José Reinaldo Carvalho*

The United States rose at the dawn of this September 11 with the banging of war drums one year after the attacks that hit icons of the economic and military power and the national pride of the imperialist country. At this moment, when the regular US citizens only remember the dead, the government makes efforts to convince them to withdraw a declaration of war from the ashes of destruction.

The US people's ideal of freedom, a people once sure of the superiority of its government system over the others, suddenly was stained by the hysterical, belligerent and aggressive reaction of Bush's government. An antediluvian secretary of Justice started to dictate Draconian rules, decreed espionage on entities, political parties and civil movements, arrested and tortured people, caged immigrants, accused and condemned people based only on suspicion. The fiery New York, the melting pot of civilizations, "the capital of multiculturalism and of the civilized world", became grayish, disquieting, inhospitable to visitors. The US people, raised on unchangeable certainties since the foundation of the great Union, plunged into perplexity once they realized that the "manifested destiny" displays the relativity of an act of insanity, which authorship they may never know for sure. The pain was not purged, the tears were not wiped and the people see themselves facing the useless

Hamletian doubt: to attack or not some country somewhere, to start or not a dirty war, a terrorist-like war, against a supposed, unreal, illusive enemy fabricated by the maliciousness of the governing ultra-right, headed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

A world-scale assault

The international situation already evolved negatively with the imposition of the unipolar rule of the United States over the world and the imperialist superpower's more and more manifested trend to impose its interests by means of force. Nevertheless the world became undoubtedly worse, more dangerous and unstable after the vicious happenings that took place one year ago. The international situation deteriorated, an unbearable stench of gunpowder and blood hangs over the world, war became a routine act, peace and democracy became more distant, almost chimerical values.

As September 11 will always be remembered by the attacks, also September 20 entered into history as the proclamation of a world-scale assault on which the United States assumed totalitarian pretensions. Bush's statement-"Those who are not with us are with the terrorists"-forced the creation of an "antiterrorist coalition" and accused revolutionary movements countries of being outlaws, therefore likely to endure military attacks, coups d'état and even the physical elimination of their members and leaders.

Then came the concept of the "axis of evil", encompassing according to the resolution of the US government countries such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba, accused of keeping mass destruction weapons, supporting terrorism or protecting terrorists. During the same speech the president of the United States also mentioned the means he intends to use: "we will use all necessary weapons of war". Are chemical, biological and nuclear weapons abundant in the US arsenals? Let us not take any chances.

Bush also emphasized how long his war would take and he was clear about the United States' leadership pretensions. "We should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. This is the world's fight, this is civilization's fight. The great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time now depend on us." Bush's address to the Congress on September 20 marked a shift in the relations between the United States and the rest of the world and also in the exercise of the US hegemonism. It was the beginning of a new period of war, global dictatorship, careless use of brute force, disregard to international legality and multilateral institutions. There is no sense in the existence of the United Nations, there is no value in documents and treaties that express, though formally, the national sovereignty and the equality of nations. This is a new period of militarization of international relations, of unilateral decisions, when the stronger is able to intervene in the matters of the weaker ones, when the rights of the peoples are derogated.

Preventive war

Twelve months passed. Under the pretext of hunting down Osama Bin Laden, dismantling the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and expelling the Taleban regime from Afghanistan, the United States began its infinite war. It devastated Afghanistan, a country already exhausted and bled by foreign and civil wars. Now the United States are solidly camped on a strategic spot, southern Asia, where different and conflictive interests concerning Iran, India, Russia and China are mixed.

After the war in Afghanistan, when the United States gained ground in the occupation of strategic areas, the US government decided to add new concepts to those announced by president Bush on September 20 last year. Speaking during a ceremony to cadets at West Point Military Academy, the chief of the US Executive Power announced the doctrine of the "preventive war". There will be no more dissuasions and no more retaliations in case of an attack, but the preventive strike will take place whenever there is suspicion on the preparation of acts hostile to the US territory or against US citizens.
Iraq: the next target

It is precisely this concept of preventive war that resulted in the decision of attacking Iraq. The United States developed the certainty that Iraq keeps biological and chemical mass destruction weapons and is about to hold nuclear weapons. Therefore, Iraq is a threat to humankind or, in different words, to the United States. A "rogue state", a "renegade government" that deserves to perish and disappear according to this simplistic point of view.

But Bush's decision faces serious obstacles. The US public opinion is not convinced to pay the price of another foreign military campaign. The Congress has serious doubts and is reluctant to authorize the attack. And there are controversies even within the republican establishment. Secretary of State Colin Powell did not show yet the same convictions of vice-president Cheney and his colleague, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The attempt to bring down the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein may prove to be very expensive to the United States. This is an objective that cannot be achieved only by air bombings. A numerous ground force should be used to confront a strong army imbued with national fervor. All evidences show that this would not be a short conflict. It is also almost certain that a war of this kind would involve all Middle East and throw more oil on the Palestinian fire. An article published by the Washington Post signed by Walter Pincus and published by the newspaper O Estado de São Paulo yesterday says that George Bush senior, responsible for the Gulf War in 1991, was against bringing down Saddam Hussein, taking Bagdad and occupying the whole country. The former president remarked that "the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land". "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs".

Definitely the US foreign policy has worsened under the government of George Bush junior. International conditions have changed, demanding aggressive actions with a view to assure hegemony over strategic areas. But certainly the risks described by the former president are not smaller now. Despite them, all evidences show that the United States will not give up on its intent and are frantically preparing to attack.

Difficult foreign situation for the United States

It is not in the schedule for the anniversary events on September 11, but it is a matter to be discussed in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Bush will try to convince the international community, exert pressure, threaten, plea for the acceptance and authorization of the United Nations for his intent. But he will not leave without saying that his option is either to attack or to attack. This is the meaning of the words of vice-president Cheney: "The United States will not accept decisions that limit its options on attacking Iraq". "We're trying very hard not to be unilateralists.

We're working to build support with the American people, with the Congress, as many have suggested we should. And we're also, as many have suggested we should, going to the United Nations. But it doesn't mean we are ready to ignore realities."

But Bush will find strong opposition to his pretensions. Countries considered to be allies in Middle east, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and even Qatar, a small Gulf Emirate, have manifested in different ways their disagreement to any military action against Iraq. They know reality and the possible consequences. "Not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses" said Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. By attacking Iraq, the United States may be opening the "gates of Hell", he said during the meeting of the Arab League last week in Cairo.
Add to that the opposition of China, Russia, France (three veto-holding members of the Security Council of the UN) and Germany and we have a situation that would be hardly dealt with within diplomatic and political fields. The United States will only be able to act unilaterally based on the trick of considering effective the authorization to use force granted in 1991.

What will come next?

The US "infinite war", under the pretext of fighting terrorism, definitely introduced the policy of force and aggression to sovereign countries as a routine act in the international life. Therefore, it extremely deteriorates the terms that rule the coexistence of nations and changes the whole international system. An old order was dismantled and substituted by uncertainty, lack of safety and chaos. After Iraq, no one know where the US weapons will point at. The peoples abominated the events that took place on September 11 last year. And they also condemn the policy of aggression and the war the US imperialism longs for, since it affects their safety, sovereignty, freedom and peace.

_________________
* Journalist, Vice-president of PCdoB, responsible by international relations

BACK