WAR ON TERROR: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The term ‘War on Terror’ was first declared by George W. Bush, the former President of United States on 20 September 2001 before a joint session of US Congress. He stated, "Our 'War on Terror' begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” What Bush did, in fact was to give a ‘global’ dimension to terror at large. A question naturally arises: how global is ‘globalized’ terrorism? Since 9/11, the Western countries focused their attention on ‘global terrorism’ and the ‘rogue states’ that support and or use it. Not much emphasis is put on terrorism at regional or national level. More often than not, national or regional terrorism is considered as nothing more than a local manifestation of global terrorism.

Several questions arose over this statement, time and again dissected, defended or discredited by all sections of the aware world, depending on which side of the wall they stood. Who is the target then? Is it one organization, or anybody the administration felt was sponsoring terrorists? What was to be the nature of this ‘global’ war? Was there a timeframe attached? What was the distinction between a state and a non state-actor that it is pursuing? Most of all, academicians, politicians and critiques raised one basic question, what was the definition of a ‘terrorist’ US was subscribing to?

The Al Qaeda is perceived to have a transnational aim as well as a being a transnational organization. Bush reasserted, “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make, either you are with us or with the terrorists”. “This is not just America’s fight alone. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight.” This is how terrorism has been ‘globalized’. The realist conception of ‘harmony of Interests’ has no clearer witness.
In this particular paper, a critical analysis on the ‘War on Terror’ is sought where different segments comprising this ‘War’ are looked at. I will divide my analysis in several thematic delineations namely;
• Definition of Terrorism, the persisting problem
• War on Terror, Rhetoric in West Asia
• State versus Non-State Terror
• War on Terror’s; Afghanistan to Iraq
• Human Rights concern
And summarize the overall impact this phenomenon has had on Western Asia and the rest of the world.

DEFINING A TERRORIST

Analysts may disagree on many aspects of the definition, but all converge on one point. There is no near universal accepted definition of the term and what is deemed a terrorist organization today is a constitutional entity tomorrow. The example of PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) would fit well in this particular respect. The dilemma in coining a consensual let alone a single definition to define ‘terrorism’ can be simply addressed by citing the two articles that was published in the ‘Economic and Political Weekly’. J. V. Despande notes that Achin Vanaik’s propositions on nuclear terrorism ('Nuclear Terrorism: A New Threshold?', January 26, 2002) lays more importance to ‘state terrorism’ as a greater menace to the mankind today than the terrorist acts of private, secret groups. Despande gives examples to show how terrorism ‘as practiced these days is not always a direct state activity. In some cases it is executed by proxy, using willing terrorist outfits as tools, a "mating of terrorist groups and a nation" as the US president (Bush) has described the phenomenon.’ He further argues, ‘Are not the states that actively sponsor terrorism of various groups as responsible for their actions as the terrorists themselves? Are these not instances of state terrorism?’ Vanaik then repeatedly addresses the point stating, ‘All regimes in some way or the other invoke terror and one could so easily fall into the unhelpful posture of calling all or most all regimes or states or countries terrorist in one way or the other. I believe it is far better, therefore, to make a distinction between terrorist regimes and democratic ones, which by definition are not terrorist governments or states but do and can carry out terrorist acts and campaigns internationally and at times domestically’

On a different angle, Charles Tilly observed, “No useful generalization covers all the different sorts of political interaction for which observers, analysts, and participants sometimes use the term terror, much less for terrorists and terrorism. But we can identify some order in the phenomenon by means of four steps: (1) noticing that a recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs widely in contentious politics and corresponds approximately to what many people mean by terror; (2) recognizing that a wide variety of individuals, groups, and networks sometimes employ that strategy; (3) relating the strategy systematically to other forms of political struggle proceeding in the same settings and populations; and (4) seeing that specialists in coercion ranging from government employees to bandits sometimes deploy terror under certain political circumstances, usually with far more devastating effects than the terror operations of nonspecialists.” He further elaborates on the ways in which ‘terror’ has been used as a strategy, its multiple uses for varied and differentiated ends. By large, he confirms that it would be an act of terror only when the end is in a specific, though not necessarily, political cause (Tilly, 2004)

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stated in May 2002: "In this global campaign against terrorism, no country has the luxury of remaining on the sidelines. There are no sidelines. Terrorists respect no limits, geographic or moral. The frontlines are everywhere and the stakes are high. Terrorism not only kills people. It also threatens democratic institutions, undermines economies, and destabilizes regions”. Even with a lack of clarity in the definitional term, a clear warning was dotted out to all states to stand against these ‘terrorist’ elements.


WAR ON TERROR: CHANGING RHETORIC IN THE REGION

The region of West Asia is often quoted as the most conflict prone area in the world. Conflicts of every flavor and kind can be found having a place in this region. However, as complex interdependence presupposes, no region can be in isolation from its global impact. The War on Terror, with its global impact, had a dent in all parts of the world. Where this region is concerned, the War on Terror had, however a direct and deliberate impact on the region.

President Bush in his famous State of the Union Address of 29 January, 2002 identified three countries with the label of Axis of Evil . North Korea apart, Iran and Iraq both fell in this region of West Asia. In May 6, 2002 John R. Bolton, who served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 until December 2006, gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil". In it he added three more nations to be grouped with the already mentioned rogue states: Libya, Syria, and Cuba. The criteria for inclusion in this grouping were: "state sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations" . The speech was widely reported as an expansion of the original axis of evil. This way, Syria also joined the terror ambit along with Iraq and Iran.

This rhetoric was continued in Canada on 1 December 2004, where Bush detailed his foreign policy objectives for his next term. First, he would build and rebuild international coalitions. This was perhaps the obvious outcome of the world criticism he had received due to his unilateral measures in Afghanistan and the deliberate misinterpretation of UNSCR 1441(2002) . Secondly, he would pursue vigorously the war on terrorism. Third, he would enhance “our own security by promoting freedom and hope and democracy in the broader Middle East.” Bush went out of his presidency widely criticized by both the world, as well as within the domestic constituency in America.

President Obama’s Administration however sees a more carefully drafted and nuanced approach to the War on Terror. In March 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama administration had stopped using the Bush-era War on Terror terminology. But coming up with an alternative phrase has proven difficult. The Obama administration reportedly tried to substitute "Overseas Contingency Operation," but quickly dropped this, as it did not hold well with the media. More recently, it has begun referring to its efforts as "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE. However, the term War on Terror, even with its negative connotations, remains identifiable for the ongoing struggle between the United States and its allies on the one hand and al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist movements and governments on the other. In June 2009, Obama clearly tried to delink Islam from Terrorism in order to improve US image in the Arab and the greater Islamic world in his landmark Cairo Speech. He started moving away from force to deliberation in order to achieve ends. President Obama has deliberately avoided a terrorism-centric approach and attempted to redefine and renew ties with West Asia based on “mutual respect.” His administration made a strategic decision to elevate Arab-Israeli peace as an overriding priority of U.S.-Mideast policy, recognizing the centrality of Palestine in Arab grievances toward the United States. Accordingly, American policymakers are now less interested in putting pressure on autocratic allies, whose support is seen as necessary for progress on the peace process.

STATE VERSUS NON-STATE TERROR

State Terrorism is where a government terrorizes its own population to control or repress them. These actions usually constitute the acknowledged policy of the government, and make use of official institutions such as the judiciary, police, military, and other government agencies. Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons on his own Kurdish population during the Gulf War is an example of State Terrorism. Another form commonly seen is State Sponsored Terrorism. The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by many groups and individuals, including historians, political theorists, government officials, and others. These accusations also include arguments that the US has funded, trained, and harbored individuals or groups who engaged in terrorism. The states in which the U.S. has allegedly conducted or supported terror operations include the Philippines, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Japan, Nicaragua, and Vietnam, along with its historic internal operations against Native Americans. Another example could be that of state sponsorship is the Syrian government's support of Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Non-State terrorism on the other hand comprise of a wider arena of all non state actors that promote or help in promoting terrorism. Non-conventional means are not essential to total terrorism, but they would certainly facilitate it by greatly increasing the lethality and terror of attacks by non-state actors. To deal with such a changing milieu, the United Nations has more widely focused on this issue and the First, Third and the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly along with other specified organs of the UN has redefined and broadened the definitional understanding to include the Non State elements.

West Asia occupies a unique place in perceptions regarding the risk of terrorism by non-conventional means, and especially the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. The fact that weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, have been widely employed in the region, suggests an erosion of strategic taboos that remain in place elsewhere. In general, the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the region has come in the context of conventional conflicts, including the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars. Today, the proliferation of terrorist organizations like the Hamas, Hezbollah, and the growing right wing strength in Israel is added to Syria sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon and the recent going-Nuclear Iran which increases the fear of a case where weapons or worse, technology would be available to people with Terrorist tendencies. Such a catastrophe would impact the whole globe in the worse possible way.

THE WAR ON TERROR: FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ

The War on Afghanistan began on 7 October, 2001. The first phase of the war was the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, which they claimed, had the goal of "removing the safe haven to Al-Qaeda and its use of the Afghan territory as a base of operations for anti-U.S. terrorist activities. Under the auspicious of The War on Terror, Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members were to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it. United Nations Security Council did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. However, the Bush Administration and its supporters maintained the invasion to be an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore not a war of aggression.

The war on Afghanistan was strictly seen by the lenses of terror. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime were seen as the continuous face of impending insecurity in the world. The sympathy of the world was with President Bush when he launched a war. More than seeing this war as against terror, it was seen as being retaliation for the 9/11. Even if the war entered at was largely questioned by the International Community, sympathy for USA won over.

However, the Iraq Syndrome finds itself on quite another plain. The critic often point out that is the War on Iraq was less a War against Terror, more of an Oil Conspiracy? Regime change in Iraq was always a goal of American foreign policy. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional US allies, like France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada. The argument was that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading the country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's February 12, 2003 report . On February 2003, the IAEA failed to find any evidence of any WMD or nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. However, USA and the ‘coalition of the willing’ invaded Iraq on 20 March, 2003 inspite of wide protest both at the legal as well as the political level world wide.

The Invasion of Iraq resulted in the loss of focus for the US Foreign Policy goal of War on Terror. Some critics of the war, particularly within the U.S. military community, argued that with the war on Iraq and the war on Terror has drifted apart, and criticized Bush for losing focus on the more important objective of fighting al-Qaeda. This war has lead to complete collapse of Iraqi State machinery, and a study of the US State Government Religious Freedom Report, to take an example, would show undeniably, the real life situation of all sections of society. Refugees and IDPs have created yet another problem. Then there is the issue of the War Crimes.

Hence, the common conception remain, the stage has shifted drastically from ideals established in the initial call for the War on Terror. The Iraq War has shown less of combating terror and more of a hypocritical face of USA interest in the region. The Terror has lost its luster, as the Obama Administration tried to change the very term by using Overseas Contingency Operation, but this new term was not as receptive to the public likes.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN

Laws like that of Arbitrary Detention are a small part of the variety of instances one can pull out of the box which violates human right and human dignity, as a measure to the need of time. In the case of International system, where there is anarchy, bodies like the United Nations and other functional Organizations and the presence of International Law try to maintain a semblance of order among states. The War on Terror spoke of a global action course where no terrorist would be left alone. Suggestively, many critics and observers have called it a never-ending war as it is simply not possible to pick and target terror and end it. Terror is not identifiable in a person or institution, but rather, it is a phenomenon with a strong negative connotation attached to it. The War on Terror as suggested by the Bush Administration, in its substance, would be a never ending war ongoing for generations, something no state, however powerful, can afford to invest in.

The Berlin Declaration of the International Commission of Jurists, August 2004 stated, “Since September 2001 many states have adopted new counter-terrorism measures that are in breach of their international obligations. In some countries the post- September climate of insecurity has been exploited to justify long-standing human rights violations carried out in the name of national security.” The Secretary General (Kofi Anan) had been unequivocal in the affirmation of defense of human rights. On 18 January 2002 he said, “We should all be clear that there is no trade-off between effective action against terrorism and the protection of human rights. On the contrary I believe that in the long term we shall find that human rights, along with democracy and social justice are one of the best prophylactics against terrorism.” Taliban and Al Qaida suspects are held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without the protection either of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. The US Administration stated that provisions in Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to these detainees. And so those protections have been violated. Detainees had been denied the protection of rights guaranteed under the US constitution and the US courts have refused to intervene for a long time. They were held in inhumane conditions, subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and perhaps torture and denied due process rights, including the right to legal advice and representation and the right to be charged and tried openly before an independent tribunal. It was only recently, that President Obama called this a "sad chapter in American history." The promised closure of the Bay is still an impending process.

The US PATRIOT Act is one such domestic measure even in a democratic country like the USA which had serious repercussions. The Act reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied.


CONCLUSION

In the concluding analysis, what seems as a US policy to combat terror, a noble approach at face value, has actually opened a Pandora’s Box. There is immense literature in International Relations and Legal discourse on a steady rise tying to link and delink war and ethics, and some questioning this very linkage. The War on Terror can be a case study to the same. Terror has been demonized under its purview even without a clear definition to identify it. The danger lies in the fact that with no clear explanation for what one means by a particular term, the strong can always manipulate. Many have pointed out the term ‘Axis of Evil’ having the same tendencies.

It is undeniable that the world before 9/11 was not peaceful but the declaration of the War on Terror, specifically identifying Al Qaeda, has both a positive and a negative point. It made the world aware of such nexus that held an element of threat to lives to every person. Governments by large has volunteered to participate in this international event by obliging themselves to conventions and treaties. Awareness is a great boon. But on the negative, the importance bestowed on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, bought them greater popularity than they would have attained under normal means. The exposure of such elements saw a greater and more frequent organization of terror outfits, using Jihad or religious elements as a guise.

Another aspect that I deem extremely negative related to the War on Terror, is that, the demonization of a particular religion that it sought. It was more primarily the former President of USA and his policy makers who had to be held responsible, but too much stress on Islamic Terrorism, so much so that it has come to mean Islam equating with terrorism, could serve no government in the long run. A whole religion against the world will lead to only more conflict. Even when Obama tried to delink the two (like in the Cairo Speech) recognizing the importance of the Islamic Civilization to the world, his election campaign and henceforth deliberate acts trying to disassociate himself (his name) with Islam, only reasserts this negative image.

The critical analysis sought in this paper merely tries to touch certain aspects I deemed personally important, while leaving behind a whole gambit of issues completely unidentified. This would only reassert my point that the War on Terror has its impact so vast that its effects have been felt on the world, in more than one ways. Also, such an event has marked its own chapter in its own right in the historical discourse.

[Words: 3566]








REFERENCES:

BOOKS:

1. Paul Rogers, ‘Iraq and the War on Terror: Twelve months of insurgency’, I.B.Tauris, 2006
2. Tareq Y. Ismael, William W. Haddad edited, ‘Iraq: The human cost of History’, Pluto Press, London 2004
3. Ninan Koshy, ‘The War on Terror, Reordering the World’, Left World, India 2002
4. Kanti S. Bajpai, ‘The roots of Terrorism’, Penguin, India 2002
5. Rohan Gunaratna, ‘ Inside Al Qaeda: A global network of Terror’, Lotus-Roli Books Pvt. Ltd, Fourth Impression 2009
6. Rashid Khalidi, ‘Resurrecting Empire- Western Footprints and American Perilous Path in the Middle East’, I.B. Tauris, UK, 2002
7. Milan Rai, ‘War Plan Iraq’, Verso, London 2002

ARTICLES:

1. J. V. Despande, ‘Nuclear Terrorism and All That’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 14 (Apr. 6-12, 2002), pp. 1370-1371
2. Achin Vanaik, ‘Definition and Ethics’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 40 (Oct. 5-11, 2002), pp. 4164-4168
3. Charles Tilly, ‘Terror, Terrorist, Terrorism’, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium (Mar., 2004), pp. 5-13 Published by: American Sociological Association
4. Rama Sampath Kumar, ‘Impact of US-Led War on Terrorism’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 33 (Aug. 17-23, 2002), pp. 3414-3419
5. Andrew T. Parasiliti, ‘The Causes and Timing’s of Iraq War: A Power Cycle Assessment’, International Political Science Review, Vol 24, No. 1, 2003
6. Mahmood Mamdani, ‘Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism’, American Anthropologist, 2002
7. Walter Enders and Todd Sandler, ‘After 9/11: Is it All Different Now?’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution’, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2005
8. Neal K. Katyal and Laurence H. Tribe, ‘Waging War, Deciding Guilt: Trying the Military Tribunals’, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 111, No. 6 (Apr., 2002)
9. Patricia M. Wald, ‘International Criminal Courts: Some Kudos and Concerns’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 150, No. 2 (Jun., 2006)