By Sir Timothy Garden
The world is now into the second month of George Bush's "War on Terror". Yet we are no closer to understanding what the phrase means, or what the implications of such a war may be on the way the world will operate in future. We can assume that Bush means a campaign to eliminate terrorism. But this gets us little further until we have a universal definition of what constitutes terrorism. The OED defines a terrorist any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation. This is a fairly broad category which would range from the school bully to Osama bin Laden. It might even take in national leaders like Hitler or Stalin. While most people have a fairly specific idea of which organisations they would categorise as terrorist, views can vary significantly. This is more than semantics. If the US is to build an international coalition against terrorism, it will have to ensure that everyone agrees on the enemy.
There is already a debate as to whether the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon represent a different and unique form of terrorism. Officials in the UK like to develop the idea that these were terrorist attacks of a strategic kind. The number of casualties was not limited by local political constraints, the action was at international distances, and the effects on the US economy and government were strategic in nature. On this narrow definition, the war on terror would equate to a war of bin Laden and his organisation. Officials in the USA seem to have in mind something broader. The President has indicated that he will wish to move on to sort out terrorism wherever it might be found. This may give him some domestic difficulties. Many have already pointed out the support for Irish republican terrorist organisations in many parts of the East Coast of the USA. Does this mean that we can expect AC130s to be pounding the Paddy Bars of downtown Boston? Or will there be Delta Force operating from safe bases in Northern Ireland southwards? Neither of these events are on the cards. Indeed, despite some concern with the slowness of weapons decommissioning, it is not clear that the anyone in the US is yet seriously addressing the question of support for Irish terrorism.
Iraq is frequently mentioned as the next target when Afghanistan is sorted out. This causes a degree of angst in many of America's supporters (including the UK government). Saddam Hussein may remain in power by the use of fear, but, despite the OED definition, he is not categorised as a terrorist. Nor does he appear to be doing a great deal in sponsoring international terrorist action. He certainly is not into the promotion of Islam. He would doubtless argue that the terrorist organisations are those (ineptly helped by the West) who seek to overthrow his regime.
It seems that defining the good guys and the bad guys in terrorism has its difficulties. Would we have declared war on the African National Congress and left South Africa to the apartheid regime? The State of Israel grew out of terrorism against the British, and now has its own definitional problems. Are the Palestinians the terrorists if they are trying, by what they see as the only means left to them, to force the Israelis to comply with UN agreed division of the territory? The Russians will look to the new international UN approved campaign against terrorism to justify their actions against the Chechens. The Chinese will expect the world to ignore their repression of dissident groups. It may be that the international war against terrorism will need to focus on international terrorism.
There will a number of longer term difficulties even assuming the operation in Afghanistan goes reasonably well. The US will find it difficult to hold an international coalition together to address what it considers to be terrorism. Many suspect that the American definition of terrorism will be anything that puts fear into American citizens. Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour Party conference offered a more inclusive view of how to tackle the world's injustices. Let us hope that his arguments win the day.