The Death of American Innocence

We have been repeatedly told that the 11th September 2001 marked the death of American innocence. Certainly, prior to that date, many Americans appear to have been unaware of the existence of people who opposed the American dominance of world trade and politics. However, look at the Iraq policy of the Bush administration and its supporters, and you won't see much sign of any lost innocence. Instead, you will see a swaggering, gung-ho confidence in America's supreme position in the world. The American military machine can defeat all dangers, American interests form a moral imperative for the rest of the world. Supporters of the war will tell you that all Iraq's internal conflicts can be solved by installing a "representative, democratic government" or that there is "no harm in trusting the president".

The dangers of this are obvious. While America spends $75 billion on invading Iraq, the relatively modest sums needed to prevent terrorists acting on American soil can't be found. Al Qaeda is forgotten, free to reform and plot new horrors, while America concentrates on Iraq. That many believe that international terrorism can be stopped by bombing individual countries, however rogue, is a triumph of wishful thinking. Al Qaeda and similar organisations, meanwhile, use this demonstration of American aggression to recruit new terrorists. "Protect Iraq!" becomes the rallying cry of Islamic extremists.

And the danger to the rest of the world is no less. US allies, such as Britain, have obviously placed themselves in the firing line. While we are there through choice - or at least the choice of our leaders, which unfortunately amounts to the same thing - other countries are unwillingly facing danger. An aggressive, confident America provokes aggression in its potential enemies. Across the world, but especially in Asia and the Middle East, countries are preparing for conflicts that may never come. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and India have all stepped up their weapon of mass destruction programs. Other countries - notably North Korea and Australia - have reserved to themselves the American-blessed right of pre-emptive self defence. Still others are confident in their existing armies, but are flexing their muscles in other ways - China and India by accelerating their space programs, Russia, France and Germany in the UN Security Council. All this makes for nervous neighbours.

If countries are nervous of their neighbours, they should be even more nervous of terrorists. Bali proved that attacks on westerners will not be limited to non-Muslim countries. Instead, anywhere that westerners can be found, attacks are possible, with innocent by-standers being no more than martyrs to the cause. Given that the preferred targets seem to be tourists, diplomats, military, and big businesses, that means every country is at risk. Worse, those who side with America risk becoming direct targets themselves, those who don't risk incurring American wrath. None of this leads to the stable world needed to combat the true enemy, international terrorism.

The American innocence of the swaggering bully may be dangerous, but it cannot last forever. It is an innocence that America has lost before, most recently in Vietnam. There, American confidence and technological superiority could not defeat a determined, cunning, ruthless enemy. That disaster led to a more mature American approach to its problems. America won the Cold War by concentrating on economic superiority, offering massive carrots - albeit backed by occasional sticks - and above all, allowing its very compelling message to disseminate naturally. These lessons were learnt in Vietnam, at enormous cost, but they are lessons that America seems to have forgotten.

For its own sake as much as for the rest of the world, America needs to re-learn these lessons. Destabilising the world, undermining international institutions, and war of unlimited scope over unlimited territory cannot be anything other than damaging for America. It remains to be seen how America will learn that diplomacy, quiet strength, economic superiority, and a culture that entertains and enthrals the world is its best path to sustained security and prosperity. I fervently hope that it will not take another Vietnam, but fear that it may. America needs to consider anew the lessons of its own recent history, to consider the worst case scenarios for the conflicts it finds itself embroiled in. Because the path America is currently on, can only lead to disaster.

The problem is that America - or at least that part of America that controls international policy - has no interest in history, worst case scenarios, lessons, or listening. What can the rest of the world do? Broadly, there are two approaches. Given recent events, we can call them the British Approach and the French Approach, and define them as "following America's lead, to maintain influence" and "open opposition". At first glance, the French Approach seems disastrous. America is not willing to listen to those who oppose its will, even casting them as enemies. This would leave the British Approach as the solution. But that is not working any better. We have simply been dragged into an unnecessary war that will kill our soldiers, and leave us a more obvious target for Islamic extremists. If Britain has exercised any influence over America, the results are not obvious. In the short term, neither approach seems to be working.

We must look to the long term, and there a combination of both approaches must be used. Blindly following America while hoping to win crucial concessions seems doomed to failure. Our acquiescence seems to merely reinforce America's dangerous self-image of omnipotence. But equally there is little point in outright belligerence, as the French Approach has been viewed in America. Instead we should take our cue from America itself, and especially its post-Vietnam approach to the cold war. The world must tread a fine line between following America's lead and attacking America head on. If America will not play the international diplomacy game, it must be ignored. We must build or re-build international institutions that do not rely on American involvement, allowing other countries to seek protection, aid and economic growth without the need to please America. The EU provides a basis and a model for this. Expanding the core EU eastwards will give us more manpower, more political authority, and new markets to fill. By moving the EU into the role that the US has to now occupied, we can provide a clear alternative to American supremacy. It will be hard for America to view such a move as a threat to its lifestyle or sovereignty - our ideologies are too similar - but as a competitor, in the best free market sense, for economic and political capital. By confining our initial movements to areas where America has little interest, even the perception of that threat can be minimised. By the time the benefits of the new international institutions becomes clear, America will be left needing to join as a partner, not as ruler. And an important lesson will have been learnt without blood.

Graham Robinson. 26th March 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.