World>Terrorism & Security
posted September 13, 2004, updated 10:30 a.m.

Global opinion: World is not a safer place

Three years after 9/11, negativity towards US policies spreads beyond 'the usual suspects'.

by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Three years after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, a look over the weekend at global opinion on the war on terror shows that most of the world considers it a largely unsuccessful effort. Even within countries whose governments are allied with the US in the war on terror, and who have sent troops to Iraq, there is a sense that US policies have not made the world a safer place.

Writing in Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Washington correspondent Paul McGeough says that the there is much "confusion and sadness" on the third anniversary of 9/11, and if you asked Western leaders how the war on terror was going, most would say " they don't know." Mr. McGeough argues that the administration of US President George W. Bush has invited "double blowback from the litany of policy decisions" that have allowed the war in Iraq to "smother the war on terror."

And with Iraq sucking in so much energy and resources and as a constant source of "bad news", it means that each terrorist strike elsewhere in the world is magnified as much by its own appalling impact as by the fact that it seems to have happened despite the Bush war on terrorism. If there is a war to be fought, it's a war of ideas. And while many in the West are victims, this is a war being fought between fundamentalist and moderate schools within the global Islamic community. It is a conflict that the West might influence diplomatically and culturally, but it won't do so with guns.

The Manila Times noted that Australia marked 9/11 by " announcing bombproofing for its missions abroad and the relocation of its Bali consulate and new checks on incoming flights from Indonesia."

An editorial in India's Hindustan Times says that in taking stock of the war on terror, it's hard to escape the feeling that " it's not going all that well." It points to incidents in Russia, Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq as just the most recent proof that anti-terror efforts are faltering. The editorial also points to policies of the current US administration as part of the problem


09/10/04 Conflict in Gaza has political overtones 09/09/04 Britain sets nuclear deadline for Iran 09/08/04 August was worst month for US in Iraq

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

Instead of crushing Al Qaeda first, US President George W. Bush, in the single biggest blunder of the anti-terror war, invaded Iraq. As a result that country's political and social fabric has been ripped apart and it is likely to become a new breeding ground for terrorism. Indeed, instead of engaging the Islamic world and turning it against the likes of Al Qaeda, the US has generated unprecedented resentment against its policies.

The Straits Times of Singapore writes that the recent bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia "reminds us [that] the threat of terrorism is alive and well." And the Times also addresses the attitude that many Americans have towards world opinion – that it doesn't matter at all. In fact, the Times writes, many who believe in "American exceptionalism" think that the very fact that the world disapproves of President Bush's policies only serves to "confirm them." But, the editorial argues, this negativity towards US policy is not simply a "matter of popularity."

Anti-Americanism, no longer the preserve of only the usual suspects among American's enemies, is rapidly becoming a normalised sentiment even among friendly nations. To an extent that would have been unimaginable during the Cold War, a majority among America's traditional allies in Europe now say they do not want a strong US, as shown in another survey of transatlantic trends, conducted by the Marshall Fund. If such attitudes become settled, Europe and the US may well diverge, and the European Union may be tempted to act in a concerted fashion to counter US foreign policy. If that were to happen, anti-Americanism will no longer be just sentiment but policy, leading eventually to the rise of anti-American combines in international relations. It is questionable whether that would benefit either the US or the world.

The National Post in Canada offers an example of how the attitudes of a traditional ally have changed since 9/11. The month after 9/11, a poll showed that 78 percent of Canadians had a positive view of Americans. But that support had dropped considerably by 2003 with more than a third of those surveyed expressing negative views towards the US.

"We are at a very low point in terms of our feelings and relationships with the United States," says Jack Jedwab, director of the Association of Canadian Studies. "That doesn't mean Canadians no longer regard the events of 9-11 with horror. But much of the sympathy and charity we felt for America at that time has ebbed away."

In the Netherlands, a country that has sent troops to Iraq, sentiment is similar to those countries mentioned above, according to Bertus Hendriks, the Middle East editor for Radio Netherlands. Mr. Hendriks also says that hostility to the US in Arab nations is creating " fertile breeding grounds" for Osama bin Laden and others. The invasion of Iraq, he argues, has been a key element in this happening.

Columnist Miodrag Soric writes in Germany's Deutsche Welle that if America wants to understand why the world has become less safe since 9/11, it needs to look inward.

Americans keep asking themselves where such intense hate could possibly come from. And they continue to miss the concept that they added to it themselves, in various ways -- via cronyism with third world dictators and through a lack of interest in the developments and problems of the rest of the world, for example. A quick look at the US evening television news makes it clear that international themes are largely ignored. The American public is satisfied to see only itself on screen; its image of the world is firmly established and unshakeable.

Columnist Pepe Escobar, writing in Hong Kong's Asia Times says that three years after 9/11, President Bush's "crusade is a failure." And he argues that Al Qaeda's ability to constantly remake itself has made it more of a " multi-headed hydra" than ever before.

As nihilistic as it may be, Al Qaeda, from a business point of view, is a major success: three years after September 11, it is a global brand and a global movement. The Middle East, in this scenario, is just a regional base station. This global brand does not have much to do with Islam. But it has everything to do with the globalization of anti-imperialism. And the empire, whatever its definition, has its center in Washington. Bin Laden is laughing: Bush's crusade has legitimized an obscure sect as a worldwide symbol of political revolt. How could bin Laden not vote for Bush?

Finally, Essa bin Mohammed Al Zedjali, editor-in-chief of the Oman Times, writes that the answer to the question 'Has the US succeeded in defeating terrorism or in restructuring the world in line with its vision?,' is "crystal-clear." No. And he argues there is likely to be little change in these "ineffective policies" regardless of whoever becomes the next president of the US.

Whether Bush remains in office, or whether his Democratic competitor John Kerry wins the US presidential election, the Sept. 11 strategy will continue unchanged indicating that what happened three years ago was not just an event but a policy that will remain with us and affect our daily lives for years to come.