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".