Global politics since 9/11 discussed in a seminar on: War in times of peace [Archives:2002/47/Reportage]

RENAUD DETALLE,
HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICER,
UN, GENEVA
State Building and Democratic Consolidation : Trade Off at the Time of War
At a time when international relations specialists are struggling to define the new type of power exerted by the USA – hyper power, neo-imperialist or globally hegemonic – this paper will attempt to describe how this international order operates at country level by taking examples from the Middle East and African regions.
The first questions to be asked is whether the internal political relationships are modified, or more bluntly are there new winners and losers ? Second, we can ask about the regional configurations, relations between neighboring states and the relevance of regional groupings. Globalization was once described to be the triumphant march of both free market principles with generalized free trade and democratic contagion. As the priority is now set on reinforcing states and their cooperation against terrorism the paper will assess the price of the trade off.
Dr François Burgat,
The Dialogue of Cultures : the Reach and Limit of a Concept
The analysis of international tensions and conflicts from the bias of a culturalist, or religious, or a fortiori civilizational perspective, often masks a refusal or an inability to understand these conflicts or these acts of resistance as in their essence mundanely political. Furthermore, however necessary these efforts towards cultural or religious ‘rapprochement’ may be, the world is in need today of mechanisms capable of guaranteeing a better redistribution of political resources…that is to say a higher degree of international justice. This equilibrium appears as the necessary precursor of a cultural rapprochement, without doubt also contributing to the resolution of conflicts, but not as a substitute for it.
Within these strict limits, the role of this ‘dialogue of cultures’ remains nonetheless important. Still it is necessary to delimit the field of action: first of all, one should not confuse oneself with an inter-religious dialogue whose recent history has shown its narrow limits. A wish to reduce the gap between dogmas makes in fact little of the strong identity coefficient that overlays a religious belonging, and little of the difficulty in a ‘believer’ making, without renouncing his faith, concessions other than formal to another ‘believer’.
The intercultural dialogue may in contrast be brought into play more usefully to reveal the ideological character of the claim of ‘specificity’ that, in the matter of values this time, the representatives of different civilizations, be they oriental or occidental, still frequently persist in enunciating.
We defend here the idea that cultural diversity limits itself in reality to the world of material symbols (references, historical or mythical, profane or religious, of the group) that the cultures employ to legitimize their values, but which do not embody these values itself. This symbolic diversity of practices, rites and references is however regularly extrapolated, wrongly, to establish the existence of more substantial differences which serve to identify and segregate the civilizations as distinct, not simply in their practices, but also in their values.
This confusion is not recent and its consequences are multiple. From this mistaking of Kamal Ataturk making access to modernity conditional on the wearing of a certain kind of European cap to the current reticence of certain western environments towards the wearing of the Hijab in European schools; or the frequent tendency among believers to deny the existence of a humanistic common denominator transcending religious belongings, the blockages, analytical and political, through which emerge this confusion between ‘the substance of the values’ and the ‘symbolic references used to legitimize these values’ are numerous. It is to this very ambitious task of unveiling them and denouncing them, in identifying the countless ways in which dogmas and doctrines have to deny the culture of the other the ability to express a universal reference, that an effective dialogue of cultures should be able to couple itself.
Dr Udo Steinbach, Germany
World Politics and the Struggle against Terrorism : A Critical Assessment
September 11th , 2001, has made fight against terrorism the number one issue of world politics. Warfare is no longer primarily defined as war between states, but between the “civilized world” and its enemies.
The war against the Taleban has proven the tremendous distance in military terms between the USA and its allies. This has led Washington to insist on undisputed leadership in defining the agenda of the war against terrorism.
As far as the international community is concerned there are deep differences how to define and how to deal with terrorism. While the Muslim world insists on solving the regional conflicts and crisis (mostly the Palestinian problem), out of which terrorism arises, the Europeans would like to involve the UN.
The decision taken by President Bush to establish an axis of evil and to resort to unilateral action to bring about a change of regime in Baghdad has deeply polarized the international community. The EU, although far from being unanimous, is moving towards a scheme of European defence and security as distinct from NATO. In this context, not only relations with Russia, but with the Middle East have to be reconsidered. In view of overcoming unilateralism by the US, the EU has to transform its economic weight into schemes of political cooperation involving Russia and the Middle East in order to give substance to its claim to be part of a multipolar global system of powersharing.
Dr Gilles Dorronsoro, France
The US in Afghanistan: the Delusions of Victory ?
The US are obliged to stay in Afghanistan for at least a few years (3 to 5 years to be optimistic). The initial objectives of the war in Afghanistan has only been partially fulfilled. Bin Laden has not been found, mollah Omar is still at large and their is no sign of a reconstruction of the State, especially not a national army. The war is going on in Afghanistan and there is no perspectives for a US withdrawal. The guerilla is militarily inefficient but has enough activity to prevent the rebuilding of the State. The Afghan crisis is now also a Pakistani one. The al Qaida network is now in Pakistan, where the situation is politically bad for the US with the rise of a very fundamentalist and openly pro-Taleban majority in the NWFP and Balutchistan. The regional environment is less stable than a year ago and nothing is showing a marginalization of the islamist forces in Central Asia.
In a larger perspective, the invasion of Iraq would probably have the same sort of effect. A quick military victory and a very instable political situation with the same risk of an indefinite American military presence in hostile territory. For the American power the risk is a military overstretch and a popular reject.

——
[archive-e:47-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-11-18-p:./2002/iss47/report.htm]