America
has neither won
the war nor the peace
By JONATHAN
POWER
January 30, 2002
LONDON - Chris Patten, the European commissioner for
foreign affairs, said the other day that America had to
be careful that after winning the war it didn't lose the
peace. But who can say that America has won the war? It
hasn't "smoked out" Osama bin Laden, the supposed
objective. As for losing the peace, yes, the indications
are indeed worrying.
No one in Washington with their hand over their heart
could say that world opinion is now behind America. It
may have been momentarily in the immediate aftermath of
September 11th but over the months that support has been
whittled away.
The treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo has
brought it all to a head. Indeed, the very fact that this
issue has become so hot, particularly in Europe, is an
indication of the deep doubts and reservations in the
chancelleries of Western Europe about America's on-going
call to arms. The Europeans do not find it easy to break
publicly with America, yet years of impatience with
Washington's rigid attitude towards capital punishment,
brutal prison regimes and, of late, deep resistance to
the idea of pushing forward the frontiers of
international law with the International Criminal Court,
have meant that Guantanamo has become the straw that
broke the camel's back.
Yet, on its merits, Guantanamo is something of a red
herring. The Americans do have a case for not designating
al-Qaeda members as "prisoners of war". They do need to
interrogate them in detail and over months, a process not
so easy if they are officially prisoners of war and it is
not clear that the Geneva Conventions do apply to this
terrorist gang with no fixed address.
The prisoners, given the climate of southern Cuba, are
rather better off in a "cage" where they can see the sea
and the sky than in a "dungeon" without even a window
like too many prisoners in America's own jails. Even
Fidel Castro who understandably thinks America should
give up this bit of occupied Cuba has not joined the
chorus of criticism. The only serious mistake Washington
has made is not in quickly set up legal procedures which
could decide who is a likely al-Qaeda member and who is a
regular combatant with the Taliban forces.
Yet, this is the issue the Europeans have used to vent
their displeasure with America. The very fact that the
issue itself doesn't stand up to scrutiny underlines that
it is merely an excuse to communicate to Washington that
world opinion cannot be taken for granted and that if
America decides to expand this war to Africa, the
Philippines, to Indonesia and even to Iraq it may find
itself isolated.
Already Saudi Arabia has implied that in the long run
it doesn't foresee American bases permanently on its soil
and this would make it extraordinarily difficult for
Washington to effectively go to war again with Iraq. Its
Saudi base was critical for its last effort and its
alternative, neighbouring Oman, is beset with
uncertainties.
Washington may react by doing what it wants to do
anyway. Already there are indications of that with its
apparent support for Israel in its attempt to besiege the
compound in Ramallah that houses the residence and
offices of Yasser Arafat, and its landing of troops and
special forces in the Philippines to combat the Muslim
rebels. Yet the more America branches out the more risks
it takes. Arab popular opinion has all but deserted it.
Europe is wavering and China and Russia only stay on
board because they have their own fish to fry in Chechnya
and Xinjiang.
And even they would find it difficult to stay the
course if Israel, with a wink and a nod from Washington,
decides to arrest or even kill Mr Arafat. Certainly the
outrage would drown out all other issues to the detriment
of what certainly does need to be done- the continuous
hard work by police and intelligence agencies of running
to earth the remaining al-Qaeda cells and bringing its
members to justice. That is the ball that all eyes need
to be kept focussed on.
For some reason Washington has convinced itself that
Arafat is more the sinner than the sinned against. This
goes back to President Bill Clinton's unfortunate remarks
on the conclusion of the Camp David negotiations in which
he singled out the Palestinians as the intransigent ones.
Yet this was not fair to the facts as the later
negotiations in Taba in Egypt, after Intifada 2 had got
going, made clear. The Israelis then moved their
negotiating position forward in a way that they had
stubbornly refused to at Camp David. By then it was all
too late. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, was a
lame duck. It was clear that Ariel Sharon would win the
imminent elections and that there was simply nobody who
could sell what was a difficult and demanding deal to
Israeli public opinion. Arafat certainly knew that and it
was not in his nature to take a great political chance
just for a piece of paper. He let the opportunity go, for
which he is now roundly but probably unfairly blamed.
Unless America suddenly captures bin Laden the critics
are going to continue to say that America lost the war-
and at the price of taking more innocent lives in
Afghanistan than the terrorists did with their airborne
attacks on America.
As for the peace there is no sign of peace and what
little there is Washington seems determined to undermine.
President George Bush who, in his State of the Union
address this week said the war "is only beginning" is in
grave danger of finding himself very much alone.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2002 By
JONATHAN POWER
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|