|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
2 years after 9/11: Political ConsequencesTwo years ago the United States were attacked by international terrorist group, which killed thousands and injured thousands more. Since then Washington has taken some measures to prevent further attacks on its soil. These two years weren't at all quiet. The American president promised that this fight wouldn't be short-lived. It's far from over but some preliminary outcomes can be traced right now. Many of them are political; others are economic and cultural, which will be covered in our next articles. The attack on 9/11 had its personal perpetrators, but also it had organizational and financial backing. To prevent such attacks from happening again, Washington had to tackle not only the perpetrators but also their organizational brain.
The war in AfghanistanThe first immediately seen result of the new more aggressive US foreign policy was the war against Afghanistan, a country where Osama bin Laden and his organization had training camps. When the ruling Taliban regime refused to extradite Osama and his men immediately after 9/11, it was obvious that a military campaign should be used as a last resort. There were many options in order to tackle this problem and it seems that Washington opted for the less expensive and damaging scenario. There are many critics who said at the time and who still say that it was highly inhumane to attack a country where 7 million people were starving. The quick and victorious military operation prevented huge flow of refugees and thus saved the lives of millions that could be put in danger if the country was placed under a total economic blockade. The operation itself wasn't organized as a replica of the Soviet invasion of 1979, involving 100,000-strong army. In fact, the main military force on the ground was the Northern Alliance.On the negative side, the main targets, namely Osama and Molla Omar escaped and managed to organize some sort of resistance. Unquestionably they hope to turn the war against the foreign troops as they did in the 80's. Their plans will depend on the economic development of Afghanistan. It's pity that the richest nations have forgotten that only by stimulating the economic activity in the country they can turn the local population from its radicalism. After spending billions on fighting the Talibans, they feel no urgency of making Afghanistan richer and thus less dangerous country.
The war in IraqThe main organizers of 9/11 remained at large. Some of their Afghan bases were destroyed but their will to damage the American interests around the globe was intact. The problems now are different from the Cold War period. Then Washington had to deal with just one government (USSR) to bargain most of its interests. Almost all countries in the world was either US or USSR clients, so any direct attack against one of them could provoke a major nuclear war. That's why both Washington and Moscow were so adamant to furnish their clients with nuclear technologies. They simply weren't sure where these weapons would be stored and who finally will have a say on their use.Today it's a different story. Many countries, most of them former USSR clients, (but not all!), have escaped from the rigid eyes of the big brother. Being left without a major protector, some of them, e.g. North Korea, try to accumulate enough military power to feel more secure. Some other countries, formerly US clients, e.g. Iran, try to play more independently also by accumulating military power. Today's world has much more gray zones of security than the world of 70's and 80's. These gray zones are vital for any kind of international illegal activities, including terrorist operations. If once there was no serious danger of attack against the US or USSR without a risk of world war, today it's possible. Moscow doesn't care too much about such eventuality because if this is made by one of its former client states, the reaction of Washington won't be directed against Russia. Feeling endangered by such groups and states, Washington decided to play unilaterally against the new treats. If 3 or more years ago North Korea, Iraq or Iran could have been just blamed for being terrorist states, today from Washington point of view such policy isn't enough. A situation, in which no country in the world should be personally accountable for any attack against any other country if the perpetrators are international terrorist groups like Al-Kaida can't be tolerated. The only solution is to eliminate these gray zones, and if many major powers refuse to participate then at least one of them should decide to do it unilaterally. Iraq as well as Afghanistan one year before were just the first two gray zones Washington tried to eliminate, one of them with and the other without the help of continental Europe. There are more gray zones left on the map and we can't expect the main danger for our security to subside without their total elimination. This doesn't mean that wars against North Korea or Iran are inevitable. This means that any continuing intransigence towards Washington by their governments make such wars very likely.
|
See also:
