EDITORIAL Worlds lone superpower bumps into itself
In the final analysis, our response
to the awful events of last Sept. 11 is as much about the United States -- who
we are, how we view ourselves in the world, what we want from the world -- as
it is about terrorists and the tortured country of Afghanistan.
A kind of unsettling undercurrent exists in which we recognize
that after a year in which the United States sent Al Qaeda scrambling and freed
the people of Afghanistan from the Taliban there yet seems so little to cheer
about. Perhaps that feeling persists because conducting the war was the easy
part.
We knew our role. We knew our lines. Generals would come onto
prime time briefings and declare: We have gained air superiority over
Afghanistan.
One would hope. The outcome would seem predictable when the
worlds most intimidating power with the latest technology takes on a
primitive force without airplanes and with antiquated weapons.
But what now?
The answer seems to be: More war. We are being primed for an
open-ended, ill-defined campaign against whatever we declare to be evil.
What has proved a rallying point for Americans and the world,
however, is beginning to wear thin. My administration has a focus,
Mr. Bush declared as he initiated the war on terrorism. The focus, however, has
become unacceptably narrow and devoid of the kind of ideas that can continue to
convince people of the rightness of the campaign. Our allies are distancing
themselves, old coalition members are wary. No one likes a unilateralist who
abrogates treaties and makes rules on the run, demanding that everyone comply
or be viewed as against us.
Certainly the language -- of rights and freedoms and the echoes of
our founding documents -- has been part of the pitch, but it is not succeeding
in convincing the rest of the world.
New York Times columnist and Middle East expert Thomas L.
Friedman recently argued that what was missing from the Bush
administrations conversation about Iraq policy was not only a certain
gravity (he was referring to Bushs pronouncement from a golf course in
Texas) in the presentation, but also a lack of political content -- in
particular how we talk about democracy.
Many Arabs are wondering: Why is America pursuing democracy
only in Iraq? Friedman wrote. Maybe its because America
really doesnt care about democracy in the Arab world, but is just
pursuing some naked interests in Iraq and using democracy as its cover.
Ditto in the West Bank. The Bush team is pushing democracy
on Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, but it will not utter a word
against an Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank that helps poison the
atmosphere there, empowering Palestinian radicals and weakening the
liberals.
The central point Friedman makes is that Bush policy today appears
to use democracy as a punishment for authoritarian regimes opposing America as
it maintains silence about friendly anti-democratic regimes, a sure-fire
formula for giving democracy a bad name.
The contradictions in talking about and applying democracy tests
are but the tip of the inconsistency iceberg in the Middle East. For if we
intend ever to match the force of ideas and arguments with our force of
armaments, we immediately run into ourselves as our most formidable
obstacle.
Our history in the region -- from CIA-generated coups to
manipulation of politics and wars to serve our purposes -- may not be the stuff
of everyday conversation for Americans, but those facts of history underlie the
assumptions of the people of that region.
They know our inconsistencies, even if we dont, and they
also know that we would hardly care what kind of regimes were in place if our
overriding interest in access to the regions oil were not
jeopardized.
Thus the real challenge is not how to impose our will. We can do
that because at the moment we are the most powerful and the richest. The
stiffest challenge is how to live up to our own democratic principles while
preaching them to others.
We are not making that argument in any convincing way today
because our actions belie such intentions. In order to make that argument we
would have to ask far deeper and more disturbing questions than we have been
willing to face as the worlds lone superpower.
National Catholic Reporter, September 6,
2002
|