The
phenomenon of terrorism
The group agreed that
the tragic events of September 11, 2001, had a profound effect on
the international scene, as well as on the psyche and foreign policy
of the United States. It was pointed out that as a result of attacks,
many people lost their sense of security and stability. There was
a wave of suicides, and use of antidepressant drugs. Irrational non-specific
fear produced symptoms of paranoia and anxiety. There were also realistic
fears that a global civil war might be starting .
The response of the Bush Administration was also worrying. There was
an initial worldwide outpouring of sympathy for the US and for the
families of the innocent victims of the attacks, but this sympathy
was soon combined with alarm when President Bush claimed the right
to unilaterally initiate war against potential enemies and when civil
liberties began to be eroded by antiterrorist measures.
In discussing the phenomenon of terrorism, we found it hard to agree
on a definition. One of the participants proposed that by definition,
terrorism has to be committed by a non-state actor, that the act must
be indiscriminate, the victims innocent, and the purpose politically
motivated. However the majority of the group members felt that limiting
the definition of terrorism to non-state actors ignored similarities
and causal relationships linking state terror to non-state terror.
For example, in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, there is
a circular causal relationship between the use of helicopters and
tanks against unarmed civilians by Israel and the suicide bombings
by Palestinians. Most of us felt that states can also act as terrorists,
when they maintain their power by fear rather than by democratic principles,
when they violate human rights, or kill large numbers of their own
citizens, when they invade foreign countries, or when they produce
massive destruction by strategic bombing. States normally have a monopoly
on the use of force, but under normal circumstances this use of force
is constrained by the safeguards of law and the principles of human
rights. When states act outside the law, it was felt, they act as
terrorists.
We agreed that in combating terrorism, it is extremely important to
examine the reasons why people become terrorists, and to eliminate
those causes. One cannot get rid of terrorism by killing or jailing
individual terrorists, since others will spring up in their places.
Our only chance is to understand and to correct the root causes of
the phenomenon, remembering, of course, that no motivation can possibly
excuse violent acts directed at innocent people. It was pointed out
that the September 11 attacks against the United States were apparently
motivated partly by anger and frustration over what was perceived
to be US bias in favour of Israel, and partly by anger caused by US
troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Terrorism often arises as the result of unbearable situations, which
cannot be corrected in any other way. To suppress terrorism, we have
to strike at the base, at the unbearable situation that fuels the
fanaticism. Religion is often an excuse, where poverty, ignorance,
injustice, dictatorship and hopelessness are the real reasons.
Because of the enormous increase in global communication, the world
is now a fishbowl. The lifestyle of the rich is exhibited in a frustrating
way to the poor, who have no chance to emulate it. The have-nots of
the world have nothing to hang onto except their ethnic identity,
because material goods are not available to them. Terrorism is the
poor man's weapon - a way of waging an unsymmetrical struggle against
a superior power.
Finally, we noted that in spite of its powerful psychological impact,
terrorism is statistically a minor problem compared with many others.
Globally, the numbers of deaths involved are extremely small compared
with the mortality from AIDS or starvation. We must not allow the
issue of terrorism to distract our attention from the other very serious
problems that the world is facing.
Resources and conflict
Conflict is often found where communities compete for a source of
wealth. Thus, the accelerating demand for water, oil, timber and mineral
resources may be important sources of conflict in the 21st century.
Both population growth and the increased use of automobiles will greatly
increase the demand for resources.
Among the "loot-seeking wars" which were mentioned in our
discussion were conflicts in Angola, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Congo, Indonesia,
East Timor, Fiji, Colombia, Chechnya, Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan. In
many cases, indigenous people have been intimidated and driven out
of their traditional lands, for example by the use of fire, so that
the resources of these lands may be seized.
A discussion paper presented to our group focused especially on the
conflicts over oil which threaten to develop during the next few decades.
A report was published by the US National Energy Policy Group on May
17, 2001. In this report (known as the "Cheney report" after
its principal author, Vice President Dick Cheney) it is estimated
that by 2020, the United States will have to increase its imports
of foreign oil by 60%. Most of this oil is only available in regions,
which are either politically unstable or else unsympathetic with the
United States. The discussion paper linked the Bush Administration's
increased military spending and wish to project military power into
these regions with its desire to insure future availability of oil
for the US.
The group noted that during the colonial era, military power was often
used by industrial nations to obtain natural resources, under the
cover of improving the lot of people in the less developed countries.
Colonization started to end with the founding of the United Nations,
but now we are facing a new avalanche of massive power, outside international
law, and outside control.
Oil is important for the United States, but it is also important for
the rest of the world. Pugwash should raise its voice against the
use of unchecked unilateral military power to monopolize resources.
We should use international law, and especially the International
Criminal Court, as the medium for guaranteeing justice. No country
is above the law.
On a more positive note, our group thought that resources can in some
cases be a source of cooperation rather than of conflict. For example,
it is predicted that the population of the Nile Basin will triple
during the next century. In order to support this increased population,
cooperation in the field of water resources will be needed. Mutual
planning of water use could lead to other forms of cooperation within
the region.
Strengthening multilateral security cooperation
Our working group discussed a paper which emphasized that the goal
of all those who desire a peaceful world must be to substitute the
rule of law for the rule of force in the domain of international security.
The paper noted that this goal is the same as that embodied in the
United Nations Charter, but that as we survey the current international
scene, we seem to be veering away from it.
Our multilateral institutions have been weakened by the Bush Administration's
reluctance to accept the constraints of international law and international
treaties. Examples of this include withdrawal from the ABM Treaty
and initiation of a national missile defence program; withdrawal from
the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court; postponing
action on the Biological Weapons Convention Protocol; rejecting the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the proposal for developing
a new class of nuclear weapons.
The unilateralism of the current US Administration is only thinly
disguised by its eagerness in seeking coalitions on an issue-by-issue
basis, for example in dealing with terrorism or in combating international
drug traffic. The discussion paper proposed that other nations, who
wish to see our multilateral institutions strengthened rather than
weakened, might act by refusing to join such coalitions unless the
US participated in building norms that cumulatively would constitute
an international rule of law. Several examples were given:
Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia might make participation
in a coalition against Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq conditional
on the authority of the Security Council. In the absence of a Security
Council mandate for action against Iraq, they could refuse to allow
the US to use their land bases or air space. This example touches
the broader question of "unilateral preemptive self-defence",
which is prohibited under the UN Charter.
A second example given in the discussion paper was participation in
anti-terror programs. This could be made conditional on withdrawal
of US objections to the International Criminal Court and US participation
in other multilateral institutions. The jurisdiction of the ICC might
even be extended to cover crimes of terror.
Finally, the discussion paper stressed the important role of NGO's
in working to replace the rule of force by the rule of law. These
organizations have shown their effectiveness in the past, for example
in environmental and human rights issues Their help is now needed
to prevent the erosion of our multinational institutions and to support
the authority of the United Nations.
In discussing this paper, our group added that Pugwash, as an NGO,
must do its part in strengthening both the United Nations and the
International Criminal Court. The efforts of Pugwash could be coordinated
with those of other NGO's. Pugwash could be made more open, and it
could make efforts to influence public opinion.
Much of the discussion of the paper was related to the current concentration
of power in the hands of the US. One of the group members remarked
that empires are not necessarily a bad thing, and that the United
States would be his choice for the country best suited to have an
empire. The majority of the group, however, thought that unilateral
international power is inconsistent with the principle of equality
of nations and of peoples. The group also felt that within the United
States, the country's traditionally egalitarian principles are now
at risk. The danger of the fight against terrorism is that it entails
invasion of privacy, restraints on free movements of people and ideas,
and control of communications (phone-tapping, e-mail supervision,
press censorship) that may in the end compromise democracy. The more
the US becomes an empire, we felt, the less it will be a democracy.
The planned attack on Iraq was thought to be potentially catastrophic
because of the vision which motivates it. It was noted the "power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". However, our
group felt that the United States is many things, and that there are
many voices within the US which disagree with the unilateralism of
the present Administration. We should appeal to these voices of dissent,
and encourage them.
Regarding the threat of a US invasion of Iraq, and a consequent threatened
destabilization of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, it was suggested
that it might be useful for Pugwash to send a delegation to Iraq to
discuss the situation informally with Iraqi scientists. During the
Cold War, such informal channels of discussion proved useful, and
this might be the case again. However, it is possible that Pugwash
scientists would be prohibited from talking directly to scientists
employed by the Iraqi government, since this was the experience of
a recent delegation sent to Iraq by International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War.
Looking towards the more distant future, we discussed ways in which
the United Nations might be improved and made more effective. A future
United Nations might have a legislature, which would build up a system
of international laws, guided by the principle of subsidiarity. These
laws, acting on individuals rather than on states, could be enforced
by an expanded version of the International Criminal Court. The notion
of state security might be replaced by concept of security for peoples.
An Assembly of Peoples, with delegates directly elected by popular
vote, could be added to the General Assembly. Thus a bicameral system
could be established, analogous to the Senate and the House of Representatives.
We also noted that there is a need for reforming international monetary
organizations, such as the World Bank, and the International Monetary
Fund. These institutions are, in fact, a part of the United Nations,
and their influence ought to be used to help the poorer countries,
but this has sometimes not been the case. Debt relief for the less-developed
countries is urgently needed.
Finally, we concluded that ethical considerations and altruism, combined
with respect for human rights and the environment, are urgently needed
in our increasingly technological modern world. We need to achieve
ethical and political maturity to match our scientific progress.
