war draft dodger Cheney and men who have never experienced the horrors of war) moral standing'.

While no one in his/her right mind would support the barbarism perpetrated by Al-Qaida on innocent civilians, the efficacy of Bush-Blair strategy of fighting this scourge is now being increasingly questioned. Despite waging war on terror for more than two years, writes The Scotsman(Nov 22nd), the US and British governments have clearly not been able to penetrate the higher reaches of Al-Qaida with informers or agents making it difficult to gain positive intelligence on Al-Qaida strategy or targets. Some Western analysts believe that Osama bin Laden by striking at 'soft targets' is trying to create an image of invincibility and consequently increased support from amongst the vulnerable, and by constantly adapting to new targets, tactics and weapons Al-Qaida is stretching Western security forces and keeping them off balance. It is feared that if the strike in Istanbul is a warning to a pro-western Muslim nation then in the Middle East Al-Qaida is likely to strike at more targets undermining pro-US regimes. On the other hand General Peter Pace, Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a recent visit to Afghanistan is reported to have said that Osama bin Laden has 'taken himself out of the picture' and his capture was not essential for the war on terrorism. But the new US ambassador to Kabul Zalmay Khalidzad had earlier spoke of redoubling US efforts to capture Osama and other leading Al-Qaida figures. Despite this apparent contradiction US forces are claiming success in Afghanistan while independent observers assess that Hamid Karzai controls Kabul, if at all, and is dependent on US soldiers for his physical security.

One may, therefore, assume that though 'regime changes' have been effected both in Afghanistan and Iraq, peace has not returned to either country. While Afghanistan has gone back to its tribal ways, Iraq is witnessing daily Anglo-US-Italian casualties. Perhaps an explanation can partly be found in eminent philosopher Karl Popper's thesis given in The Open Society and its Enemies. Popper argued that in liberal societies there are always remnants of tribalism from which they come and that the shock of transition to modern society frequently prompt reactionary movements to attempt to return to their origin. Modernity and tribalism thus enter into conflict. Such a conflictual situation can easily be visualised for Iraq which was not only not fully adorned with all aspects of modernity but since the first Gulf War was already in pre-industrial stage. Therefore attempts to modernise a basically tribal-conservative society following western model that too by an occupation power is bound to be resisted by the people who see their traditional way of life being irreversibly changed through introduction of unfamiliar institutions and invasion of a trans-national culture and ideology with great appeal particularly to the youth.

This power to transform a society through co-option, called 'soft power' by Joseph Nye, reflect the ability to project the powers to shape what others want in the form of attractive culture and ideology. The 'soft power' is different from 'hard power' which rests on inducement or threat expressed generally in the form of military or economic power. Those who refuse 'soft power' of the west explain to their followers that adoption of alien life style would mean for them the abuse and exploitation they believe globalisation represents and also would be impious. Such interpretation of soft power which is cooptive as opposed to coercive hard power often find grotesque expression through terrorism as most recently seen in Istanbul.

Despite American display of muscularity in Indo-China and other places during the Cold War period it is generally accepted that what separates the US from all previous major powers is that it is least territorial and most idealistic of them all. Americans barring the neo-cons are often embarrassed by the use of power which is contrary to the character of the Greek, Roman, British, French and Soviet colonialists. Only the recent advent of President Bush who is surrounded by PNAC members has marred the traditional image of the Americans as global benefactor. Though David Held (of London School of Economics) found the intensity of the range of responses to the terrorism of nine-eleven as 'fully understandable' and the desire for vengeance 'perfectly natural within the context of the immediate events', yet, says Luis Rubin (of the Mexican Centre for Research for Development), the punishment should not be at the expense of the values that are the mainstay of the West such as liberty, rule of law and democracy. Such an approach would not only be moral but also be essentially practical. The best way to nurture hatred and nihilism that Al-Qaida expounds is by responding with more hatred through unjustified destruction, violation of human dignity and abandonment of the rule of law.

Leading authorities on international terrorism have already advised that the US should move beyond the concept of deterrence and towards influence as an appropriate complement to military action. As terrorists are not simply single entities but often is a system enveloping diverse elements, some of them may be amenable to inducement. Besides, as Al-Qaida does no longer have any well defined 'centre of gravity', campaign against terrorism has to be sustained one and fought on many fronts and to be persuasive it should be morally high minded and reflect core civilised values. The Istanbul incident has brought to the fore the latent European debate about permitting entry into EU of an Islamic country with a large population (with substantial voting rights). Yet the European media has almost uniformly come to the support of Turkey and has opined that it would be inadvisable to deny entry of a country which could act as a window of the Muslim world for the West. Despite such counsel should Turkish entry be denied on the pretext of the Cyprus issue then more and more people may start to believe in Samuel Huntington's famous thesis on the Clash of Civilisations in which he posits that the principal conflicts in global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilisations and the fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines for the future. It is therefore necessary to impress upon the arbiters of global fate , in the words of The Economist, 'why an unrivalled military and economic power still needs allies and partners, and why as world leader, America should rely also on soft, persuasive kind of power: the appeal of its values and culture'.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.