Was September 11 2001 a turning point in world history?

        On Thursday September 13, 2001, Fred Halliday, a Professor of international relations, had an article published in the Times newspaper.  This highlighted that there may be problems in the world financial system and in the longer run the world economy.  He also cites that the attack will certainly provoke enduring problems in global security and transportation.  In a later edition of the Times (September 30, 2001.) Michael Burleigh believes that air travel is daunting and the economy is diving. Another newspaper, the Guardian quotes,

 ‘What happened on September 11 2001 changed the course of human history.  We cannot yet grasp, by any stretch, all that this means.  But already we start to imagine how it will poison trust, wreck relationships, challenge the world order, and vastly magnify the divide between the enemies and friends of what we call democracy.  It will harden the last vestiges of tolerance for compromise and further reverse the presumptions of freedom – of travel, speech, politics, everything.  It calls into question what power is or means.  But most of all it has punctured the dream of American isolation.’

These segments from articles highlight the drama, they fuel the dilemma, which the western world has found itself.  No one can be sure of what is going to happen, the latter quote explains that, but yet it still goes on to highlight one of the darker outcomes.

        On Sunday September 30, 2001, Michael Burleigh, a Professor of History, had an article published in the Times newspaper.  The headline read, ’the age of anxiety’.  He highlights the recent events as an important turning point because the decision the one remaining superpower makes affects the whole world.  He also questions his theory by asking the question, ‘will future historians look back at our time as an important turning point, or will they think we were seized upon by a sort of panic’.  He identifies that he himself is in the time when hasty assumptions and remarks are made, and these may change in time to come.

        One year on and the anniversary of 9/11 is highlighted throughout the press, but there are not only articles marking respect and sorrow but also articles of reflection.  They reflect on what they reported one year ago.  They now have some fact (albeit a little) from which to report from, they know the immediate consequences and can say if their previous reporting was accurate.  

        Many reflect on how exaggerated it all was.  The Times reported, ‘the world economy did not implode last September as some had predicted, the airlines did not collapse en masse because of a public too terrified to fly again, and the security measures introduced in the wake of September 11 have not fundamentally changed the character of ordinary life’.  This is not to say the predictions did not have a ring of truth to them they were just overstated.  The economy did slow down and stock prices took a dive, businesses and consumers throughout the world are still feeling the aftershocks of the terrorist attacks but it is surviving and recovering.  The airlines did not collapse en masse but they were affected and had to cut jobs, but again the industry is recovering.

        What is central to speculation now is America’s response to 9/11.  The theories circulating now are the effects of this response.  In an article published on Weblink by Christoph Bertram, the director of the German Institute for International policy and Security, claims that Americans and Europeans are missing the opportunity to learn the lessons of September 11.  He claims that these lessons should be to ‘increase efforts to stabilise turbulent regions of the world- at task that cannot be accomplished alone or solely by military force.’.  He also points out that this action should be international, whereas at the moment America and Britain are going it alone.

        The Times newspaper on the other hand poses the question, ‘is the world safer now than it was on September 10, 2001, and if so whether the strategy adopted by George W Bush…contributed to that outcome’.  The article replies with a yes on both accounts.  It identifies that although most of the conspirators of September 11 2001 remain at large, in all probability they have been liquefied by the air raids on the Tora Bora Mountains.  The article also brings to our attention that pre September 11 the Al-Qaeda organisation ‘enjoyed a secure base in Afghanistan, had affiliates in more than forty countries and an access to resources that may have exceeded $100 million- none of this is true today…this is due to the measured but massive retaliation ordered by president Bush’.  This article would come under criticism by historians as it is all based on hearsay, you cannot assume that somebody is dead, you cannot assume anything.  Leopold van Ranke (1795-1886) the ‘father’ of the history profession believed that history is empirical.

        Two years on and the consequences of 9/11 are still ongoing.  On this second anniversary the papers acknowledge the human aspect but this gradually lessens.

 ‘Two years on, the survivors of September 11, and the relatives and friends of those who died still suffer.  Two years on, their pain and loss is not forgotten, and will be recalled again today in countless public and private memorials.  But for most ordinary people, in the US and beyond, those dreadful events in New York….are now beginning to slip into history.  It happened: it was truly awful but life must go on’

What is identified here is that people forget, the emotion fades and it no longer seems as important as it did.  Newspapers now focus on what is fundamentally important to them and the new impacts and assumptions which can be made.  What is focused on now is the change in politics.  Patrick Cockburn, co author of Suddam Hussein: An American Obsession, writes an article printed in the Daily Mail examining this shift in politics.  A sentence which stands out in the article is, ‘It was the bloodiest terrorist act in history and it has succeeded in setting the agenda for world politics ever since.’  The article also recognized that the ousting of the Afghanistan and Iraq government was a direct result of September 11, and that it has been these reactions which has split the global society, out casting the US and Britain.

        Other articles question the outcome of the political decisions made in response to September 11.  They look back at questions posed in the immediate aftermath of September 11 of how the nature of the response would be critical.  Many newspapers reported that military action was useless, and was expected by the al-Qaeda in order to recruit more militants.  The Guardian and the Daily Mail both voiced similar opinions; ‘It would be the terrorists greatest victory if this were to escalate into an even bigger conflict’.  

        An article highlighted earlier in this essay posed the question, ‘is the world a safer place?’ it managed to answer yes, but can that be said today, one year after the article was published.  The Guardian has reported that the Taliban and the terrorists are resurgent in Afghanistan.  Two newspapers report that even if Bin Laden were killed the ‘war’ will continue.  They believe that Bush has failed and is continuing to fail in his, ‘war on terror’.  The Guardian reports that two years on the war on terror has failed, ‘George Bush has made a bad situation worse.’  It identified that most polls show that Americans are lacking in confidence when it comes to Bush’s decisions on the war on terror, and many do not want him re-elected next year, the same goes for our Prime minister.  There is nothing to say that in another two years there will be an alternative President of the US and a new Prime minister, and would this give rise to an alternative war on terror?

        To conclude, it has been shown in this essay that it is difficult to define something as a turning point in history when the after effects of the event are not yet to its conclusion.  From the pinnacle of the event up until the event as it stands now there has been many opinions and theories, the latter ones mostly in complete contrast to the initial assumptions.  In the immediate wake of September 11 2001 it was almost certain that this event was going to change the course of mankind, no one could believe that this attack could happen, therefore its repercussions would be huge.  A year later things were not so fearful, everyday life continued and theories were amended.  It was widely understood that this was not going to end in the near future.  Two years on and we are in the present time; we still as yet cannot look back at the infamous day and say, ‘September 11 2001 was a turning point in world history’.  We cannot exclusively use the articles in newspapers and the opinions of eminent figures in the detailing of an historic event.  These are classed as intermediate sources, they do not record what happened, but what is thought to have happened, and they are mainly based on opinion and not fact.  This question should be posed in another fifty years when hopefully the outcome of the overall event is known and the facts have become available.

Bibliography

Books:

J. Black and D. M. Macraild,  Studying History, (London 1997)

From Leopold van Rankes (1824) Preface to the first edition, Histories of the Latin and Germanic nations from 1494 to 1514

Web pages:

C. Bertram. Fading Fast :http://worldlink.co.uk (2002)

Newspapers:

The Daily Mail (London September 12, 2001)

The Daily Mail (London September 13, 2001)

The Daily Mail (London September 11, 2002)

The Daily Mail (London September 11, 2003)

The Guardian (London September 12, 2001)

The Guardian (London September 13, 2001)

The Guardian (London September 11, 2002)

The Guardian (London September 11, 2003)

The Times (London September 12, 2001)

The Times (London September 13, 2001)

The Times (London September 30, 2001)

The Times (London September 11, 2002)

The Times (London September 11, 2003)

---