On Sept. 11, 2001, almost every nation on earth expressed deep shock and real sympathy over the horrendous terror attacks that shook the United States to its core. Yasser Arafat even donated blood in a symbolic, if cynical, show of supposed Palestinian support. America’s true allies in NATO gave their full backing for whatever actions might be deemed necessary to punish the Islamic terrorist groups behind the deadly atrocities.
Exactly a year and a half later, the greatest military power ever to exist on earth is about to launch Round Two of its anti-terrorism war: A dazzling “shock and awe” campaign against the notorious Butcher of Baghdad.
Most terrorism experts believe that Saddam Hussein did not know about, or actively support, the al-Qaida attacks in advance. Still, President Bush seems determined to topple the Iraqi regime, if only to send a clear message to other threatening despots building weapons of mass destruction that the USA is no longer ruled by Bill Clinton.
However, there is one bothersome fly in the ointment. Most countries, including some who professed profound grief over the 9-11 attacks, are not currently standing with the United States. In fact, opinion polls in almost every nation, apart from the U.S., Kuwait and Israel, show heavy opposition to an assault on Iraq that is not explicitly mandated by a new United Nations vote.
Overwhelming domestic opinion against such a war at least partly explains why the French foreign minister has been rushing around Africa whipping up Security Council opposition to the looming conflict. Russia, Germany, China and many smaller countries have cheered on the effort, as has the pope, the new archbishop of Canterbury and many other religious leaders.
Tony Blair, the staunch defender of America who declared on 9-11 that a “new world order” would result from the New York and Washington terror attacks, has been busy plugging as many fingers as possible into the leaking holes in his crumbling wall of political support. The prime minister’s growing internal revolt prompted U.S. leaders to reluctantly declare the obvious – the most awesome military force on earth does not really need British military support to turn Saddam into toast.
As true as that might be, it is still rather startling to contemplate the fact that the victim of 9-11 is apparently about to undertake risky military action in the volatile Middle East without the backing of most governments around the world, including some of America’s closest traditional allies. This begs for one question to be immediately answered. How did the tremendous international sympathy and support expressed just over one year ago dissipate so fast?
We Americans – citizens of the most powerful nation in history – often tend to forget that we constitute a mere 5 percent of the world’s population. That means 95 out of every 100 people breathing air at this moment is not a U.S. citizen, even if our great wealth means we are likely to be found at tourist sites around the globe. Almost all non-Americans have reason to envy and resent our high standard of living since they manage to exist, or not, well below it.
Still, widespread world poverty does not explain the intense French campaign to derail George W’s imminent war against Saddam. The people of Paris and Marseille are hardly lacking food – and highly edible stuff at that. The same goes for the good folks in Frankfurt and Berlin. French and German policy on the Iraqi crisis is probably based on “Old Europe’s” attempt to reassert its historic primacy as the political and economic center of the universe. This has clearly riled the reigning mega-power, which is showing its irritation by giving new names to fried potato slices and pouring fine wine down the drain.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news on the eve of a major war, but a quick read of the international press suggests that America’s reaction seems stranger to most people on earth than France’s strong anti-war stance. After all, whatever the French government’s hidden agendas might be, its democratically elected leaders are, well, democratically elected. Ditto in Germany. The leaders in these neighboring lands are clearly reflecting overwhelming public opinion by opposing a unilateral American war. The same is true in Russia, Greece, Egypt, etc. In fact, it is the leaders of America’s closest European allies, Great Britain, Spain and Italy, who are bucking domestic opinion by backing George Bush.
As the great champion of democracy worldwide – even in Iraq, according to the president – U.S. officials appear a bit hypocritical to many folks as they declare their intention to go to war no matter how the countries on the U.N. Security Council feel or vote. More to the point, many fear that while America may rapidly win the military battle, it will also pour fresh toxic oil on Islamic fires raging around the globe. They sense that the president’s stated war aim – to deal a crippling body blow to international Muslim terrorism – could be turned on its head, producing the exact opposite result.
The deep reservations expressed by several of America’s closest allies on the eve of battle will hopefully prove to be way overdone. But widespread international reluctance to support the president’s war plans should not simply be dismissed out of hand as the usual America bashing. That is surely the motive of many naysayers, especially in Muslim lands. But others may simply be trying to warn their American friends that shock and awe can go two ways.
Has Trump 2.0 learned from Trump 1.0?
Josh Hammer