IS THE COALITION WILLING?
US President George W Bush's state visit to 'our closest ally' Britain ought to have been a triumphal affair, in the year that the 'Coalition of the Willing' confounded critics by its prompt overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Instead the two leaders delivered ashen-faced and teeth-gritted denunciations of the latest terrorist attack on the British Consul in Istanbul that left 26 dead. The impression of an embattled ruling clique huddling together for comfort in the face of a hostile world was unavoidable.
It should be emphasised that the terrorists' successes in no way indicate a popular base of support in Turkey, or much of one elsewhere. The indiscriminate violence against Turks, following on from the depravity of the previous attack on Istanbul's synagogue is an indicator of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates' indifference to a democratic mandate. But given the isolation of these groups, the question has to be asked how they have continued to monopolise the world's attention - and upstage Britain's peace marchers in the process.
The answer is that Al-Qaeda's 'success' is rooted in the rich soil of the West's failure of purpose. Characteristic of both leaders is a failure to create a dynamic relationship with a domestic constituency. Without a sense of mission for their own societies, these elites are in no position to lead the world, and their attempts to do so only end in stalemate on the international stage, and instability in the Middle East.
Time and again Western leaders have sought to get around their difficult domestic constituencies by demonstrating a phoney decisiveness on the international stage. Along the way, they recruited and trained Islamic guerrillas to destabilise and overthrow secular regimes in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq - people like Osama bin Laden, and suspected Istanbul bomber Azad Ekinci, who previously fought in Bosnia and Chechnya.
President Bush reflected on past difficulties in the West's relationship to the Middle East:
'We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.' (Whitehall, 19 November 2003)
This analysis is wise to the failings of the past, but set to create yet worse failures in the future. Recognition of the faults of past allies is a precursor to destabilising their regimes - in Iraq, and who knows where next ...Egypt, Saudi Arabia? But what the people of the Middle East need first is stability, having seen their governments destabilised and overthrown by the West and its allies at a dizzying pace. Democratisation that does not come from within can only leave the sort of power-vacuum that prevails in Iraq.
Above all the 'Coalition of the Willing' is exposing its failure of will in Iraq. For all the talk of long-term commitment to the reconstruction, the slow disintegration of the mission is palpable. The failure of the Coalition to garner support is a clear indication of its fragility - with Japan and Turkey backtracking from previous commitments to send troops.
The conspirators of Al-Qaeda read the newspapers like everyone else. They can see that the US has failed to secure a consensus even among the Western powers. And they can see that President Bush's domestic constituency has no heart for a long war. All of those ambiguities give succour to the activists who are better at blowing people up than winning them over. In that, at least, Al-Qaeda is the adequate reflection of the Coalition's failed campaign. -- James Heartfield