Post-9/11 World Order: US Power, NATO, and Global Politics

Introduction: Uncertainty and the New World Order

As the War in Iraq unfolds and people hope for a quick end to all conflicts, deep thought is continuously being given to the emergence of a new world order. People are not really sure in which direction military conflicts will take them. Most people are afraid — and rightly so — because presently nothing is certain. On one hand, there appears to be a dominant American nationalist drive to gradually take control of weaker countries that the United States might be able to exploit. On the other hand, it hardly seems likely that Europe would stand by and watch the Americans do this. The split experienced within the European Union in the period before the War in Iraq indicates that something is missing from the international consensus.

It is indeed odd that since September 11th, Britain has remained steadfastly aligned with the Americans while other supporting countries have played a less effective role in operations against terrorism. It did not take the world long to mobilize against Afghanistan after the US was attacked on September 11th by terrorists. Since then, however, people have grown skeptical about US moves while Britain gives them almost full support. Is it possible that Britain and the US have decided to collaborate and dominate the world? Is Britain grateful that the US stepped in and ended the Second World War? But politics is not about gratitude — it is about gaining the most and securing one's future. Is it possible that Britain or Europe is allowing the US to spearhead all operations so that Europe will be able to take over leadership in the future? (The next empire, 2001).

NATO's Origins and the US-Europe Alliance

At the end of the Second World War, many European countries were left in a devastated condition and had to find ways of reconstructing their economies. From 1945 to 1949, Western European countries and their North American allies kept a close watch over the activities and policies of the USSR. This was a period of significant stress — one that most of the world was not fully aware of at the time, and few people appreciated the significance of forming a security body. The purpose the world did recognize as rational for forming an alliance was the prevailing economic conditions, not security per se. However, the relationship between Europe and the US may have been strengthened during that period in ways that were planned long in advance, so that the Europeans would ultimately emerge as the dominant leaders. This is suggested by their history of careful, long-range planning through which they have guided countries to act in ways that serve European interests (Mandelson, 2003).

Between 1945 and 1947, just after the Second World War, there was immense fear that the Communist USSR would attempt to attack the democratic countries and convert them to socialist states. Fearing the loss of individual rights, the democratic nations of the North Atlantic region — initially twelve countries — came together in 1949 to form what is known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The members of NATO "reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments." They are devoted to ensuring the sovereignty, common heritage, and civilization of all members — commitments grounded in the belief in democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. NATO seeks to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area, and its members have decided to "unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security" (The North Atlantic Treaty, 2002).

The North Atlantic Alliance was formed essentially because its members wished to cooperate and ensure the security of their countries. These members joined of their own free will and were not forced into the alliance. A critic could argue, however, that some members may have joined because they feared being left out — which could have allowed oppressors in the region to take advantage of their isolation — or because they feared being targeted later for not joining and strengthening the alliance's cause. In its broader context, the formation of NATO appears to be a pact to protect countries that agree with American and British policy against nations that oppose them. As has been seen repeatedly, NATO has converged to protect the ideals of its two main members, the US and Britain. This pattern continues today, with many nations fearing the coalition forces that these two countries predominantly comprise.

However, the assumption that the US is truly in control of this new order may not be accurate. The Europeans might, in fact, be the architects behind it all. Europe's dominant role in international politics, its careful positioning behind US military operations, and its status as a stable and growing economy all suggest that Europe has much to gain. The formation of the European Union presents a genuine economic threat to the United States — it is possible that the euro could eventually eclipse American financial dominance. Already facing significant social challenges and the enormous cost of the War on Terror, the United States' position may be less secure than it appears. Perhaps the Europeans do indeed have something up their sleeves and stand to gain considerably in the end.

The latter half of the twentieth century saw a war in nearly every decade spearheaded by the US. It is apparent that this nation has regarded brute military force — coupled with high-tech weaponry that intimidates other nations — as its most effective path to power. In contrast, Europeans have historically pursued subtler methods of control, which largely accounted for their success in managing much of the world. With almost every quest for control, the Americans have acted militarily, and history has stood witness. This stands in sharp contrast to the Europeans, who colonized nearly every corner of the earth through a mix of commerce, diplomacy, and strategic alliances. The incidents since September 11th have all been hostile ones, consistently framed around invading other nations on the grounds that they harbor terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Yet the question remains: why do only a few countries retain the right to hold nuclear weapons while others are denied that same right? (The next empire, 2001).

September 11, Terrorism, and the Stigmatization of Islam

Another troubling dimension of the War on Terror concerns the treatment of what have been called "Islamic Jihadis." These individuals have been stigmatized in most cases. Although there may be instances of such people launching attacks, even when they are fighting to survive and protect their families — as is the case in Palestine — they are universally labeled terrorists. Today, the words "terrorism" and "Islam" have been conjoined so that a natural resentment is generated whenever imperialist powers wish to assert their authority. The religion itself is stigmatized in many countries, making it profoundly difficult for peace-loving Muslims to live peacefully (Esposito, 1999).

The meaning of the word "terrorism" was already well understood long before the attacks on the World Trade Center. But after those attacks, people far and wide — including non-English speakers — became familiar with the term, largely due to the power of media. In the early 1990s, terrorism began to emerge as a commonly used word, and certain states came to be labeled "terrorist states" because of their alleged participation in terrorist activities. These designations seemed negligible to the ordinary person at the time. But ever since the world was shaken by the attacks of September 11, 2001, the common person nearly everywhere has been affected in one way or another and has become acutely conscious of the term "terrorism." People of Asian or Arab origin, in particular, have become the primary sufferers of the events of September 11. They have been stereotyped as terrorists regardless of any connection to terrorist groups. Terrorists today are pictured as men with beards and turbans — ruthless killers, though even they are presumed to have their motivations (Esposito, 1999).

Before the attacks on the World Trade Center, people from diverse origins lived and worked in the United States without being targeted. They established businesses and lived peacefully, with a sense of security that extended to all residents regardless of color, caste, or creed. Even where differences significantly existed, the media did not amplify them as it does today. Since September 11, however, all residents and permanent citizens of the US have lost their previous sense of security. Today, a non-white person — especially one of Arab origin — is viewed as a potential threat. Anyone with a beard risks being feared as a fundamentalist, in large part because of one man, Osama bin Laden, whose direct responsibility for the attacks has never been conclusively proven in a court of law. Nevertheless, he condoned the appalling act and has claimed responsibility for other attacks, and thus must be held accountable.

Conclusion: Unanswered Questions and Future Conflicts

It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions given the complexity of events since September 11. The actions that US forces have taken are arguably framed as justified because the United States was attacked first. Whether or not the terrorist attack on September 11 was staged is another question entirely, but the fact remains that all subsequent military operations have flowed from that event. This brings one back to the question of the so-called dangerous terrorists — Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and others. Where are these individuals, and how have they escaped sustained military pursuit? How is it that they are rarely mentioned now that the coalition forces have made significant headway in Arab countries? Were these figures essentially puppets, used to create a pretext for military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

As the situation stands, there appears to be little genuine focus on the dangerous terrorists who have evaded punishment for their crimes, while coalition military forces seek opportunities to expand their presence into additional Arab countries. At the same time, the case of North Korea deserves attention. Controlling a nuclear-armed communist state presents a fundamentally different challenge compared to the Arab world — and yet, as the new world order continues to take shape, it is expected that the North Korean issue will eventually be confronted. The outcome of all these operations will ultimately reveal what Europe and the United States truly have in mind — and whether the new world order being constructed will bring genuine security or simply a new form of imperial domination.

Sources

McGuire, Stryker, and Meyer, Michael. "Is This the New World Order?" Newsweek International, 2003.

The North Atlantic Treaty, 2002. www.nato.int

Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. 1795.

Re-ordering the world. The Economist Global Agenda, March 21, 2003.

Mandelson, Peter. "The day of reckoning has arrived. The UN must act." The Guardian, March 10, 2003.

The next empire. October 2001. Prospect Magazine.

Esposito, John. The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-56.

Shotwell, Charles, and Thachuk, Kimberley. "Humanitarian Intervention: The Case for Legitimacy." 1999.