Search:

America's conduct of war on terror has gone awry

[ Posted On: 2006-09-10 ]

One school of thought, the one led by President George W. Bush, would have us believe that the world fundamentally changed after the September 11 attacks on the United States five years ago. Inexplicably, these ideologues are determined to force all of us to see the universe through the lens of Islamic fundamentalism, the incubator of Osama-style terrorism. Unfortunately, this is a worldview that is not only intrinsically wrong, but also harmful and dangerous to America and the world.

No one can deny that the danger of terrorism is real, as Kenyans have known since the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Nairobi. But it is unalterably wrong-headed to construct a country’s foreign policy on the threat of terror. That is precisely what President Bush and the Republican Party have done since 2001.

To hear Mr Bush and his aides tell it, you’d think that there are no other problems in the world. He repeats, times without number, that America is a nation at war with Islamic terror.

But equally alarming has been the manipulation of the bogeyman of terror by the Bush Administration to concentrate power in the hands of the executive, carry out illegal surveillance and wire-tapping operations within the borders of the United States, and disregard the principle of separation of powers. In the latter, the Bush Administration has defied Congress, made a mockery of the judiciary, and unconscionably flouted international law.

CIA has secret prisons

Now, Mr Bush has admitted that the CIA has secret prisons in other countries. These are not the actions one would naturally associate with the self-proclaimed champion of democracy and human rights in the world.

But it is Mr Bush’s war on terror that I find most unfathomable. While most legal experts and analysts believe that the United States was justified in going after Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, an equal number are emphatic that the conduct of the war on terror has gone awry. The problem is twofold. At home, Mr Bush redbaits terror to maintain the Republican stranglehold on power. Internationally, he has used terror as a pretext to go after regimes that are either ideologically anti-West, or actively oppose Western interests, even if they have nothing to do with terror.

Consider, for example, the notion of pariah states or the concept of the Axis of Evil. I doubt that most countries in the world regard Syria, Iran, or North Korea as the devil incarnate. Granted, these regimes are illiberal dictatorships. But so are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, China, and Libya. Egypt is the second largest recipient of American aid while Saudi Arabia, the largest Opec oil producer, is America’s darling. The US recently re-established diplomatic relations with Vietnam and Libya. And China is one of America’s largest trading partners.

What’s more, the United States is prepared to get off North Korea’s back if it agrees to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme. But consider this nugget. Although Pakistan is a dictatorship ruled by a military general – and possesses nuclear weapons – it is an ally of the United States. Pakistan is not just an ally on the war on terror. It is an ally, period. For long, it has been the American check on India. It is an open secret that India, the world’s largest democracy, has not been very happy with American hegemony and predestination.

Incidentally, many of the leaders and foot soldiers for Al Qaeda seem to be drawn from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan – three of the staunchest American allies in the Arab world. Anti-American sentiment in those countries is among the most virulent on earth. Perhaps the US would be better advised to find out why. Could it be a reaction to American support for these corrupt, decrepit and brutal undemocratic regimes? In other words, is American foreign policy towards these countries the cause of anti-Americanism there?

Recently, Mr Bush has been saying that the struggle against terror is a war against Islamofascism and Muslim fundamentalism. But many in the Muslim world wonder what Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had to do with the September 11 attacks or Islamism. As is well known, the Baath Party was a secular organisation devoted exclusively to the brutal maintenance and preservation of political power under Mr Hussein’s regime. Mr Hussein pitilessly hunted down and killed Islamists long before Mr Bush had heard of the term. Mr Bush is only belatedly doing what Mr Hussein routinely did.

Nor should one forget that Mr Hussein was a darling of the US, even as he gassed the Kurds and wantonly massacred Shiites. Mr Hussein was a useful ally as long as Ayatollah’s Iran remained anti-West. It was only after he threatened to acquire nuclear weapons and took Kuwait – another oil-rich American ally – that he crossed the line.

His eventual ouster in the 2003 American invasion and occupation had nothing to do with democracy, nuclear weapons, or human rights. He was a mercurial, dangerous, and weakened anti-Western leader sitting on vast reserves of oil, to which America is addicted. He had to go.

American support for brutal pro-Western Arab and Muslim regimes, its unconditional support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the continued occupation by Israel of Palestine and other Arab lands captured in the Israeli-Arab wars fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

America’s support for Israel in its recent war with Hizbollah, in which Lebanon - an emerging Arab democracy - was pulverised by Israel using American bombs, can only further inflame Muslims. Most analysts concur that such policies can only swell the ranks of the terrorists, which is precisely what the American occupation of Iraq has done.

The most important lesson is not that America is anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. That may be so, but it is beside the point. The US is an empire and, as such, it is a hegemonic power. It is the world’s sole superpower - an imperial nation.

In history, imperial states conquer by force those whom they fail to persuade. This is particularly the case if the target states have a strategic, economic, or other vital significance. Unfortunately for the Arabs, their region is of strategic and economic interest to the US. That is why America will use anything - including the pretext of the war on terror - to control their countries.

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

Author: Makau Mutua is Professor of Law at the State University of New York and Chair of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.

| View Profile & All Articles By: Prof. Makau Mutua |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive The Americas Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | Politics | The Americas

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Netscape
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles