Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Before and after the deluge
Steve Platt, Tribune column 10 September 2004
What were you doing on 10 September 2001? Most people can tell you where they were and what they were thinking when they heard about the hijacked planes being crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But what about beforehand? What were the issues that were concerning us? Did the world really change forever on 11 September, as so many commentators were quick to say it had?
The New York Daily News front page on the day before the twin towers came tumbling down was headlined "Killer Mold". It was a story about an East Side apartment building infected with Stachybotrys chartarum – a potentially toxic black mould that Time magazine had reported earlier that summer as spreading "like a biblical plague". Inside the paper, one of the main column features was discussing "Pets and their Celebrities".
On the economic scene, after a day of ups and downs, the Dow Jones index had returned to its opening figures, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 made small gains. A panel of business economists had lowered their expectations on US GDP growth for 2001, but with America enjoying the longest economic boom in living memory, optimism remained high. The pension funds crisis and revelations of boardroom corruption were still in the future.
There was also optimism on the international front. Anti-globalisation protests were placing the issues of poverty and development high on the world's agenda. The Jubilee 2000 Coalition's campaign to secure a fresh debt-free beginning for a billion people had brought together an unparalleled campaigning alliance. "The world will never be the same again," it had declared in celebration of its perceived success.
Meanwhile, the 55th General Assembly of the United Nations was concluding in New York on 10 September 2001 with the adoption of the far-reaching Millenium Declaration, spelling out policies on globalisation, development and poverty, peace, security and disarmament, the environment, human rights and democracy.
The largest gathering of world leaders ever assembled, the Assembly had set itself ambitious targets. These included ensuring the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on the environment by the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002; and, by 2015, halving the proportion of people with income of less than one dollar a day, and of those suffering from hunger and lack of safe drinking water; ensuring equal access to all levels of education for girls and boys and primary schooling for all children everywhere; reducing maternal mortality by three quarters; and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.
Only one world leader, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the president of Algeria, mentioned terrorism in his statement to the summit. He called for a study of the funding of internationalism terrorist groups, particularly in countries that are "bridgeheads for terrorists".
No one showed much interest. George Bush's international priorities at the time were very different. On 10 September 2001, his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was leading the attack on a military spending bill that would cut $1.3 billion from Bush's request for missile defence and restrict testing to keep it in line with international agreements. Earlier in the summer, the new US president had identified China as the principal threat to American interests, calling it a "strategic competitor" and talking of tougher trade and other sanctions to keep it in line. He also spoke of the importance of developing a "special relationship" with Mexico; floated the idea of a total amnesty for illegal immigrants; appeared to be supportive of the Kyoto treaty; and pledged to "show humility" in world affairs.
Whatever they meant for the world, the 11 September attacks made sure that George Bush's presidency at least would never be the same again. "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive," he declared soon afterwards.
It was certainly decisive – and a lot more expensive than a couple of million dollars. The US Congress has provided at least $165 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other anti-terrorism efforts since 2001. Estimates for 2005 put the cost of the Iraq war at around $5 billion per month. This is all on top of an annual military budget that has now reached more than $400 billion.
The sums are comparable with what the US was spending a generation ago on another war against a different enemy. During the eight years between 1964 and 1982, the US spent $111 billion, or more than $494 billion, adjusted for inflation, on its war in Vietnam – an average of $5.15 billion per month.
In one key respect, then, nothing has really changed at all since 11 September. The richest country in the world still spends the sort of vast sums on prosecuting war that could surely, if spent wisely, buy a better peace at a very much lower price.
|
Steve Platt, Tribune column 10 September 2004
What were you doing on 10 September 2001? Most people can tell you where they were and what they were thinking when they heard about the hijacked planes being crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But what about beforehand? What were the issues that were concerning us? Did the world really change forever on 11 September, as so many commentators were quick to say it had?
The New York Daily News front page on the day before the twin towers came tumbling down was headlined "Killer Mold". It was a story about an East Side apartment building infected with Stachybotrys chartarum – a potentially toxic black mould that Time magazine had reported earlier that summer as spreading "like a biblical plague". Inside the paper, one of the main column features was discussing "Pets and their Celebrities".
On the economic scene, after a day of ups and downs, the Dow Jones index had returned to its opening figures, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 made small gains. A panel of business economists had lowered their expectations on US GDP growth for 2001, but with America enjoying the longest economic boom in living memory, optimism remained high. The pension funds crisis and revelations of boardroom corruption were still in the future.
There was also optimism on the international front. Anti-globalisation protests were placing the issues of poverty and development high on the world's agenda. The Jubilee 2000 Coalition's campaign to secure a fresh debt-free beginning for a billion people had brought together an unparalleled campaigning alliance. "The world will never be the same again," it had declared in celebration of its perceived success.
Meanwhile, the 55th General Assembly of the United Nations was concluding in New York on 10 September 2001 with the adoption of the far-reaching Millenium Declaration, spelling out policies on globalisation, development and poverty, peace, security and disarmament, the environment, human rights and democracy.
The largest gathering of world leaders ever assembled, the Assembly had set itself ambitious targets. These included ensuring the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on the environment by the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002; and, by 2015, halving the proportion of people with income of less than one dollar a day, and of those suffering from hunger and lack of safe drinking water; ensuring equal access to all levels of education for girls and boys and primary schooling for all children everywhere; reducing maternal mortality by three quarters; and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.
Only one world leader, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the president of Algeria, mentioned terrorism in his statement to the summit. He called for a study of the funding of internationalism terrorist groups, particularly in countries that are "bridgeheads for terrorists".
No one showed much interest. George Bush's international priorities at the time were very different. On 10 September 2001, his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was leading the attack on a military spending bill that would cut $1.3 billion from Bush's request for missile defence and restrict testing to keep it in line with international agreements. Earlier in the summer, the new US president had identified China as the principal threat to American interests, calling it a "strategic competitor" and talking of tougher trade and other sanctions to keep it in line. He also spoke of the importance of developing a "special relationship" with Mexico; floated the idea of a total amnesty for illegal immigrants; appeared to be supportive of the Kyoto treaty; and pledged to "show humility" in world affairs.
Whatever they meant for the world, the 11 September attacks made sure that George Bush's presidency at least would never be the same again. "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive," he declared soon afterwards.
It was certainly decisive – and a lot more expensive than a couple of million dollars. The US Congress has provided at least $165 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other anti-terrorism efforts since 2001. Estimates for 2005 put the cost of the Iraq war at around $5 billion per month. This is all on top of an annual military budget that has now reached more than $400 billion.
The sums are comparable with what the US was spending a generation ago on another war against a different enemy. During the eight years between 1964 and 1982, the US spent $111 billion, or more than $494 billion, adjusted for inflation, on its war in Vietnam – an average of $5.15 billion per month.
In one key respect, then, nothing has really changed at all since 11 September. The richest country in the world still spends the sort of vast sums on prosecuting war that could surely, if spent wisely, buy a better peace at a very much lower price.
