Geopolitics Today

Geopolitics Today The Ongoing ‘War on Terror’

Lecture Structure September 11th, 2001, New York, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania Afghanistan Constructing the Enemy and Securing the Homeland Towards a ‘War on Terror’ (1992- ) The ‘Axis of Evil’ to a global war on terror Nigeria and Iraq today

Pre 2001 “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” Israel and Palestine Lebanon Northern Ireland Basque separatists in Spain and many others…

Just or Unjust Wars 1. just cause 2. means proportionate to the ends in view, magnitude of wrongs being suffered 3. refrains from directly targeting non-combatants or using indiscriminate means of slaughter • no constitutional, non-violent or negotiated route to redressing the wrongs is available

Pre 2001 Incidents Attempt on World Trade Center One, February 26th 1993 Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia, June 25th 1996 Bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 7th August 1998 • Operation Infinite Reach: Cruise missile attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, 20th August 1998 • (17th August Clinton had admitted the affair with Monica Lewinsky)

Bill Clinton, 20th August 1998 My fellow Americans, our battle against terrorism did not begin with the bombing of our embassies in Africa; nor will it end with today's strike. It will require strength, courage and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it, no matter how long it may take. This will be a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism; between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must. America is and will remain a target of terrorists precisely because we are leaders; because we act to advance peace, democracy and basic human values; because we're the most open society on Earth; and because, as we have shown yet again, we take an uncompromising stand against terrorism.

USS Cole, Aden Harbor October 12th 2000 • al Qaeda deemed responsible by late 2000, time of Bush/Gore presidential election • No action taken by Clinton, nor by incoming Bush administration in early 2001 • 2002 suspect plus a US citizen killed by a Hellfire missile attack in Yemen • 2007 US court ruling that Sudan was complicit

September 11th, 2001 Consequences A tragedy, but what kind of tragedy? A matter for justice, or an act of war? What responses? UN NATO Le monde, ‘we are all Americans’

Quantifying other US dangers 11,328 homicides from assault (2001) 42,815 killed in US car accidents (2003) 610,638 die of heart disease (#1 killer)

US global command maps

US military command structure “The Unified Command Plan establishes the missions and geographic responsibilities among the combatant commanders. Among revisions to the plan that took place on Oct. 1, 2002: U.S. Northern Command – new combatant command assigned to defend the United States and support military assistance to civil authorities. U.S. Joint Forces Command – focus became transforming U.S. military forces; geographic responsibilities shift to Northern and European commands. U.S. Space Command and Strategic Command merged into an expanded STRATCOM, headquartered at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb.” http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/

State, nation, sovereignty “If this was simultaneously a local yet utterly global event, how did it come to be rendered a national tragedy? How did September 11 so quickly crystallize as an attack against a nation? Talking heads worked hard to crystallize both an unknown enemy and an appropriate revenge in national terms” (Neil Smith, 2001, ‘Scales of terror and the resort to geography’). ‘Local’ – “the eruption of spectacular terror in the very heart of metropolitan America” (Derek Gregory, The Colonial Present, p. 25). The making of other scales – global and national. CNN – “America under attack”; Department of Homeland Security.

George W. Bush “On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars - but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war - but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks - but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day - and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack…” September 21, 2001, speech to Congress and the American people

“This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

Anonymous, Imperial Hubris The US is “hated across the Islamic world because of specific U.S. government policies and actions… We are at war with an al Qaeda-led, worldwide Islamist insurgency because of and to defend those policies, and not, as President Bush mistakenly has said, ‘to defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world’” (Scheuer 2005: 240-1).

He notes six reasons: • U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall • U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula • U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan • U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants • U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low • U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments (Scheuer 2005: 241).

Al-Qaida network – a non-geographically specific opponent; deterritorialized We will make “no distinction” between terrorists and states that harbor them (Bush) “in some ways states were easier targets” (Dick Cheney) Reterritorialize al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; later reterritorialize the ‘war on terror’ in Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia…

www.newsmax.com

Afghanistan Al-Qaeda  Taliban  Afghanistan October 7th 2001 attack on Afghanistan Use of airpower and support ‘Northern Alliance’ forces Conquer Kabul Taliban overthrown in most parts Tora Bora Role of Pakistan

“The bombing of Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world. Each innocent person that is killed must be added to, not set off against, the grisly toll of civilians who died in New York and Washington DC” Arundhati Roy, Power Politics, 2002, p. 101.

Constructing the Enemy “Since September 11, Bush and his allies have constructed an image of their enemies in the ‘war on terror’ as beyond regulation, beyond reason, beyond comprehension” “Prisoners of a war on terror were not prisoners of war, they were held in a ‘non-place, beyond the reach of either US or international law” Derek Gregory, ‘The Angel of Iraq’, 2004 Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay as ‘spaces of exception’ beyond the law.

Securing the Homeland “Terrorists have twisted the benefits of our open, globalized world… In America’s war against terrorism we must tighten border security”. (US State dept, 2002). • US/Mexico border; US/Canada; airports USA PATRIOT ACT and USVISIT

“In the three and a half years since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans. We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half-million first responders. Police and firefighters, air marshals, researchers, and so many others are working every day to make our homeland safer” George Bush, State of the Union address, Feb 2005.

Geopolitical Aspects Scales of terror – local, national, global Securing the homeland Reterritorializing the threat Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay Extraordinary rendition and more to come…

Toward a ‘War on Terror’ Defense Planning Guidance 1992 “Project for a New American Century” The Geopolitics of Division The ‘Axis of Evil’

Defense Planning Guidance 1992 Cheney organised, with Wolfowitz et. al. US could and should prevent any other nation or alliance from emerging as a great power; by force if necessary. Promote American values Sceptical about diplomatic strategy; possibility of unilateral action

“Project for a New American Century” Neo-conservative lobby group formed in 1997 Critical of Clinton; pushed Reaganite policies of ‘military strength’ and ‘moral clarity’ Included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush Jan. 1998 public letter to Clinton on Iraq http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The Geopolitics of Division ‘With us or against us’ Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map • Core, gap • Connectivity to globalized world • Those unconnected prone to violence and tyranny

DISCONNECTEDNESS DEFINES DANGER Problem areas requiring American attention (outlined) are, in the author's analysis, called the Gap. Shrinking the Gap is possible only by stopping the ability of terrorist networks to access the Core via the "seam states" that lie along the Gap's bloody boundaries. In this war on terrorism, the U.S. will place a special emphasis on cooperation with these states. What are the classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia. http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

‘The Axis of Evil’ Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror…

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. President Bush, 29 Jan 2002

A global war on terror Territorial dimensions of Israel Security Fence US borders and changes to immigration policy War on Iraq Lebanon 2006 Somalia 2006-07 Libya, Iraq-Syria, Mali, Algeria, Nigeria, Iran? …

First Gulf War “it would not contribute to the stability we want in the Middle East to have Iraq fragmented into separate Sunni, Shia, and Kurd political entities”. Colin Powell “in no way should we associate ourselves with the 60-year-old rebellion in Iraq or oppose Iraq’s legitimate attempts to suppress it”. White House policy paper

Second Thoughts? “We have long ago passed the threshold where the prospect of, say, a fragmented Iraq is a greater evil than the persistence of Saddam Hussein. That things might be worse without him is of course a possibility. But given the status quo in Iraq, it is difficult to imagine how”. Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol, The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission,2003, p. 96

“We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people - its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others - should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy” George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar 16th March 2003 – Azores Statement http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855567.stm

Territorial Integrity 1. Borders inviolable, attempt to prevent other states from grabbing territory or promoting secessionist movements 2. Principle of non-interference in internal affairs (within its own boundaries, within its own territory, the state is sovereign) Tension between the two today…

But the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency. I set this out, following the Kosovo war, in a speech in Chicago in 1999, where I called for a doctrine of international community, where in certain clear circumstances, we do intervene, even though we are not directly threatened… So, for me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance Tony Blair, Sedgefield, 5th March 2004 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1162991,00.html

The struggle is for stability, for the security within which progress can be made. Of course, countries want to protect their territorial integrity but few are into empire building. This is especially true of democracies whose people vote for higher living standards and punish governments who don’t deliver on them. For 2,000 years Europe fought over territory. Today boundaries are virtually fixed. Governments and people know that any territorial ambition threatens stability, and instability threatens prosperity Tony Blair’s speech at the George Bush Senior Presidential Library on April 8th 2002http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speeches/story/0,11126,680866,00.html

Richard Haass, US State Dept, April 2002 “Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United States, gain the right to intervene. In the case of terrorism, this can even lead to a right of preventive, or peremptory, self-defense. You essentially can act in anticipation if you have grounds to think it's a question of when, and not if, you're going to be attacked”. Nicholas Lemann, “The Next World Order”, http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020401fa_FACT1

Russia in Chechyna China and Muslim separatists in Xinjiang

Other Instances Israel/Palestine… Ethiopia/Eritrea Western Sahara Mali

Blair and the Neo-Cons ‘ethical foreign policy’ and call for a notion of ‘international community’ by Blair the project of the neo-conservatives in the US • National Security Strategy of 20th September 2002; subsequent strategies on military, defense and counter-intelligence Both US foreign policy and ‘ethical’ foreign policy are explicitly demands changes to the notion of territorial integrity One key distinction: the question of multilateralism for Blair, the uniqueness of the US, unilateralism

Geopolitics Today