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).

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.

NATO's Origins and the US-Europe Alliance

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).

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.

FBI amendments have been made since the attacks of September 11. The FBI has now been given authority to intrude on privacy — agents can now enter school meetings, libraries, and congregational prayers of Muslims, among other previously protected spaces. This is one reason why the US is losing the very essence of democracy (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001).

September 11, Terrorism, and the Stigmatization of Islam

Before the attacks on the World Trade Center, intelligence agencies were not permitted to invade anyone's privacy. The amendments enacted since then were intended to ensure that the US remains safe from terrorism. But these amendments carry severe potential repercussions as well. They could give rise to corruption, and ordinary American citizens could be targeted for no legitimate reason — accused of involvement in crimes they have nothing to do with. The foundational democratic principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty" has seemingly been inverted to "guilty until proven innocent." If such amendments continue to erode the essence of democracy, the United States risks destroying itself without any further terrorist attacks being necessary.

Ironic as it may sound, while the term "terrorism" is widely understood to describe the actions of perpetrators, it also describes the actions of freedom fighters resisting oppression. Those who identify as Jihadis — that is, freedom fighters — argue that they lack a conventional army to counter the injustices taking place in Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Myanmar, Eritrea, and elsewhere. They have therefore organized themselves into groups around the world, attacking US installations when opportunities arise, with the ultimate aim of weakening American power (Esposito, 1999). The idea of Muslims standing together was galvanized by the Iranian Revolution, in which Iranians decided they would no longer be oppressed by Western powers. Other Muslims have since followed that example, and their concept of brotherhood has led them to unite against what they perceive as Western oppression.

On the whole, it is the ordinary American citizen who suffers — both from the original attacks and from the restrictive laws enacted in their wake. Human life is no longer secure, and people have lost the sense of safety they once had in the United States. It is also worth questioning the true effectiveness of security in the US and other countries that fear terrorist attacks. If one examines the events of September 11 with a critical eye, it becomes apparent that an international terrorist organization like Al Qaeda — with all the high technology that the US claimed they possessed — inflicted damage that, while horrific, was far below what a genuinely sophisticated global network might have achieved. A legitimate question is whether Al Qaeda was truly as international and capable as claimed. If they were, would they not have targeted something far more strategically damaging, such as nuclear installations in the United States, rather than directing their resources at two office towers? (Esposito, 1999).

It has been a topic of considerable debate whether Al Qaeda was really what it claimed to be, and whether Osama bin Laden was genuinely opposed to the United States. How did he disappear, along with Mullah Omar? How did Saddam Hussein vanish after the coalition forces entered Iraq? If figures like Saddam and Osama bin Laden were truly dangerous, how did they disappear so easily? Questions such as these accumulate because something is clearly amiss in the overall international operation. These leaders may have been individuals who were co-opted and who helped pave the way for American control in their countries. It is apparent that even if they had resisted the imperialists they would have been overwhelmed, but they may have been offered an easier path — one through which fewer people, including their own national guards, would die.

If Arab leaders such as Saddam and Osama bin Laden could be bought or managed, the situation with North Korea presents an entirely different challenge. As focus has shifted in that direction, no one can be certain what would happen if the Communists chose not to cooperate with imperialist powers. Given the danger of a potential nuclear confrontation, the Europeans may be doing the strategically sensible thing by allowing the Americans to lead the battle and do the difficult work. In the event of nuclear conflict, the United States would most likely be the primary target, while the Europeans — who remain in the background — would be comparatively shielded. This is true precisely because the United States, in this new world order, has placed itself in a position of control over the Middle East and South Asia. It has established bases in many regions and is therefore as vulnerable as it is powerful. Though this position is a precarious one for the US and the rest of the world, it is one that appears to be the result of long-range planning — a new world order. This interpretation is supported by the words of former President George H. W. Bush, spoken in 1990: "Tell them we can't just let Iraq get away with this. There is a new world order developing" (McGuire & Meyer, 2003).

It is these words that provoke reflection on the entire episode of September 11th, and on the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as components of that new world order. There are people who, unaware of the chain of events, do not agree with George W. Bush's approach of attacking countries deemed threats to world peace. They fail to see that Saddam Hussein may have been deliberately left in place so that the US could maintain bases in the Middle East and justify re-entering the country, as it eventually did. Looking back at how conflicts in the Middle East have been kept alive for decades, it becomes clear that foreign occupation has repeatedly been justified by that very instability. At the center of it all is the Israel-Palestine conflict. Why was Israel created in the middle of a region that had been dominated by Muslims for many centuries? By deliberately doing so, Britain and the US significantly weakened the Muslim bloc through the instability it generated — something the Muslim world is acutely aware of and prepared to resist (Re-ordering the world, 2003).

The imperialists recognize this as well, and they are perhaps intensifying their operations precisely so that no effective countermeasures can be mounted against them. With such dangerous political dynamics at play, it is obvious that very few places in the world are truly safe — particularly given the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Should these weapons fall into the hands of people sufficiently enraged to use them, the resulting loss of life would be catastrophic. This observation also helps explain why Al Qaeda — for all the resources the international community claimed it possessed — caused comparatively limited structural damage. The media amplified fears of an international terrorist organization in ways that badly distorted public understanding of the Muslim world (Re-ordering the world, 2003).

Conclusion: Unanswered Questions and Future Conflicts

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.