20 - 26 September 2001
Issue No.552
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 20 - 26 September 2001 Issue No.552 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
A common, human cause
Only a truly international alliance can eradicate terrorism, writes Hassan Nafaa*
Not even the most fertile imagination in Hollywood could have dreamt up a terrorist attack like the one on New York and Washington that was relayed via satellite to stunned television audiences around the world. Watching the horrifying scenes, it seemed that reality in our strange times can surpass even the wildest fantasies.
The coordinated terrorist attack targeted major symbols of US power and prestige and sought to expose the US as incapable not only of protecting its allies but of protecting itself and the lives of its citizens at home. This attack has ushered in a new phase in world history. The world is no longer the same as it was before 11 September.
Clearly, the human tragedy caused by this operation should overshadow all other considerations. A staggering number of innocent people died who had no connection whatsoever with the cause, whatever it may have been, that spurred the perpetrators. Although it will be some time before precise figures become available, the death toll is already estimated in the thousands and material losses are estimated at over $10 billion. These figures alone bring home the tragedy that has struck not only the US but all humanity, and compel us to treat this event with the utmost solemnity.
The events of 11 September were not the first terrorist operation against US targets; nor, perhaps, will they be the last. Yet they were completely different from previous attacks. For the first time in human history, an underground organisation brought about destruction and loss of human life on a scale known only in world wars.
Some argue that the US is primarily responsible for what happened. The arrogance, selfishness and heavy-handedness that have characterised its foreign policy have aroused anti-American animosity that is difficult to contain. Furthermore, its national security agencies proved utterly ineffective at preventing this appalling disaster. Yet, despite the cogency of this thinking, the success of this dreadful strike raises a far more crucial question. What if an underground network in the pay of the Mafia or working on behalf of some racist or ultraright-wing organisation were to mount a similar attack on, say, China, or launch a biological weapon in black or Arab neighbourhoods in the West, or anywhere else in the world? What would the recipients' reaction be? That we can even pose this question shows how terrorism in the age of globalisation is a threat to the security of all humanity, not just of a single nation. This is precisely why most of the world's governments have set aside their political differences with the US and hastened to declare their readiness to cooperate fully, not only in identifying the perpetrators of the recent terrorist attack, but in eradicating the terrorist peril.
Still, if the compelling human tragedy that has brought terrorism to the forefront of the international agenda presents a unique opportunity for concerted global action, political factors may undermine collective efforts from the outset. I remain very sceptical of Americans' ability to comprehend the true implications of what happened and to act accordingly.
WAR FOOTING: An Afghan man, bearing his worldly possessions, prepares to leave Kabul, fleeing the seemingly imminent US strikes. Another superpower, another attack: memories of the Soviet invasion are still fresh
There are practical limits to the monopoly on and the use of force. The peace and stability of all nations, including the US, are contingent upon the existence of an effective international security system, not upon one of unilateral hegemony. Moreover, terrorism, whether domestic or global, is far too complex a problem to be handled through security measures alone. In my opinion, terrorism includes all illegitimate use of force, regardless of the agent or the components. Just as combating terrorism on the domestic front requires a democratic system of government in which the rule of law prevails, so too does combating international terrorism require global democracy regulated by international law, rather than the dictates and national interests of the strongest. In other words, for the international fight against terrorism to be effective, the major powers and the US in particular must rethink many of their international policies and their mode of conduct.
Unfortunately, the only sound emerging from the US since the attack has been clamouring for revenge and the insistent thump of war drums. Never before in US history has a president been given unrestricted authority to wage war with such speed. Within a matter of days, Congress unanimously authorised the use of force against those responsible for the deadly attack and approved the necessary financial measures, while tens of thousands of military reservists were being called up. The rapidity of this response suggests that the US wants to recapture an element of its lost stature as quickly as possible, through a massive display of force.
Simultaneously, the US leadership does not want to look as though it is acting alone, and therefore seeks an international seal of approval in the form of an "international alliance" for a war on terrorism. This move is very reminiscent of the international alliance to liberate Kuwait behind which Washington pursued its own agenda once it had obtained the necessary mandate to wage war on Iraq from the Security Council. I only hope the Arabs and Muslims will remember the adage: once bitten, twice shy.
No one can object to the US's right to respond to the violence committed against it, and it is necessary to sympathise with its intense desire to regain its lost prestige. Any other nation that faced those circumstances would respond in the same way. The US, however, should also realise that it bears a considerable portion of the blame for the chaos prevailing in the world, which it has encouraged through unwarranted recourse to force in international relations.
If the US truly wishes to eradicate all forms of terrorism, it must comply with the aims and agenda of the international community, and work within the framework of the UN Charter and international law. There are several ways in which the US can demonstrate its commitment to these principles. First, it should refrain from undertaking any military action until it has fully confirmed the identity of those involved in the attacks, made this knowledge public, and shown willingness to disclose the information obtained in the investigations. There are considerable doubts as to the impartiality and integrity of US intelligence, not to mention fears that investigation will be manipulated in the service of political objectives. The US must do its utmost to allay such suspicions.
Once it has identified the perpetrators, the US should pursue all legitimate means to apprehend them and bring them to an open and fair trial. Preferably such a trial should take place in an international court of justice, reaffirming the role of the international community in combating terrorism. What is important is that no military measures be taken unless other means fail to achieve the acquired results: the arrest and trial of the suspects.
Simultaneously, the international community must coordinate a massive campaign that obliges all nations to cooperate fully in the uprooting of terrorist networks across the globe. The primary objective of this effort should be to identify individuals and organisations, means of recruitment and financing, and operating methods and locations. Such an effort is important, not only to distinguish terrorist rings from national liberation movements exercising legitimate resistance against occupation, but to determine which governments or other international agencies may be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorist activities.
Finally, once all the available information is compiled, a comprehensive plan must be drawn up to eradicate terrorist organisations and prevent their regeneration. The plan may include some "surgical" military operations, but its primary focus should be to mobilise all possible non-military resources to remedy the root causes of terrorism. If military action proves inevitable in this comprehensive battle, then all operations must be conducted under the full supervision of the Security Council. The US cannot act independently, as it did in the Gulf War.
Unfortunately, the West and the US in particular will probably never contemplate handling the current crisis in the manner outlined above. Among the many disincentives is that an international drive to unearth terrorism may expose Western nations or their allies that have sought the assistance of terrorism or terrorist networks to realise political objectives.
I fear, therefore, that the US will attempt to take advantage of the current climate of international sympathy and rally support for an international alliance under US command. This alliance will be railroaded into serving American political priorities rather than the aspirations of the international community. Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan top the US's list of nations that sponsor terrorism, while Hizbullah and many Palestinian and Islamic resistance groups are viewed by the US as terrorist organisations. Should Arab and Islamic nations take part in a US-led alliance that will aim to topple the regimes in Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Iraq, and to eliminate Palestinian and Islamic resistance organisations? I suggest not, for the US agenda is guaranteed, above all else, to hasten the moment of victory for the Zionist project. Instead, I believe that the Arab and Muslim nations should stand behind a truly international alliance to combat the illegitimate use of force in all its forms -- which is to say behind a comprehensive campaign to combat terrorism according to the United Nations agenda.
* The writer is the head of the Political Science Department at Cairo University.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page