Géopolitique des Etats Unis après les attaques du 11 septembre

Soraya Boulos

Paper 3

12/04/18

The attacks of September 11, 2001 have redrawn the geopolitical map of the world. In Western countries, the attacks in New York were considered abominable and caused a radical change of mentality. A war policy against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and the "Axis of Evil" - a name used by George Bush for Iraq, Iran and North Korea - was triggered. We have entered a "hyper-terrorist" era. Many European countries were ready to cooperate with the Americans, their main allies, in an attempt to hunt down terrorists. The events of the WTC have clearly heightened US hegemony and exacerbated the sense of belonging to the West. Feeling more Western than ever, the Europeans wanted to play a role in this joint fight against terrorism, led by the United States.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and the European Union have therefore multiplied initiatives to respond to the threats of "Islamist terrorism". In this way, the fight against terrorism has become central in the new world geopolitics and the political life of democratic states. The goal is to restrain this hostile world, even destroy it. The "post-9/11" era has become a time when it is not good to live as Arab or Muslim, because of the confusion between these two identities on the one hand, and with terrorism on the other. share. Although already present before the attacks, misunderstandings between Western countries, rich and white, the so-called "free" world, and the poor and non-white Muslim world have been greatly aggravated. The impact of these attacks on the perception of Islam and Muslims was important. The "fight against terrorism" erected as an official doctrine. Nine Eleven is a turning point in Washington's foreign policy: its action against "rogue states" and terrorist groups has been elevated to the rank of official doctrine. This new crusade, under the generic slogan of the "fight

against terrorism", has legitimized the interference in countries considered as potential accomplices of international terrorism. Thus, Afghanistan was attacked by the United States a month after the collapse of the twin towers. According to Bush, an act of terrorism requires a military response. However, many Americans have criticized the excesses of this catastrophic administration. The war in Afghanistan was conducted with the explicit or passive approval of the international community. Thanks to its new policy of security of the national territory, Bush benefited from largesse in the definition of the principle of international law relative to the legitimate defense. For most Americans, the attack was actually considered a self-defense action. Such was the justification given by the United States for invading Afghanistan. Attacks are perpetrated in the name of security. Intervention against states suspected of being supporters of terrorist networks or manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction is also part of the war on terror. The events of September 11 also prompted America to attack Iraq. As in Afghanistan, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in the name of the security of Uncle Sam who declared his first war against the "Axis of Evil". . The reasons for this war were based on Bush's suspicions that Iraq was a state supporting Al Qaeda and therefore responsible for multiple terrorist attacks including the Nine Eleven. Officially, the challenge was to establish an Iraqi transitional government and to overthrow the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein as soon as possible. This is to make Iraq a free country to stop being a threat. It was also to protect the country's oil wealth. In fact, the war in Iraq should above all serve to establish a democratic regime favorable to United States.

Therefore The Bush Administration, in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, redefined deeply the national security strategy according to what Washington perceived as the two great threats of the post-Cold War era: the proliferation unconventional weapons and transnational Islamist terrorism. As to means, it announces that the United States will not hesitate to act militarily preventive way to deal with these threats. But the document published by the White House at the end of 20021 very strongly assert that the promotion of democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and the economy market, wherever they are absent or deficient, is an integral part of national security strategy. States that support terrorism or develop unconventional weapons programs are the enemies the United States ; oppressive regimes, because they create the political conditions and the economics of terrorism, are in themselves dangers. Against some others, the "Bush doctrine" states that America will implement the full range of his means. The Middle East - and more broadly the Arab-Muslim world - occupies a place central in this vision. Basically, the Bush administration analyzed the September 11 as the product of political "mis-development" and the economic decadence of most Middle Eastern countries. If we add a relative concentration of "rogue states", some of which develop unconventional weapons and / or support terrorist organizations. The national security strategy can be considered as a presentation of new practices adopted by the United States, but corresponds to a theoretical approach to the use of force. Therefore, the overall compatibility of this new US policy with the law international law would not prejudge the lawfulness of the measures that would be taken application of this policy. Some problems that are hidden in the general wording of this policy will appear at the stage of its implementation. Certainly, the documents of the United States presidency must be considered as relevant evidence to establish what is the practice of that country in the use of force, but consideration of the compliance with international commitments is carried out in concreto, taking account of all the circumstances surrounding a specific military action. The change announced by the new doctrine with regard to the self-defense is, in reality, in a concrete world, limited in its reach. United States to the doctrine of preventive self-defense that it strives to adapt to the terrorist threat by developing the concept of action "Anticipatory": the latter would justify the use of force to prevent even an armed attack that should occur at an indeterminate date. States in general have never clearly decided against theory of prevention, because they do not intend to deprive themselves of means to defend oneself before it is too late; the need to adapt military strategy to new international threats is also well perceived by all states. So the rule of law of legitimate State defense must and can be interpreted in such a way as to integrate the pre-current occupations of politicians and strategists. The true difficulty lies, however, in the implementation of the new American doctrine: the concrete scope of this doctrine is limited and it certainly does not allow self-defense to be substituted for prevention of collective security. Lastly,  the aggressor is no longer an identifiable state in space, but a transnational terrorist nebula, organized into networks. It is the war of imbalance or power becomes weakness, and weakness power.  It is a war without easy response, since in the absence of a geopolitical space aggressor clearly identifiable and localizable, there is no real possibility of retaliatory strikes in the classic pattern of the right to sanction against terrorism. 'aggressor.

...