U.S. and terrorism

After failing to secure the support of its traditional allies, the United States has decided to go it alone in attempting to isolate Libya and Iran which it accuses of sponsoring international terrorism. President Bill Clinton on Monday signed a bill requiring him to impose sanctions on international companies that invest in energy projects in the two countries.

Just two weeks ago, Clinton signed a similar law against Cuba. Like the new law, there was no support for the anti-Cuba law from Washington's allies, and Clinton was forced to delay its enforcement until the end of the year. Also two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that gives the American president the option to impose economic sanctions on Myanmar, which Washington accuses of gross human rights violations. Again, there is a clause that allows the U.S. government to punish companies that invest in the Southeast Asian country.

Leaving aside the debate about international terrorism, we are seeing a pattern in which the United States increasingly tries to impose its will on the rest of the world. The United Nations' economic sanctions against Cuba, Libya and Iraq, for example, reflect the interest, and the will, of the American government rather than the international community.

The United Nations Security Council, once an effective tool to police the world during the Cold War, has become subservient to American interests, with Russia and China reluctant to use their veto rights. Not content with its dominance of the Security Council, the United States is now trying to dictate international policies unilaterally, from Washington.

The next few days, or weeks, will tell whether or not Washington's allies drop their opposition, or whether the United States will back down just as it did two weeks ago in the anti- Cuba law. Already, Italy and France are calling for a common European Union response and retaliation against American firms. One should bear in mind that no international economic sanctions have ever worked. Imposing tough sanctions -- which the laws against Cuba, and now against Iran and Libya, are meant to do -- are not likely to have a major impact.

The hasty way in which the new anti-terrorism law was introduced indicates America's frustration with its inability to counter international terrorism, which is increasingly targeting U.S. interests. But it is a big mistake to blame all of the recent terrorist attacks on Iran and Libya, when American authorities are short of substantial evidence.

Some of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States were "home grown" and did not necessarily have international links. Certainly the Oklahoma bombing last year and the Atlanta bombing two weeks ago fall into this category. There is still no conclusive evidence of international links to the TWA plane explosion and investigators have not found the culprits for the bombing of American military barracks in Saudi Arabia.

While we sympathize with America's frustration, we cannot support the way that American leaders have turned terrorism into an election issue. This appears to be the logical explanation of why Clinton has signed the Republican-sponsored bill in spite of protests from Washington's allies, and knowing that sanctions have never worked in the past and never will in the future.

Tough talking on terrorism clearly goes down well with voters, and the tougher the better. Libya and Iran provide convenient targets, despite knowing full well that domestic terrorism on its home soil is on the rise. Regardless of who wins the American presidential election this November, the signing of the law has eroded the U.S.'s international credentials and the international respect it once commanded.