A quarter of a century has passed since 11 September 2001, when airplane attacks targeted the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. The smoke that billowed high into the sky that day permanently altered the global political map. Thereafter, nothing remained as it was before.
The US’s declaration of a ‘Global War on Terror’ was not merely a military campaign; it served as a historical turning point that fundamentally and radically reshaped post-World War II international laws, the principles of national sovereignty, and global perspectives on human rights. Over these 25 years, the single factor of ‘security’ eclipsed democracy and individual liberty.
The war on terror
The Global War on Terror, launched with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States and its Western allies, inverted the respect the international community traditionally accorded to state sovereignty.
Military actions conducted without United Nations approval under the new doctrine of ‘preemptive strike’ exposed the weakness of international institutions. The consequent devastation and countless human casualties in the Middle East and South Asian regions, rather than eradicating terrorism, created fertile ground for regional extremist movements to proliferate.
The war on terror breached battlefield boundaries and intruded directly into the daily lives of global citizens. Starting with the US’s Patriot Act and extending through stringent anti-terrorism legislation enacted worldwide, state surveillance powers became boundless. The dangerous trend of sacrificing freedom for the sake of security became a global norm.
The hypocrisy of Western nations claiming to protect human rights stood exposed to the world. Historically vital protections like international human rights laws and the Geneva Conventions were systematically violated under the guise of ‘national security’. Over time, this served as a harmful precedent for authoritarian regimes globally to justify repressions against their own citizens. As Sri Lankans, we experienced this extensively.
Although the Global War on Terror began against terrorist organisations (primarily al-Qaeda), it ultimately evolved into a war for regime change under the pretext of ‘spreading democracy’ across Afghanistan, West Asia, and North Africa – tailored to serve American interests and worldview.
The regime-change wars started in Iraq and, amid the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, transformed into bombings against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces under the guise of ‘protecting’ Libyan citizens. Then US President Barack Obama publicly admitted to leading that effort from behind.
The overthrow of Gaddafi’s regime shattered Libya, turning what was once one of Africa’s most stable nations into a site of collapse. The fall of the Libyan State opened the doors to terrorism across Africa, as weapons leaked across borders into the hands of various militant and terrorist groups. For over 15 years, jihadi groups have been expanding their influence across several North African countries.
Twenty-five years after the 9/11 attacks, the Global War on Terror has exposed the weaknesses and limitations of American global dominance. The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan after two decades of occupation highlighted the strategic failure of this war.
A post-unipolar world
While the US concentrated its attention and resources militarily and economically on these wars, rival superpowers like China and Russia capitalised on the opportunity to strengthen their global standing. As a result, the post-9/11 unipolar American dominance has faded, giving way to an emerging multipolar world order.
US President Donald Trump’s America First policy and his disregard for international law further destabilised an international order that was already weakened in the decades following 9/11. By pushing aside international treaties, climate agreements, and global institutions to prioritise unilateral trade wars and threats, he contributed to a major global economic crisis. He has openly stated a lack of concern for international law.
Trump’s aggressive approach to handling global diplomatic crises has deepened international instability. Ultimately, 25 years of post-9/11 invasions, military buildups, and unilateral foreign policy have exposed the limits of the US’s global hegemony.
In an article titled ‘A unilateral America in a post-unipolar world,’ published recently, The Hindu International Affairs Editor Stanly Johny succinctly summarised the contrast between the United States before 9/11 and the United States today, 25 years later.
“When the 11 September 2001 attacks took place, the United States was at the pinnacle of its power. A decade earlier, its Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, had disintegrated. Russia was still struggling to emerge from the post-Soviet chaos while China remained a close economic partner of the US.
“In Eastern Europe, Washington had successfully undertaken military interventions, while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) had completed its first round of expansion into Russia’s neighborhood. The US also maintained a formidable military presence in West Asia.
“Twenty-five years after 9/11, terrorist groups have not only survived the war on terror but have also evolved into localised tentacles of a transnational jihadist project spanning multiple geographies. Despite America’s commitment to Europe through NATO, there is a widening chasm in the transatlantic alliance.
“As traditional US allies grow increasingly frustrated with Washington’s newfound transactionalism, Israel, America’s closest ally in West Asia, is dragging Washington deeper into a regional vortex. While the US remains bogged down in West Asia, China has risen as the second pole of an increasingly fluid multipolar order, while Russia is violently challenging the US-led security architecture in Europe.
“The US, as its ill-conceived Iran war would suggest, continues to act as a unilateral hegemon. But its unilateralism is increasingly at odds with the emerging realities of a post-unipolar world.”
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)