POLITICAL SCIENCE 3

TERRORISM AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

SUBMITTED BY:

MEGHNA PRAKASH
#1107
2ND YEAR
B.A. L.L.B. (HONS.)
SUBMITTED ON: 19TH MAY 2003

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction

Research Methodology

Chapter 1: Terrorism Who Says So?

Chapter 2: U.S. Foreign Policy Everything Goes in the name of Democracy

Chapter 3: U.S.A. The Bully?

14

Conclusion

20

Bibliography

22

INTRODUCTION
In the world after September 9th 2001, terrorism evokes one picture in the minds of many,
that of Osama Bin Laden. It is true that terrorism is not a new phenomenon, that many
people live in nations where one form of terrorist act 1 or another occur almost on a daily
basis and it has reached a point that until and unless an act of horrific magnitude takes
place, like the destruction of the World Trade Centre where the world laments the
needless deaths of thousands, terrorism is looked at as just another part of life.
It is also equally true that most nations have some form of anti-terrorism policy or some
sort of framework in place so that they may act according that framework and take action
in case of terrorist situations. In some cases this may result in unnecessary civilian deaths
as well and in some other cases such deaths may be tragic but necessary. 2 In either
case, there is some sort of an attempt to diffuse terrorist situations. While the purpose of
this itself may not questionable, some may differ from this point of view, what can be
enquired into is the method used to arrive at this goal. It is perhaps into this broad
framework that the foreign policies of nations fall with regard to international terrorism.
Having touched upon the two aspects of terrorism and foreign policy, it is now necessary
to briefly overview the area of discussion of this paper. This paper is entitled Terrorism
and U.S. Foreign Policy. One would think that after the above few paragraphs on
terrorism and nations wanting to control it, the subject matter of this topic is obvious
how United States Foreign Policy is geared towards terrorism and how it proposes to
control terrorism. And so it may be, but not in this paper. The researcher, after extensive
reading, has decided that to cover the topic in the way put forth above would be
repetitive. While it is important to know how U.S. Foreign Policy looks at terrorism, what
may be interesting in itself is whether U.S. Foreign Policy is the cause for international

Here the potential question could be who defines what a terrorist act is. This question shall be dealt with at
a later stage in this paper.
2
The researcher has borrowed this expression from its oft use in the International Relations Simulation
Exercise.

terrorism,3 the evident condition to this being that this would cover terrorist activities that
are targeted at United States of America.
Thus, in this paper the researcher proposes to undertake a study on how U.S. Foreign
Policy defines terrorism. Further, the actions of U.S.A. in the name of U.S. Foreign
Policy will come under scrutiny and finally it shall be examined whether it is because of
U.S. Foreign Policy, as it has existed, that terrorism occurs particularly directed towards
the U.S. or whether it is because of the existence of terrorism that U.S. Foreign Policy is
designed in such a way.

It is necessary at this juncture to point out that the word terrorism shall be used mainly in the context of
international terrorism in this paper since it is U.S. Foreign Policy that this paper is dealing with and not so
much its domestic policies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives:
The aim of this paper is to analyse U.S. Foreign Policy itself and actions undertaken by
the U.S.A. in the name of protecting its interests and where exactly terrorism falls within
this framework.
The objective of this paper is to question whether U.S. Foreign Policy is geared towards
terrorism or whether terrorism in todays world is geared towards U.S. Foreign Policy.
Scope and Focus:
Since the title of this paper is Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy it is possible to study
the aspects of terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy separately and the try to draw a nexus
between the two. This could cover how U.S. Foreign Policy looks at terrorism, whether
terrorism reacts to U.S. Foreign Policy, whether U.S. Foreign Policy gives rise to actions
that are proportionate to terrorist activities and other such related questions.
However, since it would be impossible to do justice to the subject matter by attempting to
cover all theses areas at the same time, the researcher has chosen to focus the area of
discussion to a study of whether U.S. Foreign Policy is the cause for terrorism. At the
same time, the researcher shall also briefly cover the other aspects of the topic in an
attempt to present a complete picture to the reader.
Research Questions:
In the course of this paper, the questions that may arise and will need to be addressed are:
1. What is terrorism? Who defines terrorism?
2. What has been the main thrust and motivating factor of U.S. Foreign Policy?
3. What actions has U.S.A. taken in pursuance to U.S. Foreign Policy?
4. Are such actions the cause for terrorism as targeted against U.S.A?

Sources of Data:
The researcher has relied only on secondary sources of material that mainly comprise of
articles largely from the Internet and a few journals. The researcher has also utilised
material available on U.S. Foreign Policy itself from books on the same, in an attempt to
understand U.S. Foreign Policy.
Chapterization:
This paper shall be broadly divided into the following chapters:
Chapter 1 will touch on the topic of terrorism itself and how it has been defined as of late.
Chapter 2 shall analyse the core of U.S. Foreign Policy and what it has driven U.S.A. to
do.
Chapter 3 shall attempt at looking at the basic question of whether U.S. Foreign Policy
and terrorism are inextricably linked.
Method of Analysis:
This paper has employed a blend of descriptive and analytical methods of writing.
Mode of Citation:
This paper has used a uniform mode of citation throughout.

CHAPTER 1: TERRORISM WHO SAYS SO?

When one thinks of terrorism the most common reaction would be that of fear and
apprehension. After all the most logical assumption would be that the purpose of
terrorism is to inspire terror. However, given all these considerations, there does not
appear to be one uniform definition of terrorism. Nations have appeared to define
terrorism as it suits their purpose. Thus, this may include non-State terrorism as well as
what some call State based terrorism.
The traditional definition of terrorism has broadly been politically motivated violence
perpetrated against non-combatant4 targets by sub-national groups or clandestine
agents.5 Thus, terrorist groups are defined as a group that practices terrorism as defined
above.6 It appears to the researcher that by defining terrorism as essentially political there
does not seem to be any accounting for the current trends of terrorism that seem to be
religiously motivated or even ethnic terrorism, where the terrorists may kill simply in
order to punish rather then pursuing a concrete political goal. 7 Perhaps, this is the reason
that this definition has been termed traditional. Keeping in mind that the thrust of this
paper is on U.S. Foreign Policy, it would be pertinent to notice how U.S.A. has defined
terrorism and whether this definition describes todays terrorism more accurately.
TheofficialdefinitionofterrorismasgivenbytheFederalBureauofInvestigationis
terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to
intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives. 8 Thus, it is evident that the inclusion of
social objectives would cover the aspect of religious terrorism and hence, this
definition does indeed portray a more contemporary picture of terrorism.
4

The researcher presumes that by non-combatant, the definition is pointing at civilian society.
Raphael F. Perl, Terrorism, the Future and U.S. Foreign Policy, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/crs20010913.pdf>.
6
Id.
7
Anonymous, Report on the National Commission on Terrorism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html>.
8
Anonymous,
The
Terrorism
Research
Centre,
at
(visited
on
28 th
April
2003)<http://www.terrorism.com/>.
5

If a look is taken at statutory definitions of terrorism, one must examine Immigration and
Nationality Act and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, as enacted by
U.S.A. It defines terrorism as the commission in an individual capacity or as a member
of an organization, an act or terrorist activity or an act which the actor knows, or
reasonably should know, affords material to support to any individual, organization, or
government in conducting a terrorist activity at any time. 9 This goes on to include acts
such as hijacking, kidnapping, assassination and the use of any explosive or firearm with
the intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to
cause substantial damage to property,10 as terrorist acts.
In a simply glance at the definition of terrorism as put forth by this Act, it is evident that
this definition goes one step further than the F.B.I. definition and recognizes the fact that
there may be Sate sponsored terrorism as well. U.S. Foreign Policy looks at the inclusion
of State sponsored terrorism as a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a
means of political expression.11 Thus, this inclusion gives rise to the question whether
U.S.A. is trying to cover all angles so that it may declare any act or government as
terrorist and thereby, justify its actions. Perhaps, this falls under the ambit of U.S. Foreign
Policy itself and thus, this question shall be taken up in the subsequent chapter.
Since this chapter is taking into account how U.S.A. has defined terrorism and who,
according to this definition, are terrorists, it would also be important to consider who are
Foreign Terrorist Organizations since this paper is essentially dealing with international
terrorism. U.S. Foreign Policy has clearly designated criteria for labelling a foreign
organization as terrorist:
1. The organization must be foreign.12
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity as defined in Section 212(a)(3)
(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
9

Anonymous, U.S. Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, The American Journal of

International Law, Vol. 94, 2000, p. 365.
10
Id.
11
Anonymous, State Sponsored Terrorism and Foreign Terrorist Organisations at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63fto.htm>.
12
The researcher wonders whether this is not a statement of the obvious.

3. The organization's activities must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the
national security (national defence, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of
the United States.13
It seems perplexing to the researcher that the designation of Foreign Terrorist
Organizations is as those that threaten U.S. security and there appears to be an apparent
omission of the threat that they may pose on other nations security. Does this mean that
U.S.A. would not consider international terrorism on other countries as also terrorism? 14
The researcher finds this designation as rather self-serving and perhaps contradictory to
the position of U.S.A. today and to U.S. Foreign Policy, as shall be seen in detail in the
following chapter.
This chapter has taken a brief look at how terrorism has been defined, by U.S.A. in
particular, and how this definition helps U.S.A. to brand certain activities and
organizations as terrorist. The following chapter shall take an in-depth look at U.S.
Foreign Policy and how it has facilitated actions on the part of the U.S. and how U.S.A.,
to justify some of its actions, has used this definition of terrorism.

13

Supra., note 11.

Perhaps it would be pertinent to point out that while U.S.A. has condemned the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Centre wholeheartedly and has called for an international coalition against terrorism.
However, when several militants, alleged to be Pakistani backed, attacked the Indian Parliament, killing 12
people, U.S.A.s reaction has simply been to urge restraint on Indias part. Could this be merely because
U.S.A. does not want to disrupt its relations with Pakistan thereby serving its own interests? This is perhaps
just an indication of the fact that U.S.A fights terrorism only when it is convenient to itself c.f. Robert W.
Tracinski, A Lesson in U.S. Foreign Policy for India: With Friends like us, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1305>.
14

CHAPTER 2: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY EVERYTHING GOES IN THE NAME OF

DEMOCRACY

It is interesting to note the different shades that U.S. Foreign Policy has taken on as the
decades have past. In the era of the Cold War the main purpose of U.S. policy seemed to
be containment of the Soviet Union that they envisaged was a major threat to the
American way of life and securing control over the grand area 15 which encompassed
the entire non-Soviet world. President Truman articulated the central purpose of U.S.
Foreign Policy as being the support of the free peoples in defence of a way of life
based upon the will of the majority and distinguished by free institutions,
representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of
speech and religion and freedom from political oppression.16 Similarly, John F. Kennedy
pledged to pay any price for freedom.17
In the Reagan period, the United States was committed towards the democratic
revolution that was taking place in the world where it was enunciated that the American
people believe in human rights and oppose tyranny in whatever form, whether of the Left
or the Right.18 However, he also believed that his mission was to essentially roll back
communism through military might 19 and seemed to have taken overt steps to prove the
same, as shall be seen later in this chapter.
The presidency of George Bush Sr. initially seemed to be a continuation of the Reagan
policies, being reminiscent of the Vietnam Syndrome. However, due to the changing
world, the thawing of relations between U.S.A. and the Soviet Union and increasing
international pressure and public protest, Bush had to change strategies, from military to
economic solutions, in order to cope with the new world order.20

15

Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, Pluto Press, London, 1998, p. 9.

Carl Gershman, Freedom remains the touchstone, Owne Harries (Ed.), Americas Purpose, Macmillan
India Ltd., 1991, New Delhi, p. 36.
17
Ibid., p. 38.
18
Ibid., p. 37.
19
Nicholas Klar, U.S. Foreign Policy: Bush Snr. and Reagan, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/n/nicklar/bushrgn.html>.
20
Id.
16

The Clinton era seemed to be characterised by pursuing foreign policy as social work
which is evident from the various interventions of the U.S.A. in Bosnia, Somalia and
Haiti in 1993. His policies have been criticised as not being centred on American
interests but as intending to promote American values.21 The arrival of George W. Bush
heralded yet again the promotion of democracy wherein his administration has gone so
far as to believe that it is the lack of democracies that provides breeding ground for
terrorism, especially in the Islamic States.22
Thus, while the shades may have varied subtly from president to president, the essential
colour of U.S. Foreign Policy appears to have remained the same the promotion of
democracy. However, it is this very policy that poses a problem for the rest of the world.
U.S.A. has undertaken all its actions on an assumption that democracy is the most
appropriate system for everybody and in an attempt to prove itself right, U.S.A. has
shaped its foreign policy in such a manner that it has attempted to impose democracy
wherever possible. The main motivation behind this imposition is clearly the fact that
democratic governments are more likely to maintain friendly relations with the U.S. than
authoritarian ones and thus, less likely to pose a serious threat to its position as
superpower. Thus, given the fact that U.S.A. is one of the leading countries in the
world today, it would beneficial for it to pursue an active democratisation of the world.
However, this has often resulted in situations where U.S.A., instead of handling existing
problems, has gone in search of monsters to destroy 23 and this monster hunting and
intent on establishing democracy the world over, seems to be backfiring on it today.
In order to understand this better, it may be useful to examine some instances of
unwarranted U.S. intervention in name of democracy. Taking the case of Iran, after
Mohammad Mossadegh was elected the President and he tried to nationalise the oil
industry as a result of which he expropriated the properties of Anglo Iranian and major
U.S. Oil Companies in 1953, under President Eisenhowers leadership the Companies
21

Supra., note 15, p. 34.

Thomas Carothers, Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terrorism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10224/thomas-carothers/promoting-democracy-andfighting-terror.html>.
23
John Quincy Adams c.f. Carl Gershman, Freedom remains the touchstone, Owne Harries (Ed.),
Americas Purpose, Macmillan India Ltd., 1991, New Delhi, p. 38.
22

worked hand in hand with the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the government
and put the Shah in power.24 In Guatemala, United Fruit worked in cooperation with
U.S.A. to replace the democratically elected President Jacob Arbenz, as it was threatening
established U.S. business interests in the country, with a tyrannical colonel leading to the
succession of several military dictators which resulted in the death of 100, 000 civilians. 25
The justification was simply that the government was communist and the possibility of
Soviet backing gave cause for U.S. intervention. Some have viewed this action of the
U.S. as a bench of its attitude towards the Latin American countries in general wherein
the same pattern was repeated in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Brazil and other
countries.26
In 1960, the U.S. State Department and C.I.A. worked together and removed the first
popularly elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, and put into power Sese Seko
Mobutu whose dictatorship went on to become one of the most violent and corrupt in
Africa.27 In the early 1970s, the C.I.A. assisted certain right winged factions in Chile in
the destabilization of a Marxist Government, bringing into power General Augusto
Pinochet, whose reign only brought terror to the country.28 While overthrowing of
authoritarian Marxist Governments may fall well within the scope of U.S. Foreign Policy
in its mandate for democracy, the toppling of duly elected popular governments puzzles
the researcher. Thus, it is evident from these covert operations of the U.S. that these
interventions were brought about by a need to establish a democracy, but the kind of
democracy that would serve the purpose of U.S.A. In cases like Chile, where they have
realised the folly of their ways, U.S.A. hastily gone on to declare General Pinochet as an
international criminal ignoring the fact that they themselves played a large part in putting
him in a position that he could become a criminal.

24

James Woosly and Noam Chomsky, Power Politics, at (visited on 28 th April

2003)<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention2.html>
25
Michael H. Shuman and Hal Harvey, Security without War at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.rmi.org/images/other/S-SecurityWithoutWar.pdf>.
26
Nicholas Klar, U.S. Foreign Policy: Latin America, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/n/nicklar/ltnamufp.html>.
27
Supra., note 25.
28
Supra., note 25.

Another result of U.S. Foreign Policy has been the conduct of proxy wars. The U.S.A. on
the pretext of overthrowing an undesirable regime 29 has ended up providing several
rebels with money, arms and international support and in many cases these rebels go on
to establish governments no better than the ones they overthrew. A glaring example of
this is Nicaragua. President Reagans support for the Nicaraguan Contras against the
communist Sandinista Government,30 contributed to more than 30, 000 deaths. Even
after withdrawing military support from the Contras, the Reagan and Bush administration
effectively blackmailed the voters into voting for the leader of U.S.s choice by promising
to stop all non military aid to Contras. 31 An additional complication to this affair was how
Reagan funded the Contras. Even though the American Parliament had banned arms
selling, Reagan sold these arms to Iran in the hope that they may help release American
hostages in Beirut and thus, used this money to fund the Contras. 32 This has been
popularly called the Iran-Contra affair. As a result of this unwanted aid, violence and
poverty had prevailed in Nicaragua for more than a decade resulting not in cheers for
U.S.A. but a heightened anti-U.S. feeling. Thus, it seems that Reagans zeal for
democracy was a little misplaced.
In one of its most direct interventions, U.S.A. launched a full-scale war on Vietnam in the
name of democracy and utilized this as justification for the use of Napalm and Agent
Orange. This only resulted in the deaths of millions of soldiers and civilians and the
effects of the use of chemical agents can still be seen today. In October 1983, in response
to the terrorist bombing of U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, the President of U.S.A.
and his advisors decided to occupy the island of Grenada. Initially it was viewed as an
invasion but later on it came to be termed as a rescue operation where U.S. intervention
was necessary due to the threat of several hundred American medical students being held
29

Supra., note 25.

This is in spite of the fact that the Sandinistas undertook major land reforms and health care programs
and were the legitimately elected leaders of Nicaragua and had the support of the people. Regardless of
this, Reagan branded them as communists and decided that even though the Contras did not have popular
support, it would get the support of U.S.A. c.f. Stephanie Dispatch, Harvesting Coffee with a Gun on your
Shoulder,
at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/042101/042101stephbully.html>.
31
Supra., note 25.
32
Stephanie Dispatch, Harvesting Coffee with a Gun on your Shoulder, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/042101/042101stephbully.html>.
30

as hostage by a Marxist military leadership.33 George Bush also contributed to this by

sending in American troops to Panama for the overthrow of General Noriega and the
establishment of a duly elected government. 34 The School of America was also set up in
Panama in order to train Latin American soldiers in low intensity conflict and therefore,
help in implementing U.S. Foreign Policy.35 While many were grateful for this
intervention, the cost of such brutal involvement seems to outweigh the benefits of it.
Again, it can be noticed that the obvious message behind this operation was that any kind
of Marxist or authoritarian leadership is antithetical to American values of freedom and
democracy, whether or not such leadership poses a threat to U.S.A. It is the opinion of the
researcher that since most of these interventions occurred during the Cold War, the Soviet
Union played the part of a scapegoat to a large extent for most of United States
interventions as it can be seen that the trend is essentially anti-Marxist and anticommunist. This worked conveniently in the favour of U.S.A. where they sought to
establish themselves as the heroes who saved the world from the throes of communism.
It is Americans responsibility to lead the world. 36 The researcher finds such sentiment
reminiscent of the concept of white mans burden. It is as though U.S.A. has taken it upon
itself to show other countries how best it can run itself and to some extent, it also appears
that it bases this lesson in democracy in moral and ethical values, that it is the moral duty
of U.S.A. to rid the world of dictators and communists no matter what cost this might
come at.37 It seems that U.S.A. has assumed to itself the role of a world policeman 38.
However, with the demise of the Cold War and there no longer being a standing enemy in
the form of the Soviet Union, U.S. Foreign Policy can no longer claim that it aims at
containing communism. Yet, U.S.A. needs some sort of excuse to justify its actions.
33

William Bundy, The Conduct of American Foreign Policy: A Portentous Year, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19840201faessay8362/william-bundy/the-conduct-of-americanforeign-policy-a-portentous-year.html>.
34
Supra., note 25.
35
These armies have been criticised for being the main actors in proxy wars and in helping to protect U.S.
corporate interests at all costs so much so that several U.N. reports have found them guilty of human rights
violations c.f. Anonymous, Sweden.Com Discussion Forum: International Human Rights, at (visited on
28th April 2003)<http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?threadid=6314>.
36
Kristol and Kagan c.f. Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, Pluto Press, London, 1998, p. 35.
37
Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal, The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values
Consensus at (visited on 28th April 2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501facomment11215/leslieh-gelb-justine-a-rosenthal/the-rise-of-ethics-in-foreign-policy-reaching-a-values-consensus.html>.
38
Supra., note 26.

Thus, now more than ever, U.S.A. in its attempt at monster hunting has started deeming
any sort of aggression as a threat to it. Hence, its aim is no longer combating communism
but instability in general that may hamper its interests. It is perhaps in pursuance of this
policy that U.S.A. has set up military bases in several parts of the world, which,
understandably, has not done much to heighten the popularity for the U.S.
Thus, this chapter has gone over the essential core of American Foreign Policydemocracy and all the actions, covert and direct, taken in its name. Having also seen the
side effects of these actions, the researcher cannot help but wonder how U.S.A. is still
able to garner international support at times. With this query, this paper shall go into the
next chapter, which will analyse the links between U.S. Foreign Policy and terrorism.

CHAPTER 3: U.S.A. THE BULLY?

We are plundererswe go into primitive countries in order to destroy for power and
money.39
In the aftermath of the U.S. attack on Iraq this summer in its attempt at dislodging a
terrorist and authoritarian government that was personified by Saddam Hussein, it
seems in vogue to criticise all U.S. action regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.
Thus, the above quote may serve only to bolster popular opinion that U.S.A. is in fact a
bully that uses its superior military power to browbeat a weaker country into giving it
what it wants. Yet, fashion apart, this chapter shall try to link U.S. Foreign Policy and the
rise of international terrorism and determine whether it is indeed this intimidation that has
given cause for terrorism.
The previous chapter looked at U.S. Foreign Policy in general and found that its aim is
democracy promotion and the same has been stressed time and again by U.S. leaders. As
part of this policy U.S.A. appears to have taken it upon itself to do everything that will
establish democracy and in the present day scenario, in the absence of a threatening
communist presence, it has started promoting democracy as way to relieve pressure from
subordinate groups.40 This inclusion of subordinate groups seems to fit in with U.S.A.s
definition of terrorism thereby appearing to give an open invitation for the U.S. to
interfere in seemingly terrorist situations, again in the name of democracy. The question
now is are all these interventions warranted? Furthermore, is it because of these
interventions that there seems to be widespread loathing for U.S.A. and its foreign
policies, that ultimately inspires terrorism?
It is in the name of democracy that U.S. maintains 5000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia and
thereby proceeds to offend the religious and cultural sentiments of the Islamic world. It is
in the name of supporting democracy that U.S.A. offers unconditional military and
political support to Israel without taking note of the growing discontent on the part of the
39

Colonel Phillip Roettinger, the C.I.A. Station Chief in Guatemala c.f. Mark Curtis, The Great Deception,
Pluto Press, London, 1998, p. 16.
40
Supra., note 15, p. 38.

Palestine Liberation Organization.41 It was also in the name of democracy that George W.
Bush launched his attack on Iraq killing hundreds of civilians in the process, on the
grounds that the existing government harboured terrorists and was terrorist in itself and
that it was in the interests of the Iraqi people to overthrow such a government. 42 Strictly
speaking all these actions fall within the ambit of democracy promotion however, in
reality, these actions do nothing but instil fear and distrust of Americans.
George Bush claimed that, America is the target of terrorism because Islamic
fundamentalists hate the American democratic ideals of freedom, liberty and all that we
stand for.43 While it may have been a wonderful myth that the Americans could have
sought refuge in and thereby progressing to condemn terrorist activities in light of such
petty jealousy, this myth has been long shattered by none other than those branded as
terrorists by the U.S.A. As much as President Clinton would liked to have believed that it
is because U.S.A. is blessed to be a wealthy nation with a powerful military presence 44,
Osama bin Laden, the terrorist that the Americans are going round in circles trying to find
after 11th September, proclaimed that terrorist activities targeted at the U.S. are not
because of what America stands for but what America has done. In a press statement
released on October 7th, 2001 he claimed that it was the unjust U.S. Foreign Policy that
was the driving force behind the September 11th attack on the World Trade Centre. 45 He
has also gone on explain why he declared jihad against the U.S., We declared jihad
against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and
41

Marc Bumgarner, U.S. Foreign Policy The Fertile Ground that Feeds Terrorism, at (visited on 28 th
April)<http://www.mediamonitors.net/marcbumgarner2.html>.
42
The researcher would like to relate something that she read with respect to the Iraq War where it was
shown that the only reason that George W. Bush launched an attack on Iraq was because of the link
between Iraq and the al-Qaida, Osama Bin Ladens terrorist group, the link being the existence of the letter
Q in both words. This would perhaps personify the flimsy grounds on which U.S.A. justifies its foreign
policies.
43
Haroon Siddique, Its the U.S. Foreign Policy, Stupid, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/its_the_us_foreign_policy,_stupid.htm>.
44
Ivan Eland, Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf>.
45
Supra., note 41. The researcher believes that it may be pertinent to note Bushs double standards when it
comes to U.S. Foreign Policy where he pursues an active relationship with friendly tyrants but still calls
for promotion of democracy especially in the Middle East. Is this also not part of U.S. Foreign Policys
unfairness which is capable of sparking resentment towards the U.S.? c.f. Thomas Carothers, Promoting
Democracy
and
Fighting
Terrorism,
at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10224/thomas-carothers/promoting-democracy-andfighting-terror.html>.

tyrannical.46 His anger towards U.S.A. can be attributed to the unholy mess that
U.S.A. created in recruiting and training the likes of Bin Laden to overturn the Soviet
occupation in Afghanistan47 and then promptly disassociating themselves with them once
the mission was accomplished. This collapse of the USSR has made the US more
haughty and arrogant and it has started to look at itself as a Master of this world and
established what it calls the new world order.... The US today as a result of the arrogant
atmosphere has set up a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a
terrorist. It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources... The US does not consider
it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of
food or medicine.48
However, it is Bin Ladens sentiment that bears the truth for most terrorist organizations.
U.S. intervention has resulted only in causing misery and poverty wherever they have
gone and any normal person would see this as a logical justification for loathing towards
U.S.A. For example, the thousands of deaths in Nicaragua would not have occurred were
it not for U.S. intervention. U.S.A. has troupes in 130 countries and interests and facilities
everywhere.49 Thus, U.S.A. has made its presence felt the world-over. Studies have
shown that many terrorist attacks such as the bombing of U.S. Embassies in other nations
are borne simply out of the fact that their presence in a foreign country is resented. 50
While U.S.A. may have followed somewhat of a big brother policy, it can be seen that
nowhere was their intervention asked for. They simply assumed that their help would be
welcome. If they perhaps paused for a minute to observe how their policies were
affecting the nations they are supposed to be helping, again in the name of democracy,
they would notice that the best possible way for them to help would be to not interfere at
all.51
46

Irfan
Ahmed,
Timothy
McVeighs
of
the
Orient,
at
(visited
on
28 th
April2003)<http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2000&leaf=12&filename=2470&filetype=pdf>
47
Supra., note 43.
48
Supra., note 46.
49
Alan W. Bock, Criticizing U.S. Foreign Policy, at (visited on 28 th April,
2003)<http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030305Bock.html>.
50
Supra., note 44.
51
In order to get a better ides of how often U.S.A. has intervened in the internal politics of another country
it may be useful to visit the following Anonymous, Basic Stats for U.S. Imperialism, at (visited on 28 th
April 2003)<http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725_comment.php?theme=2>.

One of the foremost criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy is that it is designed in such a way
that U.S.A. cooperates with other nations only so long as it suits its needs, it supports
any ruler, even against the wishes of his people, who is willing to protect U.S. interests. 52
Hence, U.S.A.s altruistic mission of promoting democracy boils down to a plain and
simple give and take relationship. However, the researcher wonders if this is not a case
of only take and take, for the benefits of U.S. intervention and friendship are yet to be
seen in a manner where it has not been outweighed by tragic consequences. The
researcher is of the opinion that it is this attitude of U.S. Foreign Policy that has to
change in order to bring about some sort of peace between those who have been hurt by
U.S. actions and now seek to wreck their vengeance and between the well meaning
Americans.
Having gone over the link between U.S. Foreign Policy and terrorism, it may also be
pertinent to examine the actual foreign policy towards terrorism itself to observe whether
this adds to fuel to the fire already lit by U.S. actions. After 11 th September, George Bush
Jr. issued a statement that proclaimed that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre
was not just a threat to America but to the entire world, claiming that an attack on one
was an attack on all, and hence, used that opportunity to call the civilized world
together and fight terrorism in unison.53 Further, U.S. Foreign Policy has enunciated its
tools to fight terrorism as being diplomacy, enforcement of law, financial controls,
military power and intelligence gathering.54 U.S.A. has also started an Antiterrorism
Assistance Programme that trains students from different countries to combat, deter and
solve terrorist crimes in the country.55 The most noticeable part of U.S. Foreign Policy is
its ideals of counterterrorism that specifically enunciate:
52

Enver Masud, U.S. Foreign policy invites Terrorism, at (visited on 28 th April

2003)<http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19980827-InviteTerror.html>. This protection of interests goes so
far as to U.S. support of corrupt and dictatorial Arab governments such as the feudal monarchy of Saudi
Arabia simply in order to protect its oil interests c.f. Mark Weisbrot, To prevent Terrorism, U.S. Foreign
Policy must change, at (visited on 28th April 2003)<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11571>.
53
George W. Bush, Terrorism: Threat Assessment, Countermeasures and Policy, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/ijpe1101.htm>.
54
Paul R. Pillar, The Instruments of Counterterrorism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63pillar.htm>.
55
Alan O. Bigler, Many Countries benefit from U.S. Antiterrorism Training, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63ata2.htm>.

1. No concessions will be made to terrorists and no deals will be struck with them.
2. Terrorists have to be brought to justice for their crimes.
3. Isolation and application of pressure on States that sponsor terrorism to force
them to change their behaviour.
4. Bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the
U.S. and require assistance.56
Thus, on an examination of this policy against terrorism a few things have become
apparent to the researcher. Firstly, the researcher finds it strange that Bush has called for
the unison of the civilized world against terrorism. Does this imply that terrorism
occurs only in the uncivilized worlds thereby also implying that terrorism is purely a
barbaric act? Does this mean that terrorism can never take place in the civilized
Western world? Is the word civilized characterized by democracy? Who is to judge
what nation is civilized? The researcher is of the opinion that by including the word
civilized there is too much room for subjectivity and this, may only result in U.S.A.
deciding what nation is civilized and whether they are capable of terrorist activity,
thereby inviting themselves into that country to maintain peace. The researcher would
also like to bring the readers attention to the four points under counterterrorism. One
would imagine that the best way to counter terrorism would be to find the cause for
terrorism and try to resolve the issue at the root. However, these counterterrorism
measures do not even venture towards estimating what could be the possible reasons for
terrorism. Instead they go directly to how terrorists should be dealt with. The researcher
believes that if the very cause for terrorism is not exposed then no matter what steps
U.S.A. takes to counter international terrorism, these measures will only scratch the
surface and not solve the problem of terrorism.
Thus, it may be said that will U.S. Foreign Policy is the cause for most terrorist attacks on
U.S.A., the fact that U.S. Foreign Policy itself does not recognise this and rectify itself
will only cause to enhance the problem of international terrorism.

56

Anonymous, International Terrorism: American Hostages,

2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63policy.htm>.

at

(visited

on

28 th

April

CONCLUSION
So far this paper has analysed the inherent problems in U.S. Foreign Policy itself and
how it has essentially served the purpose of U.S.A. at the same time involving other
countries, but largely to the detriment of those other countries. This paper has also delved
into how U.S. Foreign Policy has provided the impetus to many terrorist attacks on the
U.S.A. and the nexus between the two. Now it falls upon the researcher to draw her
conclusions.
To begin with, despite what the tone of the paper may convey to the reader, the researcher
does not justify any form of terrorist activity and considers all forms of terrorism
reprehensible. The researcher does not believe that any person has the right to intimidate
or coerce another on the threat of use of force. This applies to all actors be it State or nonState.
After having gone through the tenets of U.S. Foreign Policy, it appears to the researcher
that while U.S.A. may cloak its intentions in the garb of promoting democracy, the reality
is that it is simply doing everything to obliterate any obstacles and hindrances to its
position as superpower. Bush may justify the bombing of Iraq in name of democracy,
but is it really democracy to kill hundreds of civilians and then establish a government
that will essentially support U.S. policies and protect its interests? Noam Chomsky has
condemned U.S Foreign Policy and has categorized it as a brand of international
terrorism.57 If one looks into his arguments for such condemnation, it can be found that
they are again based on an analysis of the U.S. governments past actions. The researcher
is hesitant to label U.S. action as terrorist, but there is definitely an element of promotion
of terror in the course of U.S. actions. Does not the fact that U.S.A. has supported
rebellious groups to overthrow legitimately elected governments, just because they were
unfriendly towards U.S.A., and in the process kill thousands of civilians not amount to
using unlawful force against persons intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives and
57

Satya Sivaraman, Chomsky says U.S. Foreign Policy amounts to International Terrorism, at (visited on
28th April 2003)<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0204-01.htm>.

therefore, amount to terrorism as defined by the U.S. itself? Thus, does U.S.A. have the
authority to actually brand other organizations as terrorist and pursue such policies that
may help in trapping them and bringing them to justice?
Further, as the researcher has already pointed out, U.S. Foreign Policy targets the
terrorists not the cause for terrorism. What is the use in catching terrorists when the
reason why terrorists are formed continues to exist and causes the formation of several
more terrorist organizations? It becomes more like the destruction of one organization
and two growing in its place, rather like the Greek mythology of Hydra and Hercules.
Further, the researcher believes that it is high time that U.S.A. stops viewing itself as the
sole repository of civilization, thereby attributing terrorism against it to mere jealousy
and recognize that it is its foreign policies that have provided the reason, in large part, for
terrorism. Unless, U.S.A. can see that its interventions in other countries are not
welcome, it will never realise the full impact of its policies on the world. U.S.A. must
modify its foreign policies, if not for the sake of the world, for its own sake. The
researcher is also of the opinion that even if U.S.A. wants to combat terrorism, it must
pursue it in a different manner. The researcher fails to see the connection between the
destruction of the World Trade Centre and bombing of Iraq, on the pretext of supporting
terrorism. Does the killing of innocent civilians in return for the lives of civilians who
died on 11th September justify their actions? Does it not seem a bit like the and eye for
an eye policy and the researcher wonders whether U.S.A. is not better than that?
Moreover, the researcher questions the proportionality of U.S.s reaction itself where it
seems as though they will perpetrate terrorist acts on terrorists themselves in order to
show them who is really in control.
If U.S.A. wants to continue to act as big brother, the researcher believes that it should
grow up to that position and start to take responsibility for its actions. If it does not do so
quickly, then terrorism may not stop with just the World Trade Centre and there may be
no country left whose interests it can protect.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles:
Internet:
1. Alan O. Bigler, Many Countries benefit from U.S. Antiterrorism Training, at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63ata2.htm>.
2. Alan W. Bock, Criticizing U.S. Foreign Policy, at (visited on 28 th April,
2003)<http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030305Bock.html>.
3. Anonymous, Basic Stats for U.S. Imperialism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725_comment.php?
theme=2>.
4. Anonymous, International Terrorism: American Hostages, at (visited on 28 th
April 2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63policy.htm>.
5. Anonymous, Report on the National Commission on Terrorism, at (visited on
28th April 2003)<http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html>.
6. Anonymous, State Sponsored Terrorism and Foreign Terrorist Organisations at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63fto.htm>.
7. Anonymous, Sweden.Com Discussion Forum: International Human Rights, at
(visited on 28th April 2003)<http://www.sweden.com/forums/showthread.php3?
threadid=6314>.
8. Anonymous, The Terrorism Research Centre, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.terrorism.com/>.
9. Enver Masud, U.S. Foreign policy invites Terrorism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19980827-InviteTerror.html>.
10. George W. Bush, Terrorism: Threat Assessment, Countermeasures and Policy,
at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/ijpe1101.htm>.
11. Haroon Siddique, Its the U.S. Foreign Policy, Stupid, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the
%20world/its_the_us_foreign_policy,_stupid.htm>.
12. Irfan Ahmed, Timothy McVeighs of the Orient, at (visited on 28th
April2003)<http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?
root=2000&leaf=12&filename=2470&filetype=pdf>
13. Ivan Eland, Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?, at (visited on
28th April 2003)<http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf>.
14. James Woosly and Noam Chomsky, Power Politics, at (visited on 28th April
2003)<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention2.html>
15. Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal, The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy:
Reaching
a
Values
Consensus
at
(visited
on
28 th
April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501facomment11215/leslie-h-gelbjustine-a-rosenthal/the-rise-of-ethics-in-foreign-policy-reaching-a-valuesconsensus.html>.

16. Marc Bumgarner, U.S. Foreign Policy The Fertile Ground that Feeds
Terrorism,
at
(visited
on
28th
April)<http://www.mediamonitors.net/marcbumgarner2.html>.
17. Mark Weisbrot, To prevent Terrorism, U.S. Foreign Policy must change, at
(visited on 28th April 2003)<http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11571>.
18. Michael H. Shuman and Hal Harvey, Security without War at (visited on 28 th
April 2003)<http://www.rmi.org/images/other/S-SecurityWithoutWar.pdf>.
19. Nicholas Klar, U.S. Foreign Policy: Bush Snr. and Reagan, at (visited on 28 th
April 2003)<http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/n/nicklar/bushrgn.html>.
20. Nicholas Klar, U.S. Foreign Policy: Latin America, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/n/nicklar/ltnamufp.html>.
21. Paul R. Pillar, The Instruments of Counterterrorism, at (visited on 28 th April
2003)<http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63pillar.htm>.
22. Raphael F. Perl, Terrorism, the Future and U.S. Foreign Policy, at (visited on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/crs20010913.pdf>.
23. Robert W. Tracinski, A Lesson in U.S. Foreign Policy for India: With Friends
like us, at (visited on 28th April 2003)<http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?
ID=1305>.
24. Satya Sivaraman, Chomsky says U.S. Foreign Policy amounts to International
Terrorism,
at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0204-01.htm>.
25. Stephanie Dispatch, Harvesting Coffee with a Gun on your Shoulder, at (visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/042101/042101stephbully.html>
26. Thomas Carothers, Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terrorism, at (visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030101faessay10224/thomascarothers/promoting-democracy-and-fighting-terror.html>.
27. William Bundy, The Conduct of American Foreign Policy: A Portentous Year, at
(visited
on
28th
April
2003)<http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19840201faessay8362/william-bundy/theconduct-of-american-foreign-policy-a-portentous-year.html>.
Journals:
1. Anonymous, U.S. Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, The
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 94, 2000, p. 365.
Books:
1. Carl Gershman, Freedom remains the touchstone, Owne Harries (Ed.),
Americas Purpose, Macmillan India Ltd., 1991, New Delhi, p. 36.
2. Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, Pluto Press, London, 1998, p. 9.