Erstellt am: 21.11.2003 Autor: Jessica Duda Status: Bisher nicht definiert
Why the USA counter-terrorism and reconstruction poicy change?
While Afghanistan and Iraq have political and historical differences, enough similarities reveal a costly change in US counter-terrorism and nation-building policies. Soon after the September 11 attacks, heads of state came together at the annual UN General Assembly meeting to discuss options to investigate and respond to the terrorism. These talks included future options for Afghanistan implicitly anticipating regime change to oust the Taliban. Two UN General Assembly meetings later, world leaders debated similar future options for Iraq that includes the usual spike in their exposure to the American media and public. Americans heard two main requests from the world community: first, internationalize security and technical assistance and second, help the Iraqis hold elections to begin their self-governance.
This near global consensus is confronting opposition from the Bush Administration regardless that it is also the security and reconstruction policy for Afghanistan. No doubt, Afghanistan has its problems but the Bush Administration and world community helped opposition and diaspora groups begin democratizing Afghanistan as soon as the Taliban fell. Afghan interim President Hamid Karzi and the Grand Assembly are on schedule to create a constitution by January 2004 and hold national popular elections by July 2004. The world community has been willing to support Afghan self-governance while floating its meager $19 billion economy and securing only the capital Kabul. The security situation for its NATO member-led command rotating every 6 months continues to be a tough task as it is still engaging in active missions against Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. NATO and coalition forces are also enduring deep religious and tribal strife, the world’s largest opium production and porous borders. Afghanistan has also taken on tremendous regional importance and is up against the territorial and terrorist violence between nuclear India and Pakistan.
Doesn’t Iraq present the very same challenges with Mr. Bush responding vastly different? A war-torn and tortured population also of 28 million, a devastated economy and infrastructure, domestic and foreign terrorism (possibly including Al Qaeda), conflicted religious and tribal groups, open borders, importance to a volatile region and impact on a nearby territorial/terrorist conflict (Israel and Palestine.) In some ways, Iraq has it easier by having a largely literate population, relatively minor illegal narcotics production and just Israel is nuclear. To the disappointment of the UN General Assembly, the Bush Administration continued to assert Iraq uniquely requires at least one year to be able to self-govern, though creating definite timeline is really is not fair. Ending US occupation is contingent upon securing the country (with strapped US, British and newly-trained Iraqi forces), creating a constitution and rebuilding its institutions ‘with the Iraqis.’
The Bush roadblock to Iraqi self-governance has been accompanied by increasing acts of terrorism, casualties of Iraqis and occupying troops as well as anti-Americanism from key allies’. Terrorist recruitment is expected to increase as recent history shows Al Qaeda’s 9-11 was partly in retaliation to US military action in Gulf War I and sustained presence in the region. Related to this, terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, tells me, “as we have seen in Iraq, terrorists have sought to counter the pre-emptive strike policy on ideological and morale grounds [by] drawing legitimacy from the lack of international legal sanction [thus] earning recruits.” (Meanwhile, American ‘weekend warrior’ interest in the US National Guard is anticipated to lose its zeal and no other countries are eager to send their citizens to the front lines.)
The US agreed to ‘move on’ with its historic partners opposed to the timing of the invasion at the June G-8 and US-European Union annual summits. However, they left the UN General Assembly without concrete action plans for the forthcoming UN Security Council resolution to end the violence and rebuild Iraq. The media were left to cover mere handshakes of platitudes.
Consistent diplomacy is rarely practiced and the global consensus of the desire for regime change, counter-terrorism and nation building in similar Afghanistan and Iraq is a rare opportunity. The Bush Administration’s refusal to use the globally supported Afghan approach – not to be confused with end result - is jeopardizing America’s world standing and the chance for the Iraqi people to take back their country and maybe in time help their neighbors. The agreement to internationalize Iraqi reconstruction and begin the process of self-government among world leaders as well as the majority of the US Congress and American foreign policy scholars seems to offer a humble quick-win for America. Like war, reconstruction is messy, unpredictable and expensive. Unlike American military victories, reconstruction is achieved in small steps and mostly out of the media’s view. Why continue to incur the high cost at home and at the UN when it isn’t paying the peace dividend?
