Anwar Ahmad

Foreign ministers from 72 OIC-EU countries met in Istanbul to bridge the gap between the Muslim world and the West. Quite appropriately, the US wasn't there. Quite predictably, the ministers rediscovered the key to good Muslim-West relations in resolving the Mideast conflict. And, naturally, they disagreed on a statement condemning Israel and a definition of terrorism -- which, the whole world agrees with the US, must be terminated.

But the minister did recognise the joint responsibility of the Muslim countries to fight terrorism "in all its forms and manifestations," sympathised with the US and agreed that "The horrifying attacks of September-11 are purely brutal acts of terrorism [which] cannot be explained or justified for religious, cultural or any other reasons whatsoever."

Horrifying and brutal the 9/11 attacks certainly were, and their victims deserve unreserved sympathy. So do the innocent and uncounted Afghan civilians killed in the ruthless US retaliation. There was, naturally, no mention of them. But why can't the 9/11 attacks be explained? Are they a cosmic riddle? Or an article of faith, best left outside the realm of analysis?

Such taboos being spun around 9/11 lie at the core of the widening gulf between the West, especially the US, and Muslim opinion. The West cannot, or will not, understand why the phenomenon should be examined and explained beyond the obvious. It happened, didn't it? It was horrendous, wasn't it? They hate us, don't they? They deserve punishment, don't they? So, why make excuses for them?

Muslim opinion is shaped differently by its historical and contemporary experience. The 9/11 attacks were horrendous and inexcusable, everyone agrees. But they can, and indeed must, be explained and understood to avoid a repeat. The simplest explanation is that Osama is a hero to some in the Muslim world not because of whatever he stood for. But because of what he stood against, mainly US double standards in world affairs. The West's freedom and riches neither enrage nor interest those of his ilk. So punish them by all means fair, but please also look within.

Unfortunately, such explanations are seen in the US-West as excuses for terrorism, which they certainly are not. Thus, a unilateralist USA is dragging the world in an uncertain and dangerous direction. A very small measure of the consequences of US actions is the chaos released in Afghanistan which is a minuscule operation compared to the Pentagon's ambition of achieving "full spectrum" but "benevolent domination" of the world. Consider this grand plan against Israel's failure to subdue the Palestinians.

Even if the US bombing of Afghanistan is overlooked as a knee-jerk reaction or a political necessity, the "axis of evil" doctrine certainly takes its designs far beyond the realm of reason. Forget the spiritual/moral mumbo jumbo. Let's talk reality.

Can the US economy sustain indefinitely an open ended, nebulous and global operation? Can its unprecedented and unmatched economic and technological superiority make the US immune to the principle of over-extension which had eroded all previous empires? Particularly, when it has jacked up its defence budget by 45 billion dollars, taking it to 379 billion which is 40% of the entire world's and more than the combined defence spending of the 19 countries next in line? And, even as its economic output has shrunk from 50% of the world's after WW-II to 30% now?

And, when the prognosis for a near-term recovery isn't good? And, when its huge and chronic budget-deficit, turned into a surplus by the Clinton administration, promises to run amok again? And, when there is talk of the military-industrial complex hijacking this surplus -- which, by right and political wisdom, belonged to the weak and vulnerable in the US, if not the multiplying poor in the world it seeks to control and profit from.

Against these odds, how long can the US government manipulate domestic media and public opinion? And, for whatever it is worth, Muslim opinion which, already in a sulk, could react against their discredited elite playing poodle to the US juggernaut? And, what of the anti-poverty, anti-globalisation, pro-environment groundswell which, as the World Social Forum moot in Porto Alegre, Brazil, indicated, is recovering from the setback of 9/11?

Incidentally, the rich countries, committed to halving world poverty by 2015, are allocating 0.24% of their national incomes (50 billion dollars per annum) for development aid against a UN recommended minimum of 0.7% (150 billion).

The American refusal to let reason, reality and its own longer-term interests shape its response away from a destructive course simply makes no sense. Until, of course, an insight is provided by Thomas L Friedman.

Writing in The New York Times ('Crazier than thou'), Friedman acknowledges that, while "President Bush thinks the axis of evil is Iran, Iraq and North Korea," "the Europeans think it's Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice." And, that Chris Patten, the EU's foreign policy "czar", says the axis-of-evil idea is dangerously "absolutist and simplistic", not thought through, "un-helpful", and the Europeans must stop Washington before it goes into a "unilateralist over drive."

Friedman agrees with this and other criticism of the "axis" idea. He concedes also that the US can't fight everywhere alone, and should act to end Israeli-Palestinian violence to retain Arab support. But, he goes on, "I'm still glad President Bush said what he said. Because the critics are missing the larger point, which is this: September-11 happened because America had lost its deterrent capability." He then cites a 20-year history of the US failure to retaliate against those who murdered innocent Americans -- from Beirut in April 1983 to the USS Cole in Yemen (he does not, of course, say that the "innocent Americans" were mostly US soldiers or, typically, explain why US symbols were attacked).

"The terrorists and the states that harbour them thought we were soft, and they were right. They thought that they could always "out-crazy" US, and they were right." So, the punchline, "the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through -- but that's what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: 'We know what you're cooking in your bathtubs. We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld -- he's even crazier than you are."

Thus, in acting crazier than its enemies Friedman sees the restoration of US deterrence. This may be crazy logic, but it is at least honest in ripping all the moralising pretence off US actions. It explains the absurdity of Rumsfeld judging that Iran isn't yet fit to join the "civilised world" -- a country with 3000 thousand years of civilisation behind is excluded from it by a historical upstart!

Arrogance and ignorance are a heady mix indeed, and dangerous. But how can such madness grip a country whose citizens are so fair and friendly? The US has been hurt, humiliated and frightened, and doesn't know how else to react. The corporate interests see mega profits in a global war. The electronic media, which shape most American minds, are eager partners. And, unlike their suspicious (and, thus, more aware) counterparts in the Muslim world, most Americans trust their government and the "free media" and, thus, don't need to be physically controlled.

Butler Shaffer, a teacher at the Southwestern University School of Law, provides another insight into the American frenzy. "It has always been comforting to most people to imagine, albeit unconsciously, that the 'dark side' of their personality -- i.e. the capacity for violence, dishonesty, bigotry, etc -- can be severed from themselves and projected onto others, against whom punitive action can then be taken." This allows the scape-goating and punishment of others to escape one's own feared shortcomings.

"This kind of thinking has produced the current Bush-induced mindset that when America bombs other countries -- killing innocent men, women, and children in the process -- it is a force for 'good' defending 'freedom'. When these other countries retaliate for such attacks -- killing innocent men, women, and children in so doing -- they represent the forces of 'evil' engaged in 'terrorism.'"

Shaffer's conclusion: "That grown men and women can internalise this kind of playground logic, particularly when the consequences are so deadly, is indeed frightening." The current American madness, it seems, will have to play itself out. European meowing won't stop it. But the US will, ultimately, be defeated -- more by itself, when a reactive change inevitably occurs in its internal dynamics, and by a multi-pronged global backlash. If in doubt, please consult Newton.

The writer is a freelance columnist

aa52pak@hotmail.com