Brave Old World?

By Andrew Thomson

            Afghanistan, whose various factions were once united into a common front against a group of foreigners controlling the government, may slowly be unraveling back to a state of tribal and civil warfare, reduced central authority, and overall disunity.

            This is a possibility in 2002. However, I could as easily have said the same thing in 1993. Are we living in a “new order” that’s supposed to be different? Eight months after North America woke up to the images of fire, smoke and carnage, the question remains: how have the events of September 11, 2001 changed the politics of the world we live in?

            A superficial glance indicates change for North Americans. Thanks to beefed up American patrols featuring (in some cases) rifle toting National Guardsmen, along with new toys such as helicopters looming over the Canada-U.S. frontier, the claim to the world’s longest undefended border no longer holds. American patriotism has been injected with a caffeine boost in the form of “God Bless America” added to the play list during seventh-inning stretches along with the standard “Take Me Out to the Ballgame.”

            The Western mindset has altered. “Theoretically speaking” about a major attack no longer applies. This empowered Western governments to enact legislation in the name of protecting national security. In Canada, legislation such as the original version of Bill C-36 contained passages restricting freedom that would have been considered absurd before Sept. 11. The ramifications in the Western mindset did not sink in for me until an early-November visit to Parliament Hill for a class assignment.

            I was seated in one of the Centre Block’s more elaborate meeting rooms to witness testimony before the House of Commons Justice committee. Three rows in front, sat Matthew Coon Come, Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who along with two advisors would voice opposition to Bill C-36. There was no visible media in the room to cover this event. In fact, Coon Come was about ten feet ahead of me at the security checkpoint and no one in line recognized him.

            Many of Coon Come's comments to the parliamentarians that day reflected a "Back to the Future" philosophy whereby new laws to deal with terrorism would serve to reinforce old stereotypes.

            “We often have been accused of insurgency, and been labeled traitors by my separatist friends in Quebec. I, myself, in the past have been termed a guerilla. We are deeply concerned that natives will feel misuse and this justifies our grave concerns about the risks of this anti-terrorism legislation,” he told the committee. “We are not terrorists. We are not anti-development,” he added during questioning. Joanna Birenbaum, the AFN’s legal counsel at the hearing, expanded on the problems associated with the post-Sept. 11 mindset.

            “(Currently) legitimate actions by First Nations peoples are often deemed to be unlawful. Now, civil disobedience by natives (such as roadblocks) may be considered to be terrorist activity,” she told the MP’s in attendance. The message coming from Coon Come and his organization seemed to be clear. They would not let Sept. 11 cloud the fact that natives could unduly suffer from the very legislation designed to protect the freedom of all Canadians.

            Are we living in a radically different global environment from a few months ago? The Middle East is beset by a senseless cycle of violence and broken promises. The U.S. government vilifies Cuba as a rogue state, at the same time as one of its former presidents, Jimmy Carter, calls for change. India and Pakistan are once again dancing close to the line of nuclear chaos. Pressures such as overpopulation, hunger and economic inequality still rear their ugly heads. And yes, Saddam Hussein remains a villain in the eyes of Washington politicians wearily looking over their shoulder at public opinion polls and election platforms.

            Many are angry at the perceived status quo of the global economic and political order. And although recent counter-terrorism measures have restricted the threat of attacks for the time being, Sept. 11 has not stopped satellite technology from beaming American images to the rest of the world, respite with televised images of sports cars, fast food, expensive designer clothes and garish homes. Jealousy and/or disgust with American cultural, economic and political hegemony does not evaporate by increasing border patrols or sending special forces into the mountains of Afghanistan.

            Change happens, but seems to occur more at the personal and local level rather then internationally. We may look twice over our shoulders more often when walking past a skyscraper or government building, and speaking out against government policy has become frowned upon in the United States (i.e. Bill Maher and Michael Moore). However, on the international front it’s a different story. Using the capacities of traditional nation-states to fight the scourges of transnational terrorist networks is similar to the tired, albeit useful cliché of the squared pegs fitting into round holes: the pieces will not fit. Unfortunately international institutions such as the UN, NATO, G-7 and WTO have yet to exhibit a strong willingness to reform themselves to meet the global challenges in the war on “terrorism.”

            I hate to rehash a more repulsive cliché, but there has been little “thinking outside the box” when it comes to creating new international bodies to combat terrorism. We’ve seen the same types of military alliances and joint policing efforts used to fight actual governing rogues such as Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, however these arrangements can only provide a temporary resistance to violence. To attack the root fundamentals of the sorts of terrorism threatening global order would require a new global governing arrangement that would inevitably require the ceding of some national sovereignty by individual states. One problem that an idea such as this faces is the debate over what qualifies as “terrorism”: in the opinion of the United States, freedom fighters in Chechnya are now militants to be corralled and abused by Russia with no recourse, while similar pursuits of independence around the world are welcomed and supported either openly or covertly. A positive change in the long-term fight against terrorism requires an adjustment of our mindset towards national sovereignty and global governance. Whether or not we can achieve this shift in the West is a dubious proposition.

            It’s too early to judge the ultimate impact of Sept. 11 on contemporary world affairs, but there is still a danger of reverting back to the feeling of North American immunity from danger that allowed the attacks to happen in the first place. Nine months after the fact, can North American society really claim to posses a better and less racially biased understanding of Islam now that racial profiling and schoolyard taunts have been constant news items? Have international bodies started the process of readjusting themselves to counter the transnational threats of terrorism? Can agencies such as the FBI or CIA really hope to “predict” the next threat?

            So many questions...so few answers. I wonder who’s singing God Bless America at halftime.