Proposed: A More Effective and Just Response to Terrorism

"By enlarging international cooperation, especially in the Islamic world, and utilizing and upholding the principles of law, we can increase the chances that the horrors of Sept. 11 will never be repeated." --American Thought January 2002 By David Cortright AS WE WAGE WAR against international terrorism and the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 atrocities, we must seek to understand the nature of the enemy we face and devise effective strategies for defeating that adversary. If we are wise and determined in our response, we can rum the terrible tragedy we have experienced into an opportunity to build a powerful international coalition to drive terrorist networks out of business and create a more-just international order.

The goal of our actions must be to apprehend, try, and convict those responsible for planning, implementing, or abetting the Sept. 11 attacks. We must also seek to eliminate the transnational criminal and financial networks that sustain these terrorist operations and to end all state support for or cooperation with terrorist organizations.

Our response to these crimes must be multilateral, rather than unilateral. This was an atrocity not only against the U.S., but against the entire world. It was an offense against human civilization itself, against the very idea of a lawful democratic society.

From all over the world, we have heard expressions of sympathy and support. From Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas have come offers of help and pledges of solidarity. From every corner of the planet, we have heard the poignant refrain, "We are all Americans now ... we are all New Yorkers."

Americans can feel a tremendous pride in this support, but with this goodwill comes responsibility. We owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the world to mount an effective international effort against terrorism. We have an unprecedented opportunity to turn the sympathy and goodwill we enjoy into a mighty worldwide coalition to eliminate the cancer of terrorism.

The terrorist threat is a global phenomenon, and it requires a multinational response. The adversary here is not a nation-state or identifiable military force, but a shadowy network of individuals and groups scattered across many countries. The Al Qaeda organization of Osama bin Laden numbers an estimated 3,000 militants operating in more than 30 nations, according to a Library of Congress report. It is a relatively small, highly dispersed operation, and thus not the kind of target that lends itself to large-scale bombing attacks or conventional warfare. Defeating international terrorism requires responses that are more appropriate to criminal prosecution than to military combat. Assembling evidence, identifying and indicting those responsible, and bringing them to trial are police, rather than military, functions.

The bin Laden organization and other terrorist networks are obviously fired by an intense hatred of the U.S. They have been indoctrinated with a distorted interpretation of Islam. The terrorist leaders have managed to portray themselves as the true defenders of Islam. They are willing to die for their cause and to kill thousands of innocents in the process. They are not cowards, as Pres. Bush has claimed, but highly disciplined and fanatical believers in a warped ideology. They are driven to their creel and misguided mission by desperation and deeply felt grievances. They have been taught and have come to believe that the U.S. is the enemy of Islam and the Arab world. Our policies in response to the terrorist attacks must avoid further inflaming these misperceptions. The vast majority of Islamic and Arab leaders and opinion-makers adamantly oppose the terrorist networks and their perverted interpretation of Islam. Enlisting the support and cooperation of peace-minded Muslims in the struggle against terrorism is crucial to the success of the response strategy.

As horrendous as the Sept. 11 slaughter was, it could have been much worse if the terrorists had employed nuclear weapons or other means of mass destruction. The Sept. 11 attacks were a demonstration of our frightening vulnerability. If terrorists were to employ such weapons--a possibility that has increased in our fragmented, post-Cold War era--their ability to threaten and destroy our lives would be multiplied exponentially. The anthrax scare has been a grim reminder of the danger posed by biological and chemical means of mass murder.

The President warned in October that Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks have attempted to gain access to nuclear weapons. These concerns increased following reports that scientists in charge of the Pakistani nuclear program were sympathizers of the Taliban. The consequences of nuclear terrorism could be catastrophic. A nuclear detonation at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon would have produced far greater destruction than we experienced in September. Vast areas of lower Manhattan or northern Virginia would be incinerated, and nuclear contamination would render rescue efforts impossible. The poisoning of a municipal water supply or the release of nerve gas would wreak mass suffering and death. These potential horrors reinforce the urgency of combating international terrorism and strengthening global efforts to reduce and control weapons of mass destruction.

By contrast, some members of Congress urged the U.S. to consider using nuclear weapons as part of the military campaign in Afghanistan. Rep. Stephen Buyer (R.-Ind.) told a radio interviewer in September that America would be justified in using nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network if it were linked to anthrax incidents in the U.S. Buyer said he would "support the use of a limited precision tactical nuclear device" against terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan, to "close these caves for a thousand years." Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) declared that he "would never role our tactical nuclear weapons if I thought they could do the job." Such opinions are a minority view in Washington, but they demonstrate the extremes to which some officials are prepared to go in waging the military campaign against terrorism.

In their barbaric attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the terrorists have presented a stark vision of the world in which they believe--a world of indiscriminate violence and revenge. They seek victory over the U.S. by destroying our confidence in the principles of democracy and law. Their strategy is to provoke precisely the kind of massive indiscriminate military attack that some have advocated. We must not give in to this temptation.

Risks

Whether a military campaign will succeed in eliminating terrorist networks is uncertain, but we know that military action carries risks. A prolonged or large-scale military campaign may do more harm than good. The specter of the mightiest nation on Earth pummeling one of the world's most destitute countries has not been received well in international public opinion, especially in the Muslim world. The greatest danger is that U.S. military action will generate a political backlash that plays into the hands of the extremists.

Extremist clerics in other countries have attempted to stir up further anti-American hatred and enlist new recruits in the jihad against the "great Satan." The strategy for defeating terrorism must be sensitive to these dangerous political dynamics and avoid actions that cause civilian casualties or reinforce the false image of an American war against Islam.

One of the costs of the current military campaign is a further increase in an already huge Pentagon budget. Spending more money on weapons and military forces will do little to address the terrorist threat, however. Existing American capabilities are more than sufficient to overwhelm bin Laden's fighters and other terrorist networks. The U.S. spends far more money on weapons and armed forces than all of our potential adversaries in the world put together. Add to this the collective might of NATO, which has taken the unprecedented action of declaring the terrorist attacks against the U.S. an attack against the entire alliance. A number of NATO countries have pledged military support for the campaign against terrorism. We have more than sufficient military strength now. There is no need to lavish tens of billions of additional dollars on the Pentagon. It is wasteful and unnecessary, as well as a diversion of resources from the large-scale economic development programs that are needed to address the root causes of terrorism.

The American response to terrorism would be far more effective if it included a greater role for the United Nations. Many countries have urged the U.S. to give more authority and responsibility to the UN and to seek explicit authorization from the Security Council for military action and other responses to terrorist attacks. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has pledged the organization's full support to the campaign against terrorism and has pleaded with Washington to work through the Se-curity Council. The logic of this approach is compelling. Against the threat of global terrorism, international action is crucial.

The current U.S.-led coalition against terrorism is fragile, and much narrower than the Gulf War coalition that was assembled by Pres. George H.W. Bush. Participation in the coalition is especially thin in the Islamic world--precisely where cooperation is most urgently needed. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which encompasses nearly all the world's Muslim countries, declared at its summit in October that the coalition against terrorism should be led by the UN. Some Islamic countries announced that they would not participate without UN leadership. The Association of South East Asian Nations issued a similar statement, declaring that the UN is the most appropriate body to lead the fight against global terrorism. The greater the UN role in the campaign against terrorism, the easier it will be to enlist and maintain the international participation that is vital to its success.

Alternative strategies

War is an appropriate political metaphor for mobilizing international support for the struggle against terrorism, but as an actual policy it has many limitations. There are alternative strategies for countering terrorism that can be just as or more effective than military action. The elements of a nonmilitary counterterrorism scenario include the following:

• Mobilizing international police forces for a worldwide effort to hunt down and apprehend all those responsible for committing, supporting, harboring, or in any way assisting the Sept. 11 attacks
• Seeking the support of the UN Security Council for a special criminal court to try those responsible for or accessory to the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
• Assembling and presenting the evidence against the perpetrators at the proposed UN tribunal and before the court of international public opinion
• Enlisting the active participation and support of Islamic and Arab nations in the proposed criminal court and the international campaign against terrorism
• Supporting Security Council efforts to impose targeted financial sanctions and other measures against terrorists and those who support them
• Working with the Security Council and international financial institutions to provide incentives and rewards for states that cooperate with international antiterrorism efforts, while applying sanctions against those who do not.

Some of these initiatives are already under way. The Bush Administration has frozen the assets of terrorist groups and mobilized broad international police cooperation in tracking down terrorist suspects. In late September, the Security Council approved Resolution 1373, mandating that member states freeze the financial assets of terrorists and their supporters, deny safe haven to terrorist networks, prevent terrorist recruitment efforts, and bar the travel of terrorists. The Security Council also created a UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, charged with enforcing these measures. Resolution 1373 was the most far-reaching measure ever adopted by the Security Council. If implemented, it would starve terrorists of funding and undermine their support networks. A strong American commitment to the enforcement of this resolution is crucial to the success of the international terrorist campaign.

U.S. officials should support the call for a special UN criminal court to try the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 atrocities. As the arrest of Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic has shown, a special UN tribunal can be an effective means of mobilizing international public opinion and political support to punish and deter crimes against humanity. A special tribunal against the terrorists could be convened in New York, satisfying the legitimate American desire for a trial on our soil, but, because of the international nature of the crime, it would be under the auspices of the UN. This would give focus to the international criminal prosecution and make it easier for other countries to participate in and support efforts to arrest and turn over suspects. Arab and Muslim nations would be far more likely to permit the extradition of suspects to a UN tribunal than to a court exclusively under U.S. jurisdiction.

The campaign against terrorism must include inducements and economic assistance for the impoverished communities in which it tends to take root. Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before Congress in October that the strategy for creating a more cooperative regime in Afghanistan should include a Marshall Plan-program of economic assistance to rebuild that country's shattered infrastructure. The United Kingdom has proposed a similar large-scale economic development program for Afghanistan.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has urged a major economic development program for the entire region. "For Muslims at large," Gingrich declared in September, "we should aggressively be reaching out economically ... to create a better future." Just as the U.S. helped to rebuild Europe and Japan after World War II, Gingrich argued, we should work with "non-fanatics" in the Islamic world to overcome the poverty and despair that feed terrorism.

As part of the campaign against terrorism, we must reorient U.S. foreign policy toward justice. Our response must use two hands, one seeking to eliminate terrorist networks, the other reexamining our policies to find more equitable and evenhanded approaches toward Arab nations and the Islamic world in general. We must ask ourselves why these attacks have occurred, and what the U.S. has done to incur such wrath. Could it be our unyielding support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians, our large-scale and seemingly permanent military presence in and around the Arabian peninsula, our constant bombing and draconian sanctions against Iraq, and/or our support for repressive governments in Egypt and other Arab states?

A more evenhanded approach in the Middle East, a reduction of forward deployments in the Arabian peninsula, a smarter and more flexible policy toward Iraq, and a more consistent support for democracy and human rights would demonstrate a sensitivity to genuine Arab concerns. Such policies would benefit U.S. security by reducing our exposure to potential hostilities and employing more effective means to help advance American interests.

The ultimate defense against attack is to turn enemies into friends. We must treat other nations not as rogues or "states of concern," but as potential allies and friends. We must seek to address the root causes of terrorism by providing economic opportunity and political support for the dispossessed.

These actions will take time. They will not satisfy the thirst for revenge or the impulse to strike back. Nevertheless, they are likely to be more effective over the long run than the continued reliance on military force. By enlarging international cooperation, especially in the Islamic world, and utilizing and upholding the principles of law, we can increase the chances that the horrors of Sept. 11 will never be repeated.