Ten years after: September 11th and its aftermath

In the past, military power was the only decisive factor in the “balance of power” among nations. Its strength ensured their expansion and influence while its weakness precipitated their fall and disintegration. Though, it is still an important element, many other factors like economy, ideology, political stability, statesmanship and diplomacy have played substantial role in determining the status of a country among the comity of nations in this globalized world. The World Order has been more dynamic due to the unprecedented developments in international affairs in the last century-ranging from multipolar, bipolar and unipolar. The US has enjoyed unilateral and unparalleled status in the international affairs. But as history repeats itself, the might of American power is visibly diminishing due to neoconservative and imperialistic policies, and new centers of power are emerging to shape the “multipolar world order”.1 This essay is a study on the effects of the international terrorist organization of the world system. I will focus on how countries changed the security policy together with the effect of the terrorist activities. The 9/11 attacks showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary level of damage. Firstly we will focus on how was the world order before the collapse of Soviet Union and 11/9 Attacks. We will see how the international system is changed after the collapse of Soviet Union. I will discuss about ‘New World Order’. In chapter two, we will look at the international system after the attacks. How it changed? What are the new actors of International Relations? What is the important thing for regional powers to become more powerful? Then, in chapter three, we will focus on some scholar’s comments about effect of 9/11 attacks on the international world politics. Chapter four will show us how are the security perceptions changing with 9/11 attacks. Last Chapter will show us the general idea of the essay.

Rubina Saigol, '‘Ter-reign of Terror', In Terror, Counter-Terror. Joseph, Ammu and Kalpana Sharma (eds). New Delhi: Kali Press. , 2003

It has become customary to talk as if history began on September 11, 2001. Everything that is happening to the world today began when those planes crashed dramatically into the symbols of global capitalism and military might. The tendency to view September 11 as a major discontinuity in world affairs, obscures the fact that September 11 and the events that followed, in fact represent a continuity and, perhaps, even an intensification of global agendas that preceded September 11, 2001 by decades and even centuries. Colonialism, imperialism, globalization and militarization were not invented post September 11. September 11 became a catalyst for global agendas that were festering long before that date. It brought out into the open and laid bare the fangs of military might, state terror and economic domination that are implied in producing the events of September 11, 2001. I would go so far as to argue that in fact nothing has changed, at least not in any substantial way, and that what happened on September 11 and after, only accelerated the pace of what was already under way prior to that fateful date. ‘Ter-reign of Terror: September 11 and its Aftermath', In Radhika Coomaraswamy & Fonseka, Dilrukshi. Peace Work: Women, Armed Conflict and Negotiation. International Centre for Ethnic Studies. New Delhi: Women Unlimited. 2004. ‘Ter-reign of Terror', In Terror, Counter-Terror. Joseph, Ammu and Kalpana Sharma (eds). New Delhi: Kali Press. 2003.

2019

The 11 September attacks in 2001 were one of the most shocking incidents within the post-Cold War era. Moreover, its location which happened in the United States can also be translated as a symbolic warning for the liberal world order, signifying that security remains a salient topic even after the “End of History” postulated by Fukuyama. This article examines whether the 11 September attacks has changed the course of international relations. In so doing, I attempt to use “the waves of terrorism” as a framework to understand the development of different stages of terrorism. The method that I used was desk research based on sources such as official reports, previous studies on terrorism, and classic literature on international security. This article finds that the 11 September attack serves as a game-changer in international relations as it unveils the new face of the religious wave of. First, the attacks ignited a refined version of the religious wave by employing information techno...

If the end of the Cold War marked one of the greatest turning points in the field of international politics of the late twentieth century, September 11 was a reminder that the international order that has come into being as a result was not one that has found definite acceptance and universal recognition in every place on the globe. As the debate about the extent to which September 11 changed global politics continues, this essay seeks to investigate whether, how and to what extent the events of the early twenty-first century really presage fundamental, as opposed to merely epiphenomenal, shift in world politics. What will be argued is that without denying the obvious importance of September 11 and its impact on global public opinion – that world politics displays far more continuity than change. (Kennedy-Pipe & Rengger 2006:540) Certainly, events from September 11 exerted a great shock on millions of people around the world, but rather than heralding a new era in world politics the events were symptomatic of certain key aspects of world politics that should be familiar to all serious students of the field but which, for a variety of reasons seem to have been forgotten in the aftermath of attacks. (Ibid.) In fact, we can only understand the events form September 11 if we understand the history of the cold war. As Layne (2006: 2) noticed, ''after the Soviet collapse, the United State stood head and shoulders above the rest of the world, militarily and economically. The United States, moreover, was imbued with an expansive conception of its world role and its interests.'' This was the moment to exercise strategic restraint by adopting a prudent, far-sighted grand strategy. Indeed, ''by removing the only real check on U.S. power, the Soviet Union's demise presented the United States with the opportunity to use its capabilities to exert more control over - to ''shape'' - the international political system and simultaneously to increase its power.'' (Ibid.) This is a great power trap that almost all great powers fall into. As Layne (2006: 2) clarified, ''when the risks of doing so appear low - and the potential rewards appear high - states with lost of power usually succumb to the temptation to use it. In the years since the cold war the United States has extended its strategic reach because it has had the motive, means, and opportunity to do so.'' This paper will evaluate whether September 11 attacks really changed everything. It seems to reasonable to agree with Layne (2006: 2) that after September 11, as before, geopolitical dominance has been the ambition of the United States, ''If anything, 9/11 gave the Bush II administration's 'hegemonists' a convenient - indeed, almost providential - rationale for implementing policies they would have wanted to pursue in any event, including 'regime change' in Iraq (and possibly Iran); the projection of U.S. power into the Middle East and central Asia; a massive five-year defense build up, which when completed, will result in U.S. military outlays exceeding the combined defense budgets of the rest of the world's states.'' By making wrong policies when at the height of its power, the United States decisionmakers underestimate the possibility that other actors will emerge and balance against U.S. dominance. U.S. hegemony fuelled terrorism against the United States by groups such as al Qaeda. As Layne (2006: 7) noticed, ''In this respect, 9/11 itself is a reminder that U.S. predominance has spawned new, 'asymmetric' responses to U.S. preeminence.'' In short, the Bush II administration has sought security by expanding U.S. power and pursuing hegemony by doing so it has squandered the chance of legitimate global leadership that has been vested by the whole International Society. Whatever is thought about the claim that September 11 irrevocably transformed global politics it cannot be denied, however that for many Americans it was a cataclysmic event. (Kennedy-Pipe 2008:406)

2010

Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, 2002

Thinking about the future of humankind and the basis of political association in the early years of the twenty-first century does not give grounds for optimism. In particular, 9/11 has become a moment associated with a return to empire, geopolitics, political violence and the primacy of sovereignty. Yet, it is easy to overstate the meaning of 9/11 and exaggerate from one set of historical experiences. This article explores the ways in which the twentieth century set down key political and legal 'cosmopolitian steps' toward a transformation of the global order. These steps are explored and defended, and it is shown how they created the grounds for a very different response to 9/11 to the one persued by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. Although clearly this opportunity has been temporarily lost, the failure of the Blair-Bush War on Terror reaffirms strong reasons for further developing a cosmopolitian global order.

International Relations, 2005

September 11 has shed doubt over the United States' 'soft power': the country's culturalideological appeal. In the context of globalisation it was supposed that the US government did not need to exert any effort to broadcast the country's values and appeal. Globalisation skews the ideological-informational playing field to US advantage: globalisation is Americanisation. In reality globalisation actually reduces the US grip on global information flows and image making. Moreover, the US response to September 11 created even more problems in this regard, thanks to US neglect of the problems of poverty and underdevelopment that helped create the terrorist backlash. The US government has also continued to neglect cultural diplomacy, believing it can win a war against an aspect of globalisation -transnational terror -and re-impose a world split into zones of peace and zones of turmoil.