In the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, George W. Bush was recast from a president perceived abroad as a unilateralist, with little feel for America’s allies and no regard for their interests, into the leader of an international coalition at war with global terrorism.
“Bush the unilateralist switched within two hours into Bush the multilateralist,” said William S. Reno, a Northwestern University political scientist.
But many experts wondered whether the president can build this coalition and hold it together when the immediate outrage cools and the strains of fighting a common but shadowy foe emerge. Also, if the Europeans doubt Bush’s leadership skills, many American analysts feared that they might demand changes in U.S. policy, especially toward Iraq and Israel, as the price of their cooperation.
“This is not a time for horse trading,” said David Phillips, a senior fellow at the New York Council on Foreign Relations. “Either our allies and friends are ready to be counted or they’re not.”
The terrorist attacks shattered the ingrained American belief that this nation lies sheltered behind the moats of two great oceans. In the process, they also seem to have dispelled any residual American tendency toward isolationism. America, unable to hide from the world, is forced to engage it.
But that conclusion, too, will be severely challenged in the battle ahead.
Rough road ahead
“This is going to be the test,” said Ronald D. Asmus, another fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration. “It will either revitalize and reaffirm our alliances or, if we fail, it’s going to lead people to ask why we need alliances.”
Past squabbles with allies over global warming, trade and arms control were quickly overshadowed by the widespread feeling that the attacks on the United States were an attack on civilization itself, and that every civilized nation has a stake in the fight.
“We’re building a strong coalition to go after these perpetrators, but more broadly, to go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said. Much of the world quickly signed on.
For many experts, all of this was both realistic and positive.
“We need friends and allies more than ever to cope,” Asmus said. “Terrorism is a global problem. This is not something the U.S. can do on its own.”
“There’s this sense of solidarity now with the United States,” Phillips said. “There’s an unprecedented opportunity for the U.S. to build coalitions and strengthen alliances.”
“This administration needs to remember that we need allies,” said James Lindsay, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “It’s not been as sensitive [to allies’ interests] as it could have been.”
Besides, Lindsay said, America cannot and should not fight this battle alone. “As a practical matter, we can do anything we want,” Lindsay said. “But do we want to operate alone? There are a lot of reasons to do this cooperatively.
“This is not likely to be a one-shot deal,” he said. “What we saw on Tuesday pales by comparison to what would happen if any of these people get hold of a nuclear warhead or anthrax. So we have to sustain a coalition over the long term. We have to keep other countries from harboring terrorists. We can’t let [the Europeans] allow terrorists through their borders. We have to intercept money flows. This battle will be fought not just with the military but with the FBI and the Treasury Department.
“In a military response, allies are not crucial. But in sustaining the fight against terrorism, they’re vital. And they’re ready to join us, so long as we don’t do something foolish.”
Common ground
Until Tuesday, Bush was seen abroad as a president intent on pursuing short-range American interests and willing to damage alliances in the process. The president’s unilateral rejection of the Kyoto treaty on global warming, his hostility to a world criminal court, his desire to scrap the anti-ballistic missile treaty and his insensitivity to world opinion on issues like small arms and the death penalty had made him extraordinarily unpopular abroad. Barely 30 percent of Europeans expressed any confidence in his handling of world affairs.
All that seemed to vanish in little more than the time it took two hijacked airliners to slam into the World Trade Center towers.
Much of this was driven by self-interest and common fears, experts said. Europeans, especially Russians, have their own Islamic fundamentalists, and the attacks on the United States reminded them that their own landmarks–the Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, Red Square–are vulnerable.
“The biggest lesson,” Lindsay said, “is that for all our recent to-ing and fro-ing over policy, there’s much more that unites us than divides us in the Atlantic alliance.”
At least one well-known political scientist doubted that the alliance could meet the test posed by a long-term battle against terrorism. John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, is a leading skeptic of the enduring value of alliances.
The United States has two choices, he said: “to become more interventionist and seek out terrorists around the globe, or to begin to back off around the world and especially in the Middle East.”
Why America?
Most experts said the terrorists struck the U.S. because it is a symbol of modernity, global economics and a civilization that threatens their own culture. Mearsheimer, however, said the attacks were more narrowly aimed at U.S. policy toward Israel, Iraq and Iran, “a reaction against American power and whom we support.
“We can’t change who we are,” he said, “but adjusting American policy is possible.”
Europeans themselves, he noted, oppose much of America’s Mideast policy, “and this enormously complicates the issue. Europeans have been able to sit on the sidelines and avoid this kind of terrorism. But they think American policy is misguided. Now, do they want to join forces with the United States in a war on terrorism that is not likely to succeed? There’s a price to be paid for siding with us.”
A time of refocusing
For the first time, Mearsheimer said, the focus of American foreign policy will be on protecting our own territory, not projecting power around the world. “A lot of energy and dollars are going to be thrown at this,” he said. “What does that do for the American commitment to Europe and to Asia? Don’t they pale by comparison?
“In the short term, we’re not alone,” he said. “In the long term, if you begin to think long and hard about this, it’s not clear that this will cause the alliance to come together.”
Asmus disagreed, noting that every statement by every European leader since Tuesday has focused on common values, not policy. “This is a real-world test case of how strong these common values are and whether they can be translated into policy,” he said. “A harder test is going to come when we ask them to help us retaliate.”
Beyond Europe are other nations vital to a successful coalition. Some, like Russia, China and Pakistan, have been sources of arms and direct aid for countries like Iraq and Iran, and the fight against terrorism could force them to make the hard choice between their present policy and all-out support for the United States.
For Russia, the coalition presents an opportunity to bury past disputes with Washington and join the West in a mutually beneficial crusade. This would be “a brilliant move for Putin,” said Marvin Zonis, an international relations expert at the University of Chicago. “He’s even more upset about Islamic fundamentalism than we are.”
“Other states like China need to be brought on board,” Phillips said, “and need to be told that there can be no more deception about missile sales. From Pakistan, we need real cooperation,” especially regarding the Taliban and its networks.
