Introduction
The topic is of current importance, because the events of September 11 changed the attitude of the world to terrorism, it has been understood as a grand «evil» and it must be fought against. The USA has lost its power, and thereby, declared war on terrorism.
In the minds inhabitants of our planet in recent decades power of the image of America has emerged and entrenched. The presentation was clear and indisputable, it was axiomatic. September 11, not only destroyed the power of the U.S., but also questioned the very existence of power on Earth that can resist evil.
Main body
The 11 September in New York has been the most massive shock of social perceptions. After such a shock to people, it was requiring immediate and radical way to begin to review its submission that the incident would have all the same its explanation. Condition of absence of any explanation contrary to the very human nature (cognitive dissonance), and people act so as to get out of this state. But this – often painful – is the transformation of perceptions that could last for a long time.
Until September 11-th the axiom of power of America was the linchpin of world political system. The position of the United States in the world was like the starting point for determining the status of other countries – even the fact of “backwardness” or “developed” countries identified by the “distance” from the U.S. After September 11-th – that is, after destroying the image of American power – the system the status of all subjects of foreign policy is subject to radical revision. The review the understanding of the world would create a new reality in the world.
To be redefined the role and significance levels of leading nations, including – asserted a claim for a growing world status by many countries whose ambitions previously been hampered by destroyed today to power the United States.
From the USA will be taken unprecedented steps to preserve the dominant position, but the very notion of this position will be reviewed. At the forefront of the U.S. will show a new ideology, and that America will claim to leadership and at the same time – given to “share leadership” to other countries in exchange for new formats alliance.
The new ideology begins the process of redefining notions of alliance and unity. The main dominant of the process: awareness of historical threats and the new consolidation – will lead to a review of written rules and unwritten rules of international law.
Universally international organizations: the UN, the UN Security Council, NATO, WTO, World Bank – undergo significant transformation. Their functional direction, structure, role and significance of even the name change and will be adapted to the new reality.
Based on the new understanding of alliance, the U.S. will negotiate on different positions than in the previous era. The USA will drop a lot of stereotypes associated roots since the Cold War, the doctrine of “universal values”, with the destruction of September 11, about the content and structure of confrontation in the world.
The process of redefining and revising the status of the country – the owner of the world order in fact already begun. But it is slow and gradual process, because of the place and role of different countries vary with different speeds and in different directions at different heads. After a while, some point will be reached equilibrium – will form a “generally accepted” view.
What are the manifestations of a review of previous submissions are visible now?
President Bush talked about “a new strategic framework of relations” between countries in the world.
The U.S. has already expressed the need to consolidate the “civilized world” in the search for new types of alliances. The issue of missile defense has not described as “the abolition of the outdated treaty,” but as “the amendments to the outdated treaty, with the planned test, contrary to the treaty, have been postponed, that Russia does not consider a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Overall, the atmosphere inside the “civilized world” has changed, but the spirit of the Cold War is developing directly in front. But signs of new ideology emanating from the United States, has not yet visible. However, it would be strange to expect them so soon.
In 2000, Republicans took the White House thanks to the skilful criticism of foreign policy «idealism» of Clintonian administration, which actively practiced international peacekeeping, «construction nations» and the spread of American democracy. The foreign policy was a low priority during the first pre-election campaign of George Bush. Then the emphasis on «traditional» values of American conservatives: the return of morality in politics, decrease the federal government and lower taxes. However, after the eleventh of September’s foreign policy has become much more important (Gaddis, 2004).
Ideas neoconservatives, the main ideas which imply the need to maintain American leadership in the world and spread democracy, were in demand. The problem of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, his explanation and the elimination of its causes, has become a primary mission of the American administration.
Released in 2002, the National Security Strategy (the so-called «Bush doctrine») was the quintessence of non-foreign policy philosophy. Its basic reason was for direct link between democracy and security as well as justification for the spread of democracy through forceful action to ensure U.S. security. U.S. foreign policy under this concept, based on the unparalleled American military superiority (U.S. should strengthen its military power to maintain the status of the sole world superpower), the idea of preventive war (willingness to inflict military strikes before in the U.S. and its allies will be aggressive acts) and a willingness to act alone, if multilateral cooperation to achieve the goals of U.S. foreign policy is impossible to achieve. The countries that support terrorists, according to the American administration should be identified, isolated and the U.S. should make efforts, including the military, that they changed the regime. After the regime change the U.S. must help these States in the creation of free and democratic societies. In addition, «Bush Doctrine» spread of democracy, freedom and security in the entire world (Daalder, 2003).
The most vivid embodiment of the concept had become anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan and the military invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, the U.S. administration’s desire to build a dominant position in world politics in recent times has encountered increasing resistance not only from other states, but also in the United States. Criticism of non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban (CTBT) and interference in the affairs of other states, ultimately resulting in criticism of the politics of global superiority and prevent elevation States competitors.
In the United States assessment of the administration’s foreign policy G. Bush Jr. gives many political scientists and experts, the alternative scenario, foreign policy is rather diverse. Among the major U.S. centers for research in the field of international relations and foreign policy, should be called the Council on Foreign Relations – one of the influential American organization that brings together the biggest specialists in the field of international relations, the American Council on Foreign Policy; Fund «Heritage» – one of the leading political «think tanks» the ruling Republican Party of the USA Research Center generalists Center for Strategic and International Studies, dealing with various problems of international relations and U.S. foreign policy. Among the institutions pay more attention to the relationship the U.S. and Russia, should be called the largest in Washington nongovernmental Center for Research in the fields of economy, foreign policy and state the Brookings Institution, as well as the Institute of Advanced Russian Studies Kennan at the International Scientific Center of Woodrow Wilson.
The events of the September, 11-th had different economic and political results in the international relationship of the USA.
Causing heavy blow to the global financial system, which is the center of the United States. At week stopped work leading stock exchanges and banks in New York. Physically destroyed or suffered serious losses powerful financial companies, including the World Trade Center. The impact on America triggered the fall of the dollar and shares of American companies. These developments are safe only for countries that are not deeply integrated with the global financial system. (The cost of their currencies provided no dollar reserves, in most of Europe, and significant reserves of precious metals.) In this situation, they, by contrast, would benefit from the tragedy: their economies remain stable against the backdrop of global turmoil.
As U.S. officials believed responsible for the tragedy of the Arabs and Muslims, it is a real military operation against one of the countries in the Middle East or Asia. These expectations have led to an increase in world oil prices in the first days after the attacks, because the conflict will affect its biggest exporters. As a result, the other won non-Arab countries that export oil. Moreover, pre-tragedy, oil prices were disadvantageous to them. The cost of oil higher cost of oil from the Persian Gulf, they reach profitability production only when the price of 1 exceeds $ 21 barrel. To overcome the oil crisis, as we know, OPEC had increased production.
Overcoming the effects of terrorist attacks requires large investments from the United States, which under normal circumstances would be invested in foreign countries, because USA’s largest investor in the world. In a similar situation would be potential investors from other Western countries, because money invested in U.S. securities, they partially lost. Therefore blow to the U.S. means a decline of investment activity around the world, and consequently slowing global economic growth.
Thus, these destabilizing processes beneficial to those countries that previously ceded USA and the EU in competition in the market capital. In particular, those countries that have recently been actively investing money in Eastern Europe and CIS, in an effort to control the space former economic bloc Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
It is likely that the U.S. reduced its peacekeeping activities, help “young democracies”, the opposition dictatorial regimes, etc. This can happen with the countries of NATO – U.S. partners and allies that can not affect Ukraine, which is counting on American support for its integration into Euro-Atlantic community. Moreover, U.S. foreign policy is now to some extent, discredited, and with it the American integration initiatives.
Thus, the September 11 terrorist operations, of course, lead to a reduction in integration efforts the U.S. and its allies in Eastern Europe. By that, as is known, has long been seeking a country that considers the region a zone of its strategic interests, the only protests against NATO enlargement.
Another political consequence of the terrorist attacks in the United States was increasing tensions in the world and the power capacity of key countries. The Armed Forces of America already preparing to hit the perpetrators of the tragedy, the U.S. public, according to polls, is also determined to fight. NATO Allies supported the United States, promising them, particularly military assistance. On the other hand, the preparing for war and countries that may be subject to attack, their allies, neighbors, etc. Thus, increased global competition civilization, has acquired specific contours and can lead to the following changes:
U.S. and its allies have dramatically worsen relations with Arab and other Muslim countries, a possible war against any of them. Clearly, tangible obstacles to economic and cultural ties with Arab countries in the Euro-Atlantic community. All this is advantageous country, which, since 60-ies constantly claim to the role of “third force” in the Middle East, the patron anti-Americanism in the region. She expects that the Arabs resentful of American retaliation make a dash to her embrace. “This, in particular, can occur in the supply of weapons to military regimes in Libya and Iraq, which referred to country, supports wonderful relationship. The attacks clearly demonstrated that created today in a new U.S. missile defense system (NMD) is not protected from attack. Perhaps the increase of militaristic tendencies in world development. This is extremely beneficial for the countries of the economy which is dominated by a powerful military-industrial complex, and “civilian” finished products uncompetitive in the international market (Daalder, 2003).
The state of world tensions changed not only military but political, and domestic socio-political life. Strengthen the role of the State, army and special services. For security reasons, would obviously limited, some of the rights and freedoms, pressured certain political forces (such as political organizations of national minorities), etc. Therefore, attacked the U.S. could be viewed as a global attack on democratic values and civil society. This, in particular, can lead to the following:
Since any action breeds resistance, in response increase the activity of different terrorist groups. They understand that they pay attention, they are considered as a political factor (this is the sense of terror, death and destruction – just the way). Thus, you can expect “self-development” of global terrorism. In an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility there will be understand better feel of the ruling elite in countries in which democracy is not traditionally. They will be able to justify “terrorism” totalitarian policies on their own people, genocide, certain ethnic groups (such as in Chechnya and Dagestan). Strengthening the role of special services in any country will enhance the social and political status of the leaders of these structures. At clandestine activities additional funds will be allocated. It therefore can not be ruled out of personal interest of the leaders of a special tension in the world, perhaps – the international conspiracy.
So, the main consequence of a terrorist operation on 11 September – the weakening of U.S. influence in the international arena, changing priorities and the intensity of their external activities. The world may be a certain vacuum effect. It will certainly try to fill in the countries, who are particularly actively opposing the dominance of trans-Atlantic model of development and unipolarity world order. Strengthened reactionary, totalitarian forces, which effectively resist America in the last decade. Thus, there is a threat to world democracy, world progress.
The USA, in our view, must understand the depth of the problem. It is understood that the transatlantic civilization delay in the trap, hitting where it can be destroyed. The Americans and their allies should avoid its proposed diabolical game blow to blow. “Otherwise, the next manifestations of civilization controversy were not long in coming. The situation has forced all the progressive forces of the world unite against new global threats.
International security cooperation should go to a qualitatively new level.
So, the world will never be such as was before the attacks in the United States.
Globalization development at the present stage is characterized by dialectical interaction of two trends. On the one hand, different spheres of life become international (especially – economic). Manufacturing effectively only if the maximum attracting resources from other countries. Each country has its economy adjusts to the needs of the global market, gradually breaking the single-crop specialization and exports. There have been global information and ecological revolution. However, despite some achievements qualitatively globalization processes are not fully defined and ambiguous. On the other hand, the globalization process intensified and focuses the contradictions between the models. These models show two civilization approaches to globalization.
The first approach is represented in the countries transatlantic civilization, which has two components – the Euro-Atlantic and America-Atlantic. The most powerful and dynamic part of the trans-Atlantic civilization is the United States, which along with Canada and South America form the America-Atlantic dimension. The main symptom of a transatlantic approach is targeting individual as the highest value. This is based ideals of social processes: democracy, civil society, market economy, private property, rule of law (Daalder, 2003).
Another approach put forward by representatives of the Asia civilization, which is the core of Russia. It belongs to China and some Asian countries, including Arab. (In Japan, the Asia culture exists in the form sublimate.) For this civilization is characterized by the priority countries which have a determining influence on society as a whole and each individual in particular. The man is a pawn in the hands of the powerful. Public ideal of the Asia culture can be regarded as “anthill, where the State acts as a” uterus “around which to turn the lives of all individuals and institutions of society.
In today’s reality, the U.S. has enormous power and influence in the international arena. Their economic and military superiority allows Washington to operate virtually without regard to other states. Indeed, in a unipolar system, with its overwhelming power, enjoys freedom of action and, in fact, could operate without restrictions. But this situation can not maintain forever. Therefore, it is believed some American experts, U.S. in one way or another to take the opportunity to more pluralism in the world system, exempt itself from the obligations of the times «Cold War» and move on to positions of strategic independence.
As dominant in the U.S. estimated that the offensive policy of neoconservatives brought Washington to a standstill, comparable to the scale of the tragedy of the Vietnam War. Moreover, the practical mistakes the current administration discredited many cornerstone provisions of U.S. foreign policy doctrine, for many years successfully used and Democrats and Republicans. Hence – to search for the American political establishment reasonable alternative to the ideology of Bush’s medium and long term.
In this regard, the overall growth of a critical component in the assessment of Washington foreign policy relates not only to the person of G. Bush and the current White House administration. This is due also to the general trends in the world, particularly when trying to take a fresh interpretation of existing rules of international law, based on the interests of the State. This in turn could lead to radical changes in the international law and as a consequence – in international relations in general, as well as for international law, which seem to have to guarantee stability in peace and security for all members of the international community acts a kind of «the principle of dominoes».
Conclusion
Nevertheless, the analysis under discussion now in the U.S. ideological alternatives to the ideology of the Republican administration’s foreign policy demonstrates that under any scenario development of the situation in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East as a whole, as well as around North Korea’s nuclear program or the global war on terror, the American political establishment does not abandon the traditional fundamental ideological thesis on the role of American missionary, the advantages of the American political system and global responsibility for the fate of U.S. democracy. In a different form, these theses are present in almost all currently being developed alternative ideological concepts.
References
Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay, America Unbound, Political Science, 2003.
John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, Harvard University Press, 2004.