Practical Part

Translation

HISTOIRE DES RELATIONS INTERATIONALES

DE 1945 NOS JOURS

Tome 2, 15e dition

Par
Jean-Baptiste DUROSELLE
Andr 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 Streets 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 1990s, 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 IsraeliPalestinian 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.