Back to the ‘Dangerous World’?
Although The Cold War had been one of the periods with relatively less international hot conflicts, it had, at the same time, been a period dominated by pessimism on the future of the mankind. The two world wars, the Holocaust etc. have imposed on the minds of the people as a clear-cut idea that the international relations were dominated only by power politics. During this period, the most promising development for the mankind had been the institutionalization of international cooperation on, first, defense, and then the economic domain, and the emergence of international organizations as new actors in international relations. The economic integration efforts were also considered as another positive step. The period, which continued with developments on international law, had given sound signs for people to nurture their hopes for the future. In particular, progress on the protection of basic human rights, even engaging in wars and conflicts more humanely, prevention of masses from damages of wars, enabling minorities keep their existence was really exciting.
The dissolution of the USSR and withdrawal of Eastern Bloc countries from global rivalry without eruption of any conflicts in a process called “velvet revolutions” has also increased the hopes. The Paris Summit on European security, the increasing activities of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organization has given the sense that the new period would be marked by law and new organizations. Moreover, by looking at these signs, the institutionalists were saying that the new period in international relations would be characterized primarily by institutionalization and cooperation. Particularly, the principle to extend human rights and the protection of human rights to the whole world, a principle which was maintained during the Clinton era in the US, has also caused the emergence and use of the term “humanitarian intervention.” The US administration claimed that the international powers had the right to intervene directly to protect the people of a region by eliminating the threats against basic values should the human rights were violated and international law was disrespected in that region. This claim was supported by many countries such that almost the entire world has joined the operation against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq initiated by the “Father” George Bush. Albeit Powell pointed the oil as the reason of the war by stating that “we could not have stayed negligent to the fact that this much of oil is possessed by only one country” and many said that Iraq was used as a means by the US to establish itself in the Middle East, the world was still optimistic in the early 1990s. The whole world has come together, including the Arabs, to counter the dictator Saddam Hussein, who was indifferent to the world politics and invaded a tiny country, Kuwait. As the consent of great powers such as Germany, France, China and Russia was taken, the operation was been funded by the Gulf countries and Japan. This ‘humanity power’, having great ideals, was headed by the US.
Iraq was followed by Yugoslavia. This country can also be exemplified for pessimism. Even some people has thought that the new world was worse than the old one as the war in Bosnia continued for years and thousands of Bosnian Muslims were tortured or maltreated. As people have realized that a new genocide was quiet probable in the middle of Europe, the hopes waned. But even in Bosnia, international powers have finally taken action with the US, the global leader, and have intervened in the internal affairs of a country on the basis of humanitarian values. Finally in Kosovo, the humanitarian intervention has peaked, a country (Serbia) has been attacked because of its treatment to its citizens and, its capitals and strategic locations were bombed. Despite criticisms, the NATO powers were able to protect the people of Kosovo only to a small extent.
By this way, the understanding that democracy and human rights, whatever the conditions were, needed to be protected even if it required the breach of the sovereignty of the nation state, even though in rhetoric, was adopted during the Clinton era. As the U.S. demonstrated itself as the leader of the global freedom, it has attacked the countries which it wanted to batter by using this discourse. For example, Russia and China have always been targets due to their practices in Chechnya and Tibet or other human rights violations. The US was supported by Europe and all states have started to behave more carefully on the issue of human rights. In this period, the basis of the EU criticisms to Turkey for instance was the issues of human rights and democratization. The period in question has also affected the developing and less-developed countries and human rights and democratization became the emerging values in many countries. Similarly, international organizations have begun to experience their golden age. Organizations dealing with various issues such as environment, women rights, urbanization, and legal issues became more important and more independent actors.
In this period, international terror was also one of the primary issues and national intelligence institutions started to allocate more than half of their resources for anti-terror acts. The Middle East-originated religionist terror and religious fanaticism were focal points and they were listed as the most important threats to the U.S. security. However, the religionist terror and the religion were considerably distinguished and the President Bill Clinton paid special attention not to harm its relations with Muslims during his fight against religionist terror. During this period, even some groups that could be characterized as radical were supported and “the clash of civilizations” concept was not the basis of the U.S. policies. For example, the Taleban administration, which would be the primary enemy of the U.S. in Afghanistan, was able to survive thanks to the U.S. support at that period.
Though terror was one of the most important threats, the U.S. did not damage the order-democratic values balance during the Clinton Era. In other words, that the elimination of terror was the sole aim and other values could be subordinated to it had not been used as a discourse. The U.S.’ ally, Israel, was criticized at that time by the Washington D.C.; and from time to time, the Clinton administration unusually criticized Israel. Similarly, many countries, including Turkey, were criticized by the Americans due to their lack of attention to human rights in their fights against terror.
For some, this period was only a deception and the U.S.’ discourse regarding Kosovo and other places have led to hopes and expectations which were false and would never come true.(1) These hopes and expectations were that democracy and human rights would sooner or later be ensured by the great powers, that the common security of international relations would be ensured by the international organizations with the support of these great powers, that the international system would not be damaged by any entity and that none of the countries would be able to do whatever they liked even to their own citizens. In short, the popular values of the 1990s were organization, cooperation, law, justice, common security, common framework, humanitarian intervention and democratization.
September 11: Awakening from the Dream?
This entire picture has started to change as “Bush the Son” (George W. Bush) took the power in the U.S. Contrary to the former president Clinton’s efforts to get the support of international organizations and countries, Bush and his team have a power politics-oriented approach and they also think that Russia and China will become major powers in the system and defy the global leadership of the U.S. in the long run. From the beginning, this team has already been considering that Russia should be kept away from Europe and, at the very least, should be ruled out from rivaling the U.S. by making it dependent to the U.S. through economic and political means. On the other hand, China has been seen as a bigger threat by the U.S. Demonstrated as “a fast-growing monster” in the entire Pacific region, China’s growth potential has frightened the strategists in the U.S. During the Bush era, the U.S. has put the two capitals, Moscow and Beijing, at the top of the priority list. Meanwhile, though combating terror and integrating Islam into the world system, both of which have intensified during Clinton period, have been among the priorities, one can say that there had been no panic on these issues until the September 11. As a matter of fact, the strong Jewish-Republican lobby associated with Tel-Aviv was pressuring the Clinton administration on inevitable inter-religious conflict (or clash of civilizations) and was suggesting the US leadership that the Middle East policies should be established on the basis of East-West contrast, that the Far East policies should be based on the basis of West-China contrast, that the world order should be re-polarized and that alternatives other than these would harm the U.S. leadership. But this group perhaps was never able to get what they had wanted until the Bush victory in the elections.
As anyone would accept, September 11 has been a milestone in the U.S. and world history. The shockwave as a result of the 9/11 has rendered the U.S. public opinion and administration vulnerable to manipulations. The public opinion, which is on the brink of social explosion, can easily be manipulated and this situation has been a golden opportunity for the “neo-cons”, which have strong media connections, and lobbies close to this political group. In this piece, what has happened after the 9/11 will not be mentioned. For Afghanistan and Iraq interventions occupy the first pages of the newspapers everyday in this dusty atmosphere and the U.S., almost unprecedented in history, implements its policies openly. The U.S. is exposed to such a huge manipulation and the Bush administration includes people acting in such a reactionary mood that even top secret issues are discussed before public. Moreover, the link between the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S. have shattered so much that the U.S. is not only fighting against the resistance in Iraq but also its own groups and institutions. The most prominent among those who reveal the U.S. secrets and who criticize the U.S. most is again Americans; and this is a chance for the world. By this way, the policies of a superpower can be seen by any place and any person in the world.
Prioritizing stability and security instead of justice and democracy after the 9/11 and doing this in the most vulgar way, the U.S.’ new policy has had negative repercussions all over the world. It is such that it is impossible to assess the recent past without understanding these effects and taking the dimensions of these effects into account. For this reason, we will cover these issues in more detail.
Weakening of International Law: The first effect of the new U.S. policies has been a slowdown in the recently-increasing consolidation of international law. The U.S. administrators, implying that they do not care about international law and telling even lies if international law matters (2), say that the U.S. cannot be bound by any international law when the issue is self-defense, that they don’t need the consent of any party to take any action just as they cannot be stopped by anyone. This approach, which seems to be patriotic and logical at first sight, in fact, also implies the assumption that the law is something that can be in contradiction with the U.S. national interests. Secondly, this approach indicates a conviction that power is superior to law. However, the very same international regulations perfectly protected the U.S. national interests in the past and these regulations were even coded by the super powers under the leadership of the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. has already had the strength to replace new rules with the old ones. But the U.S. has preferred to choose “its way”, that is, military might and imposition, which it thinks is easier and less time-consuming, rather than choosing the process of long-lasting diplomacy and political negotiation.
“Use of power instead of the rule of law” is not a new understanding and it represents a strong current in the US. According to this approach, which also makes itself felt in the foreign policy through the realist school of thought, might makes right. But the case of Iraq by itself has proved that legitimacy and justifiability are two of the most important factors that reinforce power. Had the U.S. been able to get the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issue a resolution before the start of the War on Iraq and had it been able to attack Iraq under the banner of the UN or the NATO rather than exposing itself to reactions, it would have definitely been more powerful and been criticized less. Despite that, both mentalities have affected the global politics quiet negatively; and the nation states have become more careless at issues they considered themselves to be powerful and have exemplified the U.S. at times of criticism.
In short, the international law has been considerably weakened after 9/11. The U.S.’ negligence of the international law has also damaged the commitment of other states to the international law. But the U.S. case has also demonstrated that one of the essential elements of power is legitimacy and that sole might doesn’t make right.
Weakening in International Organizations: The relative aloofness of the U.S. to international cooperation and compromise has primarily damaged international organizations alongside international law; and the U.N. has had the biggest blow from that. Though the U.S. had been unable to issue a favorable resolution for an attack on Iraq, it has defiantly launched a military campaign on that country, and by this way, it has openly breached the balance of power and set of principles in the U.N., something which the U.S. tried to protect even against the Communist Bloc during the Cold War. In other words, not even mindful of the laws coded by itself, the U.S. has proved with its acts that the U.N. regulations can be violated by the powerful. Albeit the U.S. has stated that it interpreted the Article 51 (of the U.N. Charter) from its point of view, that it conducted “preemptive strike”, and that had it not attacked Iraq, then Iraq would have, the lack of any affiliation between Iraq and radical religionist terror groups, of any evidence regarding the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and of any corroborative evidence of the U.S. allegations have rendered the U.S. claims false. Moreover, even if an attack will be carried out, it is contentious if the Article 51 can be used as a justification. It has been another weak point of the American claims to think that the US, a superpower, had been threatened by Iraq, a country which has experienced an international embargo for more than ten years, has been restricted both from south and north by air raids, has had two great wars in ten years, and having been undergoing serious economic problems for tens of years. In addition, the statements by the top U.S. officials that the U.S. didn’t need the support of the U.N. or another organization or country has been a clear indication of their recklessness and lack of heed towards the system. However, the system the U.S. doesn’t heed is the very system the U.S. has established on its own to a great extent.
To put it short, the War on Iraq has blown a strike as much to the U.N. and other international organizations as it has done to Iraq, and has decreased the reliance on these organizations for the security of countries.
The Decline of International Pressure for Human Rights and Democratization: The U.S., not keen to agree or compromise with other countries within the U.N., has had to acquiesce the actions of countries that it used to stay away or criticize in order to combat “international terrorism” in its own way. For example, criticizing Moscow’s policies on Chechnya and minorities in the past, the U.S. has reduced its critiques after the 9/11 and has made statements implying it understands Russia. By the same token, the U.S. administration had criticized China because of its policies in Tibet and Xinjiang (Sincan) Autonomous Zone and on democratization, it has again decreased such criticism of China after the 9/11. The third important example is Israel. Expressing its concern on human rights violations in Palestine before 2001, Washington has even clearly supported the breaches of Israel and has defined the killings of children and the civilian Palestinian population as “Israel’s self-defense and natural right” in the post 9/11 period. Even the distinction between the American and Israeli troops has disappeared particularly after the invasion of Iraq and the U.S. has demonstrated how seriously it should work to improve its record on human rights. In summary, the ‘third victim of the new U.S. policies’ has been human rights and democratization. The world, at least on the discourse level, has lost its leverage of pressure on these topics. The worst of all, Europe, as a result of its interaction with the US, has been influenced by the US policies and has slowed down its policies on human rights and democratization at least in the regions distant to Europe.
Restrictions on Freedom: The problem of security, which has become paranoia after the 9/11, has led to a change in the mentality of law-making all over the world, but particularly in North America and Europe. The tendency to enlarge individual rights and freedoms before the 9/11 has been reversed and “state and order come first” approach has been adopted. The anti-terror laws enacted during this period have suspended many individual rights and freedoms; and state and security forces have been granted extraordinary authorizations. During the post-9/11 period, many legislations, including the Patriot Act, in the U.S. and anti-terror laws enacted and some practices of the courts in Europe have demonstrated that the process (to enlarge individual freedoms) has been reversed.(4) One hopes that this process will survive only in the short-run. But it is also clear that considerable time has been wasted to reverse the process in favor of the acceleration of the enlargement of individual freedoms. Moreover, it must be remembered that there are no signs of action in the opposite direction for the time being.
Intensification of Power Politics and Support to the Authoritarian Regimes: As a matter of fact, the U.S. never totally gave up power politics, that is, the realist approach, at any point in time. Many dictatorial and authoritarian regimes survived thanks to the US’ support even at times when the US introduced itself as the leading protector of democracy and freedom. As numerous mass movements were suppressed with the help of U.S., many military interventions took place thanks to the promotion and support of the Washington. To understand this, it will suffice to examine the democratization history of the Latin American countries or the survival links of the Arab regimes, which have been aloof from their people. However, this American support has become much more obvious after the 9/11, the U.S. has started to defend the justifiability of this policy and has stated that security and order are more important than democracy and freedom. Even the regimes presented as order and security, but which are dictatorship and oppression in fact, have been appreciated. Hoping to get the much-needed international support for its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has ceased its criticisms of Russia and China to some extent and has started to support an extremely authoritarian regime in Uzbekistan just to install bases and get other logistical support from this country.(5) Similarly in Turkey, upon the possibility that the government’s recommendation allowing the transfer of the U.S. troops to Iraq via Turkey could be rejected in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TGNA) in March 2003, Turkish democracy was criticized and some circles in the U.S. Congress begun to claim that an oppressive regime should be in place rather than democracy in Turkey. All these evidence are clear indications that power politics exchange democracy and freedom for security and stability.
The U.S. Loses Its “Soft Power”: In connection with the previous paragraph, in the post-9/11, the US has significantly lost its power of persuasion as a result of resorting to fait-accompli or coercion rather than diplomacy. As Joseph S. Nye has remarkably formulated, each country, apart from its military power, has also a “soft power”, the power to persuade.(6) As a matter of fact, what is important is the capability of a country to have the other one do what the former demands. Power is not the capability to destroy the other one, but the ability to change the other’s behaviors.(7) As Nye has also articulated, the U.S.’ power in the 1990s did not only depend on its military might: The U.S. was perceived to be so strong and developed of other countries a result of its technological advancements from internet to space, from education to health that other countries were persuaded easily and were adjusting their policies according to the US demands without the use of military might most of the time. But as a result of its security-obsessive attitude after 9/11, the US has started to lose its persuasion power on even its closest allies. This situation both has weakened the US and has stroke a blow to the international cooperation. Particularly after the failure in Iraq, the US is less respected and there is much more skepticism about the political leadership of Washington.
Torture and the Collapse of “Western Ideals”: Torture and maltreatment in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq and Guantanamo American Base in Cuba have had consequences perhaps as important as the War on Iraq. The world was already aware of torture and maltreatment in the U.S. and Europe until that time. Particularly, what kind of practices the racism has caused has been observed many times. But the torture in Iraq was photographed, filmed and thousands of pictures went into the minds of people through the world media. While this incident, coinciding with the U.S.’ announcement of its annual report evaluating the successes/failures of other countries in human rights, weakened the validity of the premise that human rights breaches were less in the West, the world also lost an important ground after the torture incidents in Iraq. People haven’t also gone unnoticed of Bush’s considerably too late and too little condemnation of the torture and Donald Rumsfeld’s (the then-US Secretary of Defense) efforts to justify it alongside the torture scenes. The statements of the U.S. troops involved in the tortures that they enjoyed torturing and of US officials implying the torture in Iraq was excusable have negatively affected the entire world. After these incidents, the leaders of all countries have started to think “everybody commits torture. It was not only us.” This situation may push the U.S. and European Union towards hesitation and may encourage torturers in other countries. However, these torture events have had some positive repercussions in Turkey. The visualization of torture in such detail ever has outraged Turkish people against torture and has contributed to the anti-torture awareness. In addition, improvements in Turkey due to its process of full membership to the EU coinciding with the deteriorating human rights records of the West has led to a consolidation in Turkey’s self-confidence. Inhumane acts of Israel towards the civilians in Palestine also overlapped with these developments, and as a result, human rights associations in Turkey and Turkish parliamentarians have begun to set the human rights violations in Iraq, Israel and other countries as the agenda. Having visited Gaza for this aim, Turkish legislators have also planned to visit Iraq. Moreover, violence carried out by the police in the European countries such as Spain has been also criticized by Turkish MPs and investigation has been initiated for that.
All these events show that the West is about to lose its superiority regarding the protection of human rights and the assurance of democratization. Other countries either do not approve the practices in the West or they point the U.S. as an example saying “we follow the U.S., nothing more” whenever they are criticized. (9)
In short, the clear mistakes of the U.S. in the post-9/11, particularly the case of Iraq, have seriously damaged the Europe and the U.S. images in the world, which have taken decades to form.
Increasing Importance of Intelligence: The September 11 attacks have profoundly shaken the American mind. The Western civilization was stroke in one of its most intimate locations. Uninformed, at the most unexpected time and at the most private places… The concepts of “secure” and “security” have been prioritized as a result of the panic, and there has been a sense among the whole nation that other concepts could be sacrificed to ensure the former two. Consequently, the need for security forces has increased. The budgets of police and armies have been increased and intelligence units have come to the front as a result of the conviction that the aggressor was under the ground and regular armies were unable to combat them. But this consequence also includes great controversies. All else aside, the September 11 attacks were the climax of the failure of the intelligence. Despite this failure, the need for more intelligence has increased. Honestly, these establishments have used the September 11 as an “opportunity” to enlarge their budgets and authority, and have manipulated their societies and governments. As a result of all these developments, governments have started taking intelligence-centered decisions and relying on the intelligence provided by them. The most dangerous part of this process has been that politicians, mainly the ones in the US, have begun to think like intelligence officers. Intelligence is definitely necessary and provides an important strength if used properly. But intelligence is only one of the hundreds of elements required for power, and cannot be regarded as the most important one. An intelligence officer on the field doubts everything and his/her world is based on the friend-enemy distinction. It is perhaps the most dangerous thing for such a mentality to be on the power. For a good administration can be defined as “the business of trust”. The President is supposed to trust in his/her team, the team in the people, and the people in the administrators they elected. Even in international relations, cooperation is possible only through the improvement in mutual trust. If the balance between suspicion and trust shifts excessively in favor of suspicion, the opportunities for cooperation will disappear, old friendships end, and the lack of alliances and friendships deepen the problem of security. This in turn results in more severe imbalance in favor of suspicion and this vicious cycle of suspicion turns into paranoia. Eventually, “the administrators supposing that they are hammers begin to point nails everywhere.” But there is one thing they forget: The intelligence institutions, consolidating the power of governments having commonsense and taking other elements of power into account, on the other hand, weaken those depending solely on these institutions, and they even devastate these governments. In other words, the power of intelligence is in direct proportion to the mentality of the government to analyze the intelligence, not to the magnitude, wealth or number of staff of these organizations. A good administration uses intelligence when necessary and by verifying that intelligence with other information at hand. But after 9/11, the importance of intelligence organizations has increased all over the world, but mainly in the Anglo-American region. Each intelligence organization, by using other intelligence organizations, has caused its own country to take a more skeptic attitude towards others. Our experience so far has showed that intelligence organizations have misled both their countries and their people. Most of the intelligence provided by CIA and MI6 in Iraq has proved to be false. One can see Israel’s failure due to MOSSAD, claimed to be the best intelligence unit in the world. These countries, whose guides in the Middle East are almost only these intelligence units, cannot take themselves out of conflicts. Moreover, having a budget of billions of dollars, CIA’s claims on the weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war cannot even be categorized as “true false”. Even people on the street haven’t been convinced with these claims. It is also striking that the British intelligence reports were a scholarly article written years ago and modified into a confidential document format. These examples demonstrate that the intelligence organizations alone are insufficient to provide even with true information. One should not expect a good approach and performance from these structures.
In the light of these discussions, it can be argued that governments have become dependant on the intelligence units in a way unprecedented before, and worst of all, they have adopted the mentality and understanding of those organizations. But practices which turn out to be failures also diminish the reliability on these units and two opposite processes take place simultaneously. No matter how unsuccessful they are, the intelligence organizations increase their power. The most important reason for this is their conduct of “fear marketing” among the society.
Radicalization and Consolidation of Radicals: After September 11, the US has put the responsibility on radical religionist groups, mainly al-Qaeda, in the Islamic world. For the US, Muslim countries should end the link between religionist groups and their supporters and moderate Islamists should be supported. The definition of “extreme Islamists” has expanded in the US’ eyes and some groups, which had not been seen as a threat previously, has been added to the blacklist. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq and combating religionist terror symbolized by Osama ben Laden, the US ostensibly wanted to eliminate the influence of extreme groups among the Muslims. However, the US’ steps have not achieved this aim; on the contrary, these steps have damaged the moderates and have consolidated the radicals. The US, whose policy of supporting Israel’s operations in Palestine has become clearer, has been the target of reactions from not only the Muslim world but also the entire globe because of its malpractice on human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US, as if it was trying to verify the claims of al-Qaeda and similar organizations, has provided fertile ground for religionist terrorism even in places where these groups were non-existent or weak. Deepening the polarization as a result of its policies, the US should be aware that moderates will not be taken much seriously in this climate. Today, al-Qaeda and similar groups are much stronger then they were before September 11; that is, al-Qaeda is gradually winning the war as a result of the US policies. The US almost works to justify the extremes and to keep the moderates away. As corpses of children are carried in Palestine, images of torture and maltreatment in Iraq are disseminated all around the world, innocent civilians are insulted with night raids to their homes, people leaving mosques in Afghanistan are recklessly slaughtered in mass, how can the US win the war on terrorism? Or, the question to be asked is “is this the war on terror?” The mistakes done as a consequence of war on terror have increased the radicalization in the Islamic world. The anti-Americanism and –Westernism has reached its peak. Now in the field, there is only room for the extremes of the both sides. The sentiments are reciprocal. This is not the war on terror, but the invitation to terror.
The Balance Lost, No New Order Taken Place: Another effect of the U.S.’ operations to eliminate ‘terror’ has been the breakdown of regional and global balances which was established in the Cold War and continued for a while afterwards. Worst of all is that there hasn’t been a restoration of the balance so far. The U.S. has changed the rules of its partnership with countries in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. As a matter of fact, these countries were imposed conditions which are currently unacceptable to them. It is possible for these countries to ally with the U.S. by approving these conditions; however, if they do so, they lose their ability to survive independently. Moreover, it is questionable whether these countries, even if they approve the conditions, will be as much included in the US policies as they used to be. For the U.S. has launched a unilateral project in the Middle East. For example, it is contentious to what extent the Pakistan’s assistance to the US in the Central Asia has contributed to an American-Pakistani rapprochement. Pakistan might have some benefits in the short term in return for its assistance, but its effects in the middle- and long-run are still unknown. Similarly, the global balances have shifted significantly. The US has quickly settled in the Western coasts of the Black Sea via NATO and has remarkably narrowed the Russian zone of influence. Also, after invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has set up bases in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia.(10) The US, not satisfied with that, also opposes the Russian bases in this region. For instance, the former Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated during his term that Russia should evacuate all bases in Georgia because they had no more military purposes.(11) By the same token, the US plans to narrow China’s zone of influence and to strengthen American bases in that region. Also, the damaged US-France and US-Germany relations during the Iraq Crisis are, in fact, not only related with Iraq but also with the global competition. The balance on this issue has also been ruined, but there haven’t been any efforts to restore it.
In short, the US strategy in the post-9/11 period has had very negative consequences all over the world. Neither the US nor the world will stay the same hereafter.
Translated from Turkish by A. Noyan OZKAYA, USAK