Seeing the United States as Others Do

Global Security Challenges: Seeing the United States as Others Do
By Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.), Foreign Policy in Focus

Current leaders in Washington tend to see the world in black and white. For example, President George Bush has declared that there are only two categories for countries and individuals: “with us or against us,” and all those in the second category are considered terrorists or supporters of terror subject to “preventive” war with the time, place, and weapons determined by the U.S. president. What is wrong with this division is that the overwhelming majority of the earth’s people want nothing to do with either side. Their concerns are survival: food, water, health, and shelter, not terrorists...

But as U.S. intelligence directors confirmed in mid-February when they spoke before Congress, the formerly semistructured organization known as al-Qaida has devolved into an amorphous network of activists, sympathizers, and “imitators”--all of whom are regarded interchangeably as “jihadis,” extremists, or terrorists. Their numbers have multiplied since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq because, to quote CIA Director Goss, “The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.”

This polarization results from many Muslims viewing U.S. actions in Iraq as state terrorism and a Western jihad upon Islam, a perception that is not based on some “fundamentalist” misinterpretation of religion, as President Bush has declared. Perhaps such Muslims have read the definition of terror used by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation: “the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.”...

March 2005 marks two years since the United States launched an unprovoked--by international standards--attack upon Saddam Hussein’s Iraq , and U.S. troops still occupy the country. Washington claims it has returned sovereignty to a legitimate Iraqi government, but that is not the opinion of many Iraqis. Although the Bush administration once declared that most of the suicide bombers and many insurgents were foreigners controlled by al-Qaida-affiliated Abu Masab Zarqawi, field commanders now tell the Pentagon that Iraqi nationalists opposed to the foreign presence fuel the insurgent ranks...

Meanwhile, the United States persists in tolerating, working with, and supporting both economically and militarily several authoritarian regimes in Asia and the Persian Gulf . In his most recent State of the Union Address to Congress and the U.S. public, President Bush merely chided Saudi Arabia and Egypt for not moving further along the road of democracy. Meanwhile, at the behest of non-democratic foreign leaders, Washington has included on its list of terrorist organizations some movements that are fighting to defeat repression (e.g., the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) and is considering adding groups such as Hezbollah and other Palestinian organizations, even though they pose no direct threat to the United States. And now there is a new category on the State Department list: “pop up” groups that commit one or more acts of “terror” and then dissolve--circumstances that suggest these groups are more criminal than terrorist...

As with terrorism, the United States exercises a double standard regarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Washington condones the continued possession of nuclear weapons by Britain, France, and Israel; it accepts the arsenals in Russia, China, India, and Pakistan, because it cannot eliminate them; but it denies even the option for nuclear energy development in countries where relations are strained, contending that these countries will inevitably try to develop nuclear weapons. This latter case is seen most acutely in Iran and North Korea .

The United States also appears to forget its own energy history. In categorically rejecting Tehran ’s claim that nuclear power use curbs domestic petroleum consumption, allowing Iran to conserve its exportable reserves, Washington ignores the fact that the United States established its first nuclear power plant while America was still the world’s largest petroleum producer.

By refusing to join direct European Union-Iran talks and by discounting the agreement between Moscow and Tehran authorizing Russia to provide fuel for and re-possess spent fuel from Iran ’s nuclear reactor, Washington shows that it is not serious about finding an equitable solution to the Iran impasse. Instead, President Bush seems bent on punishing Iran for exercising its treaty-guaranteed right to develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, judging from comments made during his late February 2005 trip to Europe. The president first said that diplomacy is just beginning, and then, with a grin, he added that “all options are on the table.” From Iran ’s perspective, all options for defending itself from U.S. incursions--whether CIA agents and spy drones or special operations soldiers--are also on the table.

Similarly, Washington seems intent on depriving North Korea of the economic development assistance promised in the 1994 Agreed Framework. Hostility toward North Korea was displayed early in President Bush’s first term when he expressed loathing for the Kim Jung Il administration. This animosity created an unfavorable atmosphere for negotiations in the six-party talks and eventually led to Pyongyang’s decision to reprocess spent fuel rods into plutonium for nuclear weapons. However, contrary to claims by both sides, North Korea may still have only a handful of usable nuclear devices, since such weapons require close, skillful monitoring to avoid deterioration. Unlike the sale of missiles, this may be a factor in the apparent absence of exports of a complete nuclear weapon by Pyongyang ...

... CIA Director Porter Goss was quite explicit about this when he stated that “Beijing’s military modernization and military buildup is tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait.” Apparently, only the United States is permitted to modernize its military. It’s okay for America to install a missile defense system, acquire a new class of nuclear submarines, develop new “stealthy” airplanes, and amass stockpiles of “precision” weapons. Yet of the four modernizations that the PRC is pursuing, military modernization is last priority. In fact, by the end of 2005, the United States plans to boost its military forces by 33,000 and wants to double its special operations cadre, while China will complete a cut of 700,000 troops over two years bringing the People’s Liberation Army forces to under two million. In all, the annual U.S. military budget currently exceeds half a trillion dollars (compared to the PRC’s $50-60 billion).

... Washington is trying to force Taiwan to accept and pay for $18 billion in new “defensive” weapons. The PRC considers Taiwan’s status an internal concern of the Chinese people, who need no “assistance” from other countries. The February 20, 2005 joint declaration by the Japanese foreign minister and U.S. defense secretary that the state of affairs in the Taiwan Strait is a “common strategic objective” was an attack on the unified sovereignty of China , which both the United States and Japan have acceded to under the “one China ” policy...

“Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment.” That admission by DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby applies everywhere that Washington tries to impose its will on governments and peoples under the guise of “spreading freedom and democracy.” Polls in four countries with the largest Muslim populations--Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India--reveal significant pluralities (if not outright majorities) who admire Osama bin Laden, are suspicious of U.S. motives, or feel that U.S. foreign policy is anti-Muslim.

Moreover, U.S. actions and policies are creating tensions and fostering resentments in Africa , Asia , and Latin America . Administration promises of economic aid have either not been fulfilled by Congress or have been tied to conditions that are defined and evaluated by Washington (e.g., “good governance,” transparency and accountability, and the rule of law). Potential recipient governments must meet these conditions to be considered for U.S. aid. (These requirements do not apply to certain “friendly” states such as Nepal, where the king dissolved the government and seems set to rule by decree for the indefinite future, and Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharref’s support for the U.S. “global war on terror” has earned him virtual immunity from “inconvenient” restrictions.) Yet Vice Admiral Jacoby acknowledges that “economic and political disenfranchisement” is a prominent factor exploited by terrorist groups to gain new recruits.