Michael O'Connor: Base response on justice, not revenge
By Michael O'Connor
20sep01
IF the terrorist attack on the US constitutes a new form of warfare, it calls for new forms of resistance. In particular, any form of military retaliation must be precise and effective. A mere demonstration, especially one that kills innocents, will simply give birth to a new generation of terrorists who will exploit the unavoidable weaknesses of free and open societies.
The decapitation of terrorist networks may not be sufficient. They have shown a hydra-like capacity to grow new organisations with plenty of sponsors. At the core of any campaign must be the ability and determination to deal with the sponsors, especially states whose sponsorship is based on a recognition of the West's conventional military power. Until the source of those attacks and their precise location at a particular time can be identified, any military action will not only be pointless but also counterproductive.
Demonstrations of military readiness are designed primarily to boost community confidence but, beyond that, have little value. Ships at sea, fighter planes in the air and the mobilisation of thousands of reservists cannot replace effective intelligence analysis or airport security.
The most important work is being done by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This will identify not only the perpetrators – mostly now dead – but also the guiding genius and his sponsors. The objective must be to gather sufficient evidence to place them before a US criminal court. In effect, terrorism is nothing more than a form of organised crime and its defeat depends upon it being treated as such.
Osama bin Laden has no legitimacy in international law. He has no ideology and no objective other than to commit mass murder. His targets – as with all terrorists – are defenceless and innocent individuals. Bin Laden's claim to some sort of religious justification is supported by no teaching of any legitimate religion, certainly not Islam. If anything, his objective may be to take political control of Saudi Arabia by detaching that country from its de facto alliance with the West.
Any response that treats terrorist organisations as some sort of pseudo state entitled to make war simply grants them the international status they seek. In fighting this war, the targets of terrorism, which could easily include Australia, must make it plain there are only two sides – the terrorists and their protectors on one hand, and their targets on the other. Any response by the targets can be justified by an appeal to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which protects the right of national or collective self-defence.
Once the organisers and their locations have been identified, the nation-state in which they are located must be required to hand them over, preferably through a proper legal process of extradition. If that state refuses to do so in the face of ample prima facie evidence, it should be treated as a belligerent. Ultimately, as with any other criminals, terrorists must be left with nowhere to hide from the justice systems of civilisation.
Michael O'Connor is executive director of the Australia Defence Association