By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed In last week's article, entitled "A new version of bipolarity", I wrote that although it was believed the collapse of the Soviet Union would mean the end of a bipolar world order dominated by a contradiction between the two superpowers, there are signs of a new bipolar world order in the making, in which one pole represents the so-called new world order and the other a variety of forces operating outside international legality. These forces assert themselves whenever the self-styled guardians of the new world order reveal its inner flaws too flagrantly, as in their persistent use of double standards. My article appeared on Thursday, one day before the United States launched surprise air attacks against "terrorist-related facilities" in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the previous week's twinned bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The strikes, ordered by Bill Clinton personally, were delivered by sea-launched cruise missiles at two targets nearly simultaneously: a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum which Washington claims was being used to manufacture chemical weapons, and what it describes as the nerve centre of operations for Osama Bin Laden near Kabul. The severity of the American response attests to the fact that terrorism is no longer perceived as a regional threat or a marginal phenomenon, but that it has become, whether we like it or not, a salient feature of our time that is likely to continue well into the next century. Clinton's decision to order military strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan has pitted two contradictory notions against one another: how to reconcile the notion that the new world order is committed to the resolution of all conflicts, however intractable, by peaceful means, with the notion that resisting terrorism should take priority over everything else? Where the first notion assumes a commitment to non-violence, the second assumes just the opposite, because terrorism is by its nature violent and incompatible with the idea of settling conflicts by legal, non-violent means. This paradox, which arose after the collapse of the previous bipolar world order, remained blurred for a long time. But with the recent violence in Kenya and Tanzania, and the retaliatory measures by America in Sudan and Afghanistan, there is no longer room for ambiguity. The former bipolar world game was between two poles that played it out in the open. Each recognised the other diplomatically, both operated within the confines of international legality. This is no longer the case in the new bipolar game. One of the two poles considers itself the very personification of international legality as consecrated in 'the new world order', while the other operates outside that scope altogether. Thus the confrontation between the two poles is conducted outside the realm of democracy, transparency and openness. True, communism and capitalism, the ideological foundations of the two poles in the previous world order, were mutually exclusive, each believing the other had no future. But the two superpowers representing these antagonistic ideologies managed to avoid critical confrontation through a formula of "peaceful coexistence". However, it is impossible to coexist with terrorism which openly defies the very notion of world order. Thus we are in critical transition period, being governed neither by the previous bipolar world order nor by the new order that was to replace it. The day before ordering the air strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in attribution for the US embassy bombings, Clinton had gone on a family holiday to recover from his four-hour ordeal before the grand jury. In a televised address to the nation after the hearing, he admitted to an "inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. But he was as defiant as he was contrite, sharply criticising the intrusiveness of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation, and noting that "the investigation itself is under investigation". The American president is aware that he is fighting a battle on many fronts at the same time. His wife declared early on that he was the victim of a right-wing conspiracy which was using the Monicagate scandal to humiliate him, and eventually, to try and impeach him. Clinton has adopted his wife's line completely, especially now that his enemies can play on Lewinsky's anger at Clinton's dismissal of their affair before the grand jury as a minor incident. Proving that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, she has testified that he deliberately played down a full-fledged affair that had gone on for eighteen months. The American right is contesting Clinton's motives in ordering the strikes, suggesting that the timing makes them seem suspiciously like a diversion mounted by an embattled president and not, as he claims, a preemptive measure aimed at aborting similar terrorist acts. If Clinton's critics can prove their accusation, this would mean that his ability to govern has been compromised by the scandals marring his personal life. To that end, they can invoke a number of arguments, the most important being that on Friday morning, hours before the US strikes were launched, Madeleine Albright declared that Washington was prepared to recognise the Taliban regime if Afghanistan handed over Osama Bin Laden. Without waiting for the response to his secretary of state's initiative, Clinton ordered the strikes. Moreover, the Sudanese government has asked the Security Council to send an inspection team to investigate whether the bombed pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum was in fact manufacturing chemical weapons. If the team is unable to find any evidence to back Clinton's accusation, he will be in an even tighter spot. Cairo has called on the Security Council to take appropriate measures to combat terrorism. It has also proposed the convocation of an international conference to formulate a global policy towards terrorism. These proposals signify that the United Nations, the seat of international legality, and not the United States, should assume the responsibility of addressing the scourge of terrorism. A takeover by the United Nations would release any anti-terrorist measures undertaken by any specific power from accusations of being manipulated for other reasons. Critical assessments of Clinton's retaliatory measures have emanated not only from right-wing quarters within the United States, but also from great powers abroad, including Russia, China and Japan. Of course, the implementation of the Cairo proposals would need an international driving force with a measure of autonomy, comparable, for instance, to the non-aligned movement under the previous bipolar world order. With the growing polarisation engendered by the new bipolar world game, this force is unfortunately lacking.
