A war on double standards

Iqbal Widastomo, Research Associate, London School of Economics, London

In the vocabulary of current world affairs there seems to be a continuing and rather offensive misnomer that is daily repeated.

In our current complicated world we hear the expression "war on terror". From presidents, military and political leaders on down to a typical man or woman on the street, this expression easily trips off tongues. But war creates terror among its victims and war permeates and perpetuates terror in the hearts and minds of people for years and years.

Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda may create terror through their bombings and hijackings but how much less guilty of terror are American forces when they launch their so called "smart missiles"? When one of those "smart missiles" goes astray and explodes in a residential area those people are definitely victims of terror.

By making this war on terror, a quick-fix mentality is being applied that suggests that by blasting the "bad guys" such as Saddam Hussein, the problem will be cured.

Americans, since Sept. 11, have become somewhat more introspective. They have asked themselves, "Why do they [the terrorists and non-Americans] hate us?" and "What can we do to change the way we live in the world?" The answer most often proffered for the former is "envy", whilst for the latter it seems America has changed little.

In the eyes of the rest of the world America is not really envied. Often, it is held in contempt for its injustices and the inequalities that it helps permeate and perpetuate. Significantly linked to this contempt is the picture of America as pompous, arrogant, bullying and guilty of double standards.

History will record that as the U.S. tried to muster support for attacking Iraq most of the world remained opposed to this idea. We can only wonder whether this gave President George W. Bush pause for thought to reflect on his "with us or against us" proclamation -- but clearly he has not paused to think about how ridiculous the statement has become given some of America's half- hearted allies in the war on terror.

Pakistan for example is a hugely suspect ally. Following revealed indications that North Korea is pursuing a nuclear weapons program and that some of the equipment for that program may have originated from Pakistan, where does the allegiance of the U.S. and Pakistan stand?

A similar problem lies with another supposed ally, Saudi Arabia, while it is widely acknowledged that there are links between Saudi nationals and funding of fundamentalist and terrorist groups. Bush's apparent hard-line, clear-cut division between those for and against the U.S. inevitably withers in the harsh light of reality.

But Bush's attempts at a firm distinction between "them" and "us" threatens to nurture fundamentalism and so extend extremes of opposition. These extremes really need not be taken to the next level -- confrontation.

The unequal American policies towards numerous nations will serve to prolong any war on terror. North Korea has admitted to a program aimed at developing weapons of mass destruction but the U.S. seems willing to keep talks open with the North Korean leadership. Meantime, Iraq's leadership, which continues to deny the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, faces potential annihilation from American attack.

Many have suggested that the apparent double standard of U.S. policies represents anti-Muslim sentiments; and closely linked to this are the concerns that the U.S. has been very one-sided in its responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Essentially, however, the U.S. seems powerless to act in the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Partly because the two parties to that conflict are so deeply opposed, to the point of fundamentalism, and partly because there is simply no military solution that the Americans can impose.

These conditions apply more generally to American policies. At present America seeks a military solution to a problem such as Iraq but sadly military intervention may be no solution at all. Like the Israel-Palestine conflict, opposition and conflict will only increase if the military avenue is taken.

America and the world needs far greater equality in its policies addressing these difficult problems. A major component of this equality will be to balance military intervention with political strategies that seek to seriously address the inequalities of our world. Military solutions can only be, at best, short-term.

To rid the world of terror we need less war and more constructive political and economic strategies, that will make terror and terrorism less of a possibility as people recognize greater mutual respect and equality.