American 'diplomacy' creating new terrorism

American 'diplomacy' creating new terrorism

Iqbal Widastomo, Research Associate, London School of Economics

Bali and, mostly, its tourist guests have become the latest
victims in America's war on terrorism. Inevitably, though, we
have to wonder whether Bali would have become a victim had
American policies and diplomacy been different. America says that
it is fighting to rid the free-world of terrorism but through its
dubious tactics it seems that terrorism is on the increase and is
now striking at the previously untouched, such as Bali and
Australians. In this saddening and sickening environment it is
worth examining America's role and the extent to which that
nation may in fact be worsening the problem and strengthening the
terrorists' arms.

It is worth considering that there is a nation that is
constantly breaking treaties that the vast majority of other
nations ratifies and follows. There is a nation that will
constantly refuse full participation in world summits that aim to
address serious world issues such a global warming. There is a
nation that pollutes our world more than any other nation. There
is a nation that maintains a massive nuclear arsenal and
continues to test weapons of mass destruction. In the vocabulary
of world affairs this nation could probably be described as a
"rogue nation". However, this nation would not for a moment think
of itself as such. Instead its chosen title would be "leader of
the free-world".

Little thought is given to the possibility that, in truth, the
U.S. is effectively incarcerating many other nations that are
caught in the spiraling and debilitating effects of debt and
poverty. This incarceration is the seedbed for the hatred that
would motivate killers such as those that so brutally attacked
Bali. George W. Bush when he came to power was constantly
criticized for his lack of knowledge of world affairs. His
ability to talk about and understand foreign policy matters was
an embarrassment to his party and since coming to power his
Presidency has shown little or no increase in foreign policy
skills.

The recent maneuvers by the U.S. to pave the way for a strike
against Iraq only further illustrate the naive and often
contradictory thinking that guides American policy and its
decision-makers. Bush is happy to have the world thought of in
black and white simplicity; the good guys and the bad guys.

The reality of our world does not exist in such clear black
and white distinctions. There are many more shades and colors in
the human experience and unfortunately if America does choose to
go to war with Iraq it is the innocent people of the nation of
Iraq that will suffer most not just "the bad guy" in the black
hat. The "little" people that represent the shades and colors of
humanity will suffer.

But American foreign policy neglects the peoples of nations,
once it has belligerently set its sights on war. It may in fact
be something of a mute point to wonder when or if America will go
to war with Iraq because, again, reality is quite different to
what America would have the world believe. The reality is that
America has been waging war on Iraq for years now and, of course,
the people of Iraq have been suffering not the "bad guy" Saddam
Hussein.

Since the supposed end of the Gulf War in the early 1990's
America, with its puppet allies, has continued bombing attacks
that are acts of war. Sanctions too have had no effect on the
unwanted regime that holds power in Iraq. They have only served
to starve the people of necessary commodities and most likely
create greater hatred for America and the West generally. Bush
will quickly point out that Saddam is willing to kill Iraqi
people but Bush is equally guilty of this crime.

Contradictions are everywhere in America's attitudes towards
Iraq but there is also a huge amount of duplicity. Iraq, rightly
or wrongly, is portrayed as the rogue, outlaw nation currently,
but during the ten-year war between Iran and Iraq it was Iraq
that the Americans were supportive of.

More recently too American allegiances have been dubious and
duplicitous. America went to war to expel the invading Iraqis
from Kuwait. What they were defending and reinstating was a
severe and tyrannical regime that has no place for any democratic
principles which, apparently, the U.S. holds dear to its heart.
The defense of Kuwait can easily be seen, not as the defense of a
democracy but, as the defense of oil supplies to the U.S., so
that it has fuel for its millions of gas guzzling cars that in
turn continue to massively pollute our environment.

More recently, also, there has been the odd sight of the
American President standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the
Pakistani President. While the American President can claim that
he was democratically elected, even though more people voted
against him than for him, his Pakistani counterpart can make no
such claim. An Army general that seized power by way of military
coup is indeed a strange ally in the fight against terror but
Bush has both legitimized this undemocratic presidency through
recognition and supported it through aid and debt relief that has
made the Pakistani general's position rather more safe.

One of the reasons cited for "going after" Iraq's President is
that he is a dictator and has been pursuing and using weapons of
mass destruction. That same condition and definition could be
applied to Pakistan, whose "saber-rattling" towards India has
brought the world much closer to the specter of nuclear war, with
the exchange of missiles and the massive destruction and loss of
life that would ensue.

America unquestionably has military might and is a strong
nation but how it chooses to use that strength will be the true
test of its strength as a world leader and as a promoter of
democratic principles and practices. The response that has come
from the U.S. since the attacks upon it in 2001 has been to flex
its muscles and use its strength to respond militarily.

Hunters tell of how an animal is at its most dangerous when it
is hurt, when it feels threatened its survival instincts are
stimulated and it will wildly lash-out and defend itself through
attack. America too has been hurt, but it cannot afford to lash-
out without due care and attention to the potential consequences
of its actions.

Currently America is openly seeking influence and it may be
unwarranted. The world community, through organizations such as
the United Nations and the European Community must work to inform
and help guide this American influence. If not, the consequences
of American diplomacy will be heavy-handed and do more damage
than good.

War and military might are unlikely to be the solutions to the
problems of the world currently. As the horrors of the bombing in
Bali have shown terrorists can strike in a widespread fashion,
striking at the most innocent.

Ultimately, the duplicitous and contradictory nature of
American foreign policies is going to expose the world to more
horrors such as witnessed in Bali. It is, therefore, essential
that the world community acts to contain and improve the
diplomacy of the self-proclaimed "leader of the free-world".