D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 6, November/December 2001, p. 3)

With the strikes against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the massive reaction of the American government, the parameters for civil society have also changed drastically, and it is highly questionable whether civil society groups will be able to maintain their momentum towards growing influence and rights for participation. Since September 11, one can witness a revival of the power of the state. External and internal security are receiving top priority, the opposition in parliaments even of the established democracies is exercising an extraordinary amount of selfrestraint in order not to be called unpatriotic, and the economy is begging the state for subsidies to counter the effects of the terror on industries such as aviation, tourism, or even automobiles. All of a sudden, the state whose gradual demise has been predicted by the neo-liberals and other friends of corporate power is back with a vengeance. Will this development allow enough breathing space for civil society?

Instead of a global coalition of civil society groups fighting against inequality, poverty, and environmental destruction of the world, we now see the powerful US-led coalition against terror which unites the democracies in the West with governments of doubtful credentials. There is Russia whose brutal war against the people of Chechnya was almost unanimously denounced throughout the world as a grave violation of human rights; there is China wiht its ruthless policies against minorities and political opponents; and there is Saudi Arabia which practices a radical form of Sharia law which became the model for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Human right groups like Amnesty International, which for years have attacked human rights abuses in these and other countries which form the Alliance against Terror will now find it difficult to make their voices heard as any criticism of America’s allies will be regarded as anti-American by the Bush administration.

The same may be true of civil society groups who criticise corporate power and demand more respect for social and environmental concerns. The strike against the World Trade Center was a strike against a target with a high symbolic value, as many commentators pointed out. The Twin Towers stood for the world of business and finance and their global reach and control. The attackers, so many said, wanted to hit this symbol of globalisation because it signified the dominance of the Western economies over the rest of the world. Will critics of globalisation in the civil society movement not be regarded as unwilling allies of the terrorists if they continue to attack corporate power as they have done in the past? In the heated atmosphere prevailing in the United States and in other Western countries, demonstrations - even when peaceful - as the world has witnessed from Seattle to Genoa would hardly be conceivable. The public in America and elsewhere, being told to see the world divided into friends and enemies, would not take kindly to people who challenge the right of the rich states to continue their dominance in international politics and economic relations.

The acts of terror against the symbols of America’s military and economic power may, therefore, also have dealt a death blow to the fledgling civil society movement or at least have sent it into a prolonged coma. The working environment for civil action groups will certainly deteriorate, and governments will be much more hesitant to listen to their concerns. However, the terrible events may also hold the promise for a more positive development. Many people around the world now realize that terrorism can only be defeated if we attack the causes of misery and despair, if we fight poverty, inequality, oppression and human rights violations. Even the United States recognize that military strategies are not sufficient and must be complemented by diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. Politicians like Germany’s development minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul were quick to demand a bigger aid budget for the future. Whether in the end, there will be enough money to pay for more security and more development assistance remains to be seen.

In the aftermath of the terror attacks it also became clear that global institutions must be strengthened to fight global problems such as terrorism - a demand long raised by the international civil society movement. It was in recognition of this new situation that Washington rushed to pay part of America’s debts to the United Nations and that President Bush used the Security Council to sanction his policies against the terrorists. The formation of the worldwide Alliance against Terror itself was a departure from unilaterism which America’s leaders had increasingly favoured in the past, even though the say which America’s allies have within the alliance may often be minimal.