That many governments outside the US are skeptical about any US-led invasion of Iraq, when not openly opposed to it, is well known. Less recognized is the division between America and much of the world on how to combat terrorism. That division is dangerous.
It is not surprising that attitudes diverged so soon after the initial solidarity that followed the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001. After all, the tragedy of Sept. 11 happened within the US, so the sense of immediacy was greater and longer lasting there. In Europe, many governments are anxious not to frighten their populations or damage relations with their Muslim minorities. Some believe that American foreign policy was partly responsible for the disaster and that it would be wise to distance themselves somewhat from the US.
Perhaps the most important factor opening this divide was a widespread sense of deja vu. Europe lived through severe terrorist episodes in the 1970s and 1980s, yet managed to overcome them with their democracies intact. Terrorism (most Europeans think) is a nuisance to be managed, not a challenge requiring total change. Moreover, the political rhetoric of "evil" and "war" that mobilizes Americans seems alien to those who prefer a managerial approach.
Different perceptions are natural among different political cultures. Unchecked, however, these conflicting views could have dangerous effects by limiting the cooperation that is needed to address common vulnerabilities. Such cooperation is essential because today's terrorism is markedly more lethal and difficult to manage than earlier versions.
Two sets of trends are at work. The first centers around economics and technology. Market forces and openness combine to increase the efficiency of many vital systems -- transportation, information, and energy -- but also make them more vulnerable.
Democratization of technology enables instruments of mass destruction to become smaller, less costly, and more readily available. Where bombs and timers were once heavy and expensive, plastic explosives and digital timers are light and cheap. Hijacking a plane sometimes costs little more than the price of a ticket.
The information revolution has also helped terrorists, providing inexpensive means of communication and organization that allow groups once restricted to local and national police jurisdictions to become global.
Thirty years ago, instantaneous global communication was mostly restricted to large entities (governments, multinational firms, the Roman Catholic Church) with big budgets. The Internet makes it virtually free.
The second set of trends reflects changes in the motivation and organization of terrorist groups. Mid-20th century terrorists tended to have relatively well-defined political objectives, which were often ill-served by mass destruction. Many were supported and covertly controlled by governments.
At the century's end, radical groups grew on the fringes of several religions. Most numerous were the tens of thousands of young Muslim men who went to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Terrorism became more brutal and indiscriminate as motivations changed from the limited and political to unlimited or retributive objectives reinforced by promises of rewards in the afterlife.
Organization also changed. Al-Qaeda's network of tens of thousands of people in loosely affiliated cells in some 60 countries gives it a scale surpassing anything seen before.
Both trends make managing terrorism more difficult. Today's focus is properly on terrorism associated with Islamic extremists. But limiting attention to Islamic terrorists would be a mistake, because it ignores the wider effects of the democratization of technology and the broader set of challenges that must be met.
New technologies have put into the hands of deviant groups and individuals destructive powers once limited to governments. Every large group of humans contains members who deviate from the norm. Some are bent on destruction.
Recall that a homegrown anti-government fanatic, Timothy McVeigh, perpetrated the worst case of terrorism in the US before Sept. 11. Similarly, the Aum Shinrykio cult that spread the poison gas sarin in Tokyo's subway in 1995 had no connection to Islam.
Indeed, whatever the source of terrorism, its lethality is increasing. In the 1970s, the Palestinian attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics or killings by the Red Brigades cost dozens of lives. In the l980s, Sikh extremists bombed an Air India flight, killing 325 people. Destroying New York's Twin Towers cost several thousand lives.
If one extrapolates from these trends and envisions some deviant group gaining access to biological or nuclear materials, it is possible to imagine terrorists murdering millions. To kill so many people, deviants like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin needed a totalitarian government. But now it is easy to envisage deviant groups and/or individuals killing millions without state support. This "privatization of war" dramatically changes world politics.
The next step in the escalation of terrorism will have profound effects on the nature of our urban civilizations. What would happen to our willingness to live and work in cities, to real estate prices, to museums and theater if -- instead of destroying two office buildings -- a future attack destroys the lower half of Manhattan or the Left Bank in Paris?
Today's terrorism is nothing like the 1970s terrorism of the IRA, ETA, or the Red Brigades. Not one but many societies are vulnerable. One need not accept all the rhetoric or policies of US President George W. Bush to recognize that he is correct on a central point: Business as usual will not be enough.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and author of The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone. He is also a former US assistant secretary of defense and former director of the US National Security Agency. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under