Opinion - News Analysis   

The normalisation of America

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI SEPT. 9. The proposition that September 11 was the day when the world changed will be debated vigorously for a long time to come. At one end are those arguing that the attacks on New York and Washington last year constitute a moment of radical change in world politics. Sceptics, however, insist that the dramatic events last year are no more than a passing shadow over the U.S.

If anything has changed significantly over the last one year, it is the U.S. and its security condition. What the attackers of the World Trade Center did was to end the unique geo-strategic advantage that America had enjoyed for so long. Separated from the rest of the world by two oceans and blessed with neighbours like Mexico and Canada, the American mainland has remained invulnerable to external aggression. Few great powers in world history have had that beneficial circumstance. They had to live cheek by jowl with aggressive neighbours with ambitions of their own.

The U.S. indeed came under direct attack in Pearl Harbour in 1942. But Hawaii is a thousand miles away from the U.S. mainland. The last occasion when the American heartland had to defend itself was in 1812 when Great Britain sacked Washington DC. The luxury of a secure homeland has ended for the U.S. It has become a normal power; it must now begin to protect its own territory from attacks.

The new condition of domestic vulnerability has had two profound effects on the U.S. — one external and the other internal. On the external front, the debate on a choice between isolationism and internationalism — a long-standing feature of the American policy — has been clinched in favour of the latter.

Thanks to September 11, the U.S. will stay engaged in the world in a manner that will put its past involvement in world affairs since Second World War into a shade. In the last century the U.S. intervened to preserve the balance of power in Europe and Asia and to defeat what it saw threats from fascism and communism in the rest of the world. Now the U.S. interventions will be about defending its own national security.

Direct threats

The past threats to the U.S. were derived; now they are direct. Last century, the U.S. intervened to defend freedoms elsewhere in the world. The present challenge to it is about preserving the life and liberty of its own citizens. It is not surprising then that September 11 has helped bury the Vietnam syndrome.

An all-volunteer and well-paid American armed force cannot refuse to fight because of the inherited caution from the Vietnam war. When nearly 3,000 people perished in a flash at the World Trade Center, the idea of military casualties leading to an aversion to the use of force is no longer a sustainable one in the internal American discourse.

The U.S. military will remain careful about avoiding deaths of its soldiers and continue to lay emphasis on technology in its strategies. But, it will now be called upon to take more risks and casualties in dealing with the American political objectives abroad. Those who are prone to clichés on "body bags'' preventing the use of force will be repeatedly surprised by America in the coming years.

The unfolding war on terrorism has also forced the U.S. to confront the problem of internal security in its fullest dimension. Until now the U.S. had the luxury of having the most open society at home. With no threats to the homeland and its culture as a nation of immigrants, the U.S. could boast about its untrammelled internal freedom and a welcoming attitude to outsiders.

Since September 11, the Bush administration has been seeking draconian powers to the Executive Branch in dealing with internal security threats.

Some of these measures have already been passed, but there is considerable resistance too. For the first time, the American democracy is addressing a problem that other democracies have faced — how to balance the constitutionally-mandated freedoms and the imperatives of ensuring internal security. There again the U.S. is becoming a normal power.

In moving into Afghanistan, despite all the presumed risks, as part of its first phase in the expansive war against terrorism, the U.S. had demonstrated the political will to use military force. With the war against the new elusive enemies likely to be an extended one, Washington must be expected to mobilise all the resources at the command of the world's richest economy to fight this war to the finish.

The U.S. cannot stop this war without a clear sense of victory and a clear perception that its enemies have been demonstrably defeated. India must be prepared to deal with a U.S. that is determined to pursue this war on terrorism, with aggression and single-mindedness if not consistency.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• No end to the wrangle
• Modi's sinister designs
• Remembering Sept. 11
• Crisis in the handloom sector
• The normalisation of America
• Bailing out UTI
• Why Thackeray?
• Dispute and mediation
• Rats as companions
• Unnumbered coaches

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu