TwIsTeD Reflections

I was actually planning to write on the influences of NBA coaching in TwiSteR's Lakers, much as I know you guys hate to read about the NBA on my blog. But the up coming exams have forced my hand to discuss something closer to my heart of my favourite subject, perhaps, of all time: International Relations. Furthermore, tis post comes just before the inauguration of America's first black president and during Israel's invasion into the Gaza; talk about sweet timing.

Why did i mention these particular history-making events? Well, because Im going to discuss terrorism, the intimate topic in any American election. Terrorism, to put it simply, is the act of using fear to achieve a certain end. As a result, when we speak of terrorists, it sometimes depends on the context of the source. For example, a Palestine bomber would be labeled as a terrorist in Israel, but definitely not among the Hamas, who consider their act simply as a following of their Jihad against Israel.

No topic of terrorism is ever complete without mention the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, when George W. Bush pushed for his own jihad war on terrorism and created the infamous Bush Doctrine. On a side note, the fact that such an idiot managed to get himself elected for 2 terms is, to me, proof of the ignorance of the American people when it involves in choosing the most important man in the world. Thank god for Obama.

Anyway, it is interesting on the way Bush treated the September 11 attack as if it was an attack against his own ego, pushing almost immediately against the Afghanistan's Taliban regime, and subsequently against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. It was an ego move, to say the least. Americans wanted some form of action, and the president decided to attack and invade the countries that are seemingly involved in it.

Why you may ask. Many IR scholars have stressed the need for America to protect its interest, and to do so in a decisive manner. However, it seemed to me that the attack on both these sovereign nations was akin to taking action for the sake of taking action. That is to me worse that not doing anything.

Well, the US payed the price for it. The backlash of anti-Americanism within the Islam-centric has give the radicals a great amount of fuel. Any form of 'moderate' talk would be considered siding with the infidels. Fresh recruits swarmed to join terrorist cells across the world, making the world an even more dangerous place to live in.

It seems unfair that the world has to pay for one man's stupid mistakes, but that is the reality that we must live in. Mistakes have to be learnt. Terrorism is not about countries fighting wars against each other. It is intangible, with no visible borders or frontlines. A war on terrorism is basically a war on ideals. In other words, the use of arms would only help the terrorists.

So what must we do? For one, we must educate ourselves to the point of view of the terrorists. There must be a reason for them to bomb and kill. That reason must be attacked, for without that ideal, the bomb will never go off. We cannot follow Bush's example and try to pummel the problem on the head with a crudgel like a common bully.

America views itself as the benign hegemon, the upright and virtuous superhero in the frightening international anarchy of the world. Many believe, this is inherently important to maintain stability in the international system. I sincerely disagree. I think that to depend on one country for 'leadership' would be jolly good if the rest of the countries are in on it, but drastically frightful if a large number of states disagree.

It is like having a leader without being democratically elected. Ironic. America's presidency is the single most undemocratic election in the world: a few hundred million people voting for 6.7 billion people. So while i do not agree that if the international system would remain as an international anarchy without a hegemon is good for peace, meaning using a balance of power as the sole source to keep countries in check, I do not think that a hegemon would be that much of a stabilizing factor to be that much different. Not if half of the world do not see the US eye to eye.

The Bush Doctrine is just another example of America striking out to protect the 'values' of Democracy and Capitalism (as if other economic and political systems have a 'lack of values'). Other incidences include the Cold War (where it could have led to a serious nuclear-themed war), the Vietnam War (where if the US just left things as they were, Vietnam would still not threaten), the Gulf War, etc.

The question is whether we should follow suit or not. As a sovereign state, we have the right to take a stand. Each country does. That is not to say we should adopt anti-americanism, as i believe that the States as the hegemon is inherently better than say, China, as the reigning superpower. But each states government must not follow leadership blindly, and try to tackle international issues, like terrorism, the smart way, and together.