0
BRUSSELS: Where does the US-led war on terrorism go after Afghanistan?
The question may sound premature with Osama bin Laden still at large, his Taliban protectors still holding a swathe of southern Afghanistan, and a major relief and reconstruction challenge looming once the bombing stops.
But it is already causing friction in the chanceries of Washington, Brussels, Moscow and the Middle East, and it threatens to strain or blow up the fragile coalition that has supported military action against Osama’s Al Qaeda network.
President George W. Bush declared last week that “the front against terror is not just in Afghanistan...we’re going to fight terror wherever it exists”. He mentioned the Philippines as one possible location.
Some US and Israeli officials are already touting their version of a putative “phase two”, in which the international community would act to isolate a range of Arab and Islamic militant groups and states accused of sponsoring them.
Some US policymakers, notably Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, want to exploit the political momentum generated by outrage over the September 11 attacks to strike a decisive blow against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, diplomats say.
However, US officials say such views, cheered on by influential American media commentators, by no means represent a unified position within the Bush administration.
EUROPEANS OPPOSE STRIKING IRAQ: European Union states are strongly opposed to military action against Iraq, unless Baghdad is proven to have had a hand in the suicide airliner or anthrax attacks on the United States, of which US officials concede there is no evidence.
That, argues Steven Simon of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, may explain why the United States remains so reluctant to allow European troops with the exception of British special forces to play a role in Afghanistan.
“It seems they don’t want to involve a broader coalition that would tie their hands either in Afghanistan or potentially against Iraq,” Simon said.
EU diplomats point to the risks of destabilising pro-Western Arab regimes and the Middle East, deepening global economic damage or forfeiting the new-found anti-terrorist cooperation with Russia if Washington were to turn its sights on Iraq.
Moscow’s acquiescence in the US military presence in ex-Soviet central Asian republics might be withdrawn, they say.
However, one likely focus of post-Afghanistan international action is the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons know-how and materials, which analysts say is bound to put Iraq back in the spotlight.
The Europeans face more immediate problems in their own anti-terrorism strategy as they draft a common list of alleged terrorist organizations and ponder which countries to pressure for supporting violent radical movements.
The 15 EU officials said deciding which organizations to brand as terrorists was proving extremely difficult.—Reuters
