RICHARD CROCKATT

RICHARD CROCKATT is a well known academician, author and commentator on global affairs. His critically acclaimed work Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991, fetched him the American Studies Network Prize in 1996. Conventionally, the award is given for the best book on an American topic published by a European scholar. He has edited a number of important books but sine in 1999 he has edited volumes of British Documents on Foreign Affairs: The Foreign Office Confidential. In this exclusive interview from the University of Anglia (United Kingdom) he spoke on his recent book America Embattled, September 11, Anti-Americanism & The Global Order, (Routlegde, Lotus Collection Roli Books, Price Rs. 395.)

America today has more enemies than friends. Serious minded people, Americans intellectuals included, confess that this country is a 'unique incarnation of injustice and hypocrisy' while the Arab nations identify it with 'arrogance'. Do you think there's something inherently wrong with the American way of thinking?

I'm not sure there is something inherently wrong with American thinking but there is something distinctive about it which is the enormously high standards it sets itself as measured by the idealistic sentiments expressed in America's founding documents, presidential speeches etc. There is inevitably a gap between the aspirations and the reality. Americans are less aware of the gap because they often do not see the consequences of the policies pursued by their government. Those directly affected by American policies are often acutely aware of the gap.

Contrarily there's also another school of thought which thinks that the armchairanalysts and proponents of anti-Americanism are un-pragmatic, and that they faraway from the actual scene where innocent lives are lost. Ultimately, it is the governments which are accountable to maintain law and order …

Let's not forget that anti-Americanism is in part a convenient way for people to express frustrations about a range of matters which may have little to do with the United States. There's an element of scape-goating involved. It's easy to attack the United States because its power and influence involves it in so many parts of the world and in so many issues. Notice that America is attacked almost as frequently for not intervening as for intervening. Powers of the size and influence of the US (like the British and Roman empires) are targets in part because they are there.

As we have seen in the recent past it is not just the American establishment but many nations have become vulnerable to terrorists attacks. Even Muslim nations are not spared. We cannot put the current crisis in the frame of clash of civilizations. Does the problem lie in some deeper strata?

You'd need a book to answer this one. I'm not one of those who would automatically dismiss Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilization' thesis, at least in the sense that I think cultural differences have become more salient in the post-cold war world. It's his idea of civilization which is wrong. He writes as if they are discrete entities but of course there are numerous fault-lines -- cultural and other -- within his so-called civilizations. He is also wrong to assume that cultural difference will necessarily produce conflict rather than cooperation, one danger being that of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume that cultural difference is productive of conflict then it may well be so. Actually, I would invert Huntington's idea. Rather than cultural difference giving rise to political conflict, I believe that it is political instability which provokes cultural conflict. For example, the cultural (including religious) differences were always present in former Yugoslavia; they became murderously divisive only when the Yugoslav state fell apart. The 'problem', as you call it, may not lie in some deeper strata but in the more obvious field of politics. Why do states 'fail'? I don't believe I have fully answered your question. Who could? If I were going to take it further I would look at the disruptive and uneven effects of globalization on different regions, cultures and states. As far as Islam is concerned, I agree with scholars such as Olivier Roy and others who say that the intense anger and frustration which has led to terrorism by some Muslims is in part because of the failure of many states in the Islamic world to satisfy the aspirations of their peoples.

Elaborate on why America remains a baffling presence to many observers. Could be one of the principle reasons why many leading nations openly oppose US foreign policy?

America generates many images of itself which are distributed and broadcast around the world but most Americans do not think of themselves as a traditional Great Power or Empire which has global responsibilities. Foreign policy is a relatively low priority for Americans and only appears high on their list when there is some crisis which involves America. This is utterly counter to the way outsiders view America. Outsiders see America as wanting to intervene everywhere, stick its nose in everyone else's business, have a finger in every pie, and they believe they have lots of evidence for this. There is a McDonalds on every corner; they wear Nike shoes; they see America's huge economic and military presence in virtually every country in the world etc etc. By and large, however, Americans themselves don't see their economic and cultural influence -- if they think about it -- as constituting 'intervention' or 'imperialism'. They are simply the natural outgrowth of what Americans do at home and they are basically benign activities. Why should others resent it or resist it? In short, America is baffling to others (and others are often baffling to Americans) because each side has different perceptions of how America impacts on the world. At the level of government policy, America has always been very quick to defend and promote American interests, even if that has come at the expense of more cooperative, internationalist agendas. The fact is that America is not so dependent on the rest of the world as the rest of the world is on the United States -- or at least, that is what many Americans believe. America can go it alone to a degree that other nations cannot. And it often does. Americans are a highly patriotic people (and they are not alone in this) and tend to support their government in areas -- like foreign policy -- where they are relatively less informed and interested.

Finally, don't you think that many nations have been indirectly benefited following US attacks on terrorists apparatus like Al-Qaeda?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, to the extent that America is leading the 'war against terrorism' and to the extent that terrorism is a global phenomenon, then many are benefiting from the United States' leadership of this cause. Many countries would benefit from the removal or neutralization of Al Qaeda and other similar organizations. I agree. Middle Eastern governments and governments of other Islamic nations have much to gain from the war against terrorism because many of them are themselves targets of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. But the war on terrorism is not an unmixed blessing. These same governments have to face opposition from many in their populations who simply do not believe the 'West's' claim that the war on terrorism is not a war against Islam. For governments of Muslim nations, the war on terrorism is thus a double-edged sword. There is a second qualification to be made to the claim that many nations are benefiting indirectly (or directly) from the US-led war on terror, and it is this: there is much dispute about the goals and the means of the war on terror. Was Saddam Hussein a direct sponsor of Al Qaeda? Does the war in Iraq advance the war on terror or might it create more potential terrorists? Will the US lose more than it gains in the eyes of world public opinion by the way it has chosen to treat the 'unlawful combatants' detained in Guantanamo Bay? Many more such questions can be asked, the burden of which is that the gains of the war on terror come mixed with deep problems and disagreements.

Read More Interviews...

(As told to Ashok Patnaik)