NP The roots of hatred

[David Morris]

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=788407

The roots of hatred
Sep 20th 2001
>From The Economist print edition

Whatever its mistakes, the idea that America brought the onslaught upon 
itself is absurd

[...]

Perhaps it would be more profitable to look deeper into the past. During the 
half-century of the cold war, the United States undoubtedly subordinated 
principles as well as causes to the overriding concern of defeating 
communism. The great upholder of laws at home was happy to trash them 
abroad, whether invading Grenada or mining Nicaraguan harbours. It propped 
up caudillos in Latin America, backed tyrants in Africa and Asia, promoted 
coups in the Middle East. More recently, it has been willing to kick 
invaders out of Kuwait, to strike at ruthless states like Libya and Iraq 
and, moreover, to go on trying to contain them with sanctions and, in Iraq's 
case, with almost incessant bombardment. Is it here perhaps—especially in 
the Middle East—that America has gone wrong?

No. The Economist has not been an uncritical supporter of American policy in 
the Middle East. We have been more ready to argue the Palestinian case than 
have recent administrations and believe that the United States could 
sometimes have done more to restrain Israel. We have also pointed out that 
the policy of sanctions against Iraq, whatever its intention, in practice 
punishes innocent Iraqis and thus allows Saddam Hussein to blame the West, 
notably America, for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. Perhaps 
nothing does more to fuel anti-American resentment in the Arab world. Such 
criticisms as we have made, however, in no way imply that we think America 
was wrong to fight the Gulf war or to try to disarm Saddam afterwards. It 
was also right to stand by Saudi Arabia as an ally, however much that 
annoyed zealots. Similarly, whatever Israel's mistakes, America can hardly 
be accused of having failed to try to bring it to a peace: every 
administration of recent years has attempted to bring the two sides 
together, and none has come closer than Bill Clinton's last year.

America defends its interests, sometimes skilfully, sometimes clumsily, just 
as other countries do. Since power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, it steps 
into places where disorder reigns. On the whole, it should do so more, not 
less, often. Of all the great powers in history, it is probably the least 
territorial, the most idealistic. Muslims in particular should note that the 
armed interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, both led by America, were attacks 
on Christian regimes in support of Muslim victims. In neither did the United 
States stand to make any material gain; in neither were its vital interests, 
conventionally defined, at stake. Those who criticise America's leadership 
of the world's capitalist system—a far from perfect affair—should remember 
that it has brought more wealth and better living standards to more people 
than any other in history. And those who regret America's triumph in the 
cold war should stop to think how the world would look if the Soviet Union 
had won. America's policies may have earned it enemies. But in truth, it is 
difficult to find plausible explanations for the virulence of last week's 
attacks, except in the envy, hatred and moral confusion of those who plotted 
and perpetrated them.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp