Anti-terrorism for US: what are gains and losses?

The "9.11" tragedy, somehow regarded as the "second Pearl Harbor", was the only attack on the US homeland since the end of the Second World War. It had wide impact: for the United States, it extremely affected US's strategic choice and ushered the US leading role into a global anti-terrorist era. In terms of the international relations, it changed the relations between the powers, resulting in the regrouping of various forces.

What has the United States gained and lost in its anti-terrorism moves?

What has the United States gained?

Neo-conservatism on the stage

After the end of the cold war, the United States has had no threats thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the "democratic expansion". What a role to play for the incomparable United States boasting the super economic and military power in the international community became a hot topic in the political and academic circles which mainly focused on "neoisolationism", "the strategy of selective involvement", "cooperation security" and "advantage dominance" in the last decade of the 20th century.

The "9.11" incident has changed US understanding of the international situation and national security. International terrorism became the most immediate threat against US, anti-terrorism was set as its primary target in its foreign strategy and non-traditional security became another important concern for US. The result is: "9.11" made the Neo-conservatism get the upper hand in the contention on diplomacy and dominate US diplomatic, military and security policies.

Consolidating and safeguarding American global hegemony, cracking down on any possible forces challenging the US security and interest, unilaterally "taking the initiative" with its super power if necessary, this is the American goal of strategic choice, its diplomatic and security policies and means to make it.

Tragedy won friendship for US

After the "9.11" event, huge civilian casualties and property losses won the United States wide sympathy from the international community. The world condemned international terrorism, and leaned to the victim country. Many countries offered their hands: Britain, Israel, Japan and other allies, based on previous intelligence cooperation, swiftly strengthened exchange and cooperation in anti-terror intelligence; France and Germany also sided with the United States, firmly battling with international terrorists; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also initiated for the first time mutual-aid terms for its members, declaring the war against terrorism; Russian President Vladimir Putin telephoned US President George W. Bush at the primetime, vowing to side with US people and opposing the evil; small countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Peru and Brunei also shared and cooperated with the United States in intelligence, playing an active role for the US-led anti-terrorism war.

The most effective cooperation between the international community and the United States was nothing but the anti-terrorism war waged in Afghanistan. As Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda were protected by the Afghan Taliban regime, the United States immediately shifted its target to Taliban. US military actions in Afghanistan won the support from the United Nations (UN) and its allies such as Britain, Canada, Australia, France and Germany offered an input of a certain military forces there therefore the war ended quickly. Prevailing sympathy and support from the international community made the US military actions almost an anti-terror war with no controversy.

US overseas military bases touched sensitive nerves

Is US more safe as Saddam regime was overturned? For some reason, Bush can answer yes because Libya gave up its plan to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and anti-US voice in DPRK and Iran also lowered a little.

Besides, based on geostrategy, the United States has built military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and is planning to deploy military forces in Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand, Czech, Georgia, Poland and Hungary.

What losses?

Anti-terror expansion overshadows US-European relations

The catastrophe of "9.11"makes the United States realize the possible combined threat of WMD and terrorism. "National Security Strategy Report" issued in September 2002 pointed out explicitly: the United States should prevent the combination of WMD and terrorism. After the war in Afghanistan, the United States has tightened inspection on Iraq's weapons and has started to "expand" the anti-terror war based on the extensive public approval in the United States after militarily overthrowing the Saddam regime.

However, internationally, disputes on Iraq war have never ceased. What is more important for the United States is the irremovable shadow it cast on the traditional goodwill with Europe. Before the war, US could not prove with its evidence that Iraq owned weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), thus could not persuade France, Germany and Russia etc. After the war, US-British coalition armies failed to find the alleged WMDs, but opposed UN to play a leading role in Iraq's reconstruction. In that case, the interests of the three countries mentioned above were neglected and they expressed their unwillingness to share the United States burden of Iraq's reconstruction. Till now the deadlock between the United States and France and Germany etc. has not been broken and problems still keep propping up in US's reconstruction in Iraq. Iraq war seriously damaged the relations between the United States and its traditional allies, and it seems hard to remedy.

US hegemony troubled in a tight corner

The United States won the Iraq war militarily and smoothly, but it lost in politics. Although the power handover has been realized in Iraq and temporary government has been sworn in, to date, we cannot say for sure that the United States has won the Iraqi people. Nonstop attacks on foreign occupying forces and frequent hostage incidents show clearly that US hegemony is troubled in a tight corner.

US scholars and politicians like to call US style of hegemony "benevolent" one and regard it as the foundation for the world's peace and stability. They admire the "hegemonic stability theory" but there seem still many Iraqis not willing to receive US hegemony; Americans advocate "democratic peace theory" and put forward ambitiously "Middle East democracy" plan, but US-style democracy still needs time to develop in Iraq, moreover, really longing for democracy as they may be, the Iraqis may not want a forced democracy.

US, European people turning separated

A survey released on September 9 shows that there grow widening differences between the Americans and Europeans in their opinions on security and military interference after the Iraq war. The survey started in June 2004 and was issued during the utmost important months before the US presidential election. The result implies that both sides of the Atlantic Ocean are experiencing fundamental transformations.

On whether to support the United States in waging Iraq war, Americans' views are fifty-fifty while 80 percent Europeans regard the war as an invasion to Iraq and thought it not worthwhile to have sacrificed so many lives and so much money. In addition, 49 percent of Americans and 73 percent of Europeans think the war exasperated the terrorist threat.

Although the Americans and Europeans agree that they are facing the same terrorist threat, more Americans support the nation to use force in preventing terrorist attacks and the spread of nuclear weapons, while most Europeans advocate a peaceful settlement.

By People's Daily Online