Crisis Forces Shift in Policy As Bush Assembles Coalition
By William Drozdiak
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 17, 2001; Page A09
BRUSSELS -- The devastating attacks against the United States last week have forced a major foreign policy shift by the Bush administration, from a go-it-alone approach based on narrow U.S. interests to the pursuit of a global coalition against terrorism.
The shift has been welcomed in foreign capitals. But even as the world's governments line up to pledge support for the United States, some worry that George W. Bush may not prove as adroit as his father was in forging an international coalition in 1990, after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. There is fear that President Bush may overreact militarily, striking back so hard against elusive terrorist targets that the Arab world becomes radicalized and spawns more terrorism.
Almost from the day he entered the White House eight months ago, Bush drew criticism from some U.S. allies for his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and his vow to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to construct a missile defense system -- moves that were regarded abroad as signifying an American retreat into a fortress mentality.
But Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington shattered any illusions that the United States could transform itself into an invulnerable haven. As former president George H.W. Bush observed in a speech in Boston on Thursday, the surprise attacks should "erase the concept in some quarters that America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism, or in anything else for that matter."
Allied capitals felt quiet satisfaction at the recognition by the world's only superpower that it still requires the support of friends and former foes in the battle against terrorism and to achieve other foreign policy goals. Some officials say the Bush administration, fearing isolation on global warming and other issues, was already moving toward a more cooperative attitude, but the trauma of Tuesday destroyed any lingering sense of self-sufficiency.
"It was only a matter of time," said a senior adviser to French President Jacques Chirac. "America's power in the world may be unrivaled in military, political and economic areas, but in the era of globalization even a superpower cannot disregard the need for allies. Just like Clinton, Bush would have come to that conclusion, but the terror attack and the recent economic problems in the U.S. accelerated the process."
As Bush and his secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, strive to mobilize the rest of the world with the United States in a new kind of war, a multitude of concerns are arising abroad.
Will the United States launch such massive retaliation that its quest for vengeance serves to radicalize the Islamic world? Will the Bush administration be patient enough to cultivate a diverse coalition of friends and foes that sustains the sympathy reaped in the aftermath of the attacks? Will the Bush team possess the foresight to couple U.S. military power with political sagacity by following up any use of force with a diplomatic drive that addresses the root causes of terrorism in the Middle East, South Asia and other hot spots?
Many foreign analysts say Bush's declaration of war against global terrorism starts with some key advantages, notably a strong degree of support in almost every corner of the globe. The United States won a powerful endorsement when NATO's 19 members made the unprecedented decision under Article 5 of their charter to declare the terror strikes an attack against all members, opening the way for a collective military response. The United States also gained support with a resolution passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council, including Russia and China, which in the past have been hostile to the use of American military might.
"The U.N. resolution provides a clear legal framework and gives a green light for the United States to employ military force at a time and place of its choosing," said Philippe Sands, a British scholar and expert in international law.
Washington also enjoys a degree of sympathy following the attacks that it did not possess when it organized the Persian Gulf War coalition. If the origins of the terrorist plot are traced, as many experts expect, to the clandestine network of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, the United States should encounter little political opposition to attacking Afghan territory. Bin Laden is believed to be hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of its Taliban rulers.
Russia, while reluctant to offer military support, was one of the first countries to endorse the U.S. anti-terrorism drive. India and Pakistan have set aside their bitter regional rivalry and appear ready to allow the use of their airspace and other facilities for retaliatory operations. Even Iran, which has long castigated the United States as "the Great Satan," made what senior U.S. officials call "a very positive statement" based on its virulent hostility toward the Taliban.
But in other respects, Bush faces a trickier challenge in assembling and maintaining a worldwide anti-terrorism alliance. In the Gulf War, the brutal Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the dangers it posed to the safety of world oil supplies left few doubts that such aggression could not be tolerated.
Terrorists, however, operate in the shadows and may elude retaliatory strikes. Experts say the bin Laden network, for example, operates in at least 34 countries and regions, making it more difficult to eradicate than a conventional force. And if the United States were to pursue a broader military campaign in countries other than Afghanistan, it could arouse opposition from Arab and other governments already troubled by U.S. support for Israel.
"Arab leaders have a big problem because they are being pulled by two opposite forces," said Mustafa Alani, a Middle East specialist at London's Royal Institute for Defense Studies. "On one hand, they want to prove to American public opinion that they are against terrorism. But on the other, they are worried about political frustrations inside their own countries and the reactions of their own fundamentalists."
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of the closest U.S. allies in the Arab world, have expressed condolences but stopped short of unreserved support for a military campaign against terrorism.
Saudi Arabia says it supports fighting terrorism but has not declared whether it is willing to allow the use of its military bases for any retaliatory strikes. Bin Laden's war with America was launched after U.S. forces used Saudi territory as a staging ground for their counter-thrust into Kuwait; some U.S. forces remain on Saudi territory, which bin Laden claims defiles the holy sites of Islam.
The Saudi rulers have also expressed growing dismay with U.S. reluctance to exert political pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from Palestinian territories in Gaza and the West Bank. Some Saudi officials suggest it will be difficult for them to adopt a more accommodating posture to bring down the price of oil -- and ease the Western economic downturn -- as long as the current tensions between Israel and the Palestinians persist.
Even in Europe, where citizens in 43 countries observed three minutes of silence Friday in honor of the U.S. bombing victims, there are signs that the strong transatlantic loyalty could dissipate if U.S. retaliation proves too clumsy.
"There are concerns across Europe that the United States could overreact because the president is facing such enormous public pressure to hit back hard," said Frank Umbach, a security specialist for Germany's Council on Foreign Relations. "The feeling in Germany and in other European countries is that international terrorism can only be fought by dealing with the underlying political and economic causes."
As demands for vengeance have grown among the American public, foreign leaders have counseled caution. "The United States must avoid any course of action which will be as unpopular as that of the terrorists," said Nelson Mandela, South Africa's former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. "It must not be allowed now to raise, to intensify hatred against the Arab nations and the Muslims."
French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine warned against igniting a "clash of civilizations" between the Western and Islamic worlds, which he claimed "may be among the demented calculations of those who instigated the attacks" in New York and Washington. He suggested that measures designed to sabotage the financial and logistical networks that nourish terrorism could be much more effective than massive bombing raids that endanger innocent civilians.
In Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has joined Bush in calling for a global campaign "to find all of the perpetrators of the suicide attacks and destroy their machinery of terror," the government has appealed for the United States to deliberate before launching a retaliatory attack and dragging its allies into war. "Article 5 does not mean a blank check," said a Blair spokesman.
NATO diplomats said that despite the show of solidarity, the United States was likely to act alone or lead a core "coalition of the willing" when the time comes for a military response. But there was little doubt that the NATO alliance, just like the United States, has been dramatically affected by the bombings.
"The whole world has changed, and that means we will have to attach much greater importance to the problem of terrorism," said NATO Secretary General George Robertson. "This time we saw airliners used like flying bombs, inflicting the kind of damage that would require many cruise missiles. Next time it could be biological or chemical weapons, delivered in a ballistic missile or a suitcase." |
