A new type of war

After the 11 September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the world will never be the same again, writes Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

Following the horrific terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and amid fears that other attacks are in the offing, America has mobilised for what it calls a "war against terrorism." Whether the term is a literal description of what has been set in motion or a figurative description motivated by the impact of the surprise and the enormity of the catastrophe, the fact is that the battle lines have been drawn for an altogether new type of war, a protracted confrontation between a hitherto seemingly impregnable bastion of security at the pinnacle of world society -- both in the literal and figurative sense -- and a nebulous enemy that stands outside the structure of world order as we know it.

Traditionally, wars have been fought between states or, in the case of civil wars, between different factions within the same state. This war has not been declared against any specific state; the enemy is not an entity with a delineated form on the world map. True, the first target is expected to be Afghanistan, but that is because it is known to be the hideout of the man suspected of masterminding the 11 September outrage, Osama Bin Laden, not because America has any direct quarrel with Afghanistan itself.

This new type of war, already referred to as the first war of the new century, indeed, of the new millennium, reflects the underside of globalisation. It is not a war linked to any specific locality, for the practitioners of terrorism are spread over an indeterminate number of countries, and the war will necessarily spill over the clearly established borders of specific states.

Moreover, the new type of war is being waged by a new breed of people, committed ideologues willing to use their own lives as a weapon. They are not only ready to sacrifice themselves without hesitation but to do so collectively, in an organised and deliberate manner. The only historical precedent for such collective self-sacrifice are the kamikaze, members of a corps in the Japanese airforce whose mission was to crash their aircraft, loaded with explosives, into enemy targets during World War II. The various elements of the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were so interrelated that the failure of one link could have brought about the failure of the whole enterprise. The war against terrorism depends less on military might than on intelligence, very much in keeping with the requirements of the Information Age. Terrorism is a closed system whose operations are necessarily shrouded in secrecy, and access to information is decisive in determining the outcome of the confrontation.

The plan that was carried out with such devastating effect on 11 September depended for its success on the audacity, imagination, resourcefulness and determination of a group of people more than it did on the power of technology, proving that in the new type of war, where intelligence-gathering is of paramount importance, victory does not necessarily favour the more powerful protagonist. Despite its vastly superior technology, the United States failed to gather the intelligence necessary to avert the disaster. Some congressmen were so angered at what they consider an unforgivable lapse of security that they called for the resignation of CIA chief George Tenet, whom they accuse of relying more heavily on technology than on human sources of information in the gathering of intelligence.

As the dust settles after the terrorist attack on America, it is becoming increasingly clear that the thousands of innocent civilians killed are not its only casualties. The destruction of the World Trade Center, a symbol of financial and corporate might, has sent shock waves through many sectors of economic life. Stock markets are down, and economic recession is looming, unemployment is spreading, the insurance and airline sectors are reeling from the losses they incurred and the situation promises to get worse before it gets better. The collateral damage from the attack extends beyond America's borders to affect the entire capitalist world and the global economy as a whole.

Meanwhile, engineers are warning that the 20m- deep encasement in which the two towers of the World Trade Center were fixed could collapse with terrifying consequences, as this would allow the Hudson River to flood New York's subway system and wide areas of the city. On the economic front, the American airline industry is losing an estimated $1 billion a day because of the sharp decrease in air travel. Boeing has announced that it is laying off between 20 and 30 thousand employees because of an anticipated drop in sales, while American Airlines and United Airlines, whose planes were hijacked and used to carry out the attacks, are in an even worse predicament. The European aviation industry has also been affected by the fallout from the terrorist attacks, prompting the continent's largest carrier, British Airways, to ground 20 per cent of its fleet, reduce its flights by 10 per cent and announce enormous cuts in its workforce. And what applies to airline companies applies in varying degrees to many other businesses.

However, the most serious challenge is not what has happened so far, or what is still likely to happen. It is not the thousands of people killed or injured in the attacks but the fact that world order has been so compromised that an extremist group has dared to launch the most daring and spectacular terrorist operation in history at the heart of the self-appointed guardian of that order, the United States of America. Nor is there any reason to suppose that matters will stop there. Worst-case scenarios could be on the cards, scenarios involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

In the face of such a terrifying prospect, the issue is not to eliminate a specific group of terrorists, but to eliminate terrorism itself with all its alternative scenarios. The liquidation of the present generation of existing terrorists will not do the job. New generations could emerge tomorrow. This makes it compulsory to accompany action for the elimination of terrorists with action for the removal of the reasons for terrorism in the world system, namely, growing inequalities, discrimination, alienation, double standards, etc. Only a radical reform of the world system will remove the incentives that drive people to kill thousands of innocents, and themselves in the bargain, because they see death as a lesser evil than the conditions in which they live.

Bush is certainly aware that the challenge he is facing goes beyond one specific act of terrorism, which, however ferocious it was, might well turn out to be only the first salvo in a long and bloody war. But his main concern at this juncture is to bring closure to one of the most painful episodes in America's history by exacting revenge for the attack and reasserting America's authority and prestige, even if it is questionable whether the real culprits are the ones now singled out. He is under intense popular pressure to demonstrate that he is worthy of his position as president and commander-in-chief, and is capable of rising to the challenge. He is unlikely in the present circumstances to embark on a serious reassessment of the world order with a view to addressing the underlying causes for the growing threat of global terrorism.

If it is true that terrorism should be fought mercilessly, it is also true that no military attack should be launched in the absence of irrefutable evidence of guilt. And extreme care should be taken to ensure that the war against terrorism is not marked by violations of international law.

Since the promulgation of the UN Charter in the aftermath of World War II, war is acceptable only in two cases: either by a resolution of the Security Council, or in case of self-defence against an invading army. The war now undertaken by Bush fulfills neither of these two conditions. No resolution has been issued by the Security Council, and the preparations now underway against Afghanistan do not enjoy the unequivocal support of the five great powers with veto rights in the council. Moreover, it cannot be claimed that the United States was the object of an aggression by an invading army. It is true that buildings on American soil were attacked by hijacked American planes, and that these planes destroyed buildings that Americans regards as symbols of America's greatness. But could such an act be identified with the onslaught of an invading army?

This would not be the first time Washington undertakes a military enterprise abroad without resorting to the Security Council. There have been its systematic raids, with British participation, against Iraq, its raid over Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and its raids against Serbia during the Kosovo crisis. There are good reasons to fear that the campaign to seize Bin Laden, dead or alive, may result in widespread carnage in Afghanistan, and probably beyond. Such disregard for international legality could well expose the United Nations to the threat of collapse as the League of Nations collapsed before World War II, in conditions where the rule of law is more necessary than ever.