 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
Far from uniting in a struggle against terrorism and joining forces to tackle its causes, we continue to quarrel about the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq. Europe and America have split, and Europe has split over America. Not since the Vietnam War have the two sides seemed so entrenched. Neither proponents nor opponents of intervention in Iraq are prepared to admit their errors. How many more deaths will it take?
Images of ambushes and bombs on Iraqi streets have largely replaced memories of the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, which so briefly united much of the world. Instead, the war and its aftermath have aggravated global divisions between Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, north and south, and between the erstwhile allies of the so-called Western world.
The problem from the start was that the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with fighting terrorism -- at least not in European eyes. Whatever the justification -- the threat from weapons of mass destruction, the overthrow of a brutal dictatorship, the enforcement of international law -- it was part of a different agenda, espoused by President George W. Bush from the day he came to office. But the war in Iraq has given the Islamist terrorists who support al-Qaida both a new cause and a convenient target. If there was no link before, there is now.
Last week, the terrorists killed 200 Spanish commuters. But the Madrid massacre alone did not cause the government of Jos? Mar"a Aznar to be defeated in Sunday's general election. The tide of public resentment against Aznar for supporting Bush in Iraq, unleashed by the bombs, and the Spanish premier's clumsy efforts to blame Basque separatists for the attacks had that effect.
It is naive to suggest that voters should not be influenced by acts of terror. But usually it has the opposite effect: Terrorism causes a backlash in favor of law and order. That happened in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001. But because of Iraq, Spanish voters revolted against Aznar and chose the antiwar Socialist party.
Global terrorism is seen by many as a threat to the existence of democratic societies. That a government is toppled after a terrorist act seems to confirm that. But it is not the terrorism that really threatens democracy; it is the danger of an overreaction to it. That is just what the terrorists are seeking.
Overreaction includes the erosion of civil liberties. If we suspend our freedoms and our standards of justice, we shall have lost the struggle. Overreaction also includes waging a divisive and ill-considered war at the wrong time on the wrong target: Iraq.
It was wrong to go to war without the clear endorsement of the United Nations Security Council -- but it happened. Now we are left with the consequences, many of them precisely as predicted by those who warned against such action. Whether the war was right or wrong, rebuilding Iraq must be done by the whole international community.
The three-way split between Shia, Sunni and Kurds could easily tip the country into civil war. Insecurity remains a nightmare for Iraqis and "coalition" forces alike. The region is destabilized. And nothing serious is happening to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the real struggle against terrorism and fundamentalism, as wise men such as Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush's father, always argued.
The United States and its allies are now part of the problem in Iraq. They are seen as forces of "occupation," not "liberation." For once the desire of the Bush administration to get out before the presidential election in November coincides with what Iraq needs most: U.S. withdrawal. But getting from here to there is far easier said than done.
An international security force is essential to stabilize this chronically unstable country and give a chance for a unitary constitution to work. The UN is the obvious choice to take over, but even the UN is somewhat tarnished in Iraqi eyes after years of UN sanctions. And anyway, how can you get the UN in and the United States out without triggering more violence?
None of the "war party" in Washington was willing to consider any of these complications in advance. Their cause was ideological, and they demanded unswerving loyalty from their allies. Any, such as France and Germany, that dared to suggest a more diplomatic alternative were denounced.
In spite of attempts to patch up the differences, bitterness remains on both sides. The voters of Spain have shown how deep the doubts are in Europe. The latest Pew report on global attitudes shows shocking numbers of Europeans -- including 80 percent of Germans -- who see the United States as "less trustworthy" after Iraq. The backlash could yet punish U.S. allies such as Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi.
So how to bridge the gap? Joining forces on Iraqi reconstruction is one way -- but it will not work if the United States insists on running the show. Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American power. One cannot expect Bush to admit that it was a ghastly mistake. Not in an election year. But at least he might have the humility to admit he needs help, even if he has to pay for it.
Quentin Peel is international affairs editor at the Financial Times, where this comment first appeared.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Not ready to support today?
Remind me later.
Remind me later.
×
Remind me next month
Thank you! Your reminder is set.
We will send you one reminder email a month from now. For details on the personal data we collect and how it is used, please see our Privacy Policy.