An obsession the world doesn't share: many countries see the war on terror as a U.S.-imposed distraction from critical issues such as poverty, crime, and AIDS.

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand why people in many countries see the American focus on terrorism as dismissive of economic and social problems they see as more pressing.

CRITICAL THINKING: Examine the proposition that America is preoccupied with terrorism. What do students know about America's war on terrorism? Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism?

(President Bush has said there was no direct link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., but that there was contact between Iraq and terrorist groups.) Address this point: Brazilian Candido Mendes says Latin Americans are concerned that in the name of defending its security, the U.S. will escalate the wars it has already started (perhaps attacking elsewhere).

WRITING: Should the U.S. be concerned about critics like Mendes? Why or why not? Ask students to write a brief (100 words or less) letter to Mendes in which they explain either why they agree with his concerns or why the U.S. is justified in taking such an aggressive stand against terrorism.

What evidence, if any, should the U.S. have to present to justify an escalation of its military operations (perhaps attacking Iran)? Suppose the U.S. uncovers information that members of Al Qaeda are hiding in an undisclosed country. Would that justify armed intervention in that country?

PERCEPTION GAP?: Brazilian Luiz Felipe Lampreia speaks of the "perception that Bush uses immense power in an egotistical way."

Later, writer Roger Cohen says the benefits of American policy toward Africa gain "scant recognition" because U.S. policy is seen to focus only on terrorism. Is there a gap between perception and reality? If so, how might the U.S. bridge this perception gap?

DISCUSSION QUESTION

* "People sleep peaceably ... only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" is a quote often attributed to author George Orwell. What do you think Orwell meant by that?

WEB WATCH: www.state.gov/s/ct and www.state.gov/coalition are State Department sites that provide background on U.S. antiterrorism policies.

The United States has a strategic problem: Its war on terror, unlike its long fight against Communism, is not universally perceived as the pivotal global struggle of the age.

Rather, it is often portrayed abroad as a distraction from more critical issues: It's seen as America's attempt to cultivate fear and impose an aggressive culture on a world still taken with the notion that the Cold War's end has opened unprecedented possibilities for dialogue and peace.

In Brazil, a country plagued by problems of poverty and development, the policies of Al Qaeda arouse far less interest than those of the International Monetary Fund, which provides struggling countries with vital economic assistance, but usually forces them to undertake painful economic reforms as well. The violence Brazilians are debating is not that of Islamic holy warriors but of drug barons and their private militias occupying the favelas, or slums, of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.

In South Africa, the issues of the day are the country's 40 percent jobless rate, crime, and disease, not to mention the poverty that grips the continent as a whole. Many of the 1.3 billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day are in Africa. Terrorism isn't the theme of the hour.

NOT LIKE THE COLD WAR

The Cold War and its countless battles around the globe divided Latin America and Africa between countries that sided with the United States or the Soviet Union. But the war on terror has neither divided nor engaged these continents in the same way. That, on balance, is a good thing: The American-Soviet struggle took a huge toll on societies from Argentina to Angola that still bear the scars.

What is less good, from the American perspective, is that Latin America and Africa are more or less united in a critical view of an American power routinely described as hegemonic, or geared toward dominance over other countries, and intent on using the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to impose what Candido Mendes, a Brazilian political analyst, calls "a civilization of fear."

Mendes, who has written several books about Brazil's left-leaning President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, says: "The exploitation of fear is a highly developed and refined science, but Brazil is not convinced by this culture that triumphed in the American election. What concerns us in Latin America is that, in the name of defending its security, the United States will escalate the wars it has begun."

The Cold War world adhered to a simple pattern: free societies, led by the U.S., confronting Communism, with its headquarters in the Kremlin, the walled complex of government buildings in Moscow that became a symbol of Soviet power.

Notwithstanding President Bush's frequent attempts to frame the current conflict against Islamic terrorism as one of equal importance, it is now clear that most of the world has resisted making it a top priority.

IN ASIA, ECONOMIC CONCERNS

In wide swaths of the Southern Hemisphere, including Africa and Latin America, the central preoccupation is economic development and trade.

In Asia, in addition to trying to recover from December's tsunami, the focus is on China's spectacular rise, with India not far behind. The rest of Asia worries about losing business to these burgeoning giants and, especially in the case of China, fears that economic power will translate into military might.

In Europe, the bulk of political energy is still absorbed by the development of the European Union--the multinational organization established in 1993 that now includes 25 independent states attempting to coordinate their military, economic, and political policies.

Because America's central preoccupation--the war on terror--is not widely shared, it tends to isolate the United States, whose power is now so overwhelming as to invite dissent and outright opposition.

Bush seems aware of the problem he and the U.S. face abroad. While visiting Canada last November, he described his second term as "an important opportunity to reach out to our friends," and thanked those Canadians who waved at him "with all five fingers."

Many Americans might be tempted to reply to a stubborn global community: Your memories are short, and if a bunch of crazed Islamic jihadists get their hands on nuclear weapons, you'll understand why we are fighting this war. They might care to use a quotation often attributed to 1984 author George Orwell: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

But for now, the image of rough Americans ready to do violence is more alienating than comforting.

"Anti-Americanism is generalized and growing," says Luiz Felipe Lampreia, a former Brazilian foreign minister.

"The whole Iraq situation has brought back memories of the big stick American power as used in Nicaragua or Chile during the Cold War," he says. "The problem is the perception that Bush uses immense power in an egotistical way."

The resulting animosity was evident during Bush's visit last November to Santiago, Chile, where he encountered angry crowds who were not waving. This situation has its contradictions: The Bush administration's policies toward Latin America have generally been practical and restrained.

Trade differences with Brazil, once acute over steel, have been quietly patched up, although Brazil continues to push the fight against subsidies to farmers in rich countries, which make it harder for countries like Brazil to compete. Presidents Bush and da Silva get along well, two straight-talking guys who like to brush past details, including the fact that they come from opposing political camps. In theory, this could be a time marked more by harmony than hostility.

BILLIONS TO FIGHT AIDS

A similar situation prevails in South Africa. The United States is pouring more money into tackling the AIDS epidemic than any other country, having pledged $2.4 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria--the organization central to the UN's fight against AIDS. Bush, who has made this fight a priority of his administration, also launched the $15 billion President's Emergency Fund for AIDS relief in 2003.

Personal relations between Bush and Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, are good. The African Growth and Opportunity Act, strongly supported by Bush, has provided important new trade openings by removing tariffs in several sectors, including automobiles.

Yet President Bush is routinely dismissed in the South African media as the Texas Twit and gets no credit for any of the U.S. policies that are helping the country or Africa as a whole. Jendayi E. Frazer, the American ambassador to South Africa, says that government-to-government relations are excellent, but that the prevailing atmosphere means that "people who support the United States cannot come out and say it."

Here lies part of the price of the war on terror, particularly the war in Iraq, for the United States and Bush: The good done quietly on other fronts gains scant recognition because war against a constant terrorist threat is seen to be the overriding message from the administration.

If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to change this negative impression, she may have to concede that the war on terror is not, like the Cold War, a label for an era.

It describes the focus of America--a new principle and project guiding national policy--but it describes no more than that, because other countries have other agendas. What these countries want, above all, is to sense that the Bush administration, in its second term, hears them.

QUIZ 1

The War on Terror

1. Explain why you agree or disagree with the view that the U.S. is overly focused on the war on terror.

2. During the Cold War, the U.S. led free societies in a confrontation with

a poverty.

b Communism.

c Japan.

d military dictatorships.

3. The focus Of most Europeans today is not the war on terror, but

a building an anti-American coalition.

b paying off the costs of World War II.

c reaching out to people in poor, developing countries.

d coordinating their economic, military, and political policies.

4. The rapid economic growth of China and India is a concern for large numbers of people in Asia because they fear that

a their young people will gravitate to these countries.

b these countries will join an American-led coalition.

c they will lose business to these countries.

d these countries will forge a military alliance.

5. The article notes that the U.S. gets scant recognition for the good it does in the world. A case in point is U.S. funding to combat the spread of AIDS in

a Asia.

b South America.

c Africa.

d the Middle East.

Answer Key

1. Possible Agree: The 9/11 attacks were so terrible they diverted attention from other issues and created a climate of unreasonable fear.

Possible Disagree: The war on terrorism is a rational response to a devastating experience.

2. (b) Communism.

3. (d) Coordinating economic, military, and political policies.

4. (c) they will lose business to these countries.

5. (c) Africa.