Practical Part

Translation

HISTOIRE DES RELATIONS INTERATIONALES

DE 1945 À NOS JOURS

Tome 2, 15e édition

Par

Jean-Baptiste DUROSELLE

André KASPI

The aftermath of September 11

The attacks of September 11th

started a new period in the history of international relations. The

consequences of that tragedy are upsetting: at least 3,600 dead, the twin towers of the World

Trade Centre in New York destroyed, one of the wings of the Pentagon in Washington damaged,

a traumatized country and a scene of horror that the whole world followed on TV screens. The

list of human, political, economic consequences cannot be finished. More than ever, the United

States attracted the attention of the world. The United States was, during ten years, the only

superpower: "the indispensable nation." Its decisions, its strategy and its relations with other

states are in the news and largely determine the future of the planet. It is an overwhelming

responsibility for Washington and a worrying situation for all humanity.

The USA war on terrorism

Historians will not forget to show that terrorism has existed, maybe a long time, and it

will not disappear in the next decades. It is also true that the United States was already hit in the

last decade of the twentieth century. The first attack of the World Trade Centre was in 1993 and

it resulted in 6 dead and 1042 injured. In 1996, the American garrison Dharan in Saudi Arabia

was attacked. In 1998, bombs hit the embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya. In 2000, a warship of

the U.S. Navy exploded in the port of Aden in Yemen. In addition, threats of all kinds warned

Americans that the worst was not impossible.

Terrorism

In these conditions, is it possible to talk about Pearl Harbour? The differences far

outweigh the similarities. In 1945, the Navy and the Air Force of Japan destroyed the American

Pacific Fleet. A country attacked another State. The targets were military and the declaration of

war followed. Sixty years later, no State assumes responsibility of the attacks. After several

weeks Osama bin Laden recognized that it was Al Qaeda organization, which prepared and

carried out the bombings. Contrary to the words of President George W. Bush, legally it was not

"an act of war." Since then, the term terrorism suddenly emerged. This is a new factor in

international relations. Henceforth, nation states are required to fight or, for some among these

nations, to support terrorist movements that have no territories, whose main objectives are often

unclear, and who resort to the most violent means. Is it possible therefore to define terrorism? It

is not enough to say that terrorists are also fighters, that all leaders treated movements of

resistance and independence in the twentieth century as terrorists by their opponents before

becoming almost respectable men of government. Terrorism is not a doctrine that can be placed

at the same level as Communism, Nazism or the Third World. It is primarily a way and a method

to scare, to impose a will, rational or irrational goals. It does not care about moral considerations:

it executes innocent people, pretending that none is innocent. It uses both sophisticated and

rudimentary weapons; it makes use of the most sophisticated technology, such as the internet,

computers and electronics, it also embodies the hidden and hateful face of globalization. It

requests flawless obedience from its servants until the supreme sacrifice (death). There are

kamikazes, suicide bombs, aircraft pilots, bomb vehicle drivers; murderers who kill and maim

thousands, human bombs that by committing suicide escape judgments and become "Martyrs".

Terrorists command “an asymmetric warfare” where they seek above all the effect of media and

shocking images that cause terror.

Terrorism is not limited to the use of weapons and to the use of violence. It is also

chemical: the anthrax came from nowhere and killed five people in the USA earlier in autumn.

The threat could be biological: the smallpox virus that was eradicated since 1977 suddenly

becomes a potential weapon. What about the attack on nuclear facilities, the use of radioactive

materials, the "dirty bombs" that according to experts would not be difficult to make? Are the

hackers to be dreadful since they could penetrate the computer system and could create

irreparable disruption in daily life? Nothing is impossible or unthinkable.

The motivations of terrorists remain unclear. Do they want to show to the world the USA

is not invincible? However, September 11th

attacks weakened the military and economic power

of America. Do they want to trigger an American response in Afghanistan hoping that the United

States army would find a new Vietnam? Are they trying to chase Americans from the Middle

East? Do they hope to switch to their own camp Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Do they use the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict to rally Muslim-Arab opinion? As many questions have contradictory

and uncertain answers. The philosopher Pascal Bruckner is right to write in Le Monde of

September 25th

, 2001): "(....) the distraught search for causes, even if it is from good intentions

goes wrong: the culture of excuse, of explanation through despair, of humiliation exempts the act

of horror and leads to the temptation of indulgence."

After the attacks of September 11th

, Americans reacted as their grandparents responded in

1941. The war will be total and it should be won, even if it is predicted that no victory on

terrorism will be definite. The United States was attacked, not for what it does, but for what it is.

The conclusion is that these fundamental values of this society should be defended; that its fight

is similar to that of all other democracies and that no compromise is possible with the forces of

evil. No one better than George W. Bush has expressed this determination. Although it was hard

for him to be elected president, many of his fellow compatriots and foreigners judged him as

unable to fulfil his task, including his cleverness, his political skills, and his understanding of the

world seemed to be limited, he undergone a complete metamorphosis. He knows how to talk to

his citizens, to boost their morale, to unite all parts of a balkanized, uncertain and multicultural

society. In fact, the appearance of this unwavering patriotism strengthens his influence. More

than ever, the President consolidates the national unity.

It is an urgent necessity. The United States was hit in the heart. It has discovered that

because of its military power, its economic domination and its political influence, it is

vulnerable. Its hegemony creates hatred and attracts attacks, that its economic capital may be

seriously hurt, that its political capital is unreachable; few things could be done so that the White

House or a nuclear station would not be attacked. George W. Bush talks about a "crusade"

which means in the American context a fight with no mercy, but not a war of religions or a clash

of civilizations. In his speech about the State of the Union (January 29th

, 2002), he said: "Our

nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented

dangers (...) Our war against terrorism is just beginning, three countries constitute "the axis of

evil, armed to threaten the peace in the world". North Korea "(which) is armed with missiles and

weapons of mass destruction (...) Iran (which) aggressively pursues these weapons and exposes

terror, (...) Iraq (which) continues to flaunt its hostility to America and to support terror”. The

President addresses primarily Americans, but he also talks about the rest of humanity. Since

September 20th

, he warned by saying: "you're either with us, or against us." Thus, the United

States is more than ever the leader of the free world. This is not the Cold War, because the Soviet

Union no longer exists and no State is occupying its place. The International configuration has

no equivalent in history. The United States alone has the means to make war against terrorism.

To make war against an elusive enemy that is omnipresent and that is always rising from the

ashes. The US urges the other countries to follow because the fight will be worldwide and will

need time, a very long time.

The choice of a strategy

The choice of a strategy took three weeks. In Europe, many feared that the United States,

led by the desire to make revenge, had decided to hit harshly and without choosing wisely its

targets. Their concern is futile. Afghanistan that is governed by the Taliban and that gives shelter

to Bin Laden will be the first target of the American riposte. The military operations began on

October 7th

, forty Tomahawk missiles hit four Afghan cities including Kabul and then the

bombing intensified. In November, Americans sent Special Forces commandos in association

with the Northern Alliance forces fought several years against the Taliban. On November 10th

,

the city of Mazar-e-Sharif is "liberated" and on 13th

Kabul is under the control of the Northern

Alliance soldiers. On December 6th

, the Taliban in Kandahar negotiated their surrender and their

plan sunk into oblivion. The calm was not completely restored in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and

Mullah Omar, his accomplice and his protector, were not captured and sporadic fighting

continued. On December 4th

, the political situation has improved since the various Afghan

factions agreed that Hamid Karzai preside over an interim administration.

Americans have avoided falling into the trap of a new Vietnam. Their weapons are

extremely efficient, the result of the most modern technology. When their navy, their air force or

their special forces are involved, the precision (which does not exclude some unfortunate

blunders called collateral damage) and intensity of strikes are behind the success. They create at

the same time confidence for Washington and experts prepare immediately, the 2nd

phase of the

war against terrorism. Will the United States attack Iraq, which they accuse of making weapons

of mass destruction and supporting terrorism? Alternatively, will it attack Somalia, Yemen and

Sudan, which protect terrorist group members? The Pentagon strategists develop their plans. At

most, the political and diplomatic considerations do hold them for the time being.

Nevertheless, the international action of the United States calls for a new military doctrine. At

the time of the Cold War, nuclear deterrence was the essence of that strategy. Americans and

Soviets knew that the first to deign would endure a devastating response. However, against

terrorism, the United States cannot wait to be attacked to counterattack. It must take the lead.

President Bush announces that at least 60 states harbour terrorist cells that must be dissolved;

otherwise, the U.S. forces will intervene to destroy them. "The war against terrorism”, he

affirms, “will not be won by the defence." However, it would be wrong to reduce American

diplomacy to a preventive war. Terrorist movements cannot act without money. In addition, cash

transfers from one country to another are used to prepare the attacks and should therefore,

closely monitor tax havens that are located in the Caribbean, the Pacific, Europe or Asia. The

ultimate goal is to cut funding to networks like Al Qaeda. Precisely in 1981, an American report

already denounced the existence of illegal or simply clandestine networks. However, neither

President Reagan nor his successors or international organizations had considered that it was

imperative to take efficient measures. September 11th

changed facts of the problem. The

billionaire Bin Laden knows how to play smartly with financial mechanisms. Thus, it is to

manage and develop a set of more complex operations. Terrorism is not the weapon of the poor

or the illiterate; it benefits, on the contrary, from the financial globalization.

Finally, the war against terrorism is based on the efficiency of police. The FBI and the

CIA were accused of failing to predict on time, therefore to avoid the attacks, of failing to

coordinate their information and to provide intelligible reports. Immigration services have made

mistakes. Therefore, it is necessary to overcome all these weaknesses by creating a department at

the federal government responsible for all matters related to internal security. Bill Clinton had

already considered this and did not think it would be necessary to break with the political and

administrative tradition. George W. Bush took the plunge. The department should be created and

this will lead to long debates in the Congress.

Is it enough to Resort to force, to track illegal networks of finance and policing

infrastructure? Surely not, because there should also be a fight against terrorism in relation to

the political issues it raises. What are the conditions that explain the emergence and the

proliferation of terrorist movements? Why were attacks welcomed warmly in the Middle East?

Does the diplomacy of the United States justify the American hostility? Can the gap between

developed economies and those of developing countries be bridged? All of these questions

deserve consideration. None of these questions offers simple answers. There is no evidence that

terrorists resort to the same arguments as democratic nations. Their logic is not necessarily the

same as ours. However, the United States cannot avoid another question: Can the USA make war

against terrorism without making a coalition and without asking to agree with their allies?

Solitude or solidarity

The debate started well before September 11th

. Despite appearances, Bill Clinton

practiced multilateralism and moved towards unilateralism and his successor has increased this

trend. Unlike his father, George W. Bush did not try to form a strong and a stable coalition

before being engaged in the conflict of Afghanistan. The Security Council of the United Nations

recognised on September 12th

, "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" of the

United States (1368 resolution). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 of the

Atlantic Pact and declared the solidarity of its members with the United States. However,

Americans led the war. Washington has benefited from unconditional support from London and

has asked for only a very limited cooperation with other allies. The Americans, without prior

consultation of the others, took the main decisions. The plan prepared by the Pentagon to trigger

an offensive attack against Iraq are not subject to prior international consultation. On the

contrary, if George W. Bush was accused, before September 11th

, of not accepting international

agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the attacks and their

aftermath have urged him to act alone. This is shown in the debate on the International Criminal

Court. President Clinton at the end of his mandate signed the project, while the United States had

shown strong reluctance. Bush went back on the signature of his predecessor. He does not want

American soldiers or American politicians to be brought before a court that is not American.

Regardless of whether the United States was behind the origin of the UN and behind the major

international organizations, it must maintain its independence. It will not submit to any foreign

authority. Protests here and there will not change anything, because it has the means to stay

away. It would be even, according to them, the source of its power and its influence. More than

ever, the superpower continues its journey in solitude, desired and elevated to the level of the

political philosophy. This is one of the consequences of September 11th

attacks.

The world in Metamorphosis

Six years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, neither the Middle East nor the rest of the

world still knew a true peace and prosperity. On the contrary, disturbing changes affected

international relations. Therefore, it is possible to assess its magnitude and impossible to guess

its final consequences. In all continents, explosives factories could put or have already fired to

death states, regions and threaten security of our planet. More than ever, the uncertainty about

the future creates anxiety, although from time to time, there appear encouraging signs.

The financial, economic and social crisis

Since 2007, a deep crisis shook economies and experts are still debating its origins. What

is certain is that it broke out in 2007 in the United States. It was then discovered that loans were

given to borrowers with a low income and who could not pay back. These loans were used to

finance the purchase of private houses. The loans were given at a very low rate by banks and

credit agencies. These loans are subprime. At the same time, the lenders have "securitized" these

risky loans; that is to say, they have incorporated them into marketable securities. When the

borrower cannot pay back, he/she is expelled from home or from the house he has not yet

finished paying and the holders of "toxic" securities, whether individuals or banking

organizations, lose their investments. The stock exchange shock caused a sharp slowdown in

consumer spending, in industrial production and in trade distribution. Consequently,

unemployment rises dramatically.

The crisis reflects the failures of American society. Homeownership is a major demand of the

middle class, including the lower middle class whose income is extremely limited. Meeting this

demand is the objective of policies and financiers, even if the risk is high. Households save little

or more often do not have the means to save. That is to say, that they live on credit and debt is

becoming their way of life. Finally, in a favourable atmosphere for free enterprise which is

against strict control and sometimes they are tempted by corruption, agencies in charge of

ensuring the work of lending institutions connive or do not see the dangers that threaten the

country. That can be followed along the year 2008: calls for help, bankruptcies and government

intervention. In March, the crisis in residential real estate hit Bear Stearns, Wall Street’s fifth

investment bank, which the federal government saves with the assistance of the Morgan bank.

Then, it was the turn of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. They had achieved two major

credit agencies, Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation). Therefore, public funds must come to the rescue. Only a

few months before leaving the White House, President George W. Bush agrees to use taxpayers'

money to try to save the banking sector. His successor, Barack Obama is developing a

comprehensive plan to revive the economy, a plan which cost exceeds 800 billion dollars.

Inevitably, the U.S. crisis became immediately a global crisis and globalization explains

the pandemic. American banks were not alone to buy, legally or illegally those "toxic"

securities. The financial capitalism became, for many years, borderless and sensitive to trouble

and to illusion. The American economic slump is contagious and the effects of globalization

have not always been hateful. This globalization “happy globalization” improved the way of life

of many people, led to development and to economic growth. After the decline of the Soviet

Union, it seemed that it (globalization) could offer the world better conditions and could reassure

peaceful relations between states, and a guaranteed happiness. Today, at various levels, no

human can escape to the storm.

The crisis, a poorly defined word that frightens, has consequences in the field of

international relations. The American model of development is in question and America can no

longer provide the only inevitable way to reach prosperity. It can be reached unless it changes its

economic policy. Gone are the days when the power of free enterprise was praised and when

government interventions were condemned and when the free market was defended. Now, the

Americans choose to use the public power to fight the disaster, to the extent that some in New

York and Washington do not fail to alert their compatriots about the growing "socialism" that

could threaten the country. Certainly, there is no question, at least for the moment, to give up

capitalism, to establish strict and clear regulations, to prevent excessiveness and to institute state

governed financial institutions. In all cases, it is a matter of exceptional measures that are related

to this hard time but which should not interfere, let alone prevent a recovery that has been

awaited for a long time. The condemnation of the "golden handshake» and tax havens appear in

the agenda without becoming an unchanged dogma.

In the United States and elsewhere, the attention of political and economic officials is

dedicated to finding solutions. Heads of states and governments have, in the agenda of their

meetings, financial crisis and the threats of social and political institutions. Today, the highest

priority is to fight against the crisis. Consequently, other areas of human activity decline in the

hierarchy of concerns. Spending on education and health must be decreased. Whenever it is

possible, waves of immigrants, who leave their developing countries to find work and improve

their condition in industrialized countries, must come to a standstill. Would not protectionism be

the solution to our problems? This is what some insistent whispers make us believe. Conversely,

recalling errors in the thirties of the twentieth century pacify these aspirations for the protection

of customs. The only field that could escape these restrictions is the environment. Preserving

natural resources, protecting nature and making use of new energy sources are also ways to fight

against the crisis.

Once again appears in the front scene the spectrum of American decline. Yet, the United

States of America does not lack assets. Its economic strength, though weakened, remains

impressive. It is based on technological innovation, on scientific research, and on immigrants

who bring their professional qualifications. In addition to the military force, there is the cultural

power. Even if America shows a little more humility, and though President Barack Obama

announced that he will listen to his allies more than did his predecessor, aspirations to leadership

had not yet disappeared. Decline, which is relative, is more illusory than real. Nevertheless, if the

United States of America stopped to be the leading power of the world, who would replace it?

The United States had lost some of their influence and Europe has neither the means nor the

desire to take its place. It is true that there are new actors taking the lead, they are emerging

countries. In April 2009, the G20 meeting held in London conferred an important role to

countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia,

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, that come to join the United States, France, Great Britain,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia. Developing countries account for nearly 5 billion and

a half men and women for a global population of 6.7 billion. In 2003, the new members of the

G20 gathered 39.1% of the world's wealth, while the G8 had 44.2% of global wealth. In 2030,

the first countries will have greatly exceeded the second ones. Their annual growth rate is great.

It is between 8 and 9% for East Asia and the Pacific; it exceeds 5% for South Asia and is around

4% in the Middle East. Although weakened by the crisis, these economies are considered as

locomotives of global growth. They are indispensable partners, fragile in a way and want to

make their voices heard in international forums. Decisions that affect the world are no longer

taken by Europe and North America. The alliance of nations now includes many countries that

want their voices to be heard.

The model of China needs some attention. In the 1990’s, proponents of prospective

geopolitics fantasized about the "Chinese peril." They imagined a conquering power imposing its

rule first on the Asian continent, and then on others. Today, the view of the future has changed.

In 1979 China traded for 400 billion dollars with the United States in 2008, it doubled six times

more. The 500 largest U.S. companies have all invested in China and Wal-Mart alone is the

seventh trading partner China. As for the Chinese presence in the United States, it is still very

impressive. As for calculations, between 600 billion and 1,000 billion U.S. Treasury bonds are

held by China. Businesspersons and about a hundred of thousands of Chinese students live or

come regularly to the United States. There is collusion between the two countries, which does

not eliminate the rivalry. This is Seen in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle

East, where the Chinese have taken or are about to take the place of Americans. Collusion does

not remove more situations of conflict, as in the Strait of Taiwan and in Asian seas, on the

African continent and among Latin American nations.

Also, this undeniable evolution should be distinguished. Because the crisis weakens the

United States, Japan and the European Union, China gets the largest benefit. It has a mass of

cash, which allows it to buy many firms in difficulty. Its workforce is paid very low wages. Its

currency is particularly competitive and its territory welcomes foreign companies that benefit

from of the Chinese market. Its growth rate has decreased slightly due to the dependence on the

American market. Nevertheless, this growth rate is not high, especially if compared to the

growth rate of developed nations. Admittedly, households save as much as they can to pay their

health care costs and the education of their children. Overall, despite its weaknesses, the Chinese

economy is recapturing the American, the European and the Japanese economy, to the extent that

it is now ranked third in the world rankings, which is a confirmation of an upheaval in

international relations.

Does it mean that China is about to become the superpower of the twenty-first century?

Nothing is less certain, at least for the next twenty years. The growth of its population, slowed by

some drastic measures and the aging of its population, puts a brake on its economic growth. The

commercial, the energetic and the technological dependence on foreign countries makes it very

vulnerable. Inequalities within society are very strong and the communist and the nationalist

political regimes are in contrast with the economic development. If China appears in East Asia

and if it overcomes the disputes opposing it to Japan and ties close links with this country, if its

diplomacy is following closely the events in South-East and North-East Asia, it has not yet

shown a desire to establish a world order of which it will be the victorious. Moreover, India that

is also growing, could balance the Chinese influence and acts as a counterweight.

The east complicated

From the Mediterranean to the borders of India, material interests, religious fanaticism, political

and geostrategic conflicts bang together. More than ever, this region can ignite and the fire can

spread to the rest of the world. Three tension centres raise the most serious concerns.

Iran is an ambitious power, both near and far from western culture, and subject to conflicting

currents. In 2003, Tehran condemned the American intervention in Iraq, but proclaimed its

"active neutrality". Iranians applauded the fall of Saddam Hussein, but that did not prevent them

from calling for the immediate departure of the coalition forces. However, the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) alerts the public opinion about the nuclear program that could

lead to the construction of a bomb. Germany, Great Britain and France are trying to mediate for

the treaty of non-proliferation. In this perspective, research for only nuclear energy would be

allowed, but the enrichment of uranium would be prohibited. Iran has made a gesture of good

will, which is seen either as true or as illusory. In June 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad was

elected president of the Iranian Republic that does not mean that he holds the supreme power. On

October 26th

, he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map", just after having announced the

resumption of uranium enrichment.

From that time, Iran has become a dangerously aggressive power and if it acquires

nuclear weapons, it will have the means to attack Israel, to threaten its neighbours and to

exercise a kind of domination over the region. This domination is fearful and unbearable because

Iran is Shiite and the majority of its neighbours are Sunnis. Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and even

Egypt will be weakened and will try to acquire nuclear weapons. From here came the increasing

efforts of the West (United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China) to set limits on

Iranian ambitions. On July 31st 2006, the Security Council of the UN demands that Iran “suspend

all activities related to uranium enrichment” but in vain. A new resolution prohibits the sale of

any material, any technology that affects nuclear and ballistic activities in Iran. Meanwhile, Iran

supported the Lebanese Hezbollah, which provoked a violent Israeli military response and on

December 12th

, President Ahmadinejad inaugurated an international conference to deny the

existence of the Holocaust.

Successive resolutions appear and European diplomats increase their interventions for the

cessation of uranium enrichment. IAEA report was released on May 28th

2008, reported that

there is a possible militarization of Iran's nuclear program, the development of a warhead that

could carry a nuclear charge, the testing of explosives of high intensity and a plan of nuclear test.

Experts believe that Iran will have a bomb in the next few years. Its territory will be in

"sanctum" and there will no longer be an air, land or sea attack, since any attack could be

followed by a nuclear response having devastating effects.

When all is said, Iran is frightening country. The acquisition of the ultimate weapon, the

support for the Shiite population in the region that could destabilize some societies in the Middle

East, the hostility and the genocide statements against the State of Israel are all grounds to fear

the worst. So how can the disaster be avoided? Two solutions are possible none of which give

sure decisive results. The first is related to military action, that is to say, to destroy Iran's nuclear

power plants as was destroyed by Israel in 1980, is Iraq's Osirak reactor a radical and a desirable

solution? Iranians have taken their own precautions. They dispersed and protected their facilities.

They can count on the movements and factions that could inevitably trigger terrorist attacks in

Europe and in America. Moreover, once the powder keg is lit, it will be impossible to contain the

fire.

The second solution is diplomacy. In this context, it is necessary to continue relentlessly

attempts at dialogue, to alternate between sanctions and gestures of goodwill, rely on the

declining influence of supporters of Ahmadinajad and on the wisdom of leaders who are

believed to be moderate. Until now, diplomats not yet have any significant results as if Tehran

pretended to be negotiating gradually to achieve its goal. Since he became president of the

United States, Barack Obama offered help to Iranians, promised that his country - which broke

all relations with Iran in 1979 - is ready to start negotiations, to ensure that Americans will not

make war on Islam and that Iran could play a role in the restoration of peace in Afghanistan, the

Middle East and Iraq. Nevertheless, is Iran willing to take the path of conciliation? Perhaps, but

so far nothing seems less certain. Once Ahmadinejad was re-elected president in June 2009, the

regime hardened and times for negotiation did not seem to have come.

Militant Islam and terrorism are another threat affecting the Middle East and exerting

influence outside the region, it aims at establishing political regimes that apply Charia that are

real theocracies and oppose the presence and cooperation with democratic regimes. The essence

of this Islamism is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, after the attacks of 2001, the Security

Council of the United Nations established a mission of the International Security Assistance

Force (ISAF) to help the Afghan authority, once the Taliban are overthrown, to restore security

and participate in the reconstruction of the country. NATO took command of ISAF and in April

2008, the force included soldiers of 40 nations, with an important involvement of the United

States. Seven years after the establishment of ISAF, the political situation has improved first and

allowed Hamid Karzai to form a government. Then the Taliban, who can count on the refuge in

the tribal areas of Pakistan, have regained some lost ground to the extent that they threaten to

occupy most of the country.

Is there any link between Iraq and Afghanistan? Some people support this link starting by

Barack Obama. For them, America missed its right enemies. Islamism is powerful in

Afghanistan and it was not so in Iraq. By focusing on the Iraqi front, Americans and their allies

have neglected the Afghan front. Therefore, priorities must be reversed. Since Iraq is more or

less stabilized, elections were held, that a government and an elected assembly have been placed

and many tribes have stopped backing the former supporters of Saddam Hussein and the

followers of Al Qaeda, the U.S. troops assigned to Iraq should withdraw as quickly as possible

and strengthen their forces in Afghanistan. In any case, the ultimate goal would be to let people

decide on their own fate and on the political system, which suits them.

This strategy lies on three points. In January 2007, President George W. Bush rallied

finally in strengthening the military presence in Iraq, and this is one of the reasons for the

improvement of the situation. A date must be set now for the withdrawal and President Barack

Obama has set the American withdrawal to be in the summer of 2010. As long as Iraq is not

destabilized by then, the attacks do not resume and that the opponents of the United States do not

profit from the announcement of the withdrawal to put back their attacks.

20.000 American soldiers will reinforce their fellows of NATO who are fighting in

Afghanistan. Their objective will be to push back the Taliban, to control areas where farmers

grow opium for the benefit of the Taliban and to strengthen the elected authorities. If the Taliban

yield the ground and can no longer rely on their Pakistani allies, that NATO forces do not suffer

losses that would make their withdrawal impossible and give the enemy a resounding political

victory.

Overall, Pakistan is undoubtedly the heart of the problem. It has nuclear weapons and its

relations with India are particularly difficult. It is shaken by Islamists who do not hesitate to

resort to attacks and to arms against the political power. Still worse, The Pakistani army is

probably not able to contain the Islamist forces, the Taliban are close to the capital. They got

what is like sharing the national territory. Because of using terror, they give an important place

to Islam, they arouse hostility against the West and its allies and they impose their authority.

What will happen if they manage to gain power over the whole country and then have the

nuclear weapon? An adviser to General David Petraeus -who commands the U.S. forces from the

Horn of Africa to Central Asia - rightly states that the central front of their war against Al Qaeda

is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan it is Pakistan, the sanctuary of Al Qaida. Moreover, there is no

strategy to end this sanctuary.

What remains is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there is no evidence that it will end in the

months or in the years to come. In fact, it is not the lack of good will that is missing, or that

many attempts to establish or re-establish a dialogue between the opponents. The Israeli-

Palestinian summit, which President Bill Clinton convened at Camp David in 2000, had failed,

then the second intifada began. The new Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, broke all relations

with Yasser Arafat, who until the last days of his life was locked into his office in Ramallah. In

2002, the Arab League developed a plan for peace: Member-States recognize Israel, if it

withdraws from all the territories it occupied in 1967. Therefore, a suicide bombing occurs and

Sharon reoccupied the West Bank and decided to build a security fence to prevent suicide

bombers from entering Israeli territory. In 2003, the Quartet (EU, UN, U.S., Russia) adopted the

"roadmap" which foresaw that a Palestinian state will be born before the end of 2005. The next

year, Ariel Sharon announced a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and four other Jewish

settlements in the West Bank. In November 2004, Arafat died and his successor, Mahmoud

Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority in January 2005. Soon after, all Israeli

settlements in the Gaza Strip were dismantled.

In 2006, Hamas won the legislative elections in the Palestinian territories. This Islamist

movement announces that it will not change its program: there will be no renunciation of

terrorism, there will be no recognition of the State of Israel and no acceptance of the previous

agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. The United States and the European Union

refused to establish any relations with it. In July 2006, at the Lebanese border, Hezbollah that is

backed by Iran provoked Israel, so it destroyed a part of Lebanon. For its part, Hamas did not

make any delay to control the Gaza Strip and Mahmoud Abbas no longer exercises authority

over the West Bank. In December 2008, in order to respond to the ceaseless firing of rockets,

Israel triggered a military offensive against the Gaza Strip. At the beginning of 2009, Ehud

Olmert followed Ariel Sharon who left office and Benjamin Netanyahu who became prime

minister.

How should we interpret this sequence of events? Two Palestinian movements exercise

power. Fatah and Hamas hate and fight each other. One is in favour of negotiations with Israel;

but the other refuses and has the support of extremists in the Arab world as well as the support of

Iran. The Palestinian unity was shattered; Israelis note that the Oslo Accords, the withdrawal

from southern Lebanon and Gaza did not make progress for the spirit of peace; that most

Palestinians have interpreted the withdrawal as a sign of weakness, of which Hamas profited to

continue for years, its rocket attacks on Israeli cities. It is not surprising, that the Israeli right

wing won the recent elections. An overwhelming majority of Israeli people would exchange

territories, that is to say the settlements in the West Bank for peace. Finally, would not it be right

for a foreign intervention in the region so that the opponents could reach an agreement?

President George W. Bush has been much criticized for not being active enough. The European

Union has neither the means to make sufficient pressure nor a clearly stated policy. Will the new

president of the United States, perhaps, succeed in getting results than his predecessors have

tried to reach vainly? However, to reach an agreement and for a Palestinian State to see the light

on small territory of the Holy Land, two states living in peace "in secure and recognized

borders", both sides have to reach an agreement on the status of the city of Jerusalem and on the

Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This will stop Islamic terrorism on the Jewish character of

the State of Israel. Although the majority of each one is yearning for peace, there are many

points causing division among Israelis and Palestinians.