- Email: [email protected]
A world war against terrorism
EDITORIAL
THE LANCET Volume 358, Number 9286
A world war against terrorism “Terrorism is part of the dark side of globalisation. However sadly, it is part of doing business in the world.” Such was General Colin Powell’s evidence before the US Senate in May this year. How prophetic his words were to prove. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, terrorism rose to become a pressing and far-reaching threat to human life. Politicians across the western world have declared as acts of war the deliberate destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon, and the attempted targeting of the White House. The world’s health now has a new scourge. But immediately one faces a problem with this notion of “war”. Typically, terrorists avoid direct military conflict. Instead, the terrorist aims to cause immediate violent damage and loss of life. His intention is to instil lasting fear among those people under attack. The terrorist is entirely rational, calculated, and discriminating. His actions are part of a political and ideological strategy. Violence is not only possible and acceptable—it is necessary. There are few lessons from history to draw on. The war being waged by these terrorists is against symbols and civilians, a war designed to maximise psychological wounds of grief, panic, and confusion. The response will be a counter-war against a diaspora of people held together only by a cause—in this case, presumably, a hatred of perceived western, especially US, foreign policy towards the Muslim world. But while individual nation-states may provide residence for, even protection of, these terrorists, the enemy is not a single culture, country, or people. It is partly the scale of the tragedy in the USA that shocks us. But it is also the instantaneous and visible nature of the trauma. Terrorism amplified by television. And in a country with the most advanced technical systems of security and surveillance, the intelligence failure that allowed these attacks to take place is hard to comprehend. The streets of lower Manhattan, drenched as they are in dust and debris, are daily reminders of the meticulous coordination and success with which these attacks were completed. And with this scene comes the chilling knowledge that America and its western allies are profoundly vulnerable. We have entered a new era of superterrorism, one that has succeeded in eroding confidence in governments throughout the western world. THE LANCET • Vol 358 • September 22, 2001
Perversely, terrorism thrives in an open society. After these thousands of deaths, we have learned remarkably quickly that the terrorists who committed these crimes lived freely in the USA and Germany, were trained to fly by US aviators, took advantage of lax security arrangements at airports, and evaded weak intelligence services. A city such as New York provides ample targets for terrorist activity—symbols of American power, concentrated centres of population, and ready media coverage. The calculations of terrorists must be tactically balanced. Their attacks are ruthless and savage to gain the attention they crave. But the terrorist act must avoid a reaction that will destroy the terrorist movement or the cause it espouses. In any attack on the USA, the terrorists had to believe that their cause had such deep roots in their homelands that even this catastrophic act of violence would not adversely affect their popular base. Here is the frightening equation for western governments to solve—these latest terrorists estimated that anti-American feeling runs so deep across a sufficiently large part of the world that, whatever the western reaction, their cause will survive. We might reasonably ask whether these terrorists have gone too far for their own supporters’ sympathies to be sustained. Most observers will say yes, including those who live in countries most likely to be aggrieved by US foreign policy. The extraordinary intimacy of the attacks on the World Trade towers redefines the cruelty of terrorism. Pictures of office workers jumping from these towers, choosing death by crushing injury over fire or asphyxiation, is almost too brutal to conceive. Most Middle-Eastern newspapers—for example, those in Libya, Syria, and Iran—have expressed their disapproval at the violence. Yet many commentators have also pointed out the strength of anti-American feeling that seemed to create the conditions for these terrorist acts. Whatever grievances are felt and justifications claimed, the assault on America’s leading cities last week can neither be condoned nor simply understood, only utterly condemned. Terrorism destabilises the whole world, not one nation. In the short term, the Bush administration must show military restraint combined with assiduous collection of evidence. His government has to prove to the court of world opinion just who was responsible 937
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
EDITORIAL
for these attacks. Already, a prime suspect has been identified but great care has also been taken to damp down reflex anti-Islamism. When Bush says that “We are at war” and his Secretary of State calls for a “global assault against terrorism”, the public surely knows that there is no easy way to quash the terrorist threat. Fighting terror with terror only risks harm to more civilians, an approach that will foster the very conditions that led to these latest attacks. Diplomatic efforts through the UN Security Council, NATO, and throughout the Middle-East are building a consensus to support future US action. The target is not only an individual but also those nation-states that have provided financial, military, or operational assistance to terrorists. In normal circumstances, economic and legal measures would be set in place to bring those responsible for terrorist acts to justice. To what extent the US government will use these channels remains unclear. The escalating political rhetoric of the past week suggests that consensus will be swiftly followed by a forceful military response. Exactly what constitutes a just response is now causing the world great anxiety. Nations will differ in their judgments, with potentially grave consequences for peace. The protection of civilian populations must be the overriding consideration for western politicians. In the longer term, counter-terrorist measures have three goals. First, terrorist organisations will have to be identified. In 1999, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism identified 44 organisations that engaged in terrorist activities. Intensive intelligence gathering is the key to tracking those who are part of the cellular substructure of these groups. But organisations that base themselves on religious belief have proved almost impossible to penetrate. Harm reduction through deterrence is therefore the second goal. At home, US politicians will find it hard to gather support for covert operations to neutralise terrorism. In an open society, where civil rights are so highly cherished, privacy and liberty are almost unchallengable. Will the American public really accept new laws on identity cards, detention without trial, immigration and refugees, police access to email networks, monitoring of telephone calls, and extensive street camera surveillance? Will people acquiesce to the inevitably intrusive day-to-day bureaucracy that such legislation would bring? Looking abroad, western countries will have to reflect on the causes of these terrorist acts. The questions are hard to ask at any time, but especially now. Why has so much hatred built up against the USA? What has led nation-states to harbour terrorists with apparent enthusiasm? To what extent should the USA and its allies modify their policies to ameliorate the terrorist threat? Is this appeasement or realpolitik? 938
How can the incentives for terrorists be diminished? This debate has barely started. But one difficult fact will have to be faced. For many nations that were born out of what was once labelled terrorism, efforts to eradicate totally a method of protest that was part of their own historic political struggle are likely to be resisted, irrespective of their leaders’ horror at the events in New York and Washington. Diplomacy will be confronted by histories that cannot be separated from politics. What further international action can be taken? New laws concerning the extradition and trial of terrorists would be welcome, together with a stronger legal framework to protect the legitimacy of antiterrorist measures. But a central problem for those trying to construct such a framework is that terrorism has no clear meaning in international law. Terrorism refers to a collection of non-state and state actions that defy a single definition. Terrorism is less a descriptive legal term than it is a moral judgment. Formulating international law around such an ambiguous concept will not be easy. Is a new approach needed? In the aftermath of last week’s tragedy, there is an emerging spirit of international solidarity against terrorism. While the UN is vital to building consensus in response to individual terrorist acts, it is poorly designed to tackle terrorism in the long term. There is a case to be made for a new international organisation that coordinates intelligence gathering, thinks about the protection of cities and transportation routes, and sponsors legal and political change. Given that international collaboration is in its infancy, and that even worse threats—biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction—are at hand, a new global coalition against terror seems necessary. A final counter-terrorist measure must be the reassurance of the public, since it is the ultimate goal of the terrorist to create a state of pervasive fear. Yet reassurance is difficult to convey because success against terrorists is hard to measure. The absence of attack is the only outcome that matters, but restoration of public confidence may require more. Perhaps there is one further opportunity to come from the assault on America. The US government is working with the countries of the world in an unprecedented way. For now, America is neither isolated, nor does it seek isolation. The urban carnage in New York and our reaction to it has shown that we all live in one world where the vast majority of people seek peace to protect themselves, the health of their families, and all that they hold dear. To keep our world safe requires engagement with, respect for, and continual vigilance concerning all peoples of the world. The Lancet
THE LANCET • Vol 358 • September 22, 2001
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
THE LANCET Volume 358, Number 9286
A world war against terrorism “Terrorism is part of the dark side of globalisation. However sadly, it is part of doing business in the world.” Such was General Colin Powell’s evidence before the US Senate in May this year. How prophetic his words were to prove. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, terrorism rose to become a pressing and far-reaching threat to human life. Politicians across the western world have declared as acts of war the deliberate destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon, and the attempted targeting of the White House. The world’s health now has a new scourge. But immediately one faces a problem with this notion of “war”. Typically, terrorists avoid direct military conflict. Instead, the terrorist aims to cause immediate violent damage and loss of life. His intention is to instil lasting fear among those people under attack. The terrorist is entirely rational, calculated, and discriminating. His actions are part of a political and ideological strategy. Violence is not only possible and acceptable—it is necessary. There are few lessons from history to draw on. The war being waged by these terrorists is against symbols and civilians, a war designed to maximise psychological wounds of grief, panic, and confusion. The response will be a counter-war against a diaspora of people held together only by a cause—in this case, presumably, a hatred of perceived western, especially US, foreign policy towards the Muslim world. But while individual nation-states may provide residence for, even protection of, these terrorists, the enemy is not a single culture, country, or people. It is partly the scale of the tragedy in the USA that shocks us. But it is also the instantaneous and visible nature of the trauma. Terrorism amplified by television. And in a country with the most advanced technical systems of security and surveillance, the intelligence failure that allowed these attacks to take place is hard to comprehend. The streets of lower Manhattan, drenched as they are in dust and debris, are daily reminders of the meticulous coordination and success with which these attacks were completed. And with this scene comes the chilling knowledge that America and its western allies are profoundly vulnerable. We have entered a new era of superterrorism, one that has succeeded in eroding confidence in governments throughout the western world. THE LANCET • Vol 358 • September 22, 2001
Perversely, terrorism thrives in an open society. After these thousands of deaths, we have learned remarkably quickly that the terrorists who committed these crimes lived freely in the USA and Germany, were trained to fly by US aviators, took advantage of lax security arrangements at airports, and evaded weak intelligence services. A city such as New York provides ample targets for terrorist activity—symbols of American power, concentrated centres of population, and ready media coverage. The calculations of terrorists must be tactically balanced. Their attacks are ruthless and savage to gain the attention they crave. But the terrorist act must avoid a reaction that will destroy the terrorist movement or the cause it espouses. In any attack on the USA, the terrorists had to believe that their cause had such deep roots in their homelands that even this catastrophic act of violence would not adversely affect their popular base. Here is the frightening equation for western governments to solve—these latest terrorists estimated that anti-American feeling runs so deep across a sufficiently large part of the world that, whatever the western reaction, their cause will survive. We might reasonably ask whether these terrorists have gone too far for their own supporters’ sympathies to be sustained. Most observers will say yes, including those who live in countries most likely to be aggrieved by US foreign policy. The extraordinary intimacy of the attacks on the World Trade towers redefines the cruelty of terrorism. Pictures of office workers jumping from these towers, choosing death by crushing injury over fire or asphyxiation, is almost too brutal to conceive. Most Middle-Eastern newspapers—for example, those in Libya, Syria, and Iran—have expressed their disapproval at the violence. Yet many commentators have also pointed out the strength of anti-American feeling that seemed to create the conditions for these terrorist acts. Whatever grievances are felt and justifications claimed, the assault on America’s leading cities last week can neither be condoned nor simply understood, only utterly condemned. Terrorism destabilises the whole world, not one nation. In the short term, the Bush administration must show military restraint combined with assiduous collection of evidence. His government has to prove to the court of world opinion just who was responsible 937
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
EDITORIAL
for these attacks. Already, a prime suspect has been identified but great care has also been taken to damp down reflex anti-Islamism. When Bush says that “We are at war” and his Secretary of State calls for a “global assault against terrorism”, the public surely knows that there is no easy way to quash the terrorist threat. Fighting terror with terror only risks harm to more civilians, an approach that will foster the very conditions that led to these latest attacks. Diplomatic efforts through the UN Security Council, NATO, and throughout the Middle-East are building a consensus to support future US action. The target is not only an individual but also those nation-states that have provided financial, military, or operational assistance to terrorists. In normal circumstances, economic and legal measures would be set in place to bring those responsible for terrorist acts to justice. To what extent the US government will use these channels remains unclear. The escalating political rhetoric of the past week suggests that consensus will be swiftly followed by a forceful military response. Exactly what constitutes a just response is now causing the world great anxiety. Nations will differ in their judgments, with potentially grave consequences for peace. The protection of civilian populations must be the overriding consideration for western politicians. In the longer term, counter-terrorist measures have three goals. First, terrorist organisations will have to be identified. In 1999, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism identified 44 organisations that engaged in terrorist activities. Intensive intelligence gathering is the key to tracking those who are part of the cellular substructure of these groups. But organisations that base themselves on religious belief have proved almost impossible to penetrate. Harm reduction through deterrence is therefore the second goal. At home, US politicians will find it hard to gather support for covert operations to neutralise terrorism. In an open society, where civil rights are so highly cherished, privacy and liberty are almost unchallengable. Will the American public really accept new laws on identity cards, detention without trial, immigration and refugees, police access to email networks, monitoring of telephone calls, and extensive street camera surveillance? Will people acquiesce to the inevitably intrusive day-to-day bureaucracy that such legislation would bring? Looking abroad, western countries will have to reflect on the causes of these terrorist acts. The questions are hard to ask at any time, but especially now. Why has so much hatred built up against the USA? What has led nation-states to harbour terrorists with apparent enthusiasm? To what extent should the USA and its allies modify their policies to ameliorate the terrorist threat? Is this appeasement or realpolitik? 938
How can the incentives for terrorists be diminished? This debate has barely started. But one difficult fact will have to be faced. For many nations that were born out of what was once labelled terrorism, efforts to eradicate totally a method of protest that was part of their own historic political struggle are likely to be resisted, irrespective of their leaders’ horror at the events in New York and Washington. Diplomacy will be confronted by histories that cannot be separated from politics. What further international action can be taken? New laws concerning the extradition and trial of terrorists would be welcome, together with a stronger legal framework to protect the legitimacy of antiterrorist measures. But a central problem for those trying to construct such a framework is that terrorism has no clear meaning in international law. Terrorism refers to a collection of non-state and state actions that defy a single definition. Terrorism is less a descriptive legal term than it is a moral judgment. Formulating international law around such an ambiguous concept will not be easy. Is a new approach needed? In the aftermath of last week’s tragedy, there is an emerging spirit of international solidarity against terrorism. While the UN is vital to building consensus in response to individual terrorist acts, it is poorly designed to tackle terrorism in the long term. There is a case to be made for a new international organisation that coordinates intelligence gathering, thinks about the protection of cities and transportation routes, and sponsors legal and political change. Given that international collaboration is in its infancy, and that even worse threats—biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction—are at hand, a new global coalition against terror seems necessary. A final counter-terrorist measure must be the reassurance of the public, since it is the ultimate goal of the terrorist to create a state of pervasive fear. Yet reassurance is difficult to convey because success against terrorists is hard to measure. The absence of attack is the only outcome that matters, but restoration of public confidence may require more. Perhaps there is one further opportunity to come from the assault on America. The US government is working with the countries of the world in an unprecedented way. For now, America is neither isolated, nor does it seek isolation. The urban carnage in New York and our reaction to it has shown that we all live in one world where the vast majority of people seek peace to protect themselves, the health of their families, and all that they hold dear. To keep our world safe requires engagement with, respect for, and continual vigilance concerning all peoples of the world. The Lancet
THE LANCET • Vol 358 • September 22, 2001
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.