If there is no global agreement on a definition of terrorism, can there be global cooperationagainst it? We don't even know what it is we're fighting till we have a satisfactory definition.
Arguments for the "Global War on Terror"
In spite of the lack of a clear legal definition of terrorism, a "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT)was declared after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This was possibly the single most traumaticevent that this nation had ever experienced. A shocked people readily accepted the need for immediate reaction.Advocates of the GWOT are certainly justified in their view that the murder of civilians and thedestruction of vital infrastructure are criminal, and should be defended against. People have theright not to live in fear. Terrorism creates economic instability especially in developing nations, byaffecting trade, tourism, and foreign investment. Terror denigrates civilization by dividing thenation, causing suspicion, and exacerbating racial, economic, and cultural tensions. Security andpublic safety is a legitimate concern, and it is the prime duty of government.Most people on this earth desire justice, peace, and have a similar understanding of civilbehavior. Everyone perceives the hypocrisy of demanding that others abide by laws of behavior that we will not honor ourselves. No one would agree that giving up liberty to fight those who hateliberty is logical. Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, wishes to spend huge resourcescombating terrorism if those expenses will be counterproductive.
We all want to address the actual causes of terrorism and make efforts to reduce, and ultimately eliminate it. The question is: "What is an appropriate response?"
Terrorism and War
Some things need to be clear. Terrorists are at war, and according to many, war has no rules. Thisidea is not so far fetched, since civilians die at the hands of militaries daily. Most terrorist groupsclaim to be retaliating against aggression and war crimes already committed against them. If there is any legitimacy to this assertion it should be addressed.In times of war, crimes are often committed by all sides, including officially deployed militaries.The International Criminal Court was established on July 1, 2002 to prosecute war crimes suchas mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians, mass murder, genocide etc.Several states have criticized this court and have refused to participate. The United States,China, and Israel refuse to allow the court jurisdiction over their citizens. It has been argued thatsome actions of these countries could and should have been prosecuted.International courts established after WWII were accused of favoritism toward the victors. Somecontroversies are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, Agent Orange usedagainst civilian targets in Vietnam, and use of depleted uranium in operation Desert Storm and inthe recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.The global civilian death toll by acts of terror (as distinct from war crimes) is vastly eclipsed bythose of war. "Shock and Awe" or "Scorched Earth" policies, as well as attacks on civilianinfrastructure are common. States have waged "low intensity conflicts" that are indistinguishablefrom terrorism: sabotage, kidnapping, assassination, torture, and suppression of civilian dissentthrough support of brutal and corrupt governments (Sewall; White).
Leave a Comment