Cuestiones de América
A year ago today I was in Bogota struggling to write a
letter of condolence. The letter was for the American guests of the hotel in
which I was staying. The manager said his English wasn't up to the task and he
asked if I would help. What on earth was there to say, except that we, the
other guests and the management, were thinking of these Americans in their hour
of sorrow. It was a moment for silence, the silence of incredulity, dread and
awe. The last because each of us who watched the jets crash and the towers
tumble was confronted with a spectacle that defied belief. We were being
wrenched violently into a new age of global conflict.
Later that day I wrote from Bogota for this newspaper and spoke of the
very personal fear I felt as somebody who lived in a city that might be a
target of the fanatics. I was used to flying in and out of other people's wars
the mess and gore of the other world but now I would have to recognise
that my family, friends, and neighbours belonged to a vast new target group.
Had not Bin Laden himself warned that in this war there were no innocent
victims? A year on and I don't feel any easier.
The suicide bombers have been quiet but they are waiting for their
chance. We count time in minutes and hours. These men count it out in years.
For all the proud trumpeting that followed the fall of Kabul, al-Qa'ida has not
been dealt the killer blow. They have taken to the hills and will ambush and
snipe, and sooner or later they will do deals with some of those warlords who
are ostensibly allies of the West.
All the information suggests Mullah Omar is alive and, in all
probability, Bin Laden too. Trying to lead the government in Kabul is a patently
good man, Hamid Karzai. He is brave, honest and isolated, surrounded by venal
warlords who understand no concept of nationhood. The country is no longer
ruled by the theocratic fascism of the Taliban but it is a mess, seething with
hatred and intrigue and it is likely to drag in more and more foreign
peacekeepers. The omens are poor for Mr Karzai and for honest, humane
government in Afghanistan.
I wrote a year ago that a world as crowded with injustice as ours would
continue to provide a breeding ground for fanaticism. This isn't an alibi for
Bin Laden and his killers, merely a reflection of the self-evident. The masters
of terror like Bin Laden give voice to the inarticulate rage of the masses and
turn it into a weapon of fearful power. Some commentators have claimed that
America has recognised this and is willing to lead the fight for a more just
world order. Not so. Look at how the G8 summit humiliated Africa with peanuts
while rewarding Russia's President Putin with billions and you can figure out
the order of priorities.
Mr Blair makes a brave case for Africa but the White House is not
interested. In the other critical area where President Bush might have tried to
make a difference the Middle East there has been a ruinous drift. Mr Bush
has failed to engage, and Arab antagonism against America has increased
markedly in the past 12 months. Mr Bush's supporters rightly point out that the
conduct of international affairs is not a popularity contest, especially when
you have to deal with al-Qa'ida. In fighting this new war you are bound to
offend sensibilities, inflame passions. But to alienate every single Arab
government, not to mention the Arab street, in the past 12 months can hardly
help America's aim of destroying Bin Laden's support base. The coming war
against Iraq will doubtless send more holy warriors to the flag of al-Qa'ida.
So it goes on and on. The question is not about America's right to pursue its
enemies, but about Mr Bush's vision of a new world.
Twelve months ago when President Bush promised an unending war on
terror, and Dick Cheney spoke of it lasting beyond his lifetime, we believed
this was the rhetoric of shocked, wounded men. In time a broader policy would
emerge. But a year later we are still trying to guess the limits of the new
order. After Iraq who will be next to feel the steel glove of American military
power? For all this week's talk about involving the UN, America's leaders will
act unilaterally if they need to. Many of the men around Mr Bush regard the UN
as at best a hindrance, at worst a swamp infested with America's enemies.
So what is there to be encouraged about? I think we should applaud the
restless good sense of the American people. I am tired of listening to the
country's critics deride Americans for their supposed insularity and lack of
political sophistication. Check out the opinion polls on Iraq and you sense a
people who know a lot more about the world than liberal opinion here allows.
Remember that Mr Bush was not elected with a strong right-wing mandate to
go and sort out all of America's enemies abroad. The events of 11 September
gave him a mandate to go after al- Qa'ida and any other group that might be
thinking of attacking the US. And here lies the crux of his public opinion
problem over Iraq.
The American people don't believe at least yet that Saddam poses a
clear and present danger to them. If Mr Bush goes to war without convincing the
American people he is risking his presidency. The qualms of people in Moscow,
London and Paris, not to mention the Arab capitals, may count for little in the
reckonings of Cheney and Rumsfeld. But the growing voice of dissent in America
itself is something they would be foolish to ignore. America's vibrant
democracy is the best guarantee we have against the excesses of American power.
* The
Independent, London, 11 September 2002. The writer is a BBC Special
Correspondent. See also.- One year on: A special report
Cuestiones de
América NΊ 11, Octubre-Noviembre de 2002
Regresar a la Página Principal...