Coming to the hyperpower capital from peace-torn Europe, I find three things. Washington is at war. Washington is probably going to war. And Washington is starting to think about a peace to end both wars. People in Britain, and the world beyond, need to wake up to all three.
There is some confusion here between two wars. Sometimes when Washingtonians say "the war" they mean the war against terrorism, which they are still living intensely in everyday life. Sometimes they mean the coming war with Iraq.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
The most pressing conclusion is that Washington is probably going to war against Saddam Hussein. Saddam's solemn claim that he has no more weapons of mass destruction is a blow to those who still hoped for a peaceful solution and a gift to those who think toppling him by force of arms is the only path to effective disarmament. My own impression from talking to people inside and close to the Bush administration is that this war is more a matter of when and how rather than whether.
In his 12,000-page report to the UN, Saddam has written what may prove to be the longest suicide note in history. Yes, if possible the administration wants multilateral and UN support for this operation, so they'll let the UN inspectors run around trying to check the report's claims. But their own intelligence sources already tell them he is lying again. If need be, they will share some of that intelligence to get support from the UN security council and a wider public in the US and Europe. But then they'll nail him.
Why? I have heard, from Americans, all the claims made by supposedly anti-American Europeans. That Bush is doing it to distract attention from economic problems at home. (A prominent Democratic senator, John Kerry, recently raised this charge.) That it's for oil. That he's completing unfinished business from the first Bush administration's Gulf war. That it's George Bush's personal grudge-fight to topple "the guy who tried to kill my dad". That they're going after Saddam because they can't find Osama bin Laden. That it's a war for Sharon's Israel as much as for the US. That it's about winning the next presidential election, as well as the mid-term elections last month, where it produced a resounding victory for the Republicans.
I have also heard the case for this war from liberals with a strong record of advocating humanitarian intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere. Saddam is guilty of genocide. He has actually used weapons of mass destruction against neighbors and his own people. There is a real danger of him using them again -- which makes a legitimate tripwire to intervention. The only sure way to disarm him is to depose him.
But what strikes me most is how far people in or around the Bush administration do really regard the coming war with Iraq as part of an ongoing war against terrorism -- as also was last Tuesday's seizure of Scud missiles destined for Yemen. When I say "Washington is at war", I'm not just using "Washington" as diplomatic shorthand for the US -- as in "London insists" or "Paris objects". I mean Washington, this currently freezing, handsome, driven, one-topic city on the Potomac and, more specifically, its Republican elites.
In the American agricultural heartlands of Kansas and Missouri, I asked farmers, students, schoolchildren and Friday night casino-goers whether they felt they were at war. Their answers ranged from a hesitant "not really" to "well, sort of". Here, in the nation's capital, from people close to the Bush administration, the answer is a resounding "yes", with a look that says "what a strange thing to ask".
Around the dinner table, everyone has their animated tale of Sept. 11: the panicked rush to school to pick up the kids, the chaotic office evacuation, the column of smoke from the Pentagon, the wild rumors. The more affluent have stockpiled antidotes to anthrax, gas masks, emergency food supplies in the cellar, and even "nuke pills" -- supposed to alleviate the effects of a small nuclear "dirty bomb". Some have even moved out of Washington, or at least are glad that their children are about to. Though the expected follow-up terrorist attack has not yet come, they feel it's just a matter of time until it does.
When I lived here for a year in the 1980s, Washington was an unreal city. All the world's problems -- war, famine, disease, revolution -- were discussed over breakfast, lunch and dinner; none impacted directly on the comfortable daily life of plush offices and pleasant suburbs. Since Sept. 11, that has changed. Public and private have traumatically merged. And the closer you are to the heart of power, the more alarmed you are by the myriad plausible scenarios for terrorist attack. "It's really scary when you start looking at it in detail," one senior official told me. So whatever the analytical truth, and however remote this is from the reality of war as one saw it in Bosnia or Kosovo, Washington feels itself to be at war. That's a municipal fact of world importance.
But Washington is not just sitting here feeling scared. It's not just preparing to prosecute a war which -- however tenuous the alleged connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda -- it does see as part of the larger ongoing war against terrorism. Amply conscious of being the imperial capital of the most powerful country in the history of the world, it's also beginning to think big about the longer-term path to a peace that is supposed to end these wars. An administration that came into office ideologically opposed to US involvement in so-called "nation-building" in foreign parts is now plainly committed to the long haul of so-called "nation-building" in post-invasion (or, according to preference, post-liberation) Iraq.
But that's only for starters. This new, democratic and prosperous Iraq is to be a model and magnet for its neighbors, as West Germany and West Berlin were to their unfree neighbors in the cold war. Vanguard thinkers talk of encouraging a velvet revolution to democratize Iran. Then there's the US' rich, friendly but oppressive ally, Saudi Arabia, from whose Wahabi Islamist wells -- hate wells beside the oil wells -- many of the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept. 11 actually sprang. No one in the administration wants to say this publicly, but there is a clear logic that leads from the democratization of Iraq to that of Saudi Arabia. If you want to get rid of the Islamist mosquitoes, you must drain the swap. And so people are talking here -- not yet publicly, but in the corridors and anterooms of power -- about a Wilsonian project for reshaping the whole Middle East, comparable in its ambition only to those for Europe in 1919 and 1949. World-weary Europeans, and people in the region itself, may doubt both the realism of this embryonic project and the US's capacity to sustain it. We would better spend our time thinking how to complement and improve it.
Of course, the "Washington" of this article is also, in some measure, a term of art. In the hyperpower capital, as everywhere, there are widely diverging views. But the sense of war and the great changes that must flow from it is palpable here as nowhere else.
Timothy Garton Ash is a fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford and the Hoover Institute, Stanford.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry