This brought about condemnation of Pervaiz Musharaff who was the military ruler at the time from many of his citizens. Effigies of G. W. Bush and P. Musharaff were burnt as well as the US flag in demonstrations throughout the country. People resented the fact that the USA had forced the country’s leadership using its muscular interventionism to co-operate their way. This resentment causes unrest in the international order. Recent news from Pakistan indicates that the resentment went as far as an assassination plot last year on Pervaiz Masharaff. Four militants were sentenced to death last week for their role in a car bomb attack last year on the US consulate in Karachi. Twelve Pakistanis were killed in that attack. The men are accused of trying to murder President Musharraf by setting off a bomb in a pick-up vehicle while he was on a visit to Karachi in April last year. It can be said the US is at least partly to blame for this. Their muscular interventionism went as far as unsettling the order of a sovereign state’s domestic matters. This can be said to be an infringement of the sovereignty of that state. The UN charter emphasises that a state is sovereign over its own affairs and has the right to self-determination. The last point is contentious here, as no state in the international order seems to have self-determination. In most cases the self in self-determination is taken away by US influence over the states actions and decisions.
Following the war that toppled the Taliban the USA sought to put the heat on other nations. In his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech G. W. Bush highlighted that Iraq, Iran and N. Korea were the states that were the major threats to international order. By saying so the USA only fuelled more hatred towards them. The rhetoric used since September 11 has been aggressive rather than diplomatic. Iraq was accused of possessing chemical and biological weapons. Only recently was Iraq attacked and invaded by the USA and close ally Britain. This again critics would argue is US muscular interventionism. The US in this case went against the UN and international law. Although the Security Council had voted and agreed on resolution 1441 on Iraq the final go ahead for military action was not given. Resolution 1441 was the resolution passed by the Security Council, which stated that if Iraq did not comply with the UN and its weapons inspectors that it would face serious consequences. The USA used this very clause and without getting the final resolution passed to endorse UN approval for military action failed to follow the conduct of the UN. They failed to win a consensus in the UN for the military action they felt was needed. Therefore, knowing that their interests were not going to be passed by the UN the second time the US government decided to go it alone. The UN was left undermined as a global body that was set up to uphold international law and order. This further illustrates how the USA has been unsettling the international order. States can use this as an example to further undermine the UN. Following this, Indian politicians made the argument that they could attack Pakistan as it had according to Indian officials been sponsoring terrorists that operate in Indian Kashmir. The rhetoric between both sides has been tense and both countries have been close to war for a while. Had India attacked Pakistan using this pre-emptive strike policy of the USA blame would have to go on US muscular interventionism having a domino affect on other countries.
Even states like Britain, France and Germany are influenced by the US it can be said. Therefore the international order is not balanced. It’s a uni-polar system where all countries can be argued to be under the USA. During the cold war there was a bipolar system where most countries were either under the US or Soviet influence. American Secretary of State Colin Powell very recently said France would suffer consequences for having opposed the US over the war with Iraq. He said the US would be reviewing all aspects of its relations with France in light of its decision to veto any UN Security Council resolution authorising war against Iraq. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France would continue to defend international law no matter what indicating that ties with the USA are not good. More so, it shows that if states are not willing to co-operate with the USA they can singled out. Again US muscular intervention is causing tensions and diplomatic problems in the international order. The international order is about co-operation and peace. The US has angered many European countries and as these states are against US actions in the present climate Washington has labelled them ‘Old Europe’. Not signs of good diplomacy or of international co-operation. To further explore this ripple affect states in Europe are arguing among themselves. Those that followed Washington’s line are bickering with one another. The European Union was set up to create better economic and political co-operation and through somewhat indirect US muscular intervention this is being hindered.
Osama Bin Laden is the man the US accuses of masterminding the 11 September suicide hijackings and other attacks on US interests. He has been indicted for the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa and the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000. He founded Al-Qaeda in 1979, originally as a guesthouse in Peshawar in Pakistan for Arab fighters. These fighters were given military aid and support by the USA to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded after Islamic activity caused unrest in the country. The Soviets did not want the country to unsettle neighbouring Islamic majority states of the Soviet Union so decided to interfere. At the time Al-Qaeda’s enemy was the Soviet Union who had been suppressing Muslims in the region. Having forced Moscow to pull out in 1985 showed that the group was resilient enough to force out a major superpower at the time. As states act in the way to serve their self-interests groups like Al-Qaeda do also. They worked with the US to defeat their common enemy and when their objective had been achieved they turned against the very country that helped them achieve the objective.
What this shows is that groups like Al-Qaeda can go through periods, a change of interests, a change of policy more so a change in focus. Unlike a state these terrorist groups have no elected bodies nor are they accountable. They are groups embedded in anarchism. The state cannot serve their interests. What makes them more dangerous is the fact that they will subject people to follow their way of thinking, their way of living and their way of beliefs. This is normally done through acts of terror. In the past groups have hijacked planes and boats. Using hostages has been a common weapon. These acts of terror have been used to influence government thinking or retaliate against them. The IRA being a much smaller terrorist group has used bombs in N. Ireland to pressure Loyalists and the British government. They have taken this activity into the UK on many occasions. Although after September 11 their activity in the UK has been dormant mainly due to the peace process their activity in other parts of the world causes concern. In Columbia IRA terrorists have been caught training Columbian rebels the FARC. This is another example of how these groups can change their focus from time to time. Their whole cause is to unify Ireland yet they are caught in Columbia training the rebels who have been in a 39 yearlong civil war with the government there. It can be said that the IRA is contributing to the long duration of this conflict by aiding the rebels.
*Recent figures by a Colombian human rights group, the Permanent Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CPDH), has just released its annual report on the state of violence in Colombia. The report worked out as murders per 100,000 of the population, Colombia has now touched 30 the highest in the world. The IRA is further fuelling this through the co-operation with FARC rebels. A state should be sovereign over its own domestic matters and not be subdued by outsider groups. The international order is about peaceful relations between states but this is hindered when these terrorist groups start to attack order within a state itself.
As mentioned they are not accountable. People can’t stop them completely from their activities. After September 11 and the war in Afghanistan Al-Qaeda had been defeated and in some ways contained. The international community increased security and awareness. A global campaign froze assets belonging to the group. However, the group was not completely wiped out. When the US was busy bombing away Iraq Al-Qaeda fighters started some resistance in Afghanistan having ‘woken up’ there.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas
It can be concluded from this that terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda don’t disappear over night even after being attacked the way they were in Afghanistan. As George W. Bush said recently “Al-Qaeda are wounded not defeated”. There so-called ‘awakening’ causes much concern as they could cause more havoc. It is this resilience and sheer defiance of the international order that is so threatening. Having been defeated they seek to reassemble and start again. The international order is vulnerable to this. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda can be defeated but not completely wiped out. In Israel groups like Hamas have for decades been using suicide bombings. Many members of their group have been captured or killed in confrontation with the Israeli army yet they bounce back again. There are several reasons behind this and one of these is easy recruitment of people to the group.
Terrorist groups can recruit with ease especially in countries or areas where poverty is strife. It is poor social conditions that lead people to extremism. A Persian poet said that all conflicts in this world are caused by land and wealth. This very factor can be said to be the factor that causes most unrest in global affairs. The groups that many call terrorists others call freedom fighters are seeking to create an international order that suits their interests. They would like it moulded in a way that suits them. The problem however, is that to create it they have to use acts of terror and aggression to weaken it. This illustrates how they are dangerous to the international order.
To conclude this essay it must be said that the USA is doing what any other state would have done if it were in its position. It was Otto Bismark who said, “In international diplomacy there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.” History would further prove this theory. When the British Empire was at its peak it controlled the lives of over 1/3 of the global population. In addition, it had a strong indirect influence over the way states carried out their affairs for example forcing the Chinese to trade with them in the 18th and 19th centuries. The USA being the major superpower has exerted force into the international arena to get what it wants. It has made allies of former foes and foes of old allies (i.e Pakistan). After September 11 countries that have defied America have been either hit with sanctions or loss in trade with the world’s largest economy: the USA. This highlights the unipolar system we have today. It is this unstoppable force that has contributed to the creation of these groups embedded in anarchism. Some groups have been created primarily to fight US action like Al-Qaeda others created indirectly by US actions in a certain region. A good example of this would be in Israel. The USA has long supported the Israelis and played down the Palestinian cause. Having aided Israel over the years and strengthened it the way it has the emergence of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah has been fuelled by the US turning a blind eye on the issue only to strengthen Israel. Instability in the region therefore has to an extent be blamed on US actions.
These groups are dangerous to the international order but they need fuel to push them on. This fuel is being supplied by US muscular interventionism done in the wrong ways. Where muscular interventionism is much needed to resolve an issue the US has pulled back. Again Israel and the Palestinian cause need to be emphasised. Their interventionism has been used to further their own interests and with their force they have converted ‘might into right’. Not many countries can have their fair say in the order. Therefore, the international order is being turned into a minority ruling the majority. A state with 4% of the world’s total population has such an influence over the way other countries reside. Danger is what the international order is in with this scenario. The groups that can danger the international order need to be contained in more diplomatic ways if possible. More so, they should not be fuelled on by further aggressive policies used by the USA. It is for this very reason that this essay concludes that the USA is the real challenge to the international order in the wake of September 11.
Bibliography
‘The World at 2000’, Fred Halliday, Palgrave Books, 2001
‘The Globalization of World Politics’, John Baylis, Oxford Uni Press, 2000
‘Essentials of International Relations’, Karen Mingst, 2001
